Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately that is not their job. Police are not there to protect and serve. A police officer is there to enforce the laws as directed by their superiors. This is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving. A police officer is well within his rights to stand by and let a murder occur, they are under no obligation or responsibility to protect anyone and they place their own safety first, and the US Supreme Court has affirmed this, as well as their right to lie to people (which is how they get most of their confessions, usually through bluffing people into thinking they know more than they actually do about a particular crime).

As such, there should never be an expectation that police are there to Protect and Serve or that they should be trusted, and the first thing any lawyer (and most cops off the record...sometimes on the record) will tell you is do not talk to the police or allow them to search anything unless directed to by a present attorney and minimize any contact, even casual contact, because their job is to be a professional witness and find things to charge people with.

Protect and Serve is a neat sounding motto, but is not actually what Police are there to do. Some do certainly, but this is going above and beyond, not their core function, and many do not. Nobody should ever be trusting the police nor expecting them to protect or serve.

That is not to say Police are all terrible people, but just always be clear what their job really is and isn't, and understanding that goes a long way to understanding why a lot of incidents happen the way they do.

Interesting. So if what you say is true, which I am taking it to be, they are justified in killing this young man. They felt their lives were in danger. Case closed.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


They need clear and present danger to themselves or others...

Running away from the police while waving a gun around sounds exactly like this.

IIRC from previous threads, US law allows police officers to shoot fleeing suspects, doesn't it?

No...

Actually, it does. As long as the suspect is suspected of a felony and presumed dangerous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately that is not their job. Police are not there to protect and serve. A police officer is there to enforce the laws as directed by their superiors. This is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving. A police officer is well within his rights to stand by and let a murder occur, they are under no obligation or responsibility to protect anyone and they place their own safety first, and the US Supreme Court has affirmed this, as well as their right to lie to people (which is how they get most of their confessions, usually through bluffing people into thinking they know more than they actually do about a particular crime).

As such, there should never be an expectation that police are there to Protect and Serve or that they should be trusted, and the first thing any lawyer (and most cops off the record...sometimes on the record) will tell you is do not talk to the police or allow them to search anything unless directed to by a present attorney and minimize any contact, even casual contact, because their job is to be a professional witness and find things to charge people with.

Protect and Serve is a neat sounding motto, but is not actually what Police are there to do. Some do certainly, but this is going above and beyond, not their core function, and many do not. Nobody should ever be trusting the police nor expecting them to protect or serve.

That is not to say Police are all terrible people, but just always be clear what their job really is and isn't, and understanding that goes a long way to understanding why a lot of incidents happen the way they do.

Interesting. So if what you say is true, which I am taking it to be, they are justified in killing this young man. They felt their lives were in danger. Case closed.

I have no idea if it was justified as I havent looked too hard into the details nor do we have all the information, and police have lied (in some cases routinely lie) about the circumstances of shootings before, as do those on the other side. If the Police version of events is correct, then yes, the shoot would be good, at least in my opinion, but thats as far as I'm willing to go on that count personally.

But my point really was that Police aren't there to help anybody, and your natural reaction to Police as they operate in todays world *should* be one of distrust and fear, which is unfortunate, but more to the point, is why relations with police arent always hunky-dory and is why people do things which, in hindsight, seem really stupid because they are acting out of fear and distrust

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.

A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.

Individual made the decision. Stood by his decision. Met the decision eyes wide open

Rosebuddy wrote:
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.

And yet so many more people who are "failed by society" manage to make the individual choice not to be gang-bangers who point guns at policemen.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, the deceased didn't have a sign around his neck that said I AM A MINOR. he did, however, have a firearm.

I can see how the police could have embraced like that in the context of taking down a threat without being harmed themselves.

Age is not relevant if they are pointing a gun at your face.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.

A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.

Blaming society for a kid joining a gang is bs. At no point did society tell him that the only way to survive is to get prison tats on your neck, get involved in shootings, spend the nights running from police while armed, and other things like that.

Not a single one of those kids don't know that those actions are COUNTER to society. Mississippi is the poorest state in the country, yet Chicago's murder rate is 4 times higher then the entire state of Mississippi. Chicago's GDP per capita is nearly $20,000 higher then Mississippi's. Somehow though, because of society not providing him with enough, the gang life was better? Maybe those guys in Mississippi should take note.

The fact is that at one point this kid made the decision that being a menace to society was the life for him. And it put him on the path to his eventual death.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, the deceased didn't have a sign around his neck that said I AM A MINOR. he did, however, have a firearm.

I can see how the police could have embraced like that in the context of taking down a threat without being harmed themselves.

Age is not relevant if they are pointing a gun at your face.

And in Chicago... It isn't relevant even when you are NOT pointing a gun in their face, because likely that if you are black, they will shoot you anyways and lie about it based upon findings by the DOJ and admissions by the CPD.

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, the deceased didn't have a sign around his neck that said I AM A MINOR. he did, however, have a firearm.

I can see how the police could have embraced like that in the context of taking down a threat without being harmed themselves.

Age is not relevant if they are pointing a gun at your face.

And in Chicago... It isn't relevant even when you are NOT pointing a gun in their face, because likely that if you are black, they will shoot you anyways and lie about it based upon findings by the DOJ and admissions by the CPD.

Likely... it's very likely. About 1 million black people in Chicago. Police have shot a grand total of 22 people all of 2015 (no skin color provided). Take note people. .000022% is likely.

 Jihadin wrote:
Individual made the decision. Stood by his decision. Met the decision eyes wide open

Does a 16 year old ever really have much of an idea about why tbey do anything?

Not trying to hate too muc on the cops here, they likely did make the right call, but lets also not make it out like a 16 year old is playing with a full deck of cards either.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.

And yet so many more people who are "failed by society" manage to make the individual choice not to be gang-bangers who point guns at policemen.

A disproportionate number do however. Its easy to be ethical when surrounded by good role models, have money for things, and have at least some vision of a future. These things absolutley influence peoples actions.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.

A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.

You are making it too big. He was fully able to choose between joining a gang or not, carrying a gun or not and between pointing a gun at a policeman or not (if he actually did that). Material circumstances influence, but don't dictate your decisions.

 djones520 wrote:


Likely... it's very likely. About 1 million black people in Chicago. Police have shot a grand total of 22 people all of 2015 (no skin color provided). Take note people. .000022% is likely.

That's exactly right. Amazing how that works, huh? It IS NOT an epidemic and as I said in my first couple of posts, there are more White kids shot by police than Black kids. The BLM movement doesn't care about that at all.

What's likely is that if you flash a gun at a police officer you will get shot.

Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.

Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.

Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.

Point taken.That doesn't mean you have to wave a gun around when confronted by the police, nor does it mean you should expect to live past 18 years old. How is that Police's fault?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.

Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.

Point taken.That doesn't mean you have to wave a gun around when confronted by the police, nor does it mean you should expect to live past 18 years old. How is that Police's fault?

In a situation like that which happened here, if the account of the police is to be believed, you are correct in that it isnt their fault. Just want to point out that a lot of this stuff isnt as conscious and voluntarily entered into as some might think, and that poor relations between police and communities have some very real and reasonable basis for that animosity.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.

Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.

While I agree with you, point a weapon at an officer-well anyone actually- and they have the right to self defense.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, the deceased didn't have a sign around his neck that said I AM A MINOR. he did, however, have a firearm.

I can see how the police could have embraced like that in the context of taking down a threat without being harmed themselves.

Age is not relevant if they are pointing a gun at your face.

I agree 100%, but I suppose my point is that there's not much point about the news wailing that he was only 16, as there was no way the officers could have known he was a minor. All they knew was that he had a gun.

In Illinois there is no hardline legal rule requiring the gun to be locked, loaded, and pointed at the officer before he can fire. 720 ILCS 5/7-1 codifies this with rather flexible, murky wording.

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

If the officer is charged this is for the finder of fact to determine.

LEO going to call a time out to verify the weapon is green or red before he takes action?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Spoiler:

nkelsch wrote:
A lot of people quick to talk in absolutes and justify a killing when there is a total lack of hard evidence supporting the current story of events and multiple witnesses which directly contradict the 'official story' right now. Makes it hard to armchair sentence a minor to death just because you want to be pro-police.

People seem quick to latch on to versions of events which support their agenda or preconceived biases. If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it. Another reason bodycams should be required.

Considering this is the same group who murdered Laquan McDonald, and the city just settled for 5 mil with his family and murder charges have been filed... I can see why no one in Chicago would believe 'he was trying to shoot me' from an officer there.

Yes, although the other side is just as quick to start a protest regardless of any "hard evidence". Some go so far as to ignore the "hard evidence" in any case anyway.

Whether no one believes the Police or not, the Police have a right to protect themselves if someone is pointing a weapon at them and not following instructions.

I thought I read somewhere that in Chicago, the Police are no longer responding to calls and the crime rate shot up.

That's the other issue. You can't have it both ways. Vilify the Police, but then expect them to protect and serve at your beckon call.

I am not sure if that is going on in Chicago, but it is/was in NYC so I wouldn't be surprised Chicago police were behaving in such a manner.

Police can't arbitrarily decide to not do their jobs, either. Otherwise, what are they but another "gang" of armed donkey-caves on the street? No argument that the police nation-wide are in a tough situation, but it is a situation that years of bad policy and "thin blue line" ideology has created so I am not all that sympathetic to their plight, really.

The police need to be as transparent as possible in these situations. They have to earn back the public's trust and until they do, they unfortunately will bear an unfair amount of criticism and suspicion by the communities who they interact with.

That "thin blue line" mentality didn't just materialize out of thin air. It's a bunker mentality that arose in the 1960's. That was when the police were no longer seen as trustworthy community servants, but "pigs", "oinkers", "fascists" and "gestapo". All thanks to black militants (who mostly had their "awakening" in prisons), doped-up hippies, counter-culture cults, and wanna-be "revolutionaries" on college campuses.

Back when my late father was a cop, beginning in the late 70's, public dislike and distrust of the police, a legacy of the turbulent 60's, was at the highest since the western frontier days in late 19th Century (when many famous lawmen were professional killers and criminals themselves). A popular saying in those days was "There is never a cop around when you need one". The same ones who would utter that crap would be the first to scream police brutality, or file complaints, when cops tried to do their jobs. It got to the point where good cops were taking questionable measures (such as so-called "throw down pieces") to protect themselves from media and public crucifixion over mistakes, both large and small.

And there was pressure from above as well. Well-connected and politicos who felt that they (and their friends/relatives) were above laws, like speed limits, DUI laws, motor vehicle regulations, assault, sex crimes, etc. Let a cop run afoul of those types while trying to do their jobs, and they would find themselves in the unemployment line. If a major stink arose with certain groups, such as the black community, even if the cop(s) were in the right, the politicians and political appointees would throw them to the wolves (especially if the media hornets got wind of it, and spinned the hell out of it).

By the time I got into law enforcement back in the mid- 90's, the "us versus them" mentality between the police and the public was firmly cemented in the law enforcement mosaic. Our mantra was strict professionalism and detachment from the citizenry. We were instructed not to accept stuff like free refills,baked good from churches/community groups, or free coffee. Dashcams (thankfully) became the new norm across the United States, and increased use of SWAT teams, who became the primary servers of major warrants (which stirred up distrust among the political right, the traditional supporters of law enforcement), since their specialized training reduced the odds of mistakes that the media/cop haters could use as "ammo" for their next spin. SWAT teams were being used to serve minor arrest warrants in some jurisdictions, which was ridiculous in my view (both then and now). It's overkill to serve a warrant on a deadbeat parent with a team of armored specialists with MP5s and breach gear just because you find out the suspect/perp has a .22 rifle in the house. And I cannot count the number of bs, politically motivated "sensitivity" and "awareness" classes/seminars I had to sit through on both hands and feet, because a minority got more traffic citations than they thought was fair, and filed a complaint/wrote a letter to a local paper.

Things were getting better until recently. By the time I went from police work to corrections, things like community policing, youth programs, interventions, school resource officers, citizen reserve programs, and community outreach was doing much to renew trust between the police and communities they serve. I, for one, was glad to see that distrust and bunker mentality begin to dissolve.

Like with any aspect of daily life, a certain wariness is necessary to ensure your safety, even when dealing with the authorities. The only person who can protect your rights is you. And the law enforcement field, like any other, has a few bad apples that need to be dealt with. But the level of pure hatred and flak that law enforcement in general gets from some quarters nowadays is just plain ridiculous. Even when the officer in a given incident is proven to be the one in the right, people with an ax to grind follow the lead of professional victimhood groups, and cause chaos and generate bad will. That ill will isn't just between police and the public, but also between various "identity" groups among the citizenry, which is what these professional baiters and victimhood movements want.

People need to wisen up and smell the roses instead of horsegak. Groups like #BlackLivesMatter (aka The New Klan With A Tan) who protest the deaths of thugs killed while committing crimes, are nothing more than racists and hucksters themselves. The very same thing they accuse the police of being. But pointing that out makes me (and others) "racist" in the eyes of these hypocrites and their fellow travelers.

The Sheriff in my county has outfitted all his deputies with body cams. Then the new legislation came out the first of this year, effectively pricing body cams out of smaller jurisdictions. Thankfully my county was grandfathered in due to implementation years prior. But one of the city outfits just can't afford them with all the restrictions on how long you have to maintain the data. I've had numerous instances where defendant said his rights were violated, the cops did this or that, and then we turn over the body cam video to his attorney. They change their tune and take the plea deal.

Oldraven you went from the road to corrections? It usually works the other way where I'm at. Most jail staff are happy to get away from the inmates. They get real nasty. I've had video of them peeing on the floor and smearing fecal matter in protest.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
The Sheriff in my county has outfitted all his deputies with body cams. Then the new legislation came out the first of this year, effectively pricing body cams out of smaller jurisdictions. Thankfully my county was grandfathered in due to implementation years prior. But one of the city outfits just can't afford them with all the restrictions on how long you have to maintain the data. I've had numerous instances where defendant said his rights were violated, the cops did this or that, and then we turn over the body cam video to his attorney. They change their tune and take the plea deal.

Oldraven you went from the road to corrections? It usually works the other way where I'm at. Most jail staff are happy to get away from the inmates. They get real nasty. I've had video of them peeing on the floor and smearing fecal matter in protest.

I was a city cop in our County seat. Got tired of the politics and internal drama llamas after eleven years. So, I went to work in the State prison system until I took an early retirement due to health.


And OH BOY was that experience a real "thrill"! Here is my happy face I wore when end of shift came around------>

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.

A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.

He made the choice to go into a gang
He made he choice to carry a gun
He made the choice to run from the cops(Bad idea, makes you look guilty)
He made the decision to point the gun at the cop.

He could have gone onto school. He could have gone into a trade. He could have made amateur porn, but nope, he made his choice.
As my grandpa said "There comes a time in life you have to stop blaming people for your lot in life, cause, when you meet god in heaven, its just gonna be you and him, no one else"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.

A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.

He made the choice to go into a gang
He made he choice to carry a gun
He made the choice to run from the cops(Bad idea, makes you look guilty)
He made the decision to point the gun at the cop.

He could have gone onto school. He could have gone into a trade. He could have made amateur porn, but nope, he made his choice.
As my grandpa said "There comes a time in life you have to stop blaming people for your lot in life, cause, when you meet god in heaven, its just gonna be you and him, no one else"

But, I thought the whole idea was it was supposed to be you, god, and jesus was there to plead your case. I could be wrong though......

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

That "thin blue line" mentality didn't just materialize out of thin air. It's a bunker mentality that arose in the 1960's. That was when the police were no longer seen as trustworthy community servants, but "pigs", "oinkers", "fascists" and "gestapo". All thanks to black militants (who mostly had their "awakening" in prisons), doped-up hippies, counter-culture cults, and wanna-be "revolutionaries" on college campuses.

Back when my late father was a cop, beginning in the late 70's, public dislike and distrust of the police, a legacy of the turbulent 60's, was at the highest since the western frontier days in late 19th Century (when many famous lawmen were professional killers and criminals themselves). A popular saying in those days was "There is never a cop around when you need one". The same ones who would utter that crap would be the first to scream police brutality, or file complaints, when cops tried to do their jobs. It got to the point where good cops were taking questionable measures (such as so-called "throw down pieces") to protect themselves from media and public crucifixion over mistakes, both large and small.

And there was pressure from above as well. Well-connected and politicos who felt that they (and their friends/relatives) were above laws, like speed limits, DUI laws, motor vehicle regulations, assault, sex crimes, etc. Let a cop run afoul of those types while trying to do their jobs, and they would find themselves in the unemployment line. If a major stink arose with certain groups, such as the black community, even if the cop(s) were in the right, the politicians and political appointees would throw them to the wolves (especially if the media hornets got wind of it, and spinned the hell out of it).

By the time I got into law enforcement back in the mid- 90's, the "us versus them" mentality between the police and the public was firmly cemented in the law enforcement mosaic. Our mantra was strict professionalism and detachment from the citizenry. We were instructed not to accept stuff like free refills,baked good from churches/community groups, or free coffee. Dashcams (thankfully) became the new norm across the United States, and increased use of SWAT teams, who became the primary servers of major warrants (which stirred up distrust among the political right, the traditional supporters of law enforcement), since their specialized training reduced the odds of mistakes that the media/cop haters could use as "ammo" for their next spin. SWAT teams were being used to serve minor arrest warrants in some jurisdictions, which was ridiculous in my view (both then and now). It's overkill to serve a warrant on a deadbeat parent with a team of armored specialists with MP5s and breach gear just because you find out the suspect/perp has a .22 rifle in the house. And I cannot count the number of bs, politically motivated "sensitivity" and "awareness" classes/seminars I had to sit through on both hands and feet, because a minority got more traffic citations than they thought was fair, and filed a complaint/wrote a letter to a local paper.

Things were getting better until recently. By the time I went from police work to corrections, things like community policing, youth programs, interventions, school resource officers, citizen reserve programs, and community outreach was doing much to renew trust between the police and communities they serve. I, for one, was glad to see that distrust and bunker mentality begin to dissolve.

Like with any aspect of daily life, a certain wariness is necessary to ensure your safety, even when dealing with the authorities. The only person who can protect your rights is you. And the law enforcement field, like any other, has a few bad apples that need to be dealt with. But the level of pure hatred and flak that law enforcement in general gets from some quarters nowadays is just plain ridiculous. Even when the officer in a given incident is proven to be the one in the right, people with an ax to grind follow the lead of professional victimhood groups, and cause chaos and generate bad will. That ill will isn't just between police and the public, but also between various "identity" groups among the citizenry, which is what these professional baiters and victimhood movements want.

People need to wisen up and smell the roses instead of horsegak. Groups like #BlackLivesMatter (aka The New Klan With A Tan) who protest the deaths of thugs killed while committing crimes, are nothing more than racists and hucksters themselves. The very same thing they accuse the police of being. But pointing that out makes me (and others) "racist" in the eyes of these hypocrites and their fellow travelers.

Brilliantly stated. Thank you!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.

A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.

He made the choice to go into a gang
He made he choice to carry a gun
He made the choice to run from the cops(Bad idea, makes you look guilty)
He made the decision to point the gun at the cop.

He could have gone onto school. He could have gone into a trade. He could have made amateur porn, but nope, he made his choice.
As my grandpa said "There comes a time in life you have to stop blaming people for your lot in life, cause, when you meet god in heaven, its just gonna be you and him, no one else"

But, I thought the whole idea was it was supposed to be you, god, and jesus was there to plead your case. I could be wrong though......

Does not God forgive though? If JC say otherwise and God forgives you.....Since to me Christiansanity seem JC is the focal point.,.....I can see God forgiven this guy and calling him Idiot.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Like with any aspect of daily life, a certain wariness is necessary to ensure your safety, even when dealing with the authorities. The only person who can protect your rights is you. And the law enforcement field, like any other, has a few bad apples that need to be dealt with. But the level of pure hatred and flak that law enforcement in general gets from some quarters nowadays is just plain ridiculous. Even when the officer in a given incident is proven to be the one in the right, people with an ax to grind follow the lead of professional victimhood groups, and cause chaos and generate bad will. That ill will isn't just between police and the public, but also between various "identity" groups among the citizenry, which is what these professional baiters and victimhood movements want.

What worries me is when that wariness expressed by a member of the public is misinterpreted as "disrespect" by a police officer and things escalate as a result.

I distrust police as much as anyone else I meet on the street. I know how power corrupts, but I also know how a constant stream of gak from one group or another can influence how a person begins to see all members of a group regardless of an individual's actions. So I really am sympathetic to the narrow line a police officer has to walk in order to deal "fairly" with the public.

But, as your post indicates, I am not entirely sure where the "healing" can begin between the public and the police. The terminology you use to describe certain groups and the media aren't what I'd consider positive and while I won't criticize you for those terminology choices (as I am sure they are a result of your lived experiences with those groups) from an outside perspective (my own) it reads like an obstacle in place of seeing the other side's grievances.

As a member of the public I do legitimately worry about a bull-headed cop who is having a bad day, or just not liking the way I look, upending my life. Which is an odd concern because I am a white male in my 30's with no criminal history. Up until about two years ago I didn't give police much consideration aside from speed traps or donut jokes. But after seeing so much abuse and the "digging in" by a lot of police, especially the police unions, in response to those rogue elements or misdeeds committed by other police, it makes me re-evaluate law enforcement personnel.

If I were a black male I honestly think I'd be gaking it anytime a police officer crossed my path. Perhaps that is me buying into a certain narrative espoused by the media, but there is so much smoke out there now that it is hard not to think the entire country is on fire.

I guess for every "pig" there is a "thug" but how does either side begin to see one another as people? It feels rather melodramatic and "hippie-ish" to even type that, but I think that is the root of this problem. Neither side sees the humanity in the other side. Both sides are certain that the other side has the worst intentions for them. The trust is gone. Maybe it hasn't ever been there which to me is even more disturbing because if that is the case how do we move forward?

I hate the "Power Corrupts" idea. Its a stupid one.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hate the "Power Corrupts" idea. Its a stupid one.

Care to elaborate?

Do you think the idea that power corrupts people is stupid because that isn't true?