Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say it’s good that it’s a bunch of black officers who tuned this guy up. It’s also pretty clear that for all this guy’s supposed calmness, he took off and ran. He ran. If he just shuts up and stays on the ground, and takes a few kicks, he’s showing up at a cop protest sometime this year. But now he’s not.

Have you ever been beaten down by an armed goon squad?! No? Then who are you to judge?

How easily people forget. George Floyd didn’t run. That didn’t work out for him either.

lol. Honest question; did you watch the George Floyd video? He spent 10+ minutes resisting getting put in the cruiser. While it is true that George Floyd didn't physically try to evade the police he clearly resisted.

The part where he cries for his mom almost makes me cry, and I’m a man.

Anonymous wrote:Can there just be an understanding that you should never resist arrest? Regardless of race, gender, criminal record - just do not resist arrest.

So that’s your excuse for summary executions?

Fact: if the person isn’t brandishing a gun or knife, they simply are not a threat—particularly when confronted by multiple police officers. Therefore, there is no need to throw punches, hit, or otherwise use violence to subdue.

I know some police officers get scared and overreact. But they must be held accountable.

Suggestion: the military is trained to deescalate, and they are also trained to be courageous. There are news accounts where police are former military and they handled the precarious situation flawlessly precisely because of their courage and military training. Let’s see if there are lessons to be learned.

Anonymous wrote:Can there just be an understanding that you should never resist arrest? Regardless of race, gender, criminal record - just do not resist arrest.

Sure. Generally people should not resist arrest.

Your point?

Anonymous wrote:Can there just be an understanding that you should never resist arrest? Regardless of race, gender, criminal record - just do not resist arrest.

Brilliant! You found the solution.

Anonymous wrote:Can there just be an understanding that you should never resist arrest? Regardless of race, gender, criminal record - just do not resist arrest.

Are you asking this in full awareness that the outcomes of that perspective are nonetheless very different for some groups of people than others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^PS: and the fact that there are people in this very thread who cannot acknowledge there is a problem that needs to be addressed means something, too.

I suspect the vast majority of people recognize there are major problems in the ways police use force throughout the US. Many of us understand they have an extremely difficult job and would like them better supported with longer training and mental health resources while on the job.

There is at least one person in every thread on unjustified police killings that becomes extremely defensive about all police work and accuses the victims of police violence of being on drugs and resisting arrest. It is not helping the police though he thinks he is.

Don't you think that a critical way to support LEOs in their very difficult jobs would be to set in place oversight over what happens to the "bad apple" colleagues, so they are not passed from site to site, too? Can't that be mentioned whenever we mention other supports for them, even though it means bringing in the same level of state legislative oversight that other professions are burdened with (not fun, but necessary)?

I'm always happy to include mental health supports and longer training whenever I have the discussion about career level licensure for this kind of job. I think all of this is important, but only one leg of that would be relatively quick to implement with the least amount of infrastructure and funding burden, and that's tracking with teeth.

Can there just be an understanding that you should never resist arrest? Regardless of race, gender, criminal record - just do not resist arrest.

Anonymous wrote:^^PS: and the fact that there are people in this very thread who cannot acknowledge there is a problem that needs to be addressed means something, too.

I suspect the vast majority of people recognize there are major problems in the ways police use force throughout the US. Many of us understand they have an extremely difficult job and would like them better supported with longer training and mental health resources while on the job.

There is at least one person in every thread on unjustified police killings that becomes extremely defensive about all police work and accuses the victims of police violence of being on drugs and resisting arrest. It is not helping the police though he thinks he is.

I watched some parts and the only person who was trying to de escalate the situation was the guy who got beaten to death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say it’s good that it’s a bunch of black officers who tuned this guy up. It’s also pretty clear that for all this guy’s supposed calmness, he took off and ran. He ran. If he just shuts up and stays on the ground, and takes a few kicks, he’s showing up at a cop protest sometime this year. But now he’s not.

Have you ever been beaten down by an armed goon squad?! No? Then who are you to judge?

How easily people forget. George Floyd didn’t run. That didn’t work out for him either.

^^PS: and the fact that there are people in this very thread who cannot acknowledge there is a problem that needs to be addressed means something, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Since there are other PPs here, can you please weigh in on the other professions' self-regulation you are bring up. Doctors, for example, have licenses that are tracked from state to state with double-checks to ensure you can't just move to practice in a new area. If you try to get licensed in a new state, everything, even just patient complaints that were deemed without merit, follows you.

Are you all in support of a law enforcement licensure that is tracked across your entire career, which is used to evaluate fitness for duty of all LEOs before being hired somewhere new?

Bringing this back up, as it got lost a few pages back. I don't believe I've seen an answer yet.

It would not solve all of the problems but it would weed out several bad apples.

Police are certified by the state. How is that different than licensure?

In Maryland at least, Doctors are policed by other doctors -- the Maryland Board of Physicians. Made up of.....doctors. All the health boards are.

As I posted above, Major Cities Chiefs and IACP want a national database of sustained charges against police officers. That would go a long way to help get rid of bad actors. It's already coming out that these five Memphis officers, none of whom have more than 5 years on the department, have dirt in their past.

Right. And when you apply to one state board, they check with all the other state boards where you have been licensed. Apparently certification is "different than licensure" because apparently that doesn't happen for cops. Right?

Bad cops getting jobs after dismissal for conduct is called ‘the officer shuffle’. It’s a very real thing.

This should be the first thing to fix, and everyone should be coming out in support of it.

You have a model in how it's done for other professions. You already have certification. This is the low-hanging fruit for putting some teeth into self-policing, and the oversight could be legislation (as in medicine) for state boards to come up with a standard of conduct and process for tracking issues, and then a requirement that they hold to their own standards.

I mean, not that it's easy, but I think it would be easi-est. The fact that it still isn't being done means something about vested interests here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Since there are other PPs here, can you please weigh in on the other professions' self-regulation you are bring up. Doctors, for example, have licenses that are tracked from state to state with double-checks to ensure you can't just move to practice in a new area. If you try to get licensed in a new state, everything, even just patient complaints that were deemed without merit, follows you.

Are you all in support of a law enforcement licensure that is tracked across your entire career, which is used to evaluate fitness for duty of all LEOs before being hired somewhere new?

Bringing this back up, as it got lost a few pages back. I don't believe I've seen an answer yet.

It would not solve all of the problems but it would weed out several bad apples.

Police are certified by the state. How is that different than licensure?

In Maryland at least, Doctors are policed by other doctors -- the Maryland Board of Physicians. Made up of.....doctors. All the health boards are.

As I posted above, Major Cities Chiefs and IACP want a national database of sustained charges against police officers. That would go a long way to help get rid of bad actors. It's already coming out that these five Memphis officers, none of whom have more than 5 years on the department, have dirt in their past.

Right. And when you apply to one state board, they check with all the other state boards where you have been licensed. Apparently certification is "different than licensure" because apparently that doesn't happen for cops. Right?

Bad cops getting jobs after dismissal for conduct is called ‘the officer shuffle’. It’s a very real thing.

+1 From the article about the Fairmount Heights, MD officer: “ This officer should have never been hired by the city of Fairmount Heights," Jonathan Y. Newton, Sinclair's attorney, told Insider. "He is the quintessential example of a bad cop, and everybody at that department and a lot of people in the area knew he was a bad cop. He gambled on the fact that nobody would challenge him on it."