Well as some may have heard there was a shootout at the Dallas PD. This was done by someone in an armored van. here is the CNN with the Dallas Chief of Police.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas-police-headquarters-shooting/
McKinney Texas pool party?
by Marvin Shilmer 305 Replies latest social current
-
-
Simon
Imagine being in a job where literally, there are people plotting to try to shoot you dead or behead you.
Then you have to be nice to a bunch of jerks with camera phones recording your every move while you try to protect people from each other.
Remember to stay calm and smile !
-
Jonathan Drake
don't think it reflects on the others, it brings the force into disrepute but bad actions only reflect badly on those committing them or any who cover it up.
Without this distinction then the argument that criminals reflect on all the others in a community of the same race becomes valid which it should not. The criminals are the criminals whatever color they happen to be and whatever shirt they happen to wear.
The problem is that for both police and color people seem unable to separate condemnation of individuals with condemnation of the group. People want to blame all black people. People want to blame all police. Neither are valid or fair.
This is a far better way to say what I was thinking. What I meant was it reflects on the group as a whole. Much better phrasing, I'm saving this for future use if you don't mind.
as far as the bit about tasers. I've been thinking about this back and forth for a few months and, again, I just can't seem to decide a position to take.
On the one hand, the police need guns as a deterrent to being assaulted and to adequately try to defend not just themselves but innocents. This is especially true in America, where not knowing if the assailant may have a weapon (specifically a gun) is a huge variable since the 2nd ammendment makes it possible for anyone to get a gun as long as they've never been convicted of crimes or diagnosed with mental instability. Even in such cases, getting around these restrictions is laughably easy.
on the other hand, would a little faith in society (as much as I hate that word now) go a long way? Might we find that people actually respect police MORE if they are unarmed? And should violence ignite against police, on what possible foundation could such a position be based when the targets of the criticism have no means of being oppressive?
perhaps the ability of truly armed response to society should only be available to the national guard or some other agency to be called in during such times.
-
Simon
This is a far better way to say what I was thinking
yeah, the difference is only slight but there is a certain (important) nuance to it and a distinction worth making.
Might we find that people actually respect police MORE if they are unarmed? And should violence ignite against police, on what possible foundation could such a position be based when the targets of the criticism have no means of being oppressive?
I think it would be a bloodbath. There are simply far too many deranged people who don't respect anything other than power and a deterrent is needed to both protect the police and to protect the other citizenry.
The problem is that any society develops a certain way over a long period of time but there is no reset button or quick fix to suddenly change things.
I don't think the US police can ever be anything but armed as there is never going to be enough political will and bipartisanship to seriously deal with the cancer of wide-spread gun-use in society.
We have armed police here in Canada but many rarely draw their weapons (going off reports). Is that solely because of the police themselves or because they reflect the communities they police? I suspect in some other areas they do have to draw their weapons more if the neighbourhood they police is more violent.
Which is the cause and which is the effect? I have yet to see police anywhere invading peaceful law abiding neighbourhoods and turning them into hotbeds of crime but that is what some seem to want us to believe.
I just don't buy it.
-
Jonathan Drake
We have armed police here in Canada but many rarely draw their weapons (going off reports). Is that solely because of the police themselves or because they reflect the communities they police? I suspect in some other areas they do have to draw their weapons more if the neighbourhood they police is more violent.
Which is the cause and which is the effect? I have yet to see police anywhere invading peaceful law abiding neighbourhoods and turning them into hotbeds of crime but that is what some seem to want us to believe.
This is a very good point. All of it.
its also exactly what I've been wanting to find, information from other countries on such statistics as how they handle themselves. I've been too busy reading other material to take it up, but I've long thought we just need a good example from another country to follow. (Reason why I had the Austrian example ready to use)
i read read a psychology book once (I honestly can't remember what I it was called now) in which they were talking about the crime rate in NYC back in the.... 70s? I think... In any event, what they ended up doing to stem the high crime rate was clean up the city. They kept the subways free graffiti and fixed broken windows and and kept the high crime areas comparably cleaner than they were during times of high crime.
Crime went down. And eventually stayed down. Directly because of these efforts.
this brings me to my point, and another aspect of all of this I've been thinking: could this all be a systemic problem of Americas poor infrastructure? Any thoughts on that?
-
violias
Here is an article from the Dallas Morning News regarding the protestors in McKinney. I notice no one mentions all the vandalizing that happened the next night after the party.
http://conservativetribune.com/black-radio-host-mckinney/
CNN video from a radio personality who was at the pool party.
-
Simon
i read read a psychology book once (I honestly can't remember what I it was called now) in which they were talking about the crime rate in NYC back in the.... 70s? I think... In any event, what they ended up doing to stem the high crime rate was clean up the city. They kept the subways free graffiti and fixed broken windows and and kept the high crime areas comparably cleaner than they were during times of high crime.
Crime went down. And eventually stayed down. Directly because of these efforts.
Yes, the "broken windows" effect - if a place looks neglected then people feel free to commit petty crime and that eventually leads to more serious crime. They reduced the murder rate and other serious crime by clamping down on lower-level crime and anti-social behaviour.
Once the crime is reduced though, people forget about the reasons for having the policing they do. Now they only see the police clamping down on certain behaviour and think it's too heavy handed.
So the police back off and places like Baltimore revert to their previous levels of crime until the demands of the citizens to reduce it drowns out the complaints about the police.
It's a cycle. We're at one extreme of it. Expect the crime rate to go up and eventually politicians will be using "tough on crime" as an election slogan instead of their current position of being critical of the police.
Personally, I think if tough policing is the only thing that works then it's a price worth paying. The people who suffer are the criminals and I'd rather they suffered than the general law abiding populace.
-
Jonathan Drake
It's a cycle. We're at one extreme of it. Expect the crime rate to go up and eventually politicians will be using "tough on crime" as an election slogan instead of their current position of being critical of the police.
I bet this is absolutely correct. It makes sense with some other things I've read too (which now I only vaguely remember, like forgetting the broken windows effect had a name lol).
Too bad we have such cycles, it'd be nice to see society evolve beyond them.
anyway I guess I kind of diverged from the actual topic and made it a bit more broad, my apologies to the op. Regarding this specific example, I haven't actually seen anything about the pool party yet, I'll have to look up what's going on.
-
Simon
I blame the politics. They lurch from one extreme to the other instead of finding a balance and making small adjustments to keep things right.
They want to make a name for themselves by being the one to bring the crime level down so they have bragging rights for their next political ambition.
Ultimately of course the fault is with the electorate for rewarding such tactics.
If people voted for the less dramatic "I kept things running smoothly so you never really heard my name" then they would probably be a lot better off.
-
tenyearsafter
Jonathan Drake...I can answer your question regarding drawing of guns and when the Taser is appropriate. Guns come out when a weapon is seen or suspected. Police are trained to react to the threat. A Taser is not a good choice if confronting someone who has a lethal weapon. A Taser is best utilized in a situation where a person is acting in a resistive and violent manner. When a weapon is involved, police are trained to meet that force with equal force. Guns against guns are obvious...but many people don't understand why police draw guns against a knife wielding person. It has been proven that a knife is just as deadly as a gun in distances less than 20 feet (approx. 6 meters). A knife wielding person can close the distance faster than a person can draw a gun. FBI studies show that the majority of police involved shootings occur at distances of less than 10 feet (3 meters). A Taser is not effective beyond 20 feet. It is a matter of being able to prevail in a confrontation...cops are not paid to get injured or killed.
As too why Australia isn't like the U.S., it is simple...there are fewer guns in circulation in Australia. The risks are higher for U.S. police...there have already been 14 officers killed by gunfire this year, and 2014 registered 49 gunfire related deaths. Australia hasn't lost an officer to gunfire since 2012.