The statistics are interesting, but I don't think they provide the needed answers or insight into what is undoubtedly a complex problem (I'd still like to see them though, ihateaaron, if you have the time!).

 

I'm not American, and I do have difficulty understanding the gun culture there. Having said that it, it does seem that the problem really isn't about the guns. For example, I have seen statistics that supposedly show increased legal gun ownership in certain areas also shows a decrease in crime. But what areas are these statistics focusing on? Do these include areas predominantly inhabited by those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum? Would an increase in gun ownership there lead to falling crime rates?

 

I'm also interested about the whole guns = freedom philosophy. Do some Americans believe that other places are less free (Europe and Australia for example)? Or that if given the chance, your government will enslave you if the public weren't armed? Is freedom being able to defend yourself, or being able to send your kids to school without the fear of them being shot?

 

These are all sincere questions and not criticisms, by the way.

Cars kill more people per year than guns in most countries. Why don't we ban cars? Just because someone uses something for evil does not make the tool evil.

 

If you really want to end someone's life you can find a way, why punish those who are responsible with their belongings?

 

 

 

I would also like to point out that most the gun deaths in the USA are suicides. 

 

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/07/16/opinion/7162014gun/7162014gun-blog480.jpghttp://www.motherjones.com/files/hhhh.jpg

 

The second graph shows a much smaller amount of deaths because it is not all car related deaths but just those from collisions.

Again, statistics don't necessarily paint a complete picture. If I were to tell you that the flu is estimated to kill 36,000 people a year in the US (CDC), would we be correct in assuming that the flu is more dangerous than a gun?

 

Vehicle accidents are the only non-disease/illness in the world's top 10 leading causes of death (WHO), and the leading cause of death in the world for people aged between 15-29 (WHO). It would also be pertinent to highlight that a vast majority of these deaths are accidents, whereas the majority of gun deaths are not. The fact that gun related deaths are even close to vehicle deaths, given how much time we spend in vehicles and the sheer amount of vehicles on the road, is alarming on its own.

 

The same sources where those above graphs come from also note that in 14 States gun related deaths outnumber vehicle deaths, and by 2015 it's projected that the overall number of gun deaths in the US will outnumber vehicle related deaths.

http://anonhq.com/florida-police-officer-killed-overnight-3rd-officer-dead-24-hours/

Again, statistics don't necessarily paint a complete picture. If I were to tell you that the flu is estimated to kill 36,000 people a year in the US (CDC), would we be correct in assuming that the flu is more dangerous than a gun?

 

Vehicle accidents are the only non-disease/illness in the world's top 10 leading causes of death (WHO), and the leading cause of death in the world for people aged between 15-29 (WHO). It would also be pertinent to highlight that a vast majority of these deaths are accidents, whereas the majority of gun deaths are not. The fact that gun related deaths are even close to vehicle deaths, given how much time we spend in vehicles and the sheer amount of vehicles on the road, is alarming on its own.

 

The same sources where those above graphs come from also note that in 14 States gun related deaths outnumber vehicle deaths, and by 2015 it's projected that the overall number of gun deaths in the US will outnumber vehicle related deaths.

 

You are correct in that the statistics do not paint the whole picture.  They do help to clarify some things.  I was pointing out that the presentation of the media that gun deaths and gun sales were directly related, and that people are dying in record numbers is false.

 

There are many underlying issues that are not being addressed.  Mental health, poor upbringings, lack of morals, a society that glorifies violence, and a general lack of respect and personal responsibility have created a societal paradigm that has put us where we are.

 

In my opinion the first step is to reinstate a level of responsibility for our own actions and respect for other people.  If a person takes responsibility for their actions and thinks about how their actions will affect others, the world is a different place.  If we, as a whole, could make that the norm...  It's a whole new world.

 

On the topic of the police shootings.  Master Samus.  That is another tragedy.  I have some very strong feelings on this topic, but will keep most of that quiet.

 

For what it is worth, I think there are people, both in the media and public figures, who are not helping this situation by continuing to stir the pot.  There is some things going on that make me think that someone is using this for political gains, and a few who are using it for financial gains.

 

There is no reason in the world to murder a person.  But to do it to someone because of their job...  That makes even less sense.

 

I will leave that there.

 

Back to the wonderful world of statistics.

 

Cars kill more people than guns.  It is just what it is.  A car is a tool that gets me from point A to point B, or in some cases serves some other purpose.  A gun is  a tool just the same.  Non of my guns have ever killed anyone.  But they have ended violent situations without bloodshed, and have served to protect my family.

 

Case in point, and one of the reasons I will always be an advocate for gun ownership in the US, is this: I left for work one morning shortly after I got out of the military.  On most mornings I had to cross the street to get to where I parked my car.  On this particular morning as I was crossing the street I noticed some people in the street about a half block down.  Watching the situation I realized that there were six guys stomping the crap out of someone in the middle of the street.  It appeared to me that they were intent upon doing severe damage to the guy, and possibly could take it to the level of death.

 

I made the decision to approach and see if I could end the situation.  When I was about 30-35 feet away (10 meters - ish) I shouted to get there attention and asked what was going on.  Two guys continued to kick the guy on the ground and four turned towards me.  Two of the four that began to approach me proceeded to pull out pocket knives.

 

I am not a tiny guy, but by no means am I some sort of giant, nor am I incapable of defending myself.  In this situation though, I was severely out matched by the numbers and weaponry.  I opted to draw my pistol and let them know that with no uncertainty I would defend myself.  At this point they turned and ran.

 

As soon as they were going I called for police and medical and assisted the guy on the ground.

 

Looking at that scenario, without my gun I had two options.

 

Option one; call 911 and get the police in route.  The average response time in my neighborhood at that time was just over 9 minutes.  That is an eternity when you are getting stomped on the ground.  I personally believe that this guy would not have been alive if I had waited for the police to arrive.

 

Option two; confront the attackers without a means to defend myself.  Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and I have no doubts how that would have ended.

 

I would most likely not been willing to step in and do something without the ability and sense that I would be able to adequately defend myself.  And I believe that in that scenario this guy would most likely be dead, or at least would have suffered injuries that would have stayed with him forever.

 

Again, I do not have the statistics in front of me, and it looks like I will be doing some statistic diving over the next couple of days, but for every crime committed with a gun, (not just homicides, but every crime) I think the number of crimes prevented is 2.5 in the US.

 

And as cliche as it may sound, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (and the ability to properly use it).

 

I am not saying that gun violence is not a problem, I am just of the belief that the gun is not where the problem lies.  My guns have never done anything I have not made them do.  It is a tool, and nothing more.  It is the person who picks up that tool that can either use it for legal and intended purposes, or use it to do things that I would prefer not happen via any tool.

Thanks for the real life example. I poke and prod with the gun issue because I'm trying to understand the culture behind it.

 

I have never lived in the US (though that will change in 6 months) and though I have been in a couple of hairy situations, I've still to this day never felt like I ever needed a gun. I hope that continues. Anyway, different cultures, different world etc.

Well Mr. ihateaaron, that is an amazing story and I hope the guy bought you a drink. If it was me in your situation, I would not have had the pistol to draw, for I do not carry. So I probably would have got my butt kicked too. In situations like that, I forget I'm not a big man. If it was one of my girls, there would be fatalities... but my girls are pretty smart.

 

I have been torturing myself to come up with a reply to some of these questions, so I'll give it a shot. Yes, I do believe that those in other countries are less free. They may feel free, but is there anything they can really do about it if something crossed the line? Too many put their lives in the hands of their government. We, as Americans, have a big problem trusting the government. That's why we change it up so much. We keep it fresh as much as we can, and stand by the law. Part of the deal was the power always remains with the people... and that power is, we're in charge.

 

The gun issue isn't about these events of violence, accidents, and suicides. The gun control people use these events in an attempt to gain public support to take the guns. It's the only way to take the guns... it would take Constitutional power to take them. It's not about the guns with these people. It's about control, and the American people cannot be controlled, when they are armed.

 

So it's not about the cop that shoots a black boy that attacks him. It's not about a loon that shoots up a school. It's not about the comic book character that guns down a theatre. It's not about the Congresswoman that stages a fundraiser in the parking lot of a Safeway without security... it's about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for about 310 million American Citizens. You want to say we can lose the guns and still have that... well we don't trust the government to keep promises.

Well Mr. ihateaaron, that is an amazing story and I hope the guy bought you a drink. If it was me in your situation, I would not have had the pistol to draw, for I do not carry. So I probably would have got my butt kicked too. In situations like that, I forget I'm not a big man. If it was one of my girls, there would be fatalities... but my girls are pretty smart.

 

I have been torturing myself to come up with a reply to some of these questions, so I'll give it a shot. Yes, I do believe that those in other countries are less free. They may feel free, but is there anything they can really do about it if something crossed the line? Too many put their lives in the hands of their government. We, as Americans, have a big problem trusting the government. That's why we change it up so much. We keep it fresh as much as we can, and stand by the law. Part of the deal was the power always remains with the people... and that power is, we're in charge.

 

The gun issue isn't about these events of violence, accidents, and suicides. The gun control people use these events in an attempt to gain public support to take the guns. It's the only way to take the guns... it would take Constitutional power to take them. It's not about the guns with these people. It's about control, and the American people cannot be controlled, when they are armed.

 

So it's not about the cop that shoots a black boy that attacks him. It's not about a loon that shoots up a school. It's not about the comic book character that guns down a theatre. It's not about the Congresswoman that stages a fundraiser in the parking lot of a Safeway without security... it's about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for about 310 million American Citizens. You want to say we can lose the guns and still have that... well we don't trust the government to keep promises.

 

Agreed.  There is a general, and well earned, distrust for government in the US.  And control is a central theme, but it is hard to address without getting into conspiracy theories or getting labeled.

 

And for the record, if it was my wife or kids, it would not matter what I have with me.  You will have to kill me to get to them.

 

I do not expect every person to carry.  The great thing is that it is a right, you have it, but you also have the choice to exercise that right. Or not.

 

As for the guy, he wound up in the hospital with some bruising and a few fractures, and I moved out of that neighborhood before he came back.  It was shortly after that incident when two low level Russian mafia members exacted revenge on a neighbor behind us, and I decided the neighborhood sucked more than the rent was good.

 

TheWanderer: I enjoy good conversation about issues like this.  Rather than people screaming rhetoric at the top of their lungs, lets sit down and have a civil conversation.  It doesn't mean we will agree on the issue, nor does it mean there is nothing to gain.  Perhaps with rational talks we can at least reach an understanding.  (that is not necessarily directed at you, but more of a general statement).

 

As a "well traveled" person, I have been to other free countries, and some not so free.  There is a difference that is hard to explain between what some people define as free, and what is defined as freedom in America.  Yes it borderlines and occasionally crosses into the realm of arrogance, but there is also a profound sense that all people deserve freedom.  Even those born into countries under strict dictatorship deserve the right to live and die free.

 

My hope is that you never have the need for a gun as well.  I have never had to fire mine in anger, and I am both proud and profoundly happy about that.  Even the lowest form of human is a life.  It is not my place to be their judge or executioner.  However, I will not allow for, or stand by for, a person who willfully harms another for their own gains.  That is one of those things that will always make me willing to fight.

Perhaps Im biased as an American but Im a strong supporter of our bill of rights, the first and second amendments in particular.  I believe that the populace (of any nation) has the right and in my mind the duty to arm itself.  In my opinion the right to defend your home family and yourself is inviolate.  Whether this is on the scale of a personal level such as defending your home and family from an intruder or on a more national level such as the resistance of an illegal or injust government it is an important right to protect.

 

Police being "executed", school shootings, gun violence in general are all bad things.  I dont think there is really anyone who would argue that they are a good thing or there shouldnt be steps taken to try and rectify.  The real issue is the disconnect between supporters of gun ownership rights and the supporters of gun restrictions.  The internet, a 24 hour news cycle, and facebook have all armed both sides with all sorts of statistics.  Its a trivial thing to find "silver bullet" statistics for either side because each argument has merits.  It is important to remember however that statistics rarely "prove" anything.   A very important scientific principle to remember when looking at statistics is that "correlation does not equal causation".

 

While I do find the great urge to throw a number of statistics at you, I will refrain and simply posit that gun violence is a large and complicated problem.  There are many, many variables.   A weapons ban as evidenced by both current and former laws would be hard pressed to solve much of anything.

Statistics are just another tool in the box.  They should not be the center of any conversation.  Except in Statistics class.

http://anonhq.com/finally-cop-fired-refusing-turn-body-camera-shooting-teenager/

http://anonhq.com/finally-cop-fired-refusing-turn-body-camera-shooting-teenager/

I guess I'm not getting it Master S... are you against cops in the USA? Against cops in the USA because they carry weapons?

Are you a member of a covert shadow clan dedicated to disarming the global population? What's your point? What's the end game?

Most of us here in the USA live our lives in peace and only hear about these events on the news.

Though tragic... we will not give up our right to own guns because there are bad people. That is more reason for us to keep them.

 

http://anonhq.com/finally-cop-fired-refusing-turn-body-camera-shooting-teenager/

I guess I'm not getting it Master S... are you against cops in the USA? Against cops in the USA because they carry weapons?

Are you a member of a covert shadow clan dedicated to disarming the global population? What's your point? What's the end game?

Most of us here in the USA live our lives in peace and only hear about these events on the news.

Though tragic... we will not give up our right to own guns because there are bad people. That is more reason for us to keep them.

 

Nahh in general i'm against the use of guns by anyone who doesn't serve in any protective role for a society.

 

But i've learnt to accept that we live in different societies and what may be the absolute norm in one society can be the complete opposite in another, so the ownership of guns in this case isn't my problem.

 

My problem is more against police brutality and these police officers not being appropriately punished for their actions.

 

It seems to me that police officers aren't taught the importance of their badge and what it means to defend a society and its citizens, from what I see day after day is police officers just abusing their positions entirely and I probably wouldn't even notice it or care much if it was something you hear every month or something, but you see evidence of it every day.

 

Also its the fact that police lives weigh more in value than any other individuals lives.

You have to keep things into perspective when looking at the USA. It's a big country. Ferguson-Missouri, New York City, and Albuquerque-New Mexico have a lot of miles between them... and even more people and police. The internet brings everything that happens on the planet to a mouse click. 50 years ago this stuff was happening all over, and no one ever heard about it unless it happened in your town. There was no absolute solution for it then, and there is not one now. There are some things everyone has to accept that there is no correct way... just the best way. We found it in the law. Whatever the ruling is, take it and learn.

Thanks for the answers. I think in regards to the distrust of government, cultures aren't as different as we might think. It may manifest in different ways, but I understand where you guys are coming from.

 

@Lysistrata - I knew when I asked those questions you would put a lot of thought into giving an honest answer!

 

@ihateaaron - I enjoy discussions like this too, and couldn't agree with you more about using these conversations in reaching a better understanding of both sides of the fence.

I agree that statistics do not show everything (at least not one set of them) but they help light up the picture. We cant even argue what ifs because one can say that guns are more harmful to the owner than anyone else. After all most deaths caused by guns is to the owner of the weapon. 19 thousand to the 12 thousand. 

 

I personally believe that guns aren't the issue, rather a symptom of the real problem. And people use control as a sort of easy button. There are bad people out there and gun control isn't going to stop them. If anything it might lower suicide rates but I don't believe it would effect killings that are crime related.

Why Cops Shoot

Try It Yourself

 

If you are unfamiliar with guns, and yet want an idea of why shootings
by cops happen, let me suggest a few practical exercises that may shed
light on the subject.

    First (and for a variety of reasons I don't suggest trying this should
the occasion arise in real life), have a friend stand in front of you
and point his finger at your chest as if it were a gun. Hold your hands
at about shoulder height, as if he had said, "Hands up!" Tell him to
shoot instantly if you move. Then, as fast as you can, without warning,
try to knock his hand away.

    He will never be able to pull the (imaginary) trigger before you hit his hand.

    Next, get a second friend, or just pretend you have one at hand. Hold
your hand at your side as you might comfortably hold a gun, and point it
at the second friend, who we will assume to be a clerk at a convenience
store. If you are right handed, have your other friend stand directly
to your left, pointing his "gun" at you, ready to fire. He will be the
cop. If he wants, he can say, "Drop it!" or whatever.

    Now, turn to look toward him, simultaneously pointing your gun finger
at him, as fast as you can, and shoot. You will find that, although he
already has his "gun" aimed, he cannot react fast enough to shoot before
you do.

    
Reflect that in real life, unless he is cold and experienced in
gunfights (cops are usually neither) he will probably wait a split
second to decide whether the bad guy has hostile intent. End of story.

    Try a harder
one. Point your gun, again at a natural waist level, and close to your
body, toward the "clerk." Have the cop stand directly behind you, say,
ten feet away, with his gun aimed at you. Now, as fast as you possibly
can, twist -- don't step -- around and try to shoot him before he can
shoot you. The results may surprise you. Note that, if the "cop" had
his gun aimed at the middle of your back, he will probably find that it
is pointed at the clerk when he pulls the trigger because, in twisting
around, your body moved out of his line of fire.

    Most criminals won't have the presence of mind to try turning on you
this way, but some will. If a robber is wired out of his mind on PCP or
crank, he will be unpredictable. To someone who hasn't tried it, it
may look as if you have the drop on him. You don't, quite.

    As a final experiment, have him stand ten feet away from you with his
back turned to you and his hands in front of him. Assume that he is a
suspect fleeing from you down an alley, and finds that it is a dead end.
Have him hold two different objects in his hands -- say, his wallet
and his cell phone. The cell phone, let us say, is a gun.

Point
your "gun" at him. Say "Hands up!" if you want. His job is to turn
quickly toward you, with either the wallet or the cell phone in his gun
hand. If he has chosen to turn with the "gun," he should shoot you as
quickly as he can.

Your
job is to decide whether he is holding the "gun" or the wallet, and
either shoot, or refrain from shooting, as appropriate. Have a body bag
ready, because, if he turns with the gun, you won't have a prayer.

If
you want, try it with a Day-glo pink plastic banana and a realistic
plastic gun. For that matter, have him turn either holding the cell
phone or holding nothing. The results will be the same. The arithmetic
of reaction time says that you cannot look at an object, decide what it
is, and take action before he shoots. The one who acts first not only
has the advantage of reaction time, which in itself would be enough to
shoot first, but also the time needed for you to decide what to do. Not
even close.

Think
about trying it in a dark alley, after sprinting a hundred yards,
chasing a criminal who as a matter of statistical fact is quite likely
to be armed, but may not be. Very likely, someone will die: You,
because it was a gun and you waited to see, or him, because, gun or not,
you didn't wait.





This is what cops face every encounter and most of you want them to make the correct decision, that hesiatation will end badly for the cop.

Your scenario describes one where a criminal has a gun, majority of these examples and links in these last 2 threads have been where unarmed civilians were involved

 

If a criminal has a gun, by all means the police officer should do what they need to do to disarm him, if completely necessary even shoot to kill.

 

But where an unarmed individual is involved I don't think that should ever be the case.

"Policeman" by Paul Harvey

Needs to be added to the conversation.

 

A police officer is a composite of what all men are, a mingling of saint and sinner, dust and deity. Culled statistics wave the fan over the stinkers, underscore instances of dishonestly and brutality because they are "news." What that really means is that they are exceptional, unusual, not commonplace.

 

Buried under the froth is the fact: Less than one-half of 1 percent of officers misfit that uniform.

That's a better average than you'd find among clergymen.

 

What is an officer made of? He, of all men, is at once the most needed and the most unwanted. He's a strangely nameless creature who is "sir" to his face and "pig" behind his back. He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won.

 

But... If the policeman is neat, he's conceited; if he's careless, he's a bum. If he's pleasant, he's a flirt; if he's not, he's a grouch. He must make, in an instant, decisions which would require months for a lawyer.

 

But... If he hurries, he's careless; if he's deliberate, he's lazy. He must be first to an accident and infallible with a diagnosis. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and, about all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp. Or expect to be sued.

 

The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesn't hurt. He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without being "brutal". If you hit him, he's a coward, if he hits you, he's a bully. A police officer must know everything -- and not tell. He must know where all the sin is -- and not partake. The policeman must, from a
single human hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon and the criminal -- and tell you where the criminal is hiding.

 

But... If he catches the criminal, he's lucky; if he doesn't, he's a dunce. If he gets promoted, he has political pull; if he doesn't, he's a dullard. The policeman must chase bum leads to a dead end, stake out 10 nights to tag one witness who saw it happen -- but refuses to remember. He runs files and writes reports until his eyes ache to build a case against some felon who'll get dealed out by a shameless shamus or an "honorable" who isn't.

 

The police officer must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy, and a gentleman.

 

And of course he'll have to be a genius... For he'll have to do it on a policeman's salary.

Your scenario describes one where a criminal has a gun, majority of these examples and links in these last 2 threads have been where unarmed civilians were involved

 

If a criminal has a gun, by all means the police officer should do what they need to do to disarm him, if completely necessary even shoot to kill.

 

But where an unarmed individual is involved I don't think that should ever be the case.

I believe that the last example would give you the best idea of the unarmed scenario.

 

If an unarmed person turns the police officer has a fraction of a second to identify the object in their hand, and determine the threat level.  If if registers as a weapon to an officer, or a threat, they have less than a second to react and shoot.  Hesitation kills in their line of duty.  I did that for a little while, and every encounter can be deadly.

 

Another point I want to make really quick.  There is a lot of mention of the excessive number of incidents of police brutality, and the fact that it is happening so often, brings up a point I made in another thread.

 

In the US last year there was over 40 million interactions between police and civilians.  That is a lot of interactions.  A very small number of those incidents involved reported brutality or potentially unjustified shootings.  I don't have the exact numbers, but it points to the fact that our current instant news and judgment era has created a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

Is there a problem?  Yes.  There should be zero cases of police brutality, and zero cases of unjustified shootings.  But human error and split second decisions have to be accounted for.  Being a police officer is one of the most stressful and intense jobs in the world.  I prefer open combat to police work.  In open combat you are almost always assured to be facing an enemy.  In police work every encounter could be your average citizen in need of assistance, or some dude drugged out of his mind looking to kill you.  That means being on edge all the time.

 

There is no excuse for police to use excessive force, but there is also no need for the general public to make snap decisions on levels of force used without all of the evidence present.  They deserve the same due process that is guaranteed to everyone else.

 

To me the Ferguson case was pretty clear cut.  The physical evidence was in line with the officers statement, and the statements of witnesses who were not discredited.

 

The NY case is a lot more muddy.  Did the officer do something wrong?  Yes.  He violated NYPD policy and used a chokehold that is prohibited by their own guidelines.  He was punished immediately for the improper technique used.  Did he commit a crime?  That is harder to define.  The man was resisting arrest, had medical conditions, and ended up dead.  That is not the final result that I expect that they wanted.  But, did the officer go in with intent to harm or kill the man?  I can say with a lot of confidence that he did not.  He may have acted with poor instincts in that situation, but I do not think that his intention was to cause harm to the man.

 

Another point of fact that has been skipped, and I have not had a chance to read through the reports and do any searching, but I heard that the lead officer that day with the group who took the man down was an African American woman.  If people want to scream that the whole incident was racially motivated, what are they saying about her?

 

I get called a racist a lot.  I am a white male, tall, bald, and have a goatee.  People assume I am a hate mongering piece of crap.  You know what?  They just judged me by my appearance.  The same thing they claim to hate having done to themselves or others.  You wanna know the most ironic part of it?  My best friend is a black guy from Texas.  He is gay.  Jon is a brother to me, and he knows I would do anything to help him whenever he needs it.  I have done some crazy stuff to help him out, and he has done the same level of insanity for me.

 

The constant shouting about race does not help to work through the issues.  Recently there has been incidences of white officers shooting back people, and black officers shooting white people.  Those who are shouting the loudest are shouting about white officers killing black men.  It should be looked at as an officer shooting a man.  The media immediately making it about race only fans flames that need no help.

 

There is a racial divide in the country, but I do not think it will ever be fixed if the focus is always on race and not on healing.

 

There is a small issue with police brutality and excessive force.  Like the racial divide, it will not be fixed unless we get focused on the right things.

 

Communication and building relations are where we need to be focused.  Removing the fear of police from kids, and removing the fear of not going home at night from he police's minds.  We need to get back to person accountability and respect.  A lot of problems would be solved with just a little bit of respect for ourselves and for one another.

 

Your scenario describes one where a criminal has a gun, majority of these examples and links in these last 2 threads have been where unarmed civilians were involved

 

If a criminal has a gun, by all means the police officer should do what they need to do to disarm him, if completely necessary even shoot to kill.

 

But where an unarmed individual is involved I don't think that should ever be the case.

I believe that the last example would give you the best idea of the unarmed scenario.

 

If an unarmed person turns the police officer has a fraction of a second to identify the object in their hand, and determine the threat level.  If if registers as a weapon to an officer, or a threat, they have less than a second to react and shoot.  Hesitation kills in their line of duty.  I did that for a little while, and every encounter can be deadly.

 

Another point I want to make really quick.  There is a lot of mention of the excessive number of incidents of police brutality, and the fact that it is happening so often, brings up a point I made in another thread.

 

In the US last year there was over 40 million interactions between police and civilians.  That is a lot of interactions.  A very small number of those incidents involved reported brutality or potentially unjustified shootings.  I don't have the exact numbers, but it points to the fact that our current instant news and judgment era has created a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

Is there a problem?  Yes.  There should be zero cases of police brutality, and zero cases of unjustified shootings.  But human error and split second decisions have to be accounted for.  Being a police officer is one of the most stressful and intense jobs in the world.  I prefer open combat to police work.  In open combat you are almost always assured to be facing an enemy.  In police work every encounter could be your average citizen in need of assistance, or some dude drugged out of his mind looking to kill you.  That means being on edge all the time.

 

There is no excuse for police to use excessive force, but there is also no need for the general public to make snap decisions on levels of force used without all of the evidence present.  They deserve the same due process that is guaranteed to everyone else.

 

To me the Ferguson case was pretty clear cut.  The physical evidence was in line with the officers statement, and the statements of witnesses who were not discredited.

 

The NY case is a lot more muddy.  Did the officer do something wrong?  Yes.  He violated NYPD policy and used a chokehold that is prohibited by their own guidelines.  He was punished immediately for the improper technique used.  Did he commit a crime?  That is harder to define.  The man was resisting arrest, had medical conditions, and ended up dead.  That is not the final result that I expect that they wanted.  But, did the officer go in with intent to harm or kill the man?  I can say with a lot of confidence that he did not.  He may have acted with poor instincts in that situation, but I do not think that his intention was to cause harm to the man.

 

Another point of fact that has been skipped, and I have not had a chance to read through the reports and do any searching, but I heard that the lead officer that day with the group who took the man down was an African American woman.  If people want to scream that the whole incident was racially motivated, what are they saying about her?

 

I get called a racist a lot.  I am a white male, tall, bald, and have a goatee.  People assume I am a hate mongering piece of crap.  You know what?  They just judged me by my appearance.  The same thing they claim to hate having done to themselves or others.  You wanna know the most ironic part of it?  My best friend is a black guy from Texas.  He is gay.  Jon is a brother to me, and he knows I would do anything to help him whenever he needs it.  I have done some crazy stuff to help him out, and he has done the same level of insanity for me.

 

The constant shouting about race does not help to work through the issues.  Recently there has been incidences of white officers shooting back people, and black officers shooting white people.  Those who are shouting the loudest are shouting about white officers killing black men.  It should be looked at as an officer shooting a man.  The media immediately making it about race only fans flames that need no help.

 

There is a racial divide in the country, but I do not think it will ever be fixed if the focus is always on race and not on healing.

 

There is a small issue with police brutality and excessive force.  Like the racial divide, it will not be fixed unless we get focused on the right things.

 

Communication and building relations are where we need to be focused.  Removing the fear of police from kids, and removing the fear of not going home at night from he police's minds.  We need to get back to person accountability and respect.  A lot of problems would be solved with just a little bit of respect for ourselves and for one another.

 

 

All your points are undderstandable and I can say I mostly agree with them.

 

But with the NY situation, sure maybe he didn't intend to kill him, but as a result of his actions, the man ended up dead. I don't know much of American law, but in the UK we refer to that as manslaughter. A human being still ended up dead at this officers hand.

I agree with you on the manslaughter thing in principle.  I do not have all the evidence in front of me though.  I have heard that he had a medical condition that could have caused complications.  But again, I do not have all that information.  The Grand Jury looked at the evidence and decided that there was not enough evidence to show that a crime might have been committed.  That is not a police group, that is regular citizens assigned to look at cases like this.  They had all the evidence and decided to not bring charges.

 

Could they have gotten it wrong?  Of course.  Without a doubt things could have been messed up.  However, with a group of people looking from outside the police force at all the evidence, and then deciding not to charge him, I have to believe there are things we do not know.  Or the Grand Jury really screwed things up.

 

One of the things about the NY case that has really bothered me is the Mayor.  He was one of the first people to jump in and condemn the police.  Loudly.  But the whole situation was caused by his, as quoted by many NY residents, "excessive" cigarette tax.  The high taxes on cigarettes has created a huge black market for them.  The whole confrontation does not happen if the tax is not so high that people are willing to break laws to avoid it.

 

In the end, I do tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt.  In almost every instance, except for one lone officer, all of my police encounters have been handled professionally, if not nicely.  Does that have to do with my race maybe?  It could.  Could that be because I offer them the same respect I would hope to receive in return?  That definitely factors in.  Every police officer I know, and that is actually quiet a few, treat everyone as respectful as they are being treated.

 

Do they profile?  Without a doubt, but profiling has been proven effective time and again.  Do they get profiling wrong?  Yep.  But everyone profiles.  First impressions.  You see a person and make a snap judgment on them before you really know them.  It happens with every person I know.  It is human nature, and part of the whole self preservation thing.

 

It is important to know that because officers will make a decision on someone based on how they appear, how they react towards the officer, and what area they are in.  Is that always fair?  No.  But looking on the other side of it, if you give everyone the benefit of the doubt, then a lot less police go home every night.  There are terrible people out there (no matter where in the world you are) and I am just hoping that the number of good police that are out there can help keep them at bay.

 

And, as someone pointed out before, less than 1 percent of police officers do something to dishonor the uniform.  Less than 1 percent.  That is a lot better odds of meeting a good cop than a lot of other professions.

 

There is plenty of room for improvement.  Until we have the issues down to zero, there can always be improvement.  And I am all for hearing ways to make that happen.  I strongly feel that discussions like this help to educate both sides.  Personally I have learned a few things just from this thread, and the opinions put out there.

 

I really appreciate the thoughtful responses, and the general idea that we can just talk through this.  We may not change the world, but perhaps we can get some meaningful ideas started to get things rolling.