Slashdot Mirror
Police Training Lacks Scientific Input
An anonymous reader writes: Police have been under a microscope over the past year for their involvement in some high-profile shootings. We've heard over and over that police need more and better training to keep these incidents from happening, but the truth is that there's no good framework within law enforcement to base their training on actual science. Officers tend to teach from their own experience, and research into techniques for dealing with unpredictable people goes widely unnoticed. "Carl Bell, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has done key work on de-escalation with the mentally ill, said his attempts to introduce techniques to the Chicago police never got anywhere. 'There's no systematic incorporation of research.'" Nobody expects officers to consult an academic journal when they're facing down a hostile suspect, but science needs to be part of conversation we're having.
The issue is that it's something that police NEED to do if they are going to do their job well.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
>> training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed
I doubt it. In fact, many local universities and other institutions are happy to donate this training. Furthermore, grants from our current federal justice department exist for exactly this kind of thing (under "community policing" etc.)
However, many of the tactics used to "deescalate" situations or reduce the amount of force police use also put police officers at higher risk for harm. (e.g., pausing to wait for the suspect to do something may allow them to draw or use a weapon, wrestling with a suspect instead of using a taser gives the suspect a chance to bite, stab, punch at close contact, etc.) These measures aren't popular with unions concerned first and foremost with their members' health and well-being.
e.g., http://www.policeforum.org/ass...
So knowing how you compare to the rest of the country is bad? Why not learn from other State's experiences and data? Is being independent so important that you accept being independently stupid? I'd call that War on Civilization. Cavemen were quite free; no regulations; but died young.
Table-ized A.I.
It's no secret the police are a bunch of idiots that are barely able to write a sentence by themselves. Now you expect them to actually use their brains? C'mon...
Why deescalate when you can just kill with impunity? After all dead people are pretty deescalted, right?
The cops there are a bit more civilized. They can take down people without killing them. If you want 'science', look closely at the kind of people who want to be cops. Try to find some that don't relish the power so much. The rest are just a bunch a classroom bullies. We should not be rewarding this behavior. And we need to disallow all the secrecy. We have to force open the books to ensure compliance. The cops here are problem because we treat them with excessive deference in an appeal to their authority. We need to remind them and the politicians that they are public servants.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why assume that government and science aren't orthogonal? Go to free market solutions if you want people competing for the best position based on the available evidence (comparative advantage favors reality). If you want a bunch of idiots with guns insisting on their bigoted way, then you want a one-size-fits-all monopoly, which is what the modern police state looks like.
Heck, the Supreme Court just ruled that K9 alerts are "probable cause" even if they're only as accurate as a coin toss. Because, they say so (and "fuck you and your science if you say otherwise").
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Be careful not to over-optimize for the general case, or you'll lose intuition and you'll lose the benefit of police who are more successful doing things "their own way" than "the way that works for most police officers."
If Joe Officer is an excellent officer but he's not quite "normal" (maybe he's a bit autism-spectrum or way more able to pick up on facial cues than the average cop) telling him "do it the way the scientists tell us is the best way for the average cop or you'll be fired [because if we don't fire you and something goes wrong we'll be sued into bankruptcy]" means turning an excellent cop into an average cop or worse, losing him altogether if he quits in frustration.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As a valued member of the law enforcement community it pains me to see the lack of independent investigation into our scientific process. Several books have been published in the past 30 years including such titles as 'fundamentals of systemic mass incarceration' and 'scientific process for falsifying evidence during a confrontation in which an overwhelming disproportionate level of force was applied.' These titles are all extremely technical...quite academic you see. So perhaps I shall refer the layman to such titles as 'metal batons, the musical!' and 'chokeholds, the happy urban handshake.' My personal favourite is 'civil forfeiture and the vacation to maui'
Good people go to bed earlier.
It isn't about the Cops reading the papers, it is about the training staff to be reading the papers, and taking measurements.
The issue I feel, most of the training is more about the physical use of force, on how to make you more powerful than the badguy. However less training on figuring out who is the bad guy and the good guy in a bad situation.
Many incidents happen because the cops threaten someone, they get in Fight or Flight mode... So chances are they will fight (and get hurt/killed by the police) or Run (and get hurt/killed by the police).
Police work isn't safe, however if someone feels like there is an army against them, they may not react rationally.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Police Officers will react exactly as they have been trained.
Some decades ago, a police agency in the south came up with "better" firearms training. They installed moving targets. The Officer would wait until the target began moving right to left, or vice-versa, and only then were they allowed to fire. Months of this "improved" training.
An Officer responded to a armed robbery call and, per training, parked not near the door, but some distance away. As the bad guy ran out the door of the business, the Officer fired at the moving target. As the store manager ran out the door chasing the bad guy, the Officer fired at the moving target.
I'm just saying that the training must be carefully thought through because that's how officers will respond. In fast situations Police don't evaluate and respond, they react.
I don't know anyone that says that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not as many people are executed as most people think, though (35 last year.)
Everything is a "War on" something now, right?
Sometimes it seems like the problem people have with No Child Left Behind is that a Republican suggested it.
Most cops have a highschool education
All federal law enforcement agencies, and most state police departments, require at least an associates degree. Many local police departments also require at least an associates degree, and even those departments that don't require it, will give preference to those that have it.
That's an assumption that'll get you killed.
Lots of cops playing army without as much danger of being actually shot at. Lots of forces operating as for-profit gangs that do whatever they want. They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.
I'm not saying that there aren't any, or not even that most cops aren't good. But it doesn't take very many to poison a whole department, only a few in the higher ranks to run out the good cops.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I'm pretty free market, but I'm not sure policing is an area I really wanted to see taken over by competing corporations. Sure, the current problems are bad but imagine what they'd be like with a profit this quarter short sighted-ness and a focus on cost-cutting. Yes, in theory you could write a contract to give them the correct incentives, but in practice I think the process would be so corrupt that it would not work well.
Most Police Academies in the US take 6 months or less to complete. How in earth can you expect policemen to learn to act accordingly in all circumstances and know the law as well in that short amount of time. They need to be physically fit, know how to operate their weapons, know the law, have the psychological insight to act accordingly in any situation, know how to file any type of police report, get driving classes, know a bit about the different sciences involved in drugs, crime scenes etc... It's just impossible really and usually comes down to having good old fashioned common sense to be a good cop.
The issue should be that it's something that police WILL to do if they are going to keep their jobs at all. We the citizens are far too submissive in our confrontations with adversarial (is there another kind?) authority. The cops will always abuse it as long as we let them. That's just the nature of things.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Years back there was a spat of hidden cam whistle blowers going through the police academies. There is a huge emphasis on how to escalate a situation. The rationale is that too many perps get off on technicalities and such, but stuff like assaulting / threatening an officer and resisting arrest charges stick and make the DA reluctant to work out plea deals.
You would also need good cops running the training program, and you are more likely to get the opposite. The men and women I have known in law enforcement who are good people either get out of the field within a handful of years, or change post to constable / sheriff work because they get ostracized in municipal police forces for calling out bad cops.
they're more willing to pay huge lawsuits?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think part of the problem is that police forces hire "criminal justice" majors. These are folks who were attracted to police work BEFORE they went to college. I think they tend to be those to whom authority over others is attractive. They don't necessarily like people but they do like power over people. And they think that a badge will guarantee them respect. The low salary should be a clue that this is not true. But they demand respect from citizens they interact with. Look at the Sandra Bland cop who decided to arrest her because she would not put out her cigarette in her own car. Something she was under no obligation to do. But he did not like her "tone" because she was not respecting him.
So instead, hire cops from among graduates in sociology and anthropology. These are folks who want to understand behavior. And that's the most important training there is for a cop. Training in "law enforcement" and weapons can happen after they are hired. First get the right people in the job.
The best cop is a sociologist who knows the law and how to use a gun. Not a gun slinger who may or may not understand people and the law.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
europe has better training. being a police officer in europe is a much more highly professional attitude with much more rigorous training
http://www.quora.com/How-do-UK...
also, like europe, and i'll try not to completely derail the conversation, but no one should get a gun in the usa without rigorous training first, including testing and ongoing inspections. exactly like we do with getting a drivers license and a car. same level of responsibility, same standards, right?
without so many easy guns in he hands of idiots, cops are less jumpy
"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." actually, when guns are harder to get, the kind of casual hothead that causes all the mayhem with guns simply doesn't get a gun and reaches for a knife instead. *casual* hotheads are not trying hard in life, they will not try hard to get a gun, ti takes too much effort in a serious society. and a knife is far less lethal, so homicide rates drop
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
so the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." is a propaganda lie
besides, we're not even talking about "outlawing" guns. we're talking about rigorous training which every responsible gun owner already agrees with and complies with. so what is the problem exactly? why is this country held hostage by a paranoid schizophrenic fringe on the issue of guns? most gun *owners* agree with what i am saying
yes, the criminal masterminds will still get illegal guns. and use them wisely and surgically: criminal *masterminds*. so again, no ridiculous mayhem. we're talking about the casual hothead that is thwe problem here. he should not get a gun easily, like he currently does in the usa
a responsible gun owner knows the seriousness of a gun and really has no problem insisting everyone get good training
anyway, with less easy guns getting easily in the hands of hot heads cops have less reason to be so jumpy with their own guns. the change won't be immediate, it will take awhile to drain the swamp of easy guns
as if that is somehow an argument not to drain the swamp, because the right thing is hard to do and will take time is never an argument against doing the right thing
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
your*
Oh, the irony. ;-)
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Given that social science studies are notoriously bad, why do we think things would be any better if we used "science" in police training?
We'd probably be better off if we made some structural changes, like limiting qualified immunity and requiring all interactions with the public and accused to be videotaped.
They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.
Indeed. They've been caught, on video, tasering a non-responsive person in a diabetic coma for 'resisting', yelling all the while. Note, it's not just about 'resistance' today, it's about 'compliance'. IE you not only have to avoid resisting an officer, you have to be following their orders, sometimes beyond the best of your ability.
Another officer, female in this case, tasered a person into being a corpse, then shocked the corpse over a hundred times by the estimate of the coroner. When her training was examined, it was discovered that she had ZERO deescalation techniques, and no techniques OTHER than the taser to seek 'compliance'.
She was on video - "Put your hands behind your back" - Pause - SHOCK - "Put your hands behind your back".
Keep in mind that after about the third shock he wasn't resisting, he was non-responsive. He wasn't capable of complying.
I don't read AC A human right
Add in the enormous number of 'legacy' police, that federal law enforcement is a tiny percentage of the total, and generally considered a higher status posting.
I can easily see it being that *most* police officers entering the force today have at least an associate's, but *most* police officers IN the force only have a high school diploma, perhaps with a non-degree police academy certificate.
That being said, you can have the same problem with police officers as you can with social workers. As odd as it may sound, by requiring a specific degree, they only get a specific sort of applicant, who's spent(in the case of the social worker) 4-6 years in what can amount to an echo chamber.
You can get graduates that take certain assumptions as gospel, and in either case, 'when all you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail'. They get stuck in a box when it comes to thinking about issues.
I don't read AC A human right
I have an aquaintance that is a master of martial arts. He's worked as a bouncer for decades in some very tough bars. He's also worked within the criminal system in various capacities dealing with some of the most violent offenders. He also happens to have multiple degrees in psychology and counselling. His attitude towards martial arts and training is very scientific: screw tradition--use what works, change or discard what doesn't. After hundreds of altercations spanning across decades he is extremely capable of both reading crowds, people, diffusing situations with mere conversation, and applying physical resolutions when no alternatives remain.
Over the years he's worked with many LEOs, spec ops. and other "highly trained" men. He's taught only a few of them a thing or two--only the ones that were willing to admit that they didn't know everything and actually *wanted* to improve their trade craft. Over the years he's been asked to consult with various policed departments, and in his experience, most officers are so egotistical, thinking "what could I possibly learn from a civilian" that they just don't care to even try. To his dismay, most don't even *want* to learn better martial arts--despite the fact that their chosen line of work will put them into situations where it very well could save their life. In his experience most of them, including their trainers, think that they have it all figured out and there is nothing more to learn, and that what they teach is the best information and training possible--and yet he has repeatedly demonstrated to them how easily he can overpower them and how useless many of their training ideas are.
Current practices in many respects of their training is actually teaching them to do things that put them into positions of greater risk.
A simple example is how officers currently wear their guns canted forwards. Have you ever asked why? It makes drawing the gun much, *much* slower requiring difficult mechanics in the shoulder. The answer is simple--they want to be able to also draw their gun while seated in their car. So, for the off chance that they may need to draw from seated in their car, say a 0.5% chance of need, they severely weaken their 99.5% need to draw quickly in any other scenario. To handle the seated case, they could just use a cross draw or have a weapon mounted for easy reach on their dash or console.
Clearly we don't have the best minds at work here.
The fact that there is still no official, nationwide, legally-required (upon pain of zero Fed cash for anything) system to record and disseminate statistics of all LEO-involved violence up to and including deaths (or more accurately: murder by cop of minorities) by every method is not just a casual mistake.
This is also why social (mobile) media is so despised by the LEO crowd: it exposes their abuses to world, where in the 'good old days', well who *wouldn't* believe Officer Bob's statements that he 'had no choice' and 'felt threatened' by that no good Nig^h^h^h thug.
they're more willing to pay huge lawsuits?
You know, this reminds me that there are police departments with, at any given time, a dozen or so improper use of force lawsuits against them, tens of millions in payouts a year, the department essentially treating said lawsuits like a cost of doing business(costs the city money, not them, not even their budget). Then there are neighboring cities/precincts that actually do their job correctly, DON'T kill a half a dozen or so people improperly every year, where ONE such lawsuit would be unusual.
We don't so much have a bad officer problem in the USA, we have a bad police department problem. The 10% worst departments are responsible for a lot more than 90% of our problems with police.
Responsible departments get rid of or reform 'bad egg' officers rather rapidly. Bad departments encourage them. See Sheriff Arpaio.
I don't read AC A human right
Huh? I think it's pretty safe to assume EVERY police officer, average or not, is ALWAYS interested in de-escalating a dangerous situation.
You're not a minority are you? There are PLENTY of police who are the ones doing the escalating. One merely has to examine the data on excessive use of force by police and you will quickly understand that cops are NOT always interested in de-escalation.
I don't know anyone that says that.
You do now, at least one AC has said it. I've seen it on a number of other threads.
Of course, I'm not saying they're correct, but a lot of people also mix up self defense and punishment.
Still, when we've had unarmed people killed by officers for things like:
Mentally ill, deaf(shot in back for not stopping walking away), wearing headphones(couldn't hear officer), diabetic shock*/coma, following police directives(show me your wallet!), putting their hands down, threatening to kill themselves with a knife**, etc...
*Effectively a subclass of mentally ill, they aren't processing inputs correctly anymore due to low blood sugar
**woman called because boyfriend was threatening to kill himself with a knife, officers showed up and kicked her out, then pretty much immediately shot the man with their patrol rifles.
I don't read AC A human right
but in practice I think the process would be so corrupt that it would not work well.
The irony is that some neighborhoods in the US have gone to private contractors to escape their own corrupt governments. Their tax dollars vanish into burgeoning public worker retirement systems and the bloated salaries of 220k/year bureaucrats and their streets go unpatrolled, so they hire private cops to cover their neighborhoods. This is happening across the US, typically in `enclave' neighborhoods; areas that aren't desperately poor, but are governed by failed municipalities and counties that have allowed their public budgets to be bled dry.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Because only guns are deadly weapons, right? Not knives, machetes, baseball bats, etc. Get a clue. You also make the mistake of insisting cops shoot only when their *own* life is in danger ("if he isn't pointing a gun at YOU" emphasis mine).
You can add "being in your house" to that list because of botched "no knock" warrants.
And standing on the sidewalk. And of course just being upset.
The glib conservative meme that says "don't break the law" doesn't quite cut it.
Yes. If you've taken food because you're hungry you should not go to jail.
I would tend to agree with this, but we would have to think of how to financially support the businesses as they would be the ones having to pay for the service of feeding the hungry. However, the vast, vast majority of people who steal things are not doing it because they are hungry. They are doing it because they want stuff, or they need stuff to pawn so they can get drugs.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed, or don't you have a "real" criminal to catch, or don't you know I pay your salary?!?! Complying when asked for your ID is not being "submissive." I'm not saying there aren't idiot cops who go on power trips, but if you're willing to see the forest for the trees, I'd like you to name a single occupation with millions of employees who must confront the public on a daily basis that doesn't have a idiots.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives.
Sure I can. They signed up voluntarily for the duty. "Protect and serve". That means it is their job to get in harms way when necessary to protect the community and enforce the laws. I'm not saying they have to be stupid about it but their job should be to protect others first.
People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism.
No. What we should expect police to not behave like they are in a war zone. What we should expect is for them to actually try to save the lives of others. We expect them to behave like they belong in civilized society and not brutalize the people they are supposed to protect.
If you demand that police de-prioritize their own safety, they won't last long because their job does regularly place them in dangerous situations
Police work is demonstrably not as dangerous as many other professions. Jobs that are more dangerous incude: Truck driver, farming, construction worker, airline pilot, taxicab drivers, timber cutters, roofers, fishermen, structural metal workers and electricians. All of those professions have higher fatality rates than police officers. Injuries? Cops don't even make the list. While nobody would argue that police work doesn't have risk, the risks are overblown and in many cases caused by the very actions of the police themselves.
I'm not making that fatuous old claim that being a police officer is an extraordinarily dangerous job -- but the only reason it isn't extraordinarily dangerous is because officers are allowed to put their own safety first.
It's only extraordinarily dangerous if they are stupid about it. Gearing up like they are going to war is tantamount to picking a fight with their community. Their own actions are provocative and puts them in greater danger. Nobody is asking them to jump in front of a bullet. Use of force by police in the US is WAY higher than in other parts of the world. They use force because they can, not because they have to.
Cops aren't going to be psychic, obviously, but what we see in the U.S. right now goes beyond basic mistakes into the areas of arrogance and bad training.
Take the case of Eric Garner. I am still confused how anyone could take his actions as "resisting arrest" enough to warrant any type of force, let alone potentially deadly force. The talking heads on TV saw that as "resisting" when I, a reasonable person (I think), saw it as totally unjustified. That seems to be a training deficiency.
What about the recent death of teenager where witnesses saw the cops "high fiveing" the corpse? That's arrogance or worse.
I think it takes getting rid of the bad seeds that flock the law enforcement who want to be Eric Cartman and finding the right psychological profiles that fit the job. However its reactionaries that get drawn into law enforcement. The people that really want to help end up being social workers or the like.
How many people can a dead cop protect?
I don't think anyone's asking them to jump in front of a bullet. Though they are generally wearing body armor so they are better equipped than you or me. But their right to personal safety is not without bounds and they cannot do their job without accepting some risk. They signed up for the job and they knew it was risky. They don't have to be stupid about it but if someone is in danger I absolutely expect them to make reasonable efforts to help even if that involves some amount of risk to themselves. If they want a completely safe job they should have done something else.
A police officer's FIRST duty is to keep themselves alive so they can uphold the law and protect as many people as feasible.
If that were true a lot more people would have died on 9/11 than actually did. Fire fighters and cops ran TOWARDS danger and saved lives which did protect as many people as possible. A police officer's first duty is supposed to be to the people they serve. If they are not willing to accept any risk to their own well being then they should pick another profession.
flagrant disregard for life with current operational procedure
This statement and others like it on the internet and news media are irresponsible and meant to incite further violence and hatred towards the epeople who protect us from harm on a daily basis. .002%.
Each year, in the United States, there are over 50 million citations, arrests and other interactions with law enforcement, and fewer than 1,000 of those involve the death of a suspect. This is less than
Meanwhile, over 14,000 people are murdered every year by criminals, and over 1.4 million violent crimes are committed. Shouldn't we focus our anger and angst on these people?
By demonizing the police, all we ensure is that fewer people will want to have the job, and that criminals will feel safer in their pursuit of crime.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Don't forget "Don't happen to live on the route of a crooked UPS/USPS/Fedex driver" - fortunately only the dogs were killed in this one. But the raided Maryland Mayor is still rather pissed.
Storyline - package full of drugs found addressed to Mayor's house. They 'allowed it to be delivered*'. Mayor, seeing package addressed to wife on stoop, brings it inside and sticks it on the kitchen table for her. SWAT subsequently busts in and kills their dogs.
Turns out that it was the package delivery service driver that was crooked. They'd address packages for people along his route, mail them, but he'd intercept them before delivery.
Political shitstorm ensues as the Mayor actually knows how to make things painful for the department for raiding him and shooting his dogs. Even with this shitstorm, Sheriff refuses to apologize for raid, killing his dogs, illegal no-knock warrant, etc...
*Actually outside of normal shipping, an undercover officer placed it at the door.
I don't read AC A human right
This is such a non-issue. Basic de-escalation techniques are well known and easy to teach, and more importantly, easy to use. It doesn't take rocket-science to know that profiling, loud order barking and throwing people down and asking questions later ISN'T the way to go. The real problem seems to be that the hiring process is letting people with personalities who shouldn't be cops become cops. This isn't a profession that should except muscles over brains people who's ego will be built upon the power of the position. We don't need muscle-bourd Eric Cartman-types yelling RESPECT MY AUTHORITY.
De-escalation techniques don't work in the face of media frenzies which encourage people to actively disrespect authority figures, to riot and rampage, and to see everything as a race issue.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Yes, it goes both ways, but we are supposed to expect better from the cops. Right or wrong their example will be noted and followed. And no cop has any right to compel anything from me, nothing at all, not even ID without just cause, which better be the first words coming out of his mouth. The people who don't see the forest for the trees are those who write off their bad behavior as just an 'isolated incident'. It is not isolated, it permeates all authoritarian systems where there is limited oversight. The so-called 'good cops' who remain silent are no damn good at all. It's a tough job, but nobody forces them to take it. Maybe we should change that, start conscripting people so we can get some good ones who know how to accept authority reluctantly and use it wisely. Right now we are just rewarding bullies.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
the constant barrage of Cop shows that depict "loose cannon above the law shoot through the red tape good guy cop not afraid to violate some civil liberties and pass death sentences to save us all"
Hey, we have learned some very important lessons from these shows. Such as always let a guy who's about to retire take a month of vacation beforehand, because if they are on duty they will always day right before retirement.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Not every state requires you to present an ID any time an officer asks you to. Providing it when not necessary is absolutely submissive and I'm not being an asshat for pointing that out and not doing it when asked. Police ask you all the time to do things you don't have to that put you in a worse position legally then if you hadn't. I don't blame them for that, but when I say no, I'm not being an asshat either.
Do I smell bacon?
Intimidation is a purposeful and deliberate tactic to gain compliance through fear of violence.
Everything about police is intimidating: the uniform, the car, driving tactics, visible weapons, approach and demeanor.
Here is an article delving into some of the psychology.
When the police approach you or pull you over there is always that fight or flight instinct that kicks in, even when you've done nothing wrong. Why? Because police are intimidating as hell and they have the power to either kill you or imprison you.
It is also contrary to the nature of the human male to submit: when you get pushed, you push back. This is why you see the backlash or attitudes from ordinary people against cops.
There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.
Wow, you're not from the real world, are you? Cops are idiots, end of story.
Name one other occupation that arm's their "idiots" with weapons. Cops should be held to a much higher standard - at one time not all that long ago, they were, and they were respected and truested- now they've burnt thru all that respect and are feared and hated. The few good cops are vastly outnumbered by the assholes. I was raised to trust cops if I was in trouble - now I wouldn't call a cop if my life depended on it, since the cop could (would?) be just a dangerous. The system needs a complete overhaul with a independent oversight committee - it will never happen (or at least not until the back and forth killings escalate up a notch or three).
Nope. Far too often, the officers are interested in *one* thing, and one thing *only*. Making sure *they* make it home at the end of the night.
If that means shooting a man in Walmart as he chats on his phone, so be it.
If that means shooting a motorist as he reaches into his car for his license and registration *as instructed by the officer*, so be it.
If that means shooting a fleeing man in the back, and then *planting* the cop's gun next to the corpse, so be it.
'Better the civilian, than the cop.' is a widespread and pervasive mind-set in police departments across the US these days.
Not every state requires you to present an ID any time an officer asks you to
What state requires that? I don't think any do, unless you are driving.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Literally, fuck science. Cops need to trust their instincts, not some beaker pusher or head shrink.
Another quality member of the Atlanta Police. Seriously. At least this one can write in complete sentences.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
If that were true, GOP is perfectly welcome to suggest morphing ACA into Romneycare instead of spending all that effort to kill it outright. (If I remember correctly, they bashed Romneycare as a nation-wide solution also.)
The differences are relatively minor, anyhow.
GOP has suggested allowing people shop for care "out of state", but that's impinging on state's rights, something GOP is usually for.
States can and often do allow outside HC firms now, but usually with contingencies.
Table-ized A.I.
There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.
Far too often, it's not the officer who pays that price, it's the victims of their abuse. Things need to change dramatically. Dismissing or excusing the police, like the OP, is only going to make the situation worse.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed...
I'm sure you're right about that, but officers are supposed to keep their cool and de-escalate the situation.
Here is something to think about: US police officers typically have 3-4 months training, police officers in Norway and Denmark have ~3 years training.
Sure, crime rates and access to guns have a major effect on police shootings, but training is a major part of what enables officers to remain calm and polite in the midst of a struggle.
Here is a video of off-duty Swedish police officers breaking up a fight on the NY subway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I was hanging out on Voat - picking at the low hanging fruit as I am wont to do. Hopefully this will not be a novella but I have to give some background and I think you will find it interesting.
So, I am hanging out on Voat and I have discovered there is a board about protecting and serving and that it is populated by cops. I do not care. I read a thread or two and move alone. It is not my place to hang out. I do not mind cops and they do not want anti-cop people there anyhow and, while I am not a hater of police I am also not a boot licking suck up and have dealt with the cops way too often to have any respect for them as a group - they're people, judge them on their merits.
Anyhow, so later that same day there rises a new thread. This thread was about a police officer in Mississippi (I think? Alabama maybe?) who was shot and the perpetrator was still on the run. I believe the officer had killed.
At this point I think it prudent to remind the audience that I am, indeed, an asshole. I own it.
So, primed and ready with my witty reposte (I have yet to find one single decent international keyboard layout in any Linux distro), I enter the fray. I seek my target - I know exactly what I am going to type and the type of reply that I am aiming to thread it under. I find a gem... Carefully I lay my mine. "So, given the past few weeks and all of the negative police interactions, I am willing to give this alleged cop killer the benefit of the doubt - it may have been self defense."
This is, of course, an instant success with the howler monkeys that visit the site. It also is the truth.
Now, I do not leave mines unattended. That would be irresponsible of me. You could say I was trolling and I would disagree - entirely. I knew what was coming but I did not expect quite this level of perfection. Also, note, these are not exact quotes. They are probably pretty close.
So in pops a user who says, "The filthy violent perp killed a cop." I recognize the username - it is one of the mods and a police officer (ostensibly) in a large metropolitan area.
I reply with, "Isn't a cop supposed to do that whole innocent until proven guilty thing???" I felt the line tighten and it was reeling out fast.
"It doesn't matter. He killed a cop. Can't you see the difference?" He replied... He liked ellipsis too, or he did in my head.
"Is it not still innocent until proven guilty?" I asked again. "Could you show me where the law makes this any different?"
"You just don't kill cops. This guy is a scum sucking low life." He quipped.
"Do you not see how you, personally, are to blame for the reaction that caused this officer to die? You, your attitude, has an impact and that impact spreads. You should be ashamed of yourself!" I slapped my drag lock off and pulled back with a good, hard, and steady force.
He went ape shit. It was absolutely beautiful. I would not call it trolling but, well, if it is to be defined as trolling then let's say it was at least artful and productive. Much karma was had (and lost). Sadly, I do not think anything in the above is biased or misrepresents what happened. I tried to recall it as best as I could and I am far too lazy to look for it and then type it all out again.
As an aside, I was watching a video of a Southern gentleman refusing to allow the police access to his home because they did not have a warrant. They said he looked nervous and he replied with the greatest YouTube line ever. "Y'all got a whole toolbelt designed to kill me, of course's I'm scared!" (Said in a drawl.)
TL;DR: The cops are the problem. Their whole attitude. I could go on for hours about the difference between cops today and yesterday AND I grew up in the Civil Rights Era. I am not saying fuck cops. I am saying fuck THAT cop.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I wonder how many cops take steroids, and whether 'roid rage is a factor in shootings. Or any other drugs for that matter. Drug testing for police is woefully lacking. http://www.quora.com/How-often...
If a cop is asking you then chances are you do not need to do it (or answer - in fact, don't answer if you can avoid it). If the cop didn't need to ask then, well, they would not be asking.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Name one other occupation that arm's their "idiots" with weapons.
The military. The smart ones don't end up carrying the guns, you know.
*was, literally, 0311 for most of his first stint* (It was actually what I had requested.)
I can fill in on that but I will spare you the novella.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
>> training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed
I doubt it. In fact, many local universities and other institutions are happy to donate this training.
Donated training probably won't work at that scale... Police officers in Norway and Denmark (just to mention two places) have ~ 3 years training.
How much does US police officers have? (I read that it's typically 3-4 months various places online).
To get proper police training you probably need a police academy dedicated to the job, not a bunch of ad-hoc training sessions donated...
Also de-escalation is often just about remaining calm, acting in a calm and orderly fashion while a crazy suspects yell at you. Or showing concern for suspects well-being once handcuffed. Largely it's about communication before things escalate to a point where you even consider applying force; reducing the risk that the officer ends up in a violent conflict. And it's about remaining calm while force is applied, reducing risk that suspects panic and suspect's willingness to fight back.
But, this was after the officer said I "must have enemies" and that was why I was scared of some random car flashing lights at me, and that even in other states, I should have known that car had a police officer in it.
Just as a note, I've lived in 7 states. In NONE of them would I assume that a somebody flashing their high beams at me while following like police officers like to do is a cop or has good intentions.
I don't read AC A human right
As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I would like to post two points:
First, on the "Use of Force Continuum", the mere presence of a law enforcement officer(either in uniform, or in "plain", "street" clothes, which includes essentially everything from t-shit and blue jeans, to issued polo shirt(usually with an embroidered badge, agency name, and officer's name) and approved pants(khaki, darker, or black pants or cargo pants), and including business casual(yes, polo shirts fit that definition in some working environments, but such terms are rather ambiguous) to business formal(suit and ties, and similar)) is the first level of said "Continuum". I can say, from my own experience, that many people feel intimidated by simply seeing law enforcement nearby that they have acted rather ridiculously, even when they were committing no acts that gave me authority to engage said people in an "official capacity".
I also witnessed quite a few people that, while attempting to effect a vehicle stop(after witnessing a moving violation upon a public roadway), people would attempt to "flee and elude"(part of the title of the Title 40 law(O.C.G.A 40-6-395) that covers people attempting to run from a legal stop, in the O.C.G.A., or Official Code of Georgia Annotated), "rabbit", or "run" from me, and after I finally got them stopped, or they stopped of their own desire(I am talking about people that were aware that I had been attempting to stop them, not people who didn't notice, but stopped the moment they did notice...situational awareness people!), I discovered they had no previous convictions, many times no previous citations, no warrants, etc. Said stops were for relatively minor issues, that ballooned into potentially major legal trouble(depending on the circumstances).
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen. One of the very few differences is that law enforcement can arrest on, and execute warrants(arrest and/or search), and, at least in the State of Georgia, and many other states, can act on traffic violations(up to and including arrests, depending), where citizen's witnessing traffic violations doesn't give law enforcement authority to initiate a traffic stop, or effect an arrest, unless a violation occurs in the presence of a certified and sworn(i.e. employed) law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or a third-party from greatly bodily harm and/or death(imminent death isn't necessary for deadly force, which it shouldn't be), or to stop a "forcible felony"(rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc), and to also to stop an escaping, or escaped inmate that has been charged, tried, and convicted(though, reasonably, if lesser force will cease an escapee, or attempted escapee, that force should be used); a fleeing felon(not-yet-convicted, mind you) that doesn't pose a real and obvious danger to another people doesn't provide authority to use "deadly force". Nevertheless, law enforcement, regardless of the public view(which is wrong), doesn't actually have a "monopoly on violence". Citizens have the right to use force to defend themselves and others, where a law enforcement officer takes his or her right to use said force, as just another citizen, and applies to in the course of his or her official duties.
Remember, citizens are the only ones that have rights(...and rights aren't given by government, right are inherent; though, some explicit rights are protect, not created, by certain documents, such as the US Constitution, and/or the various state constitutions, and in through other avenues). Governments, the representatives of said governments, and the employees of said governments, only have limited authority to act in certain circumstances(in their official capacity; as fellow citizens, they have the rights that the rest of the citizen of the United States, and the various states, possess). The citizenry(I am talking about the Unit
Here's that NYT article that the Wired story linked to. Lewinski is the guy who testifies that a cop had reasonable fear of his life when he shot a suspect in the back. And the juries pretend to believe him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08...
Training Officers to Shoot First, and He Will Answer Questions Later
When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, William J. Lewinski often appears as an expert witness who says they had no choice but to fire.
By MATT APUZZO
AUG. 1, 2015
A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead. The driver was unarmed.
(“In simple terms, if I see the gun, I’m dead?”)
(Testified or consulted in nearly 200 cases.)
His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person.
Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story.
before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers
his research has been roundly criticized by experts. An editor for The American Journal of Psychology called his work “pseudoscience.” The Justice Department denounced his findings as “lacking in both foundation and reliability.”
The going rule seems to be, there is no such thing as self defense against a cop, or probably any other agent of the government. I don't blame the cops. Like everybody else they do what they can get away with. And that is our problem. Only we can fix it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm pretty free market, but I'm not sure policing is an area I really wanted to see taken over by competing corporations.
I think that maybe people should learn the history of policing.
This is an institution that started out "privatized." It was over 200 years before public money began to be used for the purpose when King George the 2nd began paying watchmen with public money. This move to using public money led directly to The Macdaniel Affair.
Private policing works. Public policing works. In both cases, government influence can ruin it.
"His name was James Damore."
I thought liberals in US are people that dispense bullets liberally?
I am willing to agree that what you say about LEOs having no extra power should be the law every but it is not. No state has a problem issuing LEOs with very effective tools for inflicting deadly force. Only 32 of those states are willing to allow all non-felons to exercise that same right. Two of them (including DC) are unwilling to allow any non-LEO the ability to lawfully exercise that right. So, no, in practice, there is a huge divide between LEO and non-LEO in regards to the use of deadly force.
What you're leaving out is that in those times much of what we describe as police work was actually performed by the military. There is a good reason we separated those functions.
..and the current police force isnt basically a military?
"His name was James Damore."
In cases where the police use deadly force and it is determined to be unwarranted, how often are they charged with murder? Or even homicide?
Based on the new that I have encountered I expect the answer to be somewhere between never and extremely rarely, but I'll admit I don't have a decent basis for this opinion, as the news tends to be slanted to agitate the viewers.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It appears we agree on the intimidation factor.
We can disagree if it's purely the perception on the part of the civilian or a tactic of law enforcement.
Either way: it remains a fact. Otherwise normal people do dumb things out of fear, which can cause a situation to escalate very quickly.
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen.
False.
They may have no extra "rights" to do so; If a cop shoots someone, it's next to impossible to prove malice or incompetence on the part of the officer.
See Blue wall of silence.
You can also be detained/imprisoned/jailed/kidnapped based solely on Probable Cause. At minimum a nice way to ruin someones day.
Sounds like a lot of power to me.
I will add that I have been rather unhappy with the way it seem law enforcement has changed just over the past 5 to 7 years alone.
I'm also very sad to see this.
Think about it this way: What have we missed before cellphones became powerful and ubiquitous evidence collecting machines. I think that the only thing that has changed is that the public is able to police the police much better now.
Here are some fun numbers
We will just end up with the Wal*Mart of police. :(
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I have led an interesting life and I am grateful for it - do not get me wrong. I have had countless run-ins with police - I have spent a number of nights giggling in a jail cell, waiting to bail out at 6:00 in the morning when they let the drunks go if they can say their name and birthday. So, I have some history here. History in multiple countries even.
I can say that I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that cops are intentionally riling things up. They WANT aggression, it seems. Do not give it to them. One of the worst was I was being told to get on my knees, don't move, put my hands up, and to lay down on the ground at the same time. I'd refused a search of my vehicle and there was no probable cause. I was released a few hours later after the dog showed and never showed anything. The funny part is that I had a bunch of coke hidden under my dashboard.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Actually, fucking cops can be a lot of fun. My late wife was a cop and we used to have a lot of fun. And, no, we didn't use the handcuffs!
Remember: Dial 911 and make a cop come!
I had a cop write me up for speeding and tell me to put my cigarette out. I threw it on the ground. He told me to pick it up. I told him he could pick it up and use it as evidence for my littering ticket. He did and I did pay the fines without contesting them.
How I did not get an OUI that night is beyond me. I really should have gone to jail. I was strung right out, almost drooling on myself and driving. Oddly, I was in Georgia at the time. I was on the circle that goes around the city, multi-lane highway - I forgot the route number, and had just shot up (while driving) not long before that.
I never did get an OUI. I never did kill anyone or even have an accident that I was found at fault for. I have pissed off a number of cops but none has beaten me to a pulp yet. I have lots of cop stories but it would take too long to share them all.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I find it best to treat them, mostly, like big dumb animals. I am not openly condescending but I am slow in my movements, I speak clearly and loud enough to be heard, I make eye contact, I watch for sudden movement, I recognize the danger, and I act accordingly. This does not preclude screwing with them. I recounted an incident with an Atlanta cop further down the thread.
It really irks them when you can pay the fine and just don't care. What is a civil offense in today's society? Nothing. Nothing at all. I have DOZENS and did very well for myself.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed, or don't you have a "real" criminal to catch, or don't you know I pay your salary?!?!
True, most 'newsworthy' incidents happen when an asshole meets another asshole. However, while we can't do much about random assholes on the streets, we can keep the body count down by making sure the police officers sent to corral them up aren't assholes as well.
That, and you still have the incidents where asshole cops do things like break into a sleeping person's house in the middle of the night. And while it's certainly possible, it's much harder to still be an asshole while asleep than awake.
I don't read AC A human right
This book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson has a huge chapter devoted to "mistakes" done on purpose by Police.
Policemen are typically trained that once they have a "probable cause" they push, deceive and trick people into confession, regardless if other facts may completely change the cause into improbable. They act just like in the movies where "greater good" is more important than trampling the truth, except in movies it's usually shown as fully justified, while in real life there is too many mistakes.
"He must be guilty because he was sentenced" and other cognitive issues are aplenty.
Don't forget that ignorance of the law, on the part of the officer, is a justified excuse. (recent court finding, possible Supreme Court) They can arrest or even shoot you because they thought there was a law against whatever it is you were doing. When they find out later that there is nothing illegal you are still jailed or dead and the cop gets an extra bonus for outstanding service.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I think we need instant death penalty for any cop that shoots someone who turns out to be unarmed. In fact, they should have 10 years prison time for even pulling out their gun before bullets from the other person fly past their head. Only then is it justified for them to "defend" themselves. Perhaps we need more people sniping cops from a distance and taking them all out. Reading about a DC style sniper that takes out cops day after day would certainly make me happier. Perhaps we need to go the route of England and take their firearms away from them. They can still be deadly with the tasers, but it will give them the idea that they are not being responsible with the power given to them.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
No. Though they have certainly been "militarized" over the last forty years or so, they're no where near to being a military force. I guarantee you that if the Marine Corps replaced the Policed Department in your area you'd know the difference right away, both in methods and objectives. Separation of those two functions is vital for any society that believes in individual liberty and representative government.
Public/private is too broad a dichotomy. If the private company still has all of the same profit incentives as a public department, then it's going to be worse, just like private prisons.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The cop is giving you the choice of the easy way or the hard way. The easy way is they shoot you. The hard way is they arrest you. There are no rules against them shooting you, so long as they follow the proper procedure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Learn to love Alaska
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen.
Only in theory. A cop who makes a wrongful arrest is not liable for it. A mistaken identity arrest is brushed off as a "count yourself lucky" incident. But a citizen placing a citizens arrest could face any number of very serious criminal and civil charges for the same act. Sure, the cop could get fired (at worst), but a non-cop doing the same thing is in much more trouble.
Doing the same thing, but with different practical results would be the same as insisting that parachuting without a chute is the same as with one. After all, it really only matters that last few feet, and in both cases free fall is the same. In practice, people consider them wildly different, and act that way. Making minor errors subject to huge penalties against the cop personally, would make a massive difference.
Learn to love Alaska
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational,
Really? So Sandra Bland was confrontational by asking why she needed to extinguish her cigarette? Not the cop for pulling her over, giving an unlawful order, and wrongfully arresting her?
Based on my experience with cops, that's how it generally goes. I've watched someone beat down because it was cold out, and he had a warm thermos under his jacket keeping him and it warm. The cop thought it was a bulge, so dealt with that by assaulting him, threatening him with death, and then quickly fleeing when he realized he was wrong, before anyone could get his name or ID.
The cops need to watch more Andy Griffith Show to see how a cop should deal with people. If cops want polite responses, they need to be polite first.
Learn to love Alaska
Nope. More are like the Sanda Bland stop. That one only got noticed because she died. Had she not died, nobody would have ever known. She was pulled over. She was ticketed. The ticket was written, and about to be handed to her when the cop escallated the situation. He gave an unlawful order (an illegal escalation), and when Sandra replied in kind, he went insane.
And that's normal for cops. He probably thought she breathed on him wrong, and took offense at her smoke or something. Like the girl who was ordered to take her shoes off, did so, but when kicking the shoe off, one of them hit the cop, so the cuffed teen was beaten by the cop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... That's all normal for cops these days. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or insane.
Learn to love Alaska
So Sandra Bland represents 100% of the cases now? Good to know. How many traffic stops DON'T end up with a physical confrontation?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Look up 18 USC Section 242, and 18 USC Section 243. USC is the acronym for United States Code. Of course, there is also "Violation of Oath of Office"(O.C.G.A., though, I know many, and probably all states have similar statues, though probably under different headings/titles. The issue is that people have to be willing to do their part to hold law enforcement responsible, because no one is going to do it for "you", or anyone but themselves. I wish that wasn't generally true for citizens treated in such a way, but that isn't the world we live in, nor have ever lived in, and one we will never live in.
I would like to add that, I would like to see the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" judicial blathering(s) die and quick and painful death, save for those that are acting in an official capacity(law enforcement, government attorneys, and all other government-employed individuals). There are far too many damned law, just on the state or federal level(in the United States, and "international law" doesn't exist, unless there is a treaty, where the treaty is treated as a criminal offense, and said treaty doesn't violate the US Constitution, which treaties are subservient to, like all other laws), and so many of these said laws(the aforementioned laws actual legality a whole other conversation) are malum prohibitum laws(laws which are tailored to "social norms", which is opposite of malum in se laws/violations, in which are wrong on its face, such as murder, rape, theft, etc), which are almost never morally or ethically wrong on its face, and which are, at best, ambiguous in nature, as to why they even exist.
Federal laws against police are rare. Rodney King was the last one I'd heard of, and it was called an unusual case. I don't remember the specifics well enough, but I have the impression it was the first time that a federal law was used against a cop since the '60s. And it wasn't any of the laws you mention, based on my recollection.
In practice cops are immune to any sanctions at all, unless caught on video shooting an unarmed person posing no danger.
Learn to love Alaska
No, it's just a really good example that everyone knows about. The actions were not atypical. With all the coverage of Sandra at the moment, I can't find the one a few years back where the cop pulled a woman out through her seatbelt. She was 100% compliant when he assaulted her. It got notice because he was so insane and agitated, he couldn't even get his gun put back right. She was also a black woman stopped in the south, treated poorly by a white cop. She didn't die, so nobody cared. The problem continued until Sandra died before anyone cared.
But that stop was not atypical. The police cause the confrontation. The police charge in and make it worse much much more than they make it better.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkkLUP-gm4Q The cops waited until after that guy was subdued before tasing him, as punishment for not shutting up. They didn't try to talk him down, or escort him out. They argued with him, then attacked. He didn't touch anyone, he was just being loud. Arrested, then tased in custody. Or this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I could go on for hours. Police attack people who are no threat and no danger to them. All the time.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not disagreeing with the fact there are cops that are clearly wrong, I'm saying 95% or more of police confrontations don't lead to physical violence, and I've just as often - if not more often, seen the "citizen" being the instigator. I really think you have a selective memory, some real confirmation bias going on.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I'm saying 95% or more of police confrontations don't lead to physical violence,
Agreed. Cops don't beat everyone they talk to, or we'd run out of citizens.
and I've just as often - if not more often, seen the "citizen" being the instigator.
The cops assert 100%, the citizens assert 0%. The truth is (likely) somewhere in the middle.
Learn to love Alaska
People with mental issues should be unemployable as police or security officers.
Timothy Loehmann, who shot Tamir Rice, simply joined police force in a different city after he resigned facing termination for "emotional instability".
The other thing that should not be allowed to happen is the militarization of police force.
Neither through pumping surplus military weapons and equipment through billion dollar "reutilization programs", nor through military tactics and training.
It's Special Weapons and Tactics, not POLICE weapons and tactics.
If all your cops act or look like SWAT teams do... That's not policing crime.
That's a country/state/county/city trying to control its citizens through "superior force".
And police will get BOTH military tactics and training AND mentally unstable police officers when it starts dipping into the pool of military veterans, coming home from a decade or so of war.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Very mature post...asshole. At the very least, post a link to the comment, so that other don't have to find the information you claim exists. Of course, this is not even considering that you don't have any first-hand, factual information on the situation which, allegedly, drove you to post such an asinine comment in the first place. Oh, yes, please, continue commenting on how I "[am]"(or, according to you, "[was]") a part of "the problem".