Out of focus...

[*rfaulk34*]

Why do people expect police to be perfect in what they do, yet don't consider the difficulty in performing their job on a daily basis?

Some will post videos of "unjustified killings" of unarmed citizens, even though on many of those cases will show that the actions of the deceased lead to their death. Now, we're even posting stories of people who were detained and released, unharmed, and trying to hold that up as something unnecessary and unjustified. And in that same story, the attitude that would possibly lead to death if the situation escalated a bit more. 

There is no denying that people die at the hands of police when it was totally unnecessary and unjustified. There is no denying that in some cases, there were cover ups involved. There is also no denying that the percentage of deaths is very small when compared to the total number of interactions of police with citizens. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and in this case, social media is the grease that is being doused on the squeak of, mostly, black men and women being shot and killed by police--both justified and unjustified. 

Lines are blurred when actual criminals, in some cases carrying weapons or fighting with police, are lumped in with compliant citizens who were shot due to a lack of training or incompetence. 

With all that said, my point lies here; the focus is on a small percentage of killings and how they were handled wrong, when what is ignored is the much greater percentage of interactions where criminals put the lives of LEOs in jeopardy every day, because they have no respect for anything but what they want. 

Re-focusing...show me a video of an unarmed man or woman being shot by police and i'll show you tenfold videos of police being assaulted, shot at and stabbed by criminals, while just trying to protect and serve the public from those criminals who will lie, cheat, steal and kill just to get what they want. 

[GMDino]

(09-25-2016, 12:53 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Why do people expect police to be perfect in what they do, yet don't consider the difficulty in performing their job on a daily basis?

Some will post videos of "unjustified killings" of unarmed citizens, even though on many of those cases will show that the actions of the deceased lead to their death. Now, we're even posting stories of people who were detained and released, unharmed, and trying to hold that up as something unnecessary and unjustified. And in that same story, the attitude that would possibly lead to death if the situation escalated a bit more. 

There is no denying that people die at the hands of police when it was totally unnecessary and unjustified. There is no denying that in some cases, there were cover ups involved. There is also no denying that the percentage of deaths is very small when compared to the total number of interactions of police with citizens. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and in this case, social media is the grease that is being doused on the squeak of, mostly, black men and women being shot and killed by police--both justified and unjustified. 

Lines are blurred when actual criminals, in some cases carrying weapons or fighting with police, are lumped in with compliant citizens who were shot due to a lack of training or incompetence. 

With all that said, my point lies here; the focus is on a small percentage of killings and how they were handled wrong, when what is ignored is the much greater percentage of interactions where criminals put the lives of LEOs in jeopardy every day, because they have no respect for anything but what they want. 

Re-focusing...show me a video of an unarmed man or woman being shot by police and i'll show you tenfold videos of police being assaulted, shot at and stabbed by criminals, while just trying to protect and serve the public from those criminals who will lie, cheat, steal and kill just to get what they want. 

Police have a dangerous job.  I don't think anyone disputes that.  But they signed up for it, didn't they? If you don't want to put your life on the line every day...don't.  I can respect those that do but not the ones who defend their every action with "it's dangerous" or "I was fearful".

Personally I don't expect them to be "perfect".  I don't expect ANYONE to be perfect. 

By police have the ability to take away your freedom and your life....legally.  Anyone with that kind of power/responsibility must be held to a higher standard.

I don't know how anyone could argue against that.

As I said in another post every time there is one of these "isolated incidents" they must be looked at and learned from to determine if there is a way to keep them from happening again.  

Unfortunately some want to fall back on "it doesn't happen very often" and will just chalk it up to "shit happens".  Some folks go to the other extreme and demand "changes" without knowing what they are or what might work.

In the middle we want to learn from our mistakes and try to limit them even more.

[NATI BENGALS]

I would agree it is out of focus if for example there was a movement that gained massive attention led by an ass clown who wears pig socks to mock police and disrespects his country and if there were groups of people calling for dead cops and actually targeting and murdering cops. Maybe then i would say it is out of focus.

Until then i will continue to stand by innocent victims who are absolute angels no matter how much pcp or illegal firearms or armed robbery talk there is.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2016, 11:24 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I would agree it is out of focus if for example there was a movement that gained massive attention led by an ass clown who wears pig socks to mock police and disrespects his country and if there were groups of people calling for dead cops and actually targeting and murdering cops. Maybe then i would say it is out of focus.

Until then i will continue to stand by innocent victims who are absolute angels no matter how much pcp or illegal firearms or armed robbery talk there is.

See?  We can't even look at what possibly went wrong because the victims were not 100% innocent their entire lives.

This kind of discussion relies on both sides being willing to admit there are mistakes made and things can be done to better the encounters...not sticking fingers in out ears or pointing at the other side saying they are just worse.

[Au165]

(09-25-2016, 09:23 PM) GMDino Wrote:Police have a dangerous job.  I don't think anyone disputes that.  But they signed up for it, didn't they? If you don't want to put your life on the line every day...don't.

They didn't sign up to take unnecessary risks, that is where I get annoyed with the general public. When people say shoot them in the leg, tazer them, etc. the reality is many times that is not enough to stop someone who wants to do harm, and honestly they can't afford to risk it. I see police footage often for my job, and in that footage I have seen countless videos of people getting shot in places besides center mass and getting up and continuing to attack. I have seen tazers do nothing as people pull out the barbs and continue to approach. When an officer is in danger, they have no responsibility to put the assailant's safety over their own.

People can question shoot or don't shoot, but there are standards for when it is a shoot situation. If it is a shoot situation, and not by what the public considers "shoot or don't" but the SOP, then it is shoot to kill. This isn't the movies, cops can't be expected to shoot limbs and bad guys stay down. I know this is kind of off topic, but a lot of this gets muddied by things like "they didn't have to kill them". If they met the parameters to shoot, then how it was handled is really not a question.

[GMDino]

(09-26-2016, 10:24 AM)Au165 Wrote: They didn't sign up to take unnecessary risks, that is where I get annoyed with the general public. When people say shoot them in the leg, tazer them, etc. the reality is many times that is not enough to stop someone who wants to do harm, and honestly they can't afford to risk it. I see police footage often for my job, and in that footage I have seen countless videos of people getting shot in places besides center mass and getting up and continuing to attack. I have seen tazers do nothing as people pull out the barbs and continue to approach. When an officer is in danger, they have no responsibility to put the assailant's safety over their own.

People can question shoot or don't shoot, but there are standards for when it is a shoot situation. If it is a shoot situation, and not by what the public considers "shoot or don't" but the SOP, then it is shoot to kill. This isn't the movies, cops can't be expected to shoot limbs and bad guys stay down. I know this is kind of off topic, but a lot of this gets muddied by things like "they didn't have to kill them". If they met the parameters to shoot, then how it was handled is really not a question.

And, again, that is why every time a shooting/fatality happens that is even remotely questionable we should examine it.  We should learn from it.  

We should see if there is a better way to handle situations before they get to shooting.  Maybe there is not, maybe there is.  Just saying "it happens and they are doing their best" is a bad answer.  We can all do better.

[Au165]

(09-26-2016, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: And, again, that is why every time a shooting/fatality happens that is even remotely questionable we should examine it.  We should learn from it.  

We should see if there is a better way to handle situations before they get to shooting.  Maybe there is not, maybe there is.  Just saying "it happens and they are doing their best" is a bad answer.  We can all do better.

I agree they should be looked at, but who are the people that get to decide what is a better way? There are few things in life I think in order to speak on you have to have done it.....life or death situations is one. I worry that everyone has become an expert on LE operating procedures and thinks that they know what a person should ,or shouldn't, be able to do in these situations. If it is former LEO making these decisions on what "better" ways they should be handled that is fine, if it is someone who has no clue what is reasonable to expect in those situations than I think we are setting ourselves up to be in a worse place going forward.

[hollodero]

(09-25-2016, 12:53 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Re-focusing...show me a video of an unarmed man or woman being shot by police and i'll show you tenfold videos of police being assaulted, shot at and stabbed by criminals, while just trying to protect and serve the public from those criminals who will lie, cheat, steal and kill just to get what they want. 

But what has the one thing to do with the other thing.
The unarmed man is in no way responsible for the police-shooting criminals and their deeds. There's no connection.

I think it's baffling how killing unarmed people seems to get filed under "collateral damage" that simply comes with the dangerous job. (I know you didn't exactly do that, but I do get why people get sour about this and other marginalizations.)

[GMDino]

(09-26-2016, 10:54 AM)Au165 Wrote: I agree they should be looked at, but who are the people that get to decide what is a better way? There are few things in life I think in order to speak on you have to have done it.....life or death situations is one. I worry that everyone has become an expert on LE operating procedures and thinks that they know what a person should ,or shouldn't, be able to do in these situations. If it is former LEO making these decisions on what "better" ways they should be handled that is fine, if it is someone who has no clue what is reasonable to expect in those situations than I think we are setting ourselves up to be in a worse place going forward.

Everyone should be involved. Police, activists, you, me.

For example my boss has worked in our industry, and only our industry for 40 some years.  He has very clear cut ideas about what it the "right" way to do things because he has immense experience in the field.

And he is often quite wrong.

Mainly because he has no experience in sales OUTSIDE of our industry which I and my other boss both have.

Should we not offer changes or suggestions because he is an "expert"?

I don't think so.  

Every time we do a safety walk though I try to take a new person with us because new eyes see new things.

Unfortunately no one ever wants to be told they are wrong these days so they resist any outside information that may suggest that.

Even if they are right in the end they fight the challenge just in case.

[Au165]

(09-26-2016, 11:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Everyone should be involved. Police, activists, you, me.

For example my boss has worked in our industry, and only our industry for 40 some years.  He has very clear cut ideas about what it the "right" way to do things because he has immense experience in the field.

And he is often quite wrong.

Mainly because he has no experience in sales OUTSIDE of our industry which I and my other boss both have.

Should we not offer changes or suggestions because he is an "expert"?

I don't think so.  

Every time we do a safety walk though I try to take a new person with us because new eyes see new things.

Unfortunately no one ever wants to be told they are wrong these days so they resist any outside information that may suggest that.

Even if they are right in the end they fight the challenge just in case.

What do you or I know about how the human mind reacts when you are in a life or death situation? I'd concede to experts in psychology, but no you and I should not have a say in "shoot/ don't shoot" situations. Like I said, there are few places in life I take this stance as I am familiar with situations like you posted, but this is a whole different world. You can talk about what you should do, but until your faced with the possibility of "you or them" then you really can't act like you know what you'd do.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-26-2016, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: And, again, that is why every time a shooting/fatality happens that is even remotely questionable we should examine it.  We should learn from it.  

We should see if there is a better way to handle situations before they get to shooting.  Maybe there is not, maybe there is.  Just saying "it happens and they are doing their best" is a bad answer.  We can all do better.

And how many times would you say you've personally seen an instance where a person was shot who, in your opinion, was shot justifiably, yet the narrative you hear is that they were innocent, doing nothing wrong and were generally a good person that didnt cause trouble?

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-26-2016, 10:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: But what has the one thing to do with the other thing.
The unarmed man is in no way responsible for the police-shooting criminals and their deeds. There's no connection.

I think it's baffling how killing unarmed people seems to get filed under "collateral damage" that simply comes with the dangerous job. (I know you didn't exactly do that, but I do get why people get sour about this and other marginalizations.)

What relates the two is how one (citizen shot by police) is focused on and made a topic to a much higher degree than the other (police assaulted by a citizen) and how little regard is given to how it affects them in their day to day job and how it could affect their decision making.

[GMDino]

(09-26-2016, 11:12 AM)Au165 Wrote: What do you or I know about how the human mind reacts when you are in a life or death situation? I'd concede to experts in psychology, but no you and I should not have a say in "shoot/ don't shoot" situations. Like I said, there are few places in life I take this stance as I am familiar with situations like you posted, but this is a whole different world. You can talk about what you should do, but until your faced with the possibility of "you or them" then you really can't act like you know what you'd do.

What does the expert know unless he was in the situation?  From reading what others said who went through it.




I am not saying *I* am an expert or even know the best way.  I am saying just saying "Eh, it happens.  Smarter people will figure it out." Gets us nowhere.  Look at the example I used.


I wonder if you think the same about things like "common core" which was made by educators but the general public doesn't understand it so they want it thrown out?  Not saying you do, but it's another example of people questioning the "experts".  And I think that is a good thing because as I have said, nothing is perfect.  There is always room for improvement.

[GMDino]

(09-26-2016, 11:18 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: And how many times would you say you've personally seen an instance where a person was shot who, in your opinion, was shot justifiably, yet the narrative you hear is that they were innocent, doing nothing wrong and were generally a good person that didnt cause trouble?

Well, as I said before there are extremist.  Some think every shooting victim was a result of bad cops.  Some thing that if the person killed had a criminal record the shooting had to be justified.

I'd prefer we look at each one and see what happened. 

I've said repeatedly that if the people near the center f that continuum could talk without all the screaming from the other ends we get a lot further. 

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Far be it for me to interrupt our resident law enforcement expert, but rfaulk's point is a valid one. Pointing out that the vast majority of the time LEO's do their job correctly does not excuse the statistically minuscule number of times they do not. If a hurricane kills one person the fact that the death toll was so low is of no consolation to the deceased or their family. That being said, is such a low failure rate worthy of the amount of attention this issue has been getting or the amount of vitriol it has stirred up? I think any reasonable person would say absolutely not. The Guardian has an inane project called "The Counted" in which they use media reports to track all police "killings". I call it inane because they include traffic accidents involving an LEO that caused a fatality or people who died in police custody due to medical issues. They also include killings done by LEO's when they are not on duty. Much like the thoroughly discredited "every 28 hours" claim the sole purpose of this project is not to actually track bad shootings by the police, it's meant to stir up anger which promotes more page views.

When that sovereign citizen idiot in Baltimore was shot and killed the left leaning news sites made a point to state that she was, "the third black woman killed by police this year". What is the point of that statement? Why does that matter? If the point was that she was the third black woman killed who should not have been killed then I can see the point. Since this was clearly not the case with her why does that number have any meaning? The answer is it doesn't, anymore than being the 156th white male killed by police does. It's stated to inflame. It's stated to arouse anger and indignation and one need look no further than this board to find perfect examples of the target audience for this tactic.

The bottom line is that this issue has been blown out of any sense of proportion. Even when a criminal pulls a gun, points it directly at an officer and gets shot for their poor choice you have myriad defenders of said criminal. The whole thing is a joke and any chance this movement had to make meaningful changes ended the minute they conflated the legitimate use of lethal force on criminals with the wrongful shooting of a law abiding citizen.

[Au165]

(09-26-2016, 11:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: What does the expert know unless he was in the situation?  From reading what others said who went through it.




I am not saying *I* am an expert or even know the best way.  I am saying just saying "Eh, it happens.  Smarter people will figure it out." Gets us nowhere.  Look at the example I used.


I wonder if you think the same about things like "common core" which was made by educators but the general public doesn't understand it so they want it thrown out?  Not saying you do, but it's another example of people questioning the "experts".  And I think that is a good thing because as I have said, nothing is perfect.  There is always room for improvement.

The experts being former LEO's would be ideal but those trained in the human mind are better than nothing if others must be brought in. Once again other situations are different, this is about the only one where I feel like unless you have some real first hand knowledge you shouldn't pretend to have any valid "advice".

As you mentioned earlier people don't want to be told they are wrong today, but I counter with everyone thinks their opinion on any subject is valid. Just because you can google something does not mean you know what you are talking about. Should a doctor consult you me or the general public on how they do heart transplants? Would you dare tell a doctor how to do a heart transplant? Then why would you tell a police officer how to handle a life or death situation that you have no understanding of?

[GMDino]

(09-26-2016, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Far be it for me to interrupt our resident law enforcement expert, but rfaulk's point is a valid one.  Pointing out that the vast majority of the time LEO's do their job correctly does not excuse the statistically minuscule number of times they do not.  If a hurricane kills one person the fact that the death toll was so low is of no consolation to the deceased or their family.  That being said, is such a low failure rate worthy of the amount of attention this issue has been getting or the amount of vitriol it has stirred up?  I think any reasonable person would say absolutely not.  The Guardian has an inane project called "The Counted" in which they use media reports to track all police "killings".  I call it inane because they include traffic accidents involving an LEO that caused a fatality or people who died in police custody due to medical issues.  They also include killings done by LEO's when they are not on duty.  Much like the thoroughly discredited "every 28 hours" claim the sole purpose of this project is not to actually track bad shootings by the police, it's meant to stir up anger which promotes more page views.

When that sovereign citizen idiot in Baltimore was shot and killed the left leaning news sites made a point to state that she was, "the third black woman killed by police this year".  What is the point of that statement?  Why does that matter? If the point was that she was the third black woman killed who should not have been killed then I can see the point.  Since this was clearly not the case with her why does that number have any meaning?  The answer is it doesn't, anymore than being the 156th white male killed by police does.  It's stated to inflame.  It's stated to arouse anger and indignation and one need look no further than this board to find perfect examples of the target audience for this tactic.

The bottom line is that this issue has been blown out of any sense of proportion.  Even when a criminal pulls a gun, points it directly at an officer and gets shot for their poor choice you have myriad defenders of said criminal.  The whole thing is a joke and any chance this movement had to make meaningful changes ended the minute they conflated the legitimate use of lethal force on criminals with the wrongful shooting of a law abiding citizen.

And yet it should still be talked about and learned from.  Even if what is learned is that the victim did everything wrong and the shooting was more than justified.

As another example the number of people who die due to a doctor's error is small compared to the number of people saved and the number of people who live.  Should they not be looked at because statistically there aren't very many times it happens?

Every time a citizen is killed by the people put in place to protect them it should be something that is discussed.  No matter the end result of the discussion.

[Au165]

(09-26-2016, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Far be it for me to interrupt our resident law enforcement expert, but rfaulk's point is a valid one.  Pointing out that the vast majority of the time LEO's do their job correctly does not excuse the statistically minuscule number of times they do not.  If a hurricane kills one person the fact that the death toll was so low is of no consolation to the deceased or their family.  That being said, is such a low failure rate worthy of the amount of attention this issue has been getting or the amount of vitriol it has stirred up?  I think any reasonable person would say absolutely not.  The Guardian has an inane project called "The Counted" in which they use media reports to track all police "killings".  I call it inane because they include traffic accidents involving an LEO that caused a fatality or people who died in police custody due to medical issues.  They also include killings done by LEO's when they are not on duty.  Much like the thoroughly discredited "every 28 hours" claim the sole purpose of this project is not to actually track bad shootings by the police, it's meant to stir up anger which promotes more page views.

When that sovereign citizen idiot in Baltimore was shot and killed the left leaning news sites made a point to state that she was, "the third black woman killed by police this year".  What is the point of that statement?  Why does that matter? If the point was that she was the third black woman killed who should not have been killed then I can see the point.  Since this was clearly not the case with her why does that number have any meaning?  The answer is it doesn't, anymore than being the 156th white male killed by police does.  It's stated to inflame.  It's stated to arouse anger and indignation and one need look no further than this board to find perfect examples of the target audience for this tactic.

The bottom line is that this issue has been blown out of any sense of proportion.  Even when a criminal pulls a gun, points it directly at an officer and gets shot for their poor choice you have myriad defenders of said criminal.  The whole thing is a joke and any chance this movement had to make meaningful changes ended the minute they conflated the legitimate use of lethal force on criminals with the wrongful shooting of a law abiding citizen.

I agree, the bad use of force should be reviewed. I simply want it to be peer review of policy rather than any Joe on the street. The same reason we peer review medical journals and don't use comment sections of articles for doing so haha.

[GMDino]

(09-26-2016, 11:34 AM)Au165 Wrote: The experts being former LEO's would be ideal but those trained in the human mind are better than nothing if others must be brought in. Once again other situations are different, this is about the only one where I feel like unless you have some real first hand knowledge you shouldn't pretend to have any valid "advice".

As you mentioned earlier people don't want to be told they are wrong today, but I counter with everyone thinks their opinion on any subject is valid. Just because you can google something does not mean you know what you are talking about. Should a doctor consult you me or the general public on how they do heart transplants? Would you dare tell a doctor how to do a heart transplant? Then why would you tell a police officer how to handle a life or death situation that you have no understanding of?

Oddly I just used the doctor example in the response above:

Quote:As another example the number of people who die due to a doctor's error is small compared to the number of people saved and the number of people who live.  Should they not be looked at because statistically there aren't very many times it happens?

It's not "telling people what to do" as much as looking at what they did and seeing if they did something wrong or could have done it bor could do it better in the future.

It's called learning.

Another example would be my own posting.  I've posted things that turned out to not be the way I took them in the first place.  I try to check things before just randomly sharing them.  Sometimes I am still wrong.  Sometimes I am right and people don't want to believe it because I wrong before.

I attempt to learn from my mistakes because I know I am not perfect, nor am I always right.  But I do believe that just not talking about things is wrong.

[Au165]

(09-26-2016, 11:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oddly I just used the doctor example in the response above:




It's not "telling people what to do" as much as looking at what they did and seeing if they did something wrong or could have done it bor could do it better in the future.

It's called learning.

Another example would be my own posting.  I've posted things that turned out to not be the way I took them in the first place.  I try to check things before just randomly sharing them.  Sometimes I am still wrong.  Sometimes I am right and people don't want to believe it because I wrong before.

I attempt to learn from my mistakes because I know I am not perfect, nor am I always right.  But I do believe that just not talking about things is wrong.

Right, and using the medical process they use peer review to determine when things are incorrect (journals, procedures, licensing). I simply contend it should be peers who review the policy (not the improper use of policy) and propose improvements. I think it's a fair debate, and as I have said in most cases I am okay with outside perspective as I think sometimes you can be too close, simply not in this case in my mind.