Well, police have now murdered two more black men in the last two days...fully videoed with cell phones.
I have expressed concern for a long time that our police departments are performing more and more in a military manner, and that includes a belief that they need to shoot to kill.
I understand they have dangerous jobs (by choice, I might add), but with all the recent fatal police shootings one has to wonder who appointed them judge, jury and executioner. What ever happened to " shoot to injure" so that the "suspect" could be tried in a court of law, where the legal system can meet the responsibility of making those innocence/guilt/punishment determinations?
Look, folks, i'm not trying to piss off anyone who was/is a police officer, has a friend who is a police officer or a family member who is a police officer...we're all there. I know they are highly trained...so my hope is really to hold a calm discussion about this increase in fatal encounters and why that is occuring.
I belive the onus for stopping the slaughter falls clearly on the highest levels of authority within our police departments...Chiefs of Police should inform all of their armed officers that this trend will not be tolerated and then any police officer who kills a "civilian" will have to face a vigorous investigation by an independent court. Asking the police to "police" themselves is like asking the fox to watch the hen house.
"Suicide by cop" is a splendid example...recently people have been killed as they approached officers with a weapon...one even reportedly told the officer "You're going to have to shoot, officer". My question, again, is why did the officer shoot to kill instead of injure?
What say you all?
Doug
I have expressed concern for a long time that our police departments are performing more and more in a military manner, and that includes a belief that they need to shoot to kill.
I understand they have dangerous jobs (by choice, I might add), but with all the recent fatal police shootings one has to wonder who appointed them judge, jury and executioner. What ever happened to " shoot to injure" so that the "suspect" could be tried in a court of law, where the legal system can meet the responsibility of making those innocence/guilt/punishment determinations?
Look, folks, i'm not trying to piss off anyone who was/is a police officer, has a friend who is a police officer or a family member who is a police officer...we're all there. I know they are highly trained...so my hope is really to hold a calm discussion about this increase in fatal encounters and why that is occuring.
I belive the onus for stopping the slaughter falls clearly on the highest levels of authority within our police departments...Chiefs of Police should inform all of their armed officers that this trend will not be tolerated and then any police officer who kills a "civilian" will have to face a vigorous investigation by an independent court. Asking the police to "police" themselves is like asking the fox to watch the hen house.
"Suicide by cop" is a splendid example...recently people have been killed as they approached officers with a weapon...one even reportedly told the officer "You're going to have to shoot, officer". My question, again, is why did the officer shoot to kill instead of injure?
What say you all?
Doug