Are we now going to have protests every time a black criminal is killed?

[Will Wiley]

The trust won't improve so long as agitators keep stirring the pot.

The trust won't improve so long as the police kill people as a matter of course.
Police are supposed to arrest, not execute.

It seems police in America are trained to execute first and ask questions later thoygh.
Psychologist openly admits he trains police officers to shoot first and ask questions later

Dr. Lewinski is basically training police to shoot before making a full assessment of the true threat. Because of this philosophy, it leans on the implicit bias within each and every officer. It's why officers in New York fired 41 shots at Amadou Diallo when he was pulling out his wallet. It's why Officer Dante Servin blew Rekia Boyd's head off when he saw her boyfriend pull out a cell phone.

It's why police officers killed 123 people in July, a high for 2015.

It's despicable and the more it happens, the richer Dr. Lewinski gets. I had always suspected some type of profit motive was behind the wholesale killing of Americans by police. Now we don't need to speculate. After all, it's the job for the Force Science Institute to keep this practice growing.

 

[bilby]

Suspects have the same rights as every other citizen. The ONLY way a person can go from being a suspect to being a criminal is conviction in a court of law; The police have a duty to ensure that suspects get their day in court, and have a duty to protect suspects from harm until that day arrives.

A person that is guilty of a crime is a criminal. One does not need to be convicted and found guilty of a crime in a court of law to be guilty. Notwithstanding the possibility of a wrongful conviction, I would not be found guilty in a court of law unless I were already guilty.

If I am suspected of a crime, then I am a suspect, and if you do not know that I am guilty of a crime, you should not say that I am a criminal, but if you suspect me of a crime and learn that I am guilty of a crime, then I am a criminal long before I ever the see the light of day in a courtroom.

A police officer is required to act as representative of the law.

What you may be in fact is irrelevant; in law, you are not a criminal until convicted, and as a representative of the law, a police officer has a duty to treat you as a suspect who is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

This is true even if as a private person, the officer is certain of your guilt; in his official capacity, his duty is to treat you with the respect due to an innocent person merely suspected of a crime.

That standard is, of course, very hard to maintain in some situations. But if the job is too hard for him, he shouldn't have become a cop.

 

[fast]

A person that is guilty of a crime is a criminal. One does not need to be convicted and found guilty of a crime in a court of law to be guilty. Notwithstanding the possibility of a wrongful conviction, I would not be found guilty in a court of law unless I were already guilty.

If I am suspected of a crime, then I am a suspect, and if you do not know that I am guilty of a crime, you should not say that I am a criminal, but if you suspect me of a crime and learn that I am guilty of a crime, then I am a criminal long before I ever the see the light of day in a courtroom.

A police officer is required to act as representative of the law.

What you may be in fact is irrelevant; in law, you are not a criminal until convicted, and as a representative of the law, a police officer has a duty to treat you as a suspect who is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

This is true even if as a private person, the officer is certain of your guilt; in his official capacity, his duty is to treat you with the respect due to an innocent person merely suspected of a crime.

That standard is, of course, very hard to maintain in some situations. But if the job is too hard for him, he shouldn't have become a cop.

I agree with spirit behind what you're saying. I just don't think it's true you're not a criminal until convicted. If you weren't already a criminal, you wouldn't be convicted--wrongful convictions notwithstanding.

 

[Will Wiley]

A police officer is required to act as representative of the law.

What you may be in fact is irrelevant; in law, you are not a criminal until convicted, and as a representative of the law, a police officer has a duty to treat you as a suspect who is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

This is true even if as a private person, the officer is certain of your guilt; in his official capacity, his duty is to treat you with the respect due to an innocent person merely suspected of a crime.

That standard is, of course, very hard to maintain in some situations. But if the job is too hard for him, he shouldn't have become a cop.

I agree with spirit behind what you're saying. I just don't think it's true you're not a criminal until convicted. If you weren't already a criminal, you wouldn't be convicted--wrongful convictions notwithstanding.

It's never a policeman's job to decide who is a criminal. It is the courts job to decide who is a criminal

 

[crispy]

Must be nice to have so much time on one's hands.

This time protesters blocked a freeway in Oakland because an armed robber named Joe Bart got himself killed after he tried to carjack another vehicle.
Oakland police officers involved in shooting, suspect dead

Protests will probably continue till you train your police forces till they are on par with the rest of the western world. Or maybe its not the training of the police that's the issue, more a question of the 'rotten apples' which should never have been in the academy to begin with, and who are not dealt with properly when they fail at doing their job.

When police in my country shoot someone, I have trust in the police that they probably did the right thing, as they were out of options. When I hear stories from the US its the other way around. Why is that? Liberal propaganda?

 

[repoman]

I think that one problem is people caring too much (from either pro or anti-police bias) about the exact details of this case.

It may be that this was such a good case for use of force that even ideologues will grudgingly agree after seeing footage. But that means nothing for all the cases where the cops obviously screwed up or were assholes. These protests happen before all the facts are out as well.

But people are addicted to having the one cause or incident to fight about.

 

[arkirk]

I think that one problem is people caring too much (from either pro or anti-police bias) about the exact details of this case.

It may be that this was such a good case for use of force that even ideologues will grudgingly agree after seeing footage. But that means nothing for all the cases where the cops obviously screwed up or were assholes. These protests happen before all the facts are out as well.

But people are addicted to having the one cause or incident to fight about.

You really seem to want to characterize 'the people' as having all sorts of hangups don't you? You are overlooking a fact of life for the protesters...the measure of whether or not they have done enough protest...has the behavior that caused the protest in the first place slowed down or has it instead escalated? That is the measure of not only the success of protests, but also the effectiveness of those in power in government. Is the protest recognized. It is so obvious what is happening with police shootings. The problem is getting worse.

 

[fast]

I agree with spirit behind what you're saying. I just don't think it's true you're not a criminal until convicted. If you weren't already a criminal, you wouldn't be convicted--wrongful convictions notwithstanding.

It's never a policeman's job to decide who is a criminal. It is the courts job to decide who is a criminal

I see what you're saying. Of course, it's never a policeman's place to punish a suspect even if the policeman knows without a shadow of a doubt that he has committed a crime and is thus indefacto a criminal.

If I say unto a suspect that he is a criminal and he responds, "that's for the courts to decide," then you, he, and I are all in agreement.

... Unless my family is the victim

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sometimes people don't want to go to jail, though.

Sometimes this is explicit--they'll attack the cops in a fashion they know is hopeless (for example, with a replica weapon.) I'm finding estimates from 10% to 25% of police shootings are suicide by cop.

Sometimes it's just trying to escape. Criminals generally live in a culture where you must show strength or get walked all over--but when they use that same behavior on the police it's prone to getting them shot.

Criminals act tough everywhere in the world. People commit suicide everywhere in the world.

Police in the developed world are trained to deal with this; they set the agenda in their interactions with suspects, so the desire of a suicidal person to be shot by police is not indulged; and the desire of some wannabe tough guy to act the big man is not taken as an excuse to kill him. In short, we in the civilised world expect our police to be professionals, who think first, and understand the difference between a suspect and a criminal.

Suspects have the same rights as every other citizen. The ONLY way a person can go from being a suspect to being a criminal is conviction in a court of law; The police have a duty to ensure that suspects get their day in court, and have a duty to protect suspects from harm until that day arrives.

That's the difference between a police service and a gang. You blur the distinction at your peril.

Most of our criminals don't engage in dangerous flight when caught. It's the ones that have lived a life of crime and violence that are the ones that usually pull this sort of thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that one problem is people caring too much (from either pro or anti-police bias) about the exact details of this case.

It may be that this was such a good case for use of force that even ideologues will grudgingly agree after seeing footage. But that means nothing for all the cases where the cops obviously screwed up or were assholes. These protests happen before all the facts are out as well.

But people are addicted to having the one cause or incident to fight about.

I disagree--it's not that they are addicted to having one cause.

Rather, it's the fundamental flaw of the left--they think there's a good answer to every problem and when a good answer isn't found they blame the side they feel has more power.

Thus, should they be faced with a situation without a good answer they don't look for the actual cause of the problem, they simply blame the more powerful.

(And the reverse is a big problem for the right--they assume the more powerful is in the right.)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Criminals act tough everywhere in the world. People commit suicide everywhere in the world.

Police in the developed world are trained to deal with this; they set the agenda in their interactions with suspects, so the desire of a suicidal person to be shot by police is not indulged; and the desire of some wannabe tough guy to act the big man is not taken as an excuse to kill him. In short, we in the civilised world expect our police to be professionals, who think first, and understand the difference between a suspect and a criminal.

Suspects have the same rights as every other citizen. The ONLY way a person can go from being a suspect to being a criminal is conviction in a court of law; The police have a duty to ensure that suspects get their day in court, and have a duty to protect suspects from harm until that day arrives.

That's the difference between a police service and a gang. You blur the distinction at your peril.

Most of our criminals ...

Let me stop you there. How do you know what most criminals do?

 

[bilby]

Criminals act tough everywhere in the world. People commit suicide everywhere in the world.

Police in the developed world are trained to deal with this; they set the agenda in their interactions with suspects, so the desire of a suicidal person to be shot by police is not indulged; and the desire of some wannabe tough guy to act the big man is not taken as an excuse to kill him. In short, we in the civilised world expect our police to be professionals, who think first, and understand the difference between a suspect and a criminal.

Suspects have the same rights as every other citizen. The ONLY way a person can go from being a suspect to being a criminal is conviction in a court of law; The police have a duty to ensure that suspects get their day in court, and have a duty to protect suspects from harm until that day arrives.

That's the difference between a police service and a gang. You blur the distinction at your peril.

Most of our criminals don't engage in dangerous flight when caught. It's the ones that have lived a life of crime and violence that are the ones that usually pull this sort of thing.

Once again, I find your vague, hand-wavy anecdote uncompelling as a counter to my point.

If you don't have anything specific or evidenced to say, perhaps it would be better for your credibility if you were to remain silent.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh great. The first poster dropped a conservative poop blob. The second poster responded "are we going to get one of these for every event". The Op guy hasn't posted since.

Well done Derec.

In response to Nice Squirrel, yes we should because a black life needs to be remembered and because they usually can't buy notice nor are they ever in power, ...oh wait .....

 

[+or-1]

If suspects are being killed without trial on a sufficiently regular basis for the protests this causes to become tiresome, then that suggests that you don't have enough popular outrage.

In the civilised world, the police apprehend suspects; they don't just kill them on the streets.

Note that this is in no way meant to point out our differences in spelling but rather to agree completely.

In the civilized world...