l3ubba

I used to live in the DC area so I have seen the rough parts of DC and I have been through Baltimore a few times as well. You are assuming that since they are walking around that they don't have anything to do. Maybe they do have a job and they just have different work hours than 9-5. Maybe they are unable to get a job, but to assume they are choosing to live like that is unfair.

Yes, I am sure it is quite possible to live off of $800 a month but it wouldn't be a comfortable life so I don't understand why anyone would think people would willingly choose that kind of life. I don't think I am underestimating how stupid people are and believe me, I will call out stupid things when I see them. The welfare moochers is something the conservatives have created to try and convince voters to support cutting benefits to these people. I have not seen anybody come up with numbers too support their claims of massive amounts of people mooching off the government; I think it is a lot like the voter fraud they (the conservatives) also try to scare people with, it happens a lot less frequently than they like to believe.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. There are many people who actually need that assistance and it is only the few bad apples that we hear about in the news that are taking advantage of the system. I also like how you think $800 a month is a lot for someone to live on. I am in the military and I take home about $2500 a month after taxes, I am single, and my housing and medical benefits are provided to me at no cost. The only bills I have are cell phone, internet, car loan, and auto insurance. I will admit I do like to go out to eat quite a bit however I'd say after paying for normal stuff like gas and groceries and the other things I buy when I go out I usually have about $500-$600 left over at the end of the month. And again I am single, no dependents. So if someone makes $800 a month and doesn't have their housing paid for (lets assume they have medicaid) that is pretty shitty, I am not sure why anyone would choose to live on $800 a month unless they like living in a cardboard box and eating ramen noodles for the rest of their life and that is if they are single, imagine trying to support a family on $800 a month.

They are just trying to show them some of the situations police come across. It is just a way of showing people the types of difficult decisions police have to make in their job, I don't think they are trying to scare people into respecting them.

Where did I say I was concerned with how nice black people are to officers? Yet again you are putting words in my mouth. All I said was the fact that there is a rough history between police and black people doesn't mean that every black person should assume the cop that pulled them over is racist and out to get them. I never said I was more concerned with their attitude. If you are just going to mock what I say then I'm just going to stop having this conversation. When I offer up alternate explanations I am being serious and realistic. But as I said in the other thread I am done with this. If you want to put words in my mouth and be disrespectful by mocking what I say then I am not interested in carrying on this debate. In the end it makes no difference to me what you opinion on the subject is, it has no effect on my life. When I take part in these discussions I am simply trying to enlighten others on different view points and trying to see if there is a point of view I am missing however I can clearly see this conversation is moving away from a debate and turning into flaming so I will just step away now. Where did I say I was concerned with how nice black people are to officers? Yet again you are putting words in my mouth. All I said was the fact that there is a rough history between police and black people doesn't mean that every black person should assume the cop that pulled them over is racist and out to get them. I never said I was more concerned with their attitude. If you are just going to mock what I say then I'm just going to stop having this conversation. When I offer up alternate explanations I am being serious and realistic. But as I said in the other thread I am done with this. If you want to put words in my mouth and be disrespectful by mocking what I say then I am not interested in carrying on this debate. In the end it makes no difference to me what you opinion on the subject is, it has no effect on my life. When I take part in these discussions I am simply trying to enlighten others on different view points and trying to see if there is a point of view I am missing however I can clearly see this conversation is moving away from a debate and turning into flaming so I will just step away now.

I'm done with this conversation, I'm done with the twisting of what I said. You are constantly taking things out of context and I'm tired of having to constantly come back and correct you on it. If someone dies due to self inflicted wounds or from being tased did were the police trying to kill that person? Were they using deadly force? No, the fact that someone dies after being tased is a freak accident and the officer isn't to blame for that. And what I said about the numbers was taken out of context as well. The numbers don't provide any links. If the numbers don't have any context to them then what is it proving? Frankly the amount of times you use what I say out of context or twist the meaning of it is starting to annoy me, so I have no desire to continue this debate.

The research you have presented includes in custody deaths and taser deaths so not all of them were "gunned down" as you like to say so there are cases, such as Freddie Gray, who died of self-inflicted wounds. Not only that but it fails to provide any evidence that makes the link between black people being shot more and police officers being racist or whatever point it is trying to make. It looks at very generalized data from one year and uses that as its only evidence. Maybe that year there were more black people beating the shit out of police officers, who knows. I could just as easily go pull some numbers from a study and say "look these numbers match the point I'm trying to make" even when I haven't given any context to make a real connection. The standard for deadly force is the person must pose a imminent threat to the officer and/or the people around him (the suspect) and by threat I mean serious bodily injury or death. Deadly force can also be used to stop a fleeing felon if it is believed that allowing the escape of that felon could result in serious bodily injury or death of more people. Some of the case law that supports this (but I already know you won't like) is Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. Each state has their own statute that covers deadly force as well. I will give you the Florida state statute since that is the one I am familiar with, Chapter 776.012 and 776.05. I know there is more that is referenced in the state statutes but I don't have a statute book readily available at the moment so I can't reference it right now. Empathy? Empathy is the ability to understand what the other person is feeling, I have never been shot by police and I have not had a family member shot by police. So no, I do not have any empathy, it just isn't possible. Am I sympathetic to the man who was shot and his family? Yes, I feel sorry for them but what does that have to do with law? Do I really have to show you the case law again? I'm pretty sure I have already referenced it many many times in this thread and I have even referenced it two paragraphs up. Really? So it is different if the person is dead? So I can offer explanations for why Michael Brown decided to charge a police officer and try to take his gun and that will make what he did ok simply because he is dead? Do you think police officers like making split second decisions? No, nobody likes making split second decisions but guess what, time doesn't stop for us to think about what we should do. I'm sure every police officer would love to have the ability to say "time out, I want to think through my options give me a minute". I understand that you probably have never been put in such a position so it is hard for you to know what that is like (i.e. empathize) but there are times when all you have is seconds to make these decisions and you have to act fast.

While I like the idea of these "what would you do" situations I question whether these would actually help people understand police work any better. Essentially you are asking people with no training and no experience in that profession to make decisions. That is like asking people what would you do in a paramedics job, they might have a little bit of basic knowledge on first aid but they don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge as a paramedic. Overall, I like the videos though. I can't speak for things in the UK but scenario 1 and 2 are very possible and scenario 3 is even more possible. For scenario 1 the kitchen is one of the most dangerous places in the home for police officers because, obviously, there are lots of sharp objects around. That is why police will try to avoid talking to people in the kitchen. Of course in this scenario they didn't have that option because they needed to make contact with him somehow. If I were in that Maggie's situation in the US I would obviously shoot him. I am not sure how I would react in the UK without a firearm. You are essentially being held hostage, the suspect has a deadly weapon (and has already used it) and as a officer in the UK you have no deadly weapon to counter him. So I see two options there, you can try to talk to him and talk him down, but I see this as very risky since he has already stabbed the other officer he has shown he isn't really interested in talking. The second option, I have noticed most officers in the UK do carry tasers so you can try and tase him. This option is very risky because he is very close (within 21 feet if you are familiar with that rule) so you probably don't have enough time to draw and fire the taser before he closes that distance, he is wearing some lose clothing which carries the possibility of one or both of the probes not getting a good hit, and of course you could have one or both of the probes miss all together or hit too close together. I think I would go with the first option, hopefully I can talk him down enough and if he decides to come after me I will just have to hope my hand to hand is good enough to keep me alive and just accept that I am going to be stabbed or cut (because he will get at least one blow in). Scenario 2 is not uncommon in the US (not always in that manner, but similar). I think that one is a little more clear cut for me. I would release the original suspect and accept the fact that they will start fighting again and assist my partner who sounds like he is in dire need of help. The original suspect and the lady while aggressive towards each other did not appear to be really violent, just two drunks slapping each other basically (non life threatening). On the other hand my partner sounds like he needs help now or someone will be seriously injured or killed so I need to get to him as quickly as possible. Scenario 3 is pretty easy. Obviously you want to avoid moving victims in a car crash (even minor ones) due to the possibility of spinal injuries and making those injuries worse. However getting the victim to a safe location takes priority over everything, their spinal injury won't matter if they are being burned alive. You have a vehicle on its side, smoking, and a fluid (likely gasoline) spill, you need to get that guy out of the car and to a safe location as soon as possible. I would quickly extract him from the vehicle while trying my best not to move his neck or back around and move him a safe distance from the vehicle. Yeah I agree, you would think you would hear more of a struggle behind you but who knows. Maybe you have a radio ear piece in one ear and the dispatch is saying something at that moment, there are plenty of possibilities. The ASP is a possible option but I am not sure how effective it would be in a tight space and the OC spray will not provide the incapacitation you need not to mention you probably won't be able to draw and use these weapons before he covers the 8 feet in between you (expanding the ASP or shaking up and spraying the OC). But hey, in that scenario you are kind of SOL and have to do whatever you can do. For the second one I'm not sure putting him in the patrol car is a good idea. First you have to assume your car has a cage (which I'm not sure how many in the UK do) but even if it does you cannot guarantee the man or the woman won't beat the window out. Plus most agencies have a policy against leaving a suspect unattended in a vehicle for multiple reasons. That is why I think it is better to just let them go, they just looked like a couple of drunks hitting on each other and hopefully someone at the bar will keep the separated until more units arrive. I agree with you on the sitting back and planning. It is a lot different when you are on the spot in real life and have to make the decisions right then and there. When I was watching it I tried to put myself right there and make the decisions as the video played out but even that only works so much. Watching a video doesn't provide the same adrenaline or the same feelings you would have actually being there.

The problem with the way the media reports it as is that it leads people to believe the suspect was shot because they were black. Not to mention why are they only reporting on white officers shooting black suspects? Why not black officers who shoot black suspects? Are black people not capable of being racist? Yes you are wrong, that is not what the criteria for a justified use of deadly force is. I have already went over the definition of justified deadly force and if you want more information on it I will happily point you to legal definitions and case law but I am done arguing it with you. You said you didn't like it and didn't agree with it and that is fine, you can disagree with it but I'm am tired of you twisting the definition to fit your argument. I'm not faulting those officers because in legal terms they were justified in doing what they did. If the law says they are justified then they are justified, simple as that. I already know that you don't like that the law says that and that is fine, there are plenty of laws I don't agree with either. So in the other thread you said I was just making up hypothetical situations and offering explanations based on no evidence yet you are doing the same thing in this situation. How do you know what that man's intent was. Personally, if I see someone holding a screwdriver like that and walking toward me in that manner after being told to drop it multiple times I am not going to wait for him to get to me to find out what his intent is. Yes, he was mentally ill and possibly didn't understand what was going on but that doesn't mean that I'm going to let him attack me. His body language appeared to be aggressive, he wasn't just casually strolling up to the officers.

I already specified who I was referring to, not going to repeat myself. Yes, there is a long history of black people being mistreated does that mean they should be all pissed off at every police officer? I am a white guy, does that mean that black people should be pissed at me because of other white people who are assholes? So because that man wears a uniform and a badge Sandra Bland (and any other black person) should be justified in being agitated and pissed off anytime they have contact with a police officer? I'm not making up a situation, I am simply offering alternate explanations. I already said there is no way of knowing the real reason he ordered her out of the car. The only person that truly knows why is the officer himself. Was he being truthful when telling his supervisors what his reason was? No one can know.

She committed suicide by hanging herself. While the investigation isn't finished all the evidence appears to be pointing to that being the cause of death and not a homicide like her family is claiming.

I'm not saying every officer is racist either, I am saying that anytime there is a use of force between a white officer and a black suspect the first "issue" that the media brings up is the race of the officer and suspect even if there is no evidence to suggest that race played a part in the incident. What do the headlines say about the most recent case that came out of Cincinnati? "White officer shoots unarmed black man". Why can't the headlines just say "Cincinnati police officers shoots unarmed man"? Why is race immediately brought into it when not one thing has come out that has even hinted at this being race related? In reality most police officers go by the legal definition because that is what they are trained by and science has proven that when you are in high stress situations you revert to your training. I'm not saying all police officers use the legal definition but I would say the majority do. Realistically the only other option they had was to continuing giving commands and hope that he decides to start complying. It is a shitty scenario, sometimes your options are limited. I wasn't referring to the Gardena case specifically when I was talking about weapons, I was speaking about the other cases you were referring to where the suspects weren't armed "apart from a common household maintenance tool".

My generalization was about people who do not listen to lawful commands, not about Americans as a whole. People who do not want to listen to a lawful order from a police officer probably wouldn't change their mind if the officer stopped and explained the legality of that order. There is no way of knowing why he asked her to step out. He could have asked her to put out the cigarette because he was about to have her to step out, it isn't necessarily because she refused to put out the cigarette.

That is not why Harry Mimms was ordered out of the car, the officers ordered him out of the car and upon him exiting the vehicle noticed a bulge which allowed them to conduct a pat down in accordance with Terry v. Ohio. You expect officers to explain case law to people who are belligerent? You want the officer to stop and say "according to Pennsylvania v. Mimms I am legally allowed to order you out of the vehicle so you must comply"? Even if the officer did do that do you really think this lady (or almost any other person) would give two shits about case law? No, they would still refuse. I am concerned with the legaility of the rest of his actions. He has the right to ask her to stop smoking and she has the right to say no. There is nothing illegal about asking someone to put a cigarette out. I did watch the whole video, the 50 minute long video that shows the entire stop. The video you posted is only a portion of the stop and also obviously biased. It is very possible that he ordered her out of the car based on his emotions. However, she would have more of a case for herself if she did not resist. Legally she was in the wrong and the officer was right, however screwed up you think that is it is the truth. Unfortunately even if an officer is out of line or clearly wrong the best course of action is to comply with them and fight it in court. I know that sounds really shitty, and it is, but there isn't really any other way of dealing with that kind of situation.

Yes, that is why I didn't believe what any of the witnesses said in the Ferguson case. If their claims were backed up by physical evidence (or at least not go against what the evidence said) I would have been more inclined to believe what they said. I don't understand what you mean things were wrong in that process? We were able to find out what really happened using forensic evidence and that meant that an innocent man was kept out of prison. Yes, I know there are officers that racially profile black men and women. Unfortunately there is still racism in America and law enforcement is not exempt from it either. However, that does not mean that every police officer is racist or racially profiles people and it doesn't mean that every time that a black person is stopped or there is an incident involving a use of force that the officer did so because they were black. I acknowledge actual racism, not this race baiting BS that the media puts out. There is a legal definition of reasonable suspicion and I feel like I have done enough research for you so far so I am not going to spoon feed it to you this time especially since you are probably just going to shoot it down and say that you don't agree with so it must be illogical. Where did I say that shooting him was the only option? You asked why the officers couldn't tase him or tackle him so I gave you very legitimate reasons why those two things were not options. No where did I state that the only option was to shoot him. I got the idea the same way you just said that I am saying the only option for the Gardena officers was to shoot the suspect. You do realize there are other items that can be used to kill someone; a gun is not the only deadly weapon out there. A hammer is a common household maintenance tool and you could kill someone pretty easily with a simple hammer. If inmates in prison can kill people with a sharpened plastic toothbrush I'm pretty sure you can kill someone with a screwdriver. I don't make up my own standards and laws; there is already a legal standard as to what makes a shooting justified and that is the standard I go by.

According to their website they will transport state prisoners if they are indicted in a federal case and have to be transported across state lines. They will also transport prisoners at the request of a customer as long as the customer is will to pay all expenses related to the transport, which I'm sure very few agencies want to spend money from their budget to pay federal agents to do a job they can pay their own guys to do.

US Marshals only transport federal prisoners.

I said I can't think of a case off the top of my head, I'm sure if I went digging around I could find one that I thought was fishy. And the reason I don't doubt their version of events is because there was evidence or witness testimony backing up what they said. The "witnesses" in the Ferguson case were lying and they were caught lying so yes, I didn't believe them but that was because they didn't back up the officer I didn't believe them because they were caught in a lie. So yes, you are wrong for lumping me in with that crowd, next time pick a case where the so called "witnesses" didn't lie out their ass. Did Zimmerman have any reason to believe he was a robbery suspect? No, he just saw a black kid in a hoodie that he didn't recognize and just assumed he was a robbery suspect. If a police officer did that I would think the same thing. If a police officer stops someone because they think they are a robbery suspect they usually have reasonable suspicion, Zimmerman didn't have RS he was just racist. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Unless there is some substantial claims or suspicion of screwed up things going on I don't see a reason to involve federal agencies in investigating every shooting incident across the country. I am confident in the ability of state law enforcement being able to handle most of that. Most people that I have seen in that situation don't react that way. Most people do exactly what they are told, for whatever reason this guy didn't. Maybe he was scared, maybe he just didn't realize what he was doing, who knows there are lots of possibilities. Tasing him was not an option, they were too far away plus the way his body was turned to the side it is unlikely they would have been able to get both prongs to hit the target. And tackle him? That is the worst thing to do if you are holding 3 robbery suspects at gun point. If one of them pulls a gun there you are now right next to that guy and creating a cross fire situation, so even if you have guys covering you they can't take a shot now because you are in the line of fire. I know it is the job of police officers to protect every citizen (including suspects) and they don't really want to use deadly force, but it seems like you are asking them to put themselves in unnecessary danger. So if a guy is shooting at me should I still try to use other means than deadly force? I'm not really protecting him if I shoot him right?

You are right, police officers are trained that lunging into a car is very dangerous and should be avoided if possible, that doesn't make it illegal for him to do so though. That was the officer's decision to take the risk of get inside of that car. And that is a common issue in the courts. There have been cases that were too vague and so the courts reversed the ruling, but so far there hasn't been any court ruling that has reversed Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The question they checked no on could have referred to are they suicidal right now which seems to likely be the case. One questions asks if they have ever been suicidal and the other asks if they are suicidal right now. Depending on how long ago her last suicide attempt was they might have believed that she no longer wanted to kill herself. Again, this is just my speculation since I don't know anything about this sheriff's office.

Screaming like a maniac? He was yelling commands at her and threatening to taser her if she didn't comply. I like how you try to make it sound as if he was beating the shit out of her. He was trying to pull her out of the car. Should police officers not put their hands on someone who isn't complying? Should they just stand there and ask nicely and when the suspect still refuses just say "pretty please"? The investigation is still ongoing so I don't know why she wasn't put on suicide watch. The paperwork that they filled out when she was brought into the jail says she told them something about trying to overdoes on pills after having a miscarriage but then on another page when it asked if she was suicidal they circled no. Maybe that question meant was she suicidal at the moment of being brought into the jail. I know at my sheriff's office the detention deputy who in processes the inmate will ask them if they want to harm themselves or others and if they say no then they circle no. Unless they tell you they are suicidal or have committed an act that leads you to believe they are suicidal there is no way of knowing that they are suicidal. Like I said, the investigation is still ongoing so this is all just speculation on my part. He doesn't have to include that in the report. It could be that he just didn't want to be standing in the road with traffic. Not every danger involves the person inside the car.

It almost every case there was forensic evidence, video evidence, or witness testimony to back up what an office said so if I have evidence that what they said was true then I'm going to believe that the officer's story is true. I know you are trying to make me look like someone who just blindly accepts what someone says just because they wear a badge but that is not true at all so you can cut that shit out. If Zimmerman were a police officer he would still be a racist POS because he was following Mr. Martin for no other reason than he was a black kid with a hoodie. Zimmerman also made some racist comments to the dispatcher when talking to the police on the phone. Then Zimmerman decided to be a dick and confront Mr. Martin and started yelling at him and being an asshole which, unfortunately, is his right under the first amendment. The DEA is one of the most criticized federal law enforcement agencies in the US and many people believe their tactics are too heavy handed (although I'm sure you can tell that I am not one of those people). The oversight comittees you are talking about are run by politicians from the US Senate and House of Representatives which, to me, is even worse. Many politicians don't know shit about law enforcement and they actually have reasons to corrupt the process because they have to keep their supporters happy. The officers at the time didn't know that it was a simple theft because it was originally dispatched as a robbery (which are very very different crimes). It wasn't until later they found out that there was no robbery only a theft. I'm sorry, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. First off, who thinks "oh the police are pointing guns at me and yelling, I should take my hat off"? Second, it wasn't like that was the only movement he had made. He was constantly making movements the entire time and he was told repeatedly to stop, if it was his first movement then maybe I would have understood but he was told multiple times to stop moving and keep his hands up. How many times do officers have to tell you to stop moving and keep your hands up before it gets into your head?

No, I probably wouldn't have handled it the same way but that doesn't mean the officer handled it the wrong way; there isn't only one right answer on how to handle a situation. Isn't that the same thing as blaming the police for her death? You just said in the best case scenario she was able to kill herself in police custody which is still not acceptable. That sounds a lot like blaming the police. What would you have them do differently? You want them to dedicate a deputy to sit in the cell with her and watch her every move? Most jails have more prisoners than they have deputies on duty so they can't watch what every single one is doing 24/7. If someone is determined to kill themselves then they will find a way to do it people on suicide watch can still find a way to kill themselves. The only guaranteed way to prevent that is to literally have a guard sit there and key their eyes on them every second of the day. I can't tell you anything about why he ordered her out of the car. I couldn't see what the officer saw and I don't know what was going through his mind. All I know is what I saw in the dashcam footage from his patrol car. I'm not going to sit here and try to speculate what his reason was because I will be here all night. I'm not sure where that information came from but I didn't see the officer say anything about getting smoke blown in his face during the dashcam footage. As far as I remember he just asked her to put it out, he never gave the reason why. He asked her to put it out, she refused, he then asked her to step out.

Off the top of my head? No I can't think of any cases that were ruled justified that didn't seem right to me. Have I ever doubted what an officer has said? Yes and even if I don't doubt what they said I still look for evidence to support that statement because if you want to take anything to court you have to have evidence to back it up. If I can't find evidence then I don't necessarily think they were lying, I just can't prove what they said is true. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, you said you have as much confidence in the professional instructors as you do the officers involved in these shootings. If you don't have any confidence in the people who are training police officers then that means you don't have any confidence in any police officer. What makes you think police officers are trained not to take risks? If that were true they would never do traffic stops, they would never clear buildings, they would just sit at the police station their entire shift. They are trained not to take unnecessary risk such as clearing a building by themselves if they have time to wait for backup. I used a case that didn't involve a police officer to show I don't have a bias towards police officers and that I feel the same way whether they are a police officer or a regular citizen. I don't care if you are a regular civilian or a police officer a racist piece of shit is a racist piece of shit, I couldn't care less what their profession is. I don't oppose the laws. I think for the most part the laws are good and I agree with them. Unfortunately there is no law for being an asshole or stupid. Using the Zimmerman case as an example again, sure I think Zimmerman was a racist asshole but there is no law that says you can't be a racist asshole. And I don't think these laws are "technicalities" these are basic rights. Zimmerman had a right to be a racist asshole, that is part of his first amendment right; he also had a right to defend himself. I'm only bringing up the issue of accountability because that seems to be your only reason for wanting to expand on this whole federal agency thing. You are the one that has an issue with police police the police and I'm am trying to show you that your solution is the exact same, federal agents are still law enforcement officers just like any other officer. And you don't think federal agents don't go around "causing problems". Have you seen videos of DEA or US Marshals serving a warrant? They bring out all their military equipment just like local agencies do. Why is it not "causing problems" when they do it but it is if a local agency does? That is fine, I don't care if you doubt what I say my qualifications are but to imply that I am lying is kind of insulting to me. That isn't what I said. I said an imminent threat, I even explained what imminent meant. An imminent threat is about to happen, not happen "at some point". And I see you decided to ignore all the other factors. You looked solely at the imminent threat part but ignored the "he's a robbery suspect", "he isn't listening to commands even while having 3-4 guns pointed at him", and "he is reaching towards his waist band". It isn't one single factor that justifies a shooting, it is a combination of several so don't try and oversimplify it and twist what I said.

Because it is the law. I'm done arguing this point with you, I have given you plenty of case law that says it is legal. If you don't like the law then go to court and challenge it, that is part of the democratic process of our nation. So now you are changing your position from "her death is suspicious" and "people don't just randomly commit suicide" to "she killed herself but it is still the police's fault"? To me it just sounds like you are trying to find a way to pin her death on the police. Even though she is the one who killed herself it isn't her fault, it is those corrupt police that helped her do it.

To me it didn't really sound like he was laughing about the situation. Laughing can mean different things, sometimes people laugh when they are nervous. Regardless of that audio footage I think that case is fucked up and that officer will be convicted of murder, or at least I hope so. But you are right, police officers are not treated the same as other citizens who shoot people. There is a reason for that and I somewhat agree with it. Law enforcement is the only profession where people are trying to kill you and you might have to make a decision on whether or not to take someone's life. Officer's take an oath to swear they will perform their jobs to the best of their ability. So police officers are not the same as other citizens therefore they are not treated the same as a regular citizen. How is an officer supposed to do his job and make these decisions (that are usually have to be made within seconds) if he is constantly worried that he will immediately be thrown in cuffs and booked into the county jail even if he was justified and just performing his duties as a police officer. I don't think the fact that they are treated differently immediately after the shooting has any effect on how well of an investigation is performed. If an officer gives his account of what happened and says he thought the suspect was reaching for a gun the detective will still investigate that to see if it is true, they don't just take the officer's word, they still collect forensic evidence and witness testimony. I can already tell that you aren't going to share that opinion and no matter what you will think that all cops are just trying to help out a fellow officer. So you basically have no confidence in any police officer across the nation? If you don't have any confidence in a professional instructor who has been doing the job for years and is pretty much considered an expert in the field then how can you have confidence in any other officer in the US? You think that every officer in the nation is screwed up? Yes, I understand that when I talk about my personal opinion that I am part of the court of public opinion. However, most of the time when I am talking about something on here I am talking about it from a legal stand point and based on what the law says (I'm sure you can tell based on all the case law I have been referencing lately). In the Gardena case for example, I wasn't defending those officers actions based on my personal opinion, I was defending them based on what the law says and I would do the same for anyone else whether they are a law enforcement officer or not. I didn't really talk about my personal opinion in that case until you explicitly asked for it in which case I usually preface everything with "in my personal opinion". I did the same thing with the Zimmerman case. Legally he was justified in what he did however in my personal opinion I think he is a racist piece of shit and he had no business harassing Trayvon Martin. However, as I have stated before my personal opinion has no place when it comes to enforcing the law. He had a legal right to do what he did and I will protect his rights just like I would for anyone else. You want agencies that are heavily armed to be check regularly by federal agencies? Do you know who some of the most heavily armed law enforcement agencies out there are? Federal agencies! The DEA, ICE, US Marshals, FBI, US Secret Service all have more military style gear and are more heavily armed than any state or local department in the US. Who is going to investigate those guys? Do we build more federal law enforcement agencies on top of those agencies? But who would investigate the investigators to make sure they are not corrupt? Are you implying that I am lying about my background? I can assure you that I have all the paperwork and certifications that prove I am who I say I am, not that I think you care either way. The only time I have ever heard "clear and present danger" is when talking about the 1994 film starring Harrison Ford. Some quick research I did (because I know I don't have knowledge on everything) reveals that the only time "clear and present danger" was ever used in court was in the early 1900s when the US Supreme Court was trying to determine when the government can place limits on free speech. So clear and present danger has nothing to do with law enforcement. The law says there must be an imminent threat which is not the same as a clear and present danger, imminent just means "immediately about to happen". If you believe that a suspect is reaching for a gun that is an imminent threat. Now using the case law that I know you hate, an officer could reasonably believe that a person who is suspected of robbery and is reaching for their waist band despite being told multiple times not to while having 3-4 officers pointing guns at them is reaching for a gun.