You know that you probably could have picked a better name for your organization when at least 141,000 people think it should be labeled a "terror group." :lol:

If there is this bias, let us prove it out. What we have are selected anecdotes about incidents, which are heartbreaking in every way. But not really proof.

I just heard of one that happened two miles from my home town, just last year. As kids, we rode bikes right near where this happened.

The following is a true story. It is an anecdote. It proves nothing:

This cop pulls a guy over for an expired inspection sticker: two months out of inspection.

The guy is age 59, and there's 6 inches of snow on the ground... but he gets out of the car and starts to try to run. For no reason at all, with no evidence at all, the cop decides he has a gun. The cop tasers him, and he lands face down in the snow. He lands with his hands up, but the cop continues to taser him, over and over and over, and he goes into convulsions; and, naturally, his hands drop down. At that point, the cop shoots him. In the back.

He didn't have a gun. And his jacket was zipped up, so it would have been tricky to reach for one.

In this case, they prosecuted the cop; but you know a central Pennsylvania jury would not convict a police officer. The cop even decided to go back to work - and would have - until the community got together and fought it.

Had you heard of this? I hadn't heard of it until today. Why haven't we heard of this?

Cos the full story doesn't affect the current narrative, so it's not interesting. So people don't care and so it doesn't make national news. Full story is here.

You may watch the bodycam footage if you like that sort of thing. It's pretty frickin' horrible. But like the nature videos, sometimes you have to see and acknowledge what life is. Especially if you wish to speak to it.

Throughout the whole US with African Americans actively participating in said bias? Don't forget these juries and prosecutor offices have African American serving on them.

I'm not comfortable with that shooting, but I'm not ready to throw out our jurisprudence system over it. Because she was acquitted, was there any rioting and looting in the streets? Did they assassinate any police officers over this verdict?

What constitutes proof of bias?

I want to have an idea of what you consider the finish line is. Evidence of systemic, institutional racial bias in our society *abounds*, but you choose your words carefully, you have very high standards. You insist on "proof" before you'll accept that it exists.

You tell me what your snipe looks like, and I'll go hunting for it.

OK well first, we'll have to agree on what to prove!

Is ^ that it?

This is the most complimentary thing you've ever said about me. Thank you!

The people who value human life care. The people who expect those with authority to not abuse it care. "Why haven't we heard of this?" Because the group that is publicizing cops killing blacks is publicizing cops killing blacks. Cops misbehaving can be publicized by another group. FWIW, I remember that when it was reported.

Black cops can have institutional bias against black citizens.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/...-implicit-bias

Well, it's refreshing to see that you don't just blindly defend ...

Oop - there it is.

I guess White Lives Matter™ isn't doing their job very well, are they?;)

When (insert special group here) are killed by cops in the proportion that young black men are, that group will react in a similar way. Jews avenged the Holocaust, the French Resistance fought Vichy France, Palestinians fight Israel, etc. When a group feels oppressed, they lash out. I'm not condoning it.

The Police position can be A - "we're justified in what we've done and will continue" (and kill even more young black men as they crack down), B - "we've made mistakes and will take steps to correct our behavior" (and kill fewer black men, or at least penalize cops who are doing it wrong), or C - "we're going to stop doing our job - see how you like society with no policing". I hope they choose B.

"you have very high standards. You insist on "proof" before you'll accept that it exists"

This is as it should be, don't you think?

When life or livelihood is at stake, shouldn't the bar be set high? Shouldn't evidences be offered that are indisputable, that can't be widely (mis)interpreted?

If Joe, a black man, is accused of murder, is it not the obligation of the accuser to 'prove' it?

If Joe, the cop, is accused of bias, accused of abusing his lent power, it s not the obligation of the accuser to 'prove' it?

If institutional bias is claimed, is it not the obligation of the claimant to, in the least, offer sumthin' compelling, unambiguous, and direct as evidence?

There are bad cops, bad whites, bad blacks, bad asians, bad dems, bad repubs, bad christians, bad jews, bad muslims, bad atheists, and on and on...comes down to this: there's seven billion people on the planet and a sizable chunk of them are dumbasses, jackasses, and nutjobs...bad eggs who do bad things...such folks cobble together reasons for doin' what they do (race, religion, politics, money, land, sex, and on and on) but these are just the justifcations...strip those away and the dumbasses, jackasses, and nujobs will still do the bad things.

It's a mistake on the part of well-intentioned folks to give weight to cobbled together reasons (justifications)...doin' that opens the door to givin' dumbasses, jackasses, and nutjobs an out...it's the equivelent of trying to understand or advocate for a rabid dog instead of just identifying it then shooting it.

Question is not about one example. A systematic bias clearly exists against one class of people - more specifically hispanics and blacks. If you deny that bias exists, then say so. Address the topic with numbers.

Completely irrelevant here is whether people riot, whether the judicial system must be scrapped, or that many bad people exist. Relevant question is about a persistent and one side bias against some people who are colored differently. Fact say it exists - significantly. If you dispute this, then what facts dispute this? Does this bias exist? Yes or no - with facts.

Henry Louis Gates in 2009 demonstrated a problem that statistics confirm. An emotional bias that news reports now demonstrate are widespread. Do you disagree with the existence of that problem? Does all of law enforcement have a larger problem? Or do some bad apples more than make all others look bad? Does law enforcement use a blue mask to ignore a problem in their ranks? That some are corrupted by the power they possess.

Statistics clearly demonstrate a problem exists. Or do you deny it?

That is obviously not you as in henry quick. That obviously is you as in everyone who reads this. Or did 'you' assume something different? An example about what creates bias.

Statistics clearly demonstrate a problem exists.
 

Please, some one, post those stats, and the source of those stats.

Here are some stats from the dailywire we can all mull over. Some support my viewpoint, some support yours.

1. Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. The majority of these victims had a gun or "were armed or otherwise threatening the officer with potentially lethal force," according to Mac Donald in a speech at Hillsdale College.

Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population. But as Mac Donald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.

"Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force," writes MacDonald.

MacDonald also pointed out in her Hillsdale speech that blacks "commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime" in New York City, even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.

"The black violent crime rate would actually predict that more than 26 percent of police victims would be black," MacDonald said. "Officer use of force will occur where the police interact most often with violent criminals, armed suspects, and those resisting arrest, and that is in black neighborhoods."

2. More whites and Hispanics die from police homicides than blacks. According to Mac Donald, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only four percent of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers.

"If we’re going to have a 'Lives Matter' anti-police movement, it would be more appropriately named "White and Hispanic Lives Matter,'" said Mac Donald in her Hillsdale speech.


3. The Post's data does show that unarmed black men are more likely to die by the gun of a cop than an unarmed white man...but this does not tell the whole story. In August 2015, the ratio was seven-to-one of unarmed black men dying from police gunshots compared to unarmed white men; the ratio was six-to-one by the end of 2015. But Mac Donald points out in The Marshall Project that looking at the details of the actual incidents that occurred paints a different picture:

The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.

In one of those unintended cases, an undercover cop from the New York Police Department was conducting a gun sting in Mount Vernon, just north of New York City. One of the gun traffickers jumped into the cop’s car, stuck a pistol to his head, grabbed $2,400 and fled. The officer gave chase and opened fire after the thief again pointed his gun at him. Two of the officer’s bullets accidentally hit a 61-year-old bystander, killing him. That older man happened to be black, but his race had nothing to do with his tragic death. In the other collateral damage case, Virginia Beach, Virginia, officers approached a car parked at a convenience store that had a homicide suspect in the passenger seat. The suspect opened fire, sending a bullet through an officer’s shirt. The cops returned fire, killing their assailant as well as a woman in the driver’s seat. That woman entered the Post’s database without qualification as an “unarmed black victim” of police fire.

Mac Donald examines a number of other instances, including unarmed black men in San Diego, CA and Prince George's County, MD attempting to reach for a gun in a police officer's holster. In the San Diego case, the unarmed black man actually "jumped the officer" and assaulted him, and the cop shot the man since he was "fearing for his life." MacDonald also notes that there was an instance in 2015 where "three officers were killed with their own guns, which the suspects had wrestled from them."

4. Black and Hispanic police officers are more likely to fire a gun at blacks than white officers. This is according to a Department of Justice report in 2015 about the Philadelphia Police Department, and is further confirmed that by a study conducted University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway in 2015 that determined black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun than other cops at a crime scene.

5. Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to Mac Donald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.

Despite the facts, the anti-police rhetoric of Black Lives Matter and their leftist sympathizers have resulted in what Mac Donald calls the "Ferguson Effect," as murders have spiked by 17 percent among the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. as a result of cops being more reluctant to police neighborhoods out of fear of being labeled as racists. Additionally, there have been over twice as many cops victimized by fatal shootings in the first three months of 2016.

Anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences.

This article has been modified to correct Greg Ridgeway's name.

Original article: http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5...-aaron-bandler

Here's the Economist on it. It's in this week's edition so, tw, perhaps it is in the mail.

http://www.economist.com/news/united...es?frsc=dg%7Cd

Black Harvard prof (who is not Dr. Gates) studies the problem in depth in Houston. First, he removes his own bias:

Impressive! Key bits:

BUT THEN when it came to use of deadly force:

So, Houston via the Economist, same as the WaPo: Blacks more likely to have to deal with police, more likely to have bad dealings... and less likely to be shot at.

Well Undertoad, that was quite a zinger you threw in the ring of facts. How will TW and others counter counter that last fact?

To me the real problem is around the number of "policing" interactions people seem to be having with officers vs a more humanizing day to day interaction. My question is do we have cops doing too many things? DWI checkpoints, stops for bulbs out, black market arrests, pot arrests... I get that broken windows policing may make a more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood but once that neighborhood turns on its cops, everybody is screwed.

*24 hour news channels have a shit ton to answer for as well

Good summary.

Maybe the Black Lives Matter movement has such wide support because blacks have experienced that non-lethal bias and when they see the lethal bias on tv or youtube, it resonates with them. It fits with their experiences.

Maybe we need to try to eliminate that non-lethal racial bias.

Read that article long before posting. It was part of that earlier response. Interesting especially when combined with other researchers and reporters.

Black and whites were just as likely to be shot ... when they attacked police. That is secondary. Problem occurs when blacks, et al do not attack police. For example, the kid who is waving around a toy gun. Or the man who does not resist until after being arrested. These were conditions that create controversy. These events are separate from others where the victim first attacked police.

Prof Gate did not attack police. But he suffered an 'excessive' police response only because he was trying to break into his own house. And even after properly identifying himself. We are only seeing more example of this 2009 example maybe because we are finally looking for it. Or because cameras now recored what has long been acceptable behavior among a minority.

Another reporter also spent (if I remember) most of a year riding with police in Newark. One fact remained apparent after enough observation. A major distrust exists between these police and citizens. Eventually he noticed a pattern. Police were always 'challenging' everyone. Constantly demanding an answer to "Why did you run?". Or "Come here." There was no cooperative interplay between these cops and citizens. The underlying bias of these cops was a constant "Everyone is a suspect."

Critical to cooperation between cops and citizens is the interplay where a cop and citizen can talk like friends. That program was instituted with success in Philadelphia. Among these Newark cops, everyone was distrusted. And so citizens routinely distrusted the cops. This was even observed with young kids. This would explain why some cops were more prone to use unnecessary violence and why emotions cause so much confrontation - both by police and citizens.

A man with a gun is always quick to make decisions based upon his biases - his emotions. That is why the NRA has been so quiet about tihis. That is why we want people with guns (more power) to be extra trained - to learn how to control those inevitable emotions. Still, some cops do not get it. We see that in recent videos including a lady cop in UT's Hummelstown PA video.

Some cops resort to excessive violence when not attacked. That is irrelevant to the other situation (described in the Economist) where a cop is attacked. Complaint is that some cops tend to be more (excessively) violent with a people who have a unique external characteristic when the citizen is not even violent.

The topic is not citizens who attack police. The topic is citizens who do nothing or only complain - and suffer an excessive police response. We know that is happening - apparently with a minority of officers whose training did not suppress their bias (emotions). And we know many who have these biases may even be unaware of their biases.

Maybe read the article again

Completely unrelated are people who *never* attack an officer. Major difference.

Move on to why this apparently exists. Many want to cast blame. Only fewer are proposing solutions based in identifying potential reasons for a problem. Some cops are professionally trained or acting as if everyone is a suspect. As a result, everyone is potential perp - not a friendly citizen. That attitude results in citizens treating cops as adversaries - to act as if a copy is a threat - not as friends or protectors. An attitude of both cop and citizen that caused violent confrontations when a citizen NEVER attacks a cop.

Not 'before' - never. A major difference exists in those two scenarios.

We are not discussing what a majority of cops do - ie less likely to shoot someone. A problem apparently lies with a minority who are likely to be violent when not even attacked. Their emotions perceive a threat that did not exist. Ie and again - your Hummelstown PA video. Where is an attack that justified a shooting? Before or Never?

Please do not combine what are two completely different scenarios. What a majority of cops do is apparently unrelated to what a minority of cops do - too often.

Dude, the category "blacks who were shot before attacking an officer" is describing those who did not attack an officer at all. That's precisely what this category indicates.

The category is not describing "blacks who were shot and then attacked the officer". We assume THAT number would be too low to be statistically interesting.

:lol:

Tw needs a new user title: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

Tw IS the Cellar jester. :biggrinje Thus is the fate of in-your-face developmentally impaired, tw.

"before attacking an officer" implies that eventually they do attack an officer. It's a poor choice of words. They should have said "without" attacking an officer. I was confused by that too. Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.

"Many want to cast blame"
 

Yep, no matter the issue, there are plenty of folks lookin' to spread blame far and wide, ropin' in as many folks as possible, never mind that most of those slathered with blame are blameless.

An anecdote some of you can appreciate...


When I worked for Stennis way back when, every one had ready and open access to the net...some dumbass took advantage and made a habit of enjoying porn sites...Stennis management, in it's profound wisdom, severely restricted all net access and did not fire the dumbass.


Slather that blame, spread the consequence, every one guilty till proven innocent.

More sensibly: can the dumbass and leave every one else alone; punish the cops who abuse their lent power and leave the rest alone; punish jackasses who shoot up malls, schools, whatnot, and leave the rest alone.

Each one innocent till proven guilty.

Institutional and unconscious bias is horse manure.

If Joe does crap hold Joe responsible, not Sam.

Toss 'we' and 'them' and (re)install 'I' and 'you' and 'him' and 'her'.

First, the Economist study is about all cops. We are not discussing all cops. We are discussing a minority who are a problem. How large is that minority? No statistics provided. The Economist study does not address that issue.

Second, UT's Hummelstown video demonstrates a problem. (And the victim was white.) Some cops have an adversarial attitude. We know people with more power (ie guns) are easily corrupted by that power - are quicker to make conclusions from their emotions rather then based in facts. A problem that the NRA does not want discussed. And yet that is the issue.

People with guns must be trained to become and remain more responsible. To act logical; not emotional. Apparently some venues still have a Mayor Daley or Mayor Rizzo attitude. Which then implies biases are imposed fastest on those one does not like.

How many cops have this attitude? How many venues spend more time in making friends of all citizens rather than let or encourage cops regard all as suspects? Unfortunately no quantitative statistics exist. Neighborhood policing was an example of how to avert a bad mindset.

Plenty of examples exist including Harvard Professor Gates confrontation with Sgt Crowley. And UT's Hummelstown video. Blacks have long complained about this double standard. Philando Castile's killing on livestream video in MN demonstrates that this problem clearly exists. As an excited cop yells at others after he shot Philando for no apparent reason (other than fear and emotion).

The Economist notes a completely different scenario. "Black lives matter" stems from other police confrontations where an officer was the only aggressor. As demonstrated by a reporter who followed Newark police for most of a year. Confrontation because those cops treated every person as a potential perp rather than a citizen to protect. How many officers have that attitude? The Economist study would say if it addressed that problem. Meanwhile, top cops in Newark disbanned that police unit after the reporter's video demonstrated that problem.

How many cops are trained in or have this bad attitude? We don't know. Statistics do not exist. We know the problem exists since complaints exist in all states. Including intentional profiling of blacks by NJ State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike as encouraged by top department management. We do not even know how many of those complaints are justified. We only know that a flurry of videos now demonstrate a problem is widespread. And probably has existed long before Professor Gates was arrested because he broke into his own house.

A situation escalated due to emotions by both men. Ironic that both men had a history of teaching for better inter-racial relations. And that both Gates and Sgt Crowley are distant cousins. But facts were irrelevant during the confrontation. Emotions and assumptions based in misinformation dominated that confrontation. In other situations, a guy with more power jumped to conclusions, in some cases, because power is a corrupting influence. Gun used when no threat justified that action. How often? No statistics exist.

UT's Hummelstown video is a damning example. Any reply cannot ignore a problem demonstrated by that video. How widespread is the problem? The Economist study does not address that issue. How many departments train their officers to not be confrontational to everyone. No facts exist. Economist does not ask. It was not the subject of their study.

How large is a minority of officers who jump to conclusions as 'wanna be' cop Zimmerman did by shooting Martin for no reason. Another example of a problem created when someone has too much power (ie a gun) and insufficient training (or mindset) to think logically. "He looks different. So he must be evil." A problem made worse when top management encouraged it as in the case in Newark and by State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike.

There are many adults who react like children - as demonstrated in that damning Hummelstown video.

"Without" would imply that he never was going to attack the officer. We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.:rolleyes:

tw: "Question is not about one example... Address the race topic with numbers."

ut: "Here are your statistics."

tw: "These statistics do not address the topic of racial injustice."

ut: "They do, but you have misinterpreted them."

tw: "The topic is not racial injustice. Here is one example that shows a problem. There are no statistics on this."

Come on now.

A blank line is your statistics? That is the point. Relevant statistics do not exist. Again, the Economists does not discuss a minority who apparently are the problem. What the other overwhelming majority do is irrelevant. And what one obvious problem is - cops who use excessive force (ie gun fire) when no threat exists. And cops who regard everyone as a perp.

The Economist does not distinguish between shooting of unaggressive suspects verse others who are aggressive. Your (what I can only assume you are citing) statistics do not apply to many events that even "Black lives matter" complain about.

Please stop being so emotional. Please return to an adult frame. If you posted a relevant number, then recited which number is relevant - so that logical discussion can continue. An obviously emotional reply makes honest discussion impossible. One can only *assume* which number you believe is relevant.

Explain why your Hummelstown video is irrelevant. Every post references your refusal to discuss it. Logical is to explain why that is irrelevant - since it demonstrates the problem. Was that Hummelstown policewoman shooting justified or not? An example of a problem embedded in "Black lives matter" protests.

And again today, another innocent (not an aggressor) man shot because a cop thought a mentally retarded man playing with a truck was a threat. Another example of a shooting because neither suspect *never* did and *never* was going to threaten a cop. Another shooting and the complaint was irrelevant to an Economist study. And not defined any of your numbers.

So calm down Sherlock. Answer in an adult and unemotional attitude. Posted are logical questions. Please answer them without so much irrational animosity. Start with what is obviously relevant - the Hummelstown shooting. Why are your still unknown numbers relevant?

Emotion attached to contempt for "Black lives matter" makes no logical sense.

And that's our interaction for 2016. See you next year.

Harvard professor shots cop who is a family member. Interesting. I never saw that headline.

Would that be calendar year; or, fiscal year? 'Cause, you know, October 1st isn't that far away and we all know how much you miss getting your annual tongue lashings.

Nope. No problem here. Move along.

But you see, the police chief for that department explained it: the officer actually MEANT to shoot the white disabled guy. So, you know, aside from still being wrong and firing when it was uncalled for, he ALSO has shitty aim.

The therapist lived, thank God. And they are already offering settlement money.

It would go a long way for a law enforcement representative to say " yeeeaaah, we fucked up. Sorry". But the Blue Brotherhood has solidarity.:mad:

It would seem that civilians need a means to protect themselves from the people they hire to protect themselves. When civilians have the means to protect themselves, they can be more discerning about those they hire to watch their backs. Until then, you're at their mercy.

It would be beyond stupid for me to carry when I work. We don't have a too few guns problem. We do have a problem with poorly trained, scared, and maybe PTSDed cops who don't seem to know how to de-escalate situations safely. We civilians want cops who are on our side and assess situations well under pressure. We get that it is a tough job and thankless in some neighborhoods but you can't excuse the gun first mentality we've hammered into our cops.

Who said anything about guns? I said "means." You seem to have a one track mind.

Cops are who they are as individuals. The problem is with those hiring the wrong individuals.

"A" problem, not "THE" problem.

With regard to Law Enforcement (thread title), other problems pale in comparison to not getting the right personality types out there. Cops are beyond their formative years. Under stress, each is going to react according to his or her own value system and worry about the ramifications later. Each will have their own stress threshold. Training can modify their behavior under less stressful circumstances; but, it takes a significant emotional event to change their core values which is what presents when they're overstressed. Unfortunately, that doesn't usually happen until after things go terribly wrong and they're faced with dire consequences. Then the change comes too late.

OK. That was a total fuck up. Write the check. Fire or reassign the officer. Total career ender

Pause and think about this. As a police officer, you have a fraction of a second to make a life or death decision. You are flooded with adrenaline. All of these people judging you are sitting at home, watching edited clips, being told a narrative by talking heads and the truth of the matter the officer took this low paying job because he wanted to help people and know he is worried if he will ever see his family again. So many people judge and cast blame, but would they do the job?

One who has a gun must make those decisions. And not make a mistake. Responsibility means not using emotion, like a child, to make a decision. He must be properly trained to think in an adult manner. That means logical thought especially in adrenaline situations. Adults even point the gun in a safe direction so as to not make a mistake. Many have not learned how to control their emotions. Those are the worst people to carry a gun. And explain so many shooting - such as demonstrated in a Hummelstown video.

Responsible applies to anyone who carries a gun - not just cops. That responsibility is why officers are trained. And why civilians must also have a similar adult mindset to be responsible as only as adult can be. Only children or adults who are still children let their emotions control their decisions. Their pre-frontal cortex has not let learned to control a child's emotions. Those have no business carrying a gun.

Why did the officer state he did not know why he fired? Apparently he did not control his emotions. His logical (adult) brain had no idea what his emotional (child) brain was thinking. So he had no business carrying a gun. Responsible adults do not let fear control them. Adults control their fears.

Why is the NRA so quiet? This concept called responsible threatens sales.

There are people who break the law under the similar circumstances and go to jail.

But, Ok, let's say that's true. If a cop does it wrong, he should, minimally, be put in a position where he cannot do it wrong again. He failed the ultimate test. And there are times when he should be prosecuted.

for what it's worth...
 

What Are Policemen Made Of? By Paul Harvey

Don't credit me with the mongrel prose: it has many parents-at least 420,000 of them: Policemen.

A Policeman is a composite of what all men are, mingling of a saint and sinner, dust and deity.

Gulled statistics wave the fan over the stinkers, underscore instances of dishonesty and brutality because they are "new". What they really mean is that they are exceptional, unusual, not commonplace.

Buried under the frost is the fact: Less than one-half of one percent of policemen misfit the uniform. That's a better average than you'd find among clergy!

What is a policeman made of? He, of all men, is once the most needed and the most unwanted. He's a strangely nameless creature who is "sir" to his face and "fuzz" to his back

He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won.

But...If the policeman is neat, he's conceited; if he's careless, he's a bum. If he's pleasant, he's flirting;if not, he's a grouch.

He must make an instant decision which would require months for a lawyer to make.

But...If he hurries, he's careless; if he's deliberate, he's lazy. He must be first to an accident and infallible with his diagnosis. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and, above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp. Or expect to be sued.

The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesn't hurt.He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without being "brutal". If you hit him, he's a coward. If he hits you, he's a bully.

A policeman must know everything-and not tell. He must know where all the sin is and not partake.

A policeman must, from a single strand of hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon and the criminal- and tell you where the criminal is hiding.

But...If he catches the criminal, he's lucky; if he doesn't, he's a dunce. If he gets promoted, he has political pull; if he doesn't, he's a dullard. The policeman must chase a bum lead to a dead-end, stake out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it happen-but refused to remember.

The policeman must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy and a gentleman.

And, of course, he'd have to be genius....For he will have to feed a family on a policeman's salary.

That's a good piece Mr. Quirk. Paul Harvey was great. I miss his lunch hour news broadcasts, and The Rest of the Story.

Sometimes I make my computer say "Paul Harvey...Good day." when I power down.

I miss Paul Harvey.

Freddie Gray case: Charges dropped against remaining officers

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/us/fre...ers/index.html

Amazing, the results you get when you investigate yourself.

Maryland prosecutor blasts police ’reluctance and obvious bias’ that hindered Freddie Gray investigation

I hope there's a federal case

I'm not surprised.

I doubt they meant to kill him. Just teach him a lesson. Rough him up a little. His death was accidental. They were responsible for his welfare, and they wound up killing him. Since it was a group, each individual can say "not my fault" and there isn't enough evidence to convict any one of them individually.

So many on here are quick to judge based upon what they "think" happened. So many of the social justice warriors should watch the "Ox-Bow Incident".

I often agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. The cops were either incompetent at keeping him safe, or they intended to rough him up a little to teach him a lesson. It's either malice or incompetence that caused him to die in their care.

In this case I think it's unlikely that the cops were incompetent. He was being a dick to them and they were pissed off at him. They didn't have a discussion about it or anything like that. It was just their attitude about him. "Scumbag resisted arrest, I'm gonna stomp on the gas a little as I pull away from the curb."

It's very hard for most people to take being hit without being allowed to hit back. My son went through a time of physically injuring me. Even with him being a kid, my own kid, a kid I knew really honestly didn't mean me any malice... there were a few times where the self-defense instinct rose up and some lizard-brain part of me wanted to hit back.

I still didn't, obviously, but it was surprising to learn how close under the surface that instinct was. Our officers have to be trained better, and applicants have to be screened better in the first place. "It's a hard job" doesn't begin to describe it, but it's not an excuse, either.

It's like teachers: if you paid the individuals more, instead of spending more money on tools (i.e. nationwide testing as a metaphor for tanks and SWAT armor,) then talented candidates would be more willing to attempt the job.

The coroner ruled it a homocide

Sure, but they didn't mean to kill him. You don't think they meant to kill him, do you?

I don't. Bu it doesn't really matter what I think, the coroner determined it to be homicide - "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder".

You seem to be experiencing tunnel vision when looking up definitions...

"Homicide occurs when one person causes the death of one other person. Homicides can be divided into many overlapping types, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and execution, depending on the circumstances of the death."

BIG TERM, EIGHT SYLABLES - involuntary manslaughter.

Let us not forget that suicide is also homicide. There is also the theory Freddie Gray self inflicted his injuries

That reminds me of policing in the UK during the 70s and 80a, when the police quite seriously, and with straight faces claimed that a man in their custody died whilst falling up the stairs.

So many quick to judge and say these officers are guilty. Yet, 3 have been found not guilty in a court of law and charges against the other 3 are dismissed. So many cry they must be guilty and I ask where is your proof? What evidence do you have to declare these men guilty and condemn law enforcement?

Reminds me of the Firesign Theater (I think) parody of The Lone Ranger.
"he fell on his knife
six times
backwards"
And the prosecutor is crying foul, and it's difficult to convict a law enforcement agent.

Sarge, did you watch "Making a Murderer"?