What to do about all of the police shootings?

Post Reply New Topic

People assume that all this is happening because cops are racist and target poor black people, which in some cases may be true. To me this is what needs to be done:

1. Police should be required to wear body cameras and to carry tasers.
2. There should be a nationwide, uniform standard of what situations police are allowed to use deadly force.
3. Police should be trained to use non-lethal force first and to deescalate situations.
4. I have noticed that the vast majority of unjustified police shootings are done by less experienced officers. I don't remember any of the more controversial shootings committed by 20 year veterans. Maybe there should be a period of time in which less experienced officers are required to be trained in the field by more experienced officers.
5. There should be an independent, national review board that does nothing but review police shootings and decide whether the officer should be charged.

These are my personal ideas. I personally think if all of these things were done then there would be far fewer of these situations happening.

It all sounds good to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe police are allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect, even if that suspect has not proven to be violent (for example a petty thie who is running away). I don't think the punishment for running away from a cop should be death. This is one thing I would like to see changed.

Training for cops should be longer than it is now and they should be paid much more than they currently are Their job is very important. We should pay them like it is.

The hiring process is also screwed up. Police chiefs value aggression over intelligence. Not sure if they still do this but if you have too high an IQ you're automatically disqualified. We need smarter police, not more violent police.

Actually there was a Supreme Court case about that. It was ruled that police did not have the right to shoot a suspect just to stop him from fleeing, unless they think he might cause physical harm to the officers or the general public.

Okay, my mistake. They still do it though.

The problem is they just say well I feared for my life so that is why I shot. If there were set guidelines in place in which that explanation is reasonable and officers were trained according to those guidelines then that would solve part of the problem.

Body cams are worthless. The pigs just turn them on and off at will. Half the time the recording doesn't even record the beginning of the incident.

BLM is right. The police system can't be fixed. The police need to be disbanded, and replaced with some new type of community policing. But if you want to try to fix the system anyway, here are several points we could start with.

1. Reverse Jordan v. The City of New London, which allows police departments to discriminate against applicants with high IQs. New standards should require applicants to have above average IQs.

2. Applicants should be required to have a Criminal Justice degree, including an understanding of Constitutional law.

3. There should be better training in how not to violate people's constitutional rights. Their number one goal should be not to violate anyones rights. They should be expected to sacrifice their own lives, rather then kill, injure or otherwise violate anyones rights.

4. Policing for profit should end. Forfeiture laws and fines should be eliminated. Enforcing laws should never make any money for the government, or the courts.

I second those suggestions!

I think there are police departments around the country who do a great job, who don't kill people, or violate people's rights. The problem is the other police departments around the country don't do the same thing. However those suggestions are also good and should be put into practice.
The problem with BLM is that they don't seem interested in discussing policy changes. Like you said they basically think all police are bad and we should just do away with them. Protesting doesn't really get you anywhere if the same policies remain in place.

The police are trained to lie and manipulate in order to get people to give up information or admit to something they ordinarily would not, to use others words against them. they are not there for to find if your not guilty of something, they are there trying to see if you are guilty.

Very true. However the main rules of cop behavior are these:

1. Whatever you do, you must come home to your family every night. THIS IS THE OVERRIDING RULE.

2. All citizens are potential criminals in that they may have a gun and are capable of killing you. In addition being slower on the draw and shooting will get you killed.

3. Without total and instant respect from citizens and immediate domination of a situation by the officer a situation may turn deadly. All citizens must comply immediately with any commands from a police officer, or be forced to do so by any means available to the officer. Disrespect must be dealt with harshly.

4. Protect the safety and reputation of all brother officers.

Your ideas, be they good or not, MUST follow the above guidelines or they will never be adopted. Any chief or commissioner trying to institute ideas not in line with the basic tenets of police procedure will have a major problem on their hands...and they will lose. An example: Your idea #1 is good but how do you stop police from obscuring what is seen and heard, as we see happening often these days? How do you force them to have the microphone on? How do you force them to show the public the videos? How do you stop the videos from being altered before the public views them?

Ideas are great, but "If wishes were horses then poor people would ride." All the good ideas mean nothing if they can't be applied.

The way the "fleeing suspect" shooting thing works is: If the subject is armed and refuses to drop their weapon and attempts to flee the officer is justified in shooting under the premise/theory that the subject could stop, turn, and fire on the officer at any time.

P.S. All police are potentially carrying a "throw down" weapon to use in situations like this, or if not, could borrow one from a brother officer (just as they are capable of planting drug evidence).

And you said: "Not sure if they still do this but if you have too high an IQ you're automatically disqualified."
Please give me any kind of evidence you have for this being true...thank you.

1. Reverse Jordan v. The City of New London, which allows police departments to discriminate against applicants with high IQs. New standards should require applicants to have above average IQs.
Interesting case, but isolated. Doesn't show a trend.

2. Applicants should be required to have a Criminal Justice degree, including an understanding of Constitutional law.
This will never happen because scholars are not being hired for police work.

3. There should be better training in how not to violate people's constitutional rights. Their number one goal should be not to violate anyones rights. They should be expected to sacrifice their own lives, rather then kill, injure or otherwise violate anyones rights.
The above highlighted line is without thought or value.

4. Policing for profit should end. Forfeiture laws and fines should be eliminated. Enforcing laws should never make any money for the government, or the courts.
Agreed, but the forfeitures themselves should continue. Just removing the personal reasons for confiscation should be enough.

I can vouch for that, if your IQ is to high it does not disqualify you, but they are much less likely to hire you because they do not want you to get board with your job then try and move on to other jobs after all their time and training, seen lots of news reports on this, common news, just do a websearch.

In addition, for police shootings, the presumption of innocence should be waived. When a law officer shoots someone while on duty, he should bear the burden of proof that the shooting was justified or necessary. Right now, if a grand jury does not indict the policeman he is off the hook. Every police shooting should lead to an indictment for manslaughter and it is up to the cop to prove his innocence.

For private citizens burden of proof is on the State. For cops, the burden of proof should be on the cop.