Right, but when a violent criminal resists arrest and puts a police officer's life in potential danger then they have escalated the situation and they often get shot - as is the case for many BLM 'victims'.

I agree, but here comes the importan point:

The process you describe above of resisting arrest, posing a mortal threat and ultimately gettin shot is independent from the criminal record.

I agree that officer should take criminal records into account for their risk assesment, but, apart from that it mustn't be used to legitimate shooting someone.

I never meant to imply otherwise.

Yes.

Of course in virtually any country of the world, there will be a different procedure for reminding granny about bringing back that library book, and stopping a person with a known criminal record and history of violence. In virtually any country of the world, the latter procedure will be considerably more heavy handed than the former and thus by consequence the risk of somebody getting hurt or even killed will be greater. This does not mean that the police set out to shoot or kill, but this may just happen as a situation escalates. It is dictated by the circumstances. Any person who chooses to go down the path of becoming a crook knows this will increase the risk of unpleasant encounters with the police. This is not at all the same as saying that all crooks should be shot on sight.

This should be bleedingly obvious. Only people with cynical and malicious intent would seek to deny or confuse it for political gain.

I am really glad to read that.
There were some posts of you which led me to infer otherwise. I'll post them if you like, otherwise we can let it go.

Completely agree. We could discuss however, how many crooks really made the conscious decision to go down that path.

Please do, I'll be happy to explain if I can.

If it helps, I am happy to reiterate what I meant:

- Most BLM victims are violent criminals

- Violent criminals are the only people who are being systematically killed (ie by design) by the police.

Neither of those statements are factually correct.

Please provide some proof ...

The problem with your reasoning is that you're arguing from what appears to be a western European approach where de-escalation is the primary means, and only after that failed (where possible in the first place) is minimal necessary force allowed.

However this is about the US. De-escalation is trained as a one rather unimportant option, if at all, and plausible belief (as opposed to proof) gives reason to use lethal force even where the suspect poses no immediate danger or threat. The concept of "minimal force necessary" is an entirely alien thought.

You could argue that a change of doctrine is needed, and I'd agree (perhaps even FC would?), but that's neither here nor there in a discussion (between FC and you) that's about the present and recent past. You can't really blame police for the legal framework they operate in, nor for acting it out - in fact it's exactly the opposite, *not* acting it out would by definition be outside of the legal framework and therefore grounds for legal prosecution and blame.

The problem with a change of doctrine though is the societal context - the US are much more violent than western Europe, and with a gun available to about one in three grownups I'm not sure such change is even implementable without placing LEO's in harm's way.

Guy shot entering his house in Ohio.

cnn article

Not going to get involved in politics heavily on this forum..........but I think it is hard to compare Western Europe which until recently had very clear cultural lines in terms of its countries and also the make up of its population. There is inherently more cohesiveness there than the United States which is a melting pot gone wrong.

People pull their guns and shoot them far quicker than we would ever dream of here. You can go on youtube or elsewhere for immeasurable examples of people doing inexplicably dumb things even when someone is pointing a gun at them!

I think America's problems run very deep, and with the bed they made for themselves, the outcome will never be a good one.

Hence why homogenous china with its 95% han population will be in the ascendancy...

i don't necessarily disagree but this is pretty much the exact opposite of what western leaders say.

Yet another Black man shot while running away.

If you are not in danger, don’t shoot. What’s so difficult to understand?

And, no, he shouldn’t have tried to run away, but doing so shouldn’t invoke a judge, jury and executioner death sentence.

Deep indeed and it makes them a difficult country to compare with just about any other. Culturally, power & violence issues run deep which only exacerbates the race problems which have just as long a history in the country - there is no quick fix/solution

At the very least, however, you have to recognize you have a problem before you can tackle it but honest self introspection/reflection is equally a problem

I believe it will get worse before any chance it improves

Homogeneity is a dream. There are differences everywhere, some more visible, others less. But the differences are there as part of the human condition. The fun thing is that difference arise organically, people talking slightly different, different culture, it has nothing to deal with the genes

And here’s a cop showing exactly how you de-escalate and subdue a criminal:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...tm_name=iossmf

Fit, well trained, calm, polite and thankful for help received. All police force should have this type of fitness, composure & training.

Err, you might want to check your link. That one shows two cops violently wrestling someone to the ground...

FTFY.

Tom

It is the correct link - I am confused as to how you see it differently ... were they supposed to just allow her to run wild through the store while attacking people and property? Only violence was from her side ... he was just trying to subdue her. Is there another way of wrestling someone to the ground and handcuffing them? There was no kneeling on her neck, no cheap shots to injure her... he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Would you have preferred they taser or shoot her?

I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't justified, I just genuinely thought that for a model of how to calmly "de-escalate" a situation it probably wasn't the video you meant to link.

To me "de-escalate" would mean avoiding violence; using violence to subdue someone, however necessary it may have been, doesn't fit in with what I would infer from your use of the term.

And for anyone inclined to argue further, I repeat "I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't justified". TYVM.

Oh. and here's another example of how it should not be done https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56696345

Perhaps a group of children should have surrounded her and sang kumbaya then?