Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Brown said the suspect driving the van has told officers that he blames police for losing custody of his son and "accusing him of being a terrorist." The gunman also said he had explosives in the van, which appeared to be outfitted with gun ports in the sides.

I just want to know how he installed gun ports in his explosives - that's the real question here.

I now have a mental image of a stick of dynamite with an underslung rifle.

BeAfraid wrote:

 Comrade wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Comrade wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):

Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.


MB

You know there is a reason why that ruling happened. There are times police can not respond within seconds, and a person does die, or hurt badly. They ruled it that way so the departments wouldn't get sued every time someone got hurt or killed.

It came about I believe over a neighbor calling about her hearing someone scuffeling in the apartment above her, police responded but heard nothing, they went through the surrounding alleys and didn't find anything out of the ordinary, and everything was quiet at the apartment when they arrived. So they left.

The next day or so the neighbor was found dead after she had been raped repeatedly

Sure they could have kicked the door down, but they would have been in trouble for that, possibly sued, or lost thier job if there was nothing going on in the apartment.

Seriously, what did you want them to do?

It is an overly narrow ruling that went beyond a simple recognition that the Police Cannot be everywhere.

MB

You didn't answer the question. What exactly is it you want the police to do?

The ruling exists because some individuals think police have x-ray vision, can see heat waves, know everyone on a block on a first name basis, have an unlimited amount of time to work a call, and can be anywhere at anytime.

They think that because they were hurt before the police arrived the police didn't do everything they could so should be held liable. Thats why that ruling happened.

That is a too broad and ambiguous of a question to answer without being also unnecessarily broad and ambiguous.

But, simply:

To behave as do the police of the rest of the Civilized World and not take to shooting people at the drop of a hat.

That might be a good start.

And, to continue the trend (since I am not confined to my iPad, today, but have access to an actual computer):




By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

Police in the US Kill Citizens at Over 70 Times the Rate of Other First-World Nations
http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-in-the-us-kill-citizens-at-over-70-times-the-rate-of-other-first-world-nations/5438391

Here's One Theory About Why Cops In America Kill So Many People
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8

Armed police: Trigger happy
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

To point out that even cops in the USA acknowledge that there is a problem (and that their answers to this survey fall in line with the arguments about an Arms Race I mentioned in the thread on the company trying to publish instructions for building 3D printed firearms - the "2nd Amendment" thread, and contradict the NRA's attitudes about having an armed population making the nation safer):
Policing in America: What the cops say
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/04/policing-america

These articles might be instructive for what I expect out of the Police.

And, to add a few other points:

• I expect our government to stop making Social Issues Criminal Justice Issues (Homelessness, Drug Use or Abuse - two separate things, one a problem, the other not, Mental Health issues, Poverty, etc.)
• I expect our government to reverse the trend toward privatization. some things SHOULD BE EXPENSIVE to a society. Criminals in our society SHOULD be an economic burden that should NOT be allowed as a source of profit for anyone. Doing so places expectations on the police to be a revenue stream.
• I expect the police to be involved with Protecting and Serving the population in a way that is not using that population to generate revenue, and thus delivering "quotas" to police for writing tickets, or making arrests.

Using the excuse "The Police cannot be everywhere" does not excuse the police from protecting the population when the police ARE present, which is what has been done with the ruling in question. It has excused the police from protecting the population.

In the Rest of the world officers are expected to place their own safety BELOW that of the population surrounding them.

If police are really going to claim that they are working for the public's good, then they need to prioritize the public's safety, and not their own (please do not try to deflect this responsibility with some sort of waffling strawman that unless the police have a modicum of safety they cannot do their job. Doing this is pretending to not know what the word "Prioritize" means).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Police are people too, and they also have a right to come back alive from work. The USA is a very gun-happy country where even the smallest criminal might feel the need to have a cheap gun. Most police officers killed in the line of duty never even managed to pull their gun so the living ones don't take chances (even if the death count is small compared to the number of police). And there's the death penalty in many states - if your crime is already enough to send you to death row there's no reason to hold back.

Things are going to be very different compared to places like, oh, my native Finland where armed criminals are routinely subdued without the police firing a single shot. They know the police want them alive, and even the most heinous crime won't mean they're condemned to death. And to be fair, many killings over here are drinking buddies getting into a fight over the last alcohol - the perpetrator turns himself in the next day when he wakes up.

This is what I was referring to in another thread as the ongoing Arms Race in the US population.

Various actors/agents in the USA push for "More guns! More Guns!" as their solution to all problems (such as the recent law in Texas allowing Carrying of firearms in Universities, or the proliferation of Open Carry laws in the less civilized states). Yet doing this puts the Police in a situation where their lives are under an exponentially greater threat.

They are more likely to be in a situation where a routine confrontation could go off-the-rails due to an armed citizen in that encounter making a mistake, or simply looking for a fight, which now becomes deadly.

Armed Police are also another problem, as any altercation with the Police automatically becomes a case of the police having to protect their weapon so that it cannot be used against them (which is why most other countries only arm specific officers, and leave routine patrol officers unarmed).

MB

Relapse wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Comrade wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Comrade wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):

Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.


MB

You know there is a reason why that ruling happened. There are times police can not respond within seconds, and a person does die, or hurt badly. They ruled it that way so the departments wouldn't get sued every time someone got hurt or killed.

It came about I believe over a neighbor calling about her hearing someone scuffeling in the apartment above her, police responded but heard nothing, they went through the surrounding alleys and didn't find anything out of the ordinary, and everything was quiet at the apartment when they arrived. So they left.

The next day or so the neighbor was found dead after she had been raped repeatedly

Sure they could have kicked the door down, but they would have been in trouble for that, possibly sued, or lost thier job if there was nothing going on in the apartment.

Seriously, what did you want them to do?

It is an overly narrow ruling that went beyond a simple recognition that the Police Cannot be everywhere.

MB

You didn't answer the question. What exactly is it you want the police to do?

The ruling exists because some individuals think police have x-ray vision, can see heat waves, know everyone on a block on a first name basis, have an unlimited amount of time to work a call, and can be anywhere at anytime.

They think that because they were hurt before the police arrived the police didn't do everything they could so should be held liable. Thats why that ruling happened.

That is a too broad and ambiguous of a question to answer without being also unnecessarily broad and ambiguous.

But, simply:

To behave as do the police of the rest of the Civilized World and not take to shooting people at the drop of a hat.

That might be a good start.

And, to continue the trend (since I am not confined to my iPad, today, but have access to an actual computer):




By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

Police in the US Kill Citizens at Over 70 Times the Rate of Other First-World Nations
http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-in-the-us-kill-citizens-at-over-70-times-the-rate-of-other-first-world-nations/5438391

Here's One Theory About Why Cops In America Kill So Many People
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8

Armed police: Trigger happy
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

To point out that even cops in the USA acknowledge that there is a problem (and that their answers to this survey fall in line with the arguments about an Arms Race I mentioned in the thread on the company trying to publish instructions for building 3D printed firearms - the "2nd Amendment" thread, and contradict the NRA's attitudes about having an armed population making the nation safer):
Policing in America: What the cops say
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/04/policing-america

These articles might be instructive for what I expect out of the Police.

And, to add a few other points:

• I expect our government to stop making Social Issues Criminal Justice Issues (Homelessness, Drug Use or Abuse - two separate things, one a problem, the other not, Mental Health issues, Poverty, etc.)
• I expect our government to reverse the trend toward privatization. some things SHOULD BE EXPENSIVE to a society. Criminals in our society SHOULD be an economic burden that should NOT be allowed as a source of profit for anyone. Doing so places expectations on the police to be a revenue stream.
• I expect the police to be involved with Protecting and Serving the population in a way that is not using that population to generate revenue, and thus delivering "quotas" to police for writing tickets, or making arrests.

Using the excuse "The Police cannot be everywhere" does not excuse the police from protecting the population when the police ARE present, which is what has been done with the ruling in question. It has excused the police from protecting the population.

In the Rest of the world officers are expected to place their own safety BELOW that of the population surrounding them.

If police are really going to claim that they are working for the public's good, then they need to prioritize the public's safety, and not their own (please do not try to deflect this responsibility with some sort of waffling strawman that unless the police have a modicum of safety they cannot do their job. Doing this is pretending to not know what the word "Prioritize" means).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Police are people too, and they also have a right to come back alive from work. The USA is a very gun-happy country where even the smallest criminal might feel the need to have a cheap gun. Most police officers killed in the line of duty never even managed to pull their gun so the living ones don't take chances (even if the death count is small compared to the number of police). And there's the death penalty in many states - if your crime is already enough to send you to death row there's no reason to hold back.

Things are going to be very different compared to places like, oh, my native Finland where armed criminals are routinely subdued without the police firing a single shot. They know the police want them alive, and even the most heinous crime won't mean they're condemned to death. And to be fair, many killings over here are drinking buddies getting into a fight over the last alcohol - the perpetrator turns himself in the next day when he wakes up.

This is what I was referring to in another thread as the ongoing Arms Race in the US population.

Various actors/agents in the USA push for "More guns! More Guns!" as their solution to all problems (such as the recent law in Texas allowing Carrying of firearms in Universities, or the proliferation of Open Carry laws in the less civilized states). Yet doing this puts the Police in a situation where their lives are under an exponentially greater threat.

They are more likely to be in a situation where a routine confrontation could go off-the-rails due to an armed citizen in that encounter making a mistake, or simply looking for a fight, which now becomes deadly.

Armed Police are also another problem, as any altercation with the Police automatically becomes a case of the police having to protect their weapon so that it cannot be used against them (which is why most other countries only arm specific officers, and leave routine patrol officers unarmed).

MB

Interesting comments, coming from someone who, in another thread, brags about shooting people, two at a time.