It occurs to me, all these recent stories where police are shooting people at the drop of a hat...

[phantom power]

are a logical consequence of the gun industry's project to put a gun in everybody's hand. If you're a police officer, and in the back of your mind you're forced to assume that more and more people are carrying guns -- and using them -- how is that likely to influence your reactions? Somebody reaches for something -- is it a gun? They've got some object in their hand -- is it a gun? Guess wrong, and they get the first shot.

The gun industry must be very very pleased with its work, because it's been great for business.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. And these are trained professions who've taken an oath.

Just imagine how worse it would be with a bunch of carrying private Yahoos.

[Iggo]

3. It's a logical consequence of hiring cowards as police officers.

[A HERETIC I AM]

14. These are the types of posts that make me wish DU

Had a "thumbs up" or "like" button for individual posts.

Cowards.

Absolutely spot on.

[hack89]

4. Police justifiable homicides have held steady at about 400 -450 annually for over 20 years

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec2.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2008-2012.xls

The difference is now with the internet, you are aware of more police shootings.

[JJChambers]

8. Facts have no place in an emotional argument!

You're sure to be ignored. But you're right.

[X_Digger]

23. Summer of the Shark Phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark

The Summer of the Shark refers to the coverage of shark attacks by American news media in the summer of 2001. The sensationalist coverage of shark attacks began in early July following the Fourth of July weekend shark attack on 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast, and continued almost unabated—despite no evidence for an actual increase in attacks—until the September 11 terrorist attacks shifted the media's attention away from beaches. The Summer of the Shark has since been remembered as an example of tabloid television perpetuating a story with no real merit beyond its ability to draw ratings.

[phantom power]

25. Yes, it could be increased publicity due to the internet.

Tangentially, I wonder what the statistics for un-justified homicide look like. In my opinion, part of the point is a lot of recent stories that don't appear justified at all. Kid getting shot because he had a game controller in his hand. Old guy getting shot reaching for his cane. What's up with that?

I've always felt an inclination to give police some benefit of the doubt. What's it like for your job to be approaching people who might react violently, and maybe even pull a gun? Year after year. And then, like everybody else, you're reading about school shootings, and former fellow cops shooting people in theaters over a cell phone. What's that do to your state of mind?

[DanTex]

5. Yes. Yet another consequence of mass proliferation of guns.

In fact, in other nations with reasonable gun laws, not only is there less homicide among civilians, there are also less shootings by police. It's part of the stupidity of the idea that guns are going to help protect against the "government". The police will (and should) have more firepower than civilians. The more armed civilians are, the more likely that the police are to shoot first.

In the UK, many police don't even carry guns -- they don't need to. Here's an article about Germany, where the police fired a total of just 86 bullets in an entire year.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/11/11662345-german-police-fired-just-85-bullets-total-in-2011?lite

[appal_jack]

6. Just like all those rapes are the fault of the fashion industry, right?

Just like all those rapes are the fault of the fashion industry, right? Putting short skirts on all those wimmenz...

Your OP is disgusting. There is NO excuse to blame the victims (the citizenry) and excuse the perpetrators (cops with itchy trigger fingers). People who find my analogy objectionable need to realize that the OP is excusing MURDER, and that is NO better than excusing any other crime.

Citizens have been able to own pistols for the entire history of this country. While I am sure that certain gun companies might be employing unscrupulous marketing strategies in the present, police take an oath to protect and serve the citizenry, in THIS country, with THIS Constitution. We taxpayers and municipal and state governments have an obligation to provide police with enough staff and protective equipment to minimize the risks in their inherently dangerous jobs. But we should never excuse brutality and state-sponsored summary executions.

phantom power, this is a new, reprehensible low for you.

-app

[pipi_k]

17. Here's the deal...

if you're a cop and you don't assume someone has a gun, you could be dead in a heartbeat.

You don't even make the assumption that an old dude isn't carrying.

Mr Pipi, a retired cop, carries a small handgun all the time. If he's ever stopped for driving too fast (as he sometimes does) he always pulls out his firearms permit along with his drivers license, to let the cop know he's carrying. Cops appreciate that, I can tell you.

Now, you might understand the issue a different way, but to call it reprehensible is also reprehensible.


Guns are becoming ever more common on our streets...or at least, it seems that way.

The OP is NOT "excusing murder". It's explaining why it occurs. Not the same thing at all.

Cops have an interest in getting home safe and sound at the end of the day just like the rest of us.


And unless you've ever had to face the possibility of being shot to death each and every day of your working career, you have no idea what it's like to try and find a balance between wanting to do the best job you can while also making sure your family doesn't lose a husband and father...son...brother.

[appal_jack]

26. Ah, OK. 'Explaining.' How new-speakly better!

Ah, OK. 'Explaining.' How new-speakly better!

Yes, in most states a ccw-license holder is required to immediately inform an officer of this fact during any traffic stop or similar interaction. This is entirely reasonable.

Yes, cops do have risky jobs, and they need to be cautious. This is also entirely reasonable.

Your own husband chooses to exercise his Second Amendment right to carry a handgun. As a retired cop, he is just a regular citizen like you or I. The fact that citizens can be armed justifies caution, not wanton shooting, by on-duty police officers.

Again, the OP is making excuses and deflecting blame onto the victims. That is wrong.

-app

[treestar]

21. There is simply no comparison there.

Your ad hominem is irrelevant. It's a good question.

Cops in small towns who know everybody don't have the same problem.

[appal_jack]

28. You appear to be having difficulties with language and meaning.

You appear to be having difficulties with language and meaning. There was no 'ad hominem' in my response. An ad hominem attack goes after the person primarily and the argument secondarily, or not at all. I did no such thing. Instead, I attacked a weak, twisted argument by saying:

Your OP is disgusting. There is NO excuse to blame the victims (the citizenry) and excuse the perpetrators (cops with itchy trigger fingers).

Note, I attacked the argument in the OP, and not the author. See the difference?

Also, officers have the obligation (guaranteed by the 14th Amendment) to treat citizens equally before the law, whether they know them or not.

Try again.

-app

[treestar]

32. It is not "disgusting"

to ask a question. Isn't your first sentence ad hominem?

[rrneck]

7. I think cops always assume you're armed.

Next time you get stopped, watch how he approaches your car in your blind spot and stands where you can't easily see him.

[tridim]

9. Cops assuming I'm armed makes my life much less safe.

And the NRA has absolutely no problem with that. Fucking assholes.

[rrneck]

11. They're not there to make you safe.

That's not their job. Their job is to enforce the law. Unless you live in Mayberry.

[tridim]

12. "Protect and Serve" implies public safety.

That is exactly what their job is.

[oneshooter]

15. Most, if not all local and state PD's no longer use that motto.

As the USSC has said that they don't have a duty to protect you, unless you are under arrest.

To "imply"does not mean it is so.

[rrneck]

16. Protect and serve who - or what?

That's what they don't tell you. And fruit extracts in shampoo will serve and protect your hair. Don't bet your life on advertising painted on a car door. The supreme court says they don't have that obligation.

[pipi_k]

18. Exactly...and I'm sure

they are taught to do that.

Especially these days.

I saw a rather disturbing video on TV...it involved a cop making a routine traffic stop on a rural road someplace. It would have been a minor offense, really...burnt out tail/brake light or some damned thing.

He walked casually over to the driver's window and asked for the guy's paperwork. In less than 90 seconds he was lying dead in the road. His cruiser camera caught the whole thing.

You never, never, never assume someone is unarmed.

[MO_Moderate]

10. Must also be

a logical consequence of the concrete industry's project to put a sidewalk in every city.

[hughee99]

13. I wonder if that's why the police have been playing so much quickdraw with dogs lately.

Between certain animal rights groups arguing that animals have constitutional rights and the NRA pushing gun ownership as a virtually inviolate constitutional right, you never know when a dog will have a gun.

[MrScorpio]

19. That's part of it...

Poor police training and lack of police accountability is another.

It's like a perfect storm at play.

[KittyWampus]

22. I'd throw steroids into the mix.

[MrScorpio]

24. That's a sure fire winner! nt

[uponit7771]

31. +1

[treestar]

20. A good point

Cops don't want to die any more than anyone else, and they are more ingrained with the idea. A traffic stop is usually just that, but it can be the one nut who will start shooting. Living with that every day has to get to you.

[VScott]

27. And to what do you owe the numerous examples of cops

(sometimes gangs of them), pummeling, beating, kicking, chocking, compliant, non-threatening persons who have already been detained, and in some examples already cuffed?

Guns, or the number of guns in the public hands isn't the problem here.

It's the hiring and tolerance of individuals whom have no business being police officers that sparks these over reactions.

[Comrade Grumpy]

29. While not excusing police misbehavior, this makes sense.

We're a gun crazy country. A natural consequence of having 300 million guns floating around is that cops are nervous.

[Savannahmann]

30. Not exactly

Do you remember the scene on the bridge in the movie Untouchables? Sean Connery tells a discouraged Kevin Costner that he's going home alive at the end of his shift, and that's all that really matters.

That's all that really matters to the cops today. Their first concern is not protecting the public, they've argued successfully in court that they have no duty to protect anyone. The one duty they recognize is to protect themselves, and other cops, at all costs. The courts have backed them up. Whenever the police state that they "believe" the citizen is reaching for a weapon, they are justified to use deadly force.

They don't wait to be sure, they don't wait to be certain, and they're not expected to. If they did wait, they might not make it home alive. It is better for dozens of innocent citizens to die than one cop being harmed.

Police receive hundreds of hours of training on how to identify potential threats. Despite the fact that they are more likely to die in their cars than from gunfire. http://www.odmp.org/search/year That is the case for every year. But they don't get trained and instructed to wear seatbelts, because I never see a cop wearing a seatbelt. Their excuse is that they may have to get out of the car quickly to chase someone. So every year more cops die from not wearing a seatbelt than from gunfire, but the training all revolves around gunfire training. Shoot first, tell the lies later.

Police are ill trained, and psychologically speaking, ill equiped to handle their duties. They care little for the public, but grow outraged and start nationwide searches if someone dares harm one of them. Remember the Washington Sniper? Were there roadblocks set up here there and everywhere while machine gun toting cops searched cars for the sniper? How about when they're searching for drug dealers? But we saw that when the cops in LA were searching for Dorner, who was hunting police. The cops even shot up a pick up truck with two women in it because it was suspicious. Shoot first, lie later.

It doesn't have anything to do with the gun industry. It has everything to do with mentality, and a lack of accountability for their actions. That is why I say there are no good cops. Because even the ones who don't abuse people, use excessive force, or murder unarmed people lie to support their fellow cops who are doing that. You can't be a good cop if you're lying to support a bad one.