Which part? The part where he says there are approximately 400 people killed by LE every year?
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
The real damage that will be caused by this is that an increasing number of police will become so risk averse because of incidents like this that they will stop doing anything proactive in minority neighborhoods.
There have always been those that figured it out early that if you do very little, there is very little risk, either to you physically or professionally. The term I heard used was FIDO. Fugg It-Drive On. They would respond to calls and not much else, kind of like firemen.
However the GOOD inner city residents that have to live with the out of control a-holes, (that have little or no fear of being stopped by risk averse police) are really the ones that suffer. And the reality is that most of the people stuck in the inner cities are good.
The good inner city residents will continue to be the victims, and call. The officers will respond from the station, or from wherever they are holed up, and will have blinders on until they get to their assigned call.
Meanwhile, the inner cities will spin faster into their death spiral, as more and more decent folks find a way to move out leaving a higher and higher percentage of a-holes left and police who are afraid to actually "police" drive in circles responding to calls after the fact.
A "tragedy?" Perhaps, but not as tragic as the thousands of innocent inner city residents who will become victims of their own people who are emboldened when police are afraid to do their jobs.
Last edited by cv540; 04/10/15.
"Put none but Americans on guard tonight." -George Washington
Which part? The part where he says there are approximately 400 people killed by LE every year?
Yes, he clearly states a LE has a 1/4000 chance of being killed on the job.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
Thats my guess too MM. They may get a murder rap, I don't know how the statute reads inSC, but here, to satisfy murder, you have to prove the defendant had the proper intent
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
The real damage that will be caused by this is that an increasing number of police will become so risk averse because of incidents like this that they will stop doing anything proactive in minority neighborhoods.
There have always been those that figured it out early that if you do very little, there is very little risk, either to you physically or professionally. The term I heard used was FIDO. Fugg It-Drive On. They would respond to calls and not much else, kind of like firemen.
However the GOOD inner city residents that have to live with the out of control a-holes, (that have little or no fear of being stopped by risk averse police) are really the ones that suffer. And the reality is that most of the people stuck in the inner cities are good.
The good inner city residents will continue to be the victims, and call. The officers will respond from the station, or from wherever they are holed up, and will have blinders on until they get to their assigned call.
Meanwhile, the inner cities will spin faster into their death spiral, as more and more decent folks find a way to move out leaving a higher and higher percentage of a-holes left and police who are afraid to actually "police" drive in circles responding to calls after the fact.
A "tragedy?" Perhaps, but not as tragic as the thousands of innocent inner city residents who will become victims of their own people who are emboldened when police are afraid to do their jobs.
If I may say I think it shouldn't mean any such thing. If it does mean what you say the LE is seriously broken.
Take every case on a case by case issue. This Cop is/was a bad Cop and did not have the discipline to be a LEO.
He will pay for this for the rest of his life. It should mean nothing when compared to other cases as painting with a broad brush is wrong.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
So, shooting an unarmed man - with no justification - in the back and then trying to frame it as justified wasn't a mistake?
JFC.
A decade or so ago it wasn't and with any luck we can get back to the way it once was and still should be.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
Which part? The part where he says there are approximately 400 people killed by LE every year?
Yes, he clearly states a LE has a 1/4000 chance of being killed on the job.
All info from the UCR. Homicides only. There are approximately 500,000 LEO's in the United States. Somewhere around 150 are killed by criminal assault every year. That's actually about 1/3500, but I was being liberal. Of course, a huge percentage of those guys are things like Department of Agriculture Agents and administrators. The odds go way up for the average patrolman and special unit officer that initiate contacts with the criminal element.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
Is there any instance where it would be justified in shooting a suspect while fleeing?
If and only if he is deemed an immediate threat to society at large. i.e. if he just shot half a dozen people and was still armed, you would have reason to believe he is an immediate threat. This guy wasn't. Past due child support doesn't quite qualify.
Not so sure about that or otherwise the officer here wouldn't have fired at the dead beat dad.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
Glad to see you are finally taking a liking to LEO's Sherp.
Always have supported police. And I think they should be exempt from all laws, just like most of them think they should be.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
