What’s important here is that we focus on the narrative in which the police are the real victims here rather than the one about the horrific culture of violence and racism endemic in police across America since its inception, and the widespread avoidance of accountability for their actions.
Because otherwise 1) something might have to change, and 2) the police might feel bad. And who wants to be the one to tell the police that their feelings are less important than the actual lives they have unjustly ruined or taken?
Except that when the sheer number of people killed by the police is so shockingly high, nobody shares your confidence in how many are really justified.
Of course I’m not making an “argument” that it’s better if more cops die. That’s completely ridiculous. I’m acknowledging reality - that less agressive police tactics that result in far fewer civilian deaths will likely place cops at somewhat greater risk. Would you prefer that we just pretend that is not the case? Would you prefer that we don’t acknowledge that cops do face danger in their work?
I would think the opposite. I would think that if someone has a gun and you de-escalate the situation rather than getting in the guy’s face and yelling at him with YOUR gun drawn that you would actually be in a safer situation.
To a cop, anyone who is not also a cop is a criminal. It’s why they are so cavalier about murdering anyone who does not give them immediate and complete acquiescence and ability to obey even conflicting commands. It’s why murdering a kid in a dressing room in a shopping mall is perfectly acceptable to them.
They would happily see a 10x increase in the number of non-cops killed to prevent a stubbed toe for one of their brothers in blue.
There’s a difference between how many were “unjustified” under the current rules that value the cop’s life above all else, and how many of those civilians were innocent. I’m happy to count only civilians who aren’t “criminals”, (or weren’t until the police interacted with them) but we don’t have that number.
Kid reached for a cell phone, officer thought it looked like a gun, justified.
Crazy person doesn’t exactly follow police instructions, justified.
Police shot at a criminal, missed, bullet went through a wall and killed a kid doing her homework, justified.
I’ve read way too many stories like this. But there’s no total count. If you don’t include those deaths you are grossly underestimating the harm done by current police guidelines. So we need to reduce the number of “justified” killings, too.
From that wiki (and god, that’s was a horrendous video to watch back when it was making the rounds):
“An autopsy report found that Shaver was intoxicated which police stated may have contributed to his confused response to their commands.”
The police can shove that statement up their asses.
Maybe what contributed to his confused response to their commands was things like one cop telling him that if he puts his hands on the ground he’ll be shot while another is telling him to crawl backwards.
The officer that shot him had the nerve to suggest he was crawling towards them in order to get into a better position to shoot them…somehow forgetting the fact that they told him to crawl towards them.
It seem to me that he wasn’t murdered because he was drunk and confused. He was murdered because it was, in fact, the officers that were confused.
And not only was it “justified”, that cop has had other issues, such as beating up a kid during an arrest. And, even though he was fired, the department rehired him so he could get insurance coverage through them and collect his pension ($2500/mo).
That’s a strawman and therefore irrelevant. If for no other reason, because you can’t apply Riemann’s “science” to a scenario that doesn’t involve police officers. Unless you’re considering police officers to be the equivalent of battered wives and burglary victims.
Right. Police officers are supposed to be trained, and should be better able to avoid reckless harm than an untrained civilian. Especially one who is abused or under attack. We should absolutely hold them to a higher standard. But we currently hold them to a lower standard.
There was an article in the Times yesterday about a Keystone Kop who had killed four people in his career and is still on the PA State Police force. The first one was pointing an UZI at him, so I’ll give you that. But three more? In a low crime rural area? Is it any wonder that many of us “civilians” (as they think of us) think of them as an occupying force?
And this, in one single statement shows the us versus them mentality that it so clearly present in American policing.
Lots of examples of poor policing have been posted here. I would gladly trade the life of the officer that shot Linden Cameroon for him to have not been shot, because he is clearly a bad officer, and was never remotely at risk. Yes, I would say that to the faces of everyone of his colleagues at the hypothetical funeral (if you could guarantee that my life wouldn’t be at risk for speaking my mind). And I would do the same for the dozens of other bad policing episodes named in these posts.
For some unknown reason, I keep wanting to read his posts in a favorable light, thinking he couldn’t possibly mean it the way it sounds. And I keep getting shown that the benefit of the doubt isn’t warranted.
100 innocent civilians must die so that 1 cop may live.
Next we’ll discuss how stealing from innocent people is OK (CAF) because it goes to fund the police.
More of this words that were never said horseshit.
Nobody implicated that at all.
The challenge was to see if they had the absolute gall to tell a grieving family it was better their spouse/parent/sibling/friend was dead instead of the suspect that killed them. And what a terrific person it would be that would do something like that.
Perhaps you should even protest the funeral like those nut job churchies used to do for soldiers. It might help you get your point of view out to the public.