Increase police presence, crime goes down.

Crime-ridden, minority communities need MORE cops not LESS. That's the irony.

Clearly there is a difference in viewpoint about what qualifies as "adequate LE decision making and procedure", but we know the answer to crime isn't less police. We know this.

GBear4Life said:

---

Increase police presence, crime goes down.

Crime-ridden, minority communities need MORE cops not LESS. That's the irony.

Clearly there is a difference in viewpoint about what qualifies as "adequate LE decision making and procedure", but we know the answer to crime isn't less police. We know this.

---

but we know the answer to crime isn't less police. We know this.

Is the recruitment/training/experience/psychological makeup/etc.. of police officers of a standard to actually "know" ?

I might say that "more" police officers who are ill-equipped (for whatever reasons) cause "more" problems
for both civilians and other officers.

Police presence (visibility) deters crime.

GBear4Life said:

---

Police presence (visibility) deters crime.

---

I agree.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-formisano-new-jersey-cop-who-allegedly-executed-his-wifein-uniformstill-avoiding-day-in-court

going4roses said:

---

https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-formisano-new-jersey-cop-who-allegedly-executed-his-wifein-uniformstill-avoiding-day-in-court

---

Crime deterred

Hmm

https://www.theroot.com/galveston-asks-texas-ag-to-block-release-of-officers-bo-1837583163/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Great information... I believe this was the first clip I saw if him

Cops should be licensed like hair dressers, dog groomer, nurse and mechanics. Have to pass a test, continual education and a fair system to review or revoke. This guy's video is a good example of why.

I'm still freaked out the cops gave Dylan Root a burger after his arrest. You know the mass murder who slaughter church goers worshiping. You can't say w.t.f. enough times.

I saw that a few days and thought to myself is there any more proof needed to see there is a really big effing problem .

That sucks

Interesting

Cops need to be licensed and certified just like hairdressers, dog groomers, teachers, nurses, welders. Need both a national test and state test with regular training.

It's funny that many think simply "training cops" better will mitigate controversial interactions with civilians. And even if such interactions were reduced by 80%, the few incidents left would still get blasted across social media and news outlets would exploit it and the narrative wouldn't change.

GBear4Life said:

---

It's funny that many think simply "training cops" better will mitigate controversial interactions with civilians. And even if such interactions were reduced by 80%, the few incidents left would still get blasted across social media and news outlets would exploit it and the narrative wouldn't change.

---

And that's exactly as it should be.

ANY so called "controversial interactions" is too many. ONE is too many.

And nice euphemism for death by cop - "controversial interactions"...

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/463575-lapd-launches-inquiry-over-recruitment-ad-posted-on-breitbart?amp&__twitter_impression=true

They should focus on catching bad guys instead of educating the ignorant on how internet advertising works.

Another Bear said:

---

Cops need to be licensed and certified

---

They do

https://thegrio.com/2019/10/04/marilyn-mosby-baltimore-police-corruption/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Once your badge is taken /fired from a police dept working in law enforcement should be off limits for life.

https://abc7ny.com/amp/authorities-charge-ct-officer-who-opened-fire-on-couples-car/5636485/?__twitter_impression=true

No attempted murder charge? Why

going4roses said:

---

https://abc7ny.com/amp/authorities-charge-ct-officer-who-opened-fire-on-couples-car/5636485/?__twitter_impression=true

No attempted murder charge? Why

---

The answers to that question are in your link. You just have to read your link and be open to the mindset of the officers.

1) Police officers are called upon to make split-second decisions and exercise their judgment and discretion
2) Eaton and Yale University officer Terrance Pollock both opened fire on the car, which matched the description of one involved in a reported attempted armed robbery, after the driver, Paul Witherspoon III, got out abruptly.

going4roses said:

---

https://abc7ny.com/amp/authorities-charge-ct-officer-who-opened-fire-on-couples-car/5636485/?__twitter_impression=true

No attempted murder charge? Why

---

g4r -

I would have charged Travon Martin's killer with murder

I would have charged Oscar Grant's killer with murder (I don't believe the officer mistakenly used a gun instead of tazer)

I would have charge the officers who cuffed the guy (sorry, I should know his name) and threw him the back of the van unrestrained and drove him around until he died with murder.

Officers MISTAKENLY acting in the course of duty, a duty where they are called upon to decide whether to use deadly force or not, is not murder. It just isn't. You have every right to be outraged both by this incident and by our country's whole history of incidents. But we can't make up for a couple of centuries of not charging officers for crimes they committed, all the way up to probably thousands of intentional murders in our country's history, by overcharging every incident that occurs. What we need to do is stop undercharging or no charging. Frankly the Botham Jean case is about the only case I know of that wasn't under convicted, so I sympathize with your feelings.

I don't know all the details of this case, so I can't tell you what he should be charged with, but unless you are saying he intentionally shot at people he knew to be innocent and not a threat, it isn't attempted murder. Maybe attempted manslaughter.

OaktownBear said:

---

But we can't make up for a couple of centuries of not charging officers for crimes they committed, all the way up to probably thousands of intentional murders in our country's history, by overcharging every incident that occurs.

---

Yes, agreed. The argument on the left is for lighter sentences and fewer people sent to prison, because it costs too much money and doesn't actually solve societal problems. I generally agree with that stance. But you can't argue that and then argue for harsher sentences for cops. If you want to end mass incarceration then you should want to end it for everyone.

Head nod in respect

I've done some thinking on the larger cultural issues at play here. I'll preface this by saying that my theory is based on anecdotal examples about police training methods and so I'm not sure how widespread this is, but it does seem to fit with how police unions usually respond to these kinds of stories and the arguments made against the idea of charging cops with crimes.

It seems like somewhere along the way, we started training cops to primarily look out for their own safety. The stories I've heard about police training is that they really drill into them how anyone, anywhere could be a threat and therefore you must be constantly on alert. Don't check your left flank when entering a room? You're dead. Too slow in pulling your gun on a suspect who's packing? You're dead. And so forth. Your first priority is to get home safe to your family. This seems to have seeped into the culture of police officers in general: they are mostly concerned with protecting themselves and their own, to make sure only the "bad guys" get killed and not the cops. It's why police unions always seems to immediately close ranks even when it's pretty clear that one of their members screwed up badly. They don't see the quick trigger as a problem, it's the expectation.

To me this seems like a really warped way to look at the job. Aren't the police supposed to serve the PUBLIC, not themselves? Wasn't "to protect and serve" supposed to be part of the mission? I'm not saying I want a lot of dead cops, but when you take the job you know that it's a dangerous one. In general, soldiers seem to understand this. Seems like we need a similar attitude to take hold among police. Right now, the job seems to be attracting people who just want to have license to throw their weight around. It should be attracting people who want to serve. That's where I think reforming training methods might help, but it will take political will that hasn't been there until relatively recently.

sycasey said:

---

I've done some thinking on the larger cultural issues at play here. I'll preface this by saying that my theory is based on anecdotal examples about police training methods and so I'm not sure how widespread this is, but it does seem to fit with how police unions usually respond to these kinds of stories and the arguments made against the idea of charging cops with crimes.

It seems like somewhere along the way, we started training cops to primarily look out for their own safety. The stories I've heard about police training is that they really drill into them how anyone, anywhere could be a threat and therefore you must be constantly on alert. Don't check your left flank when entering a room? You're dead. Too slow in pulling your gun on a suspect who's packing? You're dead. And so forth. Your first priority is to get home safe to your family. This seems to have seeped into the culture of police officers in general: they are mostly concerned with protecting themselves and their own, to make sure only the "bad guys" get killed and not the cops It's why police unions always seems to immediately close ranks even when it's pretty clear that one of their members screwed up badly. They don't see the quick trigger as a problem, it's the expectation.

To me this seems like a really warped way to look at the job. Aren't the police supposed to serve the PUBLIC, not themselves? Wasn't "to protect and serve" supposed to be part of the mission? I'm not saying I want a lot of dead cops, but when you take the job you know that it's a dangerous one. In general, soldiers seem to understand this. Seems like we need a similar attitude to take hold among police. Right now, the job seems to be attracting people who just want to have license to throw their weight around. It should be attracting people who want to serve. That's where I think reforming training methods might help, but it will take political will that hasn't been there until relatively recently.

---

I think it's the difference between drawing your gun and firing your gun. As a police officer, you should be prepared to draw your gun very quickly, but you should be very cautious about making the decision to fire the gun and if you decide to fire the gun without any visible weapons pointing at you, strongly consider firing to warn, rather than to injure or kill. Firing to kill should always be a last resort.

sycasey said:

---

I've done some thinking on the larger cultural issues at play here. I'll preface this by saying that my theory is based on anecdotal examples about police training methods and so I'm not sure how widespread this is, but it does seem to fit with how police unions usually respond to these kinds of stories and the arguments made against the idea of charging cops with crimes.

It seems like somewhere along the way, we started training cops to primarily look out for their own safety. The stories I've heard about police training is that they really drill into them how anyone, anywhere could be a threat and therefore you must be constantly on alert. Don't check your left flank when entering a room? You're dead. Too slow in pulling your gun on a suspect who's packing? You're dead. And so forth. Your first priority is to get home safe to your family. This seems to have seeped into the culture of police officers in general: they are mostly concerned with protecting themselves and their own, to make sure only the "bad guys" get killed and not the cops. It's why police unions always seems to immediately close ranks even when it's pretty clear that one of their members screwed up badly. They don't see the quick trigger as a problem, it's the expectation.

To me this seems like a really warped way to look at the job. Aren't the police supposed to serve the PUBLIC, not themselves? Wasn't "to protect and serve" supposed to be part of the mission? I'm not saying I want a lot of dead cops, but when you take the job you know that it's a dangerous one. In general, soldiers seem to understand this. Seems like we need a similar attitude to take hold among police. Right now, the job seems to be attracting people who just want to have license to throw their weight around. It should be attracting people who want to serve. That's where I think reforming training methods might help, but it will take political will that hasn't been there until relatively recently.

---

I think the "Your job is to get home to your family concept" is really a problem here. No it isn't. It is definitely a consideration. But you don't take action that has a 50% chance of killing someone to avoid a .000001% chance of being killed.

It seems like there are some that are interpreting, "they could have a weapon" the same way as they are pointing a weapon at you. If you are 20 feet away with a gun trained on someone and their hands don't come up in a shooting posture, why are you shooting?

going4roses said:

---

Head nod in respect

---

Back at you. This is one where even where I disagree, I sympathize. I'm fortunate to not be in a position where I can truly understand your feelings on the subject.

OaktownBear said:

---

I think the "Your job is to get home to your family concept" is really a problem here. No it isn't. It is definitely a consideration. But you don't take action that has a 50% chance of killing someone to avoid a .000001% chance of being killed.

---

Right? Again, anecdotal examples, but when I heard that it made my ears perk up, because it seemed to be at root of a number of systemic issues.

That's not to say some of the dangerous neighborhoods these cops patrol don't have their own issues. But they are not being paid by my tax dollars.