police shootings in US and Obama's comments

Bryan · July 10, 2016

So IF there's a high crime rate among Catholics, all Catholics should expect to be harassed, even killed by police, with few consequences ... because they have the "marker"?

They should expect to have more police presence and intervention. They should expect to be caught more often.

How will the cops know which cars to pull over that are carrying Catholics?

Police all over the world do have to deal with the issue of tracking a group who is not quickly identifiable. It's more work for sure. They have to maintain databases of people known to be of that group or known to associate with them, watch the places where they are most likely to gather, etc.

I know you think that you're being facetious, but police all over the world really do have to do these kinds of things, and the people they need to watch more closely are not always easy to identify.

jacee · July 10, 2016

They should expect to have more police presence and intervention. They should expect to be caught more often.

Police all over the world do have to deal with the issue of tracking a group who is not quickly identifiable. It's more work for sure. They have to maintain databases of people known to be of that group or known to associate with them, watch the places where they are most likely to gather, etc.

I know you think that you're being facetious, but police all over the world really do have to do these kinds of things, and the people they need to watch more closely are not always easy to identify.

Yes I'm being facetious.

But you ... you really think it's ok for police to target all Catholics?

Targeting gathering places like churches and bingo halls?

Pulling over cars with religious icons, treating them as suspicious or criminal, shooting them if they move a muscle?

Do you think that would be OK ... because some Catholics are criminals?

Really?

.

Bryan · July 10, 2016

Do you think that would be OK ... because some Catholics are criminals?

If a disproportionate level of crime is being committed by ANY specific identifiable group, or in any identifiable specific place, it is absolutely appropriate to focus police resources on that.

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2016

If a disproportionate level of crime is being committed by ANY specific identifiable group, or in any identifiable specific place, it is absolutely appropriate to focus police resources on that.

Agreed...and law abiding citizens living with higher crime densities expect and ask for more police resources in their community.

jacee · July 10, 2016

If a disproportionate level of crime is being committed by ANY specific identifiable group, or in any identifiable specific place, it is absolutely appropriate to focus police resources on that.

Treating people as suspicious - arbitrary detention - because of their religion or skin colour is ok with you?

Are you not familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at all?

The duty of the police, by oath, is to uphold those freedoms, not to violate them.

.

Edited July 10, 2016 by jacee

Bryan · July 10, 2016

Treating people as suspicious - arbitrary detention - because of their religion or skin colour is ok with you?

As OK as I am with police setting up roadside checks near bars, or during the christmas/new years season to try to catch drunk drivers. I'm not driving drunk, so I'm not at all annoyed by being pulled over, and I'm actually quite happy that they are doing their part in using their resources effectively to try to catch people who are driving drunk.

Are you not familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at all?

The duty of the police, by oath, is to uphold those freedoms, not to violate them.

It's also their duty to catch criminals. To do that, you find out where the most criminals are, and do more of your work there.

eyeball · July 11, 2016

I think that's the idea of the 'right to bear arms' - so people can defend themselves in case the state goes rogue against the people.

Defend others too according to the NRA. This is also in line with the notion that if more people in society are armed there is a greater chance a perp, in this case a cop, can be stopped before they can do more harm.

Wilber · July 11, 2016

Defend others too according to the NRA. This is also in line with the notion that if more people in society are armed there is a greater chance a perp, in this case a cop, can be stopped before they can do more harm.

In this case it got him shot.

Peter F · July 11, 2016

No. He was shot because the shooter could not wait 30 milliseconds to see. He opened fire. 4 shots at close range.

To my mind the nervous wreck of a shooter should - if he escapes manslaughter charges - should never be allowed to be trusted with a fire-arm again.

Desk job for him.

Wilber · July 11, 2016

No. He was shot because the shooter could not wait 30 milliseconds to see. He opened fire. 4 shots at close range.

To my mind the nervous wreck of a shooter should - if he escapes manslaughter charges - should never be allowed to be trusted with a fire-arm again.

Desk job for him.

Right or wrong, the fact he had a gun got him shot.

Peter F · July 11, 2016

In a state where he was actually given state license (if true) to carry - then to be shot because he was carrying is not right at all. It was wrong.

Wilber · July 11, 2016

In a state where he was actually given state license (if true) to carry - then to be shot because he was carrying is not right at all. It was wrong.

Never the less, it was probably what got him shot. That cop didn't give him the license and didn't know him from Adam. Saying you have a license does't mean you have one. A person with a firearm is a much greater threat than one who is unarmed and the police will not look at them the same way. Hell, I wouldn't.

Peter F · July 11, 2016

Doesn't matter. It is well known that the state will license people for carrying fire-arms. It will not be unusual for cops to meet people who are licensed to carry fire-arms. Therefore some people will have fire-arms and its perfectly fine and not life-threatening to cops in any way. Unless the guy starts brandishing his firearm (licensed or not) in a reckless manner.

Since this cop never saw the fire-arm at all I find it entirely irrational that he could then believe his life to be in imminent danger.

This particular cop was irrational and no irrational people should be allowed to carry and be expected to use fire-arms.

Peter F · July 11, 2016

A person with a firearm is a much greater threat than one who is unarmed and the police will not look at them the same way. Hell, I wouldn't.

That does not mean you get to shoot them on whims. If you want to shoot somebody, no matter the level of terror you feel, you need a damn good reason to do so. Far more than he says he has a gun and he is making a movement. That in itself is no reason to open fire. That is panic!

BC_chick · July 11, 2016

Mostly they use them on each other. The cops killed a couple of hundred Black people in the last year, almost all violent criminals. But over six thousand black people were murdered, mostly by other black people, during the same time period.

Who gives a fig? Whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by whites than blacks, yet nobody ever brings up white on white crime and nobody every uses it as an excuse for the police randomly killing white people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/14/1412131/-Don-t-you-ever-say-black-on-black-crime-again

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2016

That does not mean you get to shoot them on whims. If you want to shoot somebody, no matter the level of terror you feel, you need a damn good reason to do so. Far more than he says he has a gun and he is making a movement. That in itself is no reason to open fire. That is panic!

Not necessarily...as state and federal courts often rule that it is the police officers perception of the threat that matters, real or imagined, at least for a finding of murder. Lesser charges could follow, and a wrongful death civil case and large payment to survivors is a given.

I have had police officers unholster and point a sidearm at me on several occasions without shooting, but they clearly were prepared to do so. One time they thought I was an armed robbery suspect. They are not going to mess around.

Peter F · July 11, 2016

state and federal courts often rule that it is the police officers perception of the threat that matters, real or imagined, at least for a finding of murder

Sure, But they don't simply take the accused word for it. They also look at the circumstances and apply the standard of 'would an imagined reasonable cop behave the same?. Was there other options available? Was it necessary to open fire right now?

As you say many cases are ruled that the cops behaviour was reasonable. But a few times not. I suspect that when the courts found the action was not reasonable the excuse of 'I felt threatened' falls upon deaf ears.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2016

Sure, But they don't simply take the accused word for it. They also look at the circumstances and apply the standard of 'would an imagined reasonable cop behave the same?. Was there other options available? Was it necessary to open fire right now?

Very often they do, as long as the circumstances as described by the officer are corroborated. Police officers are given wide latitude to exercise and escalate force including deadly force when it comes to their safety during stops, detentions, or arrests. They are not required to retreat from the perceived threat.

As you say many cases are ruled that the cops behaviour was reasonable. But a few times not. I suspect that when the courts found the action was not reasonable the excuse of 'I felt threatened' falls upon deaf ears.

Any stop or detention with a firearm within immediate reach and control by a suspect will usually meet such a standard. Anybody can shout "I have a permit" and then shoot the cop dead.

Peter F · July 11, 2016

Any stop or detention with a firearm within immediate reach and control by a suspect will usually meet such a standard. Anybody can shout "I have a permit" and then shoot the cop dead.

As Homer said "The mere presence of the blade incites to violence" .

That probably makes a lot of sense to cops.

If the police are terrified by the presence of the blade - and the USofA, it is said, there are many blades - Then why aren't far more being shot?

Perhaps most cops are not terrified but actually have some control over themselves as they await the situation to evolve.

I do not think the particular cop here fits that description.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2016

....Perhaps most cops are not terrified but actually have some control over themselves as they await the situation to evolve.

I do not think the particular cop here fits that description.

Well, the stats say that police in the USA shoot somebody dead every day on average...and a lot more are injured. So it's not like it is a rare occurrence. Chemical sprays, Tasers, choke holds and baton/club beatings help round out the count of dead and injured, not to mention high speed chases ending in more death and mayhem. So yeah, "control" is sometimes in very short supply.

Argus · July 11, 2016

No. He was shot because the shooter could not wait 30 milliseconds to see. He opened fire. 4 shots at close range.

To my mind the nervous wreck of a shooter should - if he escapes manslaughter charges - should never be allowed to be trusted with a fire-arm again.

Desk job for him.

At fedex, maybe, not with a police force. The last such example I saw, with video, at a gas station, got the cop fired almost immediately.

Argus · July 11, 2016

That does not mean you get to shoot them on whims. If you want to shoot somebody, no matter the level of terror you feel, you need a damn good reason to do so. Far more than he says he has a gun and he is making a movement. That in itself is no reason to open fire. That is panic!

Police have opened fire when people move their hands towards their shirts or waists or pockets on many occasions, and those people didn't even say they were armed.

Argus · July 11, 2016

Who gives a fig? Whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by whites than blacks, yet nobody ever brings up white on white crime and nobody every uses it as an excuse for the police randomly killing white people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/14/1412131/-Don-t-you-ever-say-black-on-black-crime-again

And white people don't riot whenever one is shot by police, either, which is the context in which this discussion is taking place. Nor is the white on white murder rate anything remarkable. It's actually quite low. So if people really cared about saving black men from being gunned down they should be addressing other black men, not the police.

Wilber · July 11, 2016

That does not mean you get to shoot them on whims. If you want to shoot somebody, no matter the level of terror you feel, you need a damn good reason to do so. Far more than he says he has a gun and he is making a movement. That in itself is no reason to open fire. That is panic!

We don't really know why he shot him yet and no you don't get to shoot people on a whim. Maybe there was an element of panic. The fact is people who carry guns present more of a threat than those who don't. That's the reason people carry guns in the first place. If you don't want to look like you could shoot someone, don't carry a gun.

Wilber · July 11, 2016

Doesn't matter. It is well known that the state will license people for carrying fire-arms. It will not be unusual for cops to meet people who are licensed to carry fire-arms. Therefore some people will have fire-arms and its perfectly fine and not life-threatening to cops in any way. Unless the guy starts brandishing his firearm (licensed or not) in a reckless manner.

Since this cop never saw the fire-arm at all I find it entirely irrational that he could then believe his life to be in imminent danger.

This particular cop was irrational and no irrational people should be allowed to carry and be expected to use fire-arms.

Spend your working life having to deal with people you don't know, who are armed and could be a threat to you. Someone brandishing a gun is easy compared to the one you didn't expect just appearing. There are 1.12 privately owned guns for every man, woman and child in the US. Is it any wonder that so many people are shot every year, including by police.