"Black Lives Matter" - it's stupid. Just cut the crap.....

[mi*vida*loca]

LOL

I just meant a lot of Puerto Ricans have Spanish roots

Also african roots and Taino Indians. My grandfather was an Afro Puerto Rican along with many others in my family.

 

[sunshinehighway]

You're braver than me.
Just general comments...Not directed at your post. I'm sort of astonished to see that link "offered" here. It probably explains some points of view that I've wondered about as I've perused this thread.

I'm was actually surprised it took this long for someone to link it. These types of threads normally end up with that linked, sometimes worse than that.

It's so strange to me when people say they don't like the way groups (BLM or the media) twist stories or lie to rile people up but then they believe what they read on sites like that.
Those sites are a huge part of many problems well really it's people believing them that are.

 

[luvsJack]

How is hands up dont shoot a lie? Every black person that has gotten shot by a cop got shot because they supposedly resisted arested..not in the middle of commiting a crime...their past criminal history only gets called into question after the fact to justify the killing...what crime was Mike Brown commiting when he got shot...I have an 18 year old black son..and I tell him all the time if he gets stopped by a cop you roll your window down put your hands on the wheel and dont move until the cops tell you to and when they do you do it slowly....until your in the position to have to tell your son that save your opinion because its not needed or appreciated

I have a question, I mean this with all due respect. Are you of the opinion that none of the shootings by officers were justified? If so, why?

And for your last statement-I have taught that to my sons. You don't move or open your mouth until you are told to. And when you do speak, you do so with respect. I have said many times, they don't have to respect the man but they do respect the uniform.

The fact is, so many white Americans do know that there needs to be change in relations between the police and black communities. But it has to be an open dialog on both sides. Both willing to listen to the other. Too many of the actions by protestors are stopping that dialog not encouraging it.

Many black police officers have spoken out against a lot of what BLM has said. I would really like to know the take on that. Are they racist against their own race or do they have a point?

 

[kamik86]

I have a question, I mean this with all due respect. Are you of the opinion that none of the shootings by officers were justified? If so, why?

And for your last statement-I have taught that to my sons. You don't move or open your mouth until you are told to. And when you do speak, you do so with respect. I have said many times, they don't have to respect the man but they do respect the uniform.

The fact is, so many white Americans do know that there needs to be change in relations between the police and black communities. But it has to be an open dialog on both sides. Both willing to listen to the other. Too many of the actions by protestors are stopping that dialog not encouraging it.

Many black police officers have spoken out against a lot of what BLM has said. I would really like to know the take on that. Are they racist against their own race or do they have a point?

100% agree with this.

Officers are sometimes going to be bad at their job. They are sometimes going to do things they shouldn't. Maybe because they are bad people or maybe because their buddy was shot last week making them extra jumpy at work today so when you reach for something they immediately think gun.

Its not the fault of the victim if they go to do an innocent (yet maybe not smart) action of getting something from their pocket. However everyone should be taught not to risk that the officer they are dealing with is one of the bad ones or one of the ones that is too tired/jumpy/overworked to make a good decision that day, becuase unfortunatly most of the time no one knows that this officer is in that state until after someone has been hurt.

Prejudices exist and we all have to work against them and try to make society better. However at the same time we have to remember that even if the criminal became a criminal because they were held down by society, grew up poor, was put in jail for a minor offence no white man ever would have, and then learned to hate the system and became a worse criminal... they are still a criminal and no matter how much that sucks and the system failed them at that moment if they are about to hurt someone else the right answer may still be to shoot them. Some police shootings are justified.

Yes when someone dies it sucks that we go back and look at everything they did to determine if it was justified. However at the same time in a he said/she said situation and given that people do lie. Character discussions are sometimes warranted. There is a reason character witnesses are accepted in court.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

How is hands up dont shoot a lie? Every black person that has gotten shot by a cop got shot because they supposedly resisted arested..not in the middle of commiting a crime...their past criminal history only gets called into question after the fact to justify the killing...what crime was Mike Brown commiting when he got shot...I have an 18 year old black son..and I tell him all the time if he gets stopped by a cop you roll your window down put your hands on the wheel and dont move until the cops tell you to and when they do you do it slowly....until your in the position to have to tell your son that save your opinion because its not needed or appreciated

It's a lie because the autopsy (3 of them, actually) proved his hands weren't "up". His wounds were entirely inconsistent with that notion.

And a rather large percentage of people (of all races) who are shot by police have weapons in their hands at the time of the shooting. One such "stellar citizen" in St Louis was actually filmed firing at least 5 shots at police and the video aired on the news. His dad still claims his son was only holding a sandwich and a protest march was held on his behalf.

As for not being caught in the initial act, how exactly do you believe police should handle that? The cop didn't personally witness the robbery, so he shouldn't arrest the suspect? Or, are you saying that because the cop didn't personally witness the initial crime he should just let the suspect walk away once the suspect resists? What exactly are you suggesting?

 

[godders]

I have a question which is coming from a naive Brit so I apologise as it's only partially related to the discussion.

I'm just wondering how much weapons training Police actually get in the US? Every time there is video of a shooting I often find myself thinking why aren't they shooting to disable (in the shoulder, arm, leg for example).

As I have only limited gun usage myself I can only take from the UK example of the two men who hacked the off-duty soldier Lee Rigby to death. They were attempting suicide by Police by trying to attack armed officers with their machetes. Officers were able to disable both attackers with their guns while leaving them alive to stand trial and be imprisoned. Obviously each situation is different and there are clearly some instances (and I could mention one or two from here in the UK) where suspects have been shot and killed because of the threat perceived by police -whether that threat was actually there or not. But I do wonder if there are so many people killed by police in shootings across the board then would a relatively easy first step be to improve training? Firearms Officers here for example are trained as Policemen/women first and foremost and firearms training is only open to those who have been active Police for 2+ years and go through rigorous training and selection to qualify. Obviously this particular system wouldn't work for the US but is doing more than just "sensitivity training" needed to help improve the police force?

Are Officers who are more used to handling guns (both on/off the job) less trigger happy because they feel more confident in their skills to only shoot as a last resort?

As an outsider who is white and middle-class I can't even imagine what it is like to feel victimized/persecuted by those who we are supposed to trust to protect us. From what I've read elsewhere I can completely see the need and belief for a movement like Black Lives Matter because things do need to change but it is not an overnight process because it is mixed into so many different cultures, institutions, personal beliefs and experiences. That being said I'm not sure BLM is cohesive enough currently to make an impact beyond being a nuisance and helping to inspire some of the extremists out there. The only way to change the establishment is to engage with it and BLM doesn't seem to have quite got the hang of it yet. Other black power movements (not sure if it's quite right to put BLM with them) I think are also having a negative affect on BLM. One recent documentary I watched about it had one particular group marching through the streets in formation with semi-automatic weapons....while they said it was a show of strength, for me, that kind of "strength" is about intimidation and fear which is exactly what those who are very anti-BLM are going to jump on whether related to them or not and claim it's a terrorist movement.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I have a question which is coming from a naive Brit so I apologise as it's only partially related to the discussion.

I'm just wondering how much weapons training Police actually get in the US? Every time there is video of a shooting I often find myself thinking why aren't they shooting to disable (in the shoulder, arm, leg for example).

As I have only limited gun usage myself I can only take from the UK example of the two men who hacked the off-duty soldier Lee Rigby to death. They were attempting suicide by Police by trying to attack armed officers with their machetes. Officers were able to disable both attackers with their guns while leaving them alive to stand trial and be imprisoned. Obviously each situation is different and there are clearly some instances (and I could mention one or two from here in the UK) where suspects have been shot and killed because of the threat perceived by police -whether that threat was actually there or not. But I do wonder if there are so many people killed by police in shootings across the board then would a relatively easy first step be to improve training? Firearms Officers here for example are trained as Policemen/women first and foremost and firearms training is only open to those who have been active Police for 2+ years and go through rigorous training and selection to qualify. Obviously this particular system wouldn't work for the US but is doing more than just "sensitivity training" needed to help improve the police force?

Are Officers who are more used to handling guns (both on/off the job) less trigger happy because they feel more confident in their skills to only shoot as a last resort?

As an outsider who is white and middle-class I can't even imagine what it is like to feel victimized/persecuted by those who we are supposed to trust to protect us. From what I've read elsewhere I can completely see the need and belief for a movement like Black Lives Matter because things do need to change but it is not an overnight process because it is mixed into so many different cultures, institutions, personal beliefs and experiences. That being said I'm not sure BLM is cohesive enough currently to make an impact beyond being a nuisance and helping to inspire some of the extremists out there. The only way to change the establishment is to engage with it and BLM doesn't seem to have quite got the hang of it yet. Other black power movements (not sure if it's quite right to put BLM with them) I think are also having a negative affect on BLM. One recent documentary I watched about it had one particular group marching through the streets in formation with semi-automatic weapons....while they said it was a show of strength, for me, that kind of "strength" is about intimidation and fear which is exactly what those who are very anti-BLM are going to jump on whether related to them or not and claim it's a terrorist movement.

Police here are trained to aim for "center mass", which under normal circumstances would mean the chest area. The issue with legs & arms is that it's too easy to miss, which can have two unintended consequences: (1) the threat isn't neutralized and (2) when you miss, the bullet could strike an innocent bystander.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

What really grinds my gears about this whole thread is ...ok so the black lives matter movement is wrong what is the alternative?..what is the solution? what is your suggestion on how to make it better? What would you like to see done differently? Other than trying to find a solution to a problem what really is the point of this thread

Listen to people like Dallas Police Chief David Brown for starters (see my post below). Don't know if his whole press conference from yesterday is available yet. He included talk of the legislature doing its job, and talking straight about root causes.

Most importantly, he cited getting involved in your community in a way that is PRODUCTIVE.

I found this inspiring -- to see real leadership that tells it like it is -- so thought I'd share... http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/07/11/...e-asking-cops-to-do-too-much-in-this-country/

Dallas Police Chief David Brown strikes me as an INCREDIBLE LEADER -- sorely lacking in this country today!! This press conference from today is worth watching in its entirety if you can find it -- a lot of WISDOM and potential SOLUTIONS for anyone truly interested and willing to listen.

He TALKED STRAIGHT (and got specific) about how: "We're asking cops to do too much in this country... Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve."

Dallas Police Chief Brown shares his story: "I probably wouldn’t protest…I’d get involved & do something about it."

Dallas Police Chief’s advice to young black men: "Become a part of the solution, serve your communities... Don't be part of the problem... we're hiring. Get off that protest line and put an application in. We’ll put you in your neighborhood – we will help you resolve some of the problems you are protesting about."

"All the crap we gotta take as police officers, the satisfaction you get from serving – much more gratifying."

“Leaders in my position need to put their careers on the line to make sure we do things right”

On open carry of guns like AR-15s: "We don't know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everybody starts shooting."

 

[kamik86]

I have a question which is coming from a naive Brit so I apologise as it's only partially related to the discussion.

I'm just wondering how much weapons training Police actually get in the US? Every time there is video of a shooting I often find myself thinking why aren't they shooting to disable (in the shoulder, arm, leg for example).

As I have only limited gun usage myself I can only take from the UK example of the two men who hacked the off-duty soldier Lee Rigby to death. They were attempting suicide by Police by trying to attack armed officers with their machetes. Officers were able to disable both attackers with their guns while leaving them alive to stand trial and be imprisoned. Obviously each situation is different and there are clearly some instances (and I could mention one or two from here in the UK) where suspects have been shot and killed because of the threat perceived by police -whether that threat was actually there or not. But I do wonder if there are so many people killed by police in shootings across the board then would a relatively easy first step be to improve training? Firearms Officers here for example are trained as Policemen/women first and foremost and firearms training is only open to those who have been active Police for 2+ years and go through rigorous training and selection to qualify. Obviously this particular system wouldn't work for the US but is doing more than just "sensitivity training" needed to help improve the police force?

Are Officers who are more used to handling guns (both on/off the job) less trigger happy because they feel more confident in their skills to only shoot as a last resort?

As an outsider who is white and middle-class I can't even imagine what it is like to feel victimized/persecuted by those who we are supposed to trust to protect us. From what I've read elsewhere I can completely see the need and belief for a movement like Black Lives Matter because things do need to change but it is not an overnight process because it is mixed into so many different cultures, institutions, personal beliefs and experiences. That being said I'm not sure BLM is cohesive enough currently to make an impact beyond being a nuisance and helping to inspire some of the extremists out there. The only way to change the establishment is to engage with it and BLM doesn't seem to have quite got the hang of it yet. Other black power movements (not sure if it's quite right to put BLM with them) I think are also having a negative affect on BLM. One recent documentary I watched about it had one particular group marching through the streets in formation with semi-automatic weapons....while they said it was a show of strength, for me, that kind of "strength" is about intimidation and fear which is exactly what those who are very anti-BLM are going to jump on whether related to them or not and claim it's a terrorist movement.

I had a criminology class taught by a decorated county sheriff. What I learned there are.
1) Shooting limbs is VERY hard not like in the movies. They are small and they move.
2) If you are at the point that you feel you should be shooting you think there is an immediate danger you should be shooting to kill.
3) Police aren't given the equipment that would make their jobs easier and safer due to funding. Many don't have tazer or batons even if those things would make a much easier disable and in many cases save someone from being shot.
4) You also have to think about what if you miss and where that bullet would go. Also what if you don't miss and just don't hit anything that will stop a bullet. Bullets will go through arms or legs. What if that building behind them has a child in it that gets hit by that bullet?
5) More training is needed. Most officers would agree. However again training means cost because for every minute they spend in training the city still needs a full force in the field. Which means move officers are needed to spend more time on training.
6) Many people shot by police don't die. The only shooting by police I know of in my area was this way. However that was also partially luck. The original report was for a dead body (turned out to be a very heavily drugged mentally ill person who was alive) so the ambulance was dispatched as well in case they found someone that was just very injured. Due to this the ambulance was already half way their by the time the guy was shot. We only hear about the deaths though.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I wasn't going to post here again but this type of activity puzzles me. BLM blocked a major freeway close to downtown Dallas today and they tried to go into a mall to have a sit-in just a few days ago. Why are they harassing a city that is still raw from 5 police officers being murdered just a week ago? Is there any point to this?

Exactly. And a city that by all accounts has a model PD -- representative of the community, massive crime reduction and low crime rates, great relationship with the community...

BLM indiscriminately picks targets and lumps together. Not helpful.

 

[kamik86]

I had a criminology class taught by a decorated county sheriff. What I learned there are.
1) Shooting limbs is VERY hard not like in the movies. They are small and they move.
2) If you are at the point that you feel you should be shooting you think there is an immediate danger you should be shooting to kill.
3) Police aren't given the equipment that would make their jobs easier and safer due to funding. Many don't have tazer or batons even if those things would make a much easier disable and in many cases save someone from being shot.
4) You also have to think about what if you miss and where that bullet would go. Also what if you don't miss and just don't hit anything that will stop a bullet. Bullets will go through arms or legs. What if that building behind them has a child in it that gets hit by that bullet?
5) More training is needed. Most officers would agree. However again training means cost because for every minute they spend in training the city still needs a full force in the field. Which means move officers are needed to spend more time on training.
6) Many people shot by police don't die. The only shooting by police I know of in my area was this way. However that was also partially luck. The original report was for a dead body (turned out to be a very heavily drugged mentally ill person who was alive) so the ambulance was dispatched as well in case they found someone that was just very injured. Due to this the ambulance was already half way their by the time the guy was shot. We only hear about the deaths though.

Forgot one more.

sometimes disabling isn't as easy as you think it should be.

We were told a story about a small alercation that became a huge fight with a few cops, a bystander trying to help and a heavily drugged man. The guy was on so many drugs he wasn't responding to pain.

It started with a guy that seemed passed out in his car with the window down that then grabbed the officer and started the fight. The bystander jumped in to try to help and the other cop was called in by other witnesses. By the time he was fully disabled he had a dislocated shoulder, a broken leg, and the blow to the head with a heavy rock that actually knocked him out. He just kept fighting through the other injuries. The only reason this guy didn't get shot was that in being in a fight with an officer the second cop wasn't able to get a clear shot.

 

[undertheradar]

My son is an LEO and I am concerned every time he works. The reality of the job is that every situation is dangerous. Even a simple traffic stop is a potential risk. The most dangerous calls are domestic violence. The job is not just driving around, issuing tickets and eating donuts!

After 6 months in the academy, after earning a 4 year criminal justice degree, he spent 3 months with different field training officers. His job involves anything from people reporting items missing from months ago, to searching for missing children, the last one being found dead. On his assigned beat he has known gang members, drug dealers, convicted felons, mental patients, lonely folks who have no relatives, he experiences it all.

For those demanding more training for LEOs, when would they receive it? The normal schedule for my son is 4 10 hour shifts, with on-call for court M-F, including days off. They are paid overtime for court, if they are requested to report, otherwise the on-call is unpaid. He works numerous extra details, the demands for uniformed officers at special events and as added security are constant. Even though they are scheduled 10 hours per shift, it is rare that they are off duty at the end of 10 hours. Since he has just completed his first year of service, academy time does not count, he is now eligible to take some vacation time. That's right, 18 months of work before being able to take a much needed vacation.

When would you require that this additional training be taken?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I had a criminology class taught by a decorated county sheriff. What I learned there are.
1) Shooting limbs is VERY hard not like in the movies. They are small and they move.
2) If you are at the point that you feel you should be shooting you think there is an immediate danger you should be shooting to kill.
3) Police aren't given the equipment that would make their jobs easier and safer due to funding. Many don't have tazer or batons even if those things would make a much easier disable and in many cases save someone from being shot.
4) You also have to think about what if you miss and where that bullet would go. Also what if you don't miss and just don't hit anything that will stop a bullet. Bullets will go through arms or legs. What if that building behind them has a child in it that gets hit by that bullet?
5) More training is needed. Most officers would agree. However again training means cost because for every minute they spend in training the city still needs a full force in the field. Which means move officers are needed to spend more time on training.
6) Many people shot by police don't die. The only shooting by police I know of in my area was this way. However that was also partially luck. The original report was for a dead body (turned out to be a very heavily drugged mentally ill person who was alive) so the ambulance was dispatched as well in case they found someone that was just very injured. Due to this the ambulance was already half way their by the time the guy was shot. We only hear about the deaths though.

We had a mentally ill man shot by police here. I believe he was hit 4 times, and lived.

 

[CPanther95]

I have a question which is coming from a naive Brit so I apologise as it's only partially related to the discussion.

I'm just wondering how much weapons training Police actually get in the US? Every time there is video of a shooting I often find myself thinking why aren't they shooting to disable (in the shoulder, arm, leg for example).

As I have only limited gun usage myself I can only take from the UK example of the two men who hacked the off-duty soldier Lee Rigby to death. They were attempting suicide by Police by trying to attack armed officers with their machetes. Officers were able to disable both attackers with their guns while leaving them alive to stand trial and be imprisoned. Obviously each situation is different and there are clearly some instances (and I could mention one or two from here in the UK) where suspects have been shot and killed because of the threat perceived by police -whether that threat was actually there or not. But I do wonder if there are so many people killed by police in shootings across the board then would a relatively easy first step be to improve training? Firearms Officers here for example are trained as Policemen/women first and foremost and firearms training is only open to those who have been active Police for 2+ years and go through rigorous training and selection to qualify. Obviously this particular system wouldn't work for the US but is doing more than just "sensitivity training" needed to help improve the police force?

Are Officers who are more used to handling guns (both on/off the job) less trigger happy because they feel more confident in their skills to only shoot as a last resort?

This is from the PFOA - a UK Police officers association. This is in response to a proposal in the US (NY) to make "shooting to wound" mandatory and charging officers with felony manslaughter if they use more than the minimum force:



Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

....

Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with these positions. Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits:


"Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.


"The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.


"There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect's forearm or a weapon in a suspect's hand in the time spans involved.


"Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots.


"The upper arms move more slowly than the lower arms and hands. But shooting at the upper arms, there's a greater chance you're going to hit the suspect's brachial artery or center mass, areas with a high probability of fatality. So where does shooting only to wound come in when even areas considered by some to 'safe' from fatality risk could in fact carry the same level of risk as targeting center mass?


"Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who's hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding.


"On the other hand, if an officer manages to take a suspect's legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender's hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn't necessarily been stopped."


As to preventing so-called "overkill" from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized, Lewinski offers these observations:


"Twenty years ago officers were trained to 'shoot then assess.' They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn't been incapacitated.


"Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once-shoot and assess-a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.


"A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we've determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they've been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension.


"While an officer is noticing this change, he is going to continue firing if he is shooting as fast as he can under the stress of trying to save his life. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended.


"Shooting beyond the moment a threat is neutralized is not a willful, malicious action in most cases. It's an involuntary factor of human dynamics.



Full article here: https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

My son is an LEO and I am concerned every time he works. The reality of the job is that every situation is dangerous. Even a simple traffic stop is a potential risk. The most dangerous calls are domestic violence. The job is not just driving around, issuing tickets and eating donuts!

After 6 months in the academy, after earning a 4 year criminal justice degree, he spent 3 months with different field training officers. His job involves anything from people reporting items missing from months ago, to searching for missing children, the last one being found dead. On his assigned beat he has known gang members, drug dealers, convicted felons, mental patients, lonely folks who have no relatives, he experiences it all.

For those demanding more training for LEOs, when would they receive it? The normal schedule for my son is 4 10 hour shifts, with on-call for court M-F, including days off. They are paid overtime for court, if they are requested to report, otherwise the on-call is unpaid. He works numerous extra details, the demands for uniformed officers at special events and as added security are constant. Even though they are scheduled 10 hours per shift, it is rare that they are off duty at the end of 10 hours. Since he has just completed his first year of service, academy time does not count, he is now eligible to take some vacation time. That's right, 18 months of work before being able to take a much needed vacation.

When would you require that this additional training be taken?

I'm not sure what "additional training" anyone here was advocating, or if it's beyond anything that your son has already been trained for. (I probably missed some posts)

I will just say that bandwidth cannot be a reason not to train officers adequately. And I'd suspect that it isn't.

My Dad was an officer for 28yrs. Some of the cases that have gotten national attention are ones that he has said could have been prevented with proper training -- especially wrt deescalation and community policing. Some PDs are better at this than others. I think this is one place where improvement can be made in some PDs -- probably model after Dallas PD, frankly.

HOWEVER...

The bandwidth issue is a real one. Major cities are ALREADY having a hard time retaining and hiring officers.

I worry that over time, with the type of climate that officers face in this country, it will be harder and harder to attract good people to the profession. And that ultimately puts all of us in danger -- makes all of us less safe.

 

[godders]

Police here are trained to aim for "center mass", which under normal circumstances would mean the chest area. The issue with legs & arms is that it's too easy to miss, which can have two unintended consequences: (1) the threat isn't neutralized and (2) when you miss, the bullet could strike an innocent bystander.

I had a criminology class taught by a decorated county sheriff. What I learned there are.
1) Shooting limbs is VERY hard not like in the movies. They are small and they move.
2) If you are at the point that you feel you should be shooting you think there is an immediate danger you should be shooting to kill.
3) Police aren't given the equipment that would make their jobs easier and safer due to funding. Many don't have tazer or batons even if those things would make a much easier disable and in many cases save someone from being shot.
4) You also have to think about what if you miss and where that bullet would go. Also what if you don't miss and just don't hit anything that will stop a bullet. Bullets will go through arms or legs. What if that building behind them has a child in it that gets hit by that bullet?
5) More training is needed. Most officers would agree. However again training means cost because for every minute they spend in training the city still needs a full force in the field. Which means move officers are needed to spend more time on training.
6) Many people shot by police don't die. The only shooting by police I know of in my area was this way. However that was also partially luck. The original report was for a dead body (turned out to be a very heavily drugged mentally ill person who was alive) so the ambulance was dispatched as well in case they found someone that was just very injured. Due to this the ambulance was already half way their by the time the guy was shot. We only hear about the deaths though.

Forgot one more.

sometimes disabling isn't as easy as you think it should be.

We were told a story about a small alercation that became a huge fight with a few cops, a bystander trying to help and a heavily drugged man. The guy was on so many drugs he wasn't responding to pain.

It started with a guy that seemed passed out in his car with the window down that then grabbed the officer and started the fight. The bystander jumped in to try to help and the other cop was called in by other witnesses. By the time he was fully disabled he had a dislocated shoulder, a broken leg, and the blow to the head with a heavy rock that actually knocked him out. He just kept fighting through the other injuries. The only reason this guy didn't get shot was that in being in a fight with an officer the second cop wasn't able to get a clear shot.

This is from the PFOA - a UK Police officers association. This is in response to a proposal in the US (NY) to make "shooting to wound" mandatory and charging officers with felony manslaughter if they use more than the minimum force:



Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

....

Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with these positions. Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits:


"Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.


"The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.


"There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect's forearm or a weapon in a suspect's hand in the time spans involved.


"Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots.


"The upper arms move more slowly than the lower arms and hands. But shooting at the upper arms, there's a greater chance you're going to hit the suspect's brachial artery or center mass, areas with a high probability of fatality. So where does shooting only to wound come in when even areas considered by some to 'safe' from fatality risk could in fact carry the same level of risk as targeting center mass?


"Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who's hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding.


"On the other hand, if an officer manages to take a suspect's legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender's hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn't necessarily been stopped."


As to preventing so-called "overkill" from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized, Lewinski offers these observations:


"Twenty years ago officers were trained to 'shoot then assess.' They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn't been incapacitated.


"Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once-shoot and assess-a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.


"A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we've determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they've been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension.


"While an officer is noticing this change, he is going to continue firing if he is shooting as fast as he can under the stress of trying to save his life. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended.


"Shooting beyond the moment a threat is neutralized is not a willful, malicious action in most cases. It's an involuntary factor of human dynamics.



Full article here: https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

Thanks guys! You're all very informative and helpful. It's an issue that's never really crossed my mind as actual interactions with armed police are fairly limited (or non-existent bar a smile as I walk past at airports and major train stations). I consider myself better informed. Thanks again!

 

[asta]

I'm was actually surprised it took this long for someone to link it. These types of threads normally end up with that linked, sometimes worse than that.

It's so strange to me when people say they don't like the way groups (BLM or the media) twist stories or lie to rile people up but then they believe what they read on sites like that.
Those sites are a huge part of many problems well really it's people believing them that are.

To be fair there are equally bad sites on both sides of almost any issue. You think this one is especially bad because it disagrees with your viewpoint. I try to check for other sites to back up an extreme site if it pops up on google. But I have even been ridiculed on the DIS for citing ABC and CNN when they had news that disagreed with someone's viewpoint. So some people only accept cites that confirm an already held viewpoint.

 

[Geoff_M]

Not that it will likely have any real effect on people's perceptions, but a rather timely and extensive study was released this week from a Harvard professor that is an exhaustive work that looks at the issue of racial disparities in the use of force by police. This study seeks to address one of the key shortcomings of some of the previous studies that I mentioned earlier: context. This study attempted to apply controls to the data based on a variety of situations. Tough the study did find that, even while applying controls to the data, moderate racial differences in the less-than-lethal use of force (placing hands on a suspect, handcuffing, pushing them against a wall, using pepper spray, etc.), when it came to using a firearm, the study had a very eye-opening result (bolding mine):

They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015, coding police narratives to answer questions such as: How old was the suspect? How many police officers were at the scene? Were they mostly white? Was the officer at the scene for a robbery, violent activity, a traffic stop or something else? Was it nighttime? Did the officer shoot after being attacked or before a possible attack? One goal was to determine if police officers were quicker to fire at black suspects.

In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.

But police shootings are only part of the picture. What about situations in which an officer might be expected to fire, but doesn’t?

To answer this, Mr. Fryer focused on one city, Houston. The Police Department there let the researchers look at reports not only for shootings but also for arrests when lethal force might have been justified. Mr. Fryer defined this group to include encounters with suspects the police subsequently charged with serious offenses like attempting to murder an officer, or evading or resisting arrest. He also considered suspects shocked with Tasers.

Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black. This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.

So, Fryer et al., when applying context to over 1,300 police shootings, found that not only were police officers less likely to fire at black suspects when not first attacked, the same was also true in scenarios where using a firearm would have likely been deemed justifiable.

This again hints at the notion that perception may not equal reality... but I understand that perception is what drives human nature. We hear again and again the appeal to certainty that "If xyz had been white, they'd still be alive today!"

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Not that it will likely have any real effect on people's perceptions, but a rather timely and extensive study was released this week from a Harvard professor that is an exhaustive work that looks at the issue of racial disparities in the use of force by police. This study seeks to address one of the key shortcomings of some of the previous studies that I mentioned earlier: context. This study attempted to apply controls to the data based on a variety of situations. Tough the study did find that, even while applying controls to the data, moderate racial differences in the less-than-lethal use of force (placing hands on a suspect, handcuffing, pushing them against a wall, using pepper spray, etc.), when it came to using a firearm, the study had a very eye-opening result (bolding mine):So, Fryer et al., when applying context to police shooting, found that not only where police officers less likely to fire at black suspects when not first attacked, but the same was also true in scenarios were using a firearm would have likely been deemed justifiable.

This again hints at the notion that perception may not equal reality... but I understand that perception is what drives human nature.

This type of finding does not surprise me -- thank you for sharing it. Officers know the disproportionate scrutiny they will come under -- potentially career-ending, even if justified.

 

[asta]

Yes when someone dies it sucks that we go back and look at everything they did to determine if it was justified. However at the same time in a he said/she said situation and given that people do lie. Character discussions are sometimes warranted. There is a reason character witnesses are accepted in court.

I need a refresher on when character witnesses are allowed in court. I seem to remember during the Trayvon Martin trial that they were not allowed to enter testimony that described his violent encounters or why he had been suspended from school. And, of course, this is not a court (thank goodness) but some posters seem to get especially outraged when any prior behavior is brought up. And I know even being a convicted felon does not justify shooting.

Is it possible that if someone gets on the witness stand and gives testimony, that the other side is OK to present evidence to dispute their character? If you don't take the stand then character witnesses can't be used? I probably have this wrong from watching too much tv.