Out of focus...

[GMDino]

(09-26-2016, 11:51 AM)Au165 Wrote: 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.

Exactly.  I would just say someone who lives in the neighborhood can also give insight into the residents and their interactions with the police.

People have a cow when the government investigates itself.  That's no different that internal affairs to me.

We can disagree on this.  That's what debate is about. Putting out ideas and trying to narrow them down to a working solution.  And then doing it again and again to get better.

[hollodero]

(09-26-2016, 11:23 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: 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.

Well, the second isn't focused on because that is their job. It's mainly dealing with said criminal individuals.
Most certainly a dangerous job, for sure. But that alone can not be the justification for fatal failure. But sure, in the end the question might as well be how can society build a better support system for officers so these tragic failures are adressed and fought against. 
But one thing I still find hard to dispute. When a policeman shoots an unarmed person (who doesn't act like he isn't or does something utterly stupid - and I know these cases exist as well), there have to be harsh consequences for said policeman. Tragic for said individual officer, maybe, but that comes with the job. It's about what's best for society, not just what's best for the police.
If there aren't harsh consequences, people lose faith in those protecting the law. The message seems to be - we protect the law, but by that we ourselves are above the law. No matter what happens, we always have attenuating circumstances because of what we do.

[Au165]

(09-26-2016, 11:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.  I would just say someone who lives in the neighborhood can also give insight into the residents and their interactions with the police.

People have a cow when the government investigates itself.  That's no different that internal affairs to me.

We can disagree on this.  That's what debate is about. Putting out ideas and trying to narrow them down to a working solution.  And then doing it again and again to get better.

Works for me, it was an interesting exchange.

[fredtoast]

Just a couple of points.

tople makes the shootings of black people subject of more scrutiny. It is hard for black people to accept that law enforcement officers can be racists in some areas but not others.

----Police officers have made the public more suspicious by their habit of lying to protect other officers who mess up. We all know about the "blue wall" and that makes it hard to believe a police officers version of a shooting. It is like catching a girlfriend cheating on you. Once she gets busted once, like the police in the Laquan McDonald video, it is hard to trust her ever again.


So while I can understand police complaining about every shooting of a black person getting too much media attention they have to realize that some of their own practices are too blame.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2016, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just a couple of points.

tople makes the shootings of black people subject of more scrutiny.  It is hard for black people to accept that law enforcement officers can be racists in some areas but not others.

----Police officers have made the public more suspicious by their habit of lying to protect other officers who mess up.  We all know about the "blue wall" and that makes it hard to believe a police officers version of a shooting.  It is like catching a girlfriend cheating on you.  Once she gets busted once, like the police in the Laquan McDonald video, it is hard to trust her ever again.


So while I can understand police complaining about every shooting of a black person getting too much media attention they have to realize that some of their own practices are too blame.

Captain broad brush strikes again. 

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2016, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Captain broad brush strikes again. 

You missed the point.

I never said all cops are bad.  I am just explaining why ALL cops are under suspicion when something like this happens. You can not just tell people to ignore the fact that police have a history of lying to protect each other and engage in racial profiling.  

If a girl gets caught cheating on her boyfriend then she has to accept that it is HER fault that he will be suspicious of her in the future even when she is not cheating on him.  It is just human nature.  The history of the "blue wall" and racial profiling are police actions that bring them all under extra suspicion when a black person is shot by an officer.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2016, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You missed the point.

I never said all cops are bad.  I am just explaining why ALL cops are under suspicion when something like this happens. You can not just tell people to ignore the fact that police have a history of lying to protect each other and engage in racial profiling.

What you said was this;

Quote:Police officers have made the public more suspicious by their habit of lying to protect other officers

  

Not "some police officers" you said "police officers".  Hence my completely accurate accusation of you using a broad brush.

Quote:If a girl gets caught cheating on her boyfriend then she has to accept that it is HER fault that he will be suspicious of her in the future even when she is not cheating on him.  It is just human nature.

A girl, yes.  Not the entire female gender.


 

Quote: The history of the "blue wall" and racial profiling are police actions that bring them all under extra suspicion when a black person is shot by an officer.

Partially, sure.  Regardless, it is still stupid to do so as explained above.  You judge each incident on its own merits our your argument is both flawed and pointless.

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2016, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not "some police officers" you said "police officers".  Hence my completely accurate accusation of you using a broad brush.

You are still missing the point.

When multiple officers lie to protect other officers and when multiple officers commit racial profiling then they stain the entire profession.

The fact is that EVERY officer will admit that there are bad cops out there but ZERO officers will admit that they are a bad cop.  So what do you expect the general public to believe?  Since they know there are lying, racially profiling police out there they are going to be suspicious of all officers.  You can't blame them for that.

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2016, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Partially, sure.  Regardless, it is still stupid to do so as explained above.  You judge each incident on its own merits our your argument is both flawed and pointless.

So if a used car salesman told you he is honest would you just automatically believe everything he says or would you test drive the car and check it out yourself?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2016, 02:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are still missing the point.

When multiple officers lie to protect other officers and when multiple officers commit racial profiling then they stain the entire profession.

No, they don't except to people who like to paint with a broad brush.  Rafael Perez doesn't represent police anymore than Johnnie Cochran represents all lawyers.

Quote:The fact is that EVERY officer will admit that there are bad cops out there but ZERO officers will admit that they are a bad cop.

So not true it's not even funny.

 

Quote:So what do you expect the general public to believe?

What the facts tell them, that the vast majority of LEO's do their job honorably and professionally.  That just doesn't sell papers or garner clicks though.

 

Quote:Since they know there are lying, racially profiling police out there they are going to be suspicious of all officers.  You can't blame them for that.

Sure, just like there are lying corrupt lawyers out there.  Should we view the entire legal profession as corrupt?

[GMDino]

(09-26-2016, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, just like there are lying corrupt lawyers out there.  Should we view the entire legal profession as corrupt?

Do you think lawyers aren't under scrutiny and generally disliked?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2016, 02:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you think lawyers aren't under scrutiny and generally disliked?  

Yea, I see articles about how much lawyers suck on a daily basis in the news.  I love when you think you've made a point.

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2016, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So not true it's not even funny.

You are right.  Not EVERY officer will even admit that there are bad cops out there.  I was just trying to be civil in order to make my point easier for you to accept.

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2016, 02:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yea, I see articles about how much lawyers suck on a daily basis in the news.  I love when you think you've made a point.

So if you are involved in some business dealing and the other side has an attorney do you just believe everything he says until you see some direct evidence that that lawyer has been dishonest in the past.  Or do you get your own lawyer to see if everything is legit?

I love when you completely miss a point.

Here is the difference between the two of us.  I know and understand why people don't trust lawyers.  I have no problem with it because it is based on reality.  You, on the other had, refuse to acknowledge facts, history, and reality and insist that everyone believe everything a police officer says unless there is direct evidence that he is lying.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-26-2016, 11:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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. 

 

Let me rephrase the question. 

How many times have you seen an instance where a particular community, random leaders of a group or family members said, 'well, he was up to no good and unfortunately it cost him his life'? Or, 'he was somewhere, doing something he shouldn't have been doing'. 

Is there a single instance of this out there that i've missed?

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-26-2016, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: And yet it should still be talked about and learned from. 

And how can that be accomplished when every shoot turns into a crusade against police? Don't misunderstand, i'm not using hyperbole. Every single instance of of a police involved shooting ends in family members and community "leaders", as well as those outside the community, calling for justice for said shot person. Regardless of circumstance and in many cases, mass protests and riots follow. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-26-2016, 12:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, the second isn't focused on because that is their job. It's mainly dealing with said criminal individuals.
Most certainly a dangerous job, for sure. But that alone can not be the justification for fatal failure. But sure, in the end the question might as well be how can society build a better support system for officers so these tragic failures are adressed and fought against. 
But one thing I still find hard to dispute. When a policeman shoots an unarmed person (who doesn't act like he isn't or does something utterly stupid - and I know these cases exist as well), there have to be harsh consequences for said policeman. Tragic for said individual officer, maybe, but that comes with the job. It's about what's best for society, not just what's best for the police.
If there aren't harsh consequences, people lose faith in those protecting the law. The message seems to be - we protect the law, but by that we ourselves are above the law. No matter what happens, we always have attenuating circumstances because of what we do.

I think anyone engaging in this debate would agree that harsh penalties are deserved for those that kill unnecessarily, whether it be from lack of training or a bad decision. Tragic for both parties, certainly. 

Closer to my point though was, the scales aren't so much tipped in the direction of 'unjustified' as they have fallen completely over. 

"It's their job" isn't a catch-all in every instance. Bad weeds need to be pulled but you defeat the purpose when you pull flowers up with the weeds. Ok, pump the brakes rfaulk...i'm not trying to compare police with flowers in any way, just saying you can't throw one blanket over the whole issue when not all shoots are bad. The sad truth is, that is exactly what is happening. 

[hollodero]

(09-26-2016, 07:07 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I think anyone engaging in this debate would agree that harsh penalties are deserved for those that kill unnecessarily, whether it be from lack of training or a bad decision. Tragic for both parties, certainly. 

Closer to my point though was, the scales aren't so much tipped in the direction of 'unjustified' as they have fallen completely over. 

"It's their job" isn't a catch-all in every instance. Bad weeds need to be pulled but you defeat the purpose when you pull flowers up with the weeds. Ok, pump the brakes rfaulk...i'm not trying to compare police with flowers in any way, just saying you can't throw one blanket over the whole issue when not all shoots are bad. The sad truth is, that is exactly what is happening. 

But isn't one of the major points that there often aren't harsh penalties? Isn't that what creates huge parts of all the mistrust and attacks. That these individual policemen have a good chance to get covered and defended.
The single event, the tragic exception - I kind of tend to agree - might better be handled as such. There's just a feel of a more systematic problem. Even from the distance, that is.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 01:58 AM)hollodero Wrote: But isn't one of the major points that there often aren't harsh penalties? Isn't that what creates huge parts of all the mistrust and attacks. That these individual policemen have a good chance to get covered and defended.
The single event, the tragic exception - I kind of tend to agree - might better be handled as such. There's just a feel of a more systematic problem. Even from the distance, that is.

Yes, it is an issue. It's brought up pretty frequently around here and there is merit to it. But not to the degree some would have you believe. 

I think in most cases, fellow officers want to believe their brethren was doing what was right, and they understand the perils of the job combined with the ease in making a bad, split-second decision, so they might be willing to "fudge" things a bit. I don't think it's any kind of systemic problem as much as it's a bad decision with a..."good" (lack of a better word) intent. 

[GMDino]

(09-27-2016, 11:29 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Yes, it is an issue. It's brought up pretty frequently around here and there is merit to it. But not to the degree some would have you believe. 

I think in most cases, fellow officers want to believe their brethren was doing what was right, and they understand the perils of the job combined with the ease in making a bad, split-second decision, so they might be willing to "fudge" things a bit. I don't think it's any kind of systemic problem as much as it's a bad decision with a..."good" (lack of a better word) intent. 

They also want to CYA in case THEY are the next one.  Human nature at work when you are in a closed group of people.