Originally Posted by kenoc7 (Post 1829626)

Actually it is true - black people are killed disproportionally by police.

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1829013)

Here is a great moment in television that explains why police sometimes shoot people when it doesn't seem necessary.

Originally Posted by kenoc7 (Post 1829622)

What you see on TV is a huge exaggeration of the violence because TV show what is dramatic. I. think it was Reuters. but it may have been AP stated that well over 90% of the protests have been peaceful.

Originally Posted by jacksonbrown (Post 1829694)

Here is an insightful article that includes first-hand discussion of above.

My Career..

6,300 words but well worth the read.

Originally Posted by Windguy (Post 1829439)

Sort of like so many people focus on the rioters instead of the peaceful protestors?

Originally Posted by BethBowen (Post 1829493)

We armed our police for war time after 9/11. We need to provide them with a different weapon. A mentally I'll, naked man runs through the streets. He is spitting, waving his arms and ranting gibberish. The police need units to help them in these situations. Bagging the man's head and kneeling on his neck controls him. But can the police do better. Police need help to handle the mental health crisis in this country.
They are overwhelmed.

Originally Posted by Girlcopper (Post 1829502)

True! And look who is doing the focusing. Uneducated, illiterate, unemployed, entitled people. You have a beef with cops? Instead of looting and burning down your own local businesses, how about you go out and take a law enforcement job. Oh wait! Can you pass the “vetting” process?? I highly doubt it

Originally Posted by kenoc7 (Post 1829626)

Actually it is true - black people are killed disproportionally by police.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1829589)

There are many, many reasons for a police officer to shoot a perp in the back. And it appears that every "uninformed" critic in America feels the need to make it worse for them to do their job to PROTECT.
I have a good friend (Deputy) that responded off duty to an armed robbery. The suspect was fleeing from the scene when he arrived first. As he took up the chase, the suspect started shooting at him while running away. He returned fire, shooting him in the back. JUSTIFIED shooting. Did not kill him, though. Too bad. The perp went down. He had been at the shooting range that day, as do many police officers and still had wad cutters in his revolver. Wad cutters are used at the range to better mark the target. At least they used to be used. They punch a nice round hole in the paper target, where a pointed bullet punches through like a pencil and the hole sometimes closes back up, making it hard to see where one shot entered or another. The wad cutter went in the suspects back and hit a rib, following it around to the front. Put him in the hospital, but he was unable to be a threat to anyone else for a while, ten years I think.
If someone is about to shoot you or is threatening you with a gun and the police are behind him, do you want them to ask the bad guy to turn around so he can shoot him, or do you want him to take action immediately? That is a rhetorical question. Personally, if I see a threat to a victim, I plan to take action regardless of what direction the dirtbag is facing.
An officer shot a teenager that was involved in a felony when the suspect reached into his pocket and brought out an object and pointed it at the officer. It was a cell phone. The officer was justified in shooting him. It happened at night and the officer feared that a gun was pointing at him. This stuff happens and then the Monday morning quarterbacks sit there and criticize these great public servants.
I have no sympathy for ANY of these dirtbags with long records of violent behavior. If the officer made a mistake in the heat of the moment, the subject should not have put himself in that situation. I will always give the officer my support if I am on the jury. One less dirtbag, regardless of rehab is one less threat to society. Most of them should not be out on the street anyway. They get way too many "second chances."

Police officers get gunned down when making simple traffic stops. Lets give that job to Social Services.
Police officers get shot or stabbed on domestic calls. Give that to Social Services too.
Police officers might make a bad judgement call and shoot someone that is not a bad guy. Give him rubber bullets so he can't kill anyone.
Police officers should not use choke holds. They have been trained to use them for decades and they are used in the Judo tournaments, but we should outlaw them as they might harm someone.
Police are taught to put a violent and resisting subject on the ground and hold him down while attempting to secure/arrest him. Knees are used, but a person died (of drugs) so they should reason with him or maybe call a Social worker instead of being physical.

Some of us get just a bit impatient with those that are safe in their homes at night, that feel the need to criticize HOW the police perform their duty.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1829753)

A light weight gun firing rubber bullets in ADDITION to the regular one firing lead bullets. That gives the Police Offiicer one more option. Options are USUALLY considered GOOD not BAD. Why not consider something different? AFRAID to try something new - or because of tradition? What is lost with a new experiment?

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1829604)

Not true. The bad guys are the dirbags that have a long record of criminal activity. I don't give a rats @** about the loss of another dirbag that wishes to put a Cop's life or anyone else's in jeopardy. These STUPID protesters are making fools of themselves with the concurrence of a bunch of ignorant liberals that miss the MJ smoke filled, flowery painted VW vans of the '60s. Why in the world would anyone make a martyr out of a dirbag criminal? FOR THE MONEY, period. That is the only value the dirtbag's lives have to anyone.
Cops are not acting as judge and jury, but they do have to make life and death decisions on any given day. If they make a good decision 364 days a year, but a mistake on the one day, they are ostracized and vilified. I have known hundreds of police officers and never have I ever met one that thought he/she were judge and jury, or even acted like it. I did know of one very good officer that was demoted for one mistake he made. It was night and he received a call that a suspect in a rape was being chased toward him in a car chase. He mistakenly shot the radiator of a car speeding toward him to stop the car. It was the wrong car and they sued the county. He was demoted as a result. He made a bad judgement call and paid for it.
Police making mistakes DO pay for it, and ARE punished for their mistakes. Some police Depts require a "use of force" report filled out whenever an officer has to use force to perform an arrest. These are investigated to see if they are justified and the report is recorded in their personnel file. When an officer is given their periodic evaluation, these incidents are taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1829753)

A light weight gun firing rubber bullets in ADDITION to the regular one firing lead bullets. That gives the Police Offiicer one more option. Options are USUALLY considered GOOD not BAD. Why not consider something different? AFRAID to try something new - or because of tradition? What is lost with a new experiment?

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1829778)

I suppose that another gun, along with the stun gun/taser and their mace, flashlight, handcuffs, extra ammo pouch, and baton, etc. is just what they need. Amazing how many "neat" ideas folks come up with that have no experience in law enforcement. Personally, I do not think that rubber bullets against firearms works anywhere except in Batman movies. I have heard of rubber bullets and bean bags used in crowd control/riots, but I don't know if they worked very well. A good old fire hose works. That is what has been used to repel protesters attempting to board ships.