Police Shootings

An ediorial in yesterday's Washingon Post: Opinion: Get police out of the business of traffic stopsI hope more and more people come to think this way, that a highly armed, paranoid and bunker-mentality police force is not what we need. Any police out there who think they're in a war are in the wrong business. They should join the army.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Fix URL.

Wonder what would replace them? Drones?
(...) *reads article*(...)

quote:

---

these traffic safety agencies should rely on automation — including speed and red-light cameras. Although we must remain vigilant to ensure that these machines aren’t disproportionately placed in Black neighborhoods, at least we know cameras don’t demean, pepper spray, or kill.

---

That's kinda been your point all along? Huh Percy...

Are you asking what would replace armed officers enforcing our traffic laws? How about unarmed officers?Take the example of former Minneapolis police offer Kim Potter, who felt the need to force Daunte Wright into compliance by firing her Taser at him but mistakingly firing her gun. If she had no gun and no Taser then Daunte Wright would have driven happily off into the night to be picked up by arresting officers later in the week. Kim Potter would still have a job and no legal troubles. The legal docket of Minneapolis would have one less manslaughter case. Down the road Minneapolis's insurance company will not have to pay out a multi-million dollar settlement. In part. More generally, this is not the wild west. In the vast majority of situations we do not need law enforcement officers walking around with guns on their hips. Imagine a police officer in the center of an intersection directing traffic. Why does he need a gun?I think how widely statistics are misunderstood is a big part of the problem. Imagine you're attending a gathering at my house where no one has a gun and there is no gun on the premises. One of the attendees is illegally parked and a policeman knocks on the door. Because he has a gun the possibility of someone in the house being shot has just increased.The obvious rebuttal is, "Sure, but only by a microscopic amount." But that bubble of increased likelihood of a shooting follows that policeman around wherever he goes. Right now he's at my house, but a little later he'll be at a gas station, later at the Dunkin' Donuts, and later walking around a property whose residents are on vacation, and so forth. And he's and the gun are literally attached at the hip. It follows him around wherever he goes. And he's a danger to society not because he's a bad cop or because there's anything wrong with his training but just because he's human it's possible for a situation to arise where he fires a round or seven into someone.The fault is not Kim Potter's (killed Daunte Wright) or Eric Stillman (killed 13-year-old Adam Toledo) or any of the other police officers who killed people. The fault is the system that places guns in officers' hands and then expects them to turn them into constructive instruments of law enforcement. It just isn't possible.Adding a related point, it is almost never necessary to sneak up to someone's door with a battering ram and then burst inside yelling stuff that can't be understood and certainly not comprehended in real time. Given the number of guns out there the police will inevitably encounter people who believe they are under attack and will fire back.--Percy

No. We have enough nazis in the army as it is. We don't need more.Whatever you do with them is fine. Just not the army. Or any postal jobs.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I am so relieved at this verdict.It’s not by any means a panacea - but it feels like a turning point.Humanity, not violence. Compassion, not hate. Empathy, not privilege. Maybe a glimmer of hope for the future.

Didn't like Biden's intervention. Ground for appeal.

Pretty much anything is grounds for an appeal - but I take your point. It’s still a good starting point though - any jury which convicts a cop for brutally ending a life is a step in the right direction. It’s the opinion of the man in the street which it seems is changing, and that’s the key thing.

I didn't like it either. But I doubt that it will be grounds for an appeal. As far as I know, he waited until the jury was sequestered.

Oh, oh. I live here and hadn't heard of any intervention. I heard about the call to Floyd's family after the verdict, but trial intervention?I missed something? Where is that?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I suppose there are several ways to look at the Chauvin conviction, but the're one that scares me, and that's how horrific police malfeasance must be before a conviction can happen. A common police motto is to serve and protect, and they do this very well when they think you're one of the people they're supposed to serve and protect. It works horribly when they misread a situation and employ their "serve and protect" skills against law abiding citizens or use an inappropriately harsh level of force.A recent example of this latter case is the 73-year-old woman with dementia who was battered, bruised and had her arm broken after walking out of a Walmart without paying for $14 of merchandise (Prosecutors open criminal probe into police who allegedly broke the arm of a 73-year-old woman with dementia). It's gratifying to know the officer involved has been fired and two others who were present placed on desk duty, but examples like this are so dismaying because they tell us how little tolerance they have and how little discretion they employ. And there are apparently too many training courses for police officers that only increase their paranoia and the likelihood that they'll one day commit a true crime against the public they're pledged to protect.Anyone with diminished mental capacity is in for a tough time in encounters with law enforcement because on a bad day they get really upset really fast when their instructions aren't followed. This reminds of the deaf man police murdered when he ignored their instructions from behind him to drop the metal pipe he was holding (Oklahoma City Police Fatally Shoot Deaf Man Despite Yells Of 'He Can't Hear' : The Two-Way : NPR).There's a problem with law enforcement in this country, there has been for a long time, and the evidence can be seen as DA after DA declines to press charges and trial after trial proves just how difficult it is to hold police accountable.What do I want? Obviously the laws affecting police accountability have to change but what I want is to feel more safe as a policeman approaches, not less. How do I think we can do that? Except for police patrolling designated areas, take away the guns, the Tasers, the nightsticks and the pepper spray. The safety officer in the high school? He gets none of these. The officer conducting speed stops? Him either. Directing traffic? Nope. Wellness checks? No way. Domestic disturbance? Uh-uh. Loud party? No.Unless I have the misfortune of being present when a crime is committed, when I'm walking or shopping or driving or recreating or any other normal activity of life then I should never find myself in the presence of a gun just because a policeman is nearby.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Try this:
George Floyd: Biden 'praying for right verdict' in Chauvin trial

Thank you, nwr. I missed that on Monday.I can feel where people would squirm at this. He did that call and made those statements after the jury had been sequestered, which means, ideally, the jury never saw it. His statements, given the moment, were appropriate for, not just our political leader, but the bully pulpit of a moral leader.None of this could I consider intervention. I agree that, for optics and our revered view of the presidency, he should have waited until the verdict was actually announced, but, there appears no harm done or intended which is what intervention implies.Even in this we have to rejoice in the fact that Pres. Biden is not just leading this nation with law books, but with a human heart. Quite a change from last year.

He couldn't possibly know that. Ideally and legally he shouldn't have said anything. It was a very public political intervention from the very top that made it round the world. It could be expected to influence a verdict if it was heard. It absolutely was. He should have kept his mouth shut not just because of how it looked but because it was very nearly an instruction to the jury to find for a particular verdict.. How do you know? Sure and thank god for that, but he should have kept his mouth shut until after the court had done it's work. Separation of powers etc.

Ohio shooting: Columbus police shoot dead black teenage girl
Yet another example that supports your case regarding dis-arming the police.

Perhaps they could fight the demons with the Pastors. Except that a demon may manifest at the altar and the host shot dead.