Awww, the officer is in danger? So what. That's part of the job. That's what you signed up for. If you're a cop and haven't made peace with the idea that it's a dangerous career, you need to get another job. Is it safer for the cop to shoot? Sure it is. Would it be safer for cops to just shoot everyone and ask questions later? Sure it would. Heck, might as well give everyone an RFID tag so the police can track us all the time. It will make their jobs safer!

I have to agree with you on this one. Cops, as a practice ought to avoid standing in front of cars. If they put themselves in danger, they shouldn't be allowed as policy to use their guns to extract themselves from that danger. The chances of the car escaping are minuscule. They should act like professional officers of the peace, not cowboys.

If the policy is that they should act to protect themselves first, then they shouldn't make dangerous action on the basis that they can just bail themselves out with a gun. That's cowboy and dangerous to the public...you know the ones who pay their salaries and the reason they have a job.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Nobody should be jumping in front of a moving vehicle

What gave you the idea that any of the cops jumped in front of a moving vehicle?

another write up I read elsewhere, let me go see if I can find it.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

Indeed, what cop would do that?

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Um, if you read po157's  write up one of the links mentions that the cop jumped in front of the car. ;)  So, the obvious answer is, a dumb one.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

Man, that'd be funny!

You disregard the amount of shots because you say crossfire gives the illusion of people shooting at the cops; but if you were to get a no-knock warrant in the middle of the night (i.e., the illusion of someone breaking into your house) and shot at the cops, you'd be killed in situ, and if not you'd face capital murder charges.  Like this guy: http://www.reason.com/news/show/125538.html

Cops ought to be held to at least as high a standard as the public, if not higher.

seeing as the guy has no clue where his family is, that sounds like typical bar-room shit talking to me.

This was some cops abusing their authority, imo.  Come on, how many of us have witnessed  guys in an altercation making idle threats?  How many ended with someone dying?  

These guys were just wrong.  The only reason they get away with it is the badge.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

seeing as the guy has no clue where his family is

And the cop is supposed to know that... how?

sounds like typical bar-room shit talking to me.

Quite likely, which should only serve to impress the importance of good manners. Also, to underscore the "polite" aspect of "a polite, well-armed society."

 Well...did he know the guy?

What are the odds some random guy in a bar knows your address?

That guy was stupid, but cops are supposed to have some judgment.  If a citizen says someone threatened to come to their house and harm them, they have to go through all kinds of hell to get anything done.  Some random idiot makes an off the cuff remark that he might harm a plainclothes policeman's family (and it's debatable whether or not he knew he was a cop)  and deadly force is justified?

I guess all those battered women with useless restraining orders should have just gone to the police academy instead.  Someone should do a PSA.

 

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

Some random idiot makes an off the cuff remark that he might harm a plainclothes policeman's family (and it's debatable whether or not he knew he was a cop)  and deadly force is justified?

Legally? Maybe. Evolutionally? Absolutely. The thing to remember about "trash talk" is that occasionally, trash gets taken out.

because emotional vulnerability is always what I look for in a law enforcement officer

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Vulnerable or invulnerable, cop or not cop, he's the guy with the gun.

 So might makes right?

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

then you're basically saying that cops should receive special treatment, because if they don't they might not protect us.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Guys with legal "carry concealed" permits are responsible only for their own defense, same as every other citizen. Police are explicitly hired, trained and granted authority to be responsible for the welfare of citizens as a whole. Because they take on extra responsibility, they get some special treatment.

That sounds more like a Mafia protection racket than honest law enforcement...

Not really. I'm not saying that all cops would start acting in bad faith. I'm saying that if the penalty for making a certain kind of judgment call gets raised to include likely jail time, that call will be made less. Since the specific call we're discussing is "try to stop a potential drive-by shooting," the expected net result will be both fewer arrests and altercations, and more drive-by shootings. I'd call that a net loss for civic safety.

And no doubt the same kinds of people bitching about Bell's death now would be complaining "where are the police?" then.

Since the specific call we're discussing is "try to stop a potential drive-by shooting,"

And if a few brown people get shot in the process, who cares?  After all, they're brown.  If our cop's can't shoot brown people at will, then civilization will collapse into a morass of drive-by shootings.

No, I figure they would be out hassling random citizens, looking to instigate another one of those incidents I was talking about where the suspect became belligerent and resisted arrest.  That's why people are wondering where the cops are when there's a real crime.  If they weren't so busy cleaning up situations they helped create, they might be available for actual 911 calls.

Hey, I can dream.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

It really isn't that he would turn into a "hyberbolic attention ho" by trading on somebody else's grief and misery to score some cheap points and get himself on the News At Six?  It's really that there are still any people left in America who are surprised at all that he would turn into a "hyberbolic attention ho" by trading on somebody else's grief and misery to score some cheap points and get himself on the News At Six?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Originally, I used to think that about Al Sharpton as well, but over the years, as the number of truly horrific incidents of NYPD shooting down innocent black men have continued, I've changed my mind.

Really, it seems that every 4 years or so, the NYPD is literally gunning down some black guy without giving him the benefit of the doubt.  Yeah, I've heard it all about how the cop is in a dangerous situation, etc., and they are afraid for their lives.  But, why is it always black men?  There are plenty of criminals of all races and both genders in NY but only a subset of New Yorkers gets targeted for multiple rounds of bullets: black men.

And somebody needs to speak up very very loudly about this.  I am glad Al Sharpton is doing it.

There are plenty of criminals of all races and both genders in NY...

Blacks account for 60% of the criminals in NYC. Would it make you happier if a few Hispanics got gunned down by the cops to balance things out?

Blacks account for 60% of the criminals in NYC.

Now, I would think that race percentage in terms of crimes is a little hard to know in a city with racial profiling.  Sure, you could say those 60% were committing crimes, but what of the non-black people out there committing crimes who aren't checked because of their race.  A sweep of some IT departments in many corporations as well as young artists and writers would skew the percentage to a large percentage of white drug use.  The police could station themselves at subway stops in Brooklyn and profile every single hipster.

Would it make you happier if a few Hispanics got gunned down by the cops to balance things out?

You could be right.  In the future, it could well be Hispanics getting gunned down as well.  They've only really made a significant portion of the population in the last ten years in the city.  However, as more people get riled up about "illegal immigrants are taking away my jobs" (instead of: hey, those corporations are being cheap asses and refusing to pay a living standard) and the media works harder to portray Hispanics as criminals, unwed mothers, slackers, rapers, murderers, etc., sure it could happen.  Would it make me happy, no?  Because I naively and idealistically believe the police are there to catch those who commit crimes rather than gunning down people.

(instead of: hey, those corporations are being cheap asses and refusing to pay a living standard)

Or, consumers are too cheap ass to enforce the standards they espouse. Instead of researching companies and purchasing goods/services from those who use legal labor or assemble the parts in the United States they go with the lowest common denominator and then bitch about it after the fact on AM radio call in shows.

Exactly.  Although I am also inclined to think that the government, on both local and federal level should consider stepping in on a tax level as well.

Since companies are given tax exemptions locally as well as different tax breaks on a federal level with the idea that they are helping the U.S. economy, perhaps tax breaks and exemptions for companies should be tiered based on the percentage of people they employ within the U.S.

I said it on Plastic and will say it here as well: illegal immigration is not as dangerous to the American economy as outsourcing.  Illegal immigrants are often taking on jobs that most Americans don't want, often cheap labor jobs or jobs that are dangerous, and illegal immigrants spend the majority of their income within the U.S.

Outsourcing, on the other hand, takes away jobs across many levels, from cheap manufacturing to data architecture, and none of that money will be spent within the U.S.

And going even more off-topic here: McCain's economic plans as potential president is erroneous; he plans on giving corporations more tax cuts saying that lack of economic returns is what is preventing corporations from using domestic labor.  This is ass backwards.  Corporations use labor abroad because they want larger returns for their stockholders, not because they can't generate profit off domestic labor.  

Most companies are dedicated to getting larger profits for their shareholders; in a sense, one can argue that it is financially unethical for a company not to pursue a larger profit for their shareholder.  At least in the multinational corporation where I am currently working, it seems that most of the top executives are aligned with the interests of the shareholders (and pleasing them) rather than thinking about their employees and their products.  In a sense, what product is made at a corporation hardly matters (again, at least at the place I am working); what matters is the financial exercise of buying and selling companies to generate profits as well as minimizing overhead and operations personnel.  

Sure, you could say those 60% were committing crimes, but what of the non-black people out there committing crimes who aren't checked because of their race

The 60% figure is from reported crimes, not arrests. (55% of those arrested in NYC are black, so if anything the police aren't paying enough attention to black criminals.) I suppose you could argue that for most of the crimes reported where the race of the perpetrator was unknown were committed by white people, but that would be very silly, don't you think?

However, as more people get riled up about "illegal immigrants are taking away my jobs"...

I don't see that happening in NYC anytime soon. The NYC unemployment rates is significantly lower than the national rate. NYC is also far more accustomed to immigrants than any other city in the US.

The 60% figure is from reported crimes, not arrests. (55% of those arrested in NYC are black, so if anything the police aren't paying enough attention to black criminals.)

Then you are arguing against your own logic from further up.  If the 60% is from reported crimes, then it has no baring on the shootings of black men in New York as the recent shootings of black men were not related to reported crimes.  This most recent case was of a police stake out on possible prostitution and then the cops deciding that another crime might be in progress, one they concluded of their own logic and not one reported to them.

NYC is also far more accustomed to immigrants than any other city in the US.

NYC is also accustomed to the sight of black men, but it doesn't seem to stop prejudice there.

If the 60% is from reported crimes, then it has no baring on the shootings of black men in New York as the recent shootings of black men were not related to reported crimes

If you say so. In any case I was addressing your claim that, "There are plenty of criminals of all races and both genders in NY."

Here's the cops involved in the Bell situation.

I do actually.  I knew the race of the cops involved as I read about the decisions this morning.  However, I would still argue the race card as someone who is not white.  

As someone who is not white, I hesitate to move into neighborhoods that is predominantly black.  And I think this is because of the media representation of black dominated neighborhoods as always being criminal and dangerous.  

Is it possible for black men to subconsciously buy into this stereotype? Yes.

One of my friends and I have a long standing debate about Asian men (I am Korean, by the way).  He keeps on telling me that it's impossible for him to date because he's an Asian male.  He got this nonsense from mainstream media.  He's a good looking guy and tons of women have told me that they find him attractive.

As someone who is not white, I hesitate to move into neighborhoods that is predominantly black.  And I think this is because of the media representation of black dominated neighborhoods as always being criminal and dangerous...(I am Korean, by the way)

Koreans don't like black folks. It's not the "media representation of black dominated neighborhoods," it's 'cause you're Korean. (You know the term 'yontan ajashi' perhaps?)

Koreans don't like black folks. It's not the "media representation of black dominated neighborhoods," it's 'cause you're Korean.

It's an interesting question, and something I had to think across 3 levels: (1) on the Korean level (2) on the Korean immigrant level and (3) on an individual and personal level.  So, brace yourself for a long answer.

(1) on the Korean level: It's definitely true that Koreans for a long time were very xenophobic as well as racist, particularly against the Japanese (for obvious historical reasons) and anybody with a darker skin color (blacks, latinos, southeast Asians).  However, recent popular culture in Korea shows hiphop and rap having a huge influence on the music scene in Korea.  Does that necessarily mean that Koreans' perception of blacks is changing?  I am not sure.  I hope that is a possibility for the younger generation and future generations, particularly as Koreans get more economic opportunities and are able to travel and as different people travel more frequently to Korea as tourists.  

(2) on the Korean immigrant level: Like many immigrant groups that have only been around for a couple of generations, the Korean immigrant communities in certain cities are very strong, particularly LA and NY.  Except for a few years in Texas, my childhood was very much in the middle of the Korean immigrant community in NY.  Many first generation Koreans are small business owners, particularly small businesses in black neighborhoods.  There were a couple of incidents when I was a teenager that showed how much animosity there can be between blacks and the Korean business owners of my parents' generation.  It is, in essence, an economic competition as well as fear and language barriers.  Spike Lee's portrayal of this issue in Do the Right Thing is dead on.  The other factor that is on my mind is that Korean immigrant children are pushed very hard to work their way up the social structure, to become economically successful.  Often, in order to do that, one has to identify one's self with the powers that be.  And in America, blacks are generally not the ones in power (and this is a sweeping generalization for there are certainly powerful black people in the entertainment sector and some powerful black politicians).

(3) On a personal level.  It's generally said that racism is conveyed to children by parents who are racist.  Do I think that my parents are racist?  Yes, and no.  I think they are of their generation in Korea and in that sense generally not in close contact with anyone who is black.  However, here's where I am conflicted.  I, unlike my parents, actually have close friends who are black but I cannot claim that I am not racist.  I am generally uncomfortable in black neighborhoods.  Yet, when I examine my own experiences where something very specific was said to me as a slur or a slight on me because of my race, I only recall two instances where it was said to me by a black person on the street.  A few times, a white person has called me a chink on the street or I've been denied service at a restaurant run by white people in rural areas (twice) and once at an Italian restaurant in New York.  There have been a couple of white academics who implied that I was accepted into college or grad school because of affirmative action or that Asians shouldn't be interested in studying Western literature.  My college advisor was a black man who is now a close personal friend; I studied Puritan literature as well as slave narratives with him.  And I feel abashed and somewhat ashamed that for all that he has taught me about literature and the history of race in America, I still harbor some uneasiness about black men.

So, because I don't find that my own personal experiences justify my apprehensions about black men and crime, I do think that the media representation of black men plays a part in this.    

Here's one black man's rather interesting take on how race does influence black-cop on black-suspect violence and some conclusions thereto.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Blue bond, eh? What color was the first cop to open fire? If he was white I guess the author's claim could hold water. But if he was black, no dice. I'm too lazy to look it up.

Also, if we're willing to suppose a reason for hypothetical excessive black on black police brutality could it not be that the black officers are sick and tired of the shenanigans of the criminals giving their group a bad name after all the good work they did in the civil rights era? It might not be all about bonding.

That's still racism. Do you think white people can't be racist against white people? It's fine to hold that "sick and tired of the shenanigans" concept in the abstract--I'm sure that's why plenty of black cops join up to some degree--but it's discriminatory to apply that to an individual who you've never met before.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

What I don't get is why people can't move to a color blind society. If somebody is acting like a thug, then they are a thug, despite what color they are. If the cops brutalized some innocent person, why does it matter what color they are? Each case should be decided on its merits, not by playing some race card that only obfuscates what really happened and serves to heighten emotional responses.