Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2771453306219475&id=908009612563863&ref=content_filter  This should work. Sorry about that. 

I watched the entire, uncut, video (warning: significant language), and they guy was never in any danger.

After ignoring multiple orders from the officer - including after being informed he was being detained - the cop did, ultimately draw his taser and hold it at his ribs, pointing towards the ground.

After continued non-compliance, the officer eventually draw his firearm and (again) held it against his chest, pointed toward the ground.

The officer was calm and professional throughout the entire encounter, and the independent report of the incident found that there was no evidence of racial bias on the part of the officer involved. 

Incidentally, I found the Facebook video that you posted to be highly misleading at the end, where it deals with the faculty member's arrival and how the incident is resolved.

They cut the film together to make it look like this white guy shows up, says that the fellow lives there, and the cops all just totally take him at his word - you know, because he's white, and cops are obviously all racist. 

And to drive the point home about just how racist the cops are, they make sure to overlay the following commentary during that section of the video, "The police officers never asked the faculty member, a white man, to confirm his identity or prove that he worked for the college."  [emphasis in original]

When, in reality, the faculty member doesn't show up until the very end of the standoff, after the police had already had somebody go into the building and confirm with two residents that the guy did, in fact, live there, and the Sargent on the scene had already instructed the officer to return the student's ID and take off.

In other words, the police officers didn't bother with confirming the "white man's" identity - not because he was white, but because they had all of the information necessary to close out their investigation already - making his identity totally irrelevant at that point. 

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Amulek

[rodheadlee]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

You are skipping over my point which was in response to you saying protestors would leave if they were truly afraid for their lives.  If police have a reason to stay even when they see their lives threatened, why couldn't protestors have reasons as well?

Because it's the job of the police to restore law and order. They risk their lives every day in cities like Los Angeles. In Baltimore the mayor pulled the police back and said let them riot during the Freddy Gray riots. how did that work out?

[USU78]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You're mistaken in you're characterisation of protestors.

My daughter attended a peaceful BLM protest that even followed social distancing. She was instructed to respect those rules by me and reportedly had no issues.

She's been to two other peaceful protests this past year before the lockdown and has had no issues.

Of course, police here in the UK are generally unarmed, so it's a different culture and attitude. Here, I'm not worried about police looking for opportunities to use force because their job usually is not about using force.

Regarding daily life, my teen son is an Aspie and is very cautious but also a little strange in public, though very polite. I'm not afraid that people will misconstrue his strangeness for menace. We're American, and I would feel differently about these situations for my kids if we were still in the US. 

Police everywhere do not necessarily act the same. In any case, no I do not want militarised police, which is more than just being armed.

 

Nice slogans. Effective with some. But 'a man "convinced" against his will ...' A thousand 'peaceful' people demanding X by blocking sidewalks, roads, parks and other rights of way are subverting the governmental process for petitioning for redress of claimed wrongs and elect the 'right' people and pass the 'right' ballot measures.

They do so because they eschew persuasion per Section 121 and because they want to feel the deliciousness of power to affect change NOW against the wills of the unannointed they despise.

Edited June 26, 2020 by USU78

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

That's interesting, because it ignores history.  The Civil Rights Movement started in churches.

Can you please support your contention? 

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Can you please support your contention? 

You think the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. just liked being called "Reverend" for fun?

 

 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You think the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. just liked being called "Reverend" for fun?

 

 

Oh of course not.  I'm just curious what he means by it started in churches.  I think it started before Martin Luther King Jr was around.  Certainly, it gained fame and notoriety thanks to Churches.  I don't think my point is defeated by saying it gained ground due to churches.  Interestingly I find myself agreeing with Coleman Hughes as argued here:

Reverend King took a more humanist approach.  The modern antiracism approach is more on the religious spectrum.  

Edited June 26, 2020 by stemelbow

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I am assuming you have, iirc you said you have, but just to be sure you have watched a number of the media posted videos of journalists being arrested and fired upon?

I am focusing on journalists because we can generally determine what they were doing in an area and claims of police violence are usually documented.

I've seen a few such stories/videos/interviews. Many that I have seen have been significantly wanting in terms of actual documentation of the entirety of the incident, so it's really hard to determine whether or not the police were exercising force lawfully or not (regardless of what level of force we might personally might think is truly necessary). If there is a specific incident you think I should look at, just let me know. I would be happy to check it out. 

 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I watched the entire, uncut, video (warning: significant language), and they guy was never in any danger.

After ignoring multiple orders from the officer - including after being informed he was being detained - the cop did, ultimately draw his taser and hold it at his ribs, pointing towards the ground.

After continued non-compliance, the officer eventually draw his firearm and (again) held it against his chest, pointed toward the ground.

The officer was calm and professional throughout the entire encounter, and the independent report of the incident found that there was no evidence of racial bias on the part of the officer involved. 

Incidentally, I found the Facebook video that you posted to be highly misleading at the end, where it deals with the faculty member's arrival and how the incident is resolved.

They cut the film together to make it look like this white guy shows up, says that the fellow lives there, and the cops all just totally take him at his word - you know, because he's white, and cops are obviously all racist. 

And to drive the point home about just how racist the cops are, they make sure to overlay the following commentary during that section of the video, "The police officers never asked the faculty member, a white man, to confirm his identity or prove that he worked for the college."  [emphasis in original]

When, in reality, the faculty member doesn't show up until the very end of the standoff, after the police had already had somebody go into the building and confirm with two residents that the guy did, in fact, live there, and the Sargent on the scene had already instructed the officer to return the student's ID and take off.

In other words, the police officers didn't bother with confirming the "white man's" identity - not because he was white, but because they had all of the information necessary to close out their investigation already - making his identity totally irrelevant at that point. 

 

I can't wait to hear what you say about this one...🙄

https://m.facebook.com/TheHandsFreeRevolution/photos/a.149731118410856/3280700008647269/?type=3&source=48

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You need to define the bolded above if it is going to be meaningful.

I think unjustified, unlawful behavior is pretty self-explanatory. If the police are exercising force without cause and without justification then they are in violation of the law, and they should be held accountable for their actions - whether that be departmental discipline (anywhere from probation to termination) or criminal charges. 

 

Quote

(I)f you continue as you seem to be doing now emphasizing the stress of LEO as some excuse for their use of force, you undermine your position.

It isn't simply about stress, but that such stress is the product of being in a legitimately more dangerous situation. And what may be considered an appropriate use of force fluctuates with how dangerous the situation is. So you would expect to see greater use of force when the circumstances justify it, and in those kinds of situations you might also see accidents or potentially intentional misuses of force (just as you would at any other time) only the effects are more pronounced due to the higher spectrum of force which is in effect.

 

Quote

In any given situation, people have all kinds of stress, stress which may or may not be visible. Those who are authorized to use force should be much more skilled at governing their emotions than those in the general public. 

Sure, but they aren't robots. It isn't reasonable to expect them to perform their duties and never make a mistake. 

 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Nice slogans. Effective with some. But 'a man "convinced" against his will ...' A thousand 'peaceful' people demanding X by blocking sidewalks, roads, parks and other rights of way are subverting the governmental process for petitioning for redress of claimed wrongs and elect the 'right' people and pass the 'right' ballot measures.

They do so because they eschew persuasion per Section 121 and because they want to feel the deliciousness of power to affect change NOW against the wills of the unannointed they despise.

I just answered your questions. Sounds like you've already decided.

[Meadowchik]

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think unjustified, unlawful behavior is pretty self-explanatory. If the police are exercising force without cause and without justification then they are in violation of the law, and they should be held accountable for their actions - whether that be departmental discipline (anywhere from probation to termination) or criminal charges. 

 

It isn't simply about stress, but that such stress is the product of being in a legitimately more dangerous situation. And what may be considered an appropriate use of force fluctuates with how dangerous the situation is. So you would expect to see greater use of force when the circumstances justify it, and in those kinds of situations you might also see accidents or potentially intentional misuses of force (just as you would at any other time) only the effects are more pronounced due to the higher spectrum of force which is in effect.

 

Sure, but they aren't robots. It isn't reasonable to expect them to perform their duties and never make a mistake. 

 

It's rather natural for militarised police to behave the way they do because that is the mentality of their training. I would say it's more like they're trained as robots as in given the primary operating system of force, where it is very difficult to switch out of that MO. 

This is a major characteristic that needs to change. De-escalation, including emotional maturity training, also simply defunding the militarised approach and diverting funds to community approaches to managing nonviolent issues of public safety.

These types of police reform can benefit police, by not only broadening their skillset and modus operandi but also relieving them of some duties that are better suiting to others.

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can't wait to hear what you say about this one...🙄

https://m.facebook.com/TheHandsFreeRevolution/photos/a.149731118410856/3280700008647269/?type=3&source=48

That is a tragic, horrible outcome - one that could have been avoided.

But after watching nearly three hours of body cam video (here), and reviewing the District Attorney's summary of his investigation into the death (here), there are a few key facts that happen to be...omitted from the summary you posted (shocking, I know). Here's a more accurate breakdown:

1. Someone witnessed an individual walking away from a gas station wearing a ski mask, which seemed suspicious
2. The police approached him on the street and detained him; he was speaking all kinds of gibberish (e.g., "I am an introvert, please respect my boundaries that I am speaking.") leading them to think he was high
3. He was totally high - though only on marijuana - and one of his best friends later confirmed that he gets all kinds of weird when he uses drugs
4. He was resistant to police efforts to pat him down (likely due to the drugs), so they moved him to the grass (which he also resisted), so they move him toward a wall
5. At that point he utters the phrase "I intend to take my power back" and grabs / places his hand on one of the officer's holstered sidearm.
6. One of the responding officers then yelled "he just grabbed your gun," and they proceed to take him to the ground and subdue him as quickly as possible - which included one officer making use a carotid hold (i.e., choke hold)
7. When the suspect lost consciousness, the officer immediately let go of his hold and they placed him in cuffs
8. The fire department arrived after the suspect had already come to, and all four of the firefighters described Mr. McClain being on the ground, resisting officers. 
9. The fire medic was unable to gather any medical history or speak with the suspect due to his continuing to be combative with law enforcement (again, likely due in part to the drugs)
10. The fire medic requested 500 mg of ketamine to administer and sedate the young man
11. He was then transferred to a gurney, placed in soft restraints, and placed in the ambulance
12. He suffered two heart attacks on the way to the hospital and was declared brain dead three days later
13. The autopsy declared the manner of death to be undetermined, listing several alternative possibilities that may have lead to his death; of note, there were no signs of traumatic asphyxiation, and there were no injuries to the muscles of the neck, larynx, or hyoid bone that would suggest an injury to the neck causing death. 
14. The DA who reviewed the case concluded that, "Applying the facts of this incident to the applicable Colorado law, the evidence does not support the filing of any state criminal charges against the involved officers for the unfortunate and tragic death of Mr. McClain. 

I think it's horrible that situations like this occur. But when people are high and they become combative with police, law enforcement may react with increased force to detain criminals / suspected criminals. 

Again, this is a tragic, horrible story, but let's not pretend that the cops were just out to kill a black kid here. 

I know there is going to be a new, special investigation opened into the incident, but here's a spoiler alert for you: nothing new is going to come of it. If I'm wrong, please feel free to post a follow-up letting us all know. I would be interested in reading the results. 

 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

That is a tragic, horrible outcome - one that could have been avoided.

But after watching nearly three hours of body cam video (here), and reviewing the District Attorney's summary of his investigation into the death (here), there are a few key facts that happen to be...omitted from the summary you posted (shocking, I know). Here's a more accurate breakdown:

1. Someone witnessed an individual walking away from a gas station wearing a ski mask, which seemed suspicious
2. The police approached him on the street and detained him; he was speaking all kinds of gibberish (e.g., "I am an introvert, please respect my boundaries that I am speaking.") leading them to think he was high
3. He was totally high - though only on marijuana - and one of his best friends later confirmed that he gets all kinds of weird when he uses drugs
4. He was resistant to police efforts to pat him down (likely due to the drugs), so they moved him to the grass (which he also resisted), so they move him toward a wall
5. At that point he utters the phrase "I intend to take my power back" and grabs / places his hand on one of the officer's holstered sidearm.
6. One of the responding officers then yelled "he just grabbed your gun," and they proceed to take him to the ground and subdue him as quickly as possible - which included one officer making use a carotid hold (i.e., choke hold)
7. When the suspect lost consciousness, the officer immediately let go of his hold and they placed him in cuffs
8. The fire department arrived after the suspect had already come to, and all four of the firefighters described Mr. McClain being on the ground, resisting officers. 
9. The fire medic was unable to gather any medical history or speak with the suspect due to his continuing to be combative with law enforcement (again, likely due in part to the drugs)
10. The fire medic requested 500 mg of ketamine to administer and sedate the young man
11. He was then transferred to a gurney, placed in soft restraints, and placed in the ambulance
12. He suffered two heart attacks on the way to the hospital and was declared brain dead three days later
13. The autopsy declared the manner of death to be undetermined, listing several alternative possibilities that may have lead to his death; of note, there were no signs of traumatic asphyxiation, and there were no injuries to the muscles of the neck, larynx, or hyoid bone that would suggest an injury to the neck causing death. 
14. The DA who reviewed the case concluded that, "Applying the facts of this incident to the applicable Colorado law, the evidence does not support the filing of any state criminal charges against the involved officers for the unfortunate and tragic death of Mr. McClain. 

I think it's horrible that situations like this occur. But when people are high and they become combative with police, law enforcement may react with increased force to detain criminals / suspected criminals. 

Again, this is a tragic, horrible story, but let's not pretend that the cops were just out to kill a black kid here. 

I know there is going to be a new, special investigation opened into the incident, but here's a spoiler alert for you: nothing new is going to come of it. If I'm wrong, please feel free to post a follow-up letting us all know. I would be interested in reading the results. 

 

A key thing you said was that someone called him in. That seems to be a huge problem. So maybe we need to take some focus off of the police, which I'm sure you'll agree, and work on the bystanders that hold prejudices. I still think the police will kill a black person more often than a white, or beat the heck out of one before arresting.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/central-park-karen-amy-cooper-white-woman-calls-cops-black-man-fired-franklin-templeton/

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

I watched the entire, uncut, video (warning: significant language), and they guy was never in any danger.

After ignoring multiple orders from the officer - including after being informed he was being detained - the cop did, ultimately draw his taser and hold it at his ribs, pointing towards the ground.

After continued non-compliance, the officer eventually draw his firearm and (again) held it against his chest, pointed toward the ground.

The officer was calm and professional throughout the entire encounter, and the independent report of the incident found that there was no evidence of racial bias on the part of the officer involved. 

Incidentally, I found the Facebook video that you posted to be highly misleading at the end, where it deals with the faculty member's arrival and how the incident is resolved.

They cut the film together to make it look like this white guy shows up, says that the fellow lives there, and the cops all just totally take him at his word - you know, because he's white, and cops are obviously all racist. 

And to drive the point home about just how racist the cops are, they make sure to overlay the following commentary during that section of the video, "The police officers never asked the faculty member, a white man, to confirm his identity or prove that he worked for the college."  [emphasis in original]

When, in reality, the faculty member doesn't show up until the very end of the standoff, after the police had already had somebody go into the building and confirm with two residents that the guy did, in fact, live there, and the Sargent on the scene had already instructed the officer to return the student's ID and take off.

In other words, the police officers didn't bother with confirming the "white man's" identity - not because he was white, but because they had all of the information necessary to close out their investigation already - making his identity totally irrelevant at that point. 

 

Police can't win.  On the one hand, Lauren McCluskey might be alive today if a police officer had asked Melvin Rowland whether he was a student, what he was doing on campus, where he lived, had run him for warrants, and so on and so forth.  But of course, that would be racist, because Melvin Rowland was a Black man.  On the other hand, the state of Utah and its taxpayers are going to cut Lauren McCluskey's parents a nice fat check because no officer did ask Mr. Rowland any of those questions.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I just answered your questions. Sounds like you've already decided.

Been watching and thinking about this stuff since I was a Kindergartner getting roughed up during the  "peaceful" marches race riots  incidents in the North Bay 1958-60.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

A key thing you said was that someone called him in. That seems to be a huge problem. So maybe we need to take some focus off of the police, which I'm sure you'll agree, and work on the bystanders that hold prejudices.

He saw a guy walking down the street wearing a ski mask and acting strangely - that seemed suspicious to him, so he called the police to investigate. 

What makes you think the person who called the police was motivated by prejudice? 

 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

He saw a guy walking down the street wearing a ski mask and acting strangely - that seemed suspicious to him, so he called the police to investigate. 

What makes you think the person who called the police was motivated by prejudice? 

 

I was more thinking of this case...https://www.cbsnews.com/news/central-park-karen-amy-cooper-white-woman-calls-cops-black-man-fired-franklin-templeton/

But still why did Elijah die from this? Why did they kill him. I understand taking him in for questioning, if it appeared he was a threat, but why kill these people? More training is needed. And I am against defunding the police as well. I'm so very grateful they are there to protect lives, when that is what they do. But unnecessary force needs to be looked at.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I was more thinking of this case...https://www.cbsnews.com/news/central-park-karen-amy-cooper-white-woman-calls-cops-black-man-fired-franklin-templeton/

Oh, you mean the case that we weren't discussing and which, prior to now, had never even been mentioned in the thread? 

But yes, I agree that the woman's behavior in that clip is abhorrent. 

 

Quote

But still why did Elijah die from this?

Because he was high as a kite and became confrontational with police rather than complying with their lawful orders, which caused them to escalate their use of force. 

 

Quote

Why did they kill him.

I don't think that is a fair characterization of what happened. 

 

Quote

I understand taking him in for questioning, if it appeared he was a threat, but why kill these people?

Again, I don't agree with the characterization that the police are out to kill people. 

 

Quote

More training is needed. And I am against defunding the police as well.

I'm certainly not opposed to the former, and I agree with you on the latter - though I do think police departments should re-evaluate their budgets and possibly look into ways of spending the same dollars more efficiently. 

 

Quote

I'm so very grateful they are there to protect lives, when that is what they do. But unnecessary force needs to be looked at.

When it comes to discussing "unnecessary force" I think it's all too easy for many people to fall into a bit Monday-morning quarterbacking - situated as we are, in the safety and comfort of our homes, with the benefit of hindsight and much more information at our disposal.  

The police had no idea that he was a sweet kid - all they knew is that he appeared to be on drugs (which he was), that he was being non-compliant / resisting them, and (ultimately) that he put his hands on one of the officer's guns. 

When someone goes for your gun, it's suddenly a potential life or death situation, and failing to subdue someone who is doing that puts not only yourself, but your fellow officers and also the surrounding public at risk. 

 

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Oh, you mean the case that we weren't discussing and which, prior to now, had never even been mentioned in the thread? 

But yes, I agree that the woman's behavior in that clip is abhorrent. 

 

Because he was high as a kite and became confrontational with police rather than complying with their lawful orders, which caused them to escalate their use of force. 

 

I don't think that is a fair characterization of what happened. 

 

Again, I don't agree with the characterization that the police are out to kill people. 

 

I'm certainly not opposed to the former, and I agree with you on the latter - though I do think police departments should re-evaluate their budgets and possibly look into ways of spending the same dollars more efficiently. 

 

When it comes to discussing "unnecessary force" I think it's all too easy for many people to fall into a bit Monday-morning quarterbacking - situated as we are, in the safety and comfort of our homes, with the benefit of hindsight and much more information at our disposal.  

The police had no idea that he was a sweet kid - all they knew is that he appeared to be on drugs (which he was), that he was being non-compliant / resisting them, and (ultimately) that he put his hands on one of the officer's guns. 

When someone goes for your gun, it's suddenly a potential life or death situation, and failing to subdue someone who is doing that puts not only yourself, but your fellow officers and also the surrounding public at risk. 

 

I don't think the article said he was going for the gun. Another police officer said he was. Or If wrong, I may need to read the article again.

Also, funny how we both perceive things like the videos I've shared, totally different.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Tacenda

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Because it's the job of the police to restore law and order. They risk their lives every day in cities like Los Angeles. 

And how does that preclude protestors from having reasons they are willing to risk their lives?

I am not arguing police don’t risk their lives and know it. I am arguing against the statement that if a protestor believes their life is at risk, they will leave. Some will, some won’t.  Many protestors have reasons to risk their lives as well (a better life for their children for one). 

That is the only point I am trying to make at this point. I don’t think I will likely post again as I think I have said it enough so everyone understands.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Calm

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think the article said he was going for the gun. Another police officer said he was. Or If wrong, I may need to read the article again.

You do know that the person who wrote the article (whichever article you happen to be referring to) wasn't actually present during the incident, right? 

The officer who witnessed him grabbing at the gun was actually there.

And, while it is very shaky and of poor image quality, body camera evidence backs that up.

His hand makes contact with the officer's gun right after he utters the phrase, "I intend to take my power back." 

 

Quote

Also, funny how we both perceive things like the videos I've shared, totally different.

Because I'm not basing my opinion based solely on the video you provide. I look for the raw footage, the actual incident reports, and the original source documents for the internal and/or independent reviews of the incidents. I don't just take the videos at face value. 

People who are pushing an agenda or a particular narrative aren't always interested in giving you all of the available information. 

The one with the cop who had the encounter with the college student is a prime example of that. If you didn't watch all of the body camera footage you wouldn't know that it was was intentionally manipulated to completely misrepresent how the standoff came to a resolution (e.g., with respect to how it portrayed the role of the white faculty member in that process).   

I would recommend taking things - especially Facebook 'news' items - with a healthier grain of salt.

Anyway, I think I'm pretty much spent on this topic. Have a good weekend, and stay safe.  

 

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

I watched the entire, uncut, video (warning: significant language), and they guy was never in any danger.

After ignoring multiple orders from the officer - including after being informed he was being detained - the cop did, ultimately draw his taser and hold it at his ribs, pointing towards the ground.

After continued non-compliance, the officer eventually draw his firearm and (again) held it against his chest, pointed toward the ground.

The officer was calm and professional throughout the entire encounter, and the independent report of the incident found that there was no evidence of racial bias on the part of the officer involved. 

Incidentally, I found the Facebook video that you posted to be highly misleading at the end, where it deals with the faculty member's arrival and how the incident is resolved.

They cut the film together to make it look like this white guy shows up, says that the fellow lives there, and the cops all just totally take him at his word - you know, because he's white, and cops are obviously all racist. 

And to drive the point home about just how racist the cops are, they make sure to overlay the following commentary during that section of the video, "The police officers never asked the faculty member, a white man, to confirm his identity or prove that he worked for the college."  [emphasis in original]

When, in reality, the faculty member doesn't show up until the very end of the standoff, after the police had already had somebody go into the building and confirm with two residents that the guy did, in fact, live there, and the Sargent on the scene had already instructed the officer to return the student's ID and take off.

In other words, the police officers didn't bother with confirming the "white man's" identity - not because he was white, but because they had all of the information necessary to close out their investigation already - making his identity totally irrelevant at that point. 

 

Amulek,

Thanks for posting this.  Where is the uncut video that hasn't been turned into a Cops-Are-Racist-So-Let's-Abolish-The-Police propaganda piece?

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's rather natural for militarised police to behave the way they do because that is the mentality of their training. I would say it's more like they're trained as robots as in given the primary operating system of force, where it is very difficult to switch out of that MO.

Oh, please!  I doubt you have have any idea what goes into training law enforcement officers.

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is a major characteristic that needs to change. De-escalation, including emotional maturity training, also simply defunding the militarised approach and diverting funds to community approaches to managing nonviolent issues of public safety.

You mean, like this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

These types of police reform can benefit police, by not only broadening their skillset and modus operandi but also relieving them of some duties that are better suiting to others.

If a thousand officers today used de-escalation techniques successfully to defuse what might have turned into violent incidents and some officer somewhere shoots somebody, guess what's going to make the news?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

You do know that the person who wrote the article (whichever article you happen to be referring to) wasn't actually present during the incident, right? 

The officer who witnessed him grabbing at the gun was actually there.

And, while it is very shaky and of poor image quality, body camera evidence backs that up.

His hand makes contact with the officer's gun right after he utters the phrase, "I intend to take my power back." 

 

Because I'm not basing my opinion based solely on the video you provide. I look for the raw footage, the actual incident reports, and the original source documents for the internal and/or independent reviews of the incidents. I don't just take the videos at face value. 

People who are pushing an agenda or a particular narrative aren't always interested in giving you all of the available information. 

The one with the cop who had the encounter with the college student is a prime example of that. If you didn't watch all of the body camera footage you wouldn't know that it was was intentionally manipulated to completely misrepresent how the standoff came to a resolution (e.g., with respect to how it portrayed the role of the white faculty member in that process).   

I would recommend taking things - especially Facebook 'news' items - with a healthier grain of salt.

Anyway, I think I'm pretty much spent on this topic. Have a good weekend, and stay safe.  

 

I guess they are going to open a new investigation. And then we'll find out.

And the full body cam footage.

 

[rodheadlee]

Tacenda, i s your police cam edited? or uncut?