Superman can save your life

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: intrptr

I agree but that doesn't change what is happening. While I find it personally disgusting to think have to go to these lengths to secure our own safety from those hired to protect us it is what it is. If we can make a change that will be universally recognized as non-threatening compliance and juries are willing to acknowledge that then maybe we can make a difference.

As private citizens we are under deep camera surveillance everywhere we go. Everything we buy is monitored, our cell phones are tracked, we are under surveillance of some form most all the time.

And we are private citizens. Police are public servants, should be monitored on duty, at all times.

I would think cops and politicians would want body cameras on at all times if nothing else to just cover their own butts.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut

Unless there is a set of laws that apply only to the police, and there isn't, they should be treated no differently than the rest of us. While we can appreciate their service, we can still hold them accountable for their actions.

but American law has become situational. One can argue motivational intricacies and get off being charged for murder.

The fact should remain that if one kills with intent, it is murder.

The situational stuff should be for arguing leniency in sentencing, not fuzzing out the definitions of legal terms themselves.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Its what we do in the UK, most Police are unarmed so the situation you refer to would have been attended by unarmed Police.

Its so hard to make the point about the USA and guns without sounding preachy, but the absolute fascination with firearms will always see incidents which could have been avoided, from Police to gangs/criminals to someone just "Falling Down"

I have said it before, I really do wish you would stop killing each other, the most of you from across the pond are ok.

Maybe if the person shoots himself before the police shoots him, he will avoid the police shooting him.

I mean, would the police shoot someone who is shot ?

a reply to: StoutBroux

I agree that there might be something in the way that they are recruiting/vetting/training these guys that's contributing to this problem and I agree too that we should be demanding better from our public servants.

I think the suggestion intrptr made about the body cams is a great idea too... all cops should wear them at all times and, preferably, all data from the cams should be stored with a third party.

Again, I don't want to bash law enforcement because it is a thankless and dangerous job. However, when there are unarmed citizens being shot to death because they couldn't follow a set of convoluted and confusing instructions (whilst under extreme duress) then I think it's definitely time to take a hard look at what's going on.

Funnily enough, someone elsewhere made the point, in regards the cop who shot the guy running away, that the cops adrenaline would be high and he was under great stress. That may be but, does that not also apply to the victims in these cases? The difference is that the LEO's have been trained to respond professionally, and have experience of managing emotions etc whilst under duress, whereas the majority of ordinary citizens have not.

I don't think there are any easy solutions and it shouldn't be down to citizens to come up with all kinds of physical and mental gymnastics to avoid being gunned down in the street for no reason. However, the situation is as it is and I support the OP's idea of a kind of universal signal for compliance, even if it does seem a bit Gestapo that you have to grovel and plead and prostrate yourself just so you don't get murdered by the cops.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Its what we do in the UK, most Police are unarmed so the situation you refer to would have been attended by unarmed Police.

Its so hard to make the point about the USA and guns without sounding preachy, but the absolute fascination with firearms will always see incidents which could have been avoided, from Police to gangs/criminals to someone just "Falling Down"

I have said it before, I really do wish you would stop killing each other, the most of you from across the pond are ok.

The people I am talking about are either unarmed or innocent of any wrongdoing. I understand that the availability of firearms makes police edgy but the firearms have always been here and will always be here. What is different is this complete lack of respect for human life on both sides of the law that we are experiencing. Of course you can find far more examples on the criminal side than the law enforcement side, even looking per capita. But even one life lost for no good reason is one too many.

I know I am wishing big here, but I really would like to make a difference and get a program like this going. Even if the only thing it accomplishes is to bring this opinion to the attention of law enforcement more than it is now, that is still something. Maybe it won't matter in the end. But at least we can say we tried to do something. We said something. We made a plan and tried to put it into action. We cared.

We hit the realm where resistance is futile. Damned if you do damned if you dont

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You know what would save innocent lives?

If police officers were only permitted to carry arms, on the express understanding that if they shoot an unarmed person who is posing no ACTUAL threat (not the imaginary gun in the waistband threat, but the actual threat to life and limb that everyone understands the need to neutralise), they will be imprisoned, for life, regardless of the circumstances in which they do it, with no chance of parole, and immediately, with all judicial aspects of the case being handled within seventy two hours of the event, once and for all.

Perhaps THEN, when they are not more protected by the law, than the citizen is, but instead held to a far higher standard than the regular citizen, with harsher and more immediate penalties for failure, THEN they may begin to respect the citizen, respect their position within communities, and either chose to quit because they are too incompetent and terrified to do the work safely, or carry on, safe in the knowledge that they will never shoot an unarmed citizen, because they prefer death than the sort of dishonour and cowardice that would lead a person to do such a thing.

a reply to: Vroomfondel


Its such a shame that an idea like this has to be said, i think it's time that US police stop seeing everyone and anyone who isn't a police officer as a criminal or "opponent" that has to be taken down. It's about time that the old adage of innocent until proven guilty is brought back and that anyone other than a police officer is a citizen and not a criminal. Police training needs to be given a serious shack up.
They are dressed and armed like a special forces unit entering a combat zone full of isis terrorists and not policing fellow Americans.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I could not agree with you more. That would be my first choice as well.Realistically I don't ever see it happening, but that would be the best answer by far. Absolute and final. Held to a higher standard as they should be. I would add that the brotherhood covering up for each other should be included in that action. Corruption among those meant to enforce the law and protect the population can not be tolerated.

a reply to: Kurokage

I agree with you entirely. I think a bid shift in training and the understanding that people really are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty needs to be enforced. Unfortunately, if you tell that to an officer he will just say that is a matter for the courts to decide and it won't change his behavior at all. I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "Tell it to the judge" for even the simplest of things. They just don't want to hear it.

I don't understand why people still believe that a solution can be achieved with the cooperation of corrupt governments and corrupt police.

These are the same cops that rob you on the highway and the same government that says it's OK. The same cops that set up secret prisons to keep people from talking to family or lawyers and the same government that pays for it with your tax dollars. They already have the system they want. Cops can kill unarmed people, and the government covers them by paying off the victims families with tax dollars. They are not going to change unless they have an incentive, either their blood or their money.

No matter what you do it will only get worse .
Just look at the Jaws and Hitler .
heck they did not try and fight back at all . results more and more were killed .

People who believe they have the right to kill you on the slightest wim are not going to change uinless people who are being killed take a stand .

Just how far do you think Hitler would have got if ever time they tried to take a jaw the jaws fought them ?
It is funny we call criminals criminal . Criminal = A person who refuses to follow laws .
and yet these very same people listen so good in the jails or prisons .

What really mistfies me is why they listen so well ? there are 5 million of them and 200,000 thousand people how are keeping them there .

Now got news for you there are 340 million people In the US if even 20 million took two weeks and stayed home the Government would be all over its self doing any thing to get them back to work .

the reason this is true is because they are NOT the Government WE are because without us doing the work they have NO power .
The 1960s proved that if nothing else enough people say no things will change .