protests over the cantbreath incedent in the US

[TACRfan]

i want to address this whole #cantbreath incident in america, as i am not from america i wanted to ask are the police there very militarized and/or violent, or is this just an over reaction to a particular incident. I also want to ask a question would these protests and clashes with police happened if it was a white guy in the incident and the Ferguson incident. 

 

I had to ask these questions here as it seems that this is one of the most down to earth forums on the internet so i would hopefully get a good answer.

 

IF I HAVE ACCIDENTALLY OFFENDED ANYONE BY POSTING THIS PLEASE MESSAGE ME AND I WILL ASK AN ADMIN TO REMOVE THE TOPIC. 

 

I do not condone violence on both sides of the argument.

[CCCXLII]

America is an interesting place. Here, a citizen can legally own a tank, WW2-era cannons, powerful firearms and explosives, and strong body armor that deflect bullets (see North Hollywood shootout on wikipedia). And even if a particular item is illegal in your state, you can probably either pick it up in the next state or find a black market for it. And even if you seriously can't find it, then you can probably make it (see Marvin Heemeyer on wikipedia). It sounds crazy, but it's how the whole freedom thing works. Take freedom of religion for example: all religions must be allowed under any circumstances, because if even one is held above another or banned, then any religion is 'free-game' (anything could be banned, a state church could rise, etc.). Same with freedom of speech, either it's all allowed or none of it is allowed. Liberty and justice for all, that sort of thing.

 

It follows then, that if any criminal or potential criminal could get their hands on these sorts of equipment, that the police should already have military equipment available for use (see Hans Hansen at The Oregonian news). This is where we have a problem, because the average person isn't packing a weapon, but the police are always going to assume they are, and that means that if a civilian or criminal makes a bad move that alarms an officer, they could find themselves pinned to the ground or worse, shot and killed (see Officer Mark Rine and Rumain Brisbon at Fox News). The police aren't wrong to respond this way though, because police officers are often killed by criminals just on the virtue of them being police officers (see Officer Jeremy Henwood at NBC San Diego news). In-fact one thing you'll never see here in the US is police officers patrolling on foot, just because it would make them too easy of a target. Bike cops are also rare/non-existent, but that depends on where you live (though I certainly haven't spotted any in Seattle or the rest of Washington state in my two years of living here).

 

Something else that's interesting: Eric Garner isn't the first person to die because of a chokehold applied by law enforcement. In-fact, in most states, chokeholds are banned or restricted for use by law enforcement. This is because police would apply them, someone would die, and there would be protests against the use of chokeholds. But for some reason, in this case, instead of protesting the use of chokeholds for compliance, it's a race issue. It's confusing and suspicious, and there are even some rumors that there are 'agitators' among these protesters that, for their own gain, are actively trying to turn these sort of things into a race issue. Then again, maybe it's just a race issue because it happened so close to the whole Ferguson thing. Who can really say for sure?

 

tl;dr IMHO the police here are rightfully militarized and rightfully violent. There would still be protests if it was a "white guy".

[Handsup!]

You purchase all of those things in the UK too, you just need a good reason.

 

This is covered by the same sort of laws that allow you to carry knives when hiking but not when going down to the shops.

 

I agree with the above post, though.

[TACRfan]

Yes you can purchase replica fire arms in the UK but you have to have a valid reason, like I own and restored the vehicle in my signature (one like that) and all though it is a fire engine because it's based on when they where on harrier deployment part of the kit was a sterling 9mm smg so I have a valid reason for owning it. You can also purchase tanks in this country but they have to be certified(same with guns) and come with a certificate of deactivation. But I can see where you are coming from about the police

America is an interesting place. Here, a citizen can legally own a tank, WW2-era cannons, powerful firearms and explosives, and strong body armor that deflect bullets (see North Hollywood shootout on wikipedia). And even if a particular item is illegal in your state, you can probably either pick it up in the next state or find a black market for it. And even if you seriously can't find it, then you can probably make it (see Marvin Heemeyer on wikipedia). It sounds crazy, but it's how the whole freedom thing works. Take freedom of religion for example: all religions must be allowed under any circumstances, because if even one is held above another or banned, then any religion is 'free-game' (anything could be banned, a state church could rise, etc.). Same with freedom of speech, either it's all allowed or none of it is allowed. Liberty and justice for all, that sort of thing.

 

It follows then, that if any criminal or potential criminal could get their hands on these sorts of equipment, that the police should already have military equipment available for use (see Hans Hansen at The Oregonian news). This is where we have a problem, because the average person isn't packing a weapon, but the police are always going to assume they are, and that means that if a civilian or criminal makes a bad move that alarms an officer, they could find themselves pinned to the ground or worse, shot and killed (see Officer Mark Rine and Rumain Brisbon at Fox News). The police aren't wrong to respond this way though, because police officers are often killed by criminals just on the virtue of them being police officers (see Officer Jeremy Henwood at NBC San Diego news). In-fact one thing you'll never see here in the US is police officers patrolling on foot, just because it would make them too easy of a target. Bike cops are also rare/non-existent, but that depends on where you live (though I certainly haven't spotted any in Seattle or the rest of Washington state in my two years of living here).

 

Something else that's interesting: Eric Garner isn't the first person to die because of a chokehold applied by law enforcement. In-fact, in most states, chokeholds are banned or restricted for use by law enforcement. This is because police would apply them, someone would die, and there would be protests against the use of chokeholds. But for some reason, in this case, instead of protesting the use of chokeholds for compliance, it's a race issue. It's confusing and suspicious, and there are even some rumors that there are 'agitators' among these protesters that, for their own gain, are actively trying to turn these sort of things into a race issue. Then again, maybe it's just a race issue because it happened so close to the whole Ferguson thing. Who can really say for sure?

 

tl;dr IMHO the police here are rightfully militarized and rightfully violent. There would still be protests if it was a "white guy".

[Ace]

The police aren't overprotected, they use all their equipment because shots are fired at them and bricks are thrown at them. This would've never happened if people got jobs and worked for a living instead of wasting time rioting.

 

Now a few words from Lieutenant;

 

Today, I stopped caring about my fellow man. I stopped caring about my community, my neighbors, and those I serve.

 

I stopped caring today because a once noble profession has become despised, hated, distrusted, and mostly unwanted.

 

I stopped caring today because parents refuse to teach their kids right from wrong and blame us when they are caught breaking the law. I stopped caring today because parents tell their little kids to be good or “the police will take you away” embedding a fear from year-one. Moms hate us in their schools because we frighten them and remind them of the evil that lurks in the world. They would rather we stay unseen, but close by if needed, but readily available to “fix their kid”.

 

I stopped caring today because we work to keep our streets safe from mayhem in the form of reckless, drunk, high, or speeding drivers, only to be hated for it, yet hated even more because we didn't catch the drunk before he killed someone they may know. Never less, we are just another tool used by government to generate "revenue".

 

I stopped caring today because Liberals hate the police as we carry guns, scare kids, and take away their drugs. We always kill innocent people with unjust violence. We are called bullies for using a taser during a fight, but are condemned further for not first tasing the guy who pulls a gun on us. And if we do have to shoot, we are asked “why didn’t you just shoot the gun out of their hand?” And when one of us is killed by the countless attacks that do happen (but are rarely reported in the mainstream media) the haters say, "Its just part of the job".

 

I stopped caring today because Conservatives hate us as we are “the Government”. We try to take away their guns, freedoms, and liberty at every turn. We represent a “Police State” where “jackbooted-badge wearing thugs” randomly attack innocent people without cause or concern for constitutional rights. We are Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Rodney King all rolled into one lone police officer stopping to help change an old lady's tire.

 

I stopped caring today as no one wants us around, but instantly demands answers, results, arrests, when a crime takes place. If a crime isn't solved within the allocated 60 minutes it takes CSI on television, we are inept, incompetent, or covering something up. If we do get “lucky” it was just that and everyone with a Facebook account can post wonderful comments of how “they” would solve the case and how “we” and not nearly as clever.

 

I stopped caring today because a video of a cop six states away, from a department that you never heard of, screws up and forgets his oath of honor, thus firing up an internet lynch-mob of cop haters because “we all do the same things” even though 99% of us work twice as hard not to end up in the news and to still be “the good guys”. We are "militarized" because we wear body armor and kevlar helmets when shots are fired or rocks thrown at us and carry scary looking rifles even though everyone knows that they are easier to shoot and are more accurate than a handgun or a shotgun.

 

I stopped caring today because the culture of today’s instantly connected youth is only there to take and never give back. To never accept responsibility for ones actions, but to blame everyone else instead of themselves. To ask “what is in it for me?” versus “what can I do for you?” To idolize gangsters, thugs, sexual promiscuous behavoir, and criminals over hard work, dedication, and achievement. To argue that getting stoned should be a right, yet getting a job or an education is a hassle. To steal verus earn. To hate versus help.

 

Yes, I stopped caring today.

 

But tomorrow, I will put my uniform back on,.................... and I will care again.

 

Lt. Daniel Furseth

DeForest Police (WI)

[TheHockeydude39]

Short and sweet,

  Maybe you wouldn't get the shit beat out of you if you didn't.. oh I don't know... ATTACK A COP

[MikeyPI]

People like to side with one side or the other.. "oh it's the police that are too aggressive" "oh if they werent criminals this wouldnt happen" 

 

Truth is, yes police forces are over-equipped and ill-trained in alot of regions in the USA, this will offend some people, but it is the inconvenient truth.  The tools at their disposal are unfortunately left largely at their discretion upon when to use them.  Given the thin blue line brotherhood mentality, when one does wrong it is highly unusual for them to be outed for what they've done.  Instead for the good of the department it is more common for them to find no wrongdoing and to just relocate the officer to a different division.  Some agencies are good about ensuring the ethics of their officers and being on the straight and level, but there are a great number who will do everything in their power to avoid scandals too.  You can't use one side to offset the other, in the end it depends on the departments.

 

The truth is escalation is used for having all the militarized weapons on the law enforcement's side, but at the same time the fact that the police have higher power weapons is why criminals strive so hard for them as well.  The North Hollywood shootout type of incidents are EXTREMELY rare, and that is the main justification for weapons like the AR-15 being available for law enforcement.  Anyone who's ever dealt with a rifle like that understands that it must be deployed with great care in an urban/populated environment, it really isnt ideal for an urban area because of penetration issues.  Yet in some places it is commonplace in patrol vehicles, not just swat.  imo that is an overreach that will not have a positive ending.

 

The police here especially as of late I've noticed are far more high-tension than a few years ago, as to why that is who's to say?  Police MUST be held accountable for their actions just the same as criminal suspects, but realize there are incidents where someone is being "non-compliant" that when a recording surfaces clearly shows they were in fact doing nothing wrong to end up in the position to where a cop should be assaulting them.  If I were placed in a position that a police officer were grabbing at me attempting to assault me, police or no, I would respond, and I would respond extremely violently.  Human nature dictates one will defend themselves when attacked, just because you have a badge won't remove those basic animal instincts from the person(s) you're engaging.  People will fight to the death with 4-5 guys assaulting them, and just because you're a cop doesnt give you any more right to attack someone than anyone else, as of late it seems that point has been lost.  There was a time when police attempted to detain a suspect, their goal was to get them in cuffs, time and again i've seen overreaches where they've used force excessively b/c they are angry over the incident, it's a human reaction, but one you should be accountable for.  People are just fed up with the appearance of corruption and overreach by gov in general, not just police.

 

In america more than other nations, race is still a very hot-button issue, it is used by many to promote their causes, and for profit.  Sadly, in america it is still a very commonplace justification for why an incident happened... In most cases wrongfully so.  If roles are reversed, generally (again going to offend some, but it's my opinion) a minority-on-white incident does not receive the same treatment as a white-on-minority...  The media is the primary cause of race-baiting unfortunately, thus propagating the issue and keeping it alive and well.  Most nations around the world are much more mature in resolving the racial tensions that they have from previous eras, in america people like to hold onto them for justification as to why they should be given more, instead of striving for equality.

 

In closing, I am sure I will upset some people with my statements, but they are my opinions alone and anyone is welcome to comment here as well, as long as it is kept civil we at EMP won't be pursuing differences of opinions, just as long as they are done in a civil, mature matter.

[Fred03]

I think most of the issues with policing in the US comes from lack of funding for PDs across the country, specifically in the areas of training. As for the issue of police weapons I do not believe that assault riffles and shotguns should be used all the time I do think they should be available to all patrol officers, the fact of the matter is that since pretty much any citizen of the US can get assault riffles and shotguns the police force needs to have comparable or superior weaponry to criminals, its just that simple. Cops cannot be outgunned by criminals and that cannot be allowed for society to exist in a healthy state.

 

Many of these issues need to be solved however due to the ridiculous amount of partisan polarization in American politics. For example if background checks were required for all weapon sales a number of lives could surely be saved each year. Also due to a number of stupid laws that were pushed by groups like the NRA the government cannot put gun ownership records into an easily accessible format, such as a searchable computer database, this needs to be changed immediately. (For more on this subject http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102505823.html)

 

 

Oh and @TACRfan, you need another option or two like
In some situations
Generally
Sometimes but rarely

 

Such absolute answers just lead to more unreasonable, all or nothing opinions.

[MikeyPI]

@ Fred, that's my primary concern as well. The lack of appropriate training for how/when to use their tools, I do not have anything against tools, but there is a time and a place for every tool.  Be it a firearm, Patrol unit, air unit, etc.  The problem with most depts. are they purchase the things without appropriate protocols or training for their use resulting in mishaps from them.  The other problem I have is so called "less than lethal" that if mis-used are just as effective at killing as their supposedly lethal counterparts.  Tools should never be used for convenience because they make things easier, the taser isnt an immediate compliance tool, sometimes the extra 3 minutes of reasoning with someone is the more appropriate option rather than escalation.

 

The problem with giving more people (including law enforcement) firearms that generally have no place in the civilized world is that by proxy, some of those weapons will end up in the wrong hands.  Just as time and again legal gun owners don't make up the lion's share of crime committed with firearms, most of the firearms used in crime are not procured legally.  They are stolen, which the only way to prevent that is to remove them from circulation completely, which violates the 2nd amendment and frankly is unrealistic given the popularity of firearms in this country.

 

I agree that partisan politics on both sides lead to nothing productive resulting, the pro-gunners want to be able to own a rocket launcher, the anti-gun wants even toy guns removed from the market... With the two extremes it is not shocking that every effort fails miserably.  Love it or leave it the right to bear arms does exist in this country, but imo it was never designed to include some of the various weapons out there that have no civilian or recreational application (safely, anyway).  I believe background checks, within reason can and should be required for firearms, I however, do not believe it would be wise to have one unified database stating where every single gun is registered, sad truth is some anti-gun nutjob a few years ago went so far as to try to publish on the public domain who all owned firearms in a town because they got ahold of the registration records.. Imagine if the criminal element got ahold of such a list, it'd be a wal-mart for fresh guns on the street to know who has what at which addresses.  We live in a world where compromised data can and does do damage, so having things available with easy-access can result in negative fallout.

 

In the end more control, more training, and higher penalties for crimes committed with violence will have far more of an impact than aggression from law enforcement.

[Fred03]

The thing is that criminals don't need to steal guns from the houses of private citizens, with $300 anyone can walk into a pawnshop in the country and walk out with a gun, no questions asked so the leak of a gun registry wouldn't be much risk I think. As for the second amendment the folks on the right have taken that to be a absolute but when it really comes down to it if you take it in the context it was written it was more to ensure national defense seeing as the Constitution prohibits a standing army hence the need for a militia. Don't get me wrong I am thrilled to death the US has the best army on the planet but it does negate the original need for armed citizens. And the "well regulated militia" (that the true gun nuts use as a excuse to have their little heavily armed drinking parties) already exists in the form of our National Guard and our reserve standing army units (Army Reserve and such)

[Quincy]

Incident in my state recently 

 

BOSTON —Massachusetts State Police said Wednesday they were still attempting to contact the man who posted a video to YouTube that appeared to show a trooper using pepper spray on a protester in Boston.

RELATED

•  Thieves delete photos of dead child...
•  PD: Students in Vermont killed, ate...
•  20/20 hindsight: Cherington wishes...
•  Officer buys item woman was allegedly...
•  Wednesday, December 10: Home Delivery

Kin Moy, interviewed by NewsCenter 5 on Sunday, said he was videotaping arrests Thursday at the Boston protests for two recent grand jury decisions to clear police officers involved in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, when a state trooper used pepper spray on him.

Moy caught the incident on video and uploaded it to Youtube, where it accumulated more than 15,000 views by Wednesday.

State police said the trooper depicted in the video was placed on restricted duty Tuesday as the department conducted an internal investigation into the incident.

Police said the name of the trooper would not be released while the internal investigation was conducted.

The video shows police attempting to move protesters back during protests Thursday night in Boston.

A trooper in the video can be heard saying "Go, now, you're going to get sprayed."

The trooper then appears to point a canister toward Moy.

Moy then turns the camera to show a liquid covering the side of his face. He said the reaction of state police in his case serves as an example of the tension currently felt across the country between protesters and police.

"It was very painful at the time," Moy said. "When the officer pepper sprayed me that was an example, to a much less extent because I am still alive, but it was using force that exceeds necessity."

Moy said he was following the trooper's instructions to move away.

"I had no intention of going head to head with officers, I was backing off," Moy said.

State police said they have attempted to contact Moy by leaving comments under his video on YouTube and also sent two Internal Affairs investigators to try to speak to him at his residence as well as at a local gym.

Police said messages and contact information were left at both locations.

Moy said Sunday he had planned to meet with a lawyer, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, before contacting police.  

 

http://www.wcvb.com/news/trooper-identified-as-police-investigate-use-of-pepper-spray-during-protests/30164678?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=wcvb%2Bchannel%2B5%2Bboston

 

 

Next time, get of I-93 if you don't want to get sprayed...

[MikeyPI]

The thing is that criminals don't need to steal guns from the houses of private citizens, with $300 anyone can walk into a pawnshop in the country and walk out with a gun, no questions asked so the leak of a gun registry wouldn't be much risk I think. As for the second amendment the folks on the right have taken that to be a absolute but when it really comes down to it if you take it in the context it was written it was more to ensure national defense seeing as the Constitution prohibits a standing army hence the need for a militia. Don't get me wrong I am thrilled to death the US has the best army on the planet but it does negate the original need for armed citizens. And the "well regulated militia" (that the true gun nuts use as a excuse to have their little heavily armed drinking parties) already exists in the form of our National Guard and our reserve standing army units (Army Reserve and such)

In several states, including my own, that is simply false in regards to pawn shops.  Most of them within many states now are licensed under the same requirements as a regular gun shop would be required to.  In the movies it may be portrayed that you can just pick up a gun from a "fence" in a pawn shop, but in most states they are extremely regulated now, so that most of the pawns while still a total scam, are totally legit scams.  They don't want to lose the right to sell their merchandise and do what they do by being caught unlawfully selling firearms to people.  Most people get their illegal firearms on the street from other criminals, generally drug-related individuals tend to be a great source of firearms as their "clients" will procure them in exchange for the goods/services they require.

 

As to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the supreme court tends to disagree with you.  The first portion states that we are to have a national defense (at the time bear in mind we didnt have the funds for a full-blown proper military). The Established military cannot be deployed on it's own populace, see: Posse Comitatus in regard to that, hence the national guard to support state-level disasters and defensive needs. The second portion of the 2nd amendment is what permits individuals to lawfully possess firearms for personal defense, hunting, etc.  Granted, it was from a time where people did not live quite the same as today, however that's why amendments exist, they could be altered over time, in this one's case it has not been changed over. The supreme court still interprets the amendment to be upheld that it does indeed stand with the intention of the citizen's right to bear firearms, although as I've said before I highly doubt that it was intended for you to have gattling guns or cannons.

[CCCXLII]

The truth is escalation is used for having all the militarized weapons on the law enforcement's side, but at the same time the fact that the police have higher power weapons is why criminals strive so hard for them as well.  The North Hollywood shootout type of incidents are EXTREMELY rare, and that is the main justification for weapons like the AR-15 being available for law enforcement.  Anyone who's ever dealt with a rifle like that understands that it must be deployed with great care in an urban/populated environment, it really isnt ideal for an urban area because of penetration issues.  Yet in some places it is commonplace in patrol vehicles, not just swat.  imo that is an overreach that will not have a positive ending.

 

That doesn't sound right to me.

 

Take a look at this video to see the difference between the wall penetration of different firearms and rounds: http://outdoorchannel.com/video.aspx?g=shooting&f=KVKomFAWRC3s&guid=9Eps2Ha3Mz3VEcmFvjdQaOSuMtvNWIIh

 

As you'll see, an AR-15 firing a .223 round has much less penetration than a 9mm or .45 Handgun.

[MikeyPI]

Not quite, their test isnt really what one runs into real-world, for example, if I fire a rifle round, a 7.62mm (yes I am aware of the fact they shot  a 5.56)it will find it's way through the car door without any effort what so ever, certain loads of the 7.62 will go through both sides of the vehicle, where a smaller arm pistol for example will not do this.  The thing with tests are they are only as good as the conditions they are set to portray, rifles do NOT have their effective power at close range, a rifle sees the most damaging effect when fired over longer ranges, there is a specific term for this effect though I can't recall it at this time (this is as opposed to a shotgun for example where closer range tends to lead to more devastation to the intended target). It isnt as simple as one round is equal to the other, what you load in charge, type of round, and applicable accessories on a firearm changes it's abilities.  If I were to for EX load an AP round into a weapon, it will penetrate certain items better than say a JHP (standard for most law-enforcement sidearms) will, each bullet has it's purposes which they were meant to be deployed against, using them outside of their designated effective use generally leans to less effect than a different bullet that is meant for that purpose.

 

Video example that goes contrary to your sourced video:  Again it is far too close for the full effect of a rifle to be exploited, but it shows far better what a rifle round (5.56) does when fired at a target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gx6-R0KC_I

 

Realize that even in this case I don't feel it was very scientific either, but it shows more accurately why rifles have to be used with care.  The way that a pistol round behaves when it strikes a target vs. a rifle round are two totally different intentions.  Comparing them really is extremely difficult, as it all comes to application as to whether or not one is better suited than the other.  

[topfuzz]

I agree that people automatically pick sides when they hear about these events. Assuming that the police are always in the wrong or vice versus. However i think these events are just being manipulated to push an agenda. In the ferguson case we dont know what really happened. But why would a police officer with no previous disciplinary action attack and kill a person for no reason? Now the other side will say why would Micheal Brown do that? We dont know but at this point im skeptical of both sides of the story.

 

Now for the Eric Garner case was he unarmed? Yes was he actively resisting the officers? Yes? Was he alot bigger than the officers? Yes So what we have here is someone who is resisting the officers and they have the right to use to force to restrain him. This was a move that was taught to them in the academy and they believed it was safe.  Im sure no officer there intended for Eric to be killed and the officer even came out to say that. So how could you possibly arrest someone for doing their job. The fact of the matter is if you dont want to get hurt or even killed dont resist or attempt to fight with the police. You may say that its in our nature to fight or flight but its common sense if you think the police are in the wrong than just let them do their job and you can take corrective actions later. But how is fighting or running from the cops every going to help your situation? Its only going to escalate it and there was really no need to here. If Eric would have  just given up this wouldn't have been a big deal but he made it a big deal. 

 

And to the "I cant breathe thing" i think officers hear that type of thing all the time so they probably didnt believe him or just thought he was using it as a ploy to escape. 

 

I think alot of people are just hung up on the unarmed thing. But just because someone is unarmed doesnt mean they are not a threat to you. Every police officer in the United states has a weapon on their person at all times so their live is always in danger. Police Officers are human and they do make mistakes but they dont have x ray vision or cant predict the future so they have to make split second decisions based on what they know.

 

I think holding Police Officers criminally responsible for these types of situations  in the line of duty would set a dangerous precedent and would really hinder what the Police would and could do. 

[TACRfan]

I agree that people automatically pick sides when they hear about these events. Assuming that the police are always in the wrong or vice versus. However i think these events are just being manipulated to push an agenda. In the ferguson case we dont know what really happened. But why would a police officer with no previous disciplinary action attack and kill a person for no reason? Now the other side will say why would Micheal Brown do that? We dont know but at this point im skeptical of both sides of the story.

 

Now for the Eric Garner case was he unarmed? Yes was he actively resisting the officers? Yes? Was he alot bigger than the officers? Yes So what we have here is someone who is resisting the officers and they have the right to use to force to restrain him. This was a move that was taught to them in the academy and they believed it was safe.  Im sure no officer there intended for Eric to be killed and the officer even came out to say that. So how could you possibly arrest someone for doing their job. The fact of the matter is if you dont want to get hurt or even killed dont resist or attempt to fight with the police. You may say that its in our nature to fight or flight but its common sense if you think the police are in the wrong than just let them do their job and you can take corrective actions later. But how is fighting or running from the cops every going to help your situation? Its only going to escalate it and there was really no need to here. If Eric would have  just given up this wouldn't have been a big deal but he made it a big deal. 

 

And to the "I cant breathe thing" i think officers hear that type of thing all the time so they probably didnt believe him or just thought he was using it as a ploy to escape. 

 

I think alot of people are just hung up on the unarmed thing. But just because someone is unarmed doesnt mean they are not a threat to you. Every police officer in the United states has a weapon on their person at all times so their live is always in danger. Police Officers are human and they do make mistakes but they dont have x ray vision or cant predict the future so they have to make split second decisions based on what they know.

 

I think holding Police Officers criminally responsible for these types of situations  in the line of duty would set a dangerous precedent and would really hinder what the Police would and could do.

I do agree with you on the threat part because people can be trained to kill with no weapons so I agree with you there

[MikeyPI]

Yes it is true that one can kill without a weapon, tbh a ballpoint pen can be used as an effective enough weapon to kill someone.  The problem arises in that sometimes officers ARE criminally negligent, deciding when that is the case vs. a true accidental "in-the-line-of-duty" event is next to impossible, but to be honest in america that is kind of the sentiment the public perceives, that police are never held accountable for their actions.  Imo negligence does not HAVE to lead to prison for your actions, but if you've done something so wrong that you are negligent, you should have to pay the piper, if that means you lose your job, such is life.  This same ideal should apply across the board to police, military, any civil service job, accountability must be present to ensure ethical behavior.  Such is why politicians are such horrible people, they are rarely if ever held accountable for what they do.

 

Remember the media gets paid for ad revenues, so it is in their interest to make these incidents as polarizing as possible, because it riles up BOTH sides of the fence, the supporters of the police and the supporters of the criminal.

 

 In the end I believe that keeping people honest could be obtained by simply placing cameras on the officers involved, I wish i could say that police were always ethical, but there are instances where they are not, having cameras on their person to record any interaction would help to ensure appropriate behavior since there is a recording of the interaction to prove the police were in the right, or in fact in the wrong.  Without such devices in the end it's a bunch of people's word against one another where both claim the opposite and usually the truth is somewhere in between.

[topfuzz]

Yea I agree that officers should be held more accountable for their actions but like you said its nearly impossible to prove criminal misconduct or negligence.

I think it most cases the officer is just placed on leave or given a memo aND that's that. And the victim with just sue the department and city later on so who ends up paying for the officers misconduct? The taxpayers.

I think body cameras are a great idea and I know a lot of the agencies in my area are using them now. But cameras are nothing new and they have no effect if the officers know they wont face any consequences.

I think it comes down to more training and a total overhaul of how officers interact with the public.And officers need to know they will be held accountable for their actions.

I think that change is coming thanks to this movement.There have been local riots such as in LA in the past but these protests are nationwide there was one in my city last night and that means that all levels of the Government and Law Enforcement are paying attention and listening.

[CCCXLII]

I think it'd be good if there was some effort made to educate citizens and students on how to interact with law enforcement. It's really not common sense, I was just reading a comment the other day where a person thought you had a legal right to 'resist' (we're talking running, fighting back, so on. It wasn't a troll btw), and was asking about how much resistance you could legally use. Of course, they were very quickly corrected by the people of reddit, but it's very scary to think that there's that sort of misinformation out there.

One of my earliest memories is back in preschool, when two firefighters came in to our class to teach a lesson. One was in a plain-clothes uniform, he taught us how to respond to a smoke alarm, how to check doors for fire on the other side, and to stay low to the ground in-case of smoke and toxic fumes. The other firefighter was in full suit and SCBA, and he taught us not to be afraid of firefighters in their equipment who might shout commands and grab us as they try to rescue us from a fire or some other danger. I've carried those lessons through my entire life, and I think it would be awesome if the police would do something similar (and if fire departments would do it more often!).

It would be invaluable if they taught things like: How to act appropriately around law enforcement (follow commands, keep your hands out of your pockets, and so on), how to act during a traffic stop (roll down the window, hands on the steering wheel, don't get out), how to call 911 and report a crime (go somewhere safe before calling, give location immediately in-case the call is lost, describe yourself and others, etc.), and basic rights (you must identify yourself and give your ID if asked, you cannot leave unless you're given permission, you can say you don't want to answer questions or a specific question, etc.).

[TACRfan]

I think it'd be good if there was some effort made to educate citizens and students on how to interact with law enforcement. It's really not common sense, I was just reading a comment the other day where a person thought you had a legal right to 'resist' (we're talking running, fighting back, so on. It wasn't a troll btw), and was asking about how much resistance you could legally use. Of course, they were very quickly corrected by the people of reddit, but it's very scary to think that there's that sort of misinformation out there.One of my earliest memories is back in preschool, when two firefighters came in to our class to teach a lesson. One was in a plain-clothes uniform, he taught us how to respond to a smoke alarm, how to check doors for fire on the other side, and to stay low to the ground in-case of smoke and toxic fumes. The other firefighter was in full suit and SCBA, and he taught us not to be afraid of firefighters in their equipment who might shout commands and grab us as they try to rescue us from a fire or some other danger. I've carried those lessons through my entire life, and I think it would be awesome if the police would do something similar (and if fire departments would do it more often!).It would be invaluable if they taught things like: How to act appropriately around law enforcement (follow commands, keep your hands out of your pockets, and so on), how to act during a traffic stop (roll down the window, hands on the steering wheel, don't get out), how to call 911 and report a crime (go somewhere safe before calling, give location immediately in-case the call is lost, describe yourself and others, etc.), and basic rights (you must identify yourself and give your ID if asked, you cannot leave unless you're given permission, you can say you don't want to answer questions or a specific question, etc.).

I agree with you, people need educating more about these sort of things

Judging on the poll it seems most people agree that the answer is no

[LAD23DER]

Judging on the poll it seems most people agree that the answer is no

 

As Fred said earlier, I think you need a sometimes or in some cases option.

[MikeyPI]

IF sometimes were listed in there, it'd get more votes I'm sure, the poll is too polarized, it's either yes or no... The reality isnt yes or no, it usually falls somewhere in between.

[TACRfan]

so you think it needs a sometimes option aswell?

[MikeyPI]

If I were to vote it would be for sometimes with some officers, yes.  I won't say all nor will I say none.

[TACRfan]

i have added a sometimes option in the poll