billsfan1959

I'll go with Option B

Maybe you could help us out here. There are some things I coudn't find in this article. (1) Could you point to the place in this study that breaks down the circumstances of each homicide they looked at to determine the factors that led of the killing, whether it was justified, the motivations behind the killing, etc? (2) Could you point to the location in the article where they found the killngs were racially motivated? (3) Or is it your contention that the article giving a higher risk for blacks to be killed by police is enough, on it's own, to say that the killings are racially motivated? There are not many databases that break down all cases where someone is killed at the hands of the police. Most track shootings. The Washington Post has started keeping a pretty extensive record of police shootings https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ According to them, Whites account for 62% of the population and 50% of the deaths, while Blacks account for less than 13% of the population and account for 24% of deaths. This pretty much tracks other sources: In any given year there are about 1000 (+/-) police shooting deaths with Whites accounting for approx 50% of victims and Blacks accounting for approximately 25% of the victims. Is it your contention that, because a disproportionate number of Blacks (per population) are killed, that it must be racially motivated - absent any other context? According to the FBI https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf In 2015 (the last year available in the study) shows that there were over 6,000,000 (six million) contacts between Law Enforcement Officers and blacks. The previous study in 2011 showed over 7,000,000 (seven million) contacts between Law Enforcement Officers and blacks. Given that figure, if there was some sort of "open season" on black men, wouldn't you expect to see more than 200-225 deaths per year in 6 million interactions? The FBI also did a study of Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed from 2009-2018 https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2018/home In that study, they found that Blacks, which make up less than 13% of the population, accounted for approximately 38% of all the killings in which the offender was known. What is your interpretation of the fact that Blacks are even more disproportionately represented as killers of Law Enforcement Officers than they are as victims of Law Enforcement Officer killings?

I'm sure you know this from your time serving as a law enforcement officer? Tell us how it works and how extensive it is....

What are the other incidents you are referring to that make this incident "not an isolated" one?

I am smoking a brisket tomorrow with Apple Wood..... One of the earliest concerts I attended: Uriah Heep and BOC

...and useless posters

Seriously? I tried to have an honest, reasonable courteous, non-political discussion with you. Your response is to insinuate that my views are not only consistent with racist oppression, but responsible for perpetuating it. No reasonable, rational person could have read any of my posts in this thread and come close to this interpretation. Cheers.

I don't disagree at all. Anything I have written is not to diminish the feelings of anyone who is genuinely upset over the incident or what they genuinely believe to be deep systemic issues within law enforcement. My only point, and I am sure you agree, is that those emotions, no matter how genuine, should influence legal decisions. As to the issue of the feelings about deep systemic issues within law enforcement, I stated in another post that we need to arrive at accurate definitions of what those issues are before we can truly address them. We certainly are not there and never will be until we have an honest dialogue free of politics.

1. How can you say, "but these people are trying to have the law changed, starting 60 years ago up to Kapernick, but with no one listening" and not know what law you are talking about? I never said any law should be changed. I believe I said if people want to change the laws or the system, there is a process to do so and they are welcome to it. 2. I am not refusing to acknowledge any issue. Any issue that needs to be resolved begins with an accurate definition of what that issue is. So, give me your definition of the issue. 3. I didn't equate death with an arrest, so don't even go down that disingenuous path. People are not arrested to "shows the citizens that this obvious violent incident." They are arrested based on an evaluation of te facts and the evidence specific to that situation.

1. Please tell me what law have they been trying to change. Perhaps this will help me respond to this point. 2. Nobody is defending the actions of these officers. 3. Tell me how arresting and charging someone because of public emotion is not the same principle as a public lynching.

You do not seem to understand my point. Whatever the public thinks and is complaining about should never have a place in the decision-making process of arresting or charging anyone. Again, the legal system is imperfect. There are legitimate avenues to correct those imperfections and the legal system has evolved considerably based on legitimate ways of addressing deficiencies on everything from arrests to capital punishment. People can be upset, that is their right. I don't believe it justifies criminal behavior on their part and I don't believe it should be a factor in when an arrest is made.

I understand that people are pissed because he hasn't been arrested. That doesn't change my stance. Your belief that he should have been arrested immediately is simply your opinion. Many other people may share that same opinion. I might share that same opinion. The point is, we don't make those determinations and, ultimately, when he is arrested has absolutely no bearing on whether justice has been served. Our legal system is an imperfect system. It may not give us what we want, when we want it; however, it is the system we have - and decisions made within that system should be, as much as possible, free of emotion.

That's actually a different thread. However, the principle for me is the same. I don't like the legal system driven by politics, emotion, or anything other than the facts and the law. If you want to pursue this, then post in the the thread where this is being discussed and I will be happy to address it further. cheers

I am absolutely aware of the vocabulary. So, let me get this straight. If you were suspected of committing a crime, would you be fine with being arrested because that is what the public wants? After all, it is only an arrest... Sheeesh

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine. The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion. I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process. I don't already know why. Explain it to me.

Why were all the black citizens caught on film looting, setting fires, vandalizing, assaulting officers with bottles and other objects not arrested right away?

Actually, I can tell you for a fact that there are plenty of instances in which people commit violent acts for which they are not immediately arrested. My stance is the same for everyone. Keep emotion out of the process. If you were suspected of having done something for which you could be arrested, would you want those decisions made by those responsible for making those kinds of decisions, or would you prefer public opinion dictate those decisions?

Members of society do need to be heard and listened to. They don't have any right to dictate who gets arrested and charged or when they get arrested and charged. The goal of the process should be justice. When justice is driven by emotion, you end up with lynch mobs.

Arrests, charges, or any other aspect of the legal process should never be driven by emotion at any level. It should proceed as the facts and the law decide. Particularly when that emotion is misplaced and being fanned for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. These officers will be arrested and charged if and when the process dictates.

Absolutely. We do not have any footage showing the events surrounding how Floyd ended up on the ground at that location and why three officers are holding him down. So there are several questions regarding the two officers at his feet : (1) Initially, was there any legitimate reason for them to believe they needed to restrain Floyd's legs? (2) At the point we see them on video, did those two officers realize that Floyd might be struggling because he was fighting against being slowly asphyxiated?" I am certainly not saying they are free of blame. I am saying these are legitimate investigative questions regarding the level of culpability of those two officers. I really can't see anything, at this point, that diminishes the culpability of the other two.

The availability of weapons to criminals has always been there and is certainly a consideration by officers in any encounter. There will always be instances where an officer fears for his/her life and uses deadly force when, in a review of the facts, it really wasn't warranted. I don't believe that is a widespread issue. I also think it is a separate issue. Seriously, making faulty split-second decisions in potentially violent situations is not even in the same ballpark as what we see in this video.

The percentage is an opinion Tibs, you know, something you have no problem sharing on every topic under the sun. I'll share a couple more opinions based on the bolded above : (1) I think it tells us exactly what you think of law enforcement officers (2) You are a never ending fountain of ignorance

Actually, you said "Cops use to get away with this stuff easily," "and more. Brutality, thuggery etc." It sounds as if you feel this type of behavior is commonplace for police without cameras. So, I simply asked what percentage you think are like that. Simple enough question. I didn't go wild about anything. I simply gave you my answer to the same question I posed to you.

I'm sure they will be charged. Just curious, what evidence do you see that tells you this incident was racially motivated?

You made the claim, Tibs. You tell me. However, if you want my opinion, I will give it to you. I think 90-95% of law enforcement officers in this country are men and women who do their best to serve society in an honorable way and in the manner they swore an oath to do. I think they are asked to do things on a daily basis that the vast majority of people in this country wouldn't have the balls to do and every movement they make is subject to an eterrnity of scrutiny if something goes wrong. I think 5-10% are in the profession for the wrong reasons and probably shouldn't be law enforcement officers. However, most of them wouldn't do what you saw in this video. I think 1-2% are the kind of people that should never be given legal authority over someone else's well-being. That is less than the general population. There will always be bad officers, the same as there are bad lawyers, plumbers, landscapers, etc. But to think the kind of behavior witnessed in that video is representative of any significant portion of law enforcement officers is ridiculous.