|
Mike Brown FBI Report; Black Lives Matters, what say you??
|
|
Topic Started: May 6 2016, 11:54 AM (1,315 Views)
|
|
Ronroyce
|
May 9 2016, 12:34 PM
Post #21
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,101
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,619
- Joined:
- Nov 27, 2014
|
- Doctor Magnus Warlock
- May 8 2016, 06:49 PM
Wise words indeed, Snidely.
Both sides must accept culpability for this mess in order to foster better relations.
The media tends to go from one extreme to another when reporting these events. Lol at better relations
Nah.. Bad cops know what they are doing... They just need to get fired and prosecuted...
And Criminals are criminals.. They do stupid shyt.. break the law.... Unless a Police officer's life is in Danger, they dont have the right to shoot...
Running away from police, being disrespectful towards police, not obeying police orders are NOT grounds to shoot an Unarmed Person...
How much more clearer can this be??
Anyone else not wearing a badge, and killing an unarmed person when their lives werent threatened would face criminal charges..
And oh yea, Killing is also a criminal act.. whether u have a uniform on or not...
|
|
|
| |
|
U Thant
|
May 9 2016, 09:30 PM
Post #22
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,216
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,279
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2014
|
- Ronroyce
- May 9 2016, 12:34 PM
- Doctor Magnus Warlock
- May 8 2016, 06:49 PM
Wise words indeed, Snidely.
Both sides must accept culpability for this mess in order to foster better relations.
The media tends to go from one extreme to another when reporting these events.
Lol at better relations Nah.. Bad cops know what they are doing... They just need to get fired and prosecuted...Running away from police, being disrespectful towards police, not obeying police orders are NOT grounds to shoot an Unarmed Person...
damn Ron your new dyckrydyng homie, zecharotten, is not going to like your refusal to agree with Doc Saul's use of kiddy gloves to handle rogue cops.
Edited by U Thant, May 9 2016, 09:32 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
VoiceofReason
|
May 10 2016, 08:30 AM
Post #23
|
|
- Posts:
- 14,809
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,071
- Joined:
- Aug 27, 2011
|
Hi Redd! Hugs!!!
- Quote:
-
Now, can we please stop supporting young black men, doing the wrong thing, and blaming the police for it? No one supported his theft. Can you stop supporting those who kill unarmed, young black men for any reason?
Can we, as a nation, automatically prosecute individuals who kill unarmed members of the community?
|
|
|
| |
|
U Thant
|
May 10 2016, 10:08 AM
Post #24
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,216
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,279
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2014
|
- VoiceofReason
- May 10 2016, 08:30 AM
...No one supported his theft. Can you stop supporting those who kill unarmed, young black men for any reason?
uh-oh, a vintage "2012 Truthie" spotting hath occurred here.
|
|
|
| |
|
reddgirl64
|
May 16 2016, 10:26 AM
Post #25
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #284
- Joined:
- Dec 16, 2009
|
- VoiceofReason
- May 10 2016, 08:30 AM
Hi Redd! Hugs!!! - Quote:
-
Now, can we please stop supporting young black men, doing the wrong thing, and blaming the police for it?
No one supported his theft. Can you stop supporting those who kill unarmed, young black men for any reason? Smooches to you..
I'll answer your question this way..
No, due to there are many circumstances by which the police shoot. Mike Brown was a threat. If Mike kept running and was shot in the back, we both would be on the same side, however, that is not the case here.
Mike did not obey the commands, he attacked the PO in his truck, ran, and then decided that he was going to face the officer.
What was the PO supposed to you, what would you have done?
We ask the police to do these things in a split second, sometimes your life is at stake, and when it's my life or theirs, I will always choose mine.
Now, I have a question for you, are you willing to be the wall, between the cops and these guys?
- Quote:
-
Can we, as a nation, automatically prosecute individuals who kill unarmed members of the community?
Tell me, how will this happen? How do you know someone is 'unarmed'? Isn't that a 'after the fact' position?
Someone breaks into your home, do you assume they are 'unarmed'? Therefore, you just want to talk to them, or will they volunteer to wait on the police?
Criminals and crime, I will never lower the bar on. (even if it's a dirty cop)
|
|
|
| |
|
U Thant
|
May 16 2016, 10:36 AM
Post #26
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,216
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,279
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2014
|
- reddgirl64
- May 16 2016, 10:26 AM
... there are many circumstances by which the police shoot. Mike Brown was a threat. If Mike kept running and was shot in the back, we both would be on the same side, however, that is not the case here. Mike did not obey the commands, he attacked the PO in his truck, ran, and then decided that he was going to face the officer. What was the PO supposed to you, what would you have done? We ask the police to do these things in a split second, sometimes your life is at stake, and when it's my life or theirs, I will always choose mine. Now, I have a question for you, are you willing to be the wall, between the cops and these guys? - Quote:
-
Can we, as a nation, automatically prosecute individuals who kill unarmed members of the community?
Tell me, how will this happen? How do you know someone is 'unarmed'? Isn't that a 'after the fact' position? Someone breaks into your home, do you assume they are 'unarmed'? Therefore, you just want to talk to them, or will they volunteer to wait on the police? Criminals and crime, I will never lower the bar on. (even if it's a dirty cop)
Your sorryAZZ told at least three (3) different lies here, regarding the chain of events in Mike Brown's death.
Fortunately for you, Truthie likes being in the cliq too much to call you out on it.
|
|
|
| |
|
reddgirl64
|
May 16 2016, 10:56 AM
Post #27
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #284
- Joined:
- Dec 16, 2009
|
- Snidely Whiplash
- May 8 2016, 06:31 PM
Here's the problem with this story for me red. The original reports from the police were that Wilson did not stop brown for robbery but for impeding traffic or some such thing. I find it all too convenient, as usual, that the story changed later on to fit a narrative that benefits Wilson. I have no doubt there are bad black males, disproportionately so, involved in some criminal behavior. However as a black man, like so many of us, I have also come across shitty racist cops. They don't care of if you appear to be a thug, a professional, or celebrity. Heck, if it wasn't for my friend who knew the lawyers who worked for a major newspaper in Minneapolis, my ass wouldn't be talking here. The lawyer basically had to let the cops know they were breaking the law and will face a major lawsuit. Anyway, it would be over the top to say we simply ignore police culpability when black men and boys are involved. As for BLM, the net effect of their approach is negative. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/ Well, as with in the hood, the 'no snitch' works with the police as well..
Not that I agree with it, however, would you tell on your own? If so, then demand it of both sides, as I do.
However, this is the FBI investigation that was called on by the community. They pulled all camera's, spoke with the witnesses, etc and came to this conclusion. To ignore that, is simply not willing to accept, what Mike did in this case.
As for as black men as a whole, I've stated before, the NOI has nothing but black men, I'm still waiting on why they aren't being shot by the racist police?
Understand this, my stance is against crime and criminals. They destroy the community, I'm all for getting rid of that trash.
If someone is willing to say, give me the trash, I'm quite sure, it can be delivered. Until someone accepts the trash, the cops are between me and trash..
I would hope, by now, everyone understands the cops are NOT going to stop shooting, therefore..what must the inner city do to stop losing it precious commodity?
|
|
|
| |
|
reddgirl64
|
May 16 2016, 11:01 AM
Post #28
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #284
- Joined:
- Dec 16, 2009
|
- Ronroyce
- May 9 2016, 12:34 PM
- Doctor Magnus Warlock
- May 8 2016, 06:49 PM
Wise words indeed, Snidely.
Both sides must accept culpability for this mess in order to foster better relations.
The media tends to go from one extreme to another when reporting these events.
Lol at better relations Nah.. Bad cops know what they are doing... They just need to get fired and prosecuted... And Criminals are criminals.. They do stupid shyt.. break the law.... Unless a Police officer's life is in Danger, they dont have the right to shoot... Running away from police, being disrespectful towards police, not obeying police orders are NOT grounds to shoot an Unarmed Person... How much more clearer can this be?? Anyone else not wearing a badge, and killing an unarmed person when their lives werent threatened would face criminal charges.. And oh yea, Killing is also a criminal act.. whether u have a uniform on or not... Huh..
Isn't Trayvon and Mike mother's, those women you're so keen to degrade?
Look at the product they produced? Who knows when their weed habit began, however we know, they both smoked it. Was this Mike first time stealing? Who knows..
Trayvon sent to his dad's by his, (insert the name you call mothers like this), to assist with helping him, nah, the dad says, I got better things to do...
When did he find out, his precious son, was missing?
With parents like this, the hood has no future...not the police fault!!
|
|
|
| |
|
U Thant
|
May 16 2016, 11:30 AM
Post #29
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,216
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,279
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2014
|
- reddgirl64
- May 16 2016, 10:26 AM
- Voice Of Reason
-
Can we, as a nation, automatically prosecute individuals who kill unarmed members of the community?
Tell me, how will this happen?
Deceit can't hide, when I pull out the "Raid"
...
- Quote:
-
How Police Training Contributes to Avoidable Deaths; To save lives, cops must be taught to think beyond the gun belt.
There have been too many lives lost to police killings. Too many phone calls telling families that their loved ones, particularly young black men, won’t be coming home.
But in most cases, it isn’t because individual police officers are consciously racist or think black lives don’t matter. It is because officers perform the way they are trained to perform.
Having served as an officer at a large municipal police department, and now as a scholar who researches policing, I am intimately familiar with police training. I’m not just relying on my own experience, though.
I’ve had long conversations with officers and former officers, including firearms trainers and use-of-force instructors, at law enforcement agencies across the country, and they’ve all led to one conclusion: American police officers are among the best-trained in the world, but what they’re trained to do is part of the problem.
“Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance.
Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world.
They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.”
Officers aren’t just told about the risks they face. They are shown painfully vivid, heart-wrenching dash-cam footage of officers being beaten, disarmed, or gunned down after a moment of inattention or hesitation.
They are told that the primary culprit isn’t the felon on the video, it is the officer’s lack of vigilance. And as they listen to the fallen officer’s last, desperate radio calls for help, every cop in the room is thinking exactly the same thing: “I won’t ever let that happen to me.” That’s the point of the training.
More pointed lessons come in the form of hands-on exercises. One common scenario teaches officers that a suspect leaning into a car can pull out a gun and shoot at officers before they can react. Another teaches that even when an officer are pointing a gun at a suspect whose back is turned, the suspect can spin around and fire first.
Yet another teaches that a knife-carrying suspect standing 20 feet away can run up to an officer and start stabbing before the officer can get their gun out of the holster. There are countless variations, but the lessons are the same: Hesitation can be fatal.
So officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late.
But what about the consequences of a mistake? After all, that dark object in the suspect’s hands could be a wallet, not a gun. The occasional training scenario may even make that point.
But officers are taught that the risks of mistake are less—far less—than the risks of hesitation. A common phrase among cops pretty much sums it up: “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”
For all of its risks, policing is safer than ever. Violent attacks on officers are few and far between.
In most police shootings, officers don’t shoot out of anger or frustration or hatred. They shoot because they are afraid. And they are afraid because they are constantly barraged with the message that that they should be afraid, that their survival depends on it. Not only do officers hear it in formal training, they also hear it informally from supervisors and older officers.
They talk about it with their peers.
They see it on police forums and law enforcement publications. For example, three of the four stories mentioned on the cover of this month’s Police Magazine are about dealing with threats to officer safety.
Officers’ actions are grounded in their expectations, and they are taught to expect the worst. The officers who shot John Crawford may have honestly believed that he was raising his rifle to a shooting position even though security camera footage shows him on the phone, casually swinging the BB gun back and forth.
The same may be true of the Phoenix officer who shot an unarmed man because he thought, mistakenly, that the suspect had a gun in his waistband. The officers saw what they were afraid of. They saw what they were trained to see. And they did what they had been taught to do. That’s the problem.
Police training needs to go beyond emphasizing the severity of the risks that officers face by taking into account the likelihood of those risks materializing. Policing has risks—serious ones—that we cannot casually dismiss.
Over the last ten years, an annual average of 51 officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty according to data collected by the FBI. In the same time period, an average of 57,000 officers were assaulted every year (though only about 25 percent of those assaults result in any physical injuries).
But for all of its risks, policing is safer now than it has ever been. Violent attacks on officers, particularly those that involve a serious physical threat, are few and far between when you take into account the fact that police officers interact with civilians about 63 million times every year.
In percentage terms, officers were assaulted in about 0.09 percent of all interactions, were injured in some way in 0.02 percent of interactions, and were feloniously killed in 0.00008 percent of interactions.
Adapting officer training to these statistics doesn’t minimize the very real risks that officers face, but it does help put those risks in perspective. Officers should be trained to keep that perspective in mind as they go about their jobs.
Training also needs to compensate for the unconscious racial biases that lead officers to perceive a greater threat from black men than from others.
Officers are not unique in that regard; implicit racial animus is depressingly common in society. But it is of special concern in the context of policing.
Because officers use more force when they perceive a greater threat, unconscious bias can lead officers to react more aggressively when confronting black men than they would when confronting others in otherwise identical situations. As we’ve seen too many times, the results are beyond tragic.
Although it may be impossible to completely eliminate every aspect of unconscious bias, research strongly suggests that more sophisticated training could lead to more accurate threat identifications, correcting for racial bias that officers may not even be aware of.
The pepper spray, baton, Taser, and gun that are so easily accessible to officers are meant to be tools of last resort.
Use-of-force training should also emphasize de-escalation and flexible tactics in a way that minimizes the need to rely on force, particularly lethal force.
Police agencies that have emphasized de-escalation over assertive policing, such as Richmond, California, have seen a substantial decrease in officer uses of force, including lethal force, without seeing an increase in officer fatalities (there is no data on assaults).
It is no surprise that the federal Department of Justice reviews de-escalation training (or the lack thereof) when it investigates police agencies for civil rights violations. More comprehensive tactical training would also help prevent unnecessary uses of force.
Instead of rushing in to confront someone, officers need to be taught that it is often preferable to take an oblique approach that protects them as they gather information or make contact from a safe distance.
Relatedly, as I’ve written elsewhere, a temporary retreat—what officers call a “tactical withdrawal”—can, in the right circumstances, maintain safety while offering alternatives to deadly force.
|
|
|
| |
|
reddgirl64
|
May 16 2016, 11:36 AM
Post #30
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #284
- Joined:
- Dec 16, 2009
|
- Ethos Logos Pathos
- May 16 2016, 11:30 AM
- reddgirl64
- May 16 2016, 10:26 AM
- Voice Of Reason
-
Can we, as a nation, automatically prosecute individuals who kill unarmed members of the community?
Tell me, how will this happen?
Deceit can't hide, when I pull out the "Raid" ... - Quote:
-
How Police Training Contributes to Avoidable Deaths; To save lives, cops must be taught to think beyond the gun belt.
There have been too many lives lost to police killings. Too many phone calls telling families that their loved ones, particularly young black men, won’t be coming home.
But in most cases, it isn’t because individual police officers are consciously racist or think black lives don’t matter. It is because officers perform the way they are trained to perform.
Having served as an officer at a large municipal police department, and now as a scholar who researches policing, I am intimately familiar with police training. I’m not just relying on my own experience, though.
I’ve had long conversations with officers and former officers, including firearms trainers and use-of-force instructors, at law enforcement agencies across the country, and they’ve all led to one conclusion: American police officers are among the best-trained in the world, but what they’re trained to do is part of the problem.
“Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance.
Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world.
They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.”
Officers aren’t just told about the risks they face. They are shown painfully vivid, heart-wrenching dash-cam footage of officers being beaten, disarmed, or gunned down after a moment of inattention or hesitation.
They are told that the primary culprit isn’t the felon on the video, it is the officer’s lack of vigilance. And as they listen to the fallen officer’s last, desperate radio calls for help, every cop in the room is thinking exactly the same thing: “I won’t ever let that happen to me.” That’s the point of the training.
More pointed lessons come in the form of hands-on exercises. One common scenario teaches officers that a suspect leaning into a car can pull out a gun and shoot at officers before they can react. Another teaches that even when an officer are pointing a gun at a suspect whose back is turned, the suspect can spin around and fire first.
Yet another teaches that a knife-carrying suspect standing 20 feet away can run up to an officer and start stabbing before the officer can get their gun out of the holster. There are countless variations, but the lessons are the same: Hesitation can be fatal.
So officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late.
But what about the consequences of a mistake? After all, that dark object in the suspect’s hands could be a wallet, not a gun. The occasional training scenario may even make that point.
But officers are taught that the risks of mistake are less—far less—than the risks of hesitation. A common phrase among cops pretty much sums it up: “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”
For all of its risks, policing is safer than ever. Violent attacks on officers are few and far between.
In most police shootings, officers don’t shoot out of anger or frustration or hatred. They shoot because they are afraid. And they are afraid because they are constantly barraged with the message that that they should be afraid, that their survival depends on it. Not only do officers hear it in formal training, they also hear it informally from supervisors and older officers.
They talk about it with their peers.
They see it on police forums and law enforcement publications. For example, three of the four stories mentioned on the cover of this month’s Police Magazine are about dealing with threats to officer safety.
Officers’ actions are grounded in their expectations, and they are taught to expect the worst. The officers who shot John Crawford may have honestly believed that he was raising his rifle to a shooting position even though security camera footage shows him on the phone, casually swinging the BB gun back and forth.
The same may be true of the Phoenix officer who shot an unarmed man because he thought, mistakenly, that the suspect had a gun in his waistband. The officers saw what they were afraid of. They saw what they were trained to see. And they did what they had been taught to do. That’s the problem.
Police training needs to go beyond emphasizing the severity of the risks that officers face by taking into account the likelihood of those risks materializing. Policing has risks—serious ones—that we cannot casually dismiss.
Over the last ten years, an annual average of 51 officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty according to data collected by the FBI. In the same time period, an average of 57,000 officers were assaulted every year (though only about 25 percent of those assaults result in any physical injuries).
But for all of its risks, policing is safer now than it has ever been. Violent attacks on officers, particularly those that involve a serious physical threat, are few and far between when you take into account the fact that police officers interact with civilians about 63 million times every year.
In percentage terms, officers were assaulted in about 0.09 percent of all interactions, were injured in some way in 0.02 percent of interactions, and were feloniously killed in 0.00008 percent of interactions.
Adapting officer training to these statistics doesn’t minimize the very real risks that officers face, but it does help put those risks in perspective. Officers should be trained to keep that perspective in mind as they go about their jobs.
Training also needs to compensate for the unconscious racial biases that lead officers to perceive a greater threat from black men than from others.
Officers are not unique in that regard; implicit racial animus is depressingly common in society. But it is of special concern in the context of policing.
Because officers use more force when they perceive a greater threat, unconscious bias can lead officers to react more aggressively when confronting black men than they would when confronting others in otherwise identical situations. As we’ve seen too many times, the results are beyond tragic.
Although it may be impossible to completely eliminate every aspect of unconscious bias, research strongly suggests that more sophisticated training could lead to more accurate threat identifications, correcting for racial bias that officers may not even be aware of.
The pepper spray, baton, Taser, and gun that are so easily accessible to officers are meant to be tools of last resort.
Use-of-force training should also emphasize de-escalation and flexible tactics in a way that minimizes the need to rely on force, particularly lethal force.
Police agencies that have emphasized de-escalation over assertive policing, such as Richmond, California, have seen a substantial decrease in officer uses of force, including lethal force, without seeing an increase in officer fatalities (there is no data on assaults).
It is no surprise that the federal Department of Justice reviews de-escalation training (or the lack thereof) when it investigates police agencies for civil rights violations. More comprehensive tactical training would also help prevent unnecessary uses of force.
Instead of rushing in to confront someone, officers need to be taught that it is often preferable to take an oblique approach that protects them as they gather information or make contact from a safe distance.
Relatedly, as I’ve written elsewhere, a temporary retreat—what officers call a “tactical withdrawal”—can, in the right circumstances, maintain safety while offering alternatives to deadly force.
- Quote:
-
Are you willing to be the wall, between the cops and these guys?
Blaxx- no, because I only fight online. I'm too small to be out there fighting racism.
What?
Blaxxx - I'm only 5'2" tall..I can't fight
My one and only job, is on AFN, chasing men, and hating on women. I hate women..
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|