Breonna Taylor's murders are still free (THIS IS THE POINT)

[billsfan1959]

1 hour ago, ARS said:

Where did I say that? Of course that is not the case. However, Black people are killed at disproportionate rate. The Boston Globe just came out with a good article about this. It is worth reading.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/%3foutputType=amp
 

Also, the main point is that no one should be unjustly killed by police. I would hope you would be on board with certain police reforms to try to stop these incidents. However, when it is a Black person killed by the cops or even just a White citizen (Ahmaud Arbery) there are all sort of excuses given. The victim is put on trial. That is why so many Black people are frustrated and feed up.

 

The Boston Globe article didn't explain anything. They cited an argument (supported by research) that because blacks are disproportionately represented in violent crime arrests that, after controlling for the number of encounters, they are not actually disproportionately represented in police killings. The counter-argument by the Globe was that all encounters with police are not the same and that the rate numbers are diluted because Black people have many more interactions with police in non-deadly situations.

 

It's a hypothetical argument with no empirical data to support it. It also ignores the disproportionate representation of blacks in every violent crime offender category including the killing of polce officers. They also ignore the disproportionately high violent crime rates in black communities that disproportionately draw law enforcement resources and lead to a disproportionate number of interactions between law enforcement and black citizens in high violent crime settings.

 

The data is pretty clear if you care to look at it. I am not arguing racism doesn't exist. I am not arguing racism does not exist in law enforcement. I am not arguing that there are not unjustified killing by police of blacks, whites, and others. I am not arguing that it is not more difficult than it should be to convict police officers in unjustified killings, period, not just the killings of blacks. 

 

What I am arguing is that the reasons for all these are varied, complex, and intertwined - and it has little to do with "systemic racism" in law enforcement. 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by billsfan1959

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, ARS said:

We will have to agree to disagree. I think points were well researched and clearly expressed. They briefly talked about racial profiling is a variable.  If you been through racial profiling it make a lot more sense. Also there was a FBI report in 2006 under the Bush administration stating that White Supremacists were Infiltrating Law enforcement.
 

BTW. Most of us are not saying all cops are racist or bad. I have had experiences with racists cops and good cops. I had cops literally stop me for no reason and asking me why I was in a particular neighborhood. I been stop with my friends because we were in a certain type of car. Some of these situations went left. But, I also have had cops let me off with a warning when they could have given me tickets. I know cops that show up to Block Club meetings and get to know people. Cops are like the rest of society. You have good people, bad people and everything in between. But  too often the bad cops are not held accountable for their actions.

Your last statement is the actual problem. The number of official interactions is definitely a driver, and trying to imply otherwise is counterproductive. They even go on to muse that there are far too many variables to account for, but insist that racism is definitely the one. It doesn't work logically. I'm more than happy to talk about specific policies that inflate the number of interactions between black people and law enforcement. Are they justified, outdated, working, or just making it worse? That all depends on the specifics of the policy in question. But that isn't a police problem, it's a policy problem. Stop and Frisk is a decent enough example. If you're (you in the general sense) mad at the cops and not Bloomberg then your anger is misplaced IMO.

 

If people want to take steps towards a tangible solution then there are a few discussions to be had:

- Who currently holds officers accountable? Why are they failing to do so? Or why is the process not transparent enough that the public comprehends the justification?

- What specific policies are negatively impacting minorities? Why? Who is responsible for the policy? Can the policy be modified to function better or should it be scrapped altogether? What are the potential outcomes of outright removing them?

 

Neither of those things involve defunding or dissolving the police. Both allow everyone to provide input without inherent judgement.

[GregPersons]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

The Boston Globe article didn't explain anything. They cited an argument (supported by research) that because blacks are disproportionately represented in violent crime arrests that, after controlling for the number of encounters, they are not actually disproportionately represented in police killings. The counter-argument by the Globe was that all encounters with police are not the same and that the rate numbers are diluted because Black people have many more interactions with police in non-deadly situations.

 

It's a hypothetical argument with no empirical data to support it. It also ignores the disproportionate representation of blacks in every violent crime offender category including the killing of polce officers. They also ignore the disproportionately high violent crime rates in black communities that disproportionately draw law enforcement resources and lead to a disproportionate number of interactions between law enforcement and black citizens in high violent crime settings.

 

The data is pretty clear if you care to look at it. I am not arguing racism doesn't exist. I am not arguing racism does not exist in law enforcement. I am not arguing that there are not unjustified killing by police of blacks, whites, and others. I am not arguing that it is not more difficult than it should be to convict police officers in unjustified killings, period, not just the killings of blacks. 

 

What I am arguing is that the reasons for all these are varied, complex, and intertwined - and it has little to do with "systemic racism" in law enforcement. 

 

 

You're right that the forms and reasons are varied, complex, and intertwined... but it seems like a deliberate choice to not see the systemic racism, particularly in law enforcement.

48 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Your last statement is the actual problem. The number of official interactions is definitely a driver, and trying to imply otherwise is counterproductive. They even go on to muse that there are far too many variables to account for, but insist that racism is definitely the one. It doesn't work logically. I'm more than happy to talk about specific policies that inflate the number of interactions between black people and law enforcement. Are they justified, outdated, working, or just making it worse? That all depends on the specifics of the policy in question. But that isn't a police problem, it's a policy problem. Stop and Frisk is a decent enough example. If you're (you in the general sense) mad at the cops and not Bloomberg then your anger is misplaced IMO.

 

If people want to take steps towards a tangible solution then there are a few discussions to be had:

- Who currently holds officers accountable? Why are they failing to do so? Or why is the process not transparent enough that the public comprehends the justification?

- What specific policies are negatively impacting minorities? Why? Who is responsible for the policy? Can the policy be modified to function better or should it be scrapped altogether? What are the potential outcomes of outright removing them?

 

Neither of those things involve defunding or dissolving the police. Both allow everyone to provide input without inherent judgement.

 

These discussions are/have been had, and there are ideas. Quick answers. Community involvement needs to be priority; these are your investors. It's nowhere where it needs to be. Immunity needs to end; officers as a rule need to live in the community they serve to be eligible for the job; community listening needs to be part of training.

 

Tons of policies negatively impact to list for you here. Bottom line, it is a problem in every conceivable direction you want to point. Federal, local, Democrat, Republican. There's plenty of blame to go around.

 

Including yes to the police themselves. Defunding is right because they are massively overfunded. This needs to be bigger thinking than a few small tweaks. This needs to start from 0 and build up, not build down from 300 trillion or whatever. 

 

As a start, LA and NY and everywhere else can swap the budgets for Police and Education.

 

Instead of teachers buying their own supplies, how about cops can buy their own bullets.

[BuffaloHokie13]

@GregPersons you didn't answer the first question whatsoever. The community involvement suggestions are fine, but they are not the ones reviewing the specifics and determining guilt.

 

You also don't seem to understand the word specific. The answer to what specific policies are negatively impacting minorities is not 'tons'. That's how the problem persists. Pick one specifically and let's talk about it. You couldn't give me your top 3 fascist Trump policies earlier, can you pick 1 current policy that is forcing inflated interactions between black people and police?

[Chandemonium]

Rand Paul introduces bill banning no knock warrants

 

I don’t see how the officers in the Breonna Taylor case could be reasonably charged with or convicted of a crime. From my understanding of the case, they had a legally obtained warrant and were at the correct address. The failure here was the policy which allowed them to serve that warrant by breaking in in plain clothes unannounced in the middle of the night. Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend, believing the home was being broken into by violent criminals acted the same way any of us who own firearms for personal protection would and shot at the intruders, and the police, who were there on legitimate police business with a valid warrant acted the same way they would in any other situation where they are taking fire from a suspect and shot back, resulting in Ms. Taylor’s death. It’s a tragic situation, but to me the actions of both Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend and the officers who returned fire appear justified based on their own perspectives and knowledge of the situation in the moment. Hopefully Mr. Paul’s legislation is able to gain enough bipartisan support to prevent these situations in the future. 

[RiotAct]

yes I do know the name, OP.  It was all over the news when it happened.

[4merper4mer]

18 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

Rand Paul introduces bill banning no knock warrants

 

I don’t see how the officers in the Breonna Taylor case could be reasonably charged with or convicted of a crime. From my understanding of the case, they had a legally obtained warrant and were at the correct address. The failure here was the policy which allowed them to serve that warrant by breaking in in plain clothes unannounced in the middle of the night. Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend, believing the home was being broken into by violent criminals acted the same way any of us who own firearms for personal protection would and shot at the intruders, and the police, who were there on legitimate police business with a valid warrant acted the same way they would in any other situation where they are taking fire from a suspect and shot back, resulting in Ms. Taylor’s death. It’s a tragic situation, but to me the actions of both Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend and the officers who returned fire appear justified based on their own perspectives and knowledge of the situation in the moment. Hopefully Mr. Paul’s legislation is able to gain enough bipartisan support to prevent these situations in the future. 

Are there any circumstances under which a no knock warrant would help bring a legitimate criminal to justice and avoid a cop getting shot through a door?  My guess is yes, but it is possible I'm misunderstanding something.  

 

If if the above is indeed correct then banning them altogether isn't the greatest idea I've ever heard.  Clearly though, the standard to get one is far too low at least in Ms. Taylor's jurisdiction.  It should be a very high standard to get that type of warrant.  The policy in this incident was either subverted or it needs to be changed.  If it was subverted, the people who subverted it....police, judge, whoever....need to be held to account.

[Wacka]

17 hours ago, GregPersons said:

Do you even know the name "Breonna Taylor"? 

 

If she were a White girl, you would. If she were a White girl killed by a Black man, there'd be dozens of threads. 

 

Breonna Taylor was an EMT who was shot 8 times by police. She did nothing wrong. The report finally released is virtually blank. There have been no charges. No investigation. No official word on the matter.

 

 

 

Asking in good faith to the police or ex-police of the board — @billsfan1959 and @Sig1Hunter — to share their views on how this could happen. This would hopefully be unacceptable in your workplace, I would like to believe? Have you seen comparable incidents in your careers? Are the police justified here, or no?

 

 

To people who continue to obfuscate the point like @Chef Jim — this is the point, this is what the D-Day thread is about.This is an example of racism and oppression and fascism in America (I wonder if @TakeYouToTasker would disagree with any of those definitions)

So is Nicole Simpson's.

[Chandemonium]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

Are there any circumstances under which a no knock warrant would help bring a legitimate criminal to justice and avoid a cop getting shot through a door?  My guess is yes, but it is possible I'm misunderstanding something.  

 

If if the above is indeed correct then banning them altogether isn't the greatest idea I've ever heard.  Clearly though, the standard to get one is far too low at least in Ms. Taylor's jurisdiction.  It should be a very high standard to get that type of warrant.  The policy in this incident was either subverted or it needs to be changed.  If it was subverted, the people who subverted it....police, judge, whoever....need to be held to account.

To your first paragraph, while that may be the case, the risk of police getting shot through the door needs to be weighed against the risk inherent in a no-knock of a gunfight with an invidual who would otherwise not react violently if he did not believe his home was being broken into. Alternative tactics that minimize the risks of both being shot through the door or starting a shootout with someone who believes their home is being broken into by criminals, while still allowing the police to apprehend suspects and collect evidence should also be explored and considered. 
 

As far as if policy was subverted in this particular case, I have seen mention of some peculiarities in how the warrant was obtained, but not enough for me to make the jump to believing intentional malfeasance without additional evidence. From what I understand, the warrant was based at least in part on Taylor’s ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer, having had packages delivered to her address in his name. This was supposedly based on a tip from a postal worker, but since the incident no such person has confirmed that they were the informant. This seems odd to me, but even if it’s all true it seems like far to low of a standard to obtain a no knock warrant. 

[GregPersons]

1 minute ago, Chandemonium said:

To your first paragraph, while that may be the case, the risk of police getting shot through the door needs to be weighed against the risk inherent in a no-knock of a gunfight with an invidual who would otherwise not react violently if he did not believe his home was being broken into. Alternative tactics that minimize the risks of both being shot through the door or starting a shootout with someone who believes their home is being broken into by criminals, while still allowing the police to apprehend suspects and collect evidence should also be explored and considered. 
 

As far as if policy was subverted in this particular case, I have seen mention of some peculiarities in how the warrant was obtained, but not enough for me to make the jump to believing intentional malfeasance without additional evidence. From what I understand, the warrant was based at least in part on Taylor’s ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer, having had packages delivered to her address in his name. This was supposedly based on a tip from a postal worker, but since the incident no such person has confirmed that they were the informant. This seems odd to me, but even if it’s all true it seems like far to low of a standard to obtain a no knock warrant. 

 

And that justification is beyond weak, too. For drug packages, they needed guns? They were so jumpy they needed to fire at the first moving target they saw?

 

It's not just like one bad training program. It's a bad operating system.  

[billsfan1959]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

Are there any circumstances under which a no knock warrant would help bring a legitimate criminal to justice and avoid a cop getting shot through a door?  My guess is yes, but it is possible I'm misunderstanding something.  

 

If if the above is indeed correct then banning them altogether isn't the greatest idea I've ever heard.  Clearly though, the standard to get one is far too low at least in Ms. Taylor's jurisdiction.  It should be a very high standard to get that type of warrant.  The policy in this incident was either subverted or it needs to be changed.  If it was subverted, the people who subverted it....police, judge, whoever....need to be held to account.

 

8 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

To your first paragraph, while that may be the case, the risk of police getting shot through the door needs to be weighed against the risk inherent in a no-knock of a gunfight with an invidual who would otherwise not react violently if he did not believe his home was being broken into. Alternative tactics that minimize the risks of both being shot through the door or starting a shootout with someone who believes their home is being broken into by criminals, while still allowing the police to apprehend suspects and collect evidence should also be explored and considered. 
 

As far as if policy was subverted in this particular case, I have seen mention of some peculiarities in how the warrant was obtained, but not enough for me to make the jump to believing intentional malfeasance without additional evidence. From what I understand, the warrant was based at least in part on Taylor’s ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer, having had packages delivered to her address in his name. This was supposedly based on a tip from a postal worker, but since the incident no such person has confirmed that they were the informant. This seems odd to me, but even if it’s all true it seems like far to low of a standard to obtain a no knock warrant. 

 

I am not in favor of completely banning no knock warrants; however, they should be used only in those circumstances when you are entering the home for the strict purpose of apprehending a dangerous felon (i.e.; someone wanted for murder). Even then, considerations have to be made about who else is in the house and if there is a reasonable alternative as a way to make the apprehension. 

 

To me, the potential danger to residents and officers inherent in breaking into a home, unnanounced and in the darkness, outweighs the benefits of a no knock warrant in all but the most extreme cases.

 

[Chandemonium]

9 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

And that justification is beyond weak, too. For drug packages, they needed guns? They were so jumpy they needed to fire at the first moving target they saw?

 

It's not just like one bad training program. It's a bad operating system.  

If you’re suggesting that police shouldn’t carry guns when entering strange homes with suspected drug activity, I can’t agree there. They also didn’t fire at the first moving target they saw, Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend shot first and  the police returned fire, which is why I said in my first post that given the circumstances I believe both Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend and the officers appear justified in their actions, tragic though the result is. My issue is the policy which allowed these circumstances to begin with. 

[4merper4mer]

23 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

To your first paragraph, while that may be the case, the risk of police getting shot through the door needs to be weighed against the risk inherent in a no-knock of a gunfight with an invidual who would otherwise not react violently if he did not believe his home was being broken into. Alternative tactics that minimize the risks of both being shot through the door or starting a shootout with someone who believes their home is being broken into by criminals, while still allowing the police to apprehend suspects and collect evidence should also be explored and considered. 
 

As far as if policy was subverted in this particular case, I have seen mention of some peculiarities in how the warrant was obtained, but not enough for me to make the jump to believing intentional malfeasance without additional evidence. From what I understand, the warrant was based at least in part on Taylor’s ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer, having had packages delivered to her address in his name. This was supposedly based on a tip from a postal worker, but since the incident no such person has confirmed that they were the informant. This seems odd to me, but even if it’s all true it seems like far to low of a standard to obtain a no knock warrant. 

I understand what you're saying but I'd think that completely abolishing no knock warrants might not be the answer.  Clearly they need to be the exception and closely administered and monitored.

 

To me it seems they would have a use in known and well documented criminal enterprises, kidnappings and other scenarios.  I've seen none of that wrt this particular case.

[GregPersons]

22 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

If you’re suggesting that police shouldn’t carry guns when entering strange homes with suspected drug activity, I can’t agree there. They also didn’t fire at the first moving target they saw, Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend shot first and  the police returned fire, which is why I said in my first post that given the circumstances I believe both Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend and the officers appear justified in their actions, tragic though the result is. My issue is the policy which allowed these circumstances to begin with. 

 

Sorry let me restate because I actually think we're closer on this than it sounds like

 

I'm saying if the police didn't have guns to begin with, the boyfriend does not open fire. Hold on.... hold on. I know. I know that seems like -- well if the criminal is armed, but the police aren't armed, why wouldn't he just murder them there? Because he doesn't want to die. Nobody wants to get into a shoot out with police. No rational person wants to murder police officers, knowing that they will not last long before being found. Shooting at police is a desperate last option, it is a suicide run. Because if you back somebody into a corner, they will attack back. This is a prime example of what is meant by "de-escalation" tactics being needed. Armed police - STOP OR I'LL SHOOT - this is not necessary for most people - and for desperate people with guns, like Breonna's boyfriend, it just makes them more desperate. Instead - PLEASE STOP AND LET ME HELP YOU - or something less aggressive and confrontational - that's what the goal ought to be.

 

This, by the way, I believe fully if Breonna isn't in the room. There's no reason for anybody to die here, no reason for any shots to be fired. That, additionally, an innocent bystander was in this situation should have meant everybody stopped. Even with her boyfriend firing first — again. This is where you de-escalate. You take cover. You use those riot shields, not on protestors, but here. I'm all for police having protective armor; I don't think there's a lot of value in them having guns. All the armor and no guns. Instead of cops having Punisher decals, maybe they can put up Batman ones. Cops can have bat ears and capes too if they'd like. But yeah, armor = cool. Lethal weapons = seems unnecessary 95% of the time, frankly. And when it is needed, have dedicated gun / sniper / swat specialists who can operate with precision and minimal loss of life. I don't want the "bad guys" to be killed by police ever; I want them to stand trial. 

 

In another thread I mentioned I've been asking for examples of police using guns to save a life. As in, police used a gun to shoot and ideally wound or perhaps kill somebody in order to directly save a life that was in mortal danger, a life that would not have been saved otherwise. Not "this drug dealer would've gone on to kill someone in the future." The only example I've been provided is London Bridge terrorist attack; good example but alas not American. This almost might've been that case, right? Had Breonna's boyfriend, let's say, took her hostage — ideally the police then are able to save a life by shooting to disarm/wound/kill him before he harms her or anyone. Of course, that isn't what happened. And what I'm asking is, how many times has the good version happened? We hear a LOT about these bad ones. I'm led to believe by TV and frankly state propaganda that cops are saving lives on a regular basis in tangible ways like that. But, I can't find any stories of it. The stories I find when I search for "cops rescue" or "police rescue" are examples of cops helping people without using or needing guns. 

 

It shouldn't have gotten to that point to begin with. One hundred percent agree. There's a lot of blame to go around. Policies like the war on drugs. And that we just accept cop shootouts as a fact of American life, and if drugs are involved, we're even moreso inclined to accept it as inevitable. It's all connected.

Edited June 12, 2020 by GregPersons

[Chandemonium]

18 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

Sorry let me restate because I actually think we're closer on this than it sounds like

 

I'm saying if the police didn't have guns to begin with, the boyfriend does not open fire. Hold on.... hold on. I know. I know that seems like -- well if the criminal is armed, but the police aren't armed, why wouldn't he just murder them there? Because he doesn't want to die. Nobody wants to get into a shoot out with police. No rational person wants to murder police officers, knowing that they will not last long before being found. Shooting at police is a desperate last option, it is a suicide run. Because if you back somebody into a corner, they will attack back. This is a prime example of what is meant by "de-escalation" tactics being needed. Armed police - STOP OR I'LL SHOOT - this is not necessary for most people - and for desperate people with guns, like Breonna's boyfriend, it just makes them more desperate. Instead - PLEASE STOP AND LET ME HELP YOU - or something less aggressive and confrontational - that's what the goal ought to be.

 

This, by the way, I believe fully if Breonna isn't in the room. There's no reason for anybody to die here, no reason for any shots to be fired. That, additionally, an innocent bystander was in this situation should have meant everybody stopped. Even with her boyfriend firing first — again. This is where you de-escalate. You take cover. You use those riot shields, not on protestors, but here. I'm all for police having protective armor; I don't think there's a lot of value in them having guns. All the armor and no guns. Instead of cops having Punisher decals, maybe they can put up Batman ones. Cops can have bat ears and capes too if they'd like. But yeah, armor = cool. Lethal weapons = seems unnecessary 95% of the time, frankly. And when it is needed, have dedicated gun / sniper / swat specialists who can operate with precision and minimal loss of life. I don't want the "bad guys" to be killed by police ever; I want them to stand trial. 

 

In another thread I mentioned I've been asking for examples of police using guns to save a life. As in, police used a gun to shoot and ideally wound or perhaps kill somebody in order to directly save a life that was in mortal danger, a life that would not have been saved otherwise. Not "this drug dealer would've gone on to kill someone in the future." The only example I've been provided is London Bridge terrorist attack; good example but alas not American. This almost might've been that case, right? Had Breonna's boyfriend, let's say, took her hostage — ideally the police then are able to save a life by shooting to disarm/wound/kill him before he harms her or anyone. Of course, that isn't what happened. And what I'm asking is, how many times has the good version happened? We hear a LOT about these bad ones. I'm led to believe by TV and frankly state propaganda that cops are saving lives on a regular basis in tangible ways like that. But, I can't find any stories of it. The stories I find when I search for "cops rescue" or "police rescue" are examples of cops helping people without using or needing guns. 

 

It shouldn't have gotten to that point to begin with. One hundred percent agree. There's a lot of blame to go around. Policies like the war on drugs. And that we just accept cop shootouts as a fact of American life, and if drugs are involved, we're even moreso inclined to accept it as inevitable. It's all connected.

I think it’s a bold assumption to make that the boyfriend wouldn’t have opened fire if the police didn’t have guns. I’m not even sure he knew they had guns or if their guns were drawn when he opened fire. If you kick someone’s door in uninvited at 1am that action alone is enough for many people to believe you mean to do them grave harm and that deadly force is justified whether you as the burglar are armed or not, and there’s many jurisdictions in this country where the law agrees that deadly force is justified. I’m not sure what not wanting to murder police has to do with this case, since the reason the charges against the boyfriend were dropped and the reason I personally believe his actions are justified is precisely because he didn’t know they were police serving a warrant, so he treated them as the home invaders they appeared to be.
 

From the cops’ side, I certainly believe deescalation has its time and place, and should be taught to recruits and reinforced through career-long continuing education, but when you’re taking gunfire isn’t the time for “how can I help you?” At that point they need to address the deadly threat they’re facing in the way that ends it the quickest, which means shooting back. 

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, Chandemonium said:

Rand Paul introduces bill banning no knock warrants

 

I don’t see how the officers in the Breonna Taylor case could be reasonably charged with or convicted of a crime. From my understanding of the case, they had a legally obtained warrant and were at the correct address. The failure here was the policy which allowed them to serve that warrant by breaking in in plain clothes unannounced in the middle of the night. Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend, believing the home was being broken into by violent criminals acted the same way any of us who own firearms for personal protection would and shot at the intruders, and the police, who were there on legitimate police business with a valid warrant acted the same way they would in any other situation where they are taking fire from a suspect and shot back, resulting in Ms. Taylor’s death. It’s a tragic situation, but to me the actions of both Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend and the officers who returned fire appear justified based on their own perspectives and knowledge of the situation in the moment. Hopefully Mr. Paul’s legislation is able to gain enough bipartisan support to prevent these situations in the future. 

 

Reminds me of a story the marshal at the gun range in Oakland told during our home invasion course.  

 

He was at home and heard someone jiggle his front door.  He got out his weapon and was ready.  He saw the bolt lock begin to move as if someone was trying to remove it.  He held and raise his weapon to confront the intruder.  As the door opened he yelled "STOP!!!" to.........................................the locksmith.  

 

Probably a made up story but he referred to shooting someone in your home as a "social situation."  

[GregPersons]

27 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

I think it’s a bold assumption to make that the boyfriend wouldn’t have opened fire if the police didn’t have guns. I’m not even sure he knew they had guns or if their guns were drawn when he opened fire. If you kick someone’s door in uninvited at 1am that action alone is enough for many people to believe you mean to do them grave harm and that deadly force is justified whether you as the burglar are armed or not, and there’s many jurisdictions in this country where the law agrees that deadly force is justified. I’m not sure what not wanting to murder police has to do with this case, since the reason the charges against the boyfriend were dropped and the reason I personally believe his actions are justified is precisely because he didn’t know they were police serving a warrant, so he treated them as the home invaders they appeared to be.
 

From the cops’ side, I certainly believe deescalation has its time and place, and should be taught to recruits and reinforced through career-long continuing education, but when you’re taking gunfire isn’t the time for “how can I help you?” At that point they need to address the deadly threat they’re facing in the way that ends it the quickest, which means shooting back. 

 

This is why I feel like we're close. The cops are the ones in possession of the view of the larger picture; he is the confused person, he is firing out of fear and desperation. They have the protective gear — shields, helmets, armor  — and he has a civilian firearm, right? (I know they're serving a warrant. I'm saying theoretically as a solution, cops could be in more armor/have protection, without needing to have offensive firepower.)

 

We should be able to expect more from cops to prevent violence rather than excusing them for the violence they perpetuate. The idea that it could've been worse, or it's understandable from a certain point of view — imo that is all kinda unacceptable now. It's jut not good enough. 

 

My honest feeling, and obviously I'm not alone on this, is that I question all of it. I question the use of deadly force in the biggest most general sense for police, and ask why? Why does it have to be that way? It's worked elsewhere with unarmed police just fine. Just what I've seen personally locally in LA County, I've yet to ever read a story about a police shooting that seemed absolutely necessary. I am struggling to conjure any example of a situation where the police didn't appear to instigate the situation toward violent ends. Idk.

Edited June 12, 2020 by GregPersons

[Reality Check]

4 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

This is why I feel like we're close. The cops are the ones in possession of the view of the larger picture; he is the confused person, he is firing out of fear and desperation. They have the protective gear — shields, helmets, armor  — and he has a civilian firearm, right? (I know they're serving a warrant. I'm saying theoretically as a solution, cops could be in more armor/have protection, without needing to have offensive firepower.)

 

We should be able to expect more from cops to prevent violence rather than excusing them for the violence they perpetuate. The idea that it could've been worse, or it's understandable from a certain point of view — imo that is all kinda unacceptable now. It's jut not good enough. 

 

My honest feeling, and obviously I'm not alone on this, is that I question all of it. I question the use of deadly force in the biggest most general sense for police, and ask why? Why does it have to be that way? It's worked elsewhere with unarmed police just fine. Just what I've seen personally locally in LA County, I've yet to ever read a story about a police shooting that seemed absolutely necessary. I am struggling to conjure any example of a situation where the police didn't appear to instigate the situation toward violent ends. Idk.

 

 

 

Understatement of the year...and you did it with only three letters. Very good.

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

This is why I feel like we're close. The cops are the ones in possession of the view of the larger picture; he is the confused person, he is firing out of fear and desperation. They have the protective gear — shields, helmets, armor  — and he has a civilian firearm, right? (I know they're serving a warrant. I'm saying theoretically as a solution, cops could be in more armor/have protection, without needing to have offensive firepower.)

 

Yeah....like hw about big rubber suits for the Cops to wear so that bullets will bounce right off of them!  I'm sure the wives of all these officers will be thrilled to send their husbands off to work as long as they have their big rubber suit to protect them.  That'll work...problem solved.

[GregPersons]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yeah....like hw about big rubber suits for the Cops to wear so that bullets will bounce right off of them!  I'm sure the wives of all these officers will be thrilled to send their husbands off to work as long as they have their big rubber suit to protect them.  That'll work...problem solved.

 

Well, the technology exists. You could cover officers head to toe pretty well and give 'em the riot shields. Seems like a better use of the money to be spent in defensive gear rather than offensive weaponry. 

 

You're welcome to pitch better ideas. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" I'm guessing?