Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[Peter Brown]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

On this topic I agree.

However before you get giddy thinking you finally got the cops, just try to recall that this is precisely how many AG's in Holder's DOJ acted with respect to large corporations or even wealthy individuals (Steve Cohen anyone?). Holder and gang were also mobbish takedown artists, and the money in the end flowed to them. The saddest reality about Holder is at the end of his tenure, he virtue-signaled that he was against civil asset forfeiture, PROVIDED it was local cops doing the shakedowns. Unreal.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... at-groups/

he was the most criminal of all AG's we have ever seen.

[cradleandshoot]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

What does "defunding" the police actually mean? How do you defund the police and still protect the citizens of your city from crime? Defund the police is nothing but a stupid buzzword that would create more problems than it would solve.

[cradleandshoot]

Well count me with those who would say those chants back in 2015 weren't ok and indeed hurt the movement at the time.

I don't think those were actually outside agitators, that was just a few folks who even then didn't represent the whole of the movement...and weren't trained in peaceful protesting. There were a bunch of folks working in the ensuing years to deal with community leaders on how protesting can be most effective...witness how non-violent Baltimore was this round as a result. This is always tenuous, as not everyone who is angry is on board with the peaceful tactics and rhetoric.

But there were a heck of a lot of protests this year, dwarfing anything seen back in 2015, and the chants were quite different, though the outrage was much the same.

But we've also had widespread looting, much of which does appear to be a combination of opportunist looters and those seeking maximum division, whether from the far right or the far left.

How many of those people spewing that hatred in 2015 are now a part of the movement today? Who knows? Maybe a few hundred, a few thousand... the point is there are still people that are a part of the movement that hate the police and will do everything in their power to undermine law enforcement whenever possible. There are the majority of BLM protesters that want change. There sadly others that see an opportunity to spread chaos and anger.

Probably so, but there are now many millions who've joined the movement who certainly don't 'hate the police', though they hate the racial insensitivity and violence toward blacks, and they want change. No more putting up with abuse and abusive policing. They also believe that systematic racism is real and that it is no longer enough to 'not be a racist', we need to be actively anti-racist if we are to overcome the systemic legacy.

I agree, and so does Mitt Romney and many millions more...does that mean we 'hate the police'...not at all.

But yeah, there are likely some who want to 'spread chaos and anger'.

You think it is possible that some of the "bad apples" are manipulating peoples emotions towards what they tell them they should believe? Never let a good crisis go to waste. Why is it that at every rally someone inevitably starts throwing stuff at the police? Why is it that the leaders at these rallies tolerate this behavior? Rule #1 for a peaceful protest march should be do not throw objects at the police. That is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

You mean bad apples like in your own Rochester P.D. who amended their report on Daniel Prude?


I'd be interested in your response to this.

It is open yet moronic stuff like this that often gets people really angry.

There is no question the RPD has more than its share of bad apples. The Daniel Prude case is bizarre in many respects. His detainment by the RPD and necessity to be sent to the hospital is determined by RPD standard procedures to be an "unusual event" All such events require a copy of the incident be sent to the Chief of Police ( LaRon Alexander ) and the Mayor ( Lovely Warren ) within 24 hours. The mayor and the chief were aware of what happened, they had to have been. The Union leader for the RPD knew about it the next day and made his own inquiries as to what happened. In short the callous actions of these officers is only made worse by why the leadership in the RPD and the City of Rochester sat on this incident. There is one small part of this I do not understand. One of the suspended officers was not even there when the incident occurred. They apparently went up the chain of command and started lopping off heads. There is much more to this to be revealed. The people protesting in Rochester have every right to be ticked off. The actions of these officers was inexcusable. The actions of their leadership is proving to be equally as inexcusable.

This is nothing unusual. It has been happening in city after city year after year for as long as anyone can remember. In fact, I was guess it’s not quite as bad as it was. Thousands of incidents like that over the years. Thousands.

I would disagree to the extent when the Chief of Police knows about it and tries to hide the facts it goes way beyond a problem with the officers on the street. Chief Singletary by all reports is as strait an arrow as you could ever find. He never had a single incident recorded against him in 20 years. If you can't trust him who can you trust?

I was talking about the essence of the situation. You ever see the movie Detroit?

No I have not. I am speaking only of the specifics involving the death of Daniel Prude

[RedFromMI]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

What does "defunding" the police actually mean? How do you defund the police and still protect the citizens of your city from crime? Defund the police is nothing but a stupid buzzword that would create more problems than it would solve.

Asking to police to just do police work in preventing/solving CRIME instead of criminalizing certain social behaviors and asking them to use their inappropriate experience to deal with them.

For example, dealing with drug use via systems of support and appropriately trained social workers in a non-criminal manner rather than making simple possession of small amounts a criminal offense.

Dealing with homeless by actually providing them housing instead of using loitering/anti-camping laws to "remove" them from society into jails.

There are better ways to deal with certain issues than just making it criminal and throwing someone into jail and levying fines that they cannot possibly pay. Court systems are EXPENSIVE.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Well count me with those who would say those chants back in 2015 weren't ok and indeed hurt the movement at the time.

I don't think those were actually outside agitators, that was just a few folks who even then didn't represent the whole of the movement...and weren't trained in peaceful protesting. There were a bunch of folks working in the ensuing years to deal with community leaders on how protesting can be most effective...witness how non-violent Baltimore was this round as a result. This is always tenuous, as not everyone who is angry is on board with the peaceful tactics and rhetoric.

But there were a heck of a lot of protests this year, dwarfing anything seen back in 2015, and the chants were quite different, though the outrage was much the same.

But we've also had widespread looting, much of which does appear to be a combination of opportunist looters and those seeking maximum division, whether from the far right or the far left.

How many of those people spewing that hatred in 2015 are now a part of the movement today? Who knows? Maybe a few hundred, a few thousand... the point is there are still people that are a part of the movement that hate the police and will do everything in their power to undermine law enforcement whenever possible. There are the majority of BLM protesters that want change. There sadly others that see an opportunity to spread chaos and anger.

Probably so, but there are now many millions who've joined the movement who certainly don't 'hate the police', though they hate the racial insensitivity and violence toward blacks, and they want change. No more putting up with abuse and abusive policing. They also believe that systematic racism is real and that it is no longer enough to 'not be a racist', we need to be actively anti-racist if we are to overcome the systemic legacy.

I agree, and so does Mitt Romney and many millions more...does that mean we 'hate the police'...not at all.

But yeah, there are likely some who want to 'spread chaos and anger'.

You think it is possible that some of the "bad apples" are manipulating peoples emotions towards what they tell them they should believe? Never let a good crisis go to waste. Why is it that at every rally someone inevitably starts throwing stuff at the police? Why is it that the leaders at these rallies tolerate this behavior? Rule #1 for a peaceful protest march should be do not throw objects at the police. That is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

You mean bad apples like in your own Rochester P.D. who amended their report on Daniel Prude?


I'd be interested in your response to this.

It is open yet moronic stuff like this that often gets people really angry.

There is no question the RPD has more than its share of bad apples. The Daniel Prude case is bizarre in many respects. His detainment by the RPD and necessity to be sent to the hospital is determined by RPD standard procedures to be an "unusual event" All such events require a copy of the incident be sent to the Chief of Police ( LaRon Alexander ) and the Mayor ( Lovely Warren ) within 24 hours. The mayor and the chief were aware of what happened, they had to have been. The Union leader for the RPD knew about it the next day and made his own inquiries as to what happened. In short the callous actions of these officers is only made worse by why the leadership in the RPD and the City of Rochester sat on this incident. There is one small part of this I do not understand. One of the suspended officers was not even there when the incident occurred. They apparently went up the chain of command and started lopping off heads. There is much more to this to be revealed. The people protesting in Rochester have every right to be ticked off. The actions of these officers was inexcusable. The actions of their leadership is proving to be equally as inexcusable.

This is nothing unusual. It has been happening in city after city year after year for as long as anyone can remember. In fact, I was guess it’s not quite as bad as it was. Thousands of incidents like that over the years. Thousands.

I would disagree to the extent when the Chief of Police knows about it and tries to hide the facts it goes way beyond a problem with the officers on the street. Chief Singletary by all reports is as strait an arrow as you could ever find. He never had a single incident recorded against him in 20 years. If you can't trust him who can you trust?

I was talking about the essence of the situation. You ever see the movie Detroit?

No I have not. I am speaking only of the specifics involving the death of Daniel Prude

It is a tough tough film to watch. Police brutality goes back to reconstruction. Detroit is a 1960's example. I could not watch all of it and it is a true story. We had moved out of Detroit a year before that incident. Thank goodness. Not all cops are bad cops. My life was saved by a Detroit police officer that just happened to be passing by when I had a serious serious medical emergency. I was in the hospital for over a month. Not all cops are bad cops. We have some bad cops and a flawed system. Asking for something better doesn't make you anti-police.

[MDlaxfan76]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

What does "defunding" the police actually mean? How do you defund the police and still protect the citizens of your city from crime? Defund the police is nothing but a stupid buzzword that would create more problems than it would solve.

I assume you're asking a serious question.

I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage.

And he embraces investments in addressing crime through social services improvements.

But what the term is intended to mean is that we spend enormous resources in America in policing and incarcerating, when many of the drivers of "crime" could be much better addressed by smarter, larger investments in social services, addressing poverty, mental and physical health, opportunity, etc.

The most strident activists want to actually reduce funding to police, while shifting those scarce budget dollars to social services which will reduce crime dynamics a better way.

Again, I think Biden's response is better, increase the investments in other ways to combat drivers of crime and reap the rewards in lower incarceration and policing costs downstream. Take the long view.

I'd go a step further and address the chief driver of most violent crime, the failed 'war on drugs' and decriminalize drug possession and address addiction as a health care matter, not a criminal matter. Which is not to say that there won't still be some black market traffickers to address, ala cigarettes and booze, but de minimus compared to today's challenge and huge costs.

Note, there are a lot of lobbyists for incarceration...it's a huge business...

[cradleandshoot]

Well count me with those who would say those chants back in 2015 weren't ok and indeed hurt the movement at the time.

I don't think those were actually outside agitators, that was just a few folks who even then didn't represent the whole of the movement...and weren't trained in peaceful protesting. There were a bunch of folks working in the ensuing years to deal with community leaders on how protesting can be most effective...witness how non-violent Baltimore was this round as a result. This is always tenuous, as not everyone who is angry is on board with the peaceful tactics and rhetoric.

But there were a heck of a lot of protests this year, dwarfing anything seen back in 2015, and the chants were quite different, though the outrage was much the same.

But we've also had widespread looting, much of which does appear to be a combination of opportunist looters and those seeking maximum division, whether from the far right or the far left.

How many of those people spewing that hatred in 2015 are now a part of the movement today? Who knows? Maybe a few hundred, a few thousand... the point is there are still people that are a part of the movement that hate the police and will do everything in their power to undermine law enforcement whenever possible. There are the majority of BLM protesters that want change. There sadly others that see an opportunity to spread chaos and anger.

Probably so, but there are now many millions who've joined the movement who certainly don't 'hate the police', though they hate the racial insensitivity and violence toward blacks, and they want change. No more putting up with abuse and abusive policing. They also believe that systematic racism is real and that it is no longer enough to 'not be a racist', we need to be actively anti-racist if we are to overcome the systemic legacy.

I agree, and so does Mitt Romney and many millions more...does that mean we 'hate the police'...not at all.

But yeah, there are likely some who want to 'spread chaos and anger'.

You think it is possible that some of the "bad apples" are manipulating peoples emotions towards what they tell them they should believe? Never let a good crisis go to waste. Why is it that at every rally someone inevitably starts throwing stuff at the police? Why is it that the leaders at these rallies tolerate this behavior? Rule #1 for a peaceful protest march should be do not throw objects at the police. That is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

You mean bad apples like in your own Rochester P.D. who amended their report on Daniel Prude?


I'd be interested in your response to this.

It is open yet moronic stuff like this that often gets people really angry.

There is no question the RPD has more than its share of bad apples. The Daniel Prude case is bizarre in many respects. His detainment by the RPD and necessity to be sent to the hospital is determined by RPD standard procedures to be an "unusual event" All such events require a copy of the incident be sent to the Chief of Police ( LaRon Alexander ) and the Mayor ( Lovely Warren ) within 24 hours. The mayor and the chief were aware of what happened, they had to have been. The Union leader for the RPD knew about it the next day and made his own inquiries as to what happened. In short the callous actions of these officers is only made worse by why the leadership in the RPD and the City of Rochester sat on this incident. There is one small part of this I do not understand. One of the suspended officers was not even there when the incident occurred. They apparently went up the chain of command and started lopping off heads. There is much more to this to be revealed. The people protesting in Rochester have every right to be ticked off. The actions of these officers was inexcusable. The actions of their leadership is proving to be equally as inexcusable.

As an outsider, I wholeheartedly disagree with you here, C&S.

Prude was on PCP. He was naked. He was spitting at officers. He was bleeding. He said "Give me that gun!".

It's too bad he died, but no one killed him other than himself. The police didn't kill him, that's for sure.

They left him naked on his face on a freezing cold night with snow coming down. There was not enough compassion and humanity from these officers to cover him with a blanket? I understand the man was mentally in bad shape. Rewind a bit and ask why strong memorial hospital released him from the ED with no direction or instructions to his family? That was a mere 4 hours before this took place. URMC Strong could have kept him for 36 hours for a psych evaluation. They just let him go knowing he was in bad shape.

I don't blame the police for the hospital's issues. That all said, I bet if I dug in, NY State laws prescribe exactly how Prude was released. I don't have time to do so, but generally state laws govern 5150 holds etc...

The police again are being blamed for being put in a spot where no one (TLD) who blames them would have done anything differently. He did not die of hypothermia. Like I said, it's a shame, but in no way do I assign blame to police when any dude is on PCP and acting the way Prude was. You try touching a guy who is bleeding, defecating, spitting, urinating, screaming and weighs over 250. His heart raced out is all.

Pete I am very familiar with the issues police officers have to deal with when they interact with a suspect on PCB. My nephew was an RPD officer and wound up in just such a situation. It wound up in an intense physical confrontation with the much bigger suspect beating the hell out of him and trying to get his gun. In the course of the struggle his partner blasted my nephew in his eyes with pepper spray by mistake. The suspect then got his handgun out and got off one shot that just missed his head. My nephews partner then shot the suspect in the gut. My nephew spent a couple days in the hospital recovering from his injuries. Ironically a couple days later there were protests in the streets accusing my nephew and his partner of excessive use of force. While he was still in the hospital no less.

The RPD chief of police a man named Charles Alexander, now a big wig democrat guy defended both officers for acting in a manner that they were trained to do. The protests went away quickly. The trauma to my nephew never went away. Five years later he was an angry suicidal alcoholic police officer with resentments against the people he served. Many of these officers pay a price for what they go through on a daily basis. It takes IMO a very special type of man/woman to be a police officer and maintain the proper attitude to do the job and maintain your composure at all times.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

What does "defunding" the police actually mean? How do you defund the police and still protect the citizens of your city from crime? Defund the police is nothing but a stupid buzzword that would create more problems than it would solve.

I assume you're asking a serious question.

I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to more damage.

And he embraces investments in addressing crime through social services improvements.

But what the term is intended to mean is that we spend enormous resources in America in policing and incarcerating, when many of the drivers of "crime" could be much better addressed by smarter, larger investments in social services, addressing poverty, mental and physical health, opportunity, etc.

The most strident activists want to actually reduce funding to police, while shifting those scarce budget dollars to social services which will reduce crime dynamics a better way.

Again, I think Biden's response is better, increase the investments in other ways to combat drivers of crime and reap the rewards in lower incarceration and policing costs downstream. Take the long view.

I'd go a step further and address the chief driver of most violent crime, the failed 'war on drugs' and decriminalize drug possession and address addiction as a health care matter, not a criminal matter. Which is not to say that there won't still be some black market traffickers to address, ala cigarettes and booze, but de minimus compared to today's challenge and huge costs.

Note, there are a lot of lobbyists for incarceration...it's a huge business...

I have been saying this for years. Invest early, produce a more productive citizenry, reduce crime and the costs to jail people. We have 25% of the world's prison population. We can do better.

Here is one such example

[Typical Lax Dad]

Well count me with those who would say those chants back in 2015 weren't ok and indeed hurt the movement at the time.

I don't think those were actually outside agitators, that was just a few folks who even then didn't represent the whole of the movement...and weren't trained in peaceful protesting. There were a bunch of folks working in the ensuing years to deal with community leaders on how protesting can be most effective...witness how non-violent Baltimore was this round as a result. This is always tenuous, as not everyone who is angry is on board with the peaceful tactics and rhetoric.

But there were a heck of a lot of protests this year, dwarfing anything seen back in 2015, and the chants were quite different, though the outrage was much the same.

But we've also had widespread looting, much of which does appear to be a combination of opportunist looters and those seeking maximum division, whether from the far right or the far left.

How many of those people spewing that hatred in 2015 are now a part of the movement today? Who knows? Maybe a few hundred, a few thousand... the point is there are still people that are a part of the movement that hate the police and will do everything in their power to undermine law enforcement whenever possible. There are the majority of BLM protesters that want change. There sadly others that see an opportunity to spread chaos and anger.

Probably so, but there are now many millions who've joined the movement who certainly don't 'hate the police', though they hate the racial insensitivity and violence toward blacks, and they want change. No more putting up with abuse and abusive policing. They also believe that systematic racism is real and that it is no longer enough to 'not be a racist', we need to be actively anti-racist if we are to overcome the systemic legacy.

I agree, and so does Mitt Romney and many millions more...does that mean we 'hate the police'...not at all.

But yeah, there are likely some who want to 'spread chaos and anger'.

You think it is possible that some of the "bad apples" are manipulating peoples emotions towards what they tell them they should believe? Never let a good crisis go to waste. Why is it that at every rally someone inevitably starts throwing stuff at the police? Why is it that the leaders at these rallies tolerate this behavior? Rule #1 for a peaceful protest march should be do not throw objects at the police. That is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

You mean bad apples like in your own Rochester P.D. who amended their report on Daniel Prude?


I'd be interested in your response to this.

It is open yet moronic stuff like this that often gets people really angry.

There is no question the RPD has more than its share of bad apples. The Daniel Prude case is bizarre in many respects. His detainment by the RPD and necessity to be sent to the hospital is determined by RPD standard procedures to be an "unusual event" All such events require a copy of the incident be sent to the Chief of Police ( LaRon Alexander ) and the Mayor ( Lovely Warren ) within 24 hours. The mayor and the chief were aware of what happened, they had to have been. The Union leader for the RPD knew about it the next day and made his own inquiries as to what happened. In short the callous actions of these officers is only made worse by why the leadership in the RPD and the City of Rochester sat on this incident. There is one small part of this I do not understand. One of the suspended officers was not even there when the incident occurred. They apparently went up the chain of command and started lopping off heads. There is much more to this to be revealed. The people protesting in Rochester have every right to be ticked off. The actions of these officers was inexcusable. The actions of their leadership is proving to be equally as inexcusable.

As an outsider, I wholeheartedly disagree with you here, C&S.

Prude was on PCP. He was naked. He was spitting at officers. He was bleeding. He said "Give me that gun!".

It's too bad he died, but no one killed him other than himself. The police didn't kill him, that's for sure.

They left him naked on his face on a freezing cold night with snow coming down. There was not enough compassion and humanity from these officers to cover him with a blanket? I understand the man was mentally in bad shape. Rewind a bit and ask why strong memorial hospital released him from the ED with no direction or instructions to his family? That was a mere 4 hours before this took place. URMC Strong could have kept him for 36 hours for a psych evaluation. They just let him go knowing he was in bad shape.

I don't blame the police for the hospital's issues. That all said, I bet if I dug in, NY State laws prescribe exactly how Prude was released. I don't have time to do so, but generally state laws govern 5150 holds etc...

The police again are being blamed for being put in a spot where no one (TLD) who blames them would have done anything differently. He did not die of hypothermia. Like I said, it's a shame, but in no way do I assign blame to police when any dude is on PCP and acting the way Prude was. You try touching a guy who is bleeding, defecating, spitting, urinating, screaming and weighs over 250. His heart raced out is all.

Pete I am very familiar with the issues police officers have to deal with when they interact with a suspect on PCB. My nephew was an RPD officer and wound up in just such a situation. It wound up in an intense physical confrontation with the much bigger suspect beating the hell out of him and trying to get his gun. In the course of the struggle his partner blasted my nephew in his eyes with pepper spray by mistake. The suspect then got his handgun out and got off one shot that just missed his head. My nephews partner then shot the suspect in the gut. My nephew spent a couple days in the hospital recovering from his injuries. Ironically a couple days later there were protests in the streets accusing my nephew and his partner of excessive use of force. While he was still in the hospital no less.

The RPD chief of police a man named Charles Alexander, now a big wig democrat guy defended both officers for acting in a manner that they were trained to do. The protests went away quickly. The trauma to my nephew never went away. Five years later he was an angry suicidal alcoholic police officer with resentments against the people he served. Many of these officers pay a price for what they go through on a daily basis. It takes IMO a very special type of man/woman to be a police officer and maintain the proper attitude to do the job and maintain your composure at all times.

All the more reason why we need different training and a different approach along with other things. In the long run it is better for everyone. Only a fool would say....leave it as is.

[CU88]

Well count me with those who would say those chants back in 2015 weren't ok and indeed hurt the movement at the time.

I don't think those were actually outside agitators, that was just a few folks who even then didn't represent the whole of the movement...and weren't trained in peaceful protesting. There were a bunch of folks working in the ensuing years to deal with community leaders on how protesting can be most effective...witness how non-violent Baltimore was this round as a result. This is always tenuous, as not everyone who is angry is on board with the peaceful tactics and rhetoric.

But there were a heck of a lot of protests this year, dwarfing anything seen back in 2015, and the chants were quite different, though the outrage was much the same.

But we've also had widespread looting, much of which does appear to be a combination of opportunist looters and those seeking maximum division, whether from the far right or the far left.

How many of those people spewing that hatred in 2015 are now a part of the movement today? Who knows? Maybe a few hundred, a few thousand... the point is there are still people that are a part of the movement that hate the police and will do everything in their power to undermine law enforcement whenever possible. There are the majority of BLM protesters that want change. There sadly others that see an opportunity to spread chaos and anger.

Probably so, but there are now many millions who've joined the movement who certainly don't 'hate the police', though they hate the racial insensitivity and violence toward blacks, and they want change. No more putting up with abuse and abusive policing. They also believe that systematic racism is real and that it is no longer enough to 'not be a racist', we need to be actively anti-racist if we are to overcome the systemic legacy.

I agree, and so does Mitt Romney and many millions more...does that mean we 'hate the police'...not at all.

But yeah, there are likely some who want to 'spread chaos and anger'.

You think it is possible that some of the "bad apples" are manipulating peoples emotions towards what they tell them they should believe? Never let a good crisis go to waste. Why is it that at every rally someone inevitably starts throwing stuff at the police? Why is it that the leaders at these rallies tolerate this behavior? Rule #1 for a peaceful protest march should be do not throw objects at the police. That is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

You mean bad apples like in your own Rochester P.D. who amended their report on Daniel Prude?


I'd be interested in your response to this.

It is open yet moronic stuff like this that often gets people really angry.

There is no question the RPD has more than its share of bad apples. The Daniel Prude case is bizarre in many respects. His detainment by the RPD and necessity to be sent to the hospital is determined by RPD standard procedures to be an "unusual event" All such events require a copy of the incident be sent to the Chief of Police ( LaRon Alexander ) and the Mayor ( Lovely Warren ) within 24 hours. The mayor and the chief were aware of what happened, they had to have been. The Union leader for the RPD knew about it the next day and made his own inquiries as to what happened. In short the callous actions of these officers is only made worse by why the leadership in the RPD and the City of Rochester sat on this incident. There is one small part of this I do not understand. One of the suspended officers was not even there when the incident occurred. They apparently went up the chain of command and started lopping off heads. There is much more to this to be revealed. The people protesting in Rochester have every right to be ticked off. The actions of these officers was inexcusable. The actions of their leadership is proving to be equally as inexcusable.

As an outsider, I wholeheartedly disagree with you here, C&S.

Prude was on PCP. He was naked. He was spitting at officers. He was bleeding. He said "Give me that gun!".

It's too bad he died, but no one killed him other than himself. The police didn't kill him, that's for sure.

They left him naked on his face on a freezing cold night with snow coming down. There was not enough compassion and humanity from these officers to cover him with a blanket? I understand the man was mentally in bad shape. Rewind a bit and ask why strong memorial hospital released him from the ED with no direction or instructions to his family? That was a mere 4 hours before this took place. URMC Strong could have kept him for 36 hours for a psych evaluation. They just let him go knowing he was in bad shape.

I don't blame the police for the hospital's issues. That all said, I bet if I dug in, NY State laws prescribe exactly how Prude was released. I don't have time to do so, but generally state laws govern 5150 holds etc...

The police again are being blamed for being put in a spot where no one (TLD) who blames them would have done anything differently. He did not die of hypothermia. Like I said, it's a shame, but in no way do I assign blame to police when any dude is on PCP and acting the way Prude was. You try touching a guy who is bleeding, defecating, spitting, urinating, screaming and weighs over 250. His heart raced out is all.

Pete I am very familiar with the issues police officers have to deal with when they interact with a suspect on PCB. My nephew was an RPD officer and wound up in just such a situation. It wound up in an intense physical confrontation with the much bigger suspect beating the hell out of him and trying to get his gun. In the course of the struggle his partner blasted my nephew in his eyes with pepper spray by mistake. The suspect then got his handgun out and got off one shot that just missed his head. My nephews partner then shot the suspect in the gut. My nephew spent a couple days in the hospital recovering from his injuries. Ironically a couple days later there were protests in the streets accusing my nephew and his partner of excessive use of force. While he was still in the hospital no less.

The RPD chief of police a man named Charles Alexander, now a big wig democrat guy defended both officers for acting in a manner that they were trained to do. The protests went away quickly. The trauma to my nephew never went away. Five years later he was an angry suicidal alcoholic police officer with resentments against the people he served. Many of these officers pay a price for what they go through on a daily basis. It takes IMO a very special type of man/woman to be a police officer and maintain the proper attitude to do the job and maintain your composure at all times.

All the more reason why we need different training and a different approach along with other things. In the long run it is better for everyone. Only a fool would say....leave it as is.

+1

[cradleandshoot]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

What does "defunding" the police actually mean? How do you defund the police and still protect the citizens of your city from crime? Defund the police is nothing but a stupid buzzword that would create more problems than it would solve.

I assume you're asking a serious question.

I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage.

And he embraces investments in addressing crime through social services improvements.

But what the term is intended to mean is that we spend enormous resources in America in policing and incarcerating, when many of the drivers of "crime" could be much better addressed by smarter, larger investments in social services, addressing poverty, mental and physical health, opportunity, etc.

The most strident activists want to actually reduce funding to police, while shifting those scarce budget dollars to social services which will reduce crime dynamics a better way.

Again, I think Biden's response is better, increase the investments in other ways to combat drivers of crime and reap the rewards in lower incarceration and policing costs downstream. Take the long view.

I'd go a step further and address the chief driver of most violent crime, the failed 'war on drugs' and decriminalize drug possession and address addiction as a health care matter, not a criminal matter. Which is not to say that there won't still be some black market traffickers to address, ala cigarettes and booze, but de minimus compared to today's challenge and huge costs.

Note, there are a lot of lobbyists for incarceration...it's a huge business...

"I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage."

It was a very serious question. I understand the desire to demilitarize the police. The problem is the bad guys, the really, really bad guys don't care one way or the other. Do you expect the really bad guys to be impressed if the police become kinder and gentler? A good portion of the bad guys on the street have illegal weapons and will shoot down a cop at the drop of a hat. The police have a very fine line to walk. The public does not want them to be too aggressive but at the same time aggressive enough to handle any and all dangerous situations. Those dangerous situations don't come with a warning. They happen on a moments notice. A bad guy with a knife or a gun is a life threatening situation that you can't always see coming.

I understand what you are saying about the bad apples. They are protected by their unions. It is easier to want to get rid of them than it actually is to do it. They are damn near the equivalent of a teacher with tenure. They may not be very good at what they do but they work under a very powerful union contract that has their back.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

What does "defunding" the police actually mean? How do you defund the police and still protect the citizens of your city from crime? Defund the police is nothing but a stupid buzzword that would create more problems than it would solve.

I assume you're asking a serious question.

I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage.

And he embraces investments in addressing crime through social services improvements.

But what the term is intended to mean is that we spend enormous resources in America in policing and incarcerating, when many of the drivers of "crime" could be much better addressed by smarter, larger investments in social services, addressing poverty, mental and physical health, opportunity, etc.

The most strident activists want to actually reduce funding to police, while shifting those scarce budget dollars to social services which will reduce crime dynamics a better way.

Again, I think Biden's response is better, increase the investments in other ways to combat drivers of crime and reap the rewards in lower incarceration and policing costs downstream. Take the long view.

I'd go a step further and address the chief driver of most violent crime, the failed 'war on drugs' and decriminalize drug possession and address addiction as a health care matter, not a criminal matter. Which is not to say that there won't still be some black market traffickers to address, ala cigarettes and booze, but de minimus compared to today's challenge and huge costs.

Note, there are a lot of lobbyists for incarceration...it's a huge business...

"I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage."

It was a very serious question. I understand the desire to demilitarize the police. The problem is the bad guys, the really, really bad guys don't care one way or the other. Do you expect the really bad guys to be impressed if the police become kinder and gentler? A good portion of the bad guys on the street have illegal weapons and will shoot down a cop at the drop of a hat. The police have a very fine line to walk. The public does not want them to be too aggressive but at the same time aggressive enough to handle any and all dangerous situations. Those dangerous situations don't come with a warning. They happen on a moments notice. A bad guy with a knife or a gun is a life threatening situation that you can't always see coming.

I understand what you are saying about the bad apples. They are protected by their unions. It is easier to want to get rid of them than it actually is to do it. They are damn near the equivalent of a teacher with tenure. They may not be very good at what they do but they work under a very powerful union contract that has their back.

Some light reading:

Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation

The increasingly visible presence of heavily armed police units in American communities has stoked widespread concern over the militarization of local law enforcement. Advocates claim militarized policing protects officers and deters violent crime, while critics allege these tactics are targeted at racial minorities and erode trust in law enforcement. Using a rare geocoded census of SWAT team deployments from Maryland, I show that militarized police units are more often deployed in communities with large shares of African American residents, even after controlling for local crime rates. Further, using nationwide panel data on local police militarization, I demonstrate that militarized policing fails to enhance officer safety or reduce local crime. Finally, using survey experiments—one of which includes a large oversample of African American respondents—I show that seeing militarized police in news reports may diminish police reputation in the mass public. In the case of militarized policing, the results suggest that the often-cited trade-off between public safety and civil liberties is a false choice.

[cradleandshoot]

Well count me with those who would say those chants back in 2015 weren't ok and indeed hurt the movement at the time.

I don't think those were actually outside agitators, that was just a few folks who even then didn't represent the whole of the movement...and weren't trained in peaceful protesting. There were a bunch of folks working in the ensuing years to deal with community leaders on how protesting can be most effective...witness how non-violent Baltimore was this round as a result. This is always tenuous, as not everyone who is angry is on board with the peaceful tactics and rhetoric.

But there were a heck of a lot of protests this year, dwarfing anything seen back in 2015, and the chants were quite different, though the outrage was much the same.

But we've also had widespread looting, much of which does appear to be a combination of opportunist looters and those seeking maximum division, whether from the far right or the far left.

How many of those people spewing that hatred in 2015 are now a part of the movement today? Who knows? Maybe a few hundred, a few thousand... the point is there are still people that are a part of the movement that hate the police and will do everything in their power to undermine law enforcement whenever possible. There are the majority of BLM protesters that want change. There sadly others that see an opportunity to spread chaos and anger.

Probably so, but there are now many millions who've joined the movement who certainly don't 'hate the police', though they hate the racial insensitivity and violence toward blacks, and they want change. No more putting up with abuse and abusive policing. They also believe that systematic racism is real and that it is no longer enough to 'not be a racist', we need to be actively anti-racist if we are to overcome the systemic legacy.

I agree, and so does Mitt Romney and many millions more...does that mean we 'hate the police'...not at all.

But yeah, there are likely some who want to 'spread chaos and anger'.

You think it is possible that some of the "bad apples" are manipulating peoples emotions towards what they tell them they should believe? Never let a good crisis go to waste. Why is it that at every rally someone inevitably starts throwing stuff at the police? Why is it that the leaders at these rallies tolerate this behavior? Rule #1 for a peaceful protest march should be do not throw objects at the police. That is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

You mean bad apples like in your own Rochester P.D. who amended their report on Daniel Prude?


I'd be interested in your response to this.

It is open yet moronic stuff like this that often gets people really angry.

There is no question the RPD has more than its share of bad apples. The Daniel Prude case is bizarre in many respects. His detainment by the RPD and necessity to be sent to the hospital is determined by RPD standard procedures to be an "unusual event" All such events require a copy of the incident be sent to the Chief of Police ( LaRon Alexander ) and the Mayor ( Lovely Warren ) within 24 hours. The mayor and the chief were aware of what happened, they had to have been. The Union leader for the RPD knew about it the next day and made his own inquiries as to what happened. In short the callous actions of these officers is only made worse by why the leadership in the RPD and the City of Rochester sat on this incident. There is one small part of this I do not understand. One of the suspended officers was not even there when the incident occurred. They apparently went up the chain of command and started lopping off heads. There is much more to this to be revealed. The people protesting in Rochester have every right to be ticked off. The actions of these officers was inexcusable. The actions of their leadership is proving to be equally as inexcusable.

As an outsider, I wholeheartedly disagree with you here, C&S.

Prude was on PCP. He was naked. He was spitting at officers. He was bleeding. He said "Give me that gun!".

It's too bad he died, but no one killed him other than himself. The police didn't kill him, that's for sure.

They left him naked on his face on a freezing cold night with snow coming down. There was not enough compassion and humanity from these officers to cover him with a blanket? I understand the man was mentally in bad shape. Rewind a bit and ask why strong memorial hospital released him from the ED with no direction or instructions to his family? That was a mere 4 hours before this took place. URMC Strong could have kept him for 36 hours for a psych evaluation. They just let him go knowing he was in bad shape.

I don't blame the police for the hospital's issues. That all said, I bet if I dug in, NY State laws prescribe exactly how Prude was released. I don't have time to do so, but generally state laws govern 5150 holds etc...

The police again are being blamed for being put in a spot where no one (TLD) who blames them would have done anything differently. He did not die of hypothermia. Like I said, it's a shame, but in no way do I assign blame to police when any dude is on PCP and acting the way Prude was. You try touching a guy who is bleeding, defecating, spitting, urinating, screaming and weighs over 250. His heart raced out is all.

Pete I am very familiar with the issues police officers have to deal with when they interact with a suspect on PCB. My nephew was an RPD officer and wound up in just such a situation. It wound up in an intense physical confrontation with the much bigger suspect beating the hell out of him and trying to get his gun. In the course of the struggle his partner blasted my nephew in his eyes with pepper spray by mistake. The suspect then got his handgun out and got off one shot that just missed his head. My nephews partner then shot the suspect in the gut. My nephew spent a couple days in the hospital recovering from his injuries. Ironically a couple days later there were protests in the streets accusing my nephew and his partner of excessive use of force. While he was still in the hospital no less.

The RPD chief of police a man named Charles Alexander, now a big wig democrat guy defended both officers for acting in a manner that they were trained to do. The protests went away quickly. The trauma to my nephew never went away. Five years later he was an angry suicidal alcoholic police officer with resentments against the people he served. Many of these officers pay a price for what they go through on a daily basis. It takes IMO a very special type of man/woman to be a police officer and maintain the proper attitude to do the job and maintain your composure at all times.

All the more reason why we need different training and a different approach along with other things. In the long run it is better for everyone. Only a fool would say....leave it as is.

+1

You approach a slippery slope. In my nephews case he and his partner acted 100% in the manner that they were trained . They still were accused of excessive force by some in the community. I guess many officers feel boxed in. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are not dealing on a day to day basis with people who sing too loud in the church choir on Sunday. They are dealing with criminals that despise them and will kill them if it means not going to jail. Nobody wants to leave it as is. The 800 pound elephant in the room is the cops in some way shape or fashion have to deal with these criminals. These criminals play by their own set of rules and rule #1 is to do anything you have to do to stay out of jail.

[cradleandshoot]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

What does "defunding" the police actually mean? How do you defund the police and still protect the citizens of your city from crime? Defund the police is nothing but a stupid buzzword that would create more problems than it would solve.

I assume you're asking a serious question.

I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage.

And he embraces investments in addressing crime through social services improvements.

But what the term is intended to mean is that we spend enormous resources in America in policing and incarcerating, when many of the drivers of "crime" could be much better addressed by smarter, larger investments in social services, addressing poverty, mental and physical health, opportunity, etc.

The most strident activists want to actually reduce funding to police, while shifting those scarce budget dollars to social services which will reduce crime dynamics a better way.

Again, I think Biden's response is better, increase the investments in other ways to combat drivers of crime and reap the rewards in lower incarceration and policing costs downstream. Take the long view.

I'd go a step further and address the chief driver of most violent crime, the failed 'war on drugs' and decriminalize drug possession and address addiction as a health care matter, not a criminal matter. Which is not to say that there won't still be some black market traffickers to address, ala cigarettes and booze, but de minimus compared to today's challenge and huge costs.

Note, there are a lot of lobbyists for incarceration...it's a huge business...

"I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage."

It was a very serious question. I understand the desire to demilitarize the police. The problem is the bad guys, the really, really bad guys don't care one way or the other. Do you expect the really bad guys to be impressed if the police become kinder and gentler? A good portion of the bad guys on the street have illegal weapons and will shoot down a cop at the drop of a hat. The police have a very fine line to walk. The public does not want them to be too aggressive but at the same time aggressive enough to handle any and all dangerous situations. Those dangerous situations don't come with a warning. They happen on a moments notice. A bad guy with a knife or a gun is a life threatening situation that you can't always see coming.

I understand what you are saying about the bad apples. They are protected by their unions. It is easier to want to get rid of them than it actually is to do it. They are damn near the equivalent of a teacher with tenure. They may not be very good at what they do but they work under a very powerful union contract that has their back.

Some light reading:

Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation

The increasingly visible presence of heavily armed police units in American communities has stoked widespread concern over the militarization of local law enforcement. Advocates claim militarized policing protects officers and deters violent crime, while critics allege these tactics are targeted at racial minorities and erode trust in law enforcement. Using a rare geocoded census of SWAT team deployments from Maryland, I show that militarized police units are more often deployed in communities with large shares of African American residents, even after controlling for local crime rates. Further, using nationwide panel data on local police militarization, I demonstrate that militarized policing fails to enhance officer safety or reduce local crime. Finally, using survey experiments—one of which includes a large oversample of African American respondents—I show that seeing militarized police in news reports may diminish police reputation in the mass public. In the case of militarized policing, the results suggest that the often-cited trade-off between public safety and civil liberties is a false choice.

We may be talking past each other here. I admit up front I don't have many solutions. I do understand that the really hardcore criminals don't give rats rear end if the police show up with automatic weapons and bazookas as opposed to six shot revolvers. They just want to stay out of jail. I don't believe very many of them have any intentions of demilitarizing themselves. I watch alot of those old re-runs of Adam 12. Talk about old fashioned cops. All they had were nightsticks and their revolvers. They did not have pistol belts filled with a ton of high tech gadgets and stuff. Of course back then not that many bad guys were very willing to shoot you.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I am all in on this defunding of police, mob style shakedown is BS.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/we-ne ... orfeiture/

What does "defunding" the police actually mean? How do you defund the police and still protect the citizens of your city from crime? Defund the police is nothing but a stupid buzzword that would create more problems than it would solve.

I assume you're asking a serious question.

I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage.

And he embraces investments in addressing crime through social services improvements.

But what the term is intended to mean is that we spend enormous resources in America in policing and incarcerating, when many of the drivers of "crime" could be much better addressed by smarter, larger investments in social services, addressing poverty, mental and physical health, opportunity, etc.

The most strident activists want to actually reduce funding to police, while shifting those scarce budget dollars to social services which will reduce crime dynamics a better way.

Again, I think Biden's response is better, increase the investments in other ways to combat drivers of crime and reap the rewards in lower incarceration and policing costs downstream. Take the long view.

I'd go a step further and address the chief driver of most violent crime, the failed 'war on drugs' and decriminalize drug possession and address addiction as a health care matter, not a criminal matter. Which is not to say that there won't still be some black market traffickers to address, ala cigarettes and booze, but de minimus compared to today's challenge and huge costs.

Note, there are a lot of lobbyists for incarceration...it's a huge business...

"I prefer Biden's responses on this one, that he doesn't want to lower police budgets, but he does want to demilitarize and train far better, and he wants to get rid of the bad apples not just pass them department to department much less give them license to do more damage."

It was a very serious question. I understand the desire to demilitarize the police. The problem is the bad guys, the really, really bad guys don't care one way or the other. Do you expect the really bad guys to be impressed if the police become kinder and gentler? A good portion of the bad guys on the street have illegal weapons and will shoot down a cop at the drop of a hat. The police have a very fine line to walk. The public does not want them to be too aggressive but at the same time aggressive enough to handle any and all dangerous situations. Those dangerous situations don't come with a warning. They happen on a moments notice. A bad guy with a knife or a gun is a life threatening situation that you can't always see coming.

I understand what you are saying about the bad apples. They are protected by their unions. It is easier to want to get rid of them than it actually is to do it. They are damn near the equivalent of a teacher with tenure. They may not be very good at what they do but they work under a very powerful union contract that has their back.

Some light reading:

Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation

The increasingly visible presence of heavily armed police units in American communities has stoked widespread concern over the militarization of local law enforcement. Advocates claim militarized policing protects officers and deters violent crime, while critics allege these tactics are targeted at racial minorities and erode trust in law enforcement. Using a rare geocoded census of SWAT team deployments from Maryland, I show that militarized police units are more often deployed in communities with large shares of African American residents, even after controlling for local crime rates. Further, using nationwide panel data on local police militarization, I demonstrate that militarized policing fails to enhance officer safety or reduce local crime. Finally, using survey experiments—one of which includes a large oversample of African American respondents—I show that seeing militarized police in news reports may diminish police reputation in the mass public. In the case of militarized policing, the results suggest that the often-cited trade-off between public safety and civil liberties is a false choice.

We may be talking past each other here. I admit up front I don't have many solutions. I do understand that the really hardcore criminals don't give rats rear end if the police show up with automatic weapons and bazookas as opposed to six shot revolvers. They just want to stay out of jail. I don't believe very many of them have any intentions of demilitarizing themselves. I watch alot of those old re-runs of Adam 12. Talk about old fashioned cops. All they had were nightsticks and their revolvers. They did not have pistol belts filled with a ton of high tech gadgets and stuff. Of course back then not that many bad guys were very willing to shoot you.

Who said anything about it being all or nothing? There are hardened criminals around the globe. Not every local police force is militarized the way we are and they get good results. I wonder why the threat of shooting is more of a problem now?

[RedFromMI]

One huge issue that makes the American policing situation is the number of firearms (either legal or illegal) on the streets, combined with an approach to police training based on action from fear (those criminals must be armed so let's handle our interactions as if they all are).

If an officer approaches a situation expecting violence, it is going to get those trigger fingers itching...

Your choices are to figure out how to train a better approach that does not lead to a bloodbath of the police not prepared or to put some sensible limits on firearms...

Not an easy problem...

[Peter Brown]

I don't blame the police for the hospital's issues. That all said, I bet if I dug in, NY State laws prescribe exactly how Prude was released. I don't have time to do so, but generally state laws govern 5150 holds etc...

The police again are being blamed for being put in a spot where no one (TLD) who blames them would have done anything differently. He did not die of hypothermia. Like I said, it's a shame, but in no way do I assign blame to police when any dude is on PCP and acting the way Prude was. You try touching a guy who is bleeding, defecating, spitting, urinating, screaming and weighs over 250. His heart raced out is all.

Pete I am very familiar with the issues police officers have to deal with when they interact with a suspect on PCB. My nephew was an RPD officer and wound up in just such a situation. It wound up in an intense physical confrontation with the much bigger suspect beating the hell out of him and trying to get his gun. In the course of the struggle his partner blasted my nephew in his eyes with pepper spray by mistake. The suspect then got his handgun out and got off one shot that just missed his head. My nephews partner then shot the suspect in the gut. My nephew spent a couple days in the hospital recovering from his injuries. Ironically a couple days later there were protests in the streets accusing my nephew and his partner of excessive use of force. While he was still in the hospital no less.

The RPD chief of police a man named Charles Alexander, now a big wig democrat guy defended both officers for acting in a manner that they were trained to do. The protests went away quickly. The trauma to my nephew never went away. Five years later he was an angry suicidal alcoholic police officer with resentments against the people he served. Many of these officers pay a price for what they go through on a daily basis. It takes IMO a very special type of man/woman to be a police officer and maintain the proper attitude to do the job and maintain your composure at all times.




Your post is EXACTLY why I tend to defer to police on issues of police 'violence' when often it's not really the police who are at fault. 99.99% of the time when there is some charge of police physical abuse, the person doing the accusing is the one completely and unreservedly at fault.

That does not mean I don't object to civil asset forfeiture and all that entails. I object to excessive force. I object to any union representing any public employee. I object to the death penalty. I object to police and prosecutors being granted full immunity.

But for the most part, police do the right thing when dealing with violent thugs.

The Fanlax birdbrains who constantly bemoan a police 'culture of abuse', a 'systemic' issue, don't have one clue what they are talking about, and in all likelihood, live in such a cloistered cocoon of whiteness, if they had an ounce of humility would not comment on these matters.

[jhu72]

One huge issue that makes the American policing situation is the number of firearms (either legal or illegal) on the streets, combined with an approach to police training based on action from fear (those criminals must be armed so let's handle our interactions as if they all are).

If an officer approaches a situation expecting violence, it is going to get those trigger fingers itching...

Your choices are to figure out how to train a better approach that does not lead to a bloodbath of the police not prepared or to put some sensible limits on firearms...

Not an easy problem...

Get the guns out of the hands of private citizens and policing changes. Remove the fear from law enforcement. Few want to acknowledge this simple fact. Achieving it is another different matter.

[Peter Brown]

One huge issue that makes the American policing situation is the number of firearms (either legal or illegal) on the streets, combined with an approach to police training based on action from fear (those criminals must be armed so let's handle our interactions as if they all are).

If an officer approaches a situation expecting violence, it is going to get those trigger fingers itching...

Your choices are to figure out how to train a better approach that does not lead to a bloodbath of the police not prepared or to put some sensible limits on firearms...

Not an easy problem...

Get the guns out of the hands of private citizens and policing changes. Remove the fear from law enforcement. Few want to acknowledge this simple fact. Achieving it is another different matter.

Whenever I hear a guy like jhu72 says guns need to be taken away from citizens (if he simply said: 'guns need to be taken away from violent criminals', I'd be empathetic to his argument), I'm reminded that when the Third Reich gained power, gun control laws only allowed firearm ownership for Nazi party members and the military, but Nazi laws systematically disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews.

I wonder who jhu72 considers "unreliable"?

[Typical Lax Dad]