A Texas sheriff's office released bodycam video nearly a week after deputies allegedly shot a woman, mistaking her for an intruder, after she forgot her keys and broke the glass to get into an apartment.
The US is one of the largest countries on Earth, with all sorts of different crimes from different walks of life. Street gang or not, it’s imperative that we have strong police forces throughout the country to minimize crime. You think it’s bad now? Imagine if no one would wanted to be a cop. Imagine if every time a cop did something wrong, they were fired or imprisoned. We’d literally have no one wanting to do it. I don’t think people understand how big, and free the US is. Whenever you get something like this, strict law enforcement is not only needed, it’s required.
That’s an interesting opinion. Unfortunately, the facts don’t quite align with your feelings.
it’s imperative that we have strong police forces throughout the country to minimize crime
Why do you believe this? Police forces as they exist today aren’t even as old as the US. Sure, the US wasn’t a bastion of freedom upon its founding but that wasn’t due to a lack of police. The absolute biggest factors for controlling neighborhood level crime are increasing public education and reducing the effects of poverty.
I don’t think people understand how big, and free the US is. Whenever you get something like this, strict law enforcement is not only needed, it’s required.
And this is the weirdest take right here. Freedom and strong, strict police forces are inversely related by definition. One could even point to the origin of many police departments as opposition to freedom.
Feelings? What do you propose, that we allow the entire country to turn into areas like Oakland, Detroit, or Chicago? I mean, there has to be law and order. Are you proposing we “loosen” up on things, and just hope people will get nicer?
Yes, feelings are when you think something works in a certain way without facts to back it up. Like the opinion that strict policing reduces crime. It’s a common opinion, but not one that is consistent with the facts.
Do you think that Oakland, Chicago, and Detroit do not have police? Those cities have very harsh police departments and it’s not reducing crime. What those cities do have in common is a high poverty rate when geographically controlled and above average poverty rates for the US without even taking geography into account.
What do I want? I want to make changes that comport to the facts of the world, not people’s feelings.
I live in California, I travel extensively for work. I’ve been to many major cities throughout the US… the inner cities are horrible. I’m thankful I live in a smaller city (not the suburbs) in California that 100% supports its police department, low crime rates, and community support for each other.
tbf, if you approach soldiers in an active combat zone while carrying a gun, they are legally allowed to shoot you. The weapon marks you as a combatant.
That’s not what I was told when I was sent to a combat zone. There’s a thing called escalation of force and someone simply holding a gun isn’t automatically a target.
That’s not actually true. ROE gets much more specific than that. The US holds that members of the military always retain the right to self defense, but that means that there are times you can’t fire until someone fires on you. So a weapon doesn’t default to legally allowed to shoot. And frequently there are rules about how you escalate force to include verbal warnings given in the local language.
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states: “Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
I would link to a primary source, but they’re all PDFs. So, this is from the Red Cross. There are additional requirements, but openly carrying arms is a big one.
I’m not disagreeing about them being a combatant. I’m disagreeing that being a combatant gives the military carte blanche authority to kill you. Like I said, the rules of engagement can be very specific about how, when, where, and with who you are legally allowed to engage. Self defense is the only universal time the US military is allowed to use lethal force. Outside of that you follow the restrictions and force escalations parameters outlined in the ROE.
Part of the point I was trying to make was about how clearly, those two cops did not see things in the same way as we do. They are very clearly behaving as if it was an active warzone, and they are facing a confirmed enemy.
I am more interested in the source of this mentality than I am simply brushing it off as a broader “cops are always whatever”.
This mentality comes from the “warrior” and “killology” training methodologies that many, if not most of, US cops follow. They basically are convinced that they are warriors in a warzone, and any suspect or perpetrator is their enemy. They treat everyone as if they had a gun and are trying to kill officers.
This CNN video gives a decent example of some of their training, and helps explain why US cops are so scared and eager to shoot at everyone and everything.
tbf, neither of those is an active warzone. DMZ is under an armistice, and Afghanistan was an occupation. In both cases the hot part of the war is over, and peace/pacification is the order of business.
The military have much stricter rules of engagement and punishment for not following them.
Police behavior is more similar to that of a street gang.
The US is one of the largest countries on Earth, with all sorts of different crimes from different walks of life. Street gang or not, it’s imperative that we have strong police forces throughout the country to minimize crime. You think it’s bad now? Imagine if no one would wanted to be a cop. Imagine if every time a cop did something wrong, they were fired or imprisoned. We’d literally have no one wanting to do it. I don’t think people understand how big, and free the US is. Whenever you get something like this, strict law enforcement is not only needed, it’s required.
That’s an interesting opinion. Unfortunately, the facts don’t quite align with your feelings.
Why do you believe this? Police forces as they exist today aren’t even as old as the US. Sure, the US wasn’t a bastion of freedom upon its founding but that wasn’t due to a lack of police. The absolute biggest factors for controlling neighborhood level crime are increasing public education and reducing the effects of poverty.
And this is the weirdest take right here. Freedom and strong, strict police forces are inversely related by definition. One could even point to the origin of many police departments as opposition to freedom.
Feelings? What do you propose, that we allow the entire country to turn into areas like Oakland, Detroit, or Chicago? I mean, there has to be law and order. Are you proposing we “loosen” up on things, and just hope people will get nicer?
Yes, feelings are when you think something works in a certain way without facts to back it up. Like the opinion that strict policing reduces crime. It’s a common opinion, but not one that is consistent with the facts.
Do you think that Oakland, Chicago, and Detroit do not have police? Those cities have very harsh police departments and it’s not reducing crime. What those cities do have in common is a high poverty rate when geographically controlled and above average poverty rates for the US without even taking geography into account.
What do I want? I want to make changes that comport to the facts of the world, not people’s feelings.
No. They are proposing officers get proper training. That’s how you get a strong force, by making sure they’re competent.
I’m willing to bet you’ve never left the suburbs of a Southern state.
I live in California, I travel extensively for work. I’ve been to many major cities throughout the US… the inner cities are horrible. I’m thankful I live in a smaller city (not the suburbs) in California that 100% supports its police department, low crime rates, and community support for each other.
*dogs barking*
Oh yeah there’s absolutely no way a country could possibly police itself without murdering its own citizens.
‘No way to prevent this,’ says only nation where this regularly happens.
tbf, if you approach soldiers in an active combat zone while carrying a gun, they are legally allowed to shoot you. The weapon marks you as a combatant.
That’s not what I was told when I was sent to a combat zone. There’s a thing called escalation of force and someone simply holding a gun isn’t automatically a target.
That’s not actually true. ROE gets much more specific than that. The US holds that members of the military always retain the right to self defense, but that means that there are times you can’t fire until someone fires on you. So a weapon doesn’t default to legally allowed to shoot. And frequently there are rules about how you escalate force to include verbal warnings given in the local language.
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states: “Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
I would link to a primary source, but they’re all PDFs. So, this is from the Red Cross. There are additional requirements, but openly carrying arms is a big one.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v2/rule3
edit for formatting
I’m not disagreeing about them being a combatant. I’m disagreeing that being a combatant gives the military carte blanche authority to kill you. Like I said, the rules of engagement can be very specific about how, when, where, and with who you are legally allowed to engage. Self defense is the only universal time the US military is allowed to use lethal force. Outside of that you follow the restrictions and force escalations parameters outlined in the ROE.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
The US is not an active combat zone though.
Sure it is, you can see a fascistic occupation force right there.
Agreed. Just pointing out that this is a militaristic mindset, in disagreement with the previous commenter that wanted to say it was not.
“In an active combat zone” is doing some heavy lifting there.
Part of the point I was trying to make was about how clearly, those two cops did not see things in the same way as we do. They are very clearly behaving as if it was an active warzone, and they are facing a confirmed enemy.
I am more interested in the source of this mentality than I am simply brushing it off as a broader “cops are always whatever”.
This mentality comes from the “warrior” and “killology” training methodologies that many, if not most of, US cops follow. They basically are convinced that they are warriors in a warzone, and any suspect or perpetrator is their enemy. They treat everyone as if they had a gun and are trying to kill officers.
This CNN video gives a decent example of some of their training, and helps explain why US cops are so scared and eager to shoot at everyone and everything.
Ah. Well … that’d do it.
Soldiers in Afghanistan in the latter part weren’t even allowed to return fire unless they were fired upon and the shots were close to hitting.
The same rule is used at the DMZ in Korea, with the added bit of never actually hit a North Korean.
tbf, neither of those is an active warzone. DMZ is under an armistice, and Afghanistan was an occupation. In both cases the hot part of the war is over, and peace/pacification is the order of business.