TheStorm said:

---

And as far as comparing what goes on in other countries v. what is currently going on here... in those other countries people accept and know that the police aren't going to *****foot around if you do something wrong.

I used to travel extensively to both Europe and South America for work in a past life and it was commonplace to see their police toting machine guns in airports, subways, train stations, etc... I think they call it a deterent.

Hell, I remember my wife and I entering Italy on a train from Switzerland... and soon after we crossed the border the first contact we had was the barrel of a machine gun coming through the pocket door into our seating compartment for the passport check. They take your passport with them and you don't ask them when they are bringing it back. They bring it back when they are good and ready. When you stay in a hotel they keep your passport at the front desk.

Here in this country we ask our police officers to do their job (which most of you forget is mostly to protect us and keep us safe by enforcing and upholding our laws) with one hand tied behind their backs... now the lefties think they can do it with both hands cuffed behind their backs - while they shelter those that don't take "personal accountability" (there's that pesky phrase again) for their actions.

It's a shame that kid had to lose his life and no one is disputing that and that police officer will pay the consequences of her actions for that. But it never would have happened if the kid had not resisted to begin with.

She was a 26 year veteran of police duty... has she been out just randomly shooting black men throughout her career? or white, yellow, brown or red for that matter...

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Here is more on the guy who was shot. More information is coming out but at this point one of the warrants he skipped out on was for choking a woman and robbing her of $800 or so dollars. Yeah.... I am the one that pre-judged this kid.

---

What's the point?

---

It says it right in the headline.

---

I'm really trying to understand the point you two are making, I really am. Is it because he's wanted for a crime or has a past criminal history make his death more justified in your eyes? Does it make him subhuman so he deserves what he got? I don't get this and I didn't get it with George Floyd either. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

---

That's interesting. I don't think you're trying at all. Has anybody said it's justified? I think it's interesting that you continue to try to put words in peoples mouths. I really do. Both didn't deserve to die. Both probably could have prevented it by not resisting arrest. Both are being made martyrs on tv. But don't bring up that they are both not good people. We have to drive an agenda about police. And how we should let people that resist arrest run free. And militarized police can then go apprehend them. Zzzzzz

---

Ok, thank you I understand. But the whole resisting arrest thing / escalation by police thinking needs to change or officers need better training to deal with these situations so they don't end in a death of someone who is not armed. That is my point. To your last point I do agree with you in that the path we continue to travel as a country on this issue is a dangerous one because it allows for dangerous ideas to become mainstream. Police need better funding, not less. They need better support from the community, not less. But there needs to be a change in how policing is done because this ain't working.

---

I think the police are being so mislabeled we won't be able to hire the people necessary to properly train them.

My training for the police would make them more violent, by hands. I think we need to train them like the military. I think they should get hand combat training several times a year, if not monthly. I think there should be no quotas. Women, unless they prove themselves physically equal, should not be accepted. I think they should have real basic training to root out those not fit enough. I think mental health screening needs improvement.

We won't ever get good enough quality people though. Because we have presidents like Obama and congresspeople like Talib that ignore the other 28000 arrests everyday. That ignore they are protected by police forces. That try to drive an agenda. The police are the problem. Not the community. Because victimhood sells. Self accountability is irrelevant.

---

I agree with that, there should absolutely be personal accountability but at the same token there needs to be a path to rehabilitation and reacceptance into society. The stigma of the criminal record needs to be changed. I think if you do that, you'll have less repeat offenders.

---

Nope. Every single post you've made here indicates that you don't believe in personal accountability...

... and that is the crux of the issue in society today.

There is no personal accountability anymore. The only reason that kid resisted is because it's been encouraged... he has been taught that it doesn't matter what he does, that he can get away with it.

Where were the protests for the white woman from Pennsylvania riding with her husband in their car through North Carolina on I-95 on their way to a vacation in Florida. Fine upstanding young man, feels he's been disrespected because of a lane change pulls around to the passenger side and fires two shots at the woman...

This is on the interstate here in our state. That could have been you and your wife.

No personal accountability. Empowered to do whatever the **** they want without repercussion.

And you're all for it.

---

Hokie has told you what he's for you're obviously just not listening.

What does the woman who was tragically murdered along I-95 have to do with a cop accidentally killing a man she was trying to subdue, or with anything Hokie has said?

---

It just emphasizes faux outrage. You only "care" (message board "care". I doubt anybody on here is doing anything of substance to institute the change that is "so badly" needed) based on color if cnn tells you to. That's what it has to do with.

---

Why do you think that the right corners the market on rational analysis while the left just brainlessly follows MSM edicts?

We all self-select what media we consume to a certain extent, but that's implicit and true of all of us.

I don't put you in a right-wing box and I don't assume that you mindlessly follow the podcasts you listen to or the New York Post or Washington Examiner or Fox News or whatever media you consume.

Why don't you afford me the same courtesy?

---

Why do you feign faux outrage at everything? Why do you seek to be a victim?
I'm sorry assuming you're a cnn viewer is so hurtful for you. I'll pray I can be better one day.
The podcasts I listen to are comedians, not news at all. Why can't you extend me the same courtesy you seek?

---

Why do you assume Civilized, who is fairly consistent with his POV, is always arguing in bad faith?

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Here is more on the guy who was shot. More information is coming out but at this point one of the warrants he skipped out on was for choking a woman and robbing her of $800 or so dollars. Yeah.... I am the one that pre-judged this kid.

---

What's the point?

---

It says it right in the headline.

---

I'm really trying to understand the point you two are making, I really am. Is it because he's wanted for a crime or has a past criminal history make his death more justified in your eyes? Does it make him subhuman so he deserves what he got? I don't get this and I didn't get it with George Floyd either. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

---

That's interesting. I don't think you're trying at all. Has anybody said it's justified? I think it's interesting that you continue to try to put words in peoples mouths. I really do. Both didn't deserve to die. Both probably could have prevented it by not resisting arrest. Both are being made martyrs on tv. But don't bring up that they are both not good people. We have to drive an agenda about police. And how we should let people that resist arrest run free. And militarized police can then go apprehend them. Zzzzzz

---

Ok, thank you I understand. But the whole resisting arrest thing / escalation by police thinking needs to change or officers need better training to deal with these situations so they don't end in a death of someone who is not armed. That is my point. To your last point I do agree with you in that the path we continue to travel as a country on this issue is a dangerous one because it allows for dangerous ideas to become mainstream. Police need better funding, not less. They need better support from the community, not less. But there needs to be a change in how policing is done because this ain't working.

---

I think the police are being so mislabeled we won't be able to hire the people necessary to properly train them.

My training for the police would make them more violent, by hands. I think we need to train them like the military. I think they should get hand combat training several times a year, if not monthly. I think there should be no quotas. Women, unless they prove themselves physically equal, should not be accepted. I think they should have real basic training to root out those not fit enough. I think mental health screening needs improvement.

We won't ever get good enough quality people though. Because we have presidents like Obama and congresspeople like Talib that ignore the other 28000 arrests everyday. That ignore they are protected by police forces. That try to drive an agenda. The police are the problem. Not the community. Because victimhood sells. Self accountability is irrelevant.

---

I agree with that, there should absolutely be personal accountability but at the same token there needs to be a path to rehabilitation and reacceptance into society. The stigma of the criminal record needs to be changed. I think if you do that, you'll have less repeat offenders.

---

Nope. Every single post you've made here indicates that you don't believe in personal accountability...

... and that is the crux of the issue in society today.

There is no personal accountability anymore. The only reason that kid resisted is because it's been encouraged... he has been taught that it doesn't matter what he does, that he can get away with it.

Where were the protests for the white woman from Pennsylvania riding with her husband in their car through North Carolina on I-95 on their way to a vacation in Florida. Fine upstanding young man, feels he's been disrespected because of a lane change pulls around to the passenger side and fires two shots at the woman...

This is on the interstate here in our state. That could have been you and your wife.

No personal accountability. Empowered to do whatever the **** they want without repercussion.

And you're all for it.

---

Hokie has told you what he's for you're obviously just not listening.

What does the woman who was tragically murdered along I-95 have to do with a cop accidentally killing a man she was trying to subdue, or with anything Hokie has said?

---

It just emphasizes faux outrage. You only "care" (message board "care". I doubt anybody on here is doing anything of substance to institute the change that is "so badly" needed) based on color if cnn tells you to. That's what it has to do with.

---

Why do you think that the right corners the market on rational analysis while the left just brainlessly follows MSM edicts?

We all self-select what media we consume to a certain extent, but that's implicit and true of all of us.

I don't put you in a right-wing box and I don't assume that you mindlessly follow the podcasts you listen to or the New York Post or Washington Examiner or Fox News or whatever media you consume.

Why don't you afford me the same courtesy?

---

Why do you feign faux outrage at everything? Why do you seek to be a victim?
I'm sorry assuming you're a cnn viewer is so hurtful for you. I'll pray I can be better one day.
The podcasts I listen to are comedians, not news at all. Why can't you extend me the same courtesy you seek?

---

Why do you assume Civilized, who is fairly consistent with his POV, is always arguing in bad faith?

---

Why do you assume I always think he is arguing in bad faith?

We can do this all day, if you'd like.

Civilized only cares about police reform when a black person is killed by the police. Not when they are armed and respond to a mental health crisis. Not when they're directing traffic leaving Carter Finley. Only when Democrats and msm determine that police are killing innocent black people.

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?

---

Think about the question you proposed (above in bold)... why are we having so much fighting over your .1%? 99.9% is an outstanding track record. Based on that, I wouldn't change a damn thing.

So, why are we having those .1% issue? Are they even bad cops? Did the person resist arrest that ultimately led to their death?

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?

---

Think about the question you proposed (above in bold)... why are we having so much fighting over your .1%? 99.9% is an outstanding track record. Based on that, I wouldn't change a damn thing.

So, why are we having those .1% issue? Are they even bad cops? Did the person resist arrest that ultimately led to their death?

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Here is more on the guy who was shot. More information is coming out but at this point one of the warrants he skipped out on was for choking a woman and robbing her of $800 or so dollars. Yeah.... I am the one that pre-judged this kid.

---

What's the point?

---

It says it right in the headline.

---

I'm really trying to understand the point you two are making, I really am. Is it because he's wanted for a crime or has a past criminal history make his death more justified in your eyes? Does it make him subhuman so he deserves what he got? I don't get this and I didn't get it with George Floyd either. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

---

That's interesting. I don't think you're trying at all. Has anybody said it's justified? I think it's interesting that you continue to try to put words in peoples mouths. I really do. Both didn't deserve to die. Both probably could have prevented it by not resisting arrest. Both are being made martyrs on tv. But don't bring up that they are both not good people. We have to drive an agenda about police. And how we should let people that resist arrest run free. And militarized police can then go apprehend them. Zzzzzz

---

Ok, thank you I understand. But the whole resisting arrest thing / escalation by police thinking needs to change or officers need better training to deal with these situations so they don't end in a death of someone who is not armed. That is my point. To your last point I do agree with you in that the path we continue to travel as a country on this issue is a dangerous one because it allows for dangerous ideas to become mainstream. Police need better funding, not less. They need better support from the community, not less. But there needs to be a change in how policing is done because this ain't working.

---

I think the police are being so mislabeled we won't be able to hire the people necessary to properly train them.

My training for the police would make them more violent, by hands. I think we need to train them like the military. I think they should get hand combat training several times a year, if not monthly. I think there should be no quotas. Women, unless they prove themselves physically equal, should not be accepted. I think they should have real basic training to root out those not fit enough. I think mental health screening needs improvement.

We won't ever get good enough quality people though. Because we have presidents like Obama and congresspeople like Talib that ignore the other 28000 arrests everyday. That ignore they are protected by police forces. That try to drive an agenda. The police are the problem. Not the community. Because victimhood sells. Self accountability is irrelevant.

---

I agree with that, there should absolutely be personal accountability but at the same token there needs to be a path to rehabilitation and reacceptance into society. The stigma of the criminal record needs to be changed. I think if you do that, you'll have less repeat offenders.

---

Nope. Every single post you've made here indicates that you don't believe in personal accountability...

... and that is the crux of the issue in society today.

There is no personal accountability anymore. The only reason that kid resisted is because it's been encouraged... he has been taught that it doesn't matter what he does, that he can get away with it.

Where were the protests for the white woman from Pennsylvania riding with her husband in their car through North Carolina on I-95 on their way to a vacation in Florida. Fine upstanding young man, feels he's been disrespected because of a lane change pulls around to the passenger side and fires two shots at the woman...

This is on the interstate here in our state. That could have been you and your wife.

No personal accountability. Empowered to do whatever the **** they want without repercussion.

And you're all for it.

---

Hokie has told you what he's for you're obviously just not listening.

What does the woman who was tragically murdered along I-95 have to do with a cop accidentally killing a man she was trying to subdue, or with anything Hokie has said?

---

It just emphasizes faux outrage. You only "care" (message board "care". I doubt anybody on here is doing anything of substance to institute the change that is "so badly" needed) based on color if cnn tells you to. That's what it has to do with.

---

Why do you think that the right corners the market on rational analysis while the left just brainlessly follows MSM edicts?

We all self-select what media we consume to a certain extent, but that's implicit and true of all of us.

I don't put you in a right-wing box and I don't assume that you mindlessly follow the podcasts you listen to or the New York Post or Washington Examiner or Fox News or whatever media you consume.

Why don't you afford me the same courtesy?

---

Why do you feign faux outrage at everything? Why do you seek to be a victim?
I'm sorry assuming you're a cnn viewer is so hurtful for you. I'll pray I can be better one day.
The podcasts I listen to are comedians, not news at all. Why can't you extend me the same courtesy you seek?

---

Why do you assume Civilized, who is fairly consistent with his POV, is always arguing in bad faith?

---

Why do you assume I always think he is arguing in bad faith?

We can do this all day, if you'd like.

Civilized only cares about police reform when a black person is killed by the police. Not when they are armed and respond to a mental health crisis. Not when they're directing traffic leaving Carter Finley. Only when Democrats and msm determine that police are killing innocent black people.

---

"I don't always think Civilized is arguing in bad faith"

*takes a breath*

"Civilized only cares about [multiple things that I have not said and do not believe]"

Still more bad faith assumptions about "what I care about" that aren't based on anything I've said.

On this thread, I've been clear about what I think, and I didn't bring race into this thread. I haven't even mentioned race. All I've posted about have been the evidence that police kill way too many Americans, and what I think we need to do about it.

Why won't you argue with what I actually say? That's the definition of a bad-faith argument. You discount what I say, assume that I actually mean something other than what I say, and you argue against your false assumption.

I don't assume you mean things other than you say. I'm asking you to return the favor. This is an anonymous internet message board; what incentive would I have to lie about what I think, or say something that I don't mean?

---

hokiewolf said:

---

"Hey, you're misrepresenting my argument"

"Stop playing the victim!"

Madness

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

I'm not against more police training. I'm fine with that. I would encourage you to read the thread and see that I've already made that point. I think your de-escalation training is probably crap though. You've seen an uptick in deescalation training because of more leftist appointments. Coincidentally you're also seeing vacant police positions increase throughout the country.

I'm not against people being killed by the police. When accidents happened or a bad killing happens, which is a rarity, then we deal with that situation. I don't think we have a shortage of people that should/could be killed by police justifiably.

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?

---

Think about the question you proposed (above in bold)... why are we having so much fighting over your .1%? 99.9% is an outstanding track record. Based on that, I wouldn't change a damn thing.

So, why are we having those .1% issue? Are they even bad cops? Did the person resist arrest that ultimately led to their death?

---

tuffy1006 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?

---

Think about the question you proposed (above in bold)... why are we having so much fighting over your .1%? 99.9% is an outstanding track record. Based on that, I wouldn't change a damn thing.

So, why are we having those .1% issue? Are there even bad cops? Did the person resist arrest that ultimately led to their death?

---

of course there are bad cops LMAO. There have been several police departments wiped out by corruption. I think we've even had a few right here in NC where the ENTIRE police department was fired/replaced and some arrested. Maybe you considered them good cops too? If there can be corrupt politicians, there can certainly be corrupt cops. Dont know why you give one of those sides a pass.

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

tuffy1006 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?

---

Think about the question you proposed (above in bold)... why are we having so much fighting over your .1%? 99.9% is an outstanding track record. Based on that, I wouldn't change a damn thing.

So, why are we having those .1% issue? Are there even bad cops? Did the person resist arrest that ultimately led to their death?

---

of course there are bad cops LMAO. There have been several police departments wiped out by corruption. I think we've even had a few right here in NC where the ENTIRE police department was fired/replaced and some arrested. Maybe you considered them good cops too? If there can be corrupt politicians, there can certainly be corrupt cops. Dont know why you give one of those sides a pass.

---

Tuffy, you're a lost soul... I was using the statistics provided by Isle. Inside those statistics, he provided for a .1% failure (my words) rate of officers. I didn't say that his statistics were correct or not. I really didn't care.

Isle was making an argument, it appears, regarding the fighting among us, for changing procedures, on a .1% failure (my words) rate of officers. I'm saying a 99.9% effective rate should be fine. That rate certainly passes the test for elections; so, why not officers?

My rhetorical question: Are there even bad cops? That was just hyperbole, at best...

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

American police dealing with violent criminals are going to have violent interactions. Sitting in your desk chair saying how many they SHOULD have is woke virtue signaling. How many killings without cause did they have last year? Unlike you, I understand accidents happen. That is the nature of the business in high stress environments. Those people should be dealt with. Labeling the entire police force because of the rare exceptions when accidents do happen is simply trying to force a narrative.

---

I don't know why you dig in so hard against the notion that we can police better than we do.

POLICE don't even push back that hard against improvement. It's why you've seen an uptick in de-escalation training in recent years.

Cops in other first world countries deal with violent criminals in high stress environments too.

And yet, they do not kill nearly as many of their citizens as we do of ours. We kill more than any other first world nation. Several times more.

Should we not try to improve that situation? Can we not learn from other countries that have outcomes that are between 4x and 60x better than our police at not killing their citizens?

---

It floors me that people are so resistant to the notion that policing can't or shouldn't be less violent than what we have today. It implies that Americans just less morale, and more violent than every other developed nation's citizens. The media certainly sensationalizes everything, and they overplay race as a factor (class matters more). However, we have numerous opportunities for reform, from decriminalization, to training and accountability.

To start, we need MORE Police with better, longer training and generally higher pay. That said, there needs to be actual accountability as well. All these comments about lamenting about the "attacks" on police ignore the fact that historically it's been extraordinarily hard to punish bad officers. Only recently have some states started to make reforms here and it never would have happened without public pressure. Union arbitration overturns the majority of officer misconduct firings. Even if an officer is fired, as long as they aren't convicted of crime, they can move to another jurisdiction and no nationalized record exists to prevent them working again. Qualified immunity shields them from civil lawsuit for all types of misconduct, even when the judges agree that the act was egregious.

We also shouldn't be teaching officers "Killology" which creates a mindset that perpetrators are animals to be corralled instead of other people. De-escalation training is proven to work. And finally we just need less criminalization of non-violent offenses. The Drug war has failed. It's lost. Low level crap just antagonizes the relations between the poor and police, adds to overincarceration, and leads to recidivism.

---

That's a lot of nothing... remember, Democrats control the cities where this stuff happens (for the most part). It is their hiring process, their tenure pay schedule, their policies that prohibit firing, and so...

De-escalating training is code word for "blame the police". If you would start from the premise of: the police want to do the right thing, then you may have a different opinion.

Let me draw a comparison to the same people. A doctor makes a mistake in surgery. We then get people who want to sue them for malpractice. If we start from the premise of: the doctors want to do the right thing, then we could mitigate the legal issues and probably wouldn't have such high health care cost.

I'm no dummy and I realize we have exceptions to the rule; however, those exception are probably far rarer than we might even think.

I do not believe, based on what I have read, that this female police officer, did this with any negative intent. So, I start with that premise... based on what I have read, she should not be charged as its an unfortunate result of the job.

---

When a Dr. makes a mistake, they can be sued. That's not the case with officers the vast majority of the time. Qualified Immunity gives them a shield, regardless of intent. Most cops are good people and try to do good, no one is arguing differently on this thread. So why is there so much push back for procedures that hold bad officers accountable? If 99.9% are doing the job well, why do we have to fight so much over the 0.1%?

---

packgrad said:

---

I was a Big for a few years. My little hated the police even though he never had any interaction with them. They're taught at a young age.

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Funny how two people can see the same car accident and have totally different views.

I'm not doubting the fact that there are bad cops. Bad cops can be black, white, Asian etc....

The left capitalizes on stoking mistrust in the police in order to make sure the black communities have a "common" enemy.

I'm certain 50 years ago things were different. The way the left glamorizes every single incident of a white cop vs. a black individual is ridiculous.

The lefties would have you believe that it is open season for cops on black people. That's what they spout on a daily basis on their SOCIALIST PARTY run media stations.

Also in my interactions with police of any race has been questionable at times but I know they have a tough job and they get **** from people on an hourly basis. Nature of the job.

One culture views anything as being "disrespected." Dear Leader magnified that when he told the country that it was the "police vs. black people..." When you have a POTUS that spews that type of hate you ingrain into the culture that it is OK to push back against LEOs regardless.

The lefties created this monster and now they have to figure out how to control it. Good luck lefties... you people are something to behold.

---