Daily show blocked but better copy http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ufqeuz/race-off

*backup= with blocked Daily Show embed, but better copy

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by eric3579.

*doublepromote @quality

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 5:11am PDT - doublepromote requested by bareboards2.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by bareboards2.

so many cheap shots taken in this segment, Stewart needs to re-arm

'unarmed man shot by cop' does not tell the full story at all

also, as for cops responding to protests, Stewart left out all of the rioting, looting and burning of private businesses

typical funny propaganda, Joe Goebbels would be proud

@lantern53
did you just compare a famous nazi warmongering propagandist (who got his playbook from an american *edward bernaise*) to a political satirist?

a political satirist who is skewering actual so-called "journalists"?

jon stewart is NOT a journalist and this segment is not about reporting on ferguson but rather pointing to the absurdity of some news outlets and how THEY propagandize.

nobody knows for certain the details of what went down,mainly in part to "news" outlets such as the daily show is revealing to be muppets rather than journalists but ALSO how the police department is handling the situation.

the news outlets are also ignoring the under lying reasons why there was rioting and looting.

or do you actually believe that people in this community just decided to blow up businesses and take to the streets.as if it were inherent to their nature and that rioting is fun!
yaaay rioting! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEE!

but maybe...
juuuust maybe.
there had been an ongoing persecution brought on by years of flagrant abuse of authority and a disproportionate focus on this poor community?
think that could be possible?
not only is it possible but probable,because thats exactly what many of the residents have actually said.

a few decades of bad policing will have that effect on people.

who is the blame?
do we blame the residents?who after years of police stepping on their necks resorts to violence?
well,they do hold some responsibility.though we may understand,we cannot condone.

or do we blame the police?

well,several weeks ago you made the argument that it was actually those in command that set the tone for the entire force.

that was a good argument.
i agree with that argument.
being former military i understand the chain of command and how vital it is to a working and successful force that wields immense power.

so here is my basic problem with your commentary:
you chastise stewart for ignoring the violence,rioting and protesting,while at the VERY SAME TIME ignore the REASONS why that that violence erupted.

you appear to be very vocal in your support of the police,ANY police,which commendable...even noble,but you,yourself,noted that those in command could be corrupt,vicious and incompetent.

so my question is this:
why would you defend those cops?

Because I have no reason to believe they are corrupt. The action of the cop, to me, appears to be self-defense, not an act of corruption.

Burning down businesses where you live doesn't do anyone any good, does it? But to you it's perfectly reasonable, is that right? It's a natural act brought on by oppression.

Did all of the black people riot? No, seems to me only the young ones, mostly male. That is on them. Don't blame the cops. If you don't like how the cops police, then vote in your own representatives, fire the chief, protest at the police department, be vocal at the town council...but leave your molotov cocktails at home.

How about some responsible behavior?

Didn't learn his lesson from the last sift I see

If you have no reason to believe they may be corrupt, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
For the action of the cop to be self defense, you must take his word as truth and ignore the witnesses (granted, they have not been consistent) and you must accept that it's the right method to attempt to manhandle a person for jaywalking (the reason for the stop in the first place) and that it's the right thing to do to escalate a confrontation from a fist fight directly to firearms, ignoring the other options made available like pepper spray, tasers, batons, and backup. If the officer was truly in fear, he only needed to shut and lock his door to be safe, how is that hard?

Your reading comprehension is terrible. He said clearly that it's NOT reasonable or condonable, but is understandable as a misguided attempt to 'lash out' at the system that keeps you down.

I saw lots of white people on TV rioting and looting too, but they don't count because they don't further your (seemingly racist) theories, right?

It seems you've ignored the majority of the protests that have been responsible, civil, and peaceful in favor of focusing on the minority of trouble makers (that insert themselves into ANY mass protest these days) and blame their actions on the entire community (while knowing that most of the rioters are not from the community but have traveled there in order to riot and loot).

As the one's in 'charge', is it not the police that have the responsibility to display 'responsible behavior'? I thought it was your position that behavior works on a trickle down system, where the behavior of the top is emulated all the way down...does that not make this the police chief's fault?

Will you admit that he at least made a very good point about Al Sharpton and black leaders holding a meeting in Chicago about black on black crime. How that might be important and completely counter to watch Fox is reporting on. I think it makes a very good point that there are serious issues that are trying to be addressed and Fox won't even do a cursory search online to see what is being done. They just spout whatever they want.

From the facts at hand and I realize that not all the facts are in, the kid got shot and it was justified.

Now from yesterday there was released an audio of what most likely appears to be approx 10 shots fired. This could be a key piece of evidence to indicate that the kid was wrongly shot.

WE don't know all what happened nor do WE have all the facts.

But John and all the other leftist are quick to pile on this mythical epidemic of White cop VS Black man . As if it is an epidemic, which it is not.

Here's the insight I got yesterday while talking to someone about Michael Brown's execution.....

EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN AMERICA OPERATES UNDER "STAND YOUR GROUND" MENTALITY.

Any whiff of feeling threatened, no matter how incredibly stupid and racist, and they will get off because they were "defending" themselves. Look at what happens in Florida under specific Stand Your Ground statutes -- plenty of unarmed people are being murdered and the shooters are getting off scot free. And so do police officers. ALL THE TIME.

As for the audio of the shots fired, I fear it actually supports the cop's story, as heinous as it still is.

It appears there were a series of quick shots, a pause, then four more shots at a measured rate.

Michael was shot six times from the front.

The cops have stated that the police officer fired several shots at Michael and his friend as they ran away. None struck either of them -- no bullets entered from the back. (And luckily no bystanders were shot. Bullets travel far!!!)

Which means that Michael stopped, turned and was shot. There was a pause, at which time Michael could have "charged", hence the more measured firing.

Was the cop in danger? Were there other things he could have done? Could he have shot at his leg and dropped him? No. Yes. Yes.

But see my post above.

Fucking Stand Your Ground fucking paranoid irresponsible fear mongering bullshit that is used to exonerate racist and/or stupid actions.

Pisses me off. Can you tell?

You guys playing the race card again. If I disagree with something a black person does, I'm a racist. Wow, that's getting old.

The witnesses I have heard said the decedent charged the cop. It only takes about 2 seconds to fire 6 shots.

The decedent demonstrated he was willing to take the cop's gun, and that is something a cop can't tolerate.

A cop has a job to do, so he can't just sit back and do nothing, because the next cop to come along has the same job to do, and it's not right to lay it off on the next guy. That's called responsibility.

Of course, you progressives automatically think cops are wrong. Funny, since cops are members of 'the system', the gov't.

But I understand how easy it is to just monday morning quarterback and say 'the cop should have done this, he should have done that'.

blah blah blah

@lantern53

learn to read and stop injecting your own bias on the comments towards you my friend.

nobody said you were racist (not on this thread anyways) they said you "seemed",which is to say 'appeared" "your intent may possibly be".

i have not seen anybody on this thread state with conviction that the cop was in the wrong.in fact i am seeing most here postulate the exact opposite i.e:the cop may just have been in the right.

what i was attempting to put forth was that this may be a systematic flaw and not just one individual incident.the "US vs THEM" is a technique that works particularly well with most people and even more so with police (at least the ones i have spoken with).this polemic can be evidenced in this very thread."you lefties".."you progressives" .

all labels meant to divide people.
and they are meaningless.

but it easier to judge someone when they have been demonized.

The ending of that was fucking brilliant. I wanted to stand up and applaud.

The witnesses? The only witness that vaguely supports this that I've seen is an anonymous witness cited in the Daily Caller. Not credible journalism even by USA standards. The known witnesses are Dorian Johnson (altercation at the car, shooting as he ran away, he got hit, turned around put his hands up and stumbled forwards before the shooting began again), James McKnight (more or less the same as Johnson), Michael Brady (altercation at car, shooting, then as Brown was halfway towards falling to the ground more shots), Piaget Crenshaw (shots fired as he ran away with hands up, turned with hands up, more firing). Those accounts aren't too far from the Police account really. Is it reasonable to conclude deadly force is required in the timeframe of the shooting? What does police protocol say? One step? Two? When can you be sure it's not charging but belligerence, drunkenness, or injury? I'm sure America are the experts in these cases by now and have explicit and clear guidelines for semi-autonomous itinerant armed police officers and when they can and cannot open fire. Surely it isn't just 'if you harbour any fear, kill or otherwise incapacitate the citizen you are trying to apprehend'?

There is also TheePharoah who tweeted it from the scene and said ' JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG....no reason! He was running!', but you know, its not clear he can provide further useful information assuming he was interviewed.

Do you hear yourself? " If I disagree with something a BLACK person does, how come I'm a racist"

Maybe because you keep referring to them as black as a negative.

Maybe they're just people and not black people. You say we're playing the race card, but we're not the one making sweeping generalizations about how the looters were young black males, you did that.

Not to mention the desperate need by you to conflate the shooting and the looting as a single event. The shooting and the looting are two separate events, sure one is happening because of the other but they are still separate events. The inference by the racists is that apparently only black people loot and never other people and we know this to not be true.

You're picking and choosing which evidence you believe to be reliable and if what you claim is true and you're a cop so you're anything but unbiased. Hell even Bob of all people admitted that not all the facts are in and that some of the evidence doesn't look favorable for the shooter. If even Bob can admit it, why can't you? Because you're biased that's why. It's standard "I want it to be true, therefore it is true" mentality.

All the "leftists" (another term used with negative connotations) are saying is that racism exists and is still alive and well. Even if this shooting turns out to not be racially motivated. It still highlights the underlying problem. People don't trust cops and as you are so fond of saying, that trust and respect has to be earned, not mandated. I know you wouldn't begrudge the population taking possibly violent measures against an organization that is perceived to be tyrannical, now would you. Because otherwise you'd be a hypocrite and we wouldn't want that now would we.

But hey, don't take my word for it, just keep hurling insults and sweeping generalizations when people don't agree with you and you get mad and go into sour grapes mode and change your argument and use other distractions. It's worked out for you so well so far.

Holder sent 50 FBI agents down there. What did they find? Nothing.

Personally, I'm done putting up with the trolls...all two of them now. I see not the slightest reason to listen to either one anymore, as I've never once seen them add anything of value to a conversation. Insults, logical fallacies, and racial slurs...but nothing of value.

I'll be treating them just like I do Fox News, and Sarah Palin. Let them starve for attention.

Just you and me now, Bob. They've given up. We're racist trolls.

You know what they say...when you call names, you've lost the argument.

*controversy *news

Adding video to channels (Controversy, News) - requested by MrFisk.

If you don't like the video, just downvote it.

And if you honestly believe every officer of the law in the U.S. is incapable of falsehood until it's surreptitiously recorded (and even afterward, it's dubious), then I just can't trust your decision making. It has nothing to do with your intelligence, education, wealth, job title, family, or criminal record. Instead, it's your gullibility to argue a job title outweighs human err.

Furthermore, you incited the Nazi fallacy in your original statement. In fact, Hitler had no reason to believe the S.S. were corrupt. The actions of the S.S., to Hitler, appeared to be self-defense, not an act of corruption.

It's starting to make sense now.

Yeah pretty much. We're doing exactly what Jon Stewart does really, only Jon doesn't have to breathe life into Hannity or Fox for them to have watchers. We our the readers of the comments that hold obvious falsehoods and biases within them. We can choose to ignore them and their readership goes away, period.

I didn't know the investigation and the trial was already over. Guess that's it then.

You do realize that even if this situation was properly officiated by the police, that that is still a problem with people? I also hope you realize that, again if this situation is proper that still Black people aren't treated properly in America.

I understand that there are always these controversial situations which everyone jumps on. They try to pick teams and make sure they win as best as they can, but this isn't about winners and losers. This is a society, and it has rungs, those at the bottom tend to be disproportionately Black and they get abused by those higher up. That is hardly debatable, and we have to decide if it is tolerable.

Unsurprisingly those at the bottom rung have decided it is not tolerable, which happens occasionally in history. It's a constant struggle and many gains about been made. I want to be on the side of history that espouses equality, that is ahead of the curve. I find it noble to drag humanity, kicking and screaming sometimes into a future of further enlightenment.

I'm not going to name people as racists or not-racists. It seems to me though a choice must be made by the individual. If this isn't tolerable to you than you can stand up. If it does not concern you then you need not inject your voice. It's not an attack on you, your world or your advantages. It's a struggle for those who see a problem, they will keep going. Those who stand with the status quo will not be remembered as noble people, they become the false prophets of history.

Well, he can't, cos he's just a probie that showed up to troll...

His profile...

Videos
Sifted (0)
Unsifted (0)
Personal Queue (0)

Member for 4 years... Speaks volumes. Don't feed the troll.

I don't think she/he's trolling - i think she/he's an idiot. It reminds me of that picture i see around - "hurrr durrr i'm a idiot!" "go away idiot" "joke's on them, it was all a ruse!" ... In other words, if it looks and sounds like an idiot then it's an idiot, even if it's intentionally being one.

The only possible explanation is that she/he is some kind of innovative anti-troll that states the best possible argument for the worst possible opinion - worst as rated on a scale of how damaging and unfair it is to society; religion, the environment, equality - all videos that she/he has been spouting the most abominable shite about within the last week alone! She/He sets up the perfect bad argument for someone to come along and blow it up point by point, all of which she/he pointedly ignores. Everyone who reads past comes to understand the argument, see that one side makes sense and is rational, and comes to the correct conclusion.

In which case i hope you'll all join me in a great big thanks for her/his contributions to highlighting the plight of the boot-trodden minorities. You never fail to set up the perfect knock down for anyone who has any kind of reasoned understanding of anything you post about. Back in the 00s here in England we all thought Dom Joly and Sascha Baron Cohen were crazy fools, but they were 10 years ahead of their time. And now Zach Galifianakis is standing on the shoulders of giants. Great work, @lantern53.

Yawn more 'Lantern fuck face' posts, so tired of his predictable Republicunt talking points.

Sadly "don't feed the trolls" just does not work in reality. Sure, if you could convince EVERYONE to ignore a troll, it would probably work. But that NEVER happens. There is always someone who takes the bite.

Therefore, if that rule never works, then instead of ignoring a troll, I say attack the troll. go after them. confront them any time they spout nonsense.

Like you said, he's been here for four years and if you look at his comment history, it's just negative, derogatory, non-constructive posts.

Him and bob both have been warned by staff for racist comments. I'm at the point now where I don't blame Bobtern anymore...Bobtern is Bobtern. We're not going to change them. My problem is with the staff who have allowed them to stay and fester. They can actually do something about this.

but they don't.

namecalling

you lost

I don't believe that cops can't make mistakes or that some cops don't intentionally do bad things. However, in this case, the cops actions appeared to be justified.

The rioter's actions appear to not be justified. It is not that complicated.

My brother said something very interesting last night. He said he got it from Thomas Sowell. He said, if the white people in this country ever stop caring anything about black people, there's going to be a huge wake-up call. They'll be on their own. Probably would be a good thing, then they can learn to rely on themselves.

Also, did I miss the part in the videosift charter where it states that one must post videos to make comments?

Do all of your family talk a lot of empty meaningless crap?

This very vague comment could be applied to literally every arbitrarily selected set of a group - both you and i would be seriously fucked if everyone "stopped caring" about us as we'd have to survive off foraged and grown food/drink and self-built shelter in non-private wild areas. Every day would be a constant struggle to shelter, heat and feed ourselves. That's why we have society where people work with other people for a greater level of overall comfort. Did i really have to explain any of that? (Now imagine you don't get the same share of the overall produce of the society you're in because you've got different coloured hair..... just nevermind)

I love how unspecific the promise of the threat is. There's going to be .... a wake-up call. There's going to be some serious alarm bells people, so just ... just watch out, that's all i'm saying. Cos when this wake-up call happens, everyone will then be awoken, and there's no going back to bed, no lie-ins. But it'll only happen when people in the country "stop caring" about black people - as opposed to every other day when black people are a primary care concern for everyone. Let me point out the obvious that they are only different in their skin colour, they don't radiate psychic concern-potential; you can care about them as much or as little as every other white person you know... unless you're racist.

Can't stop playing that 'racist' card, lol

I'm assuming your brother has never read anything from any other black authors on the subject of black society in America. Just the one who already agrees with his viewpoint.

I honestly don't know what to say. You have been inundated with information yet you do not look at that, only what you can attack or what you think causes a video or argument to fall apart because one thread is out. Granted you can play the victim, many people on here do exactly it is you are doing and with just a little thought to what they say.

However as I've said before it's a personal decision that must be made. You need to personally look at what you will investigate and spend your time on. If you do, you can present a factual argument that is informed and not dismissive. If not than there isn't a reason not to ignore you. You're just another voice in the cauldron, indistinguishable from those that are opposite but just as flippant.

I got to give you credit for not calling me a 'fuckface'.

but you know what they say...when you 'assume' you make an ass out of u and me.

My brother is quite well read, everything from medieval war tactics to the rules of cricket.

He used to live in a predominately black area of town. When they parked their cars below his window with music thumping to rattle the spleen, he would scream at them to knock it off...they responded to that! You have to talk to people in a way they can understand.

Like the lady at Fox said...a terrorist doesn't understand anything but a bullet to the head.

Let me guess....you don't even see how racist that is.

Does not a turd, by any other name, smell as foul? What other word for 'racist' would you prefer?
Also, I believe it's YOU that's playing the racist cards, others are simply stating 'those cards are racist'. There's a difference. LOL indeed!

If not for your response I would've thought you had me on ignore. You still sort of do in a way, you didn't address anything I've said in any of my posts.

I would call you a 'fuckface' if it made absolutely any difference, but then you'd just not read anything else I wrote.

Please respond to any of my numerous posts or this isn't a conversation, it's a monologue you're having in your own head.

There is a reason to listen....sadly their viewpoint is not theirs alone, and to understand the position of a large portion of the populace, you have to listen to them (even when they are completely wrong).
Know yourself and know others and you will not lose in 1000 battles. (to paraphrase Master Sun Tzu)

You stop being a fucking racist, we'll stop calling you one.

That's not a reason to listen...once you've heard enough that it's clear what their position is. They're simply against anything that changes the status quo of the mythical "good old days" that only exists in the RWNJ echo chamber. Once that is clear, and they have made it obvious that they are not in the slightest interested in considering anything outside of that viewpoint, any value in listening is gone.

That point has been long past in these cases. It's as simple as that.

...which further shows the hypocrisy of @lantern53

We see it all the time, he says he knows what a strawman is, what an anecdote is, yet as others have called him out on, He spouts strawmans, he spouts anecdotes, he does it consistently.

He whines about personal responsibility, but is the first one to cry foul, to claim victimhood, to pretend that he so oppressed. He's STILL whining about something I teased him about MONTHS ago. And news flash Lantern, I never did directly call you a homosexual (not the derogatory term "homo") I called you out on your strange "fantasies" (your word, not mine) that you yourself described regarding homosexuals. If you want to internalize that as an insult or an accusation, that's your problem, not mine. And besides, even if I did directly call you a homosexual and you're not, that's not an insult, it may be an incorrect statement, but it's not an insult.

That's your baggage, not mine.

Then there's the hypocrisy of claiming to care so much about manners, then saying that violence would be a good way to make someone have good manners. Do you fucking listen to yourself? The civilized world generally considers violence of ANY kind to be BAD manners...not good. Again, such a hypocrite. The fact that you seem to think differently is rather appalling.

and then his hypocrisy about name calling, just now he claimed that because someone "namecalled" him that he lost the argument, but you really don't have to look through his comment history very hard to find him being quite liberal <gasp!> with the name calling, often being the one instigating it with many ad hominem attacks. Enoch has already called you out about how you spit out the word "leftist" like it's a dirty word. news flash, people don't like being demonized. We may think you're an idiot, but we don't think you're evil, or less than human like you seem to think of us.

I know what you're thinking, "wah! but liberals do it too!!" Sure they do. But again, no one ever claimed that the left was perfect (that would be another strawman). we just claim that our ideas are better than yours and can usually back it up...big difference. And again, as someone who claims liberals are so bad and sub-human, wouldn't you want to NOT act like the bad, filthy liberals? So in either case, the "but they do it too" excuse just never holds any water.

Again, going back to what someone else asked and you never answered. What exactly is your goal in these threads? Again, you look at lantern's comment history and it's just nothing but negative negative derogatory posts. never building anyone up, but always tearing someone down. Yeah, you're right, posting videos is not a requirement to be here. But if all you do IS make comments, then you better fucking believe we're going to judge you on them.

You

Bring

This

On

Yourself.

Think before you type. It's a pretty simple concept.

You people are the racists because you think minorities need your help, they can't make it without you. They must be treated differently. They have to be excused because of (fill in the blank).

I treat them the same I treat everyone else, with respect if that's appropriate, and with restraint or distrust if that is appropriate.

Interesting that you bring up Sowell. I have a way right wing brother in law who wanted a Sowell book for X-mas. I got it for him and read about 2/3's of it before I gave it to him. Anyway, Sowell demonstrates the same flawed arguments that you do. And he also completely contradicts himself through the course of his essays (like you). As pointed out, you state that anyone that resorts to name calling loses the argument and in your very first post, you reference to Jon Stewart acting like a Nazi. Can you not comprehend this contradiction?

I don't believe in you being banned for your opinion. But, I do get a good laugh at how easily you are collectively torn apart time and time again. I also believe that deep down, you know that you are wrong in all of these comments. And admitting you're wrong ruins the utopia you live in where there's no racism, inequality, etc...

They will stay hell bent till every thinking discerning man is cast into the fire pit. But when they show up on conservative blogs I'm sure they get piled on. Its all good. Their shit just rolls off my back. Stupid people are too stupid to know that they are stupid.


I have a question.

What is the standard issued service weapon used?

I wonder about the 9 shots over a 9 second period recorder on audio.
Would the weapon carry 10 rounds be standard?

Or would he need to pause, as on the audio, reload and continue firing?


Troll on.

the fact that you refer to them AS "them" shows that you don't actually treat them the same.

if you actually did treat them the same...you wouldn't actually be here defending yourself against accusations of being racist. You're on the record many times talking about how they're different. most of the looters being black after all. If you treated them the same, you wouldn't have made that distinction as it wouldn't have mattered.

again..you didn't think before you typed did you? It took me all of a minute to deconstruct that brain fart.

I see Bob didn't think too hard before typing either. Dumb people don't know they're dumb??? think about that one long and hard. EDIT: I see @Fairbs beat me to it

Most cops, Bob, carry 9mm semiautos so a standard magazine carries 15 rounds with one in the chamber.

10 rounds over 10 seconds would sound like target shooting and would be highly suspicious

that audio has not been verified

I see how the left loves diversity as long as you agree with them.
If you don't, you're a racist troll or a fuckface.

Yeap

The only problem I have here newtboy is the concept of escalation. You are obviously not in Law, so here is a bit of schooling. Ever wonder why cops use tazers on people who just passively resist (Like holding or bracing to prevent cuffs from being applied?) Or how it "takes" seven cops to "subdue" someone? It's actually practical and less violent. 1-A fun fact is that the longer a confrontation goes on for the further it escalates. By doing nothing you are letting it get further than by doing something. This means that there is a definitive time to stop trying to talk and start acting. 2-Those "escalated" methods are really lessor force than others. The more a body moves the greater the chance someone gets hurt. That means you A-Place someone on the ground as soon as possible, B-Immobilize him as prudently as possible, C-Get him in cuffs.

Don't get me wrong, abuse is abuse. But if you see a cop punching a person's ass to get him to let up on his grip, for example, that's not brutality. If you see a cop curbstomping someone, yeah, that is. Because more movement is involved.

Cops have to be one step more violent than the people they must take into custody. That's a simple fact. That is the use of force continuum. You can probably google it.

But people who have no knowledge of it or think a cop can 'shoot the guy in the hand' will never understand it.

Is this as new development as of this morning? Because what I've read from you is nearly all divisive, inflammatory rhetoric from an 'us VS them' mentality, and you nearly always divide people by race, and then degrade the other people's race. It's so ingrained in you that you don't seem to see it, but you automatically distrust those of color and trust those in blue, if not only those that are white wearing blue.
If that's not right, you certainly write that way.

No. That's simply wrong.
Cops MAY need to use more force than they are met with, they certainly do NOT need to escalate to violence every time they take someone into custody (as your post suggests)...if they did, why didn't they beat up and/or shoot the Governor of Texas?!?
There's a huge range of action they can take between doing nothing and using overwhelming deadly force. Cops that think they should use the maximum amount of force possible, to 'protect themselves' should not be cops, those are cowardly bullies with immunity and guns.
If the proper thing is to use the most force possible, why are cops given pepper spray, tasers, batons, hand to hand combat training, radios, Kevlar gloves, etc. ? In this instance, ANY of those could have been tried before shooting someone retreating, surrendering, and far enough away for any of them to be tried.
From my viewpoint, this was likely more about the cop being pissed he was ignored when he told them to stop than any fear he had of two youths that were leaving the scene, and about them 'respecting his authoratah'. That's not an acceptable reason to shoot a person....even if they're black.
For you, as a cop, to claim you should always be MORE violent than your suspect means YOU are the violent criminal (or at best, an advocate for being violently criminal)...so perhaps a cop needs to come to your home based on an anonymous tip and shoot you in the head?!?...why would you say not?...you're armed and angry and advocating deadly violence!
Cops are supposed to DE-escalate violent situations, not aggravate and escalate them. It's not just sad but frightening to hear you, a self professed long term cop, to say the exact opposite. Once again I'll ask, where are you located. If you are representative of the police there, I truly want to avoid your stomping grounds.
To me, your stance means I should meet officers with deadly force, because if they decide they 'fear' me, they'll use deadly force on me without hesitation, so killing them first is always self defense. I don't think you thought it through to conclusion saying they should always be MORE violent.

All good until that 'escalation' is to deadly methods. Non-deadly force should not be met with deadly force whenever possible. This cop didn't try anything but bullets, at best against fists, at worst against retreating people trying to surrender. To me that's deadly cowardly bullying.

They can't downvote.

you have to actually contribute to the site in order to downvote.

Not true. There are many sifters who contribute to the site and can't downvote.

Not only do i think this is wrong, but i think it is obviously and patently wrong.

It is demonstrable that a confrontation does not necessarily escalate the longer it goes on for. If you've been taught that in training by someone purporting to be an expert then i despair. I almost feel at a loss for where to begin - i have been in thousands of confrontations that de-escalated due to more time passing allowing both parties to explain or understand better, or for the blood to cool down. I've seen thousands of the same types of confrontation happening to other people. It literally happens all the time; misunderstandings get corrected and the situation de-escalates.

I hope that the brief explanation has betrayed what you really meant. Perhaps you were talking about a specific range of situations with a violent individual.

Or perhaps that's the problem and someone has been training law enforcement this falsehood which effectively encourages you to use the most extreme measure you have to end the conflict more quickly and keep it at a safely low level of escalation. And then you end up with mine- and rocket-resistant urban combat vehicles patrolling the streets, teams of camo'd police holding weapons INCORRECTLY in the presence of civilians on your own streets, and the mowing down of unarmed shoplifters...... all because it's more kind that way? I refute that, and before anyone says the most dangerous words ever spoken 'but we've always done it that way', in a discussion about the ineptitude or otherwise of law enforcement you aren't allowed the premise "law enforcement's methods are and always have been the best way to do things." -- Law enforcement, along with politics, should be the most heavily scrutinised and re-scrutinised systems that exist - because of their unique position to affect people.

I do NOT consider the concern for the safety of a police officer to be greater than the concern for the rights of a citizen; i was under the impression that police were the defence line between citizens and criminals, they put their lives on the line to keep society safe and running. Their job is to ensure we can be citizens, and they are paid to uphold the ideals of the society - freedom, respect for the individual and personal security. I genuinely hope they do so safely, but you don't play with feathers unless you're willing to get your arse tickled, as the saying goes. It is very possible to be safe, respectful and understanding all at the same time in the pursuit of law enforcement. If a person does not have the ability to behave that way they should not be in the job in the same way as someone who finds kids irritating and hit-able shouldn't go into childcare.

Just to elaborate on that slightly; by no means am i saying that i'm ok with law enforcement being killed in the line of duty. I'd draw a parallel to firemen - no one would be happy with the death of a fireman trying to stop a fire. But if we ever reached a point where we could be sure that everyone was as safe as possible, but we were still losing one fireman a year.... Well, a certain level of danger is kind of expected - it is the nature of the job, as i've heard soldiers say of dying or killing in the line of duty.

Replaced video embed code with backup #7735 (supplied by member eric3579) - embed replaced by member eric3579.