You're saying that Blacks that get shot by cops got shot because they were ignorant? Or maybe didn't have sense enough to know the difference between civility and stupidity? Does the same analogy apply to whites that get shot?O Really wrote:Obvious answers for a white guy, Seth. But since you can't seem to relate to the difference in people of other races/ethnicity very well, and since you like dogs (or at least your dog), let's try another analogy.
Give it up, O Really. He's damn proud to be pig-ignorant. Nothing you write will make him pull his head out of his ass.O Really wrote:Obvious answers for a white guy, Seth. But since you can't seem to relate to the difference in people of other races/ethnicity very well, and since you like dogs (or at least your dog), let's try another analogy.
I didn't imply anything about ignorance, but if there is some, it's among the cops who don't know how to deal with adversity. From the start of any encounter with civilians, a cop is supposed to maintain control of the situation. That's their job. Given that, there is a greater responsibility on the part of the cops to behave and respond appropriately. They know, or should know, that many of their encounters will be with hostile, drunk, pcp-addled, frightened, aggressive, and/or pissedoff people. Saying you shot a drunk rowdy guy because he didn't behave like a reasonable sober guy is no excuse.Seth Milner wrote:You're saying that Blacks that get shot by cops got shot because they were ignorant? Or maybe didn't have sense enough to know the difference between civility and stupidity? Does the same analogy apply to whites that get shot?O Really wrote:Obvious answers for a white guy, Seth. But since you can't seem to relate to the difference in people of other races/ethnicity very well, and since you like dogs (or at least your dog), let's try another analogy.
rstrong wrote:He's damn proud to be pig-ignorant.
That's why I banter back and forth with you; I'm reaching someone on my level. I must have contracted it when I visited Canada; that explains why you're so adept in identifying the condition.
Nothing you write will make him pull his head out of his ass.
Awww . . . sorry I hurt your feelings. Maybe I can make them better; I have a degree in Liberal Arts; do you want fries with that?
I'm not disputing that. It just seems that within the last couple of years, people are testing the cops, with deadly results.O Really wrote: I didn't imply anything about ignorance, but if there is some, it's among the cops who don't know how to deal with adversity."
I'm sure some do, but not all incidents are the same, and not everyone who has been shot in the past, say, five years were intentionally testing the cops. And the cops do seem to be more afraid than we used to think they were, but it's still mostly the black people they're afraid of. At least when it comes to use of lethal force.Seth Milner wrote:I'm not disputing that. It just seems that within the last couple of years, people are testing the cops, with deadly results.O Really wrote: I didn't imply anything about ignorance, but if there is some, it's among the cops who don't know how to deal with adversity."
.
I wonder how much of it has to do with the militarization of the police force. I'm not talking about the military equipment they've been getting - although the dramatic increase in SWAT raids speaks for itself. I refer to all the soldiers having done tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, who have been hired by local police forces. Their training is VERY different from traditional police, with anyone not wearing their uniform treated as potentially hostile.O Really wrote:I'm sure some do, but not all incidents are the same, and not everyone who has been shot in the past, say, five years were intentionally testing the cops. And the cops do seem to be more afraid than we used to think they were, but it's still mostly the black people they're afraid of. At least when it comes to use of lethal force.
rstrong wrote: I wonder how much of it has to do with the militarization of the police force.
You think maybe the cops are doing a bit of overkill since it's a well known fact that the average illegal gun-toter is toting a .22 or,O Really wrote:I'd think that does make a difference. I know police departments do like to recruit ex-military, and not just out of the military police. Decidedly different culture from Andy and Barney or the beat cop that used to walk a drunk home.
I wouldn't have guessed that, and must be among those "out of the know." I also suspect the "well known fact" may be a bit outdated. But the problem isn't just with illegal gun-toters - they've shot some legal ones also, as well as some unarmed or armed with cell-phones.Seth Milner wrote:rstrong wrote: I wonder how much of it has to do with the militarization of the police force.You think maybe the cops are doing a bit of overkill since it's a well known fact that the average illegal gun-toter is toting a .22 or,O Really wrote:I'd think that does make a difference. I know police departments do like to recruit ex-military, and not just out of the military police. Decidedly different culture from Andy and Barney or the beat cop that used to walk a drunk home.
heaven forbid, a .38 special?
It's a bit of overkill when heavily armed SWAT teams are doing heavily armed takedowns of people wanted for non-violent crimes, cases where they used to send a couple officers to knock on a door and arrest someone.Seth Milner wrote:rstrong wrote: I wonder how much of it has to do with the militarization of the police force.You think maybe the cops are doing a bit of overkill since it's a well known fact that the average illegal gun-toter is toting a .22 or,O Really wrote:I'd think that does make a difference. I know police departments do like to recruit ex-military, and not just out of the military police. Decidedly different culture from Andy and Barney or the beat cop that used to walk a drunk home.
heaven forbid, a .38 special?
rstrong wrote: It's a bit of overkill when heavily armed SWAT teams are doing heavily armed takedowns of people wanted for non-violent crimes, cases where they used to send a couple officers to knock on a door and arrest someone.
Key words: "USED TO" . . . There's not just .22's and .38's on the other side of that door anymore. (Oh wait , that's right -- crimes rates are at a "historic low"! How could I have forgotten so soon? Silly me.) What are you deeming to be non-violent crimes anyway? Wait.. I know the answer to this one: drugs! Do you honestly think a drug dealer whose livelihood is threatened is going to keep small arms for defense? I'll ask again about that rock you crawled out from under.
It's a bit of overkill when armed SWAT teams are breaking down doors over student loan debt or shipping unpasteurized milk across state lines.
Got to agree with you on this one. (Damn, gotta go to the can...be right back!)
It's a bit of overkill when an armed SWAT team shoots a fully cooperating unarmed black man, on his back with his hands in the air, with the excuse being that they meant to shoot the utterly non-threatening autistic man sitting near him playing with toy fire engine.
I'm back. That wasn't a SWAT team and all SWAT teams are armed. Yes that was a stupid knee-jerk move. (back to the bathroom)
It's a bit overkill when none of this is even surprising anymore.
Wonder what brought all this on to begin with?
Seth Milner wrote:rstrong wrote: It's a bit of overkill when heavily armed SWAT teams are doing heavily armed takedowns of people wanted for non-violent crimes, cases where they used to send a couple officers to knock on a door and arrest someone.
(Oh wait , that's right -- crimes rates are at a "historic low"! How could I have forgotten so soon? Silly me.)
Correct. So why the dramatic INCREASE in SWAT takedown raids?
What are you deeming to be non-violent crimes anyway?
Student loan debt and shipping unpasteurized milk across state lines are a good start. I gave a link. You really think those are violent crimes? And those are just a couple examples.
As for "drugs", that includes a growing number of cases of SWAT teams raiding the wrong address and killing or injuring people. Like the grenade one threw through a windows into a baby's crib, seriously injuring it. (But don't worry; despite their having the wrong address, they declared in court, yes really, that it was the baby's fault.) Or raiding a house and killing the innocent home-owner because a confessed burglar on meth randomly chose while trying to to explain away the gun, scale and meth in his possession.
Heck, now they'll even send large heavily armed and armored SWAT teams - like they're storming Normandy - to check water quality near a mine or to seize a baby deer that had ended up at a local "no-kill" animal shelter:
It's a bit of overkill when an armed SWAT team shoots a fully cooperating unarmed black man, on his back with his hands in the air, with the excuse being that they meant to shoot the utterly non-threatening autistic man sitting near him playing with toy fire engine."(There were) nine DNR agents and four deputy sheriffs, and they were all armed to the teeth," Schulze said. Agents told staff they came to seize the deer because Wisconsin law forbids the possession of wildlife.
"I said the deer is scheduled to go to the wildlife reserve the next day," Schulze said. Agents rounded up the staff and kept them controlled while they went in search of the fawn, which they then killed.
I'm back. That wasn't a SWAT team and all SWAT teams are armed.
Fine; a decorated member of the SWAT team. Shot at the unarmed and fully cooperating and not even suspected of anything black guy three times, striking him once. Then handcuffed him and left him bleeding on the road for 20 minutes. Then claimed to have been aiming for the even more harmless guy.
It's a bit overkill when none of this is even surprising anymore.
Wonder what brought all this on to begin with?
Lots of money and military toys for it, and no consequences.
Well Seth, nobody is really complaining about SWAT attacking a place where there is reason to believe there will be a forceful response, or where known "drug dealers" or whatever are holed up with hostages. What we're complaining about is sending SWAT to serve a garden variety warrant in the middle of the night. Or assuming that any interaction will result in forceful response.Seth Milner wrote:rstrong wrote: It's a bit of overkill when heavily armed SWAT teams are doing heavily armed takedowns of people wanted for non-violent crimes, cases where they used to send a couple officers to knock on a door and arrest someone.
Key words: "USED TO" . . . There's not just .22's and .38's on the other side of that door anymore. (Oh wait , that's right -- crimes rates are at a "historic low"! How could I have forgotten so soon? Silly me.) What are you deeming to be non-violent crimes anyway? Wait.. I know the answer to this one: drugs! Do you honestly think a drug dealer whose livelihood is threatened is going to keep small arms for defense?
O Really wrote:Well Seth, nobody is really complaining about SWAT attacking a place where there is reason to believe there will be a forceful response, or where known "drug dealers" or whatever are holed up with hostages.
Well, yeah. rstrong was fuming about "armed SWAT teams" in any scenario. (as opposed to unarmed SWAT teams, maybe?)
What we're complaining about is sending SWAT to serve a garden variety warrant in the middle of the night. Or assuming that any interaction will result in forceful response.
LEO's always have to assume the worse; more so since the proliferation of laws covering gun ownership, castle doctrines, stand your ground etc. No telling what sort of nutjob is on the other side waiting to shoot and then plead ignorance of who was knocking later. Granted, LEO's can go out of their way to be stupid, but theirs is not the job to determine how petty or silly the crime is. If it's against the law, and they're sent to arrest the offender, that's their job. Resist, pull a gun, or even make like you're going to physically retaliate can lead to fatal judgments on the part of the offender or cop.
Law enforcement is not a perfect science, nor are the enforcers perfect. It's easy to sit back and play judge and jury, but unless you've walked in the shoes and mind of an LEO, you have no earthly clue. Be glad we don't live in a Judge Dredd society.
I think individual bad eggs are less of a problem than systemic racism and structural militarization.rstrong wrote:I wonder how much of it has to do with the militarization of the police force. I'm not talking about the military equipment they've been getting - although the dramatic increase in SWAT raids speaks for itself. I refer to all the soldiers having done tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, who have been hired by local police forces. Their training is VERY different from traditional police, with anyone not wearing their uniform treated as potentially hostile.
And then there's the folks from Blackwater / Xe / Academi, who earned a reputation for killing any bystanders not getting out of their way fast enough.
I don't know about you, but I probably have a better understanding of LEO footwear than you think. I've never been a cop, but over the years I've had numerous muni clients that required extensive interaction with the police force, and in some cases working for or on behalf of the police. Negotiate a contract with police and you get a pretty good idea of what's on their minds, what's important to them, and what kind of people they are.Seth Milner wrote:
Law enforcement is not a perfect science, nor are the enforcers perfect. It's easy to sit back and play judge and jury, but unless you've walked in the shoes and mind of an LEO, you have no earthly clue. Be glad we don't live in a Judge Dredd society.
I have more of an understanding than you know, or I will say.O Really wrote: I don't know about you, but I probably have a better understanding of LEO footwear than you think. I've never been a cop, but over the years I've had numerous muni clients that required extensive interaction with the police force, and in some cases working for or on behalf of the police. Negotiate a contract with police and you get a pretty good idea of what's on their minds, what's important to them, and what kind of people they are.
Vrede too wrote:By "we" Seth Milner means non-poor white people.