You took the words right out of my keyboard. I smelled BS with the initial "martial arts" line and I know too many cops to believe what Shanghai is selling.
Another White Cop shoots Black Man
- Thread starter 80watts
- Start date
I just want to point out that not all interactions with police are “logged” in Canada... believe me, I know.
Also, radioing in to get authorization to use their handgun is just asking for dead police officer.
Have you not seen videos of a suspect being calm and within 3 seconds, the suspect is shooting at police?
Bad guys are not going to wait for the police officer to get authorization to return fire.
Two years boot camp, schooling, gun handling, mental health awareness training, negotiation and de-escalation training, tactics, social situational awareness with respect to the public recording them, how to post and edit videos on youtube...
If these cops are serious, the good ones will stick out the training. The current "training" is not enough time to be sufficiently proficient to have enough for these officers (especially women) to have clear advantage in hand-to-hand combat.
Cops are of course would be issued guns, they just would not carry them for 5 years. The can wear bullet proof vests. If a cop is shot at, harmed or not, instant life-imprisonment without parole. Simple. New cops are free to use guns with authorization, the entire point being that such authorization would be a reportable event, then the 5 years those events are reviewed.
For example, being called to a domestic situation, even if the homeowner is a registered gun owner, don't go in the house wearing a gun. Obviously an in-progress bank robbery with guns clearly being used, yes indeed, arrive fully equipped and ready with guns. A caller who said "hey I saw a black dude with a gun..." and it turns out there is no gun, that's a perfect case where the rookie cop would not carry a gun but would be accompanied by a more experienced partner who is carrying a gun, but is in the background.
I was on broadway one day, a motorhome stopped and surrounded by swat team with machine guns, while the public was allowed inside a quarter block perimeter. In another instance, several machine-gun weilding cops were in a New West movie theater lying in wait in a stairwell hoping to ambush someone, without first evacuating the building. Neither incident was covered by the news. These morons just plain do not have enough common sense to be trusted with guns, period.
If a gun is necessary and an experienced officer with a gun needs backup, he supply authorization to his partner to go back and get his gun. Even though the gun may not be used, that would be a reportable event (otherwise, the only use of a gun the public would be aware of would be if shots were fired).
The point is to ensure that a gun isn't drawn first and carried into a situation that potentially serves as a point of escalation such as is evidence by many mental health situations where scary individuals often get shot when there are less lethal ways of dealing with them.
In the U.K. and others, police don't carry guns but they have them. Obviously the point is to be non-threatening to the public. The odds of getting shot are already like winning the lottery, so the effort is to reduce that.
You start with the small towns that have no gun violence, measure the impact, progress and effect, then expand, or rejig the formula as needed.
The singular point of the ongoing riots is cops shooting black people and the increasing proliferation of videos capturing these events.
As has been pointed out, perpetrators will be pandering to the cameras pretending to be victimized so videos show them being beaten and shot by the big bad mean cops, and cops will be worried about their jobs if the major of the town paying the police bills is shocked by publicly shot videos.
The alternative to doing nothing is no longer an option if the majority of the public starts to agree that the basis for the protests is justified and cops deserve to be villified. If cop shops do nothing and their employers continue paying police and doing nothing about white-washed death reviews, and these videos of cops shooting blacks continue being shown in the news, my guess is people will start shooting police randomly, not just burn down the police stations.
In person, one-on-one, cops are fun to pal around with, train, shoot, and party with, it is their institution as a whole that really needs a rethink.
Here's another case in point regarding public perception of police response when a 200lb dude punched the face of a 13-year old autistic kid and the complaint was dismissed. That gives any nutcase a license to goad any special needs individual in front of a camera and haul off and punch them in "self defence".
Another point against the police written by a reporter that clearly has little use for police..
If these cops are serious, the good ones will stick out the training. The current "training" is not enough time to be sufficiently proficient to have enough for these officers (especially women) to have clear advantage in hand-to-hand combat.
Cops are of course would be issued guns, they just would not carry them for 5 years. The can wear bullet proof vests. If a cop is shot at, harmed or not, instant life-imprisonment without parole. Simple. New cops are free to use guns with authorization, the entire point being that such authorization would be a reportable event, then the 5 years those events are reviewed.
For example, being called to a domestic situation, even if the homeowner is a registered gun owner, don't go in the house wearing a gun. Obviously an in-progress bank robbery with guns clearly being used, yes indeed, arrive fully equipped and ready with guns. A caller who said "hey I saw a black dude with a gun..." and it turns out there is no gun, that's a perfect case where the rookie cop would not carry a gun but would be accompanied by a more experienced partner who is carrying a gun, but is in the background.
I was on broadway one day, a motorhome stopped and surrounded by swat team with machine guns, while the public was allowed inside a quarter block perimeter. In another instance, several machine-gun weilding cops were in a New West movie theater lying in wait in a stairwell hoping to ambush someone, without first evacuating the building. Neither incident was covered by the news. These morons just plain do not have enough common sense to be trusted with guns, period.
If a gun is necessary and an experienced officer with a gun needs backup, he supply authorization to his partner to go back and get his gun. Even though the gun may not be used, that would be a reportable event (otherwise, the only use of a gun the public would be aware of would be if shots were fired).
The point is to ensure that a gun isn't drawn first and carried into a situation that potentially serves as a point of escalation such as is evidence by many mental health situations where scary individuals often get shot when there are less lethal ways of dealing with them.
In the U.K. and others, police don't carry guns but they have them. Obviously the point is to be non-threatening to the public. The odds of getting shot are already like winning the lottery, so the effort is to reduce that.
You start with the small towns that have no gun violence, measure the impact, progress and effect, then expand, or rejig the formula as needed.
The singular point of the ongoing riots is cops shooting black people and the increasing proliferation of videos capturing these events.
As has been pointed out, perpetrators will be pandering to the cameras pretending to be victimized so videos show them being beaten and shot by the big bad mean cops, and cops will be worried about their jobs if the major of the town paying the police bills is shocked by publicly shot videos.
The alternative to doing nothing is no longer an option if the majority of the public starts to agree that the basis for the protests is justified and cops deserve to be villified. If cop shops do nothing and their employers continue paying police and doing nothing about white-washed death reviews, and these videos of cops shooting blacks continue being shown in the news, my guess is people will start shooting police randomly, not just burn down the police stations.
In person, one-on-one, cops are fun to pal around with, train, shoot, and party with, it is their institution as a whole that really needs a rethink.
Here's another case in point regarding public perception of police response when a 200lb dude punched the face of a 13-year old autistic kid and the complaint was dismissed. That gives any nutcase a license to goad any special needs individual in front of a camera and haul off and punch them in "self defence".
Another point against the police written by a reporter that clearly has little use for police..
Last edited:
Yeah about having to seek permission to use lethal force on a per case basis...Our society would be a lot more dangerous if that were the case. The fact that police can and will gun you down without hesitation for presenting a potentially credible threat to themselves or the public is a cornerstone of public safety. Obviously it doesn’t always work. This is not a comment on the case of Jacob Blake, btw.
“Instant life sentence, no parole” just for shooting at a cop? That would be the new highest penalty under the criminal code—better not get caught! But hey, they aren’t armed/shooting back so might as well finish them off—more chance at getting away.
“We arrived at the scene for an armed suspect, but he appears to be unnamed..”
“Remember the rules rookie, put the gun away, but go back and get it if something else pops off at a moment’s notice.” We’re not in the UK here, this won’t work for patrols, but I agree that these wellness checks and domestics seem to be among the most problematic with armed cops. I saw an unarmed (didn’t check out his belt but definitely no gun) cop looking guy at the grocery store the other day. Dressed all in black with a radio and an armour vest that had “mental health unit” or something to that effect.
I agree many people are upset about the prevalence of these shootings, and that many of these folks might feel strongly about the complex issues at play. Just a hunch but I’m guessing a very small percent of these people see police collectively as villains.
And people do occasionally randomly or methodically kill cops. They’re usually dead before the evening news comes on and held in similar regard as school shooters and terrorists.
“Instant life sentence, no parole” just for shooting at a cop? That would be the new highest penalty under the criminal code—better not get caught! But hey, they aren’t armed/shooting back so might as well finish them off—more chance at getting away.
“We arrived at the scene for an armed suspect, but he appears to be unnamed..”
“Remember the rules rookie, put the gun away, but go back and get it if something else pops off at a moment’s notice.” We’re not in the UK here, this won’t work for patrols, but I agree that these wellness checks and domestics seem to be among the most problematic with armed cops. I saw an unarmed (didn’t check out his belt but definitely no gun) cop looking guy at the grocery store the other day. Dressed all in black with a radio and an armour vest that had “mental health unit” or something to that effect.
I agree many people are upset about the prevalence of these shootings, and that many of these folks might feel strongly about the complex issues at play. Just a hunch but I’m guessing a very small percent of these people see police collectively as villains.
And people do occasionally randomly or methodically kill cops. They’re usually dead before the evening news comes on and held in similar regard as school shooters and terrorists.
With all due respect . Let's not compare a country that was one of the most unstable part of Europe for decades , was forced into communism, had never experienced real democratic rules and compare it with a 200 year old stable democracy. I agree that it is being shaken these past few years but still has the institutions and balance of power to defend itself and keep the orange twit and croonies in check.
It's like explaining socialist ruled countries with Venezuela instead of using Sweden , Norway, Finland, Denmark or too a lesser extent the rest of Europe.
The more you write, the more you prove you don't know what you're talking about.
The police in Canada and the majority of the U.S. don't carry "machine guns". They carry semi auto rifles. You don't know anything about firearms and are spouting how they should be used.
As far at the Brits go, they do carry guns. Too many threats these days not to.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ush-ahead-with-armed-patrols-despite-backlash
You're an armchair general with no experience with dangerous people.
Just stop posting.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/crim...s-from-his-injuries/ar-BB18xbBV?ocid=msedgntp
Last edited:
There are other things that contribute to the problem, such as jailing people because it is a huge income source for-profit prisons. The U.S. prison system provides extra motive to target people in order to fill those jails, so it is a supported activity that police are congratulated for and excused if they shoot a few.
In Canada, there are more blacks that live in the east coast. In other areas, yes, natives are disproportionately represented in jails, the foster care system, hospitals, poorer postal codes (ie. DTES). The way the federal government and the press looks at measuring race is to have " indigenous" as one race category, and "every other race" as category two. No other race categories, but "mental health". When you see stats like 100 police shootings and half are native, the other half all other races, the fact natives make up just a fraction of the population hints at racism being a perfectly valid suspicion to have.
On the subject of Canadian people shooting blacks, it is far less of a problem as there is a greater mix of different races and far more tolerance and maturity generally. Mental health cases are not race specific, cops just don't like such people period.
In any case, cops currently get a blank cheque when it come to brandishing and using guns, so how about replacing the bullets with noisy movie blanks and spent the savings on body cameras so we can see exactly the volume of the danger that justifies such weapons.
Have you seen the size of UK and Canada?
There are way more police officers in UK per square feet than in Canada... meaning there are more police officers in a small area. So they are able to dispatch armed police officers fast.
Some towns in Canada only have 1 or 2 police officers.... it might take a long time before they can send senior officers with guns.
Geographically it is impossible for Canada ti have the same kind of policing and manpower as UK.
I am not sure where you get all these wrong impression about police officers... let me guess, you getting all these facts from the media or social media?
When there is an police incident, many times you don’t know the whole story.
For example, a caller call the police that a male was carrying a concealed handgun in the mall and the police showed at the mall with guns drawn to arrest the suspect.
A bystander filmed the whole thing and post online saying police used excessive force...but they didn’t know the backstory of the police incident and the fact was that the suspect had a concealed handgun and that was why police drew their guns.
“Cops just don’t like mental people”.. do you any stats or anything to back that up or it’s just one of those false statements you made up?
“Replacing bullets with blanks”.. is that a real suggestion? I have not seen any police force in the world that carry guns with blanks.
Last edited:
The attitude towards police comes from your experience with them, and what you were taught about police. For me the police are there to hold up law and order. So the average joe dislikes the police for speeding tickets, drinking and driving roadblocks etc. So they have a negative attitude towards police to start.
The police are trained to act a certain way. They are trained in the Use of Force. As soon as someone pulls out a knife or gun, they are authorized to use One step higher of force (which is deadly force). Police are not fucken mind readers.... Always let them see what you are doing. So, Pulling a knife in the presence of police, you fucken deserve to be shot....
The police have the power of arrest. They have to obey the same laws you do. When arrested, you get your day in court.
Alot of people are anti-authorian, which means they don't want to be told. Police in Canada have the authority and act as the enforcement arm of the governments of Canada.
Why are more Aboringnals arrested. Because they are breaking the law and are criminals.....
Really I don't think its because they are poor, lack education, proper role models, grew up in foster homes, were never loved by their family, have lost their identity, etc.
People always have the choice. I just find that people tend to blame other people/things for their choices/failures.
The police are trained to act a certain way. They are trained in the Use of Force. As soon as someone pulls out a knife or gun, they are authorized to use One step higher of force (which is deadly force). Police are not fucken mind readers.... Always let them see what you are doing. So, Pulling a knife in the presence of police, you fucken deserve to be shot....
The police have the power of arrest. They have to obey the same laws you do. When arrested, you get your day in court.
Alot of people are anti-authorian, which means they don't want to be told. Police in Canada have the authority and act as the enforcement arm of the governments of Canada.
Why are more Aboringnals arrested. Because they are breaking the law and are criminals.....
Really I don't think its because they are poor, lack education, proper role models, grew up in foster homes, were never loved by their family, have lost their identity, etc.
People always have the choice. I just find that people tend to blame other people/things for their choices/failures.
Why do you think some groups are worse off than others? They chose it since it's their choice, and now their blaming others for their own choices and failures?
Follow-up news now states the fellow filming saw Blake put his kids in the car first before going into the house, and he was not returning to the car to get a weapon as police say (as if to justify their excuse for shooting him), it was to check on his kids.
The Sunday Aug30 John Oliver episode provides additional insight (Season 7 Episode 23) that provides further evidence the police force that employs the police that shot Blake are indeed systemically racist.
If the public has cameras and the police do not as was the case in the Jacob Blake shooting, clearly they are a disadvantage if they are trying to defend themselves to show a more complete picture.
The Sunday Aug30 John Oliver episode provides additional insight (Season 7 Episode 23) that provides further evidence the police force that employs the police that shot Blake are indeed systemically racist.
If the public has cameras and the police do not as was the case in the Jacob Blake shooting, clearly they are a disadvantage if they are trying to defend themselves to show a more complete picture.
Well, if CNN and John Oliver say it happened that way, then it must be true.
I'm sure after Blake was finished dodging a warrant, ignoring a retraining order, arguing with the police, fighting two of them, being tasered and trying to leave the scene of his illegal acts - his intent was to go check that his kids were okay, not that he was endangering them with each of his actions. Father of the year right there. PS - black people called the police on him, because he was committing crimes.
Since you're the expert - tell us how you would have responded to the initial call, knowing he was a felon, had endangered police in the past, and might be armed?
Boys with toys. In the ever more militarized police forces in both the US and Canada if you put the weapons in the hands of the cops they're going to use them. The body armour and military-style vehicles just breed more separation between the police and the folks they're "meant" to protect.
Just curious, when was the last time a black officer killed an unarmed white civilian?
Just curious, when was the last time a black officer killed an unarmed white civilian?
Last edited:
Ariel Roman (the subject of that posted tweet), did not die, nor was he "white." LOL. Read his lawsuit against the officers and the City of Chicago, his lawyers are making a civil rights claim - that should give you a clue that perhaps Roman is not "white". And if that's not good enough for you, it says right there in his court filing that he is a 33 year old Latino man! LOL. Twitter, use it with caution!
My mistake on the "killing" portion, but the original poster mentioned another black man shot, not killed, by police. However, for the discussion, it really isn't relevant if he lived or died as he was shot by the police in an obviously unwarranted use of force. However, I guarantee that you had no idea if he was "latino" or not until you read the suit, and neither did the cops at the time of the incident.
"his lawyers are making a civil rights claim - that should give you a clue that perhaps Roman is not "white". "
Are you conflating civil rights claims only being for non-whites? I hope not as that would be incredibly naive. Also, "latino" is not a race and as of 2010 53% of all US "latinos" identified as "white".
"his lawyers are making a civil rights claim - that should give you a clue that perhaps Roman is not "white". "
Are you conflating civil rights claims only being for non-whites? I hope not as that would be incredibly naive. Also, "latino" is not a race and as of 2010 53% of all US "latinos" identified as "white".
LOL! I'm not conflating anything, you are! The most common civil rights claims has to do with discrimination, in the US, most typically "color of law" claims/issues (according to the FBI). Based on that fact, when you read a civil lawsuit that is claiming a "civil rights" action involving law enforcement, it typically means there is some sort of claim having to do with discrimination (which is a "color of law" concept, generally). And for your information, as it pertains to US Civil Rights Laws - it's not just about RACE. It's about "protected classes" which includes (among other things) race, national origin, age (in certain circumstances), sexual orientation, etc. Race (and skin colour, which you seem to fixate on) is not the only "thing" that determines a "protected class" under US Civil Rights Laws!
Last edited:
Easy. Since the kids are the priority, that is the very first matter the cops should have gotten out of the way, find out where they were (in the car), then go to the car first make sure they are away safe. If the intent was to arrest the guy, the kids planning for where the kids are, or where they should be placed has to be the first priority.
Second, make sure the people milling around the car are safe, back in their houses or cars, and talk to them. That wasn't done. What was the third officer doing that wasn't in the video?
Third, if the guy wants to run, let him. The cops already have his kids. Dad will come back. There will be plenty of opportunities to snag him. If he is running, he is not posing a danger to the public or the police.
If, like you say, the police went in knowing he was dangerous, they would have called for more backup. Apparently 3 police were not enough. He was clearly free at that point to drive and shuttle his kids around.
Since there was no visible weapon there was zero reason to draw their weapons until AFTER he retrieved whatever weapon the police figured he was going for it his car. The officers should have backed off, got people to safety, and called for backup, and kept their distance and tried to deescalate the situation. If they did not posess those skills, then call for a negotiator.
The mistakes the cops made that are evident in that few seconds of video make it clear that:
- The cops were not in fear for their lives and they were not wearing bullet proof vests
- They lost control of the situation, and clearly never were able to get control if their tasers did not work
- If the guy was getting his weapon in the car, the 3 cops "knowing" he was dangerous in advance, they should have first secured the car
- The guy was not running, he was walking to his car
- The close proximity of the public with drawn weapons indicates officers demonstrated no concern for public safety
- The second cop should have ran around to the passenger-side door to see if it was open and would have had visibility on what the guy was reaching for or doing after he opened the door
- Tugging on a shirt, wtf is that all about? Tackle him and engage him physically, since the previous tasering didn't work
- The shooter cop fired 7 bullets at point blank range and the guy is still alive? How?
Anyone that is defending an individual officer's "right" to repeat such an atrocity and has zero input to prevent it from happening again is part of the problem.
how would you know?
how about when a black officer kills a black civilian? with no other white cop involved?
it isn't considered news worthy
the fact is, more white people in actual numbers are killed by cops in the US than blacks
but that don't sell, when Crackers go down, it's just one less Trump supporter
it's all about political correctness gone amuck
not to mention the US society can't be compared to Canada, their laws/justice system isn't even close enough to compare, not really
I don't think you can compare being a cop either, most states have gun laws that aren't even close to Canada, way more people walking around packing
you couldn't pay me to be a cop in the US
as a side note, look at the stupidity around the girl who fell from the balcony in Toronto
facts don't matter there, she fell trying to climb from one balcony to another, no one was chasing her
she and 2 of her own family phoned the cops, not the social workers, multiple times, there was more than one call to 911
guy on the ground saw her climbing, alone, no one chasing her
there was a report of a knife, to 911
the only thing that matters was she was black, facts, what facts
