Got no problem with ‘end police brutality’ as a replacement for the BLM slogan. But let’s realize what it means also.
I sat with the officers at a local station who described that they can no longer shoot first to protect and defend human life. They need to wait to take fire to return fire. So...they are more at risk and so is the nearby …
Got no problem with ‘end police brutality’ as a replacement for the BLM slogan. But let’s realize what it means also.
I sat with the officers at a local station who described that they can no longer shoot first to protect and defend human life. They need to wait to take fire to return fire. So...they are more at risk and so is the nearby public. What exactly do you want the police to do?
If the priority is protecting the criminals from possible fire from police, who are you putting at risk with that policy?
It’s always been a problem for me - who’s rights are more important? A person wildly firing a gun who damages the lives of all around - or the innocent caught in the cross fire? When will we stop making excuses for behavior that threatens lives?
"I sat with the officers at a local station who described that they can no longer shoot first to protect and defend human life."
I get this, but for the vast majority of people, I don't think there's a huge problem in recognising the difference between shooting somebody to save a life and shooting somebody who obviously poses no threat.
Ma'Khia Bryant springs to mind. The cop who shot her obviously saved the life of another black girl by doing so. And though a few grifters tried to spin this into a racist shooting, I think most people were clear that the cop did the right thing.
The issue comes when the victim isn't firing a gun or even breaking any laws. I've seen so many videos over the years of police officers firing blindly at people or vehicles where there was clearly no threat. That's the kind of police brutality that people are worried about.
And I of course agree with you on police action where there was clearly no threat.
But you and I both know a camera is an eye and that eye is directed. We can’t be in the moment and see it from all perspectives and so it’s difficult to make a viable judgment.
As added nuance, officer training protocols (at least in this progressive city) were changed and it was a blanket change. They don’t get to choose. They have to take a shot first, or they have violated the rules. That creates greater risk in an already fraught job.
All that said, I, like many, react in apprehension and fear when I see an armed uniformed person. They have all the power. They are the enforcement arm of the government.
Controlling the use of deadly force is incredibly important and I would like to see more training and education for law enforcement, not less…as well as psychological testing before anyone is issued a weapon. It’s simply too crucial a role to take lightly.
Got no problem with ‘end police brutality’ as a replacement for the BLM slogan. But let’s realize what it means also.
I sat with the officers at a local station who described that they can no longer shoot first to protect and defend human life. They need to wait to take fire to return fire. So...they are more at risk and so is the nearby public. What exactly do you want the police to do?
If the priority is protecting the criminals from possible fire from police, who are you putting at risk with that policy?
It’s always been a problem for me - who’s rights are more important? A person wildly firing a gun who damages the lives of all around - or the innocent caught in the cross fire? When will we stop making excuses for behavior that threatens lives?
"I sat with the officers at a local station who described that they can no longer shoot first to protect and defend human life."
I get this, but for the vast majority of people, I don't think there's a huge problem in recognising the difference between shooting somebody to save a life and shooting somebody who obviously poses no threat.
Ma'Khia Bryant springs to mind. The cop who shot her obviously saved the life of another black girl by doing so. And though a few grifters tried to spin this into a racist shooting, I think most people were clear that the cop did the right thing.
The issue comes when the victim isn't firing a gun or even breaking any laws. I've seen so many videos over the years of police officers firing blindly at people or vehicles where there was clearly no threat. That's the kind of police brutality that people are worried about.
And I of course agree with you on police action where there was clearly no threat.
But you and I both know a camera is an eye and that eye is directed. We can’t be in the moment and see it from all perspectives and so it’s difficult to make a viable judgment.
As added nuance, officer training protocols (at least in this progressive city) were changed and it was a blanket change. They don’t get to choose. They have to take a shot first, or they have violated the rules. That creates greater risk in an already fraught job.
All that said, I, like many, react in apprehension and fear when I see an armed uniformed person. They have all the power. They are the enforcement arm of the government.
Controlling the use of deadly force is incredibly important and I would like to see more training and education for law enforcement, not less…as well as psychological testing before anyone is issued a weapon. It’s simply too crucial a role to take lightly.