Meet the People Responsible for the Next Attack on the Police

a reply to: Boadicea

And yet, a study published in The Journal of Experimental Criminology that took a variety of participants from law enforcement to civilian to military and put them in simulated dangerous situations with perpetrators found that they were less likely to shoot at black suspects than either white or Hispanic ones.

Abstract
Objective
Advance the methodological techniques used to examine the influence of suspect race and ethnicity on participant decisions to shoot in an experimental setting.
Methods
After developing and testing a novel set of 60 realistic, high definition video deadly force scenarios based on 30 years of official data on officer-involved shootings in the United States, three separate experiments were conducted testing police (n = 36), civilian (n= 72) and military (n = 6) responses (n = 1,812) to the scenarios in high-fidelity computerized training simulators. Participants’ responses to White, Black and Hispanic suspects in potentially deadly situations were analyzed using a multi-level mixed methods strategy. Key response variables were reaction time to shoot and shooting errors.
Results
In all three experiments using a more externally valid research method than previous studies, we found that participants took longer to shoot Black suspects than White or Hispanic suspects. In addition, where errors were made, participants across experiments were more likely to shoot unarmed White suspects than unarmed Black or Hispanic suspects, and were more likely to fail to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White or Hispanic suspects. In sum, this research found that participants displayed significant bias favoring Black suspects in their decisions to shoot.
Conclusions
The results of these three experiments challenge the results of less robust experimental designs and shed additional light on the broad issue of the role that status characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, play in the criminal justice system. Future research should explore the generalizability of these findings, determine whether bias favoring Black suspects is a consequence of administrative measures (e.g., education, training, policies, and laws), and identify the cognitive processes that underlie this phenomenon.

originally posted by: Tardacus
it`s only a thought crime if the thought stays in your head but if put that thought in the public domain either through writing or verbally then it could be a crime.inciting others to commit a crime is a crime in itself.

Except under color of law, in which LEOs -- especially the FBI -- do in fact incite others to commit a crime and then pat themselves on the back for saving us from their own criminal devious plots.

And then we wonder why there is so little respect any more for law enforcement. Sheesh!

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Should we be locking up everyone that writes "kill all Muslims?" Or does this logic only apply to police officers?

Yes. We should. And lock up preachers who say to stone gay folk. And lock up Imams who say to kill unbelievers and adulterers. And yes, lock up anybody who says to kill white cops.

I am a supporter of BLM and I truly believe that ultimately, police brutality and homicide is what leads to retaliation but... I don't think death threats should get a free pass just because I can sympathize with them and relate to their anger.

a reply to: ketsuko

And? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

But for what it's worth, my initial response is to think of that one officer who got so much publicity because he was afraid to use force because of... well... so much negative publicity. I can only speak for myself, but if an officer is more afraid of negative publicity than the immediate "threat," then there's something very very wrong there. And it begins and ends with that officer's reasoning and thought processes and priorities.

The solution is NOT to kill others with even less discretion.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

big difference between hate speech and a threat to kill

Now if we can educate Europe about the difference

I'm a grown up if someone is spewing hate I can walk away but if someone threatens to kill me that is far different

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

So, basically, just disregard the personal responsibility of the coward sniping police.

Got it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Wait, so snipers are cowards now? I always knew that about Chris Kyle, thanks for confirming.

a reply to: Boadicea

My point is that the current situation we are facing begins and ends with the idea that the police go around murdering people because they can and get away with it.

The perception is fueled by groups like BLM when it is demonstrably a false narrative.

Am I saying that cops never step out of line? No, but this idea that they are wanton killers is also not helpful and it has led us to this point where now people are becoming wanton killers of cops based on it.

Rhetoric like yours and others in this thread does not help. You attacking from the angle that it's all their problem exclusively, but it any problem has two parties. You cannot "fix" one part and hope for any solution, but maybe it's time for the cops to create no go zones in the US and let those communities that don't want them sort it out.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

This is definitely crossing the line. Where dissent and thought becomes a crime. It is sad that most will not see it until it is too late. Oddly, a huge amount of people that could be targeted are on this very website.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Threats TO kill anyone, is a crime. Threats ABOUT killing someone or group may be...but is more so free speech and free thought.

INCITING and encouraging one to do it...is a crime.

Fine line when considered free speech...and criminally encouraging someone to actually do so.

Its all about intent when addressed or spoken.

originally posted by: ATSmediaPRO
a reply to: TheBulk

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L Mencken

That is one of my favorite quotes.

originally posted by: intrptr
Is it just me or is dude on the left dressed like a Banana Republic Dictator or German Officer in the Third Reich?

No, it isn't just You. Now if You got an officer that actually works and asked them "What do You think of the 5 star Chief..?" They'd tell You, if not under threat, that they are a "David Henry" (dickhead) You really need 5 stars? I guess He thinks He is a hotel or a restaurant. The more "macho" they try to look and act, the more likelihood they're crappy at communicating. "Not everyone needs to go to jail.." I remember letting drunks out the back in the a.m. rather than take them to jail, saving a $140 "booking fee" for each one..

It also should be noted and this is important, that 'in most cases', the ones that seem to promote in the pd are folks that, when at work-they slough off their duties while they study for the upcoming promotional exam and/or spend their time at the PD kissing ass of the brass, then it becomes cliquey... You end up taking paper (writing reports) in their area while they dick around w/a shoplifter at Walmart™ and Store Security has done all the work. Then when You catch up to them the Sgt.Exam book is on the front seat..

And if betting were legal I'd bet that that gentleman thinks this is 8" (--------------------------------) wanna bet?

namaste

edit on 10/13/2014 by JimNasium because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Threats TO kill anyone, is a crime. Threats ABOUT killing someone or group may be...but is more so free speech and free thought.

I agree completely. If I said: "I'm want to kill bob smith" that is an arrest-able offense as it targets a specific individual.

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

All over the country police departments are on high alert. They know the next attack is right around the corner. Security procedures has been changed and more riot gear and weapons have been purchased. They're on the lookout for any information or tips about who will be behind the next attack. The Fifth Column news, in the interest of public safety, has published the names of the individuals responsible for the next attack.

From left to right:
James Craig of Detroit, Michigan
Michael Saunders of Evergreen, Illinois
Thomas E. Kulhawik of Norwalk, Connecticut

They are all police chiefs of departments whose officers arrested people for posting inflammatory language about cops online. They call the posts threats, but there is a difference between a threat and a warning.

The Detroit News covered the arrests made by Chief James Craig...

One of the men reportedly posted: “All lives can’t matter until black lives matter. Kill all white cops.”

Throw those man in the gulag! Have we really reverted back to WW1 times, where any dissent is subjection to prison time?

“I know this is a new issue, but I want these people charged with crimes,” Craig said of the four men arrested. “I’ve directed my officers to prepare warrants for these four individuals, and we’ll see which venue is the best to pursue charges.”

The Chief ordered these dissentors arrested without even knowing what they would charge them with. Detroit’s police department is not just judge, jury, and executioner. It is now also the legislative and the executive branches. They have found the man they want to put in prison, now they have to find the crime to charge him with.

“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

The men named above and every officer or chief who is attempting to stifle criticism and dissent is responsible for the next batch of officers who meet a bloody end in a surprise attack. The actions of these officers make another attack so certain that they might as well save the insurgents the trouble and shoot a few of their own officers at roll call. It’s the same outcome. This might be hard to believe, but the proper response to widespread claims of a violent and overreaching police department is not to arrest people for speaking. It’s to pull back and re-evaluate. This isn’t a small group of malcontents who are causing problems. This is a large percentage of the population who see violence as their only option. They may have been on the fence about violence, the removal of their First Amendment rights by the thin blue line has shown them that discussion is no longer an option for them. Some squad of unthinking goons will come arrest them if they speak out, so why try?

Bad thoughts are now crimes folks. We have entered into the age of Precrime.

"Kill all white cops" is not a thought crime, it is incitation of murder. Get back to us when I can make a post that says "Kill President Barack Obama" and not likely be arrested for it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Rhetoric like yours and others in this thread does not help.

Rhetoric? No. Logic and reason.

You attacking from the angle that it's all their problem exclusively, but it any problem has two parties.

Again, no. I am saying that this isn't just a one-sided problem... i.e., for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. No one is defending violent criminals from the inevitable consequences of their crimes. However, folks are defending violent LEOs from the inevitable consequences of their actions. It's a two-way street.

You cannot "fix" one part and hope for any solution, but maybe it's time for the cops to create no go zones in the US and let those communities that don't want them sort it out.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but quite honestly, if LEOs are not held to the same standards as we are -- if not higher -- then we are probably all better off without them.

It is only when LEOs are held to -- and perform to -- the highest standards that they are the noble and honorable heroes that we respect and love. I know and have known many of those, and it breaks my heart that we don't truly appreciate their valor any more, but would reduce them to a thug with a badge and a gun.

a reply to: JimNasium

Five star restaurant, lol. He's not a chief he's a chef.
As always, out-rank and file perspective...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Rhetoric like yours and others in this thread does not help. You attacking from the angle that it's all their problem exclusively, but it any problem has two parties. You cannot "fix" one part and hope for any solution, but maybe it's time for the cops to create no go zones in the US and let those communities that don't want them sort it out.

Worked well for Shapstown, Texas.

Texas Town Fires Police Dept., Hires Private Citizens For Security — Guess What Happened to Crime?

That was back in 2012, and since then, Sharpstown residents say the private security company, SEAL Security Solutions, have done a much better job than the police used to. Crimes is down 61% in only 20 months.

a reply to: Boadicea

"When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable."


Fine and dandy, but if I EVER see a weapon pointed at an LEO I will defend the LEO by all means needed!

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Boadicea

"When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable."


Fine and dandy, but if I EVER see a weapon pointed at an LEO I will defend the LEO by all means needed!

Good on you.

But that is exactly the opposite of someone with no gun -- much less pointing it at an LEO -- who is slaughtered because an LEO "feared" that he "might" have a weapon.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Firstly that is a subdivision, it is still subject to Harris county PD and Houston PD at large, seeing it is a suburb of only 117,352 a private security team works well, try that in Houston proper with a population of 2.196 million. Be realistic.