WSU PD Officer Dies from Gunshot Wound to Head

[Johnnny5]

I hope they have their guy this time [[for both of these shootings). DPD officers have enough to worry about, the last thing they needed was some maniac targeting officers for little to no reason.

[Wesley Mouch]

I hope they have their guy this time [[for both of these shootings). DPD officers have enough to worry about, the last thing they needed was some maniac targeting officers for little to no reason.

You see little to no reason.

I see the stereotyping and prejudice by BLM as creating a culture of hate against police that inspires action.

I believe that one can advocate without hate. Its better too.

[noise]

You see little to no reason.

I see the stereotyping and prejudice by BLM as creating a culture of hate against police that inspires action.

I believe that one can advocate without hate. Its better too.

In other words, you see what you want to see.

[Wesley Mouch]

In other words, you see what you want to see.

That's the problem often, isn't it.

Not so such its what I want to see, but its what I believe. And that sometimes does lead us to see 'what we want to see'.

If I were black, would I feel differently about the police? Probably so.

So am I prejudiced, or is my privilege showing? Maybe.

What I feel may not be the same as what others feel. What's just? What's right? Better policing and more respect for everyone. Yes. And less hate for police, and more respect for their work to keep our communities safe. Yes.

Both.

I believe I see the problems with policing.

I'm not sure you see the problems with de-policing.

What do you think?

[Bham1982]

I'm not sure you see the problems with de-policing.

What do you think?

BLM doesn't support "de-policing". They support black people not getting executed by the police.

Incredible that BLM is considered "controversial", but shows how far the U.S. has fallen.

[noise]

That's the problem often, isn't it.

Not so such its what I want to see, but its what I believe. And that sometimes does lead us to see 'what we want to see'.

If I were black, would I feel differently about the police? Probably so.

So am I prejudiced, or is my privilege showing? Maybe.

What I feel may not be the same as what others feel. What's just? What's right? Better policing and more respect for everyone. Yes. And less hate for police, and more respect for their work to keep our communities safe. Yes.

Both.

I believe I see the problems with policing.

I'm not sure you see the problems with de-policing.

What do you think?

I'm likely more "radical" in terms of police than BLM, so we're coming from different places.

That said, Bham1982 is correct. BLM only stands for black people not getting executed by police. That shouldn't be very controversial at all.

[Johnnny5]

That said, Bham1982 is correct. BLM only stands for black people not getting executed by police. That shouldn't be very controversial at all.

It's controversial because they hold that stance even when the alternative was the officer losing his/her own life or facing serious injury [[And for the violence that tends to erupt at many of their protests).


Either way, it's interesting how quickly the mainstream media seems to have abandoned the BLM movement since the election. I guess they've been too busy covering and attacking anything and everything related to President Trump.

[Bham1982]

It's controversial because they hold that stance even when the alternative was the officer losing his/her own life or facing serious injury [[And for the violence that tends to erupt at many of their protests).

No, you made all this up. BLM has no such stance, and there is no such resulting violence.

And no raving anti-BLM voter cares about reducing violence. They voted for Trump, they're gaga for the NRA and bombing brown people; they love violence and destruction.

Either way, it's interesting how quickly the mainstream media seems to have abandoned the BLM movement since the election. I guess they've been too busy covering and attacking anything and everything related to President Trump.

Yeah, it's just insane that the media is focusing on the most powerful leader on earth, his almost daily unprecedented and illegal actions, and the subsequent destruction of the most powerful nation in the history of humanity, rather than a minor civil rights organization. Priorities, people!

[noise]

It's controversial because they hold that stance even when the alternative was the officer losing his/her own life or facing serious injury [[And for the violence that tends to erupt at many of their protests).

Yeah, this is nowhere near accurate, though I think it should be.

[Johnnny5]

No, you made all this up. BLM has no such stance, and there is no such resulting violence.

Really? The group was basically born out of the events in Ferguson. So you're saying that never happened? Officer Wilson never struggled for control of his weapon against a 6' 4" 200+lb Michael Brown? Businesses weren't looted and burned by "protesters" afterwards?

And no raving anti-BLM voter cares about reducing violence. They voted for Trump, they're gaga for the NRA and bombing brown people; they love violence and destruction.



Yeah, it's just insane that the media is focusing on the most powerful leader on earth, his almost daily unprecedented and illegal actions, and the subsequent destruction of the most powerful nation in the history of humanity, rather than a minor civil rights organization. Priorities, people!

As always you're 100% right and everyone that disagrees is racist.

[Bham1982]

Really?

Yes, really.

You made two ridiculous claims. You claimed that BLM wants dead cops, and you claimed that BLM supports violence.

The group was basically born out of the events in Ferguson. So you're saying that never happened?

I have no idea what this means. The fact that an officer in Ferguson killed a black man has nothing to do with your absurd claims re. BLM. They have never advocating killing cops or really any sort of violence.

As always you're 100% right and everyone that disagrees is racist.

No, I'm frequently wrong, but yes, you are most certainly racist. Either that or absurdly ignorant/brainwashed.

You're basically claiming that an organization dedicated to saving black lives is somehow a bizzaroworld KKK, probably to justify your racist worldview, blindly following your orange Fuhrer.

[Johnnny5]

That's not what I said, and I'm not going to continue this discussion here.

[bust]

My heart goes out to the officer and his family. What a shameful and senseless crime.

People way too often conflate "broken windows" policing with "stop and frisk". They are not the same. You can enforce delinquency laws without arbitrarily shaking down black and brown skinned young men over and over again for no reason, except for the fact that they are black and brown skinned young men. Broken windows policing has some merit. The latter absolutely does not.

The idea that BLM advocates violence is a ridiculous trope, like so many others proliferating these days. What a shame some people fall for it. Even more a shame: those who proliferate it. There is shame in spades these days.

[Wesley Mouch]

My heart goes out to the officer and his family. What a shameful and senseless crime.

Hear, hear.

People way too often conflate "broken windows" policing with "stop and frisk". They are not the same. You can enforce delinquency laws without arbitrarily shaking down black and brown skinned young men over and over again for no reason, except for the fact that they are black and brown skinned young men. Broken windows policing has some merit. The latter absolutely does not.

You are quite correct. They are two different ideas.

I will take exception with your distaste for S&F. S&F is unfortunate name. It suggests unwarranted stops. S&F is also a dangerous tool. It does provide opportunities for abuse by bad and lazy officers. I respect concerns that it needs to be used wisely.

Where we differ is that I don't think banning the practice serves society's most vulnerable. Let's say a beat cop is told by ten residents of an apartment building and six nearby business owners that a suspicious white woman is doing drug deals on the building's front steps, is pacing back and forth to the trunk of her car, and slipping something that might look like a long knife into her coat? Should police be able to 'stop and frisk' her? A couple of other local known former drug dealers approach the cops and tell them that this woman has a gun, and has been talking about shooting up the building. What is the right response for us as a society. Do we act in some clear cases, or do we wait?

Let's find a middle path, without tossing out a crucial tool because it has been abused.

The idea that BLM advocates violence is a ridiculous trope, like so many others proliferating these days. What a shame some people fall for it. Even more a shame: those who proliferate it. There is shame in spades these days.

Of course BLM doesn't advocate violence. However they are just as violent as President Trump is racist -- that is if you hear dog whistles everywhere.

BLM affects people's thinking. Dylan Roof was affected by racists demagogues. Words do matter. [[Wow, I sound like a liberal.)

[Bham1982]

Of course BLM doesn't advocate violence. However they are just as violent as President Trump is racist -- that is if you hear dog whistles everywhere.

This is absurd. Trump is very clearly racist, in his words and actions. I mean, he ran a white nationalist campaign, where his kickoff speech was mostly about calling Mexicans and foreigners "rapists and murderers". He is only President because of his explicitly racist message. He has been well-known as a racist since the 70's, when he was found liable by the feds for a laundry list of discriminatory housing and employment practices.

BLM is not remotely violent, and in fact they actively campaign against violence.

[noise]

This is absurd. Trump is very clearly racist, in his words and actions. I mean, he ran a white nationalist campaign, where his kickoff speech was mostly about calling Mexicans and foreigners "rapists and murderers". He is only President because of his explicitly racist message. He has been well-known as a racist since the 70's, when he was found liable by the feds for a laundry list of discriminatory housing and employment practices.

BLM is not remotely violent, and in fact they actively campaign against violence.

I think an argument counter to this comes only from a place of emotion and ignorance. It certainly does not come from an intellectual or understanding place.

[bust]

...I will take exception with your distaste for S&F. S&F is unfortunate name. It suggests unwarranted stops. S&F is also a dangerous tool. It does provide opportunities for abuse by bad and lazy officers. I respect concerns that it needs to be used wisely.

Where we differ is that I don't think banning the practice serves society's most vulnerable. Let's say a beat cop is told by ten residents of an apartment building and six nearby business owners that a suspicious white woman is doing drug deals on the building's front steps, is pacing back and forth to the trunk of her car, and slipping something that might look like a long knife into her coat? Should police be able to 'stop and frisk' her? A couple of other local known former drug dealers approach the cops and tell them that this woman has a gun, and has been talking about shooting up the building. What is the right response for us as a society. Do we act in some clear cases, or do we wait?

Let's find a middle path, without tossing out a crucial tool because it has been abused.

Stop and frisk is not just a problem of terminology. It does not just "suggest" unwarranted stops. Unwarranted stops are precisely how it has played out.

I've presented the evidence before. I will not present it again. But I will correct your misstatements. Even though police tactics are not what this thread is supposed to be about.

No one said police should be banned from stopping someone whom it is reasonable to suspect is guilty of a crime. No one said police should be banned from frisking someone whom it is reasonable to suspect is concealing an illegal weapon. Especially not one who is also threatening violence.

But that's not what stop and frisk looks like. In just one year NYC police made over 685,000 stops. Out of all of them I'm willing to bet the circumstances were similar to your highly improbable example exactly never. Members of the community are not imploring the police to do it. It has been imposed on communities from city hall.

Back to your example, given a menacing white woman it does not follow that police are justified to stop and frisk every white woman they encounter in the neighborhood who vaguely approximates her description, repeatedly and in perpetuity.

That's what stop and frisk looks like in the real world. Except of course the police don't target white women, they target black and brown boys and young men to near exclusion.

Please watch this six minute documentary:



The Scars of Stop-and-Frisk
https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinio...and-frisk.html

Here's an analysis of the subject from a historical perspective:

How A Theory Of Crime And Policing Was Born, And Went Terribly Wrong
http://www.wnyc.org/story/how-a-theo...erribly-wrong/

Here's a report rich in supplementary data for more context:

12 years of data from New York City suggest stop-and-frisk wasn't that effective
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hat-effective/

You seem to reflexively look for opportunities to criticize black lives matter. It was a stretch, but you found another one here. And you're tenacious in your advocacy of broken windows policing and stop and frisk. But this thread is about the murder of a police officer by a coward. Go back and re-read it up to and including your first comment. Was it a good idea to politicize his death?

[Meddle]

My main beef with BLW is their objection to ALM.

My main beef with ALM is that it was adopted as a mantra for police groups.

Police are killing basically anybody who doesn't wear a badge, whether they're even suspected of a crime or not. Andrea Rebello, Misty Holt-Singh and Mary Knowlton are examples. There was another complete innocent in Florida, but I can't find the name right now -- something about a witness or employee at a bank.

[noise]

My main beef with BLW is their objection to ALM.

My main beef with ALM is that it was adopted as a mantra for police groups.

Police are killing basically anybody who doesn't wear a badge, whether they're even suspected of a crime or not. Andrea Rebello, Misty Holt-Singh and Mary Knowlton are examples. There was another complete innocent in Florida, but I can't find the name right now -- something about a witness or employee at a bank.

Well, BLM = All Lives Matter. ALM was a racist reaction to BLM, born out of ignorance.

[Wesley Mouch]

Stop and frisk is not just a problem of terminology. It does not just "suggest" unwarranted stops. Unwarranted stops are precisely how it has played out.

So I think we're talking about two different programs. Of course S&F doesn't require a legal warrant. But it does require a reasonable suspicion based. I expect police to be more proactive than that -- and responsibly so.

You hear advocates against police arguing that S&F is pointless. I hear interviews on NPR with residents of the projects who benefitted and were sorry to see thugs re-take public spaces.

I've presented the evidence before. I will not present it again. But I will correct your misstatements. Even though police tactics are not what this thread is supposed to be about.

No one said police should be banned from stopping someone whom it is reasonable to suspect is guilty of a crime. No one said police should be banned from frisking someone whom it is reasonable to suspect is concealing an illegal weapon. Especially not one who is also threatening violence.

A lot of people suggest that any use of S&F should be banned. We haven't made S&F impossible -- just extremely unlikely except in the most egregious situations.

But that's not what stop and frisk looks like. In just one year NYC police made over 685,000 stops. Out of all of them I'm willing to bet the circumstances were similar to your highly improbable example exactly never. Members of the community are not imploring the police to do it. It has been imposed on communities from city hall.

Depends who you choose to listen to.

Back to your example, given a menacing white woman it does not follow that police are justified to stop and frisk every white woman they encounter in the neighborhood who vaguely approximates her description, repeatedly and in perpetuity.

That's what stop and frisk looks like in the real world. Except of course the police don't target white women, they target black and brown boys and young men to near exclusion.

Your use of the word 'target' tells me that you think there's a 'crime of thought' in the minds of police officers. There's no doubt that most crime victims are youth and communities of color. They deserve our efforts to make safe communities, not to be ignored because there are some heinous police abuses.

You seem to reflexively look for opportunities to criticize black lives matter. It was a stretch, but you found another one here. And you're tenacious in your advocacy of broken windows policing and stop and frisk. But this thread is about the murder of a police officer by a coward. Go back and re-read it up to and including your first comment. Was it a good idea to politicize his death?

Yeah, I do react. A call for solid policing is not politicizing. A call to end hate discrimination against police officers because of prejudice is not off-topic. BLM has fostered a myth that police are killing blacks based on their race. I'm sure it occurs -- but probably as often as my mythical situation. The mindset of the public on this topic is directly related to this crime. The arguments that there's a white occupying forced attacking black youth aren't accurate, and don't help communities of color, IMO.

[Bham1982]

BLM has fostered a myth that police are killing blacks based on their race.

It's not a myth. There is plenty of research indicating that, controlling for all factors, blacks are treated differently by police than non-blacks. Blacks have good reason to be fearful of police, and it's hardly "extreme" to want more equal policing and fewer dead black people.

[Meddle]

Yeah, I do react. A call for solid policing is not politicizing. A call to end hate discrimination against police officers because of prejudice is not off-topic. BLM has fostered a myth that police are killing blacks based on their race. I'm sure it occurs -- but probably as often as my mythical situation. The mindset of the public on this topic is directly related to this crime. The arguments that there's a white occupying forced attacking black youth aren't accurate, and don't help communities of color, IMO.

They will kill anybody that doesn't have a badge. And even a few who do. So called 'friendly fire' incidents are not uncommon.

They've killed citizens who have cell phones, game controllers, even hose nozzles. They don't bother to take the time to investigate. Shoot first, ask no questions.



As to the 'occupying force' notion ----- residency. Make public servants live in the community they're paid by. Far too many live in the 'burbs, commute in, do their patrol then evacuate back to the 'burbs. The only thing missing is the Hueys taking them in and out.

[bust]

Of course S&F doesn't require a legal warrant. But it does require a reasonable suspicion based. I expect police to be more proactive than that -- and responsibly so...

Under the NYC stop and frisk program the police only have to claim the person they stopped made a "furtive glance". And to frisk him it's enough justification to say he had a "bulge in his pocket." Those things are obviously very easy to make up. But according to a report from NYPD's own internal auditors last year more than a quarter of the stop and frisk reports listed no reasonable suspicion at all, not even that.

NYPD Often Fails To Document Reason For Stop-and-Frisk: Report
http://www.wnyc.org/story/nypd-often...-frisk-report/

That happened under De Blasio, who has greatly curtailed the practice. You once called him a "radical ... attacking his own police force".

I don't know where you're writing from and what have been your life experiences but you're really out of touch with how stop and frisk has been implemented on the street. That or you follow the party line and make cynical arguments in its favor. If I were to guess it's the latter: you follow marching orders. Your opinions are never out of step with the Republican agenda.

[Wesley Mouch]

Under the NYC stop and frisk program the police only have to claim the person they stopped made a "furtive glance". And to frisk him it's enough justification to say he had a "bulge in his pocket." Those things are obviously very easy to make up. But according to a report from NYPD's own internal auditors last year more than a quarter of the stop and frisk reports listed no reasonable suspicion at all, not even that.

NYPD Often Fails To Document Reason For Stop-and-Frisk: Report
http://www.wnyc.org/story/nypd-often...-frisk-report/

I agree. Its my understanding that each and every S&F in NYC is now reviewed -- and that the paperwork that must be done is now quite burdensome. If there remain 25% undocumented, then we do have a problem.

Fixing review and management is one thing. Tossing out the baby with the bathwater and leaving NYC's most vulnerable unprotected is bad policy -- if the only problem is that oversight is weak.
[/quote]

That happened under De Blasio, who has greatly curtailed the practice. You once called him a "radical ... attacking his own police force".

Yes, his words are radical to me. I think he has attacked his own force. But I don't see much value in arguing words... I think we agree that crime control in urban neighborhoods is important. We disagree on the best methods. But probably not on the need for good policing. Focusing on police as a problem [[DiBlasio, BLM) detracts from problem solving, IMO.

I don't know where you're writing from and what have been your life experiences but you're really out of touch with how stop and frisk has been implemented on the street. That or you follow the party line and make cynical arguments in its favor. If I were to guess it's the latter: you follow marching orders. Your opinions are never out of step with the Republican agenda.

I personally have been S&F's by DPD. It was exceedingly uncomfortable, and I was frightened for my life. I'm sure given the exceedingly bad history of police treatment of minorities, that a Black or Arabic has an even worse fears -- for good reason.

Maybe I am out-of-touch with how S&F is implemented in practice. If its being badly implemented -- FIX IT. Don't prevent good and effective ideas from being used in the field because they're being badly implemented. FIX THEM.

Give DiBlasio credit. I think he's made efforts to better implement S&F in NYC. Don't agree with all the details, but I think he's trying.

As to my marching orders -- I don't think I'm a very good Republican. I favor social safety net. Am open to basic guaranteed income [[or improved EITC). I'm in favor of access to abortion. I thought the banks should have been allowed to fail completely. I'm saddened that no one from Wall Street went to jail. I believe in most gay rights -- but would have preferred to see it labelled 'civil union' as a compromise. Its a mistake to make too many assumptions about someone's politics.

[bust]

Broken windows policing is an important topic. It encompasses related topics of public safety, racial discrimination, and our constitutional rights. There have been some good discussions on this topic on this board.

Just thought I'd try to tie them together. Besides on this thread, we've discussed it here and here:

2016 Number of Homicides in Detroit: 302
U-M Professor: War on Crime Fueled Detroit's Decline