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.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Even the dumbest fething teenager on earth knows what happens when you point a gun at a cop. Gang members certainly do. It is no surprise that he is now dead, and it is entirely down to his own actions, despite what his supporters would have you believe. He could have just ran, he could have complied with the officer, but he chose to draw a gun. His socio-economic situation did not pull a gun out of his pants and try to murder a police officer.

People are generally not hyper-rational when they are, for example, frightened or under severe stress such as they might be if they are, for example, chased by police. Especially not when they're just sixteen years old. His socio-economic situation is precisely what put a gun in his pants in the first place (if he had one) and is precisely the reason the cops were enemies to him. If sufficient support existed to stop people from ending up in gangs and if cops didn't view the areas they patrol as essentially under occupation this kind of thing wouldn't happen. If the US justice system wasn't premised upon brutality, if segments of the population weren't abandoned or actively abused by the authorities, if neighbourhoods weren't left to rot then we wouldn't be having these kinds of problems.

Believing that this is an issue of personal responsibility is, put at its most charitable, naive.

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.

I think the protest was sparked by the officers supposedly High 5'ing each other.

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.

The witnesses have a total lack of hard evidence to support their side of the story. Given the circumstances and evidence at hand the shooting appears justified. If further evidence comes to light I will absolutely review my opinion.

nkelsch wrote:If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it.

If this was unjustified, I would hope the witnesses have proof to support it. Bodycams would be great, but the problem with them is that the cop is in control of when to turn it on or off. If bodycams are to be a thing, it should be constantly on.

Rosebuddy wrote:Believing that this is an issue of personal responsibility is, put at its most charitable, naive.

Believing that it was anyone else's decision but his to pull a gun on a cop is, put at it's most charitable, naive.

 Jihadin wrote:
I think the protest was sparked by the officers supposedly High 5'ing each other.

Extremely unprofessional and very callous if true. Whatever way you look at it, the death of a 16 year old is a tragedy.

 jmurph wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Armed gang member in a car linked to an earlier shooting. I wonder why they aren't protesting for the victim who got shot? Oh wait, because we have thousands of blacks murdered every year and they don't seem to give a care about that.

University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.

Professor Johnson’s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.

So obviously police are the issue.

538 had a good article on just how bad it is for black Americans: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/black-americans-are-killed-at-12-times-the-rate-of-people-in-other-developed-countries/

It infuriates me that with such a real crime problem, BLM and similar groups try to mug for cameras while taking resources and focus from a terrible true threat.

Huh. It's weird that they expect the police to kill black people less than criminal gangs. I really don't understand their priorities in trying to get the people that uphold the law to kill fewer black people. I wonder why that is?

I suppose they should just go and protest outside the policegang station and convince the law-abiding gang members to shoot fewer black people when they're arresting them in their police gang cars.

I mean, the government *is* directly in control of all the local gangs, and there is a clear chain of command from elected officials to the policegang person on the street, so protests will definitely stop all of those gang shootings.

Did you even read what I wrote? No one is saying unjustified shootings aren't bad- murder is murder and those committing murder in uniform must be held accountable. But 112 *total* fatalities (including justified) v. almost 4500 for one year? That means all police shootings account for 2% of the black on black homicides alone, and less than a fraction of all black homicides. It is closer to a statistical anomaly than an epidemic. Yet blacks, especially the poor are facing an epidemic of violence that is a very real, not theoretical, threat. They are dying by the thousands *every year*. So where should the priorities lie?

No, I completely ignored what you wrote, which is why I quoted it.

How exactly do you propose they "prioritise" gang violence? Do they go and protest at the gang station? (like I put in my last post) Do they petition the leader of the readily accessible chain of command of the gang? (like I put in my last post)

Or perhaps, they make use of the *thousands* of gang-violence initiatives that are already in place?

But sure, they should protest the people that they have no means of influencing rather than the government organisation that is supposedly accountable to them.

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I think the protest was sparked by the officers supposedly High 5'ing each other.

Extremely unprofessional and very callous if true. Whatever way you look at it, the death of a 16 year old is a tragedy.

Something like that the relief of taking out a shooter is prevalent. Granted it was a 16 year old kid that pointed a weapon at the officer that opted him out. Its a bit of celebratory feeling of "Got him before he got me" feeling.

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.

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.

This is why I won't accept any job in the Chicago area. At least in the lower portions of the state there's only a few people that get butt-hurt when a thug gets killed. Up there it's like the city's pass time. Might as well get rid of the Cubs stadium.

Ease up on the word "Thug". Some view it as a negative label towards a group of people. Stay neutral of topic

It strains logic to see how a person climbing a 6-foot spiked metal fence is capable of simultaneously pointing a gun at officers to warrant being shot due to immediate risk of life.

He was shot while on top of the fence, and while falling had his clothes caught on the fence on the other side. This is backed up by the crime scene results and eye witnesses.

And for a gunshot victim who is still alive and breathing at this point in the video... there doesn't seem to be much action or urgency about it. (since he died on the way to the hospital)

If the person DID point a gun at the officer, it wasn't at the time he was actually shot it seems. From the witnesses and the video evidence so far of where and how he ended up, The only way the shooting to be justified would need to be 'trying to subdue someone which is a risk to the community at large by being armed'. Too bad they hung their hat on 'self defense' via actively pointing a gun at them, which doesn't really seem to be supported by the evidence so far, both physical video and eye-witness.

... Unless he decided to perch on top of a spiky metal fence to take his shot at the police... That would be the only way he was pointing a gun at police and being shot while on top of the fence.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


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.

The Police can decide not to pursue a call based on their safety and call in a higher authority. This can certainly prolong the response time.

Not sure I completely agree with the police needing to be transparent and to "earn" the public's trust. The public's trust should be implicit in the job description. Yes, there are always the bad apples, but to say that because there are a couple of bad ones, they all need to bend over backwards to please the public is a bit of a stretch.

Law Enforcement has an extremely difficult job. It is made even more difficult when there are always people looking over their shoulders and when they are made targets of. There are plenty of examples of the public putting the Police in mortal danger. The public needs to learn to be more respectful and realize that bad things will happen for sure if they break the law and then aren't mindful of what they are asked to do when they are caught.

You pull a knife on a cop and then refuse to put it down when asked to, and lunge at the officer, you better expect to be shot at. If you are aggressively marching toward a policeman with fists clenched and are asked to stand down, and you don't, you can expect to be shot at. Point a firearm at a policeman and refuse to draw down and put the gun on the ground, expect to be shot at. The only way to approach a policeman in those situation and not expect to be shot is with hands up and palms open (among other things). It's not hard.

Do good people get shot even when they are complying?Tragically, yes. They even die. It is certainly a tragedy when that happens. There is no questions about it. I openly concede that point. I propose that that is the very small minority of situations a policeman deals with every day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

It strains logic to see how a person climbing a 6-foot spiked metal fence is capable of simultaneously pointing a gun at officers to warrant being shot due to immediate risk of life.

He was shot while on top of the fence, and while falling had his clothes caught on the fence on the other side. This is backed up by the crime scene results and eye witnesses.

And for a gunshot victim who is still alive and breathing at this point in the video... there doesn't seem to be much action or urgency about it. (since he died on the way to the hospital)

If the person DID point a gun at the officer, it wasn't at the time he was actually shot it seems. From the witnesses and the video evidence so far of where and how he ended up, The only way the shooting to be justified would need to be 'trying to subdue someone which is a risk to the community at large by being armed'. Too bad they hung their hat on 'self defense' via actively pointing a gun at them, which doesn't really seem to be supported by the evidence so far, both physical video and eye-witness.

... Unless he decided to perch on top of a spiky metal fence to take his shot at the police... That would be the only way he was pointing a gun at police and being shot while on top of the fence.

Can you link where you read the crime scene results and the eye witness testimony, please?

You are making many assumptions in your response.

If you are saying that an officer of the law should wait to be shot at before responding to seeing a perp with a gun, I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

Mdlbuildr wrote:


Can you link where you read the crime scene results and the eye witness testimony, please?

You are making many assumptions in your response.

If you are saying that an officer of the law should wait to be shot at before responding to seeing a perp with a gun, I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

Google? And too bad the law disagrees with you... Being armed is not a death sentence in America... We have due process.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-home-square-police-shooting-20160412-story.html

I provided a video with seconds after visual representation of the crime scene which shows the person on the ground after being on top of the fence and his leg still caught on the fence from the fall. Witnesses and the crime scene show he was shot 'while scaling the fence'

A woman who said she witnessed the shooting told the Tribune the teen was shot as he was scaling a fence.
"They shot him in the air," she said. "His pants leg got caught on the fence and he hit the ground. If he hadn't gotten shot, he would have cleared the fence."

Video of the teen laying on the ground on the other side of the fence with his limp leg caught on the fence.

Like I said... He was shot while scaling the fence, not before, not after. How was he a clear and present danger pointing a gun at police? A lot different that 'stick em up coppers!' and pointing a gun like the internet jury here is presenting.

nkelsch wrote:


Google? And too bad the law disagrees with you... Being armed is not a death sentence in America... We have due process.

I didn't say a policeman should shoot when they see a gun. I said "respond". "Stop! Put the gun down! Lie down on your stomach with your hands behind your head!"

You don't comply and start raising your gun? Get ready to be shot at and potentially get killed.

There are plenty of situations in that scenario. The kid could have raised his gun while kicking his leg over the fence. The fact that he was running and pointing a gun at the police is reason enough for them to shoot, no? We will never know the exact circumstances. Unless we see running vid of the whole incident like we did when a poor black man was shot in a park and the policemen tossed a gun on the ground near him as if the gun was his.

The fact is a young man, who had a gun was running from the police, and now he is dead. Tragic, but 100% avoidable. That being said, possibly 100% justified as well.

The curious thing for me is why so many jump on the side of this young criminal? And before you jump on me asking, "how do you know he is was a criminal???" my response would be, what is a 16 year old doing with a gun in public like that? That in and of itself is illegal in the city is it not?

Mdlbuildr wrote:


The curious thing for me is why so many jump on the side of this young criminal? And before you jump on me asking, "how do you know he is was a criminal???" my response would be, what is a 16 year old doing with a gun in public like that? That in and of itself is illegal in the city is it not?

Because Chicago PD has a documented history of lies, coverups, falsifying reports and illegally acting with undue aggression towards citizens? Confirmed by both independent city investigations and the DOJ?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-cpd-accountability-task-force-report-20160412-htmlstory.html

Read the lengths officers went to manufacture evidence and flat out LIE in the McDonald Murder and you will see a pattern which makes it very hard to 'trust' the police in Chicago.

While I won't agree with those who say the gun was a plant, I can highly sympathize and understand those who feel the 'he was pointing a gun at me!' claim coming from a Chicago PO is not reassuring due to how often it is used falsely by officers there... And the circumstances of what we know which make such a situation highly improbable.

Being an armed gang member doesn't justify a shooting. Being illegally armed on the street doesn't justify a shooting. Running from police or not complying doesn't justify a shooting.

They need clear and present danger to themselves or others... Or reasonable belief that not subduing them would lead to the harm of the community at large (and in some states, need to be in the middle of a felonious act)

I just don't quite see that here, so I think there is room for justifiable outrage. It is their community, their corrupt police... I am not going to tell them how to feel when I don't have those corrupt police breathing down my neck on a daily basis.

nkelsch wrote:


Because Chicago PD has a documented history of lies, coverups, falsifying reports and illegally acting with undue aggression towards citizens? Confirmed by both independent city investigations and the DOJ?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-cpd-accountability-task-force-report-20160412-htmlstory.html

Read the lengths officers went to manufacture evidence and flat out LIE in the McDonald Murder and you will see a pattern which makes it very hard to 'trust' the police in Chicago.

While I won't agree with those who say the gun was a plant, I can highly sympathize and understand those who feel the 'he was pointing a gun at me!' claim coming from a Chicago PO is not reassuring due to how often it is used falsely by officers there... And the circumstances of what we know which make such a situation highly improbable.

This is absolutely a big problem.

What's the solution?

How do we then reconcile and admit when someone is at fault? Should we then assume that a 16 year old with a gun should be allowed on the street?

I would venture to say shut down the PD until you can clean it up. Would that make things better?

Maybe some of those youngster who are proficient with a firearm should consider being public servants and cleaning up their streets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Given that this was the Chicago PD and they have very recently been caught outright lying about murdering people for no reason, I do not trust that this was a good shoot.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Not sure I completely agree with the police needing to be transparent and to "earn" the public's trust. The public's trust should be implicit in the job description. Yes, there are always the bad apples, but to say that because there are a couple of bad ones, they all need to bend over backwards to please the public is a bit of a stretch.

Let's not cloud this with hyperbole. The public generally isn't looking for police to "bend over backwards" on anything. The public wants police to be fair, arbiters of the law. The public wants police to not abuse their authority. The public wants police to respect the life and property of the citizenry and not arbitrarily shoot or detain individuals for no reason. Or confiscate their property for no reason.

What the public sees instead are instance after instance of the police behaving badly. Are those instances a small percentage of all police actions throughout the country? Of course. But enough bad actions are making headlines that public trust in the police is tanking. The response police shouldn't take is to further exacerbate the distrust by refusing to do their jobs.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
The public needs to learn to be more respectful and realize that bad things will happen for sure if they break the law and then aren't mindful of what they are asked to do when they are caught.

Horse gak. The public does not need to be more respectful of public servants. Remember, police work for us. Respect is impossible without absolute transparency and a willingness to abide by the same laws that are enforced on the public. What the public is seeing is that police are not held to the same standards as we are. That is problematic and creates a sense that police are above the law.

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?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


The public generally isn't looking for police to "bend over backwards" on anything. The public wants police to be fair, arbiters of the law. The public wants police to not abuse their authority. The public wants police to respect the life and property of the citizenry and not arbitrarily shoot or detain individuals for no reason. Or confiscate their property for no reason.

What the public sees instead are instance after instance of the police behaving badly. Are those instances a small percentage of all police actions throughout the country? Of course. But enough bad actions are making headlines that public trust in the police is tanking. The response police shouldn't take is to further exacerbate the distrust by refusing to do their jobs.

I would venture to say that expecting Police to not intervene with deadly force when being threatened by a criminal running away and waving a gun at them is expecting them to bend over backwards.

Isn't it sad that for all the good they do, everyone seems to focus on the few bad instances? We are all human. Humans are fallible. These high standards you speak of are continuously proven false. Why keep expecting them? Just get rid of the bad seeds and move on with it.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


The public generally isn't looking for police to "bend over backwards" on anything. The public wants police to be fair, arbiters of the law. The public wants police to not abuse their authority. The public wants police to respect the life and property of the citizenry and not arbitrarily shoot or detain individuals for no reason. Or confiscate their property for no reason.

What the public sees instead are instance after instance of the police behaving badly. Are those instances a small percentage of all police actions throughout the country? Of course. But enough bad actions are making headlines that public trust in the police is tanking. The response police shouldn't take is to further exacerbate the distrust by refusing to do their jobs.

I would venture to say that expecting Police to not intervene with deadly force when being threatened by a criminal running away and waving a gun at them is expecting them to bend over backwards.

Isn't it sad that for all the good they do, everyone seems to focus on the few bad instances? We are all human. Humans are fallible. These high standards you speak of are continuously proven false. Why keep expecting them? Just get rid of the bad seeds and move on with it.

Because if the police are not held to high standards you cannot get rid of the bad seeds. Just because something is difficult, or maybe even impossible, doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive to achieve it.

 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?

If the officer truly believes the fleeing suspect is a danger to the public... yes.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


The public generally isn't looking for police to "bend over backwards" on anything. The public wants police to be fair, arbiters of the law. The public wants police to not abuse their authority. The public wants police to respect the life and property of the citizenry and not arbitrarily shoot or detain individuals for no reason. Or confiscate their property for no reason.

What the public sees instead are instance after instance of the police behaving badly. Are those instances a small percentage of all police actions throughout the country? Of course. But enough bad actions are making headlines that public trust in the police is tanking. The response police shouldn't take is to further exacerbate the distrust by refusing to do their jobs.

I would venture to say that expecting Police to not intervene with deadly force when being threatened by a criminal running away and waving a gun at them is expecting them to bend over backwards.

Isn't it sad that for all the good they do, everyone seems to focus on the few bad instances? We are all human. Humans are fallible. These high standards you speak of are continuously proven false. Why keep expecting them? Just get rid of the bad seeds and move on with it.

I don't think it is failure to meet the standards that DarkTraveler was upset about, it was failing to be held accountable when those standards are not met. There are too many instances when LEOs do not seem to be held accountable, and that creates a lasting impression which is difficult to overcome. From 'wrong address' no knocks at 0300 resulting in some families door caved in and the dog shot to bad shoots in which the cop isn't even fired let alone prosecuted, it happens. Maybe very rarely in comparison to overall police interactions with the public, but often enough that the idea of Blue Wall protecting even bad cops exists. Those bad seeds you mention seemingly get away with it too often.

Again, it is a perception issue, but it does exist.

Mdlbuildr wrote:


Isn't it sad that for all the good they do, everyone seems to focus on the few bad instances? We are all human. Humans are fallible. These high standards you speak of are continuously proven false. Why keep expecting them? Just get rid of the bad seeds and move on with it.

Because as found in CPD, it isn't a few bad seeds, it is institutionalized. It is setting up structures which are training cops to be bad because power corrupts.

If there was really only 'one bad seed' then where did the 8-10 other officers who lied and help falsify reports in the McDonald murder come from? And if they were all also bad seeds, how did they all end up at the same crime scene?

This 'few bad apples' is a farce. We are taking uneducated, unqualified, hot-headed, 19-year olds, and they are being trained by these 'bad seeds' to be the next round of police on the streets, and then they are rewarded internally due to corruption and poor attitudes to support that attitude until people who are daily oppressive cross a line and become murderers. Then the call is to 'stop the murderers' but never to 'stop the oppressive and corrupt'. Just sacrifice the one guy and get back to status quo.

So what's the solution folks? How would you fix these issues?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

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.

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.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
So what's the solution folks? How would you fix these issues?

You really dont.





Pick up the can citizen

 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...

Off Topic

First female just enter 19K MOS.

M1 tank crew member

As for the solution well. One has to do the six step to problem solving