Some officers may think you support killing them

[utbagpiper]

Silly meme deleted

While some claim that aggressive police tactics are the cause of violence against police, others might wonder whether the reduced number of murdered police officers might not be the result of police being more aggressive towards those they consider to pose a risk.

What I object to are those who attempt to lump truly justified homicides by police against individuals in with those where there are questions or flat out not justified. The seeming reasons some cases get publicity is also troubling.

Here in the Salt Lake City, Utah area a case of a young women who was shot to death by an undercover cop as she backed out of parking stall gets little mention. The entire narcotics squad of one city's police force was disbanded when the investigation into her death revealed a pattern of violations of policy including storing evidence in car trunks (trophies?). Many cases were dismissed. The officer who pulled the trigger was fired and charged, but the judge tossed the charges at the preliminary hearing.

In contrast, a young man armed with a sword was approached by two officers. After chatting for a few minutes, he took a swing at the officers with the sword and then ran, sword in hand, toward a crowd. Officers shot him, citing fears of his intent and ability to harm innocent persons. The shooting was ruled justified, there is no evidence of systemic problems in that particular department, no action against the officers involved. But the case continues to be in the news.

I'm sure the fact that the young woman was white while the young man was (half) black, is not the difference in which case get publicity. But there is certainly some difference.

Cases of police abuse need to be called out and those involved punished, including those who withhold evidence or otherwise impede investigations.

But lumping every shooting or use of force together is like the boy who cried wolf. There are times when use of force, even deadly force, is not only justified, but even essential to preserve innocent life and limb. It is clear there are those who are simply anti-cop and will criticize whether justified or not. But for the sensible, sane, and mature among us, we need to be careful to differentiate between cases where officers deserve our support and where they warrant our criticism. This is true even if we don't support the laws being enforced in some cases.

Charles

 

[willy1094]

While some claim that aggressive police tactics are the cause of violence against police, others might wonder whether the reduced number of murdered police officers might not be the result of police being more aggressive towards those they consider to pose a risk.

What I object to are those who attempt to lump truly justified homicides by police against individuals in with those where there are questions or flat out not justified. The seeming reasons some cases get publicity is also troubling.

Here in the Salt Lake City, Utah area a case of a young women who was shot to death by an undercover cop as she backed out of parking stall gets little mention. The entire narcotics squad of one city's police force was disbanded when the investigation into her death revealed a pattern of violations of policy including storing evidence in car trunks (trophies?). Many cases were dismissed. The officer who pulled the trigger was fired and charged, but the judge tossed the charges at the preliminary hearing.

In contrast, a young man armed with a sword was approached by two officers. After chatting for a few minutes, he took a swing at the officers with the sword and then ran, sword in hand, toward a crowd. Officers shot him, citing fears of his intent and ability to harm innocent persons. The shooting was ruled justified, there is no evidence of systemic problems in that particular department, no action against the officers involved. But the case continues to be in the news.

I'm sure the fact that the young woman was white while the young man was (half) black, is not the difference in which case get publicity. But there is certainly some difference.

Cases of police abuse need to be called out and those involved punished, including those who withhold evidence or otherwise impede investigations.

But lumping every shooting or use of force together is like the boy who cried wolf. There are times when use of force, even deadly force, is not only justified, but even essential to preserve innocent life and limb. It is clear there are those who are simply anti-cop and will criticize whether justified or not. But for the sensible, sane, and mature among us, we need to be careful to differentiate between cases where officers deserve our support and where they warrant our criticism. This is true even if we don't support the laws being enforced in some cases.

Charles

This...+1

 

[sudden valley gunner]

--- Great now he'll get this thread locked too.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Abortion may have more to do with less cops being killed than anything.

The immediate evidence of cops getting killed shows that cop tactics are what has caused more cop killings.

 

[utbagpiper]

The immediate evidence of cops getting killed shows that cop tactics are what has caused more cop killings.

Lacking further explanation, I doubt that the "immediate evidence" (whatever that means) shows any such thing except for those who engage in confirmation bias.

I see that British police officers have a higher than average rate of officers being shot or stabbed in 2013 (and 1984) than in many other years. Is this due to the Bobbies being less polite than normal those years? Or to some other factor?

Not only does correlation not equal causality, but even if there is causality, the direction is not always obvious.

An honest and dispassionate discussion of the topic might be interesting and enlightening. An effort to simply bash cops (or the existence of government itself), doesn't much interest me.

Being told to move out of the middle of the street and walk on the sidewalk instead, doesn't justify a brutal assault even if the cop wasn't super polite and was stupid enough to place himself in a position where it was possible to attack him through his car window. A cop sitting in his car doing nothing doesn't deserve to be shot by anybody. A cop breaking up a fight (or an assault on innocent persons) doesn't deserve to be threatened with death.

At this point, I suspect media coverage is encouraging copycat crimes against cops much as we believe it is encouraging copycat mass shootings as schools, theaters, and other unarmed victim zones.

At some point, we have to ask whether cops are bringing this on themselves, or whether we simply have some uncivilized elements of society who refuse any and all forms of government authority and civilization. I know some personally who get raging mad over routine traffic tickets when they were clearly, grossly exceeding the posted limit. I believe for some I know personally, only the fear of legal penalty (and maybe some deep seated religious morals) prevent them from engaging in horrific violence for minor traffic stops carried with complete professionalism and respect for rights. I suppose some anarchists may view this rage as justified. I view it as breakdown of society completely independent of how polite police officers have been the past few years.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

It will be interesting to see whether the shootings along I-10 in Arizona are linked to motorists being rude, or perhaps have at their root something similar to what may be causing violence against police officers: a general breakdown of social values. Notably, this CNN report carried on my local NBC affiliate contains concerns about a possible copy cat shooting in Arizona now.

Charles

 

[The Truth]

Blah blah blah, blah blah BLAH!
Charles

Interesting points...

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Having been personally involved with LEO for many years and still know a lot of active LEOs.

Both problems started a longer time ago.

There are many reasons the most prominent ones I would relate and are not the only ones by far.

1, The passage of laws that most people find not supported by the constitution thus they feel they are unjust and do not have to be obeyed.

Break one law and one can feel that they can break others. IE the War on Drugs the 55 mph mandate the seat belt laws and many others.

Or many laws that people believe only effects them selves and not others.

2. The development of the welfare give me mentality I am owed this it is my right to have it how dare to you deny it to me.

3. Law enforcement officers enforcing these unconstitutional laws with the backing of the political establishment. Enforce one unconstitutional law one feels that one can break other constitutional rights.

The hiring of politically correct officers that do not have the strength size and knowledge to handle violence confrontations with out using deadly force. We have hire a lot of people who never fired a gun, never been in a fight, Never had to confront some one who was mad at them, never confronted a mad animal, never had any training in the martial arts except what they received at the academy.

So when they get into a iffy situation they are forced to up the level and often using deadly force as the first means of defending themselves.

We have lost a lot of respect for the rule of law and the constitution on both sides. From the top down. I leave you with this.

EXCERPT #2 FROM ATLAS SHRUGGED

Beginning on page 411 of the 35th Anniversary Edition of Atlas Shrugged:



Dr. Ferris smiled. . . . . ."We've waited a long time to get something on you. You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later - and this is just what we wanted."

"You seem to be pleased about it."

"Don't I have good reason to be?"

"But, after all, I did break one of your laws."

"Well, what do you think they're for?"

Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden's face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which he had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Having been personally involved with LEO for many years and still know a lot of active LEOs.

Both problems started a longer time ago.

There are many reasons the most prominent ones I would relate and are not the only ones by far.

1, The passage of laws that most people find not supported by the constitution thus they feel they are unjust and do not have to be obeyed.

Break one law and one can feel that they can break others. IE the War on Drugs the 55 mph mandate the seat belt laws and many others.

Or many laws that people believe only effects them selves and not others.

2. The development of the welfare give me mentality I am owed this it is my right to have it how dare to you deny it to me.

3. Law enforcement officers enforcing these unconstitutional laws with the backing of the political establishment. Enforce one unconstitutional law one feels that one can break other constitutional rights.

The hiring of politically correct officers that do not have the strength size and knowledge to handle violence confrontations with out using deadly force. We have hire a lot of people who never fired a gun, never been in a fight, Never had to confront some one who was mad at them, never confronted a mad animal, never had any training in the martial arts except what they received at the academy.

So when they get into a iffy situation they are forced to up the level and often using deadly force as the first means of defending themselves.

We have lost a lot of respect for the rule of law and the constitution on both sides. From the top down. I leave you with this.

EXCERPT #2 FROM ATLAS SHRUGGED

Beginning on page 411 of the 35th Anniversary Edition of Atlas Shrugged:



Dr. Ferris smiled. . . . . ."We've waited a long time to get something on you. You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later - and this is just what we wanted."

"You seem to be pleased about it."

"Don't I have good reason to be?"

"But, after all, I did break one of your laws."

"Well, what do you think they're for?"

Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden's face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which he had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Some good points.

I like Robert Higgs observation that those who judge something as right or wrong by the mere legality of it are morally vacuous. I go a little further and apply that to a greater job to those who will brink the power of the state down upon an individual.

 

[solus]

Lacking further explanation, I doubt that the "immediate evidence" (whatever that means) shows any such thing except for those who engage in confirmation bias.

I see that British police officers have a higher than average rate of officers being shot or stabbed in 2013 (and 1984) than in many other years. Is this due to the Bobbies being less polite than normal those years? Or to some other factor?

Not only does correlation not equal causality, but even if there is causality, the direction is not always obvious.

An honest and dispassionate discussion of the topic might be interesting and enlightening. An effort to simply bash cops (or the existence of government itself), doesn't much interest me.

Being told to move out of the middle of the street and walk on the sidewalk instead, doesn't justify a brutal assault even if the cop wasn't super polite and was stupid enough to place himself in a position where it was possible to attack him through his car window. A cop sitting in his car doing nothing doesn't deserve to be shot by anybody. A cop breaking up a fight (or an assault on innocent persons) doesn't deserve to be threatened with death.

At this point, I suspect media coverage is encouraging copycat crimes against cops much as we believe it is encouraging copycat mass shootings as schools, theaters, and other unarmed victim zones.

At some point, we have to ask whether cops are bringing this on themselves, or whether we simply have some uncivilized elements of society who refuse any and all forms of government authority and civilization. I know some personally who get raging mad over routine traffic tickets when they were clearly, grossly exceeding the posted limit. I believe for some I know personally, only the fear of legal penalty (and maybe some deep seated religious morals) prevent them from engaging in horrific violence for minor traffic stops carried with complete professionalism and respect for rights. I suppose some anarchists may view this rage as justified. I view it as breakdown of society completely independent of how polite police officers have been the past few years.

Charles

piper, here is your confrontation bias...full blown, out of the blue, not even a mother may i, vicious tackle by plain clothes police man (white) on former tennis star (black)....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nypd-releases-video-cop-tackling-james-blake-mistaken/story?id=33687388

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...stakenly-tackled-white-cops-article-1.2353983

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/us/tennis-james-blake-tackled-by-nypd/

ipse

 

[sudden valley gunner]

piper, here is your confrontation bias...full blown, out of the blue, not even a mother may i, vicious tackle by plain clothes police man (white) on former tennis star (black)....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nypd-releases-video-cop-tackling-james-blake-mistaken/story?id=33687388

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...stakenly-tackled-white-cops-article-1.2353983

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/us/tennis-james-blake-tackled-by-nypd/

ipse

Yep.

This Oath Keeper breaks it down pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=6vrzZR0PBOI

 

[utbagpiper]

Lacking further explanation, I doubt that the "immediate evidence" (whatever that means) shows any such thing except for those who engage in confirmation bias.

piper, here is your confrontation bias...

this individual identified as a semi-illiterate peon

To quote our moderator, solus; were anyone else to say such things about you it would be a violation of our rules. But clearly you know yourself better than we know you.

And to quote the jurist, "The truth is always a defense against claims of slander."

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Yep.

This Oath Keeper breaks it down pretty good.

I'm reminded that "The plural of anecdotes is not data."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'm reminded that "The plural of anecdotes is not data."

Sure except his words were not just anecdotal.

 

[solus]

To quote our moderator, solus; were anyone else to say such things about you it would be a violation of our rules. But clearly you know yourself better than we know you.

And to quote the jurist, "The truth is always a defense against claims of slander."

Charles

“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

my apologies to the Bard and followers...

ipse

ad nauseam: People generally try to sustain an image of perfection and personal invincibility for themselves and attempt to project that impression to others as well.

 

[Grapeshot]

“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

my apologies to the Bard and followers...

ipse

ad nauseam: People generally try to sustain an image of perfection and personal invincibility for themselves and attempt to project that impression to others as well.

Have you ever noticed the similarity between "bard" and the word "barb?" Except for one (1) letter at the end of one (1) word we would have the same one (1) word. The different letter is the last letter in each (1) word. Both words have four letters and each one (1) begins with the same letters forming the word "bar."

Coincidence? :lol:

 

[solus]

Antonio, the speaker of the curse (Merchant of Venice, I,3, 424), is corrupted by his unrequited love of Bassiano. It many not mean what you desire in context.

me thinks the Bard also mentions in another play something about a rose...

i also aptly believe it provided the barb i was seeking...:uhoh:

ipse

 

[solus]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025996176

ipse

 

[sudden valley gunner]

View attachment 12743

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025996176

ipse

Throwing the good apples out of the barrel....

 

[OC for ME]

I don't know anyone who supports violent acts being perpetrated against cops. The

I also don't know any cop who does not drop the "I don't support unprofessional cops." Yet, we continue to have unprofessional cops, far more than we here are allowed to mention. It logically follows that your average beat cop is more interested in the pay check than actually working to remove from their ranks those they publicly claim not to support.

We have a [active duty cop ] member who has posted that he would not intervene if he witnesses a cop violating a citizen's rights. He would "be a good witness" and call a supervisor.

Sgt. Delroy Burton is focusing on the wrong issue...but, what is supposed to do, being a union man and all.