U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months

But it's not up to the police or the citizens to decide which laws are Constitutional or which aren't. That's the job of the judicial branch.

You should take a civics course.

 

A bunch of confused, out-of-touch, liberal propaganda from people who have never been on-the-street or in the trenches. Funny that lawyer's and CEO's were at or close to the top of every one of those lists and comments regarding occupations that attract person's with psychopathic tendencies. Yea - I agree with others, you need to move out of your parents basement, close off the internet, text-mania and let some sunshine in. I would put what you are posting at 10th grade level mentality. Police as psychopath's?

No, police and military are a fraternity, whose job is to protect and serve, including people with strange philosophies like yours. It is liberal B/S, the bane on the country since the 1960's. What you report as psychopathic behavior, is mostly a fraternal bond among police and military, because they are on the front lines. They are the ones fighting our enemies and the criminals. They are the ones who have to clean up the mess of criminal behavior, the ones who can't walk past and ignore the drunks; psychopath's who beat their wife and children; stalk children; commit pedophile criminal acts; haul in drunk driver's, and overall protect the citizenry. It can make them callous toward the civilian populations, but it doesn't make them psychopath's.

Besides - nobody gets handed a badge, uniform and gun without passing major psychological tests no citizen faces in obtaining a job. Police brutality and prejudice in department's exist, those who violate it need to, and in many cases, are, prosecuted, but with the number of police-citizen confrontations daily in this country, against the number of uses of deadly physical force by the police, extremely small numerical wise. It is interesting that you feel all police are psychopath's, and that the job attracts psychopathic behavior, that isn't discovered in the psychological hiring process of police officers, is unfortunate, and widely and wildly untrue...........

 

`
1) You didn't read a single one of those sites and dismissed them without a viable reason other than stating they are "confused, out-of-touch, liberal propaganda". That alone disqualifies you from any meaningful discussion on this issue.

2) Aside from completely ignoring the "Posse Comitatus Act" and other Constitutional differences between the police and military, you come up with this cockeyed idea of a supposed "fraternal bond" which doesn't even exist, except in your personal world.

3) Your disassociation from reality is complete by stating (without proof) that police are subject to some mandatory psych test which unfailingly eliminates potential problems. Just on the face of this, it reeks of opinionated misinformation. Even among the police themselves, they admit high levels of psychological dissonance, to wit:

The high rate of suicide among law enforcement officers is policing’s dirty little secret. Not only do police officers have higher rates of alcoholism, divorce, and drug abuse, not only do they have life expectancies ten years less than the average person; they also kill themselves at higher rates than the average American. - source​

In order for a community to truly help their police, they have to admit problems do exist, across the board. Modern communication devices have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that many problems exist but living behind the fairy tale wall of denial is only making the problems worse. Along with the great authority police must command comes great responsibility, the latter part, the police have refused to live up to.
`

 

You've forgotten what your initial post on this topic was about. LOL.

Good job this crime did not happen in the US. There would have been many dead and injured with the seemingly gun ho attitude of many.

 

The same kind of danger a .38 cal slug represents regardless of who's firing it. Duh!

 

Unless you can somehow prove "pure intent" vs "recklessness," this leaves supposition as to why people get shot by cops. Since the perp is often dead, determining intent is most frequently impossible, making "willing to bet" a valid determination as to why people get shot. Since you are obviously a liberal, I'm certain you can read the minds of the criminal to determine his/her intent at the time of the shooting. And I'll bet you even have a source that lists the intent of each criminal's mental status at the time of the shooting, right next to the crystal ball that predicts the future for liberals.

You know, if you just take the human factor out of policing and politics, and work strictly within the letter of the law, I'm certain we could attain the Nirvana the left appears to be striving towards. But be careful, because it's the liberal human factor that also puts criminals back on the streets to commit crimes again, when they belong in prison for their offenses. I think the problem you have is with choosing which political school of thought should be used in particular criminal activities. Perhaps you should volunteer to go along with police who patrol high crime areas to see exactly what they deal with every day. Maybe you could talk the criminals out of making bad choices of joining gangs and taking drugs and knocking off liquor stores. Show them your example of clean and perfect living as a crime free citizen from a suburban community who is productive in society, and maybe they will leave their life of crime and see the errors of their ways. Yes, we need liberals on police patrols to fix all of the problems, and show the police that there is a kinder and gentler way of dealing with rapists, armed robbers, pimps, drug dealers and general low life punks other than violence and shooting. You are not permitted a gun because you hate them anyway, nor are you to be issued any sort of weapon to defend or protect yourself. Your liberal words are your weapons in the fight against crime and police violence, because they are all so perfect and logical in your world. You will teach police which words to use to apprehend criminals so they don't have to use violence to subdue them. We'll nickname you "The Word Warrior," defender of criminals from the violent police who hunt them down.

 

No, they cannot. The licensing people are a private company with no right of entry whatsoever, warrant or otherwise. Ask me how I know this.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Tips for avoidng TVL-BBC harassment.htm

 

When was the last time any US soldier kept anyone in the US "safe"? Remind us.

 

The victims ranged in age from 16 to 83. More than 80 percent were armed with potentially lethal objects, mostly guns. Ninety-two victims were identified as mentally ill.

This is directly from the mentioned article...Anyone in this country should be allowed to respond with deadly force should they feel threatened or their family threatened, not just police. I have been a responsible Gun owner and military veteran for the better part of my life...Thankfully, I have never had to use any weapon in self-defense. But if the need ever arises, I and my family are prepared to do what is necessary. Just like all Muslims are not terrorists, all blacks are not gang bangers....All cops are not bad. Most are just like everyone else...They chose to do a job that is helping the American people, just like firefighters, paramedics, military. The Huffington Post has long held to the belief of class warfare...They are just trying to make the police another class.

 

so, as a Progressive Liberal, self-defense doesn't hold water in any circumstance. We should all just lay down and surrender........nice, real nice

 

Nobody "deserves" to be shot. That's why you have courts to do the judging about who is guilty or innocent instead of the police. The job of the police is to investigate crime and catch crooks; not to execute them.

 

1943-45................we kept your butts safe.......

 

I'm not an American. Try reading before answering. Oh, and by the way, you entered the war in 1941 to protect US interests because both Germany and Japan declared war against the US, and not because of some imagined altruistic imperative to 'save' anyone.

 

`
Thanks for your opinions but what have them to do with this topic? For one thing, you started off on the wrong foot. Nobody said "All cops are not bad." You are, for some odd reason, trying to change the topic of excessive police shooting into some guns rights advocacy. Just so you know, there is an entire sub-forum devoted to gun rights here. Stick to the topic please.

 

I always figured some Brits were ingrates.........some maybe not so much........You're bashing America. Take your lumps

 

Wrong on all counts. While not "municiple" severnts the members of the military are "federal" servants and take an oath pledging that service.

And police have ROE depending on the circumstance.

 

What did those people do to attract police attention? How many were shot while setting in church?????

 

Was there supposed to be a point to be made in tbere somewhere?

 

What should we be grateful for; the business deal which Lend-Lease was, and which you made a lot of money, in interest paid, from? Sorry but you won't get any genuflection in front of the altar of Holy America from me.

 

That they have not had to protect someone "in" the United States only proves they are the best at defending their nation. But I guess you missed that.

That you have been safe in yours owes to our military to some extent.

 

Who have you had to defend your nation from since the end of WW2? Nobody, that's who; all the aggression and warmongering has come from America! Deny that.

 

Wrong again. Some people do deserve to be shot and the job of the police is to shoot those who do. Its what we hire them to do when someone is threatening others with serious bodily harm or death and refuses to stop.

- - - Updated - - -

It is your informed opinion there have been no threats to the free world since WW2? You want to go on record with that?

- - - Updated - - -

It is your informed opinion there have been no threats to the free world since WW2? You want to go on record with that?

- - - Updated - - -

It is your informed opinion there have been no threats to the free world since WW2? You want to go on record with that?

And the first job of the military is to make sure it is to prevent a war in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

It is your informed opinion there have been no threats to the free world since WW2? You want to go on record with that?

And the first job of the military is to make sure it is to prevent a war in the first place.

 

`
I don't think so. There are many different types of "constitutional officers" or Constitutional officers There are many different people that are considered a constitutional officer. The mere fact that both the military and municipal authorities take basically the same oath, is not proof of any kind of relationship between the two. Every branch of federal, state and municipal government has their own separate constitutional officers. A member of a school board, in most states, is a constitutional officer.
`
`
`
`

 

No. The job of the military is to defend a nation against attack and not to wage wars of aggression. As I recall the last 'conventional' attack America faced was Pearl Harbour.

 

They don't take the same oaths and have their own respective jobs to do.

Now go back and address my first rebuttal of your posts.