Tulsa officer, arrest warrant issued, she is being charged with 1st degree manslaughter.

HappyAndy wrote: I heard an interesting discussion on NPR yesterday with a retired old school sounding policeman. I forgot his name, or where he was from, but I think it was one of the bigger cities. He was very critical of modern police tactics. Particularly the militarization of police and the mentality that goes with that. Especially the fact that police today will draw thier weapons in a heartbeat instead of risking "getting dirty" in a physical altercation with a suspect. He said in his career he'd been in at least a dozen fights, but could count the number of times he'd drawn his gun on one hand....

I am suspicious that some of this has to do with the "militarization" of the civilian population. I am pretty sure (citation needed?) there are more (and more powerful) guns in circulation (at least being carried) then the "old days".

I think their are certainly scumbag cops, but I do feel for them in general. They are dealing with a progressively more armed population that seems to be encouraged to be hostile and resistant towards them. I am sure, in general, they assume everyone is armed unless proven otherwise (which seems like a reasonable thing to do).

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Bobzilla and HappyAndy: No, I agree it is a problem. I took the comment to believe it is just now being shown to us. It is a problem that we should have addressed a long time ago, but didn't.

It's hard to address a problem you don't know exists.

Old School policing was a lot more violent contrary to popular thought. It involved Kel-Lights, saps, and wooden nightsticks. Also prior to TN vs Garner suspects fleeing felonies were shot at just for fleeing.

aircooled wrote:

HappyAndy wrote: I heard an interesting discussion on NPR yesterday with a retired old school sounding policeman. I forgot his name, or where he was from, but I think it was one of the bigger cities. He was very critical of modern police tactics. Particularly the militarization of police and the mentality that goes with that. Especially the fact that police today will draw thier weapons in a heartbeat instead of risking "getting dirty" in a physical altercation with a suspect. He said in his career he'd been in at least a dozen fights, but could count the number of times he'd drawn his gun on one hand....

I am suspicious that some of this has to do with the "militarization" of the civilian population. I am pretty sure (citation needed?) there are more (and more powerful) guns in circulation (at least being carried) then the "old days". I think their are certainly scumbag cops, but I do feel for them in general. They are dealing with a progressively more armed population that seems to be encouraged to be hostile and resistant towards them. I am sure, in general, they assume everyone is armed unless proven otherwise (which seems like a reasonable thing to do).

I don't think it's a matter of the criminals using heavier weapons, we aren't seeing many long guns in these situations. It's still mostly handguns (and more often than not crappy ones) being used by criminals.

Over the past 20 years or so it seems that everyone is more willing, even eager, to go to the gun. Kids that used to get in a fight after school now are pulling guns. The weird kids that used to get picked on will come to school one day and go all Columbine on the place. Cops that used to fight with a belligerent drunk will shoot instead. There is a psychological effect here that something which was hard, once done, becomes easier for everyone coming along behind them. Whether that barrier is running a 4 minute mile, climbing Everest, shooting up a high school, or shooting a civilian who was reaching for his wallet. Once it happens, each successive event is easier for the people involved.

To be clear, by "more powerful" I wasn't really thinking assault rifles and more referring to 15 shot semi-auto vs a 6 shot revolver.

I agree though. Even watching teen / gang movies from "the old days", the appearance of a gun was manytimes a bit of an "ohhhh" moment. Now, it is just assumed.

(Possible other effect: in the old days they might have actually put some concern into aiming with only a few shots, now days it seems to be a trigger pulling competition)

z31maniac wrote:

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Bobzilla and HappyAndy: No, I agree it is a problem. I took the comment to believe it is just now being shown to us. It is a problem that we should have addressed a long time ago, but didn't.

It's hard to address a problem you don't know exists.

I agree, but did we not know or did we as a populace just choose not to listen to those who told us this was happening?

z31maniac wrote:

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Bobzilla and HappyAndy: No, I agree it is a problem. I took the comment to believe it is just now being shown to us. It is a problem that we should have addressed a long time ago, but didn't.

It's hard to address a problem you don't know exists.

Exactly, but many people still deny that it exists.

Edit:mattm beat me to it

I think this whole discussion misses the mark. Why are we so quick to jump to the conclusion that there is a country wide systemic problem with law enforcement? A few random incidents spread all over the country constitute evidence that all cops are trigger happy racists? Does anyone really believe that? Would any of you feel it's fair to be treated that way if someone across the country that did the same job as you happened to screw up? There are a lot of cops working every hour of every day. Mistakes will happen, and they will suck for all involved. But they are statistical anomalies. The media will have you believe that cops everywhere are hunting black people in the streets and executing them. The truth is, in the very worst cases, it comes down to a person making a mistake. It happens in every profession, the stakes for all involved are just higher than most in this situation. Does that excuse it? No, I don't take the government killing one of it's citizens lightly. But each incident needs to be treated as what it is- an isolated incident. A specific situation with a specific police officer. It needs to be investigated in the proper channels- not the media, not on the internet. We've had officers murdered recently because of incidents that had absolutely nothing to do with them, and every person who stoked that fire in the murderers shares responsibility. In the very rare instance of a truly racest cop out to kill someone- of which none of the latest examples is representative of- the cop should and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If a cop makes a mistake that leads to the loss of life- their career is over, and they will also be prosecuted. If there was any evidence that police were operating with imunity for their actions, I'd agree that there is a problem. But I don't believe that there is a single officer today that thinks that they could pull the trigger without consequence, justified or not. Whenever an officer fires his gun, they know it will likely be a life changing event for them, and if they fire, they think it is the right thing to do in that split second. So, my question is, what do we think we are doing? What is this "protesting" really accomplishing? Every cop across the county thinks "please don't let me have to shoot a black guy today," when he starts work. But there will still be police shootings. Do you know why? Because there is no nation wide conspiracy, just people doing their jobs. And they are going to be justified shootings, controversial shootings, and mistakes.

Boost_Crazy wrote: Why are we so quick to jump to the conclusion that there is a country wide systemic problem with law enforcement? A few random incidents spread all over the country constitute evidence that all cops are trigger happy racists?

First thanks for a considerate post that brings forth lots of good points. Me picking this one particular quote is not an attempt to bust balls. I know this is a sensitive topic and I'm not just cherry picking.

That said, I'll disagree with this premise just a bit. I don't think the operating position of most of the groups who are pushing this issue (the thoughtful ones, anyway) is that this is a pervasive corruption issue, but I completely understand their frustration at being shamed for asking the question "Is policing as good as it could be?"

If someone takes issue with the action of some cops, and points out how the actions of bad cops reflects negatively on good cops, the correct response is not "Why do you hate cops?" As a nation, our political and social issues seem to have become devoid of nuance. In many cases, the problem itself is secondary to people wanting to make sure they know which "team" all of the participants are on, so they can assign whatever set of prejudgments they ascribe to that team without bothering to hear their point of view.

So, no, I don't think this is a country-wide systematic problem. But I do think there is enough of a pattern—enough situations that seem to follow along a similar narrative—to warrant further investigation. George Carlin famous said "I'm not really worried about all hell breaking loose. i'm much more concerned about just a little part of it breaking loose. It would be much harder to detect." A large systematic problem would, in some ways, be an easier fix. Just scrap the whole system and start over. But I think what you have now is some bad actors in an inherently just system that really poisons public perception.

And, okay, fine, let's assume for a second that every single shooting in recent memory was 100% justified use of force by the police. At the very minimum, they have a huge PR problem on their hands right now. Public confidence in law enforcement is in jeopardy. The way to regain that confidence is not by simply repeating the message "Everyone who disagrees with us is wrong."

JG Pasterjak wrote: As a nation, our political and social issues seem to have become devoid of nuance.

In many cases, the problem itself is secondary to people wanting to make sure they know which "team" all of the participants are on, so they can assign whatever set of prejudgments they ascribe to that team without bothering to hear their point of view.

This also.

In reply to JG Pasterjak:

I completely agree that there are improvements to be made in policing, and there are well meaning groups and individuals within the system and on the outside trying to improve it. But I think most of the attention is being given to those painting with a broad brush that are not interested in a solution. My fear is that they are making things worse on both sides, actually creating more conflict between police and citizens. There are lot of good cops that don't deserve the treatment that they are getting. And they are not providing much incentive to good people who are considering a career in law enforcement.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

As said by man people on here, there are a lot of good cops. A majority of officers are hard working, honest, thoughtful, courageous public servants who deserve all the admiration that has been given, romanticized and made lore of.

Yet, things like this still happen. This is far from a statistical anomaly. This is a police culture that has shifted. I will even take race out of it. I had an officer pull a gun on me for trying to get to a safe spot on my motorcycle to pull over. He said I was speeding and swerving in and out of traffic. When he pulled up beside on his service Harley and told me to pull over, I pointed ahead to where I was going to pull over with my signal on, and instead of following me down the road with no shoulder where we both could get out of the way, he decided to pull up beside a second time, stand up and draw his weapon and point it at me. I damn near did an endo in the middle of the street. I got to the side of the road his first words were "You berkeleying stopped then didn't you?"

Oh yeah, the ticket I got was for failure to signal.

Ignore the fact I did everything as the Tennessee Drivers handbook said to do, by the berkeleying letter. Johnny Law thought drawing his weapon was appropriate.

I asked for his sergeant, who happened to show up, and refused to take a complaint.

Right there, there it is. Bad cop does "stupid" thing, reinforced by boss covering it up. No BAD COP ENDANGERED PUBLIC. I eventually had to get the State Rep involved to get anything done. Why? The officer wasn't threatened by me. I made no sudden movements and communicated by intentions as instructed.

This isn't isolated, and this isn't a statistical anomaly. I have been pulled over more times than my insurance company would like to know. I have had the threat of lethal force for traffic violations twice (the other time was an officer decided to pull out in front of me for doing 7 over in my Miata).

This is a culture problem, plain and simple. Bad cops are given the "having a bad day/made a mistake" pass and good cops don't speak and departments would rather deal with a pissed off public in a wrongful death suit than deal with a live victim. That last part isn't be guessing but me being told that from two different state police a county and a city cop.

I wasn't kidding when I said I was raised in a police and military family. It really is becoming an us against the public mentality for a significant portion of the law enforcement community.

In reply to Flight Service:

Seems like the media portrayal of the situation only helps to further substantiate the "us against them" mentality held by both sides of the debate.

While your situation may indeed point to a culture shift in policing, the poster you responded to isn't incorrect in saying that unjust police altercations are just a statistical blip on the radar vs the total number of police/civilian interactions daily. It takes one person making bad decisions (this could be the police officer, the civilian, or both) in a tense situation to overshadow the other 99.98% of non-violent interactions in a single day. The for-profit media will continue to report on what they know will generate the most interest, and report it in a way that will make them the most money.

Ya know who doesn't shoot people? Unarmed public servants.

In reply to STM317:

I think our definitions of statistically significant are extremely different. I have had thousands of interactions with police officers, I only need two incidents and four statements to render my opinion. To bring race back into it, if I am any whiter I would be translucent. Yet the Republican Senator for South Carolina, who is black, was pulled over 7 times in one year and stopped going into the Senate.

I have not seen any evidence from the opposing side that shows policing is getting more public protective and less comply or else.

I contribute this to much more than just media, I also blame departments going away from community police. They are spreading officers further apart, they don't live in or around the neighborhoods and they don't walk around talking to residents anymore. They are no longer a part of the community but police the community. That doesn't help.

Huckleberry wrote: Ya know who doesn't shoot people? Unarmed public servants.

Do British cops still not carry side arms?

spitfirebill wrote:

Huckleberry wrote: Ya know who doesn't shoot people? Unarmed public servants.

Do British cops still not carry side arms?

Regualr police in the UK (except Northern Ireland) do not carry guns. It's like a "level up" thing where you have to be specially trained and are in a unit that responds to the need for it.

I don't really know all the details beyond what you can google - except when I'm there for work none of the cops you see in public have guns and by default don't accidentally shoot anyone.

Flight Service wrote: In reply to STM317: I think our definitions of statistically significant are extremely different. I have had thousands of interactions with police officers, I only need two incidents and four statements to render my opinion. To bring race back into it, if I am any whiter I would be translucent. Yet the Republican Senator for South Carolina, who is black, was pulled over 7 times in one year and stopped going into the Senate. I have not seen any evidence from the opposing side that shows policing is getting more public protective and less comply or else. I contribute this to much more than just media, I also blame departments going away from community police. They are spreading officers further apart, they don't live in or around the neighborhoods and they don't walk around talking to residents anymore. They are no longer a part of the community but police the community. That doesn't help.

It's a fact that a fraction of a percent is statistically insignificant. It's a fact. In many scientific studies, it would be considered margin for error. Statistics are a compilation of data that can reveal larger trends, and I'm not sure the trend is as prevalent as it's being presented to be based on the data.

The problem comes when we realize that that small fraction of data represents actual human lives. The lives that that fraction represents are not insignificant. I'm not saying that we should be ok with police brutality or overreach if it only happens a small percentage of the time. And I'm not suggesting that police culture isn't changing for the worse.

All I'm saying, is the way that the situation is being portrayed isn't helping to resolve the situation at all, and is likely making each camp even more entrenched in their current beliefs. There is more division, and less healing. The only group that benefits here is the media.

You are correct that the model for policing has changed, and that more involved policing would probably help, but the things you're suggesting generally require more money, and cash strapped municipalities can't foot that bill. Would you rather police departments get tax money to proactively fight crime within their communities, or should that money go to schools, to educate future generations to (hopefully) keep them on the right track? That's the issue in many places.

In reply to Huckleberry:

yeah this is my experience as well over there. Regular cops do not carry and they have to call for "armed Response" should they need to...

Huckleberry wrote:

spitfirebill wrote:

Huckleberry wrote: Ya know who doesn't shoot people? Unarmed public servants.

Do British cops still not carry side arms?

Regualr police in the UK (except Northern Ireland) do not carry guns. It's like a "level up" thing where you have to be specially trained and are in a unit that responds to the need for it. I don't really know all the details beyond what you can google - except when I'm there for work none of the cops you see in public have guns and by default don't accidentally shoot anyone.

The Brits also have more police officers per capita than Americans, and the public is significantly less armed. Make of that what you will.

I don't think the British model of policing would work here. Outside of metro areas, how many LEOs work in areas where backup can be up to 30 minutes away. Making a traffic stop on a car full of people with possible bad intentions at 2:00 AM on a remote highway is not the time I would want to be unarmed.

mapper wrote: I don't think the British model of policing would work here. Outside of metro areas, how many LEOs work in areas where backup can be up to 30 minutes away. Making a traffic stop on a car full of people with possible bad intentions at 2:00 AM on a remote highway is not the time I would want to be unarmed.

I'm going out on a limb to say that most of the "modern" European models that we are offered as ideal examples for Western civilization won't work in a country of this size and population.

One of the major issues I see isn't so much officers themselves, but the policies and directives they are tasked with enforce. There is a small minority of bad police, but for the most part they are fairly average people who serve as the ground level tools of higher level policy. Most of the mistakes they make seem to be them getting overused and pushed to the point of stress where they make mistakes, or used to handle issues where they are the wrong tool for the job. Police have the power to use lethal force in the civilian community. They are hammers. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Drug infractions, poverty, mental health, homelessness, domestic problems are not problems that warrant the use of a hammer. We don't need to just train police better or train more police. We need to train more types of civil servants who can handle the issues that do not require the level of force a patrol officer represents. Police should be one of the last lines of intervention

It would be like saying that we're having issues with inadequate health care, so let's train up E.R. doctors better.

In reply to STM317:

no, it is a fact a fraction of a percent is statistically significant OR insignificant based on the parameters that were collected.

I don't know what you do for a living but I am a mechanical engineer and a Six Sigma Black belt. I can throw raw stats numbers at you all day and make you an incompetent liar or a foretelling genius just by how I portray the same data.

You get to the significant point when it comes to lives. That is the metric that should be measured. not some overly broad scope of engagements per officer. That is a way to wash everything down to it's OK. It's not.

As far as taxes, I choose to live in an area with both. I pay more in taxes than anywhere close to me. I have some of the top schools in the nation and have tremendously low violent crime rate (1.29 per 1000 people, national average is 3.8/1000) and lower than average property crime (15.74/1000 vs national 26/1000)

I am proud to say that we have a police force that is actively training on community outreach. They also reach out to families with children and adults with mental disabilities (MR, Autism ect) and encourage them to come in and meet with the officers and get registered.

One more thing, I live in the beltway in the DC metro area.

So, I reject your base assumption that I have to choose between schools and safety. I choose to pay more in taxes to have a community where my kid is expected walk to school (If you are within 3/4 of mile there is no bus service), where his education includes Spanish and Mandrin Chinese languages, art, music and PE. Where two graduates from the high school in the last 30 years have 3 Pulitzer prizes. We have a 100% on time graduation rate. The average SAT is a 1766 with 88% taking the test.

I will even go one better. My town was created out of racism. They did not want to desegregate. Between then and now we have went from whites only to having 39 different native languages spoken between ~2500 students.

None of this is easy and none of this is quick. The people have set a standard of expectations and everyone works toward those goals. We don't argue the world if the world is changing or not, we argue what we want it to mean to us and how to achieve those goals. We have about 10% of our adult population involved in the city government, either through office, councils, boards or commissions.

We are engaged. That is the secret to all of this. The people, the officials, law enforcement, schools, all of us make a significant effort to be engaged.

In reply to Flight Service: Sounds like you have a fantastic community that you choose to live in, and a job where you make enough that you can afford to live there. The problems we see with police brutality and overreach don't typically occur in neighborhoods like yours. That's basically my point. You're educated, and make decent enough money to choose where you live, and you can afford to pay those higher taxes to live in a nicer, safer place and send your children to the best school of your choosing. That's not common. These situations involving police overreach aren't typically happening in well off areas with highly educated people and low crime rates. I'm not suggesting that YOU have to choose between education and security. I'm suggesting that the troubled areas where the incidents typically occur have to make these choices.

Most of the civilians involved don't have the same opportunities as you because of some combination of various socioeconomic reasons, and a direct result of their decisions. They often have criminal backgrounds. It's these troubled areas, where the schools are often lacking, and they have to make real choices about allocation of funds due to depressed local economies. If you have $50,000 to spend to help a troubled neighborhood, how do you do it? Pay a beat cop's salary? Level the vacant house that breeds crime, and turn it into greenspace? Put it into the local afterschool program? There's only so much money to go around in these communities. It's an extremely complex problem without a single, easy answer.

I think the most important part of your post is your final point about engagement. You and your community are engaged in making it a better place. I agree completely with you that being engaged is critical to overcoming this problem. In the high-crime areas where so many of these incidents occur, there is little to no engagement or investment in making the place better by anyone. It has to start on a small scale, in individual houses, and neighborhoods. People have to care, and want better for themselves.