Of course there is a bias (unconscious or aware). But that doesnt mean all the times that cops kill a black man the bias is the cause. In fact, I would say it is rarely the cause.
The problem being- it should never be the cause.
Asset forfeiture is not theft- in most cases.
It’s always in the mix. How can you say in any grey zone case that it didn’t make a difference?
Even if Floyd was a white man, his death would be an example of exactly what the police does wrong. Even if Floyd was a violent criminal, even if he had murder a whole gaggle of police officers in cold blood a few minutes beforehand – his death at the habds of police would STILL have been wrong, if they managed to apprehend him and subdue him. The fact that in this case Floyd’s alleged offense was nonviolent, that he was unarmed, and of course that he just so happened to be black – those all make this case much worse – but cops shouldn’t be kneeling on anyone’s neck.
The fact that it is ever theft is a problem, especially since the people perpetrating that theft are the ones we expect to enforce laws. They should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
“Oh, my husband rarely cheats on me.”
“Oh, the camp director only occasionally mollests kids.”
“Oh, cops only kill unarmed black men sometimes.”
Right, because theft is usually done quietly and without notice.
If you use threats of force, then it is robbery.
I have no problem with assets being taken and held during the trial of a person who has been charged with something that could at least vaguely relate to the money.
If they are not convicted, or if charges are dropped or even never raised, then the police should not get to hold onto the money that they took at gunpoint from an innocent civilian.
Does it really make sense to debate asset forfeiture here?
Oops – I didn’t mean to direct that at anyone. Hit the wrong reply button.
It’s hard to find statistics, but I’m sure that people have been shot in asset forfeiture corridors.
I really really wish cops would use less-lethal options like pepper spray in situations like this. And pepper spray is some really nasty effective stuff, try watching youtube videos of people testing it out. Or tasers.
Again the less lethal options described above. Depending on age of kid and situation, retreat to cover and verbally warn the kid that a fake weapon will be considered a real weapon and to drop it.
If someone has opened fire, then I suppose returning fire is justified.
TL;DR I wish police would take a lot more advantage of their less lethal options rather than rushing directly to pulling a gun. In my dream world cops wouldn’t carry guns directly on them 24/7… because mistakes will always be made by humans, and gun mistakes can be permanent and fatal.
To me, that makes zero sense. And is a huge case of whataboutism.
And I’ve never heard of any police organization or firefighting department having the ability to nuke anything from orbit.
I came in here to post that a cop would be justified in shooting someone if they are part of the swat team called in in response to an active shooter. The average policeman shouldn’t even carry a gun at all.
It makes zero sense to me as well. But so does the idea of cops shooting the people they are supposed to protect when those people aren’t a threat to them.
100% this.
Of course it is wrong, no one has indicated otherwise.
Only major nation that doesnt carry guns routinely for cops on the beat is GB, due to a longstanding tradition. The longstanding tradition in the USA is for cops to carry guns. France, Germany, Canada, etc- all have cops routinely carry guns.
Note also that private handgun ownership in GB is small and mostly prohibited, so beat officers wear stab-proof vests .
What is considered an “average” policeman, and who makes that determination? And what is the “average” policeman supposed to do if threatened by a bad guy with a gun? Or if someone else is being threatened with a gun?
The “average” policeman would be “any policeman who is not on a SWAT team”. I thought that was obvious from context, since SWAT teams are the only ones I considered justified in using the things.
If the average cop is so terrified that they can’t perform their job pulling people over or answering domestic calls without a surrogate penis strapped to their hip, then they shouldn’t be cops.
ETA: And if they confirm that there is an active threat with a gun who can’t be talked down, call in the damn swat team! (And yes, I know that there will be cops who call in the swat team every time a black person sneezes. Racists cowards gotta racist coward.)
The United States also had a long tradition of chattel slavery, until it didn’t. I don’t really think it matters how many long standing traditions we gotta upset to stop the long standing tradition of shooting unarmed people.
Another way that their society is saner than ours.
WTF? People should be killed for rape? For child molestation? No, no they shouldn’t be. You were just being hyperbolic, right?
No, it wasn’t obvious–because SWAT teams should not be the only ones justified in using guns. What about the cops assigned to the gang units, drugs units, etc?
And the average cop is not “terrified” to pull someone over or answer a domestic call. But they have reason to be wary. A lot of cops have been injured or killed. Domestic calls are one of the most dangerous calls.
But I guess in your little world, cops can just call the SWAT team in and the bad guys with the guns will readily and willingly agree. And while they are waiting for the SWAT team, the cops can offer the bad guys some milk and cookies. Maybe sing some song and stuff, too?
And what about the smaller cities and towns there is no SWAT team. I guess they can call into the big cities and ask for help and wait three or four hours.
Oh–not all cops are racist and not all cops kill innocent black people. Sometimes the black guys have guns and are criminals. And sometimes it’s a black cop who kills a black person.
Now, if the average cop was Barney Fife from Mayberry, then I wholeheartedly agree–he should not have a gun.