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.
Go ahead, then, do whatever you feel is right, and if you get stopped and argue with the police, I won't feel sorry for you. This is like arguing with a kid who won't take no for an answer. You HAVE to submit to the police. You can always complain and sue later on. That is where those crafty lawyers come in handy. That's exactly what I would do. I'm all for police having to wear body cameras that record video and audio. It makes everything clear. Sorry if it's uncomfortable for policemen, but it's a job with HUGE responsibility. Will footage of obvious guilt satisfy everyone? No, of course not. Some people are never satisfied. But body cams will help things quite a lot, in my opinion.
I am talking about right and wrong here. If the civilian is expected to behave, so should the officer. I am not advising that one argue with the police. I am saying that disobeying an officer is not grounds for getting shot unless you are proving to be am imminent threat. I would feel bad for someone who gets shot by officer for arguing. I won't recommend doing it, but the officer is wrong too.
And yes, I would be in favor of body cameras. Even there, some error can take place. Someone would "forget" to turn theirs on.
Go ahead, then, do whatever you feel is right, and if you get stopped and argue with the police, I won't feel sorry for you.
I never asked you to.
One day my son and his girlfriend was moving. I showed up at the house and he calls me. Tells me they were pulled over right up the road. I drive up there. There was two officers in the car with the drivers license. I ask my son why they were pulled over. He said they were pulled over because him and the girlfriend were in the back of the truck.
I knew that in WV adults are allowed to ride in the back. I quickly pulled up the law. After an extended time they walk back and hand the drivers his license. I asked them why they were pulled over. I was told because my son and his girlfriend was in the back. I showed him the law and stated it was legal, "Why were they pulled over"?
He then stated that they just wanted to make sure they were safe. I told him they did not need to ask for I.D. to do that. They said "Have a good day" and left.
The majority of officers know when they are wrong.
Quote:
This is like arguing with a kid who won't take no for an answer. You HAVE to submit to the police. You can always complain and sue later on. That is where those crafty lawyers come in handy. That's exactly what I would do. I'm all for police having to wear body cameras that record video and audio. It makes everything clear. Sorry if it's uncomfortable for policemen, but it's a job with HUGE responsibility. Will footage of obvious guilt satisfy everyone? No, of course not. Some people are never satisfied. But body cams will help things quite a lot, in my opinion.
If I had got there earlier I would have told the driver to say no. Nothing would have happened because even if they had discovered something they knew it would be tossed.
Police in the U.S. successfully detain thousands of unarmed (and armed) suspects every day. That's about 99.999987% of all apprehensions.
You only hear about the 0.000013% where something goes wrong.
Massive thread fail. Please close and delete.
Yeah! - how come no one ever talks about all the times Captain Smith didn't hit an iceberg? God, but you people have some weird ideas.
Anyway, yes, speaking as European with quite a bit of law enforcement training, the US police approach to use of force - particularly deadly force - is rather disconcerting. Deescalation - a subject most European law enforcement spends a lot of time on - seems very unpopular, there's a very authoritative streak in some units.
Of course, training is barebones, to say the least - 21 weeks as the median? - so people get on-the-job training with no central authority to set and uphold standards, and that is how bad habits get ingrained as culture. Single-officer policing does not improve things. But training and staffing costs money...
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 09-27-2017 at 04:37 PM..
Ideological agenda driven people don't need no stinkin' bages.... oops, I mean citations.
Or you could learn to read before you open your mouth since there's a link to a study in the first post...
Aside from that... There's a level of denseness in the people "defending" the cops. We're talking about unarmed people getting shot. The fact that so many of you are resorting to strawmen arguments tells me you don't have a justification for it, and rather than discuss it, you want to derail the conversation.
Some, but not most don't do so well considering the job. We've had such a shift in policing and sentencing since the war on drugs as well.
I've said in the past that if the answer is better training and better pay, I'm open to that as long as it comes with more responsibility for their actions.
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.
