Police Shootings in Black America: The 2018 Data Is In

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I also have a straight razor for shaving when I want, but as I shave in the shower without a mirror many times, I use the Gillette there.  I use the straight razor when shaving in front of a mirror.

Why do you think I care about the sexual orientation of your razor?  I’m no bigot, and assure you I’d have no problem if you were using a gay razor instead of a straight one.  It makes no difference to me.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[mirkwood]

I don't buy Ben & Jerry's, Nike or Gillette.  Those companies are dead to me.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I don't buy Ben & Jerry's, Nike or Gillette.  Those companies are dead to me.

For every person who won't buy Nike/Gillette/Ben and Jerrys there are three people who now will only buy from those companies to support their causes. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by MormonGator

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I blocked you because you listen to ABBA.

I blocked him because he has an orange sweater.

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not that I agree with the idea (perhaps if police had to go unarmed at first and could only call armed back up there would be more talking and less shooting from the police, but it would also probably end up with more police officers dead if the numbers in the article reflect anything to go on) that police should be shooting anyone.  I think that 15 unarmed deaths is STILL FAR TOO HIGH.

My local small town police chief tells a fun story.  About the only time he was ever injured on duty.  He was injured by a 14 yr old girl in handcuffs who weighted around 98 lbs.  She had fought hard, with the thoughtless abandon of folks with immature brains who are unable to grasp the long-term consequences of their actions, against this guy and his partner, who had to place her in cuffs and were both escorting her to the back of their patrol car.  She used their hold on her as leverage, picked herself up and swung down as hard as she could, with all of her 98 lbs put into her heel that connected with the cop's knee.  He was over a month in recovery.

Unarmed, tiny, weak, helpless people can still injure and kill.  Disarming the good guys is not a valid way of making things better.

Hey, if someone ever figures out a way to legitimately turn us into Great Britain, I'll seriously consider it.  But for every 100 plans I've heard so far, all 100 of them fail to take basic realities into account.

[NeuroTypical]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 I’m no bigot, and assure you I’d have no problem if you were using a gay razor instead of a straight one.  It makes no difference to me.

It would sure make a big difference to the razor...

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I blocked him

And it's not even my birthday! 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

For every person who won't buy Nike/Gillette/Ben and Jerrys there are three people who now will only buy from those companies to support their causes. 

I doubt it.  I think 99% of people buy a product because they like it.

1% boycott or support in rather equal numbers.  (Just my personal estimation).

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And it's not even my birthday! 

Where has Gator gone?  I haven't heard from him in a while now.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I doubt it.  I think 99% of people buy a product because they like it.

1% boycott or support in rather equal numbers.  (Just my personal estimation).

I was using hyperbole. 

That said, boycotts never work. Remember the right boycotting Target because of the transgender bathroom issue? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/target-will-be-one-of-the-top-holiday-performers-moodys-2019-01-10

How is that Nike boycott doing? https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2018/06/29/five-things-nike-is-doing-to-stay-no-1/#4da377d114ea

I'm not watching the NFL either. https://deadline.com/2019/01/rams-patriots-nfl-championship-game-ratings-rise-1202538653/

Not eating Ben and Jerry's? Okay. See how wildly successful the other boycotts are. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by MormonGator

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I was using hyperbole. 

That said, boycotts never work. Remember the right boycotting Target because of the transgender bathroom issue? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/target-will-be-one-of-the-top-holiday-performers-moodys-2019-01-10

How is that Nike boycott doing? https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2018/06/29/five-things-nike-is-doing-to-stay-no-1/#4da377d114ea

Not eating Ben and Jerry's? Okay. How are they doing? Oh yeah, pretty good. 

You forgot Chik-fil-a.

Lots of rainbow coalition boycotts.  But they were (still are?) the fastest growing fast food chain in the country (world? -- probably).

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You forgot Chik-fil-a.

Lots of rainbow coalition boycotts.  But they were (still are?) the fastest growing fast food chain in the country (world? -- probably).

That proves my point. When the left whines and complains and demands a boycott-it never works. 
When the right whines and complains and demands a boycott-it never works. 

While you personally have every right to not eat Chick Fil-A, wear Nikes, shop at Target-it won't hurt the company that much in the long run. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by MormonGator

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That proves my point. When the left whines and complains and demands a boycott-it never works. 
When the right whines and complains and demands a boycott-it never works. 

That was kinda where I was going.

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

While you personally have every right to not eat Chick Fil-A, wear Nikes, shop at Target-it won't do much in the long run. 

But my GE boycott apparently worked.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Guest

[mirkwood]

I did not say anyone should boycott those companies.  I said I do not support them.  I stand with my principles.  Others can do what they want, but as @Just_A_Guy said in another thread, five years from now I will remember Nike gives money to a guy who gives money to cop killers.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I did not say anyone should boycott those companies.

I think that's the frustrating part. Some companies SHOULD be boycotted for their social views but it very rarely has an impact on their business. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think that's the frustrating part. Some companies SHOULD be boycotted for their social views but it very rarely has an impact on their business. 

Well, maybe you're looking at boycotts the wrong way.  You're thinking of a "successful" boycott being one that effectively hurts someone's business.

What if a boycott is simply a matter of saying for oneself, I simply can't support that organization anymore with my funds and my time because I simply can't look at myself in the mirror if I do so.

[Guest Godless]

59 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You forgot Chik-fil-a.

Lots of rainbow coalition boycotts.  But they were (still are?) the fastest growing fast food chain in the country (world? -- probably).

I started wearing my Bad Religion shirts to Chik-Fil-A for a while after that blew up. I didn't want to leave any room for people to think that I was supporting them for moral/political reasons. But I also couldn't give them up because their chicken biscuits are made of crack or something.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

I started wearing my Bad Religion shirts to Chik-Fil-A for a while after that blew up. I didn't want to leave any room for people to think that I was supporting them for moral/political reasons. But I also couldn't give them up because their chicken biscuits are made of crack or something.

I had an old Bush/Cheney t-shirt that I would wear at Whole Foods just to irritate people. 

[JohnsonJones]

50 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

https://training.forcescience.org/unarmed-but-still-dangerous/

 

That would lead to more dead cops.  Frankly that is one of the dumbest ideas anyone ever floats.  

46 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It would lead to more dead civilians as well. When someone decides to go on a killing spree, they won't be dissuaded by "Hey you meanie-leave us alone or I'm telling." 

I admitted that it may lead to more dead police officers, but that does NOT make this a bad idea.  It is NOT that I am against police officers at all, but I think when you have violent means you are more likely to resort to violent means rather than trying to think of ways that are non-violent but achieve the same end.

There are several very successful (and some would say MORE successful as crime rates are lower, but I see that as more of a CULTURAL item that causes this rather than that the police go around without guns) police forces in the world that carry no guns.  In the UK they carry no guns on their persons, but they can call back up.  There are those who are able to deploy weapons for a back up when the situation warrants, but it is an extreme, not the norm.

I am not advocating something quite as severe as that, but that a routine action the officer does not carry a firearm.  It could be more like Norway where they do not have the firearm on their persons, but they DO have it in their vehicle.  If the situation warrants firearm usage they are either told about it en route (live fire or someone with weapons going in) or they need to request to use them in the situation. 

We have different situations.  I think ONE DEAD CHILD shot by accident from a police officer is TOO HIGH.  You may find it acceptable, I find it abhorrent.  There is no excuse, there is no reason a mistake should have been made like that.  I understand WHY police are taught to react like that, but it has caused the refrain that some repeat today that police are NOT there to protect and serve, but rather to merely enforce the law.

The training to react has come around BECAUSE in many ways there have been dead officers.  It is done to try to find a median where you can protect others but at the same time you can protect the police officer.  Some areas even teach that the most important resource they have are the police officers.  I would disagree.  That's is not the purpose of the police, the most important resource they have is their community.  it is the ENTIRE purpose they are supposed to be in existence in the first place.

Someone who is a volunteer for the police force should be one we hold to the highest ideals and who would be willing to live the highest ideals of society.  They should have a belief that they are willing to lay down their life in their service (not someone who seeks it, that's suicidal, but rather cares enough that they would rather die than kill an innocent by accident).

Most reasons for a police officer to have a weapon are not situations that will be unknown going in, or occur rarely enough that I do not feel it supports their position.  If the situation warrants a weapon, it can be available as a back up (such as in a trunk with a lock on the trigger and the ammo out of the weapon) or they can call back up, or they can collect a posse (like the good old westerns), or various other options.  Having a sidearm at all time while on duty I feel is excessive.

Now obviously, the question is (if we look at your link) WHY the guns are used in many of those situations.  When we look at the numbers, Japanese officers (who do carry sidearms, at least occasionally) rely less on their guns.  The police force is required to spend a LOT more time in hand to hand combat (and perhaps officers would like this if they had a little less paperwork but had to spend more time in the gym and learning martial arts).  Their police are renown for their hand to hand skills (perhaps one of the last people you would want to meet in hand to hand, even if you had a weapon on you and they did not).  More training in combat is a way to make police more able to protect and defend themselves with resorting to lethal means.

Of course, that probably STILL will result in more officer deaths.  AS I noted in the post you responded to (but curiously no one actually seems, at least I did not notice) I pointed out that with them numbers, it would seem that 97.5% of the deaths seem to indicate they were armed encounters, meaning that it was very highly likely that the officer was shooting in defense and being attacked with a firearm.  I am not against police using fire arms, but I think that any deaths of innocent individuals is TOO HIGH.  If someone else committed it, even if it was an accident, it would be normally at the minimum manslaughter.  There is a higher tolerance for this than we like to admit as a society.  I FEEL that we need to find a way to rectify this in some manner.  Police are supposed to be there as volunteers.  AS it takes so much time, this is why many felt they should be paid (rather than how it was in the past with no police force but a few officers and many civilians who could be rallied up in time of crisis).  I feel that we are a culture enamoured by violence and though a majority of Police are there for a good purpose, they are not immune to this either.  I FEEL we can do better, and seek for ways that we CAN do better.

And that's the key to it, it's merely how I FEEL an opinion of mine.  I understand that there are various opinions on this.  We may see very differently on this.  I'm not going to try to rally for anyone to take the police's sidearms away from them, and I am open to other thoughts and opinions.  Right now, though, I ponder about what is too much and what is too great.  I use firearms in a civilian capacity, so I am not against fire arms.  I just FEEL that there are many ways we could do better in how we deal with firearms in our daily lives.  It's merely what I feel on the subject.

I am not anti-police or against the police forces.  I try to support our local force and the boys in blue when I can.  Different feelings, thoughts, and opinions are part of what makes America such a great place, that we can all have these thoughts and yet get (hopefully) get along and find a way to talk with each other and communicate our concerns, out thoughts, and perhaps come to viable solutions that we can all agree upon, or at least see with a better understanding the other points of view.

 

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That proves my point. When the left whines and complains and demands a boycott-it never works. 
When the right whines and complains and demands a boycott-it never works. 

While you personally have every right to not eat Chick Fil-A, wear Nikes, shop at Target-it won't hurt the company that much in the long run. 

I think part of it is that people don't remember to stick with the boycott and many of those who say they will boycott do not actually go through with it.  If all those who said they would boycott Nike or Target had done so and stuck with it, I think those companies would definitely be feeling that impact today.  I do not buy Nike shoes, so not buying them was no struggle for me.  They probably never felt that loss of sell.  However, if all those who said they would never buy a Nike again actually stuck with it, I think Nike would definitely feel the loss.

Target noted some losses in their finances and dangerously falling profits right after people started to boycott.  They made some changes to attract them back (without actually changing their policies or what they had said from what I saw) and people went back to buying at Target.  Had people stuck to their original intent, Target probably would have some seriously financial problems today and might actually consider whether to stick with their guns or rescind their policies.  In this instance, Target was hurt initially but as people did not stick with the boycott, overcame it.

On the otherhand, with the response that Chik-Fil-A had to the boycott, I didn't see the boycott as being all that successful.  Chik-Fil-A was crowded to the extreme right after some declared a boycott.  The Christians and right flooded in to support Chik-Fil-A.  If that type of support had continued I think Chik-Fil-A would have doubled in size.

I think boycotts can work, but many times do not work as people don't stick long enough with their boycott to actually cause change. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

I started wearing my Bad Religion shirts to Chik-Fil-A for a while after that blew up. I didn't want to leave any room for people to think that I was supporting them for moral/political reasons. But I also couldn't give them up because their chicken biscuits are made of crack or something.

That reminds me of two things:

1. So, I Married an Axe Murderer? where Charlie's father says that Colonel Sanders is part of the secret cabal.  As justification he says,"He puts an addictive substance in his chicken that makes you crave for it nightly."

2. When the first boycott of Chik-fil-a was proposed a black athlete came out on social media to declare that he was going there anyway because he liked it.  When questioned if he would do that if he found out they supported slavery, he responded,"Don't matter.  Chicken's too good."

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

I admitted that it may lead to more dead police officers, but that does NOT make this a bad idea.

Um....what?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Um....what?

Dang, it.  I was going to do exactly that.

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Um....what?

How much is a child worth?

How many lives are worth saving the life of ONE child who is dead. 

What is the worth of an innocent man?

Does it matter if that innocent person was killed by a civilian, a solider, or a Police officer?

How about the worth of an innocent woman?

I'm open to the conversation, but new facts must be brought forth to change my opinion.  I am aware of the police training (and actually have participated in some of it) and various methods and reasonings.  Do you think that those in the UK or Ireland are foolish for going around without weapons?  Do you think that police in Norway do not realize the same ideas?

It's a frame of mind of WHY one is part of the police force in those countries.  What is their purpose?  It is that which shows the differences of mindset between why one thinks they should have a firearm vs. why we may want to look at other alternatives.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

  Do you think that those in the UK or Ireland are foolish for going around without weapons?

Yes. 

[JohnsonJones]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yes. 

And that's okay.  We have a difference of opinion.

Do you also feel that Jeronimo Yanez was rightfully acquitted, even as his actions were caught on tape?

I can see both sides of it, but in my opinion, in that type of situation, it should never have even been a factor.  If he had no gun, but had to spend a minute or two going back to his vehicle to get it from the trunk...I think it could have changed a LOT. 

Almost anyone else who was not an officer at the time of the event would have been convicted in my opinion.  Does that mean he was wrong or should have been convicted?  I don't think there is a clear cut answer.  His training implied for certain situations and he had to make a judgment call at that specific instant.  If he had to take a little longer to get his gun...who knows what the outcome may have been.  These are the types of things that sway me to feel (and it is how I feel, not necessarily anything more) that perhaps there could be a better way of doing things.

Edited January 22, 2019 by JohnsonJones