Why are American blacks always having issues with the Police?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You mean like Eric Garner, who had no weapon and was raising his hands in the air as police calmly walked up to him in a huge group, wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death? WE ALL SAW THE VIDEO. Clearly the police were not scared or in danger -- they chose to kill him because it pissed them off that he did not do what they said.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Oh, so I guess the two videos we have seen were manufactured on a sound stage in Area 51?

No, but what we get to hear is censored and screened. We only get to see and hear what the news media wants us to see and hear. Not in every case but enough of them to discern a pattern.

We all heard the cellphone video of the completely neutral bystanders who said "OMG, he had his hands up and they shot him." They had no stake in the fight AT ALL. We all heard it. You did too. Don't pretend otherwise.

Assumption #1: the bystanders are neutral.
Assumption #2: :"they" had no stake in the fight
Assumption #3 what we all heard from the cellphone video told the whole story.

Time and time again the media is trying to act as judge and jury before all the evidence is presented. Just as in the case of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown I refuse to allow my emotions to be impacted, I refuse to make a judgment until I see all the facts. I refuse to allow the media try and drag me down the garden path.

I am NOT saying these policemen are innocent, or that what they did was right, or anything because I have not examined all the evidence and there has not been a trial. All I am saying is, take with a grain of salt all that you see and hear on sound and video that is released across the internet.

Again, what country are you from??? In the united States, the police do not kill you for not obeying a command -- they arrest you. We are a great country, a civilized country. If you want to live in a country where the police have a right to kill people who do not "obey a command" then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

We ALL saw the video. He was not belligerent. He was calmly standing with his hands in the air. My God, if you think that warrants his killing by police, then I have no way or reasoning with you. Clearly you think this could never happen to you or your loved ones. It could.

You're right that police are supposed to arrest you when you disobey an order, and not kill you, but knowing that the cops can be trigger-happy, wouldn't it be prudent to just obey orders?? I just read of a case in DC where the guy was brandishing what looked to be a real gun and refused to drop it when the cop told him to. Given that the cop was fearful for his life, he actually sounded very reasonable. (There is a tape from his body cam.) Kept screaming.."drop the gun and let's talk about this." But the guy refused to drop the gun, and was pointing it. The cop had a split-second to make a decision, and he obviously feared for his own life. He shot and killed the guy, and only after that it was determined it was a fake gun. (They look a LOT like real guns.) Its very unfortunate that the guy is dead, but why not just drop your gun when ordered to and facing an armed officer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You mean like Eric Garner, who had no weapon and was raising his hands in the air as police calmly walked up to him in a huge group, wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death? WE ALL SAW THE VIDEO. Clearly the police were not scared or in danger -- they chose to kill him because it pissed them off that he did not do what they said.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Oh, so I guess the two videos we have seen were manufactured on a sound stage in Area 51?

No, but what we get to hear is censored and screened. We only get to see and hear what the news media wants us to see and hear. Not in every case but enough of them to discern a pattern.

We all heard the cellphone video of the completely neutral bystanders who said "OMG, he had his hands up and they shot him." They had no stake in the fight AT ALL. We all heard it. You did too. Don't pretend otherwise.

Assumption #1: the bystanders are neutral.
Assumption #2: :"they" had no stake in the fight
Assumption #3 what we all heard from the cellphone video told the whole story.

Time and time again the media is trying to act as judge and jury before all the evidence is presented. Just as in the case of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown I refuse to allow my emotions to be impacted, I refuse to make a judgment until I see all the facts. I refuse to allow the media try and drag me down the garden path.

I am NOT saying these policemen are innocent, or that what they did was right, or anything because I have not examined all the evidence and there has not been a trial. All I am saying is, take with a grain of salt all that you see and hear on sound and video that is released across the internet.

Again, what country are you from??? In the united States, the police do not kill you for not obeying a command -- they arrest you. We are a great country, a civilized country. If you want to live in a country where the police have a right to kill people who do not "obey a command" then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

We ALL saw the video. He was not belligerent. He was calmly standing with his hands in the air. My God, if you think that warrants his killing by police, then I have no way or reasoning with you. Clearly you think this could never happen to you or your loved ones. It could.

You're right that police are supposed to arrest you when you disobey an order, and not kill you, but knowing that the cops can be trigger-happy, wouldn't it be prudent to just obey orders?? I just read of a case in DC where the guy was brandishing what looked to be a real gun and refused to drop it when the cop told him to. Given that the cop was fearful for his life, he actually sounded very reasonable. (There is a tape from his body cam.) Kept screaming.."drop the gun and let's talk about this." But the guy refused to drop the gun, and was pointing it. The cop had a split-second to make a decision, and he obviously feared for his own life. He shot and killed the guy, and only after that it was determined it was a fake gun. (They look a LOT like real guns.) Its very unfortunate that the guy is dead, but why not just drop your gun when ordered to and facing an armed officer?

Your missing the point. We have too many "trigger happy" cops. This has probably been a problem for many years. But now that everyone has a video camera in their pocket, we are seeing what really happens when a bad cop meets an innocent situation, and we don't like it. We need better training for cops to stay cool under pressure and better ways of weeding out the bad cops before they kill someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You mean like Eric Garner, who had no weapon and was raising his hands in the air as police calmly walked up to him in a huge group, wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death? WE ALL SAW THE VIDEO. Clearly the police were not scared or in danger -- they chose to kill him because it pissed them off that he did not do what they said.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Oh, so I guess the two videos we have seen were manufactured on a sound stage in Area 51?

No, but what we get to hear is censored and screened. We only get to see and hear what the news media wants us to see and hear. Not in every case but enough of them to discern a pattern.

We all heard the cellphone video of the completely neutral bystanders who said "OMG, he had his hands up and they shot him." They had no stake in the fight AT ALL. We all heard it. You did too. Don't pretend otherwise.

Assumption #1: the bystanders are neutral.
Assumption #2: :"they" had no stake in the fight
Assumption #3 what we all heard from the cellphone video told the whole story.

Time and time again the media is trying to act as judge and jury before all the evidence is presented. Just as in the case of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown I refuse to allow my emotions to be impacted, I refuse to make a judgment until I see all the facts. I refuse to allow the media try and drag me down the garden path.

I am NOT saying these policemen are innocent, or that what they did was right, or anything because I have not examined all the evidence and there has not been a trial. All I am saying is, take with a grain of salt all that you see and hear on sound and video that is released across the internet.

Again, what country are you from??? In the united States, the police do not kill you for not obeying a command -- they arrest you. We are a great country, a civilized country. If you want to live in a country where the police have a right to kill people who do not "obey a command" then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

We ALL saw the video. He was not belligerent. He was calmly standing with his hands in the air. My God, if you think that warrants his killing by police, then I have no way or reasoning with you. Clearly you think this could never happen to you or your loved ones. It could.

You're right that police are supposed to arrest you when you disobey an order, and not kill you, but knowing that the cops can be trigger-happy, wouldn't it be prudent to just obey orders?? I just read of a case in DC where the guy was brandishing what looked to be a real gun and refused to drop it when the cop told him to. Given that the cop was fearful for his life, he actually sounded very reasonable. (There is a tape from his body cam.) Kept screaming.."drop the gun and let's talk about this." But the guy refused to drop the gun, and was pointing it. The cop had a split-second to make a decision, and he obviously feared for his own life. He shot and killed the guy, and only after that it was determined it was a fake gun. (They look a LOT like real guns.) Its very unfortunate that the guy is dead, but why not just drop your gun when ordered to and facing an armed officer?

Your missing the point. We have too many "trigger happy" cops. This has probably been a problem for many years. But now that everyone has a video camera in their pocket, we are seeing what really happens when a bad cop meets an innocent situation, and we don't like it. We need better training for cops to stay cool under pressure and better ways of weeding out the bad cops before they kill someone.

Exactly. We have police officers coming on talk shows and giving people tips on how to avoid being shot when they are dealing with the police -=- and that is acceptable? That's not acceptable to me. I expect a lot of police. They are a huge part of what makes society work. If they can't be counted on to be better than the criminals, then our society is doomed.

[Anonymous]

Your missing the point. We have too many "trigger happy" cops.

It would be great if all cops were Superman. But, you know what? They are human. Here's a clue........they want to go home at night to their families.

Sure, some should be more cautious.

And, to the Eric Garner case--that looks really, really bad. But, let's remember, the supervising policeman at the scene was an African American woman. So, this is not a racial issue. And, Garner did not do what he was asked. And, he was not shot. I think it was mishandled.

We do not yet know the details of these most recent cases. They both look very bad--but we only see what happened after the incidents began.

I am sure there are bad cops, but let's get the whole story first.

Freddie Gray's case should not have been prosecuted. The charges are largely a result of people jumping to false conclusions and a prosecutor who loves the camera.
Michael Brown's case rightfully did not bring an indictment. Under oath, not on national news, stories changed. The protesters went on emotion and hearsay and very false testimony of one guy who was with Brown. This false story resulted in looting, etc.

Treyvon Martin? Two sides to that story. Neither participant was innocent. Neither participant had a stellar record. Was there evidence to bring a trial? Not clear. Both were known to be hotheads.

[Anonymous]

If you were watching Fox news a little while ago you could see for yourself why there are issues.

You can protest all you want but if you are serious, act like it. The behavior I just saw was appalling. Little kids there, watching the whole damn thing. Any excuse to act the ass.

Too bad they don't channel that anger into job searching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You mean like Eric Garner, who had no weapon and was raising his hands in the air as police calmly walked up to him in a huge group, wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death? WE ALL SAW THE VIDEO. Clearly the police were not scared or in danger -- they chose to kill him because it pissed them off that he did not do what they said.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Oh, so I guess the two videos we have seen were manufactured on a sound stage in Area 51?

No, but what we get to hear is censored and screened. We only get to see and hear what the news media wants us to see and hear. Not in every case but enough of them to discern a pattern.

We all heard the cellphone video of the completely neutral bystanders who said "OMG, he had his hands up and they shot him." They had no stake in the fight AT ALL. We all heard it. You did too. Don't pretend otherwise.

Assumption #1: the bystanders are neutral.
Assumption #2: :"they" had no stake in the fight
Assumption #3 what we all heard from the cellphone video told the whole story.

Time and time again the media is trying to act as judge and jury before all the evidence is presented. Just as in the case of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown I refuse to allow my emotions to be impacted, I refuse to make a judgment until I see all the facts. I refuse to allow the media try and drag me down the garden path.

I am NOT saying these policemen are innocent, or that what they did was right, or anything because I have not examined all the evidence and there has not been a trial. All I am saying is, take with a grain of salt all that you see and hear on sound and video that is released across the internet.

Again, what country are you from??? In the united States, the police do not kill you for not obeying a command -- they arrest you. We are a great country, a civilized country. If you want to live in a country where the police have a right to kill people who do not "obey a command" then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

We ALL saw the video. He was not belligerent. He was calmly standing with his hands in the air. My God, if you think that warrants his killing by police, then I have no way or reasoning with you. Clearly you think this could never happen to you or your loved ones. It could.

You're right that police are supposed to arrest you when you disobey an order, and not kill you, but knowing that the cops can be trigger-happy, wouldn't it be prudent to just obey orders?? I just read of a case in DC where the guy was brandishing what looked to be a real gun and refused to drop it when the cop told him to. Given that the cop was fearful for his life, he actually sounded very reasonable. (There is a tape from his body cam.) Kept screaming.."drop the gun and let's talk about this." But the guy refused to drop the gun, and was pointing it. The cop had a split-second to make a decision, and he obviously feared for his own life. He shot and killed the guy, and only after that it was determined it was a fake gun. (They look a LOT like real guns.) Its very unfortunate that the guy is dead, but why not just drop your gun when ordered to and facing an armed officer?

Your missing the point. We have too many "trigger happy" cops. This has probably been a problem for many years. But now that everyone has a video camera in their pocket, we are seeing what really happens when a bad cop meets an innocent situation, and we don't like it. We need better training for cops to stay cool under pressure and better ways of weeding out the bad cops before they kill someone.

I'm not missing the point. It's a horrible pattern, I agree. All I'm saying is not to be a "hero" - and refuse to give in to the cop, who may or may not be wrong - because of this problem we have with cops not staying cool under pressure. We see they don't. We see they need better training. But knowing that (some) react poorly, why risk it? Just do what the cop says. That doesn't preclude the need for better training. It just increases the likelihood that you'll survive that specific encounter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You mean like Eric Garner, who had no weapon and was raising his hands in the air as police calmly walked up to him in a huge group, wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death? WE ALL SAW THE VIDEO. Clearly the police were not scared or in danger -- they chose to kill him because it pissed them off that he did not do what they said.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Oh, so I guess the two videos we have seen were manufactured on a sound stage in Area 51?

No, but what we get to hear is censored and screened. We only get to see and hear what the news media wants us to see and hear. Not in every case but enough of them to discern a pattern.

We all heard the cellphone video of the completely neutral bystanders who said "OMG, he had his hands up and they shot him." They had no stake in the fight AT ALL. We all heard it. You did too. Don't pretend otherwise.

Assumption #1: the bystanders are neutral.
Assumption #2: :"they" had no stake in the fight
Assumption #3 what we all heard from the cellphone video told the whole story.

Time and time again the media is trying to act as judge and jury before all the evidence is presented. Just as in the case of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown I refuse to allow my emotions to be impacted, I refuse to make a judgment until I see all the facts. I refuse to allow the media try and drag me down the garden path.

I am NOT saying these policemen are innocent, or that what they did was right, or anything because I have not examined all the evidence and there has not been a trial. All I am saying is, take with a grain of salt all that you see and hear on sound and video that is released across the internet.

Again, what country are you from??? In the united States, the police do not kill you for not obeying a command -- they arrest you. We are a great country, a civilized country. If you want to live in a country where the police have a right to kill people who do not "obey a command" then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

We ALL saw the video. He was not belligerent. He was calmly standing with his hands in the air. My God, if you think that warrants his killing by police, then I have no way or reasoning with you. Clearly you think this could never happen to you or your loved ones. It could.

You're right that police are supposed to arrest you when you disobey an order, and not kill you, but knowing that the cops can be trigger-happy, wouldn't it be prudent to just obey orders?? I just read of a case in DC where the guy was brandishing what looked to be a real gun and refused to drop it when the cop told him to. Given that the cop was fearful for his life, he actually sounded very reasonable. (There is a tape from his body cam.) Kept screaming.."drop the gun and let's talk about this." But the guy refused to drop the gun, and was pointing it. The cop had a split-second to make a decision, and he obviously feared for his own life. He shot and killed the guy, and only after that it was determined it was a fake gun. (They look a LOT like real guns.) Its very unfortunate that the guy is dead, but why not just drop your gun when ordered to and facing an armed officer?

Your missing the point. We have too many "trigger happy" cops. This has probably been a problem for many years. But now that everyone has a video camera in their pocket, we are seeing what really happens when a bad cop meets an innocent situation, and we don't like it. We need better training for cops to stay cool under pressure and better ways of weeding out the bad cops before they kill someone.

The problem is, it's an awful job. It's not like you're going to get someone with a degree in psychology or sociology with the most amazing negotiation skills to become a beat cop. It's a job with a pension and benefits for people who either want to do good for society and think they can handle the rough side of the job, or people who just want power and like walking around with a gun. The job is probably way out the the league of a lot of applicants as well as those who do get the job. In a lot of cases being a cop takes the intelligence, patience and skill of a scientist or surgeon, but let's face it-- usually, those with such intelligence, patience and skill are not going to become cops.

[Anonymous]

They are not training cops to be calm under pressure. There is no reason they are training them with those video scenarios of people they encounter, and they have to decide on a dime if they have a gun or not. That's just crazy. It sets them up to shoot people.

They need to train the to understand human beings and their role in society. And if they are not comfortable with the idea they may lose their lives on the job, I'm sorry, they are in the wrong line of work.

[Anonymous]

I was listening to NPR this afternoon and the founder of Blue LIves Matter was on. He said some stuff I agree with, like much better training for police. He mentioned the Tamir Rice case and said Ohio police training academy is "only" about 600 hours of training. And then they just have about 2 hours of training after graduation.

He said it was unfair to the police to give them so little training, then "things like this happen," and we rake the police all over the coals.

I had never looked at it from that perspective, but I do know that highly professional police departments do lots of training, as I've mentioned before in other threads (autism, substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, de-escalation, taser use, etc.). These have been presented to me as a way to keep the public safer to reduce the need to use force. But I see it now from the police perspective, too.

He also said that local governments weren't funding the required training and gear. And I can see that in many, MANY police departments across the nation.

I wonder if that's something that the feds can provide grants for. Targeted at training, and ensuring that training meets certain standards. Rather than outfit them with military gear as happened after 9/11.

[Anonymous]

They are not training cops to be calm under pressure. There is no reason they are training them with those video scenarios of people they encounter, and they have to decide on a dime if they have a gun or not. That's just crazy. It sets them up to shoot people.

They need to train the to understand human beings and their role in society. And if they are not comfortable with the idea they may lose their lives on the job, I'm sorry, they are in the wrong line of work.

How about training your kids to do what policemen tell you to do? That is a pretty common denominator in all of these cases. They didn't do what the cop asked them to do. Should they be shot for that? No. But, if they are willing to risk their lives to argue with a policeman, then they share the blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not training cops to be calm under pressure. There is no reason they are training them with those video scenarios of people they encounter, and they have to decide on a dime if they have a gun or not. That's just crazy. It sets them up to shoot people.

They need to train the to understand human beings and their role in society. And if they are not comfortable with the idea they may lose their lives on the job, I'm sorry, they are in the wrong line of work.

But most criminals aren't Jean Valjean from Les Mis who only stole a loaf of bread. If most criminals were just Jean Valjean, the cops would be very comfortable and would be more willing to put themselves on the line and negotiate with the good human being inside of the individual threatening them.

Maybe cops should just be allowed to deal with people the way a psych nurse would: you go nuts and threaten the floor, you get a tranquilizer and a straight jacket. Cops deal with people who usually aren't normal, productive members of society, who are a threat to society the same way a schizophrenic who shoved someone in front of a train is a threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds more to me like the police have issues with American blacks.

+1 How ignorant do you have to be to not know this.

Sounds more to me that police have issues with people who break the law and resist arrest.

What country are you from? I ask because here in America, we live by a system of laws. In America, if you break the law you get arrested, not shot. And if you resist arrest in America, we have a law regarding that -- it's called "resisting arrest." You go before a judge and jury, and if you're found guilty, a judge decides your sentence and death is not one of the options.

So what country are you from, where police get to shoot people for resisting arrest? We don't do that in this great country.

The person breaking the law and resisting arrest was carrying a concealed weapon. If he had been smart he would have declared he was carrying, held his arms up in the air, and awaited further instructions by the police. Instead he chose to tussle and fight and when they saw he was armed and reaching for his weapon the police shot him. You do not have the liberty of great amounts of time to tihnk, "Ok, he has a weapon. He is reaching for it. Maybe I will be lucky and he won't try to shoot me."

No, it is a wild melee with only a few seconds to think and act: shoot first or be shot.

Even if one was to accept your scenario as true, kneeling over somebody and placing five bullets in the chest is overly excessive and murderous.

[Anonymous]

Canada has black people, why don't they have these problems? Oh wait...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not training cops to be calm under pressure. There is no reason they are training them with those video scenarios of people they encounter, and they have to decide on a dime if they have a gun or not. That's just crazy. It sets them up to shoot people.

They need to train the to understand human beings and their role in society. And if they are not comfortable with the idea they may lose their lives on the job, I'm sorry, they are in the wrong line of work.

But most criminals aren't Jean Valjean from Les Mis who only stole a loaf of bread. If most criminals were just Jean Valjean, the cops would be very comfortable and would be more willing to put themselves on the line and negotiate with the good human being inside of the individual threatening them.

Maybe cops should just be allowed to deal with people the way a psych nurse would: you go nuts and threaten the floor, you get a tranquilizer and a straight jacket. Cops deal with people who usually aren't normal, productive members of society, who are a threat to society the same way a schizophrenic who shoved someone in front of a train is a threat.

The police should consider themselves members of the community. I'm sure if you had a mentally ill child or partner, you woudl want the police to treat them as such, not shoot them like a dog with rabies. It takes a special kind of person to do that job and retain their humanity. Too many cops don't have it, or went into the profession for the wrong reasons (power and a gun).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not training cops to be calm under pressure. There is no reason they are training them with those video scenarios of people they encounter, and they have to decide on a dime if they have a gun or not. That's just crazy. It sets them up to shoot people.

They need to train the to understand human beings and their role in society. And if they are not comfortable with the idea they may lose their lives on the job, I'm sorry, they are in the wrong line of work.

But most criminals aren't Jean Valjean from Les Mis who only stole a loaf of bread. If most criminals were just Jean Valjean, the cops would be very comfortable and would be more willing to put themselves on the line and negotiate with the good human being inside of the individual threatening them.

Maybe cops should just be allowed to deal with people the way a psych nurse would: you go nuts and threaten the floor, you get a tranquilizer and a straight jacket. Cops deal with people who usually aren't normal, productive members of society, who are a threat to society the same way a schizophrenic who shoved someone in front of a train is a threat.

The police should consider themselves members of the community. I'm sure if you had a mentally ill child or partner, you woudl want the police to treat them as such, not shoot them like a dog with rabies. It takes a special kind of person to do that job and retain their humanity. Too many cops don't have it, or went into the profession for the wrong reasons (power and a gun).

So is being a criminal a form of mental illness?