Atlanta Police Chief resigns after Black Man shot

originally posted by: Granby
These cops can be easily trained in control.

1 hour a day. Twice a week for 6 months.
Controlling positions. Grips. Points of entry.

This is all basic stuff.

What would be the harm in putting police through this training?
How could it possibly hurt?

It would make their jobs much easier.

Why not do something like this?
What is the reasoning behind not having this type of program?

Wouldn't this be what one would call a basic skill for cops...kind of like a roofer using a hammer correctly? On the other side we see a lot of cops that may not be physically capable and just don't care to learn. I also think they relay on the taser too much, why get physical when you can just zap someone, and then the zapping doesn't work, and the guy dies.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I wouldnt hesitate to call budgets and government spending a national crisis.

Everything from allotments to annual budget reviews are wonky as hell. An enormous amount of money goes to ridiculous things (frequently just.. disappears..) and not nearly enough money goes towards the things that are "important."

Oversight and transparency is critical, but even those can be bought off or manipulated. And, because of the complexity, it can be very difficult to identify problem areas.

I think technology really can play a role there. Not perfect, because nothing really is despite the "all or nothing," "perfection or destruction" perspective that pervades the population.

But.. I think that actually working towards some of this stuff would have extensive benefits beyond just the subject of focus.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Pay is most certainly crap in most cities. The large ones like NYC and LA definitely skew the averages.

For example, less than 2 years after leaving law enforcement I make $12,000 more a year in the private sector in the same city.

That said, more pay and more training will not eliminate these incidents because the human element is involved and humans are fallible.

To add, incidents ending in lethal force are already pretty rare statistically when accounting for the number of citizen contacts every year. Unjustified deadly force, even more so rare.

So I ask what percentage of encounters that result in deadly force do the public want to see? Keep in mind they will never be eliminated.

According to a study completed by Sarah DeGue, PhD, Katherine A. Fowler, PhD, and Cynthia Calkins, PhD, "deaths resulting from LE action without regard to intent or legality account for approximately 1% of all violent deaths in the U.S. each year." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So unjustified deadly force happens less than 1% of the time.

Is the public asking the impossible from a profession that is comprised of unique individuals that all act and react differently when presented a set of circumstances?

a reply to: Serdgiam

I don't want to be political, but the answer is smaller government at every level.

Always less, never more.

In contradistinction to the wailing and gnashing of teeth here, I think that some of these folks asking for defunding-change-etc. have recognized that fact.

originally posted by: Granby

If the cop knew a little control this entire situation could have been contained without anyone getting hurt.

Control and the mindset to deescalate the situation. The guy's big crime was being drunk...Go to his house that night or the next day and arrest him. What was the old saying...you might be able to outrun the cop but you can't outrun the radio...Its not just this guy, its homeless that have mental illness, its people on drugs, its people with PTSD so on and so forth. Cops need to understand not everyone will comply instantly with their demands because of so many reasons. It has been said over and over is the ones that do comply instantly are real criminals since they know and understand the system. The guy taking a shower and cops appear screaming in his bathroom to get down and ends up getting killed is an example of someone that just freezes in place as their brain doesn't really understand what is going on.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

I live in Scottdale, which is part of Metro Atlanta. I saw an ad for police officers a few years ago offering $25K a year in a nearby suburb

That's ... that's ludicrous.

As far as your main point, its an excellent one. We're at the end of a long chain of events that magnify that 1% into an every day occurence.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The problem with that in this case was that he was so impaired he was passed out at Wendy's. He was physically incapable of getting safely to his house without being a danger to himself or others.

a reply to: Granby

I was the "crazed" person in situation training and if it took less than 3 people to control me it was a failure.

Not hopped on drugs, no intent on injuring anyone, you're very delusional on what it takes to control a human being with minimal force.

Sure if the cop had put the guy in a choke hold and ground and pound the guy a bit he would have controlled the situation.

What experience have you had in real life doing this?

These cases all have one thing in common. Resisting. If the tazer worked the way he wanted then he would have stolen the officers guns and shot them.

The suspect, along with so many others, would be alive if they simply did not resist.

So hey, let's burn down a Wendys and allow the police chief who spent 20 years to get there step down because of a drunks poor decision.

a reply to: Granby

You made a statement that was unqualified. A taser is less than lethal in the hands of someone who wont harm you once you are incapacitated. Thats it.

As it pertains to this case it sounds like the cops did not act appropriately.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
That said, more pay and more training will not eliminate these incidents because the human element is involved and humans are fallible.

I disagree somewhat. Portland about 6 years ago were having a rash of these types of events where someone doesn't comply instantly and ends up being hurt or dead when the initial reason was pretty much nothing.

Portland started to change their culture through training and leadership guiding the force in a different direction to build on what should be the correct initial response force for the situation and how to deescalate it all as it plays out. In every case of these incidences it comes down to one or the other or both causing the problem.

There is a culture today in many places where the cops just continually escalate the situation until someone dies. As example once Floyd was on the ground cuffed there wasn't anymore fight in him, he was done and they could have just sat him up with 4 cops there, but he resisted and had to pay the price...

We have seen this type of change too with high speed chases where once the cops get all the info they just let them go and arrest them the next day.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
"deaths resulting from LE action ... account for approximately 1% of all violent deaths in the U.S. each year."

That's a lot ... when you add it up year after year after year.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Strong language in this vid:



In the US, we would have had helicopters above and the cop on the bike firing rounds wildly at the guy as kids play on the other side of the park. Cause he was mad.

originally posted by: matafuchs

The suspect, along with so many others, would be alive if they simply did not resist.

That is too easy to say... "GET ON THE GROUND" you got seconds to comply or it gets ugly... Criminals know this and they do get on the ground instantly. What about the homeless guy with mental issues, or the guy on drugs or drunk, the guy with PTSD, or the house wife who just freezes and starts to freak out not understanding what is going on, the kid who decides to run for it....so many others...

In so many cases the initial reason for the cops was not a violent crime to warrant full force up to include death.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Sure, we may be able to reduce the numbers slightly and we should work towards that.

Like I said, I am all for mandatory BJJ training.

I am also all for not making police officers respond to non-criminal situations and even the legalization of some currently illegal narcotics.

Of course we will probably see an increase in crime because of it but it seems the public wants that over the alternative.

Even if we do the aforementioned, these incidents will never be eliminated.

Are we going to have mass scale riots the very few times these things happen?

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

In the US, we would have had helicopters above and the cop on the bike firing rounds wildly at the guy as kids play on the other side of the park. Cause he was mad.

Yep that guy needs to go to jail for 5 or 10 years.....How dare he disrespect their authority. You know there is always another day, another time...they guy lives in the area most likely and if they never catch him who really cares. If they did catch him he would have gotten a ticket anyways.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Every time a police officer has to resort to pulling his weapon on a minority, there will be large scale riots and businesses will burn.

Welcome to summer, 2020.

a reply to: notquiteright
Considering he was running and shot in the back?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
So the person was publicly intoxicated and blocking traffic, resisted arrest, assaulted an officer, stole an officer's weapon, evaded officers, then pointed (and possibly fired) said stolen weapon at the officer. And we're supposed to feel sorry for him? Good riddance. One less dangerous criminal on the streets.

Also at this point in the arrest attempt he had not been searched.
Therefor he could easily have been in possession of a Firearm.
Been there seen that as a former Police Officer

a reply to: Gryphon66

Im an Anarchist, so there ya go.

Im also pragmatic though, and part of that belief system is understanding that it isnt for everyone. I think it could be, eventually, but not yet. It involves a level of personal responsibility that just isnt there. And would require a dramatic lessening or elimination of the approach of attempting to convert everyone who thinks differently.

Regardless, I think there are some distinctions to be made when we talk about "size of government." That covers so much ground, and is so vague, that its difficult to parse.

I think the biggest first step is budgets and allocation. Where the money actually goes is paramount. Rather than examining it as sum totals of who receives what, itd probably be wiser to actually examine where that money goes in real time.. And determine if that spending is actually making a meaningful impact on the intended purpose. Up to and including new ideas to be implemented as general policy, like martial arts training and continuing psychological evaluations.

My own preference is that everyone is armed and educated from a young age. But, that takes time and I dont believe its something to just jump right into because I think it would work.