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.

You know, incarceration rates are unbalanced, ok, maybe.

Should we start getting harder on prosecution of whites, thereby making our rates climb even higher? Or should we just stop prosecuting blacks, because it's not "fair".

The argument is made that the socioeconomic status sucks, because to many are in jail. Well, maybe they shouldn't have broken the law then?

In terms of the fairness, a broken law is a broken law. If there are more whites committing crimes, and not getting prosecuted/jailed for it, then the system is at fault there. The second you start saying it's not their fault, because they're in jail... well you're wrong. They made the choices that landed them there.

 djones520 wrote:
You know, incarceration rates are unbalanced, ok, maybe.

Should we start getting harder on prosecution of whites, thereby making our rates climb even higher? Or should we just stop prosecuting blacks, because it's not "fair".

The argument is made that the socioeconomic status sucks, because to many are in jail. Well, maybe they shouldn't have broken the law then?

In terms of the fairness, a broken law is a broken law. If there are more whites committing crimes, and not getting prosecuted/jailed for it, then the system is at fault there. The second you start saying it's not their fault, because they're in jail... well you're wrong. They made the choices that landed them there.

I both agree and disagree. It might be their own fault that they're in jail, but the best community response to a minor drug charge isn't to put people in jail in the first place, it only hurts the community more.

But that said, I think it's all tangential issues rather than core issues, the core issues being an attitude of victimhood, poor education, young/poor single mothers and other similar issues. I think I read somewhere that around 80% of black kids are born to single mothers? That's not really a stat you can blame on incarceration rates or police shooting the odd person but it's definitely going to lead to deep seeded socio-economic issues.

I would hazard a guess that a good portion of the people in jail didn't actually commit a crime. They are just bullied into accepting a plea deal.

Plus, a black male is more likely than a white male to be convicted by a jury and will on average receive a higher sentence.

Add in that blacks have a harder time getting hired. There have been numerous studies that if the name sounds black, the resume will get fewer responses.

You can't blame these things on personal choices.

 djones520 wrote:

The argument is made that the socioeconomic status sucks, because to many are in jail. Well, maybe they shouldn't have broken the law then?

I would argue that a criminal record should not be an immediate disqualification for certain forms of employment, and that certain not-white people are often seen as equivalent to having a criminal record even if one does not exist. Often the thought is "They didn't get caught."

I have seen both these things happen in every job where I've had the responsibility to hire people, and it was almost always CYA nonsense, and it generally led to hiring a less competent person.

Col. Dash wrote:
Tulsa-
-She apparently meant to fire her tazer, not her gun. I have seen these "gunslinger" setups cops wear, I have often wondered how many times they draw the wrong one. Most of the tazers I have seen look and draw very similarly to guns. This is probably why they got her on manslaughter charges.

"Apparently" according to... who? Are you sure you're not just pulling this out of your ass? I've read absolutely no story whatsoever that indicates that she confused her (approximately 40 ounce) firearm for her (7 ounce) taser.

Her own lawyer isn't even floating this crazy bs, so why are you?

"She was yelling at him to stop, for probably at least 10 to 15 seconds. He gets to the window of the SUV, and has his hands in the air, looks at them ... and his left hand goes into the window," at which point one officer deployed his Taser and Shelby fired her service weapon. Shelby had a Taser but did not take it out, the attorney said.
Wood told CNN in a follow-up interview that his client had her gun out because she was the only officer there for a few minutes and she thought Crutcher was armed. The second officer had a Taser because the "proper tactic ... in that scenario is for second person ... to have less lethal (weapon)," said Wood, a former police officer.

Suicide by cop? jfc

 redleger wrote:
OK, now I am no genius. But is there not a correlation between high incarceration rates leading to the decline of crime rates?

If it were a 1 to 1 relationship, we should have seen incarceration rates even out and begin a decline at some point earlier than 2011ish. Obviously crimes take time to investigate and prosecute, but over 10 years after the decline began is just too long. Crime started dropping steadily in the mid 90s, but incarcerations continued to rapidly rise from the rest of the 90s and on into the 00s. An obvious answer is that convictions proportional to to arrests increased. Even though there were/are fewer crimes and thus there were/are fewer arrests, the punishments are harsher and the likely hood of conviction much higher. A more accurate answer is that over all crime has dropped, but that the invention of a whole new list of drug laws has lead to a much higher rate of conviction for specific charges (drug charges);



Drug arrests rose in relative proportion to our incarceration rate, which isn't surprising given that most of the people we now incarcerate are incarcerated for drug crimes. Mandatory sentencing almost certainly played a role in this, but much heavier police presence and action against drug specific offenses is also in play. The Drug War wasn't much of a war before the late 70s.

If you suddenly stopped incarcerating people, do you think crime rates would continue to be on the decline.

Honestly this is probably impossible to know right now. Historians, Sociologists, and Political Scientists are still largely clueless why Crime Rates in the US spiked in the 60s, and suddenly sharply declined starting in the 90s. The drop and rise are poorly defined, and poorly understood in the grand scheme.

It seems like you are tryign to say we incarcerate too many people, while in a parallel crime is going down, but incarceration is bad, crime rate decline is good, and they are not related.

Having incarceration rate is of course a bad thing depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, it does mean people are being punished for crimes. It means your throwing a whole ton of people into prison, and one has to wonder if its really worthwhile to criminalize some behaviors. A crime rate decline is of course good, but their relation cannot be assumed to be zero sum. It is a common mistake that pervades how Americans look at criminal justice and law enforcement. The reality is that punishment and crime are related factors but they do not necessarily share a causal relationship such that change in one directly reflects change in the other. Despite the invention of a whole new list of crimes, and a lot of arrest for them, in the 80s, our crime rate still started dropping in the 90s even as drug related arrests and convictions continued to rise.

 djones520 wrote:
Should we start getting harder on prosecution of whites, thereby making our rates climb even higher? Or should we just stop prosecuting blacks, because it's not "fair".

There's that obtuseness.

It's not about fair. It's about how stupid this all is. Curiously, the incarceration rate began to drop in 2011. Guess what happened in 2010? The end of Federal mandatory sentencing for Crack Cocaine possession alongside retroactive sentencing reductions. It's curious that even though crack cocaine * makes up a very small portion of total US drug use, it carried widely disproportionate penalties. There are people in prison for 20 years for having a very small amount of stuff (even longer if charged with "intent to distribute"). We send people to prison on shorter terms for manslaughter. The police officer in Tulsa if convicted will spend less time in jail for killing a man than someone found with a baggie of crack in their pocket (well... you know before we through out that mandatory sentence for simple possession which is no longer in play at the Federal level).

*I couldn't manage to find an infographic of total drug use for the US, so I'm simply linking this giant list of charts. Curious stat; Illicit lifetime drug use among blacks is (thousands) 15,079. Among whites its (thousands) 91,533. But yes. Lets pretend that the rampantly wild disproportion at which blacks are convicted of drug charges is just "they shouldn't commit crimes" and that there is zero racism at all in any of this.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

The argument is made that the socioeconomic status sucks, because to many are in jail. Well, maybe they shouldn't have broken the law then?

I would argue that a criminal record should not be an immediate disqualification for certain forms of employment, and that certain not-white people are often seen as equivalent to having a criminal record even if one does not exist. Often the thought is "They didn't get caught."

I have seen both these things happen in every job where I've had the responsibility to hire people, and it was almost always CYA nonsense, and it generally led to hiring a less competent person.

On that I agree.

Is it racism or economics? Put another way, are poor whites getting any advantage over poor blacks? Not really. It's just that minority groups have disproportionately high rates of poverty and if you are poor, things get bad. While race and economics are tied, I think trying to address it as purely race misses the bigger problem. Wealthier minorities, for example, don't suffer the same issues.

Inequality is not a 1 dimensional beast, but the largest axis is wealth.

 Ouze wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Tulsa-
-She apparently meant to fire her tazer, not her gun. I have seen these "gunslinger" setups cops wear, I have often wondered how many times they draw the wrong one. Most of the tazers I have seen look and draw very similarly to guns. This is probably why they got her on manslaughter charges.

"Apparently" according to... who? Are you sure you're not just pulling this out of your ass? I've read absolutely no story whatsoever that indicates that she confused her (approximately 40 ounce) firearm for her (7 ounce) taser.

Her own lawyer isn't even floating this crazy bs, so why are you?

I almost wonder if he is thinking about the old guy from a few years ago, which also happened in Tulsa.

 Ouze wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Tulsa-
-She apparently meant to fire her tazer, not her gun. I have seen these "gunslinger" setups cops wear, I have often wondered how many times they draw the wrong one. Most of the tazers I have seen look and draw very similarly to guns. This is probably why they got her on manslaughter charges.

"Apparently" according to... who? Are you sure you're not just pulling this out of your ass? I've read absolutely no story whatsoever that indicates that she confused her (approximately 40 ounce) firearm for her (7 ounce) taser.

Her own lawyer isn't even floating this crazy bs, so why are you?

I've heard that vein floating around as well, not sure if it's legit or not.

At any rate, a co-worker of mine was military police, before he switched to weather. We talked about that, and he says it happens quite often, that an officer will reach for his taser, and grab his pistol. It's a result of bad training.

From what I read of the officers statement though, she didn't try the taser defense. Sounded like she panicked, and made a bad shoot. Charges are definitely seeming warranted.

 jmurph wrote:
Is it racism or economics? Put another way, are poor whites getting any advantage over poor blacks? Not really. It's just that minority groups have disproportionately high rates of poverty and if you are poor, things get bad. While race and economics are tied, I think trying to address it as purely race misses the bigger problem. Wealthier minorities, for example, don't suffer the same issues.

Inequality is not a 1 dimensional beast, but the largest axis is wealth.

It's a combination of both. Being black means a less chance of being hired to begin with so less chance of bringing yourself out of poverty.

Plus, being black means more of a chance of a cop harassing you, less of a chance of people believing your story, and more of a chance of a jury to convict you.

Add in the other economic things, and it gets worse.

 jmurph wrote:
Inequality is not a 1 dimensional beast, but the largest axis is wealth.

I think that's the main thing. Well that and family stability. I'm sure race is a factor in some cases, I'm not convinced it's the main barrier or even a large barrier.

Go to a university basically anywhere and ask people studying medicine, law, engineering, science, etc what their background is.... it's overwhelmingly expensive private schools and/or well off parents living in the better parts of town. You do get some people who dragged themselves out of a gakky poor working class town, but the bias is obvious. I don't consider the area I grew up in to be particularly poor, but it's most definitely working class and the proportion of high school students who went on to meaningful university degrees is tiny.

For all the talk of sexism in STEM fields, I can count more females in the engineering department at my university than I can count kids from working class backgrounds.

When the people from those backgrounds are visually distinctive by skin colour, then the disparity it more apparent, but I still think the driving factors aren't race.

But then I guess it has to be a visually distinctive disparity before anyone gives a crap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 redleger wrote:
OK, now I am no genius. But is there not a correlation between high incarceration rates leading to the decline of crime rates?

If it were a 1 to 1 relationship, we should have seen incarceration rates even out and begin a decline at some point earlier than 2011ish.

Funnily enough, if you look at murder rates vs male incarceration rates, both levelled out around 2000.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png

But just because there's a relationship doesn't mean you expect perfect correlation, crime rate is obviously influenced by a lot of factors.

But anyway, I think you're the main one wanting to turn this in to a discussion about incarceration rate. It's a pretty widely held belief that America's war on drugs isn't the most intelligent approach, other western countries manage similar crime levels without locking up 1 in every 30 or so young males.

I've often wondered if it's a cultural problem. I read somewhere (can't remember the source right now) that in the 60's about 90 percent of black children had a house with a father that worked. Today it said only about 40 percent have that. Now I think everyone can agree that racism was much worse back then. So what changed. I'm honestly asking if anyone knows.

The Scoot family lawyers have released a cell phone video the wife shot during the incident.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/keith-scotts-family-releases-video-of-police-shooting.html

From watching it you can see what appears to be a pistol on the ground as the cops are over Scott's body. At one point one of the cops picks it up. Video is not that great though and the shooting itself is heard but not shown.

Wife remained admirably calm during the whole thing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But just because there's a relationship doesn't mean you expect perfect correlation, crime rate is obviously influenced by a lot of factors.

I've never claimed there is a perfect correlation.

But anyway, I think you're the main one wanting to turn this in to a discussion about incarceration rate.

That would be why I keep trying to bring it up, and why zeroing in on the murder rate, an insignificant amount of total US crime, is not really a response to any of the things I've mentioned.

I've claimed that a lot of black men end up in prison, and they end up in prison disproportionately. That the large growth of our incarceration rate since 1980 heavily effected African Americans more so than it affected hispanics or whites., and that growth was foremost driven by the War on Drugs.

It would seem rather relevant to a discussion of whether or not the system has failed African Americans, and especially relevant to explaining why they might have a significant underlying frustration with law enforcement and the criminal justice system. We could talk about how higher police presence in black neighborhoods also results in a much higher frequency of general citations for African Americans, but I suppose if I try talking about that someone will just harp on about how Blacks must jay walk more frequently than whites so why bother?

Why is she lying saying he has no gun, when you can see what definitely looks like a gun laying next to his corpse, which in no way resembles a book?

 redleger wrote:
Why is she lying saying he has no gun, when you can see what definitely looks like a gun laying next to his corpse, which in no way resembles a book?

Without having seen the video myself I can't help but wonder, if the shooting wasn't shown and the gun is on the ground, how do you know it's his gun?

 redleger wrote:
Why is she lying saying he has no gun, when you can see what definitely looks like a gun laying next to his corpse, which in no way resembles a book?

The corresponding argument is that it was a "drop gun", and not actually the victim's. I haven't watched the video in question, as I have no desire to see a man's last moments of life, but I'm not going to make any judgements until at least more than one video is released to show for sure what he was or was not carrying.

One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.

How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Nope.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.

But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.

I think police are way too liberal with their use of lethal force, but I really don't think "get fired regardless of whether it was justified" is the solution. Not when we could just clear the air of this blue wall bull crap and start dealing with problem officers. If accounts are to be believed, a small number of them drag down entire forces. Seems a more sensible starting point XD

Putting cops in the position of getting fired might reduce shootings, but I don't think the other results of that policy change are going to be to our liking.

 skyth wrote:
One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.

We don't have a full picture yet.

If he had his gun in his hands... that's not "open carry". That's brandishing, which is illegal.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.

We don't have a full picture yet.

If he had his gun in his hands... that's not "open carry". That's brandishing, which is illegal.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

 djones520 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Nope.

Care to elaborarate? Nope? Why is this a bad idea?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Nope.

Care to elaborarate? Nope? Why is this a bad idea?

One, sometimes peace is brought about by violence. When you threaten an officers livelihood, it is going to add another layer of hesitation to a decision that may cost them theirs, or someone else's lives. That is unacceptable. A police officers job has never been to not take lives. It is a part of their duty. It is why, even those European nations who consider themselves "morally superior" to us, still have armed police.

The need for it is there, no matter where you are, and to threaten it, would be gravely irresponsible.

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.

But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.

Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.

But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.

Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.

Just a friendly reminder...

It's not 'thou shalt not kill'... it's 'thou shalt not murder'.

But, I'll expand what djones stated. There is justified killing and we all must be cognizant of the differences between justified killing vs murder/manslaughter.

 djones520 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Nope.

Care to elaborarate? Nope? Why is this a bad idea?

One, sometimes peace is brought about by violence. When you threaten an officers livelihood, it is going to add another layer of hesitation to a decision that may cost them theirs, or someone else's lives. That is unacceptable. A police officers job has never been to not take lives. It is a part of their duty. It is why, even those European nations who consider themselves "morally superior" to us, still have armed police.
.
The need for it is there, no matter where you are, and to threaten it, would be gravely irresponsible.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame an officer for doing his or her duty, even if that means the unfortunate death of someone else, but I want that hesitation in my police officers. I don't want the kill first, ask questions later policy. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a lot of European cops don't carry firearms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.

But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.

Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.

Just a friendly reminder...

It's not 'thou shalt not kill'... it's 'thou shalt not murder'.

But, I'll expand what djones stated. There is justified killing and we all must be cognizant of the differences between justified killing vs murder/manslaughter.

No it isn't "murder" it is a much broader word. The original text (retzach) implies "destroy" or "break to pieces" no intent or motive is suggested.. Again, I was just throwing this out there as a thought game, but I'll defend it. We would still be aware of the distinction between murder and manslaughter and justified defense.