bennett123 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

meecrob wrote:

But the United States as a society decided they wanted guns. This isn't an excuse. It would be like if here in Canada we had a right to pet bears, and after many innocent people die in bear traps, because there is no adequate way to control the bears, people said "Well, the fact of the matter is that per capita, we have more bears!" Yeah, no shit!!

It isn't an excuse at all....it is reality. Cops don't forfeit the right to self-defense just because many criminals are armed.

So if less criminals had access to guns this factor would be reduced.

How can this be acheived?.

Realistically, it can't.

Yes.
More incarceration and more firearms. Thats surely going to solve the problems in the US.

You are #1 by far in both those statistics already, and look where that got you.

Not interrested at all in trying free education and healthcare, workers rights, a policeforce educated in dealing with people and social issues? You know, all the stuff that the civilized nations with low crime and incarceration rates of the world have?

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Coddle the bad guy? Have you ever been to jail? It’s horrific and shocking that such appalling conditions exist in America. Criminals are not coddled in this country, period.

No I don’t want to go to jail hence I don’t commit crimes. More and more no bail legislation is going to lead to more crime. It is a shame.

Unarmed law enforcement in other countries don’t seem to have problems apprehending someone with a weapon and they’re brilliant at deescalation techniques. American police seem to aggravate situations and make them ten times worse. They need to train out the emotional, knee jerk reactions and emphasize a measured response. Their Wild West mentality results in unacceptable situations like this far too frequently. American law enforcement doesn’t even rank within the top ten most dangerous jobs, so they need to calm down and behave professionally. More often than not they seem to have plateaued in college and their behavior is downright juvenile. Testing standards obviously need to be increased as well. Other professions have no problem weeding out the psychos, but they seem to flock to law enforcement like moths to a flame. If you can’t deal with the worst humanity has to offer without becoming an insufferable menace then get a new job.

Whenever we see body cam or other images of US Police, they always seem to be shouting.

Can't help thinking this increases the stress level of all parties and increases the risk of escalation.

bennett123 wrote:

Whenever we see body cam or other images of US Police, they always seem to be shouting.

Can't help thinking this increases the stress level of all parties and increases the risk of escalation.

It’s not uncommon for a suspect to be faced with multiple armed officers all pointing guns and shouting conflicting instructions.

CitizenJustin wrote:

Unarmed law enforcement in other countries don’t seem to have problems apprehending someone with a weapon and they’re brilliant at deescalation techniques. American police seem to aggravate situations and make them ten times worse. They need to train out the emotional, knee jerk reactions and emphasize a measured response. Their Wild West mentality results in unacceptable situations like this far too frequently. American law enforcement doesn’t even rank within the top ten most dangerous jobs, so they need to calm down and behave professionally. More often than not they seem to have plateaued in college and their behavior is downright juvenile. Testing standards obviously need to be increased as well. Other professions have no problem weeding out the psychos, but they seem to flock to law enforcement like moths to a flame. If you can’t deal with the worst humanity has to offer without becoming an insufferable menace then get a new job.

That's because unarmed law enforcement in other countries doesn't have to worry about being shot, whereas in the US an average of 5 police officers are shot in the line of duty every week.

TriJets wrote:

That's because unarmed law enforcement in other countries doesn't have to worry about being shot, whereas in the US an average of 5 police officers are shot in the line of duty every week.

Maybe they should stop pulling their weapons every single non chance they get and the other guys won't feel the need to defend themselves from the poorly trained 'shoot first' boys in blue. Oh and making it a tad harder to obtain unnecessary, overpowered, penis enlargements may well be a good idea too.
Another race to the bottom, a US specialisation.

CitizenJustin wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail? Dealing with the criminals that have been created by this coddle the bad guy, little to no bail and attack law enforcement mindset isn't easy but there is no criminality here. No matter how much Ben Crump says there is.

Coddle the bad guy? Have you ever been to jail? It’s horrific and shocking that such appalling conditions exist in America. Criminals are not coddled in this country, period.

So the solution seems to be no-cash bail and the de-criminalization of many previously felony acts in places like California.

ChrisKen wrote:

TriJets wrote:

That's because unarmed law enforcement in other countries doesn't have to worry about being shot, whereas in the US an average of 5 police officers are shot in the line of duty every week.

Maybe they should stop pulling their weapons every single non chance they get and the other guys won't feel the need to defend themselves from the poorly trained 'shoot first' boys in blue. Oh and making it a tad harder to obtain unnecessary, overpowered, penis enlargements may well be a good idea too.
Another race to the bottom, a US specialisation.

Or maybe criminals should just stop murdering police officers?

Dead cops? Need more guns!

Dead school kids? Need more guns!

I wonder if there’s maybe a common link between more people being shot, and there being more guns. Almost as if one begets the other.

The problem will always come down to training. You train cops like warriors, you end up with warriors.

First, you should stop calling them cops. You’ve got uneducated blow hards. Statistics also show they are far from having the most risky jobs.
Start educating them(3+ years), and start profiling them. Include well educated social workers and people with pedagogical education and experience.
Get rid of the 2nd amendment. (Goes without saying at this point).
Stop putting people in prison for life, and start treating the «inmates» like human beings and your future neighbours while incarcerated.
Get people free education and health care.

Voi-f’ing-la!

M564038 wrote:

First, you should stop calling them cops. You’ve got uneducated blow hards. Statistics also show they are far from having the most risky jobs.
Start educating them(3+ years), and start profiling them. Include well educated social workers and people with pedagogical education and experience.
Get rid of the 2nd amendment. (Goes without saying at this point).
Stop putting people in prison for life, and start treating the «inmates» like human beings and your future neighbours while incarcerated.
Get people free education and health care.

Voi-f’ing-la!

The 2nd amendment is never going anywhere, nor should it.

Maybe we should stop demonizing law enforcement to the extent that no one wants to work in it anymore. Make the career attractive again and it will be easier to attract more qualified applicants. As it stands now, not many people want to take a job that entails being shot at and pelted with urine, bricks, and feces for no good reason.

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

First, you should stop calling them cops. You’ve got uneducated blow hards. Statistics also show they are far from having the most risky jobs.
Start educating them(3+ years), and start profiling them. Include well educated social workers and people with pedagogical education and experience.
Get rid of the 2nd amendment. (Goes without saying at this point).
Stop putting people in prison for life, and start treating the «inmates» like human beings and your future neighbours while incarcerated.
Get people free education and health care.

Voi-f’ing-la!

The 2nd amendment is never going anywhere, nor should it.

Maybe we should stop demonizing law enforcement to the extent that no one wants to work in it anymore. Make the career attractive again and it will be easier to attract more qualified applicants. As it stands now, not many people want to take a job that entails being shot at and pelted with urine, bricks, and feces for no good reason.

"no good reason" being they shoot and kill unarmed dark skinned people. The suspect they were shooting at in the mall was unarmed, just for reference.

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

First, you should stop calling them cops. You’ve got uneducated blow hards. Statistics also show they are far from having the most risky jobs.
Start educating them(3+ years), and start profiling them. Include well educated social workers and people with pedagogical education and experience.
Get rid of the 2nd amendment. (Goes without saying at this point).
Stop putting people in prison for life, and start treating the «inmates» like human beings and your future neighbours while incarcerated.
Get people free education and health care.

Voi-f’ing-la!

The 2nd amendment is never going anywhere, nor should it.

Maybe we should stop demonizing law enforcement to the extent that no one wants to work in it anymore. Make the career attractive again and it will be easier to attract more qualified applicants. As it stands now, not many people want to take a job that entails being shot at and pelted with urine, bricks, and feces for no good reason.

"no good reason" being they shoot and kill unarmed dark skinned people. The suspect they were shooting at in the mall was unarmed, just for reference.

Are you stating that you support shooting random cops who had nothing to do with some high-profile and likely justified shootings that you've seen on the news?

TriJets wrote:

Sure, but you don't have to be armed with a firearm to be a deadly threat.

This is true - one just needs to be sitting in a mobility scooter.

A Nation born through guns and violence will continue to nurture guns and violence.

Seriously, what an 'effed up Country.

ACDC8 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Sure, but you don't have to be armed with a firearm to be a deadly threat.

This is true - one just needs to be sitting in a mobility scooter.

A Nation born through guns and violence will continue to nurture guns and violence.

Seriously, what an 'effed up Country.

Nearly every nation has been born through violence. I highly doubt where you hail from is any different. And telling a police officer, "The US has been in wars in its history so you should allow dangerous criminals to murder you" isn't exactly logical.

TriJets wrote:

Nearly every nation has been born through violence. I highly doubt where you hail from is any different. And telling a police officer, "The US has been in wars in its history so you should allow dangerous criminals to murder you" isn't exactly logical.

You missed the other part of my quote, you know, that little part about the 2nd Amendment. Yes, many Nations have been born through war - but very few of them turn gun ownership into some bizarre idealogical and political way of life that the rest of the World just scratches their head at - this is why I was very specific in saying "guns and violence".

Kiwirob wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

So you’d prefer to coddle the cops then? Should a gun user be accountable for their actions or not? Police held to a different, lower, standard than the general public? Unless of course all accidental killings should just be left.

This is close to my heart because just last week a shooting was prevented at my daughters school.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it were your daughter being dragged and beaten with a bike lock, you would be grateful the police shot the offender. In a chaotic situation such as this, it is possible for an accident to occur, and that's what it was -- an accident. If you were in the officers' shoes, how would you have handled this? First waiting for a social worker affords no protection for the original victim. How would she have fared if the police did not intervene?

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

America is also one of the top, if not the top, violent crime country in the western world. In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

Violent nation, poorly trained and violent police, fear and expectation of violence = many mistakes will be made. And those mistakes are made on a regular basis.

Redd wrote:

In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

I'm wondering why go to the physical effort of beating folks with a bike lock when a readily available gun is so much more efficient? The end result for the perpetrator would be the same.

Redd wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

If it were your daughter being dragged and beaten with a bike lock, you would be grateful the police shot the offender. In a chaotic situation such as this, it is possible for an accident to occur, and that's what it was -- an accident. If you were in the officers' shoes, how would you have handled this? First waiting for a social worker affords no protection for the original victim. How would she have fared if the police did not intervene?

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

America is also one of the top, if not the top, violent crime country in the western world. In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

Violent nation, poorly trained and violent police, fear and expectation of violence = many mistakes will be made. And those mistakes are made on a regular basis.

Clearly you know absolutely nothing about NZ, we have a major gang problem in the country, domestic violence (within certain ethnic groups) is skyrocketing, someone being beaten to death with a bike lock would not surprise me in the slightest. NZ police are very good as de-escalating situations before they need to shoot someone.

scbriml wrote:

Redd wrote:

In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

I'm wondering why go to the physical effort of beating folks with a bike lock when a readily available gun is so much more efficient? The end result for the perpetrator would be the same.

Maybe this is that one case where the gun restrictions that do exist worked?

petertenthije wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Redd wrote:

In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

I'm wondering why go to the physical effort of beating folks with a bike lock when a readily available gun is so much more efficient? The end result for the perpetrator would be the same.

Maybe this is that one case where the gun restrictions that do exist worked?

Nobody here will admit to that.

petertenthije wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Redd wrote:

In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

I'm wondering why go to the physical effort of beating folks with a bike lock when a readily available gun is so much more efficient? The end result for the perpetrator would be the same.

Maybe this is that one case where the gun restrictions that do exist worked?

Maybe. On the other hand, if the police weren't so trigger happy, two dead people would still be alive.

scbriml wrote:

Redd wrote:

In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

I'm wondering why go to the physical effort of beating folks with a bike lock when a readily available gun is so much more efficient? The end result for the perpetrator would be the same.

Because guns are not "readily available" in the way a bike lock is, or bike locks don't have the immediate criminal liability that a bike lock does, and depending on your strength, the bike lock does the job as well?

Kiwirob wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I'm wondering why go to the physical effort of beating folks with a bike lock when a readily available gun is so much more efficient? The end result for the perpetrator would be the same.

Maybe this is that one case where the gun restrictions that do exist worked?

Nobody here will admit to that.

The problem here is that without asking the perp, we really don't know.

One thing to keep in mind is that LA is a few hours drive to a basically open border with as many guns, drugs, humans or whatever else as one would wish to buy, along with all sorts of organizations happy to facilitate such movement. For those scoring at home, the US/Mexico border is slightly longer (at 3145 km) than the length of a train ride from Moscow to Rome (3066 km) along some extraordinarily inhospitable terrain in places. Oh, and at the San Ysidro (think San Diego/Tijuana) checkpoint alone, about 25000 people and 75000 cars pass daily, or 10 million people and 25 million cars yearly, so basically the population of Berlin, Madrid and Rome.

Kiwirob wrote:

Redd wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

America is also one of the top, if not the top, violent crime country in the western world. In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

Violent nation, poorly trained and violent police, fear and expectation of violence = many mistakes will be made. And those mistakes are made on a regular basis.

Clearly you know absolutely nothing about NZ, we have a major gang problem in the country, domestic violence (within certain ethnic groups) is skyrocketing, someone being beaten to death with a bike lock would not surprise me in the slightest. NZ police are very good as de-escalating situations before they need to shoot someone.

Never said I do, Rob, that's why I left a question mark at the end of my sentence. Still, having said that, I'm sure the levels of violent crime are far from what they are in the USA.

scbriml wrote:

Redd wrote:

In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

I'm wondering why go to the physical effort of beating folks with a bike lock when a readily available gun is so much more efficient? The end result for the perpetrator would be the same.

Maybe it was an unplanned assault? Crime of passion, at the moment, etc....

Redd wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Redd wrote:

In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

I'm wondering why go to the physical effort of beating folks with a bike lock when a readily available gun is so much more efficient? The end result for the perpetrator would be the same.

Maybe it was an unplanned assault? Crime of passion, at the moment, etc....

Reports are that the suspect had attacked multiple shoppers, so likely not.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The 2nd amendment is never going anywhere, nor should it.

Maybe we should stop demonizing law enforcement to the extent that no one wants to work in it anymore. Make the career attractive again and it will be easier to attract more qualified applicants. As it stands now, not many people want to take a job that entails being shot at and pelted with urine, bricks, and feces for no good reason.

"no good reason" being they shoot and kill unarmed dark skinned people. The suspect they were shooting at in the mall was unarmed, just for reference.

Are you stating that you support shooting random cops who had nothing to do with some high-profile and likely justified shootings that you've seen on the news?

I thought you were talking about protests and protesters who are demanding cops stop shooting and killing unarmed minorities.

And, yes, cops should know the difference between their stun gun and their regulation gun. They should also be color blind. But, this is not a perfect world. Cops are racist and the system is rigged against minorities. Report after report proves it.

https://www.vera.org/downloads/publicat ... rities.pdf
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/youn ... -can-help/

Redd wrote:

America is also one of the top, if not the top, violent crime country in the western world. In NZ, would it be a reasonable expectation that someone will beat someone to death with a bike lock? In the USA, it's a reasonable expectation.

Violent nation, poorly trained and violent police, fear and expectation of violence = many mistakes will be made. And those mistakes are made on a regular basis.

This a common fallacy usually put forward by the NRA and 2nd Amendment advocates to encourage the most simple-minded of us Americans. What it encourages is the belief that guns are the solution to safety in a country that is just naturally more violent than our nation peers in Europe and Asia. At its least insidious, the fallacy focuses on bad parenting or video games and counts on the ignorance of huge swaths of the country to create this belief system that we're just bad parents and our kids play more video games than Canadian or Japanese kids. At its most insidious it creates this racist belief system that blacks are the bad parents or Mexicans are all rapists. Even some Presidents news channel anchors say stuff like this!

None of it is true. In overall violent crime rates we rank right in the middle of our peer nation club. Trust me, Japanese dads are no better than American dads, the English love to throw punches too and look at those Swedes, rape looks like a national pastime. Now, where we do excel and prefer the company of some really lovely countries is our murder rate. It's mighty hard for the gun crazies in this country to believe, but it's the guns. You flood the UK, Sweden or Japan with the same level of guns and ammo in circulation per capita and their murder rates would skyrocket. They are just as bad at parenting, they play the same violent video games, they suffer the same rates of mental health issues and they fight the same levels of stress as we Americans. It's the guns. And they need to be regulated just like car ownership and driving is.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

"no good reason" being they shoot and kill unarmed dark skinned people. The suspect they were shooting at in the mall was unarmed, just for reference.

Are you stating that you support shooting random cops who had nothing to do with some high-profile and likely justified shootings that you've seen on the news?

I thought you were talking about protests and protesters who are demanding cops stop shooting and killing unarmed minorities.

And, yes, cops should know the difference between their stun gun and their regulation gun. They should also be color blind. But, this is not a perfect world. Cops are racist and the system is rigged against minorities. Report after report proves it.

https://www.vera.org/downloads/publicat ... rities.pdf
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/youn ... -can-help/

I'll agree with you that the system is rigged against minorities, not because of their skin color but largely because the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy. Two people can be charged with the same crime, but if one is a poor black person who can't afford a lawyer and the other is a wealthy white person who has money to spare, the black person is likely to receive the harsher punishment.

Your statement that "cops are racist" is bunk, though. Your studies don't "prove" that a group of nearly a million people (many of them black or nonwhite) are racist. Cops go where the most crime is. Where I live, over 90% of the homicide victims in this record-setting year have been nonwhite, as have nearly all of the people arrested for those crimes. At city council meetings, it isn't the white people that are begging for more cops....it is the black people who are predominately the victims of violent crime that are asking for more police officers in their neighborhoods.

TriJets wrote:

meecrob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Police here have to deal with the fact that any criminal they encounter is highly likely to be armed with a firearm.

But the United States as a society decided they wanted guns. This isn't an excuse. It would be like if here in Canada we had a right to pet bears, and after many innocent people die in bear traps, because there is no adequate way to control the bears, people said "Well, the fact of the matter is that per capita, we have more bears!" Yeah, no shit!!

It isn't an excuse at all....it is reality. Cops don't forfeit the right to self-defense just because many criminals are armed.

My point is that as a society, Americans evidently want guns. Well you have them and now you are complaining about them. "Oh, our police have such a difficult time because there are so many guns!!" Again, no shit! You guys asked for the guns, you got 'em! I'm not at all saying cops should forfeit their right to self defense. But their primary duty is to serve and protect the citizens of the district in which they operate. I never want to see a cop injured or killed on the job, but unless your head is up your ass, that's part of the deal that they signed up for (similar to military personnel).

Lets break this scenario down: There was someone on the loose armed with a deadly weapon, correct? So the threat is that a civilian could be injured or killed. And in order to take out the individual with the weapon, the cops fatally injured an innocent bystander. It is arguable that potentially the police made the situation worse by intervening with guns, as they inflicted on an innocent victim exactly what they were trying to prevent the assailant from doing.

Where are all the good guys with guns? Because clearly these officers do not fit the bill.

meecrob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

meecrob wrote:

But the United States as a society decided they wanted guns. This isn't an excuse. It would be like if here in Canada we had a right to pet bears, and after many innocent people die in bear traps, because there is no adequate way to control the bears, people said "Well, the fact of the matter is that per capita, we have more bears!" Yeah, no shit!!

It isn't an excuse at all....it is reality. Cops don't forfeit the right to self-defense just because many criminals are armed.

My point is that as a society, Americans evidently want guns. Well you have them and now you are complaining about them. "Oh, our police have such a difficult time because there are so many guns!!" Again, no shit! You guys asked for the guns, you got 'em! I'm not at all saying cops should forfeit their right to self defense. But their primary duty is to serve and protect the citizens of the district in which they operate. I never want to see a cop injured or killed on the job, but unless your head is up your ass, that's part of the deal that they signed up for (similar to military personnel).

Lets break this scenario down: There was someone on the loose armed with a deadly weapon, correct? So the threat is that a civilian could be injured or killed. And in order to take out the individual with the weapon, the cops fatally injured an innocent bystander. It is arguable that potentially the police made the situation worse by intervening with guns, as they inflicted on an innocent victim exactly what they were trying to prevent the assailant from doing.

Where are all the good guys with guns? Because clearly these officers do not fit the bill.

Sure. I'd agree that the officer in this case made a mistake and he should face the consequences that come with that. In this case, an innocent bystander was killed. The problem is that we can't reasonably expect perfection from anyone, let alone our public safety officers. When you place someone in a position in which they have a second or two to potentially decide between life and death, mistakes will be made. That's human nature.

In this case, I think we both agree that the officer was wrong for opening fire in the manner that he did. He had ample backup and there were less lethal options available. Now, let's cloud the situation a little bit and imagine that this officer was responding alone. He's facing a lunatic who is trying to kill people with a bike lock. Suppose the officer confronts the suspect, hesitates, and the suspect lands a blow to the officer's head, incapacitating him. Now the nutjob who was previously armed with a bike lock has access to a gun.

Getting closer to reality, let's imagine that this guy wasn't armed with a bike lock but was instead armed with a gun. After all, the officers were responding to a report of a potential active shooter in the store. The officer at point sees the suspect and a bloodied victim on the ground....if the man really is an active shooter, does hesitating get the officer or his partner killed? It is easy to criticize when he have the benefit of hindsight and of additional information that was not available to them at the time.

scbriml wrote:

Maybe. On the other hand, if the police weren't so trigger happy, two dead people would still be alive.

But a third party, the woman being dragged, faced probable brain damage and possible death. I wish you would have the experience of being a cop for a while. Then, you could show us how to do policing in perfect fashion, without any allowance for human error.

seb146 wrote:

I thought you were talking about protests and protesters who are demanding cops stop shooting and killing unarmed minorities.

And, yes, cops should know the difference between their stun gun and their regulation gun. They should also be color blind. But, this is not a perfect world. Cops are racist and the system is rigged against minorities. Report after report proves it.

https://www.vera.org/downloads/publicat ... rities.pdf
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/youn ... -can-help/

Do either of those sources state the numbers of unarmed visible minorities killed by police in the US?

What would be your guess in 2019, or 2020?

Arguments fall apart quickly when your driving point begins with “let’s imagine that…”

While we’re on it, let’s imagine that the 14 year old girl had a gun too, and was able to fire back. Or that the officer had a nerf gun! Or that instead of being in a mall, they were in a wide open field riding horses!

We don’t have to imagine because none of that happened. We don’t need to take into account that maaaaaybe x y or z would have happened. Instead we have a 14 year old girl who went shopping and ended up dead

We don’t have to imagine anything because it doesn’t add any value to the conversation. Police aren’t trained on the basis of imagining situations. They observe, assess, and take appropriate action. The issue people have is that the action being taken is increasingly becoming “shoot” regardless of situation.

Police, by nature, have to be equipped with a superior level of force. Guy has his fists, cop has a baton, guy has a knife, cop has a gun. But you have to climb that ladder of potential force using those assessment skills.

Police operate in the realm of unknown and chaos. Problem is, they don’t seem to be much better at handling it than anyone else

wingman wrote:

None of it is true. In overall violent crime rates we rank right in the middle of our peer nation club. Trust me, Japanese dads are no better than American dads, the English love to throw punches too and look at those Swedes, rape looks like a national pastime. Now, where we do excel and prefer the company of some really lovely countries is our murder rate. It's mighty hard for the gun crazies in this country to believe, but it's the guns. You flood the UK, Sweden or Japan with the same level of guns and ammo in circulation per capita and their murder rates would skyrocket. They are just as bad at parenting, they play the same violent video games, they suffer the same rates of mental health issues and they fight the same levels of stress as we Americans. It's the guns. And they need to be regulated just like car ownership and driving is.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

I'd suggest your thesis is somewhat incomplete. It doesn't take into account the historically low levels of crime in the Asian American community, for one. These Americans have the same access to firearms as everyone else, yet in places like Chicago, Houston, or LA (where there is plenty of crime, and a large and fairly heterogenous Asian populations) the participation in crime statistics by Asian Americans is a rounding error. It also ignores the rural/urban issue, where firearms possession in rural areas is quite high, yet violent crime relatively low.

Further, firearms ownership is regulated both passively and actively in the US, and places like Chicago, NYC, Baltimore and DC have similar rates of murder, as places like Memphis or St. Louis where firearms ownership is less regulated. So, at best we note gun laws are pretty independent variable of murder and crime.

Now, one might make the argument that if the crime to be expected is somewhat constant, than the presence of firearms potentially makes it more lethal. But in the US, more people are killed by knives than rifles.

FGITD wrote:

Police operate in the realm of unknown and chaos. Problem is, they don’t seem to be much better at handling it than anyone else

I'd tend to argue that faced with the level of violence in the US, the police do far better than the agenda driven reporting would suggest.

To use the example from Tucson, while the shooting is certainly troubling (the anchor shot at the end is problematic, no matter how you slice it) the Chief of Police and the Mayor of Tucson have from local reporting restricted much of the less than lethal options of the police, due to the optics of their use. Thus, there is a movement of police officers, usually to higher paying suburban departments, that still have those tools like tasers, batons and other less than lethals. For example, scooter guy was total candidate for a beanbag round, but if that option isn't available, its not available.

One thing for our non-North American readers to understand is that much of law enforcement in the US is local, even compared to Canada. These departments are accountable to local elected leaders, and arrest crimes for locally elected (usually at the county level) prosecutors to prosecute (or not prosecute.) Most police departments in the US are about responsive to local control as one could imagine.

meecrob wrote:

Where are all the good guys with guns? Because clearly these officers do not fit the bill.

Its highly unlikely that the police officer in question intervened wishing harm on the innocent girl. Reporting is that his round was a ricochet.

Further, in much of California, citizens have a very difficult (or basically impossible) means to legally carry firearms, and thus there are very few concealed carry holders.

seb146 wrote:

"no good reason" being they shoot and kill unarmed dark skinned people. The suspect they were shooting at in the mall was unarmed, just for reference.

You do know that the cop who shot both people was Black and a BLM supporter, don't you?

TriJets wrote:

meecrob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

It isn't an excuse at all....it is reality. Cops don't forfeit the right to self-defense just because many criminals are armed.

My point is that as a society, Americans evidently want guns. Well you have them and now you are complaining about them. "Oh, our police have such a difficult time because there are so many guns!!" Again, no shit! You guys asked for the guns, you got 'em! I'm not at all saying cops should forfeit their right to self defense. But their primary duty is to serve and protect the citizens of the district in which they operate. I never want to see a cop injured or killed on the job, but unless your head is up your ass, that's part of the deal that they signed up for (similar to military personnel).

Lets break this scenario down: There was someone on the loose armed with a deadly weapon, correct? So the threat is that a civilian could be injured or killed. And in order to take out the individual with the weapon, the cops fatally injured an innocent bystander. It is arguable that potentially the police made the situation worse by intervening with guns, as they inflicted on an innocent victim exactly what they were trying to prevent the assailant from doing.

Where are all the good guys with guns? Because clearly these officers do not fit the bill.

Sure. I'd agree that the officer in this case made a mistake and he should face the consequences that come with that. In this case, an innocent bystander was killed. The problem is that we can't reasonably expect perfection from anyone, let alone our public safety officers. When you place someone in a position in which they have a second or two to potentially decide between life and death, mistakes will be made. That's human nature.

In this case, I think we both agree that the officer was wrong for opening fire in the manner that he did. He had ample backup and there were less lethal options available. Now, let's cloud the situation a little bit and imagine that this officer was responding alone. He's facing a lunatic who is trying to kill people with a bike lock. Suppose the officer confronts the suspect, hesitates, and the suspect lands a blow to the officer's head, incapacitating him. Now the nutjob who was previously armed with a bike lock has access to a gun.

Getting closer to reality, let's imagine that this guy wasn't armed with a bike lock but was instead armed with a gun. After all, the officers were responding to a report of a potential active shooter in the store. The officer at point sees the suspect and a bloodied victim on the ground....if the man really is an active shooter, does hesitating get the officer or his partner killed? It is easy to criticize when he have the benefit of hindsight and of additional information that was not available to them at the time.

I'm sorry, but this issue needs to be looked at from a broader view. You are saying that once in that situation, there are limited options. I'm saying they shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. Again, in order to subdue an individual armed with a weapon, they killed an innocent bystander. This is like if an ambulance was taking a hit-and-run victim to the hospital, but the road was blocked, so they jumped the sidewalk and hit a bystander. There comes a point where you simply are not helping. I'm sure all the sane gun aficionados on this forum would agree that you have to be a special kind of stupid to open fire in a mall of all places...or more accurately, the police department's training is in dire need of refurbishment, if this was all to protocol.

meecrob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

meecrob wrote:

My point is that as a society, Americans evidently want guns. Well you have them and now you are complaining about them. "Oh, our police have such a difficult time because there are so many guns!!" Again, no shit! You guys asked for the guns, you got 'em! I'm not at all saying cops should forfeit their right to self defense. But their primary duty is to serve and protect the citizens of the district in which they operate. I never want to see a cop injured or killed on the job, but unless your head is up your ass, that's part of the deal that they signed up for (similar to military personnel).

Lets break this scenario down: There was someone on the loose armed with a deadly weapon, correct? So the threat is that a civilian could be injured or killed. And in order to take out the individual with the weapon, the cops fatally injured an innocent bystander. It is arguable that potentially the police made the situation worse by intervening with guns, as they inflicted on an innocent victim exactly what they were trying to prevent the assailant from doing.

Where are all the good guys with guns? Because clearly these officers do not fit the bill.

Sure. I'd agree that the officer in this case made a mistake and he should face the consequences that come with that. In this case, an innocent bystander was killed. The problem is that we can't reasonably expect perfection from anyone, let alone our public safety officers. When you place someone in a position in which they have a second or two to potentially decide between life and death, mistakes will be made. That's human nature.

In this case, I think we both agree that the officer was wrong for opening fire in the manner that he did. He had ample backup and there were less lethal options available. Now, let's cloud the situation a little bit and imagine that this officer was responding alone. He's facing a lunatic who is trying to kill people with a bike lock. Suppose the officer confronts the suspect, hesitates, and the suspect lands a blow to the officer's head, incapacitating him. Now the nutjob who was previously armed with a bike lock has access to a gun.

Getting closer to reality, let's imagine that this guy wasn't armed with a bike lock but was instead armed with a gun. After all, the officers were responding to a report of a potential active shooter in the store. The officer at point sees the suspect and a bloodied victim on the ground....if the man really is an active shooter, does hesitating get the officer or his partner killed? It is easy to criticize when he have the benefit of hindsight and of additional information that was not available to them at the time.

I'm sorry, but this issue needs to be looked at from a broader view. You are saying that once in that situation, there are limited options. I'm saying they shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. Again, in order to subdue an individual armed with a weapon, they killed an innocent bystander. This is like if an ambulance was taking a hit-and-run victim to the hospital, but the road was blocked, so they jumped the sidewalk and hit a bystander. There comes a point where you simply are not helping. I'm sure all the sane gun aficionados on this forum would agree that you have to be a special kind of stupid to open fire in a mall of all places...or more accurately, the police department's training is in dire need of refurbishment, if this was all to protocol.

Your question is basically, should police be armed or not. IMO, if police were not armed, most of my friends, family and myself would be kidnapped and murdered quickly, possibly by people age 14-18.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

"no good reason" being they shoot and kill unarmed dark skinned people. The suspect they were shooting at in the mall was unarmed, just for reference.

You do know that the cop who shot both people was Black and a BLM supporter, don't you?

Well, that's an uncomfortable fact.

meecrob wrote:

I'm sorry, but this issue needs to be looked at from a broader view. You are saying that once in that situation, there are limited options. I'm saying they shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. Again, in order to subdue an individual armed with a weapon, they killed an innocent bystander. This is like if an ambulance was taking a hit-and-run victim to the hospital, but the road was blocked, so they jumped the sidewalk and hit a bystander. There comes a point where you simply are not helping. I'm sure all the sane gun aficionados on this forum would agree that you have to be a special kind of stupid to open fire in a mall of all places...or more accurately, the police department's training is in dire need of refurbishment, if this was all to protocol.

So do the police stand around and let bike lock play Home Run Derby on people's skulls? In the US, the bias will be for action in the vast majority of cases.

There is probably going to be some police intervention at this point in a case like this, and that intervention is likely going to be armed. I'm personally all for the police to be highly trained and tactically effectively, but there are only so many training hours in a day and frankly limited appetite among the city budgeteers for ammunition, specialist trainers and the like. So, some cops (overwhelmingly gun aficionados in my experience, and unsurprisingly so) are going to be better at this than others.

What? Are you uncomfortable with black people working as police officers?

FlapOperator wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

"no good reason" being they shoot and kill unarmed dark skinned people. The suspect they were shooting at in the mall was unarmed, just for reference.

You do know that the cop who shot both people was Black and a BLM supporter, don't you?

Well, that's an uncomfortable fact.

M564038 wrote:

What? Are you uncomfortable with black people working as police officers?

If that's what you got from that statement, I'd respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting in your non-native language.

FlapOperator wrote:

So do the police stand around and let bike lock play Home Run Derby on people's skulls? In the US, the bias will be for action in the vast majority of cases.

There is probably going to be some police intervention at this point in a case like this, and that intervention is likely going to be armed. I'm personally all for the police to be highly trained and tactically effectively, but there are only so many training hours in a day and frankly limited appetite among the city budgeteers for ammunition, specialist trainers and the like. So, some cops (overwhelmingly gun aficionados in my experience, and unsurprisingly so) are going to be better at this than others.

But in this case I even question the need for it to be an immediate armed response. He’s swinging a bike lock that looks to be about a foot long at most, in a confined space and he’s already backing himself into a clever. Surround him (there was no shortage of officers on scene) and take him down with a baton or a taser. Or even just by pointing the rifle at him and giving him orders.

(Personally I think tasers are a bit overstated and misunderstood, particularly the “less than lethal” vs non lethal aspect, plus so many departments don’t actually have them)

The officer who fired gives off a bad feeling from the start. He wanted to be in front with his rifle, acting like he’s gonna Rambo his way through Target. Ever if they needed a firearm…why are they reaching for an ar15 style rifle? Why not the service pistol that they all have?

I’m all for the police doing their job to ensure their own safety and that of others, but it’s a tough one to defend when the criminal caused a few injuries, and the police caused 2 deaths.

FlapOperator wrote:

M564038 wrote:

What? Are you uncomfortable with black people working as police officers?

If that's what you got from that statement, I'd respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting in your non-native language.

I agree.

FGITD wrote:

But in this case I even question the need for it to be an immediate armed response. He’s swinging a bike lock that looks to be about a foot long at most, in a confined space and he’s already backing himself into a clever. Surround him (there was no shortage of officers on scene) and take him down with a baton or a taser. Or even just by pointing the rifle at him and giving him orders.

(Personally I think tasers are a bit overstated and misunderstood, particularly the “less than lethal” vs non lethal aspect, plus so many departments don’t actually have them)

The officer who fired gives off a bad feeling from the start. He wanted to be in front with his rifle, acting like he’s gonna Rambo his way through Target. Ever if they needed a firearm…why are they reaching for an ar15 style rifle? Why not the service pistol that they all have?

I’m all for the police doing their job to ensure their own safety and that of others, but it’s a tough one to defend when the criminal caused a few injuries, and the police caused 2 deaths.

Legally speaking, the general standard in the US is the imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Strikes to the head are considered in the realm of GBI (which is why the use of batons is pretty limited in the US as time goes on.) The cop is going to have explain what imminent death or GBI he was perceiving, if that is reasonable to a jury, and within his department protocols for use of force. As the cop enters the scene, the information he's receiving is the person is currently beating someone, though the body cam has that off screen.

As far as the rifle, generally, the argument is that (assuming the above criterion are met) a rifle is more precise than a pistol, and less likely to cause collateral damage. That said, the rule is you own every round you fire.

FlapOperator wrote:

FGITD wrote:

But in this case I even question the need for it to be an immediate armed response. He’s swinging a bike lock that looks to be about a foot long at most, in a confined space and he’s already backing himself into a clever. Surround him (there was no shortage of officers on scene) and take him down with a baton or a taser. Or even just by pointing the rifle at him and giving him orders.

(Personally I think tasers are a bit overstated and misunderstood, particularly the “less than lethal” vs non lethal aspect, plus so many departments don’t actually have them)

The officer who fired gives off a bad feeling from the start. He wanted to be in front with his rifle, acting like he’s gonna Rambo his way through Target. Ever if they needed a firearm…why are they reaching for an ar15 style rifle? Why not the service pistol that they all have?

I’m all for the police doing their job to ensure their own safety and that of others, but it’s a tough one to defend when the criminal caused a few injuries, and the police caused 2 deaths.

Legally speaking, the general standard in the US is the imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Strikes to the head are considered in the realm of GBI (which is why the use of batons is pretty limited in the US as time goes on.) The cop is going to have explain what imminent death or GBI he was perceiving, if that is reasonable to a jury, and within his department protocols for use of force. As the cop enters the scene, the information he's receiving is the person is currently beating someone, though the body cam has that off screen.

As far as the rifle, generally, the argument is that (assuming the above criterion are met) a rifle is more precise than a pistol, and less likely to cause collateral damage. That said, the rule is you own every round you fire.

It's not going to help his case that other officers were telling him to "slow down".