Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are far to many cases in the US were police officers shoot or assault "innocent people." But the biggest problem is the character assassination of the victims.
I would be interested in reviewing your source for this claim. Yes you could argue that one is too many. But the post implies that this is a larger problem and I simply haven't seen it. There are many shootings where the public may think an innocent person was shot, or where they think the police overreacted. But in most, perhaps all of these cases the victim was doing something stupid, like not dropping the toy gun, or not following reasonable directions from an officer resulting in their being shot. While that person may be innocent of a preceding crime, the shooting was justified because of their actions.
I personally am more concerned about the "victimization" of criminals who make choices that result in them being put down by the police.
This young man isn't a victim, there's a reason that the officer shot him, and it wasn't because he was big and black and minding his own business helping old ladies cross the street and rescuing cats from trees.
The facts are, this particular individual collected at least (Juvie records are sealed so who Knows how many more) 4 felonies at only 18, and had just committed another robbery shortly before being shot. So while none of that I agree is a reason to be shot by police, it's absolutely relevant information when assessing the situation. This guy was a habitual criminal therefore the officers story is not only plausible, but likely. No character assassination needed, the criminal thug took care of that on his own.
If a police officer tells you to get on the ground and put your hands behind your head, do it. It doesn't matter if you think you did anything wrong or if you hate the police. Do it, otherwise the officer is going to get very concerned about what you're going to do next, and any motions in his direction is going to be perceived as an attack and be dealt with accordingly.
This is part of living in a society of law and order, but unfortunately many of these savage thugs were not raised in anything resembling law or order with no father to teach them right and wrong, so they make stupid choices. You can point fingers in every direction but you're ultimately responsible for your own character and your own decisions.
Every fatal shooting by a police officer should be automatically investigated by an outside agency, regardless of the circumstances. Every state should have, as a part of their state police, a unit that is in charge of these investigations. This would help eliminate charges of cover ups, and by making it standard no one has to make a descion as to whether it will happen or not. Plus this will allow those doing the investigation to become experts on what looks right or what looks off. Better transparency, is certainly needed. That said, the name of the officer should not be released to the public until after the investigation is complete.
Aren't you back pedaling on your initial phrase. Why is there transparency for the person shot but not for the officer who commenced with the shooting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPSI
I personally am more concerned about the "victimization" of criminals who make choices that result in them being put down by the police.
This young man isn't a victim, there's a reason that the officer shot him, and it wasn't because he was big and black and minding his own business helping old ladies cross the street and rescuing cats from trees.
The facts are, this particular individual collected at least (Juvie records are sealed so who Knows how many more) 4 felonies at only 18, and had just committed another robbery shortly before being shot. So while none of that I agree is a reason to be shot by police, it's absolutely relevant information when assessing the situation. This guy was a habitual criminal therefore the officers story is not only plausible, but likely. No character assassination needed, the criminal thug took care of that on his own.
If a police officer tells you to get on the ground and put your hands behind your head, do it. It doesn't matter if you think you did anything wrong or if you hate the police. Do it, otherwise the officer is going to get very concerned about what you're going to do next, and any motions in his direction is going to be perceived as an attack and be dealt with accordingly.
This is part of living in a society of law and order, but unfortunately many of these savage thugs were not raised in anything resembling law or order with no father to teach them right and wrong, so they make stupid choices. You can point fingers in every direction but you're ultimately responsible for your own character and your own decisions.
Wrong. The rest of your statement is wrong simply because of that one word.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 08-19-2014 at 05:27 AM..
Reason: Merge
Aren't you back pedaling on your initial phrase. Why is there transparency for the person shot but not for the officer who commenced with the shooting?
That's actually a very simple question to answer. People should not have their career and entire lives disrupted when they haven't done anything wrong. If something is done wrong, they should be identified, but given the public's quickness to judge before facts are revealed, privacy of the individual should be a priority.
The transparency is not for the person shot, rather it's for the facts and events of the situation.
There are far to many cases in the US were police officers shoot or assault "innocent people." But the biggest problem is the character assassination of the victims.
Why is it that we allow police officers to justify harming an innocent or unarmed person, if the person is later considered a "bad person."
Why the quotations around "innocent people," and referring to those shot by the police as victims? Do you automatically assume that everyone the police shoot and kill is a poor, innocent, unarmed person who was summarily executed for no reason whatsoever?
If you want to talk about the "character assassination" of the "victim," then take that case up with the media. The media is who publicizes these shootings. You can't have things both ways. You can't go and post the officer's personnel file in the news without also posting the background of the person who was killed. It also doesn't help matters when the family of the deceased person attempts to paint them in an innocent and saint-like way when the true facts show the opposite. At that point the media is compelled to print the truth.
Officers aren't cleared in shootings just because someone was a "bad person." The reason that most people who are shot by the police are "bad people" is because that "good people" don't routinely put themselves into situations that would lead to being shot by the police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
100 police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. 400 people are killed by police every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
400 unarmed people are shot by the police every year, and somehow 100% of them are evil people and the shootings are ruled as justified acts.
What are you saying here? That the approximately 400 people who are killed by the police every year are all unarmed and innocent? If so, you're posting something that is both factually inaccurate and shows that you are biased to believe that everyone shot by the police is an unarmed victim who did nothing wrong.
You seem to have a very disjointed view of how a police shooting is investigated. The prior record of the person isn't considered when the shooting is investigated, it's the circumstances surrounding the shooting itself that are important. Shootings are reviewed by both law enforcement and prosecutors, and in many jurisdictions the facts are presented to a grand jury. The fact that someone may have a criminal record doesn't even come into that equation. Of course you probably say that those investigations are all just a white-wash, but nothing that I can tell you will change your mind because it's already made up.
In short, the media always reports the person's criminal record and background because it's all public record and they deem it newsworthy, just like how they deem it newsworthy to post that the officer who shot the person got written up once when he had a traffic crash on duty and backed into a tree.
I many cases the truth comes down to character and believable of those involved. Like the Videos of police and the present case in Sayig police are corrupt and murders is like saying blacks are all criminals based on crime numbers.
A police shooting rarely comes down to the word of the officer and nothing else. There is almost always physical evidence, witnesses, videos, and other types of evidence other than simply relying on what the officer said to find out what happened. The prior criminal history of the person shot has no bearing whatsoever on the facts surrounding the shooting, aside from being a motive to engage in poor decision making. Most people have no comprehension of the amount of scrutiny that goes into the investigation when a police officer kills someone. Many people like to think that it's very quickly all swept under the rug, but the truth is far from that.
There are far to many cases in the US were police officers shoot or assault "innocent people." But the biggest problem is the character assassination of the victims.
Why is it that we allow police officers to justify harming an innocent or unarmed person, if the person is later considered a "bad person."
In these cases the victims are not currently involved (at the time of the shooting) in anything problematic. And the police officer has zero evidence of any alleged "bad" behavior when they pull the weapon. Are police officers psychic? Do the victims walk around with signs on their head saying "I might be the suspect in the robbery you haven't heard about or started investigating yet?"
For example, in the Michael Brown case, lots of people are trying to justify it because Brown is suspected of robbing a convenience store (which is not an offense punishable by death in any means). But the police officer involved knew nothing of the robbery or the description of the suspects. So why is this relevant to the his case of an officer involved shooting. That info is immaterial as it wasn't available to the officer at the time of the shooting.
As Americans we are entitled to sentencing by a jury orpf our peers, but we let police officers justify being judge and jury by allowing info that was not available to the officer to influence our opinions. That's not fair or just!
The person's past is relevant to the shooting, because it gives a picture of what that person can be like. If Brown had never committed a strong armed robbery then it would be less likely that he was violent with the cop.
Let's say a white man had gotten in fights with cops in the past. Then one day he gets shot dead by a cop. His past is important, because it makes it more believable that he became violent.
Why the quotations around "innocent people," and referring to those shot by the police as victims? Do you automatically assume that everyone the police shoot and kill is a poor, innocent, unarmed person who was summarily executed for no reason whatsoever?
No I do not think each and every person is innocent. But in the event of a shooting, the first goal of the police department is to prove said victim was not innocent. Moderator cut: off topic
Quote:
If you want to talk about the "character assassination" of the "victim," then take that case up with the media. The media is who publicizes these shootings. You can't have things both ways. You can't go and post the officer's personnel file in the news without also posting the background of the person who was killed. It also doesn't help matters when the family of the deceased person attempts to paint them in an innocent and saint-like way when the true facts show the opposite. At that point the media is compelled to print the truth.
Moderator cut: off topic
The way these stories are framed is really critical. If we can say the school shooters were in little league or Boy Scouts or what have you and "going through a rough patch," why aren't black parents afforded the opportunity to talk about their kids grades. Even Elliot Rodgers got to be a nice kid according to the media.
Moderator cut: off topic
Quote:
What are you saying here? That the approximately 400 people who are killed by the police every year are all unarmed and innocent? If so, you're posting something that is both factually inaccurate and shows that you are biased to believe that everyone shot by the police is an unarmed victim who did nothing wrong.
First the police choose to report the number of shootings, and it isn't required to do so, so we only have 400 stories to choose from. Each shooting or the vast majority of them are ruled as justified. I highly doubly that, I posted a story of a white kid killed by a police officer. The police force in question did a 48 hour investigation and ruled it as justified. The family of the victim hired a PI and found the police covered up evidence. They won a civil case. I have zero faith. In our current police culture, a police officer, no matter the circumstance, will be properly investigated by his peers in a shooting. Unfortunately in our culture, we don't care about the victims enough to make sure cases are properly investigated and the victims do not have the means to hire a 3rd party to complete a full independent investigation.
I used to think things were fair and everyone was treated the same way as long as they were polite. I haven't had a bad experience with police or law enforcement. And then I found out the real world doesn't work that way, particularly if you are black. When I talked to other people, who were polite, educated, well-spoken and so on and found out being treated poorly was a common experience, I started to notice more of the patterns.
There are far to many cases in the US were police officers shoot or assault "innocent people." But the biggest problem is the character assassination of the victims.
Why is it that we allow police officers to justify harming an innocent or unarmed person, if the person is later considered a "bad person."
In these cases the victims are not currently involved (at the time of the shooting) in anything problematic. And the police officer has zero evidence of any alleged "bad" behavior when they pull the weapon. Are police officers psychic? Do the victims walk around with signs on their head saying "I might be the suspect in the robbery you haven't heard about or started investigating yet?"
For example, in the Michael Brown case, lots of people are trying to justify it because Brown is suspected of robbing a convenience store (which is not an offense punishable by death in any means). But the police officer involved knew nothing of the robbery or the description of the suspects. So why is this relevant to the his case of an officer involved shooting. That info is immaterial as it wasn't available to the officer at the time of the shooting.
As Americans we are entitled to sentencing by a jury orpf our peers, but we let police officers justify being judge and jury by allowing info that was not available to the officer to influence our opinions. That's not fair or just!
No, it's not. And I don't know who sets the criteria for what evidence is admissible/relevant, and what isn't. Is it the judge? For example, in rape cases, often it's not admissible if the rapist had committed a similar crime previously. So why in the case you give, would it be admissible that the person shot was a suspect (merely a suspect) in an earlier crime?
It makes no sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
