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.

 Easy E wrote:
Here are some more of the basics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/18/we-are-utterly-devastated-family-demands-answers-after-minneapolis-police-shoot-and-kill-woman-who-called-911/?utm_term=.13faf184bc30

Investigators probing the death of an Australian woman who was fatally shot by Minneapolis police officers over the weekend said Tuesday that the officers were “startled by a loud sound” near their patrol car right before the shooting.

The two officers were driving through an alley near the home of Justine Damond, 40, after she called 911 late Saturday to report a possible assault, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the state agency investigating the shooting. The officer who was driving the patrol car told investigators that right after the loud noise, Damond approached the car on his side. The officer who was in the passenger seat then fatally shot Damond through the driver’s side window, according to investigators.

The information released Tuesday marked the first account from one of the officers about what happened at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday in the upscale Minneapolis neighborhood, and it came as relatives of Damond have sharply criticized law enforcement officials for not revealing more about the shooting.

I hate to say it, but this is the type of situation that might actually get white, suburban people to start seriously talking about police shootings in a way BLM could never do.

The victim was a upscale, white woman who was basically a meditation and yoga instructor. You do not get more surburban/New Urban than that. She was the one who called the cops in the first place, and she was the one who wound up dead? Plus she was a white, blonde lady which the media usually frenzies over.

Maybe this will be the tipping point..... but most likely not.

Edit:
The story is also setting up the 'Black Guy" is the villain narrative, only this time it the officer and not the victim....

Noor currently has had three complaints filed against him with the city’s Office of Police Conduct Review, two of which are still open. The other complaint did not result in any disciplinary action, and any records regarding complaints are not made public unless an officer is disciplined.

He is also the subject of a lawsuit filed one day before Damond’s death. In that case, a woman is accusing Noor and two other Minneapolis police officers of forcing their way into her house, violently detaining her and taking her to a hospital against her will. The woman had called 911 multiple times and, at some point, was ordered to be involuntarily taken to the hospital and to be placed on a mental health hold, according to the complaint. The lawsuit, which is seeking $50,000 in damages, was filed in Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial District Court on Friday.

The script has been flipped a bit this time.

That's one of the big issues that I see coming out from this.

White people not trusting black cops.

It's nice to know that most people are at least somewhat consistent. If a cop shoots someone, the black person is bad and had a shady past.

He'll be convicted (as he should, and I wouldn't argue that he should get off for killing a white woman just because there are mostly not guilty verdicts for killing black men) and rather than seeing it as a different race-based standards for victims it will be hailed as some sort of proof that the blue line is fake and that police are held accountable and for everyone to please stop pretending black people are the victims of police shootings.

 d-usa wrote:
It's nice to know that most people are at least somewhat consistent. If a cop shoots someone, the black person is bad and had a shady past.

He'll be convicted (as he should, and I wouldn't argue that he should get off for killing a white woman just because there are mostly not guilty verdicts for killing black men) and rather than seeing it as a different race-based standards for victims it will be hailed as some sort of proof that the blue line is fake and that police are held accountable and for everyone to please stop pretending black people are the victims of police shootings.

I think this is thread win.

 sebster wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This case is totally bizarre. Black Male Somali refugee shot white female Australian citizen in Minnesota?

Almost as bizarre as people attributing this to american racism - neather victim or shooter is an American.

There wasn't any racism in the shooting but some just popped up in this thread. You've just called a Somali refugee who came to the US as a kid, was schooled in the US, and joined a local police force not an American.

Unless he was naturalized, he isn't an American. That's not the point though. He screwed up and should be held accountable. That was my opinion before I knew his race

I do not know the screening methods used by every force, but I am sure they differ wildly. Without going into too much detail, I had a guy working for me in my reserve unit that tried to get on every police and sheriff force agency in our area, but always got kicked during the psych eval.

And, I always thought, "Good thing, because this guy is a total power hungry jerk and I would never recommend him to be an officer." For one instance, he wanted me to write a recommendation for him, since I was his department superior, but I politely refused.

However, my unit was full of cops, troopers and deputy sheriffs. Of every one of these fellows, there were good and bad certainly. The point being I am not sure if there will ever be a perfect and foolproof way to vet out those not suited for this line of work.

There are some police forces out there that have IQ limits. I believe one of the more common ranges are 80 to 110. Too high and you get bored with the job. I do have a problem with 80. That very close to literally being mentally handicapped. Not sure if I want those people armed.

 Bromsy wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Possibly. More studies need to be done. But former military bring things to the job that many departments aren't equipped to handle. Like PTSD.

It was discussed here, though if you want to read: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/722421.page

Yes, I recall the thread. In which there was no evidence shown that indicated veterans were more likely to hurt people than non veterans in policing fields.

No evidence because there isn't enough data because despite our nation's obsessive habit for tabulating data on damn near every aspect of our lives we don't really keep close tabs on police shootings. Funny that. Also, the evidence shown in the article indicated that military applicants failed screenings at twice the rate of civilian candidates. Yet we still prioritize military candidates for hiring. That is troubling to me and backwards.

 Bromsy wrote:
Also, if police departments aren't equipped to handle PTSD are you also advocating that any police officer involved in even the most justified of shootings be immediately fired and never employed as a police officer again, since many of them also suffer from PTSD in dealing with those events?

No, and I question why you use "if" regarding police departments not being equipped to handle PTSD when the article clearly stated as much. But to answer your very baited question again, no. If an officer needs help from on duty trauma they should receive it. Perhaps they should be taken off the beat and placed in another role while they receive treatment, but I am not advocating firing.

What I am advocating is that we, as a society, stop prioritizing individuals for civilian policing based on their service as military personnel. Why are ex-military members desired as police? The usual answer is "their training" which is what exactly? To be soldiers. Police should not view civilians in the same lens as soldiers view enemy combatants. And if that class of applicant (ex-military) does demonstrate a higher percentage of failing screenings then at the very least they should stop being given preferential treatment during hiring.

 Bromsy wrote:
Furthermore, are you also advocating that somehow the vast majority of veterans, who do not suffer from PTSD should be barred from police service due to your unproven feelings that there is a link between PTSD and heightened levels of violence against innocent people by former military police officers?

And this is always where the conversation grinds to a halt because people automatically associate any--any --questioning of veterans health and ability with disparaging veterans in general.

So to be clear for you and everyone else reading:

No. I just don't want those veterans given priority for hiring because they served in the military. They can go through the screenings just like everyone else and get a job based on their merits, not given an advantage because they were in the armed forces.

 Bromsy wrote:
It appears to me that you have a 'feeling' that veterans are more prone to violence and are just going with that despite there not being any evidence. Should we ban Somali immigrants from being police officers? Apparently a statistically significant percentage of Somali immigrant police officers in Minnesota kill innocent people

This is bs. I have a "feeling" that something is wrong with the policing in the US. I am not alone in that. There is painfully little data in this area and that needs to change, but when evidence is presented, like in the article I quoted in the other thread, that data is hand waved away and straw man arguments of "hating veterans" or "seeing veterans as broken" are trotted out to muddy the conversation.

Police have poor training standards, plain and simple. Now it's going to vary from department to department, but overall it's pretty poor. Many recruit training programs begin with videos of police getting killed over and over. That's the first thing they see, police in the US are more or less taught that they are gonna die at any given moment and every traffic stop could be life or death. Then after that they aren't given the proper training to maintain even the slightest trigger discipline. Saw a guy killed by a sympathetic discharge when another officer fired his bean bag shot. Why did it happen because the officer with the real gun, a multi year veteran mind you had his finger on the trigger. That's a weapon safety violation. And yes there is a higher perceived danger from young black men (notice I said perceived not actual), which makes officers even more scared in those situations.

Remember training starts with video after video of cops getting killed.

 Easy E wrote:
Here are some more of the basics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/18/we-are-utterly-devastated-family-demands-answers-after-minneapolis-police-shoot-and-kill-woman-who-called-911/?utm_term=.13faf184bc30

Investigators probing the death of an Australian woman who was fatally shot by Minneapolis police officers over the weekend said Tuesday that the officers were “startled by a loud sound” near their patrol car right before the shooting.

The two officers were driving through an alley near the home of Justine Damond, 40, after she called 911 late Saturday to report a possible assault, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the state agency investigating the shooting. The officer who was driving the patrol car told investigators that right after the loud noise, Damond approached the car on his side. The officer who was in the passenger seat then fatally shot Damond through the driver’s side window, according to investigators.

The information released Tuesday marked the first account from one of the officers about what happened at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday in the upscale Minneapolis neighborhood, and it came as relatives of Damond have sharply criticized law enforcement officials for not revealing more about the shooting.

I hate to say it, but this is the type of situation that might actually get white, suburban people to start seriously talking about police shootings in a way BLM could never do.

The victim was a upscale, white woman who was basically a meditation and yoga instructor. You do not get more surburban/New Urban than that. She was the one who called the cops in the first place, and she was the one who wound up dead? Plus she was a white, blonde lady which the media usually frenzies over.

Maybe this will be the tipping point..... but most likely not.

That's just pathetic, tragic and sad. A loud noise wouldn't have been a problem if the officer had been practicing basic firearm safety. Rolling down an alley/street in a squad car looking for anything suspicious is not a reason to have your duty pistol in hand and your finger on the trigger. I highly doubt it's SOP for that department to have officers blast away from the car at something/someone they spot while patrolling.

Only point your gun at something you're prepared to shoot. Was there a visible target or threat to the officers? No. So the pistol should have stayed in the holster.
Always be sure of your target and what's behind it. There was no valid target so there was no reason to have the gun out and in hand.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you're prepared to shoot. There was nothing/nobody that needed to be shot so there was literally no valid reason for that officer to have his finger on the trigger.

There is no excuse for any armed professional to violate those rules and its especially egregious when a new cop, in the car with his mentor/partner is allowed to violate all 3 simultaneously.

Just so we are clear, Veterans with PTSD are less likely to commit violence than veterans who do not have PTSD. In fact of the veterans incarcerated for crimes the majority of them have never seen combat.


Let's put the a "combat vet with PTSD is ready to blow" myth to rest please. As there is more than enough data and studies to show it's utter nonsense.

http://militarymedicine.amsus.org/doi/pdf/10.7205/MILMED-D-09-00215

At this rate I'm going to assume that US police training is third world level. As in absolutely woeful.

You'll never do it but at this rate I think you need to massively consolidate your police forces. All the gakky sheriff departments and small city forces need to be disbanded and the state police should take over. Only the largest cities should be allowed to retain their forces, and I only offer that as a compromise. Like literally cities with populations of more than 2 million. With this all done focus can be given to higher standards of training and accountability.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
At this rate I'm going to assume that US police training is third world level. As in absolutely woeful.

You'll never do it but at this rate I think you need to massively consolidate your police forces. All the gakky sheriff departments and small city forces need to be disbanded and the state police should take over. Only the largest cities should be allowed to retain their forces, and I only offer that as a compromise. Like literally cities with populations of more than 2 million. With this all done focus can be given to higher standards of training and accountability.

Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.

You're absolutely right. Can't blame them either, since American police seem to have a weird obsession with collecting military grade armoured vehicles and weaponry. At least if it was centralised you could concentrate on making sure the standards are actually maintained. I think the problem is that all those piss head little departments really are a law to themselves.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Let's put the a "combat vet with PTSD is ready to blow" myth to rest please

No one said that in this thread.

What was said:

*Police have hiring preferences for ex-military.

*Ex-military fail impairment screenings at twice the rate of non-military applicants.

From this article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/30/when-veterans-become-cops-some-bring-war-home/99349228/

The vet-to-cop pipeline

Policing has long been a favored career choice for men and women who have enlisted in the armed forces.

Today just 6% of the population at large has served in the military, but 19% of police officers are veterans, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data by Gregory B. Lewis and Rahul Pathak of Georgia State University for The Marshall Project. It is the third most common occupation for veterans behind truck driving and management.

The attraction is, in part, the result of a web of state and federal laws — some dating back to the late 19th century — that require law enforcement agencies to choose veterans over candidates with no military backgrounds.

Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.

The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Officers with a history of mental health problems — even those who have been treated and are now healthy — can pose a twofold problem for departments who hire them. First, their history can become a liability if the department is sued. Second, it can be used to attack their credibility on the stand if they’re called to testify.

That police forces are legally required to take these applicants over non-military background applicants is problematic, especially if those applicants are bringing other issues to the table.

Regarding the paper you cited, if I am understanding it correctly, the researchers are suggesting that impulsive anger (IA) should be a separate classification of aggressive behavior and that anger itself is not necessarily a predictor of PTSD. However, veterans reporting PTSD had a 70% rate of also having impulsive anger (IA).

Per your article (I removed the citation footnotes for clarity):

IA is conceptualized as an emotional, nearly spontaneous reaction to provocation among individuals with a “short fuse”; however, premeditated aggression lacks an emotional component and is a planned, “coldblooded” aggressive act carried out for a specific purpose. Convergent lines of evidence suggest that IA (as opposed to PM) may be a particular problem in individuals with PTSD. Various descriptions of dysregulation of anger and aggression are found in the PTSD literature and appear similar to IA. Stanford and colleagues proposed that in IA, sudden surges in arousal may induce emotional states that are difficult to control. The authors based this proposal on evidence of deficits in regulating physiological arousal among impulsive aggressors. As identified among individuals with IA, an inability to regulate an angry or hostile reaction is also a diagnostic criterion for PTSD. Chemtob and colleagues described deficits in regulation of arousal in conjunction with anger dyscontrol and loss of behavioral self-regulation in their subjects with aggression and PTSD. Additionally, individuals with IA appear to have cognitive deficits in domains involving executive functioning and language that resemble those found in PTSD. That said, IA is not simply the behavioral expression of an internal angry state; differential response to treatment has dissociated anger and aggressive acts, such that in one study, aggressive acts were reduced without an effect on levels of anger.

It is important to get better classifications to ensure proper treatment, but this study seems to indicate that veterans with PTSD report having IA at almost double the rate than those without PTSD.

So there are still aggression issues at play in the prioritized hiring pool for police departments. That disturbs me.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Let's put the a "combat vet with PTSD is ready to blow" myth to rest please

No one said that in this thread.

What was said:

*Police have hiring preferences for ex-military.

*Ex-military fail impairment screenings at twice the rate of non-military applicants.

From this article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/30/when-veterans-become-cops-some-bring-war-home/99349228/

The vet-to-cop pipeline

Policing has long been a favored career choice for men and women who have enlisted in the armed forces.

Today just 6% of the population at large has served in the military, but 19% of police officers are veterans, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data by Gregory B. Lewis and Rahul Pathak of Georgia State University for The Marshall Project. It is the third most common occupation for veterans behind truck driving and management.

The attraction is, in part, the result of a web of state and federal laws — some dating back to the late 19th century — that require law enforcement agencies to choose veterans over candidates with no military backgrounds.

Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.

The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Officers with a history of mental health problems — even those who have been treated and are now healthy — can pose a twofold problem for departments who hire them. First, their history can become a liability if the department is sued. Second, it can be used to attack their credibility on the stand if they’re called to testify.

That police forces are legally required to take these applicants over non-military background applicants is problematic, especially if those applicants are bringing other issues to the table.

Regarding the paper you cited, if I am understanding it correctly, the researchers are suggesting that impulsive anger (IA) should be a separate classification of aggressive behavior and that anger itself is not necessarily a predictor of PTSD. However, veterans reporting PTSD had a 70% rate of also having impulsive anger (IA).

Per your article (I removed the citation footnotes for clarity):

IA is conceptualized as an emotional, nearly spontaneous reaction to provocation among individuals with a “short fuse”; however, premeditated aggression lacks an emotional component and is a planned, “coldblooded” aggressive act carried out for a specific purpose. Convergent lines of evidence suggest that IA (as opposed to PM) may be a particular problem in individuals with PTSD. Various descriptions of dysregulation of anger and aggression are found in the PTSD literature and appear similar to IA. Stanford and colleagues proposed that in IA, sudden surges in arousal may induce emotional states that are difficult to control. The authors based this proposal on evidence of deficits in regulating physiological arousal among impulsive aggressors. As identified among individuals with IA, an inability to regulate an angry or hostile reaction is also a diagnostic criterion for PTSD. Chemtob and colleagues described deficits in regulation of arousal in conjunction with anger dyscontrol and loss of behavioral self-regulation in their subjects with aggression and PTSD. Additionally, individuals with IA appear to have cognitive deficits in domains involving executive functioning and language that resemble those found in PTSD. That said, IA is not simply the behavioral expression of an internal angry state; differential response to treatment has dissociated anger and aggressive acts, such that in one study, aggressive acts were reduced without an effect on levels of anger.

It is important to get better classifications to ensure proper treatment, but this study seems to indicate that veterans with PTSD report having IA at almost double the rate than those without PTSD.

So there are still aggression issues at play in the prioritized hiring pool for police departments. That disturbs me.

Fair enough my apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying. I'd argue though as a Vet with PTSD that I am better disciplined with my gun than almost every police officer who was a civilian before becoming an officer. Further I don't think impulsive aggression is the problem with police in the US. I firmly believe it is piss poor training. Which is why I bring up my own ability to handle a weapon and my belief that it's vastly superior to most cops. I also was not taught to be constantly afraid of dying like the police are in many departments. It's not aggression that's causing these police to kill people, it's fear combined with poor training. Contrast this with the fact that I a combat veteran and former infantry man have absolutely no fear of being shot at. Do I assess situations at times for how much threat there may be, sure, but that is to have a plan after the fact.

It is curious to me that when I was in Fallujah in 07 my ROE's were stricter than cops. I feared for my life wasn't good enough, not only did someone have to have a gun they had to point it at you and fire it before you could fire back. We followed this to the letter, otherwise we would have been landed ourselves in a military prison.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
I also was not taught to be constantly afraid of dying like the police are in many departments. It's not aggression that's causing these police to kill people, it's fear combined with poor training. Contrast this with the fact that I a combat veteran and former infantry man have absolutely no fear of being shot at. Do I assess situations at times for how much threat there may be, sure, but that is to have a plan after the fact.

It is curious to me that when I was in Fallujah in 07 my ROE's were stricter than cops. I feared for my life wasn't good enough, not only did someone have to have a gun they had to point it at you and fire it before you could fire back. We followed this to the letter, otherwise we would have been landed ourselves in a military prison.

You bring up good points here. And to clear up any confusion from my end, my concerns with aggression aren't just for bad shoots, but for police assaulting civilians for little or no reason (body slamming youth, elderly or compliant individuals for no reason).

I completely agree with your points about ROE, and fear. The ROE should be extremely strict for police. That NYPD can hit bystanders with crossfire and not face any penalties is atrocious in my opinion. When I have spoken with veteran friends about the limitations placed on them in a war zone that aren't in place here domestically for police... well I was shocked.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
I also was not taught to be constantly afraid of dying like the police are in many departments. It's not aggression that's causing these police to kill people, it's fear combined with poor training. Contrast this with the fact that I a combat veteran and former infantry man have absolutely no fear of being shot at. Do I assess situations at times for how much threat there may be, sure, but that is to have a plan after the fact.

It is curious to me that when I was in Fallujah in 07 my ROE's were stricter than cops. I feared for my life wasn't good enough, not only did someone have to have a gun they had to point it at you and fire it before you could fire back. We followed this to the letter, otherwise we would have been landed ourselves in a military prison.

You bring up good points here. And to clear up any confusion from my end, my concerns with aggression aren't just for bad shoots, but for police assaulting civilians for little or no reason (body slamming youth, elderly or compliant individuals for no reason).

I completely agree with your points about ROE, and fear. The ROE should be extremely strict for police. That NYPD can hit bystanders with crossfire and not face any penalties is atrocious in my opinion. When I have spoken with veteran friends about the limitations placed on them in a war zone that aren't in place here domestically for police... well I was shocked.

I understand the concern for aggression. For sure before I got treatment I would snap at my wife for the dumbest stuff. I never physically harmed her but I was pretty much an Ahole to her. It put a real strain on our marriage. I recognized I needed help, and I got, and I can say it's night and day in terms of how easy to anger I am. Now of course I'm not saying because I never got physically violent on an impulse that no veteran will. I am after all a statistic of one, just using my own experience to show my understanding of the concern. Many many veterans go without treatment, whether due to stigma both from society and fellow vets (that's the big one imo) or because it's just not accessible to them. Of course that's a whole other conversation. The question is do we trust the psych eval to weed out those who are either unaware they may be suffering or who may not choose to disclose it. I can tell you for the longest time I was incredibly embarrassed to say I have PTSD and didn't want to even believe my diagnosis. It's a real struggle.

So I see your point on Vets getting priority, but I think there's got to be a middle ground, because I think a lot of vets would make great police officers due to the training they've had and that training should be taken into consideration.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.

You're absolutely right. Can't blame them either, since American police seem to have a weird obsession with collecting military grade armoured vehicles and weaponry. At least if it was centralised you could concentrate on making sure the standards are actually maintained. I think the problem is that all those piss head little departments really are a law to themselves.

Americans in general have a weird obsession with collecting weapons far beyond what they actually need. Which really feeds into the issue from both sides.

The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.

It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.

In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.

I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Many many veterans go without treatment, whether due to stigma both from society and fellow vets (that's the big one imo) or because it's just not accessible to them. Of course that's a whole other conversation. The question is do we trust the psych eval to weed out those who are either unaware they may be suffering or who may not choose to disclose it. I can tell you for the longest time I was incredibly embarrassed to say I have PTSD and didn't want to even believe my diagnosis. It's a real struggle.

As someone who struggles with anger and depression (and who wouldn't be a good candidate for police work ) I entirely sympathize with the stigma placed on mental health. I avoided treatment for a decade because I didn't want to be classified as "crazy" and be ostracized by my family. Turns out it was my family and friends who were the most supportive and my fears were ultimately misplaced.

We have a long way to go in terms of not shaming people for seeking help with these ailments and for accepting that the brain is like any other organ in the body and it can go through periods of distress, chemical imbalance, and trauma which requires treatment. It doesn't mean the person is irreparably broken any more than someone with a bad liver isn't broken.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
So I see your point on Vets getting priority, but I think there's got to be a middle ground, because I think a lot of vets would make great police officers due to the training they've had and that training should be taken into consideration.

Agreed. I don't want veterans to not serve as police. Rather, I want the right applicants for the job serving regardless of their background. If a veteran is the best candidate awesome. If it is a non-veteran that is better for that particular position then awesome.

Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.

Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.

Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.

Good start. Were I am, three person patrols are common too. I don't know if you could do that but ironically this would be a good start towards a concentration on deescalation. A prep might be tempted to try their luck on one cop. Three cops might be too much. And again, more eyes means more security.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.

Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.

Good start. Were I am, three person patrols are common too. I don't know if you could do that but ironically this would be a good start towards a concentration on deescalation. A prep might be tempted to try their luck on one cop. Three cops might be too much. And again, more eyes means more security.

Beyond the obvious need for better training, I'd like to see more community patrolling. Not just beat cops, but actually getting out there and talking to people and building rapport. I'd also like to see local departments give preference to hiring from within the communities they police. The police need to start humanizing the people they are suppose to serve, not looking at them as potential criminals.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.

It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.

In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.

I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.

Not really. We have more states with Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws and more states issuing Concealed Carry Permits than ever before and violent crime is still on a multi decade downward trend and police officers dying in the line of duty is still a very rare event. While the US certainly has more guns and more lawfully armed citizens than countries like Sweden or England and has higher incidences of gun violence than those countries, compared to the US of a few decades ago (a far more accurate and fair comparison) the US today is demonstrably safer and less violent.

There is no data to support the claim that police officers are in an inordinate amount of danger that they have to assume that anyone they interact with is a lethal threat. That's an unsupportable and unreasonable position. The police patrol the same streets that the rest of us live on, work on and walk/drive on every single day they don't become more dangerous for the police, in fact an active police presence makes places more safe not more violent.

The officer in this incident is going to get in serious trouble and it's not because the victim was a white woman it's because there's literally no justification for this. There's no law or departmental policy about what constitutes resisting arrest, what a legal chokehold is, no transport procedures or reasonableness standard for the perception of ambiguous hand movements etc that can confuse a jury or shield the officer. This is just a straight negligent discharge that killed somebody. There's no departmental policy that instructs police officers to have their duty weapon drawn with their finger on the trigger and muzzle sweep the officer behind the wheel in the seat next to him while driving down a street in response to a 911 call about a possible rape/assault. That's incredibly unsafe and stupid behavior and there's literally no possible justification for it.

When a woman calls 911 twice to report a possible crime near her home and the police dispatch a car to investigate and the cops see a woman standing clearly visible when they arrive it's perfectly reasonable to believe that woman to be the person who called 911 and not be alarmed when she approached the car. It is completely unreasonable to have a gun drawn and your finger on the trigger when you arrive in response the unreasonable possibility that the woman standing there with the phone is about to spring an ambush on you and murder you and then accidentally shoot her when you hear a loud noise.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.

Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.

There were two police in the car. They still capped the lady who called in the crime...why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Maybe you should try to move away from lone officer patrols too. With someone watching your back you might not need to be so jumpy.

Heh a lot of departments already require two officers per patrol car, or at least two patrol cars when someone is pulled over.

Good start. Were I am, three person patrols are common too. I don't know if you could do that but ironically this would be a good start towards a concentration on deescalation. A prep might be tempted to try their luck on one cop. Three cops might be too much. And again, more eyes means more security.

Beyond the obvious need for better training, I'd like to see more community patrolling. Not just beat cops, but actually getting out there and talking to people and building rapport. I'd also like to see local departments give preference to hiring from within the communities they police. The police need to start humanizing the people they are suppose to serve, not looking at them as potential criminals.

At this point, the risk of dying when talking to police officers appears to be problematic and might violate my life insurance policy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fundamental problem with police shootings in the USA is that US society is heavily armed and everyone must operate under the expectation that gunfire might erupt in almost any situation.

It's not the 2nd Amendment, it's the laws around Stand Your Ground, guns for university students, more guns for school teachers, and all sorts of things that seemingly are intended to increase the amount of weaponry in use rather then reduce it.

In such a position I can understand a nervous (armed) cop who is responding to a warning of domestic violence (possibly involving guns) hearing explosions (probably from guns) and seeing a woman with a (seemingly gun sized) object in her hand approach his car.

I don't excuse it but I think it offers an explanation.

Sounds like the conversation is being steered from talking carefully about this incident and into political waters

"Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world. They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.”"

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

Again I fully believe the problem is they are trained to be afraid. Every stop could be your last, better to be judged by 12 than carried by six, blah blah blah. They way they are trained it's like they are going into a warzone and every citizen is out to get them. This is a failure of training, an absolute failure. And it comes from a disproportionate response to when an officer actually dies in the line of duty, which is fairly rare mind you. The response is always to make training more aggressive, make cops more afraid of traffic stops, more of afraid of the citizens they should be building relationships with instead.

I think that everytime a cop shoots dead a civilian who wasn't armed that cop should go to jail.

But I can say, and I don't want to sound racist, that if some man that looks like a gangster (black, latino, asiatic or white it doesn't matter) starts behave aggresively and ends up dead I can understand why such incident happened since America is a violent nation, full of criminals that don't hesitate to fire toward police. I can understand if in such occasions some cop fears for his/her life, but even if that feeling can be seen reasonable, when a cop kills an unarmed citizen that incident should be a manslaughter at least with an appropriate sentence.

This time it seems different, that cop shot dead a woman in pyjama!!!! Even if she was black there is nothing that can justify a reaction like that one. I believe the cop mistaken a phone for a gun but this cannot be seen in any way as justified. He should be jailed for a lenghty time.

What always puzzles me is why when there is such a dubious shooting the other officer(s) present don't use (lethal) force to take down the officer that's fired the shots?

well not so much puzzles as annoys me, not all police behave badly, in fact do believe it's the small minority that the police claim they are,

however what is clear is that the majority of officers are not willing to act fast enough against those that are behaving badly (let alone step forward and testify against them)