All the talk abt due process

I hear ya! -- Only problem is - 'due process' (flawed though it is) is all that stands between us and totalitarianism (or, at very least, full blown anarchy)

PS HP Don't bother reminding me how you told me to stay out of it cuz you have to practice what you preach!

Indeed I should! -- So with that I'm off politics and back to electronics!

Best regards to everyone!
HP

 

Seems the guys wife in N.C. made her own video. Smart phones are making things different for law enforcement.
The TV stations have good video equipment and can pretty well analyze them. They need to get the police videos out or things are going to get worse.

 

What's next, Michael Brown and hands up?

What's next is Charlotte North Carolina where a man waiting in his habitual location, for his child to arrive on a school bus, inexplicably jumped out of his car with a gun and was surprised to find police officers in his sights.

 

I stated it quite clearly -- To wit: "Shooting an unarmed person in the back..."

Why Wrongful Police Killings Are Murder & Not Manslaughter
http://www.copblock.org/166400/police-killings-murder-manslaughter/

 

Why Wrongful Police Killings Are Murder & Not Manslaughter
http://www.copblock.org/166400/police-killings-murder-manslaughter/

and the solution is per that link?

Accountability is futile.

Abolish the police.

OK, that seems to be a good solution to the problem.

 

In my opinion, the solution is to quit screening for low I.Q and then teaching the morons to be twitchy little twits, afraid of their own shadows or adrenaline junkies with a gun.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-trigger-happy-cops-tinted-windows/

 

In my opinion, the solution is to quit screening for low I.Q and then teaching the morons to be twitchy little twits, afraid of their own shadows or adrenaline junkies with a gun.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-trigger-happy-cops-tinted-windows/

A big part of the problem is you have to ahead of the possible deadly threat not be be killed. A trigger pull takes 10 milliseconds but it takes a quarter second to think you see someone is reaching for a gun and another quarter second for you to pull the gun. So you're trained to have the gun ready at the first sight of trouble (the subjects hands moving) with your finger off the trigger.
If you don't do this you will get shot if the subject has a gun ready to fire.

 

OK. I see you're a disciple of the "shoot first, think later" school.
I only hope you're not employed to protect and serve.
These two things seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

OK. I see you're a disciple of the "shoot first, think later" school.
I only hope you're not employed to protect and serve.
These two things seem to be mutually exclusive.

I'm also glad not to be a cop.

There is another step to the process as your finger is off the trigger. The thinking part of the process is when to pull the trigger. This is where if you're told, ‘Don’t move’ and you move (especially your hands), the probability of you getting shot increases greatly. In both of the recent cases the people were shot at this stage while IMO moving to a position where the officer thought the hands would be hidden and that half second edge the officer held was reduced to zero in their minds.

 

NSFW language.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-fatal-encounter-between-police-keith-n653426

 

in their minds.

That seems to be the problem.
Charlotte: rolled up on the wrong person, time to fire reduced to zero...in his mind.
Tulsa: Broken down car, No crime suspected, time to fire reduced to zero...in her mind.
Post #706: No crime suspected, time to fire reduced to, "imminent"...in his mind.
Minnesota, Philando Castille: Premeditated bogus traffic stop, time to fire reduced to zero...in his mind.
Ferguson Mo.: No gun involved, time to fire reduced to zero...in his mind.
New York, Laquan McDonald (?) Walking away, time to fire (16 times) reduced to zero...in his mind.
John Crawford, "suspect" unaware of police presence, time to fire reduced to zero...in his mind.
Walter Scott, S. Carolina: running away from a traffic stop, time to fire reduced to zero...in his mind.

I think killing unarmed people because you imagine a threat that doesn't exist is a problem.
Some people think shooting them first is the "safe" way to protect and serve.

 

If rioting is the new way to protest..........then my arming right is a machine gun.

 

I think killing unarmed people because you imagine a threat that doesn't exist is a problem.
Some people think shooting them first is the "safe" way to protect and serve.

No question about that. But what is the solution? I think with screening and training (ie. more taxpayer dollars) the rate of mistakes might go down a bit. I think cutting the mistakes in half might be darn near impossible. So if I had to guess, I'd say spending 30% more on cops might produce a 10% reduction in dicey shootings.

We expect our police to deal with incredibly dangerous douche bags, on our behalf. We recognize they need to be armed to do their jobs and protect themselves. When you put dangerous douche bags in conjunction with cops with guns and multiply by thousands of interactions daily, there WILL be bad shoots.

It's really like a quality control problem. How do we get to zero defects (bad shoots)? Identify assignable causes, embrace best practices, fire the outliers. I think we do all that to a degree.

 

Identify assignable causes, embrace best practices, fire the outliers.

I saw what I think is a good idea: Have each police officer buy personal liability insurance instead of making the taxpayers pay for their crimes. Even if the taxpayers buy the insurance, the insurance companies will weed out the serious screw-ups by refusing to insure them. That still won't put them in jail for murder, but it will thin the herd of adrenaline junkies, power mad cowboys, wife beaters, kiddie porn purveyors, and drug dealers with a badge.

http://www.policemisconduct.net/

 

If rioting is the new way to protest..........then my arming right is a machine gun.

When that line of armored cops advances, beating their shields with their clubs, squeezing the herd of citizens into smaller and smaller spaces, inciting terror like a terrorist does...you go girl!

You don't even have to try to get a bullet through their armor. They will run like bunnies when they hear the sound of people able to defend themselves.

 

I think killing unarmed people because you imagine a threat that doesn't exist is a problem.
Some people think shooting them first is the "safe" way to protect and serve.

Unless you want more police officers to die it is safer for them. Yes it's a problem and I hate that it works that way for the innocent but until we can see into the future I see little hope of change other than a cosmetic makeover unless we demand a no first use policy. We didn't do that for nukes so it's unlikely we will do it for police shootings.

 

I see little hope of change other than a cosmetic makeover unless we demand a no first use policy.

Maybe we can start with half measures? How about, "no first use" against unarmed people, the back of any unarmed person, people who are already handcuffed and laying face down, people who are stripped to their skivvies and in a jail cell. Then maybe forbid drawing a gun for a broken tail light traffic stop or a bogus traffic stop based on lying about a broken tail light? (Philandro Castille)

Sorry to be incomplete. Good show on TV right now.

 

If there is one thing I’ve learned about media firestorms in the modern age of one-hour news cycles and 15-second attention spans, it’s that whoever tells the first story which the news media likes is the “winner.” Once the narrative is set in stone (when the news media works in unison that takes about two days, tops), the truth will face a battle that is severely uphill, into the wind, on ice, and will almost never prevail.
---John Ziegler July 2016

Rings true, even in this thread.

 

All you naysayers should ask your local police if you can participate in the shoot/no shoot scenarios to get a better understanding of what they are facing.

I wish you good luck if you participate.

If you can't, here are some videos ...

 

Rings true, even in this thread.

We need an invention. A device that is incapacitating but not lethal.
It would be helpful if it didn't hurt.
I kind of like the idea of not starting a chase for a minor infraction like they offer here. I think once the adrenaline is flowing fast, bad things happen.
The NC one is a good example. The guy didn't do anything. What would have been lost by stepping back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/in...f-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/