Why are you specifying by race, bbauska?

As the officers were not suspended until 9 days after the incident we should for balance include reports giving descriptions of criminals up to about a week after the riots?

bbauska

Absolutely correct. When a police officer does wrong, I want him punished, and it should be done with the full support of those who worked with him or her

.

To what extent do you think this occurs in the average American city police force?
-Always?
-Usually?
-Often?
- Sometimes?
-Rarely?
-Almost never?

If you were a black man in Cleveland or Baltimore, how do you think you would answer the same question?

Danivon, good question. That is the portion of public that is saying they are mistreated, and the portion of public that is in question.

RickyP, I don't care about perception. I care about facts.

bbauska

RickyP, I don't care about perception. I care about facts

.

No you don't . You said this....

bbasuka

Show me an instance of a person being turned in by a African- American in Baltimore for crimes during the riots. I can show instances of police being turned in by their co-workers..

This says that you care about being shown an anecdote or two. And that isolated anecdotes would convince you of a position. As we all know, isolated anecdotes do inform people, but do not necessarily present a clear presentation of the facts.

and at the same time you agreed with Danivon when he said this:

Yes, being a police officer is hard. But it's harder when they have colleagues who undermine the public trust. That is not the fault of the public, is it

And yet this issue of trust is all about perception isn't it?
How about you try and answer the polling question i gave you?

If I were an African-American man, I can only assume I would be the same way as I am now. I am very intent on equality, honor, authority and respect.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:As for Danivon's assertion that the upsurge in violence is a response to rioting, well, it's setting a record--and none of it is due to the (alleged) "police gang."

Aren't you telling us it's likely to be because the police are pulling back, as "ordered" by the union, so that they can make a point to the Mayor, the prosecutor and the Feds?

Or, they are simply reacting as they feel the heavy hand of the Federal government would like them to.

Riots tend to leave areas worse than they found them, and clearly the police are not re-establishing order (which suggests that the riot situation is actually still ongoing, really). Criminals take advantage, and people get more unsettled (and so more prone to react to perceived threats).

Riots cause damage. That's the "worse" part.

The chaos (which requires "re-establishing order") normally comes about as the police take to the streets and make plain they will not put up with criminal nonsense. However, when they have been recently ordered to flee in the face of rioting by their esteemed mayor, who then cuts a deal with the AG to cede control of the Department to the Feds, well, they are going to be less vigorous in re-establishing order. Why? Because they don't know what the rules are.

When you tell cops to run away, you can't expect them to suddenly impose order.

The mayor et al created this mess. They didn't watch the police more carefully before Freddy Gray. They mismanaged the rioting. They went to the Feds needlessly. Now, they have no one to blame but themselves as Baltimore experiences increased violence.

freeman3 wrote:By the way, here is an earlier article from the LA times which provides info on prosecutorial theories of the crime, which seemed at that point to be based on lack of a seat belt, not getting medical attention to Gray, and a 44 minute ride.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bal ... tml#page=2

So it appears that DA (at least at that time), was not basing its case on intentional use of force. So my suggestion that the seriousness of the injuries indicated some kind of blunt force trauma does not appear to be the line taken by prosecutors. But we'll see.

And, that's the thing. There may be some damning evidence. For the sake of the city, I hope there is. That said, if there is not, the riot will seem like "the good old days." That is the danger with the political pronouncements being made. I hope the prosecutor can back them up.

bbauska wrote:Danivon, good question. That is the portion of public that is saying they are mistreated, and the portion of public that is in question.

All of them are "in question"? And no non-black residents are complaining?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Danivon, good question. That is the portion of public that is saying they are mistreated, and the portion of public that is in question.

All of them are "in question"? And no non-black residents are complaining?

There are, and just like the police should be reporting police officers that are violating the laws, the people who are around those public who are violating the laws should be turning them in as well. To date I haven't heard of that. Is that happening at all that you have heard?

One of my concerns from all of the negative, anti-police rhetoric we've heard since Ferguson (much of it overblown) has been that some officers may be reluctant to defend themselves and thus end up getting seriously injured or killed.

Now, you may wonder, "How could that be? Who in their right mind would not defend themselves?" Well, it has happened at least once now.

http://www.telegram.com/article/2015042 ... /FRONTPAGE

About 5 p.m. Sunday, police said, Mr. Hunt's mother was inside her home trying to calm down her son, who was threatening to harm himself with a wooden sword.

When police arrived on a report of a suicide attempt, Mr. Hunt was inside the attic and was suffering from what appeared to be a self-inflicted laceration to the neck, according to police.

Police said Mr. Hunt threatened to harm officers as they tried to calm him down. Mr. Hunt threw a chair and wooden table at officers, then pulled out a knife and threw it at an officer, police said.

The policeman was struck in the leg and the cut began to bleed profusely, police said.

Police said from there the young man continued to charge at officers, swinging his wooden sword "wildly." He was eventually placed under arrest and taken to a hospital for treatment.

Police Chief Gary Gemme praised the response of his officers.

"This is another violent incident in which our responding police officers used the utmost restraint when apprehending the suspect," Chief Gemme said in a statement.

"(Mr. Hunt) not only threatened violence, he was violent throwing a knife at the police officer and seriously injuring him. This was a very dangerous situation that the officers tried to de-escalate rather than resort to deadly force.

"The outcome of the incident is a testament to the quality of officers we have on the department and highlights the ongoing training that they receive."

I spoke with a secondary source about this incident. He was not there but knows officers and firefighters who were there. The thrown knife narrowly missed the femoral artery. The suspect should have been shot. That he was not resulted in an officer nearly being killed.

Now, why should he have been shot? Because he reached into an area the officers could not see to retrieve the knife. It could have been a gun--it could have been anything. However, when you encounter someone like this young man who has threatened to do violence, you tell him what you want him to do--keep his hands in your sight. When they go out of your sight, if you have time, you warn him. If you don't have time or do not know what he is doing, you have to shoot. You have no choice. If you wait to see what it is, you've already been shot--or, as in this case, received a knife wound.

Why didn't they shoot him?

In short, they did not shoot him because he was black and they have been warned to avoid being the next focus of the national media. With all due respect to the officers involved, that is not a good enough reason to die.

Doctor Fate wrote:Now, why should he have been shot? Because he reached into an area the officers could not see to retrieve the knife. It could have been a gun--it could have been anything. However, when you encounter someone like this young man who has threatened to do violence, you tell him what you want him to do--keep his hands in your sight. When they go out of your sight, if you have time, you warn him. If you don't have time or do not know what he is doing, you have to shoot. You have no choice. If you wait to see what it is, you've already been shot--or, as in this case, received a knife wound.

Why didn't they shoot him?

In short, they did not shoot him because he was black and they have been warned to avoid being the next focus of the national media. With all due respect to the officers involved, that is not a good enough reason to die.

While you are probably right that the facts support the reading that he should have been shot according to standard operating procedure and policy training, but is it really a bad thing that he wasn't? Are we really saying that a man NOT being shot to death is bad?

Another way to put it is an officer of the law decided to put himself in harms way so as to not be forced to kill a fellow citizen and human being. That sounds pretty awesome to me, and I expect most people. I understand why we have training and standards, and I understand that it would have probably been legally justified, but just because something is legally justified doesn't necessary mean that it's the ideal way forward. It sounds like the cops were real heroes here. Perhaps we should give them praise and not criticism.

The Washington Post has set out to keep track of the total number of fatal shootings by police.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

At current pace that would be 1,000 fatal shootings this year by police (as noted below, 8 people were shot by German police last year, 0 by British police)

1 out of 13 fatal shootings in the US is done by police officers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... n-the-u-s/

Perhaps experts could shift through these cases and give advice on how to lower the rate of police shootings. But I think at some point we are going to have to require officers to take a little more risk before they resort to lethal force. 1,000 people killed by police is not acceptable in civilized society, particularly when crime has been falling for quite some time.http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

http://www.discussionist.com/101525947

90% of homicides are committed by African Americans. I think that trumps your 1 in 13. Shall we talk about how terrible the atrocities of African American homicide is?

Uh, your link says 50 percent are African-African. Your point is classic whataboutery anyway.
You could make the point however that since Washington Post figures indicate 50 percent of people shot by police were minority and your link indicates 50 percent of persons committing homicide are African-American (if that's true, I don't know) than perhaps that indicates some evidence that the problem is not primarily racial. It's a bit of a stretch, but if 50 percent of persons committing homicide are African-African, then it would not seem surprising to find that police would wind up shooting a similar percentage of African-Americans

I accidentally deleted the word black from before homicides. I meant black homicides. Sorry for the rush.

Yes, it is whataboutery. I bring it up because the police issue is minor to a much larger issue of violence committed against Blacks. Is it more important to address the 1 in 13 fatal shootings (how many are unjustified?) or more important to address the Black on Black crime? Your link list 62 that the perpetrator was unarmed, and of the 62, I ask how many are unjustified. I think the numbers will dwindle to under 1% for unjustified police shooting fatalities.

Compare that to the large issue I brought up, and the recent light on police shootings seems somewhat misplaced.