It's gotten to the point that even the cop who did the shooting doesn't know why he did it.

Shit like this makes it easy to understand why the police have been getting so much "blowback" *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, July 21st, 2016 9:52am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Sweet Zombie Jesus.

Those cops damn well better be convicted of attempted murder. If they aren't, it's going to be totally open season on anyone in blue. What unbelievable murderous fuckers.

Why in the fuck did they pull their guns on them? Black man in public?
There was never a gun, no cop ever saw a gun, no cop saw him move, no cop helped him after he was shot 3 times, instead they handcuffed him for being shot and withheld treatment (in the hope he might bleed to death?). I saw at least 2 men there that did have guns, and they absolutely used them to try to murder another person....why is no one shooting them, if 'man with gun' is a reason to shoot someone, shoot them.

Shoot first, ask questions later. That's the clear unambiguous MO of the cops....if they ever ask questions at all...so that's how people should be responding to cops, (right?)...shoot first, then handcuff them, then let them bleed out on the street.....if they survive, blame them for the shooting and claim self defense, after all, they are armed and clearly dangerous. (Sounds pretty terrible put that way, huh?)
It's at the point where I understand why cops are outright murdering any cop killers and not even trying to arrest them, they know that no jury will convict a black man of cop killing, it's arguably self defense every time. I also totally understand the feelings of the ambushers. Cops have brought this on themselves with their own actions, and complete lack of action prosecuting their own crimes. At this point, it's kill or be killed, so totally understandable to shoot first if a cop shows up.

If they don't take severe action against every cop involved in this instance, there's going to be more cop killings. It's a certainty, and actually appropriate IMO. Self defense is the right of every citizen, not just cops. I have zero sympathy for recently murdered cops, and won't until there's more cops killed than there are unarmed citizens killed by cops.
I would never convict a cop killer in today's climate....and I'm not alone. Cops are begging for a race war, and doing all they can to ensure one starts.

*doublepromote shining a light on the murderous thugs in blue.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, July 21st, 2016 10:19am PDT - doublepromote requested by newtboy.

*quality

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

I've been pretty clear that I think it is important to understand the perspective of the police in these situations.

One could make an argument about how they are justified about having guns drawn, since they are replying to a call concerning someone walking around with a gun, and maybe the truck could be mistaken for a gun.

But, at best, that leaves the cop that shot him with a real weak ass argument: "I mistook something he was holding for a gun. I didn't get close enough to see if it was a gun, despite the standoff being very calm. I also didn't maneuver to a position that gave me a proper shooting lane on the suspect. I then accidently discharged my weapon, and hit an innocent party, who was lying on the ground in an non threatening and submissive manner." Sorry, but if that is the best argument you have, you're pretty much fucked.

Yeah, if that's the best they have, and I think its giving him WAY too much credit, it's absolutely no excuse and he should be prosecuted for 3 attempted murders, and his partner(s) should be prosecuted for accessory to attempted murder if not simple attempted murder for not supplying treatment instantly.

If he couldn't tell it was a truck, he clearly couldn't tell if it was a gun, so shouldn't shoot.
If he couldn't hit the intended target, he shouldn't ever shoot.
If he missed the intended target, a mentally challenged boy playing with a non threatening toy sitting down and not moving, with all 3 shots, he should never be allowed to touch a gun ever again.
But, I don't think they were aiming for the boy, I think they hit exactly who they intended to hit, the prone black man with his empty arms outstretched begging "don't shoot". When asked why he shot the unarmed, prone, surrendered, non threatening caregiver, the cop didn't say "I missed", or "I hit the wrong guy" or "I feared for my life" or "I thought I saw a gun" (not that seeing a gun is a reason to shoot, like they seem to think), he said "I don't know".

Under no circumstance was there a reason to shoot in this instance.
Under no circumstance was there a reason to triple handcuff the unarmed, non threatening man they just shot.
Under no circumstance was there a reason to withhold medical treatment for >15 minutes.
This was an attempted murder, not a mistake.

This is where our views part: I am not ready to ascribe malice to what can be explained by incompetence. I am not willing to do so without something more to go on. I think this sort of sensationalism can be dangerous and polarizing.

There's no doubt that these two cops could have killed the caregiver had they the intent. Even just the cop that fired, had he really wanted to, could have killed the victim, easily. The fact that they did not do so doesn't exonerate them from all wrong doing, but it does stand in the face of your charges of attempted murder.

If three shots were fired, and only one of them hit the victim, why do we assume that he was firing at the caregiver, and not the other fellow? Either way, most shots missed, and we can see the prone man was between the sitting man and the shooting man. Horrible idea to be firing, but to ascribe motive at this point is to get ahead of yourself. Negligence seems more likely.

As for the delay in medical care, there are a lot of assumptions being made it seems. Where was he shot? Was he bleeding profusely? How many of those 15 minutes passed before medics were even on the scene? The cufffing is clearly a bad idea in this case, but also sounds like protocol, which can hardly be maintained constitutes attempted murder.

That is why it is damaging to jump to conclusions early. We can say that the shooting was clearly unjust and unjustified. We can say that the officer clearly acted incompetent in his job, causing significant harm to an innocent. Beyond that you're straying into the mind reading business.

Whatever happened to "do not fire unless fired upon"?

I almost sifted this yesterday, but I get sick of the conversation.

"So lets start one!"

What a fucking disgusting thing to say. Shame on you.

Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes while the victim lay handcuffed bleeding in the street (probably with officers standing on top of him). Medical care was provided while the shootings were still happening in Dallas, so "the scene wasn't secured yet, we couldn't allow medics in safely" falls completely flat as an excuse anymore and won't even be considered by me.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

I think in a situation like this, where the potential shooter (assuming he had a gun and not a toy truck) is sitting in the open, and the police are behind cover, and nobody else is being threatened, "do not fire unless fired upon" really should be the protocol.
I expect it in fact is the protocol in many departments. If it isn't, that's somewhere that pressure should be applied.

If someone had said that, it would be disgusting. Police actions are saying that, not me.
Shame on you for being a liar. You 'quoted' something no one wrote, that's telling a lie.

The only reason this made the news was because there was a video of the event.

Without the video (and therefore pressure from the media) the incident would be forgotten about and never investigated.

Um...wait.
So you're saying that if he wasn't in the open (but was still unarmed and still surrendering) it would be acceptable to kill him?
So you're saying that if the police didn't have "cover" from the unarmed unthreatening seated man/boy and/or his prone, unarmed, non threatening caretaker, it would be acceptable to kill him?
So you're saying that if someone felt threatened (which someone claimed they did, claiming he had a gun) it would be acceptable to kill whomever they are feeling threatened by, no matter what the actual threat level? (wouldn't that make it open season on cops, who make any reasonable black man feel threatened/in fear for their life?)
Are you saying that, had one of them actually HAD a gun, it would automatically be acceptable to kill them? (would that stand if it was a white woman with the gun? Why would it not stand for a man wearing blue?)

More than 'pressure' needs to be applied....the law needs to be applied. Police are not above the law, and have to account for their actions. When those actions are so incredibly unacceptable in so many ways, that accountability needs to include serious prison time or there's no accountability in reality. It's only by pure luck that there weren't two dead victims here....and there was NEVER a reason for ANY firearm to be drawn. If the cops don't see a gun, they should never pull theirs....they could reasonably un-latch their holsters IMO, and even put their hand on it, but not ever pull it until someone else brandishes theirs, and never shoot until someone else shoots first....IMO. They have a duty to be MORE responsible than the average citizen, not less.

Absolutely the officer should be charged. I think it's a huge disservice to everybody that these things are so often dealt with behind closed doors. It breeds contempt and distrust, and it eliminates an important opportunity for the public to understand some of the issues inherent in policing, and it seems to let horrible crimes go largely unaddressed.

But 'triple cuffed' can only mean a daisy chain of cuffs. Nothing else makes any sense, and to do so means that they are making some kind of attempt to accommodate the comfort of the individual during the cuffing. Or do you think it means having 3 sets of hand cuffs individually applied to your wrists? Come on... Doesn't excuse the cuffing of the guy, obviously, but thinking that triple cuffing is some heinous extreme version of cuffing is absurd.

You acknowledge that he had bad aim, and that the majority of shots missed the intended target, whichever target that was. You acknowledge that poor leadership, training, and protocol may have contributed to this outcome, but then you make the leap that because these this incompetency, it must have been intentional. It simply doesn't follow. You might ask them to be held responsible, but it doesn't mean it was the intent.

Saying 'I don't know' in the immediate aftermath of a charged situation where you are just coming to realize you made a huge mistake and nearly killed an innocent seems reasonable. It does not mean 'I meant to kill you and missed." It seems to indicate a state of confusion or shock.

I heard absolutely no reference to any time frame, or them preventing medical assistance for more than 15 minutes. I'll just remain agnostic on that angle.

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that intent combined with action was the very core of attempted murder. Murder is all about intent, and attempted is all about action. Attempted manslaughter of some degree seems the most realistic charge to make, but that's up to people that better know the law, and are willing to spend hundreds of hours analyzing the situation.

A huge problem with the system is the way that justice is delayed for so long (assuming it is ever meted out). People want instant karma, immediate redress for wrongs committed. People see something, get heated, and feel that a strong reaction is called for in the moment. The system on the other hand is meant to be about dispassionate discussion of the details of the situation, and can take a long time to play out. This is a big part of why it seems so reprehensible when it's carried out behind closed doors; it looks like it's being swept under the carpet. Similarly this is why media coverage over sensationalizes crime. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyways, I've already typed too much about this I think.

Yes, and that's why I display such contempt and distrust of them.

As I understood it, yes, 3 pairs of cuffs, all 3 attached to his wrists, not a chain of 3 pairs to make him comfortable. I mean, why is he cuffed at all? WTF?!? He's not 500lbs, the only time they use more than one pair in a chain is when the perps hands can't fit behind their back, NEVER for comfort....that's simply not what cuffs are about...EVER.

Yes, this level of 'incompetence' (if that's what it was, and I don't concede that) MUST be intentional. It falls so far below the bar we have set as reasonable, or the standards that police MUST meet through testing, that the only way it could actually be his incompetence rather than intentional negligence is if his supervisor intentionally falsified his test results to keep him on the force....so it's either HIS intentional negligence or his supervisors, but either way, it's intentional. No question in my mind that SOMEONE along the chain of responsibility intentionally allowed this behavior...or this level of incompetence that it's clear would lead to this behavior. There was intentional negligence, no way around it.

It actually seems to indicate a lack of a reason for shooting in the first place to me.

I've seen a dozen videos about this. Numerous times they mentioned an over 15 minute wait before he was seen by medics, during which time they had him handcuffed, bleeding in the street, but not charged with any crime or even suspected of one....why the cuffs?

I think that there is a point where negligence is SO intentional, and the results of that negligence SO foreseeable that it's indirect intent. Cops shoot to kill...period. If they shoot inappropriately, like at someone not posing a threat, that's attempted murder IMO. Period. They intend to kill, it's not accidental. Wounding him was accidental and clearly incompetence, which should be another charge IMO, unsafe discharge of a weapon...at least twice for those times he missed completely....and attempted murder 3 times.

(Side note...how in the hell do you miss from that close with a rifle?!? That, as much as anything else, should have people up in arms, that an officer is so non-proficient with his weapon, but still allowed to carry and use it. WTF?!? I want every officer with a firearm to be reasonably proficient with it...really any person with one, but that's another discussion. Police have to train, and prove proficiency with their weapon....how can this possibly happen without intentional skirting of the standards/rules/law?)

The biggest problem IMO is there's rarely any justice at all, even in those cases where there's incontrovertible evidence of guilt. Instant justice would be nice, but delayed justice would be FAR preferable to no justice, which is the current situation. How many recent killings of unarmed men have gone completely unaddressed? Far too many to count.
The system is set up in such a way that those charged with prosecuting police have personal and professional relationships with them that deny impartiality in almost every case. That is why there's rarely any prosecution, and even when there is (usually because they are pressured into it by public outcry) they blatantly throw the case in the toilet with no consequence....and there's still no justice.

Use of Deadly Force rules vary by state and even by jurisdiction.

This has to stop.

We should have laws about the when the use of deadly force is legal, set at the National level. Also, we can't have Police investigating themselves for violations, or to have their local Jurisdiction handling the trial. The police work with the legal side of things enough that there is a conflict-of-interest... both on a personal and monetary level.

One of two things need to happen for any trust to be restored, either Police need to stop screwing up... or they need to be held accountable for their actions by the courts.

To be clear, the situation appears to be as follows:

The police get a call about a person that may be mental wielding a gun.

Multiple police arrive on scene, where they find a black male and hispanic male.

The hispanic male is clutching something.

The extremely lucid and reasonable sounding black male identifies himself as a caregiver for the hispanic male, clarifies that the hispanic male is autistic, and that the item the hispanic male is carrying is a toy truck.

The black male does all of this, as well as trying to de-escalate the situation, while laying prone on his back with his hands in the air.

The police move in, at some point the black male is shot in the leg.

The police have full control of the situation, both parties are handcuffed.

Medical aid is not provided to the black male for more than 15 minutes. Not even an attempt by an officer to staunch the blood flow.

When the black male asks the officer why he was shot, the officer supposedly responds, "I don't know."

Now, let's examine this closely.

A gunshot wound to the leg could easily have nicked the femoral artery. I doubt the officers were trained to identify this. You can bleed out from seconds to minutes after your femoral artery gets damaged. A reasonable person might take off their shirt and compress the wound or use a belt as a tourniquet.

Before we consider that, really, we should look at one factor. If you choose to be a fireman, a policeman, or be in any other dangerous job, you need to be prepared to face actual danger. Being so scared that you might somehow, maybe, possibly get hurt that you proceed to jumpscare shoot someone who is fucking prone, is not being willing to face danger. It means someone joined the force to be 'better' than the rest of us plebes and not to face an iota of danger.

Also, if it was a white male, laying on his back and doing the same thing, do we expect him to be shot? The likely answer is no. I can't even believe that this was a likely shooting situation. At first, I suspected it might have been one shot that was accidentally discharged. That, while not acceptable, would have been plausible due to nerves. Three shots means three separate trigger pulls, that speaks to intent to shoot.

Luckily this man is going to live. He will likely sue and get a good chunk of money. If he had died, blood would have likely ran in the streets in Florida because one cop got scared that he 'might' be in danger. As far as that cop? He might lose his job briefly. Cop unions will do their best to get him back his job and will likely succeed. Let's be real about the possible ramifications of him going before a grand jury though. Even if he does, he will walk because the prosecutor will throw the case.

They have now publicly said that the officer was trying to shoot the autistic man, claiming he feared for the prone caregiver's safety from the truck the autistic man had....so....he clearly, even with his scope, could not identify a gun, was told repeatedly by the man he assumed was in danger that there was no gun, and told exactly what the object was in the autistic man's hand and clearly why he wouldn't respond to commands, and he decided to ignore ALL that information and 3 times shot to kill the non-threatening autistic man....lucky for us all he's a terrible shot and instead merely nearly killed a prone, calm, unarmed caregiver that was the only one trying to de-escalate the deadly incident and not the seated, calm, autistic man, or there would almost certainly be riots and shootings happening tonight.

The police turned this minor 'R-U-N-N-O-F-T' by an autistic man into another near deadly public incident with their continuing over reactions and cowardly, all too quick to kill mentality and actions.

...and what happened to the other 2 shots flying through that neighborhood?

Oh, my apologies.

Sorry. Its just... heh... when you wrote "...and actually appropriate IMO" about the killing of cops I somehow thought you were sort of condoning killing cops. Or like, when you said "I have zero sympathy for recently murdered cops" I thought you were dehumanising them, like, just a lil bit. So, you know, I suppose I sort of jumped to this conclusion that you're a bit twisted.

Do you honestly think that more dead cops fixes this? It's kind of a cliche, but ever heard of the "cycle of violence"? You know, "hate begets hate" kind of thing?

In regards to this video...honestly I've no idea. I don't believe that he intended to shoot him or that it was premeditated...but then the level of incompetence required to pull this off without malice is equally unbelievable. I can only speculate that they cuffed him, even after it should have been easily apparent to them they had really badly fucked up, to treat him consistently so that they could later claim they'd acted in self defence.

I accept your appology. ;-)

I understand. I was not condoning it, I was decrying a situation where that is a reasonable response in self defense. I do not condone, nor do I wish for cops being shot/killed any more than I condone or wish for them to kill others...which is not at all, or barring that, only when absolutely necessary to save lives.

Not having sympathy for a group's pain is not the same thing as advocating more pain infliction. I understand the misunderstanding, I'm often unclear. I am not sympathetic for the losses of a group that causes 30 times the killings they receive....but I want them to kill fewer, not for more of them to be killed.

Yes, and no. You could say I 'dehumanize' them, but really I humanize them. Dehumanizing them would be elevating their position IMO...I have a terrible estimation of humanity, so dehumanizing someone is being nice. ;-)

No, I'm a LOT twisted. ;-)

Again, no I don't think more dead cops fixes anything....but I do see it as a likely outcome of this behavior....and understandable. If you honestly believe any member of a particular group is likely to attack and kill you without provocation, with recent evidence provided daily to reinforce that belief, any reasonable person would act in self defense.

As it turns out, according to his superior, you are correct....he intended to kill the autistic man. That makes the triple handcuffing even more curious, to put it mildly. They now admit he was NEVER a suspect, but have not offered any reasoning behind handcuffing him or not offering any medical attention for an unreasonable time.

Just so I'm clear, had you used '....' instead of "....." to paraphrase what you thought I was saying, I would not have taken offence at the misunderstanding. I only got upset because using quotation marks indicated I said exactly what you mistakenly thought I meant.

I always have a tendency to think "let's not be hasty" when considering stuff like this. There's always (at least) two sides to every story.

For example, with Philando Castile (man shot in the car):
He *did* have a gun in the car.
His girlfriend said that he told the officer about it and did not do anything threatening at all, but there is/was at least *some* potential that the cops would tell a different story.
The video of the event didn't show how things escalated, so we have to figure it out based on the reports of two potentially biased reports -- the girlfriend/family and the police.

Honestly, that was enough to look quite bad for the police, BUT my "don't be hasty" tendencies were still in play.


And now, we've got this. Like @newtboy has been saying, I just can't fathom the level of incompetence required to make this an "oops" situation. If they were trying to shoot the autistic man and missed and hit Kinsey by mistake ... that's fucked up.

A) If they were trying to "protect" Kinsey, how about listening to him? Did he sound nervous, like he needed protecting? NO. He calmly explained the entire situation, and was obviously NOT afraid of the autistic guy doing him any harm. And this time, they've got a lot of the lead-up on video, so we can actually hear him explain the situation. Any cop (or anyone) with 2 brain cells to rub together would holster their firearm if they listened to his explanation. Maybe they would stay behind cover and let Kinsey either talk the autistic guy into dropping the toy truck in his hand or let him get up and show them clearly that it was not a weapon (since they were responding to a report about someone possibly having a gun), but there's clearly no need to keep the guns aimed on either of them -- and Kinsey told them as much.

B) If they were trying to "protect" him, then why did they cuff him? With 3 sets of cuffs, apparently. After shooting, once they approached and figured out that there was no weapon, any decent human being would jump into action to try to mitigate the fallout of their dumbass mistake. Don't cuff the guy you "accidentally" shot -- call for an ambulance, try to stop the bleeding, etc.


For fucks sake, if that is the story the police are coming up with to explain / defend (hah!) their actions, it is just utterly pathetic. Charge the shooter and the entire police department with something criminal, and throw the law book at every single one of them. My normally strong "let's not be hasty" impulse is looking at this entire mess with a double /facepalm.

Very glad that Mr. Kinsey is expected to fully recover. Maybe the silver lining beyond his survival will be that an event this blatant almost has to force us to acknowledge that there is a serious problem with how our police are operating.

When you really think about it, this is insane. I've read all the discussion and everyone seems to agree that there is no justification possible. There's not even room for confusion or panic or any irrational emotion here.

In my opinion, anyone deciding to shoot on the basis of the conversation that took place was doing so deliberately, knowing that it was not legal or appropriate.

So did he do this in retaliation to the attack on police, or would he have done this anyway?

And was the man left bleeding on the ground for fifteen minutes in the hope that he would die? And therefore leave no mentally sound witnesses available for the hearing - they did not know of the recording at the time?

Once a person is in your custody, their life is in your care. You have a duty to protect them and provide them with appropriate assistance. It should be the number one priority of any person present, once the subject(s) have been controlled, to offer immediate medical assistance regardless of their prior behaviour.

Could you imagine being the person with blood pouring from your leg, not allowed to stand up, stood over by three people walking around and radioing around ignoring your cries of pain and/or cries for help? You have no idea if you're going to bleed out, you only know that these people are refusing to help as you lie there possibly dying.

Think of that for a minute. They didn't know the extent of the damage..... they stood impassive as a man potentially died in front of them.

Even scarier? How many times has this happened in the past?

Unless clear action is taken by authorities or government, this is a time bomb waiting to go off. You can't have state sponsored ethnic cleansing without expecting a backlash - you can't expect a people to allow themselves to be killed.

What I think newtboy is saying is that, at some point, this turns into a justified resistance to an oppressive and violent regime... and describing them as thugs or anarchists becomes state propaganda. And who is anyone to decide when that time has come but those who have most to fear? Let's hope there is still time to fix this problem without further violence.

I don't know why it only just occurred to me to look this up, but I was astonished to learn that for the most part the US doesn't seem to allow private prosecutions.

I mean, this is an important right; has it been casually abolished without any outcry?

Is there really no recourse except to meaningless civil suits in cases where public officials refuse to prosecute crimes?

UK law is hardly ideal, but where I come from at least you don't just have to cross your fingers and hope the guy who tried to murder you will be indicted.

Yes....that.

If I were black, I would certainly feel that the police are people to fear and avoid at all costs, not there to protect or serve me. It's incontrovertible that there is NOTHING a black man can do to be safe. There is no level of surrender, clear lack of arms, absolute lack of movement, or ANYTHING they can do to ensure they won't be 'mistaken' for a perpetrator and shot....usually shot dead. It's also clear and incontrovertible that, even when they've done absolutely nothing wrong, and the police agree they've done nothing wrong and they are in no way threatening, the police will still shoot them...and then not give them medical attention, in fact they will handcuff them and try to think of a charge they can make up to excuse their inexcusable deadly actions.
When it's a life or death situation, civilized behavior and respect for authority hardly outweigh a drive for self preservation....it does one no good to have been civilized if that causes one's death. It's for that reason that I say that I would never convict a black man of murdering a police officer...it's reasonable to think it would be self defense under any circumstance just because it was a black man and a police man, just as much as if it was an armed Klansman. They should not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves, they don't have equipment or training to withstand an attack and respond, their only option is to shoot first if they want a chance to live, unlike police.
Clearly, that's not the situation in every instance, and not all cops are killers, but enough are that it's reasonable for a black man to assume any random officer may well act murderously, and so reasonable to protect one's self from them pre-emptively. That is a horrendous situation, but one I put squarely on the doorstep of the police, and it's up to them to change that perception with actions, not excuses and deflections. They have failed miserably thus far, which is why I have little sympathy for their recent losses. If you pick a fist fight and lose a tooth in the fight, that's YOUR fault....the same reasoning goes for gunfights, IMO.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Let's get this straight. There's clearly a huge problem with racism in the police in the US. It's probably not even a conscious thing on the part of the officers. Study after study has shown that even other black people are more likely to fire on a black suspect than a white one.

The problem is larger than the police, it's cultural. I read a great quote the other day:

When a black man is killed, the media publishes his criminal record. When a white girl is raped, the media publishes her rapist's swim times.

The culture in the US needs to change. Unfortunately, it's heading in the wrong direction right now, as anyone who saw Trump's acceptance speech can attest to.

BUT ...

Treating all cops as killers and racists is no better than treating all black people as criminals. The cops that do this should face the full weight of the law, as should anyone within any ethnic group committing crime (particularly violent crime).

But tarring an entire group because of the actions of it's worst members is the exact same logic that racists use.

BUT.....
Average black men do not undergo racial sensitivity training to dissuade them from those subconscious and conscious biases....police do....and are PAID in part to not hold biases.

So lets get this straight...you admit there is a CLEAR, HUGE racism problem that permeates the police department, and all (or near enough to all to say "all") officers suffer from it, but you go on to say it's not acceptable to treat them like they're racists?!? I'll just say I disagree. They have consistently shown racist tendencies, and a willingness to stand behind those that act on them. Until that changes, I think it's acceptable to assume that, baring evidence to the contrary, they will not treat a black 'suspect' fairly...up to and including killing them for nothing.

Turnabout is fair play. I agree, it's not the best, most civil, or even productive way to see it, but when your option is 1)give each officer the benefit of a doubt that he/she might be that 2% completely non racist officer with the penalty of being wrong being possible death, or 2)assume the officer is racist and protect yourself as best as you're able, it's 100% understandable if people decide to protect themselves. I do not ADVOCATE people reacting that way, I do accept that some will, and don't judge them for that, in the same way you wish to not pre judge police for their past actions.

It's 100% on the police to rid themselves of this appearance that 98%+- of them ARE racist, as well as the organization as a whole. It's not it's worst members, it's nearly all it's members AND the system that monitors them. If it was 2% that was dealt with harshly when they surfaced, I would agree with you.

I'm largely with @newtboy on this one.

Charles Kinsey provides an excellent and concrete example of someone who thought that there was zero chance that what he was doing would lead to getting shot. He did absolutely nothing wrong, and from what I/we can tell actually handled everything as well as anyone could reasonably hope for. If I was in that situation, I guarantee I wouldn't have had the presence of mind to lay down on my back with my hands straight up and calmly explain what was going on.

So, as a white person who has never been in a situation like that, all I can do is try to put myself in the shoes of how a black person would see this. Here's a guy who acted perfectly -- a standard that I can't imagine holding myself to -- and he still got shot. And the police response is (so far) boilerplate utter bullshit.

I can't really imagine what it would be like to be black in the US, and have direct experiences with this sort of thing (even less extreme examples like profiling traffic stops) on top of WAY too frequent reports of this stuff happening. But I can try, and all I can say is that it seems terrifying.

Push people far enough, and they start pushing back. I think that's what @newtboy is saying. I absolutely do NOT condone violence against police, or painting them with a broad brush and claiming they are ALL racist ... but at some point, I can absolutely understand that there is going to be blowback for this shit that has gone on way too often for way too long.

In order to slow down / prevent / stop that blowback, police need to be working their asses off to change that image. The "blue line" mentality of protecting their own even when they make (massive) mistakes has got to go. Yeah, it is a hard job. Yeah, it means that police should be held to a higher standard of conduct than average Joe citizens. Yeah, it means that police need to accept that they face a certain amount of danger and risk -- danger that will make it hard to be calm, cool, and collected. But that's the job. Protect and serve the people, not themselves or the police department.

Until all the good cops (and there are lots of them, including some friends of mine) get together and make it clear that the actions of these bad cops are utterly unacceptable, things will continue to get worse.

i am just going to add to the opinions and perspectives that @MilkmanDan ,@ChaosEngine ,@dannym3141 and especially @newtboy who i agree with so clearly that i swear we are related.

since many dynamics have already been covered, i.e:police culture,racism,incompetence etc etc.

i shall offer a historical perspective in the ways of the power dynamic.

while this is a power vs powerlessness dynamic dealing with agents of the state,it helps to understand just how we got to this point,and it is NOT the first time we have been here.

see:labor movement of the 30's and the labor strikes,and the response from not only the business community but our own government.

see: the civil rights movement and segregation,and how demagouges used political power to divide by way of racism,and then used police to intimidate,beat and imprison.

there are many MANY examples here in america where the police have been used to suppress and oppress a people or community for less than altruistic reasons,and most certainly not aligning with the ideology we were taught in school the function of police.nevermind the syrupy sweet,idealized picture shoved down our throats since an early age.

so we see on our facebooks,our twitters and/or whatever social media you prefer,that black lives matter...and the counter point,that NO..ALL lives matter.

now this would make sense in a world that never took history into account,or a growing cultural norm of violence and oppression that had been slowly seeping into poor communities (mainly black and latino).

oh wait..
that's right.
social media pundits NEVER fucking consider any of those factors,because just like bill o'reilly,those are pesky nuances and context conflict with their own narrow narrative.

but let us consider them and how they may possibly be a major driving factor in americas current climate.

let us take ferguson as an example,that is a good place to start.
and let us go back to 2008,where we can see the boiling begin to take place in this extremely impoverished community which was already struggling.

the population is a black majority,poor to working poor.home ownership is low,food stamp recipients are high and the future is pretty bleak.

in 2008 ferguson received approximately 18% of it's total fiscal revenue from misdemeanor infractions i.e:traffic,parking,moving violations.small time stuff.basic fines for small infractions.in 2008 that number jumped to 66%.

why?
what happened?
what changed?

well the comptroller of ferguson (and greater st louis),along with HUNDREDS of other smaller municipalities across the country,had bought the rotten fish that wall street was selling in the form of bullshit derivatives.

now wall street and the big banks got their tax payer bailout,but towns like ferguson did not.they lost millions,sometimes billions.this meant pensions were either reduced or outright denied,because there was NO money!

but a town still has to pay police.
fire fighters and school teachers,
clerks and judges,
keep the roads paved and the street lights working.

so what is a local government to do?
can't tax the working class who own homes.you already jacked their property tax to the roof.
can't tax the local business,you already squeeze them as well.
how about those non-property owning people in ferguson?
they need to pay up as well,and let's use the police force to relinquish them of the paltry money they don't have.

to the tune of 66% of all of fergusons revenue.
that is insanity.

so what if you live in ferguson?
chances are you are black,and either poor or working poor.

you make,if you are lucky,20 grand a year and by one man's testimony he paid over 2,000 in traffic tickets in one year.the majority of americans dont see those kind of numbers their entire lifetime.

and what if you began to realize that it was not just you.that almost every person you know or talked to had similar stories.

would you begin to feel a tad bit targeted?

what if the city of ferguson started to become very creative with not only their rules but how they enforced those rules?

what if every year the fines went up?
not remained the same,but actually UP? every year.

what if,as a community people began to actually fear the police? to experience anxiety just by the sight of a patrol car,even though they were not engaging in anything illegal? and who knows...maybe there is some new ordinance on the books that you are unaware of?

would you become paranoid and suspicious of law enforcement?

and then..what if....you started losing friends to cops.people you grew up with being shot in the street,and every time the mayor comes out and calls it a "justifiable killing".

would that make you feel any better?
any less paranoid or anxious?

there was ONE police shooting in ten years and then..as if by magic ..(which is how the media seems to always portray this..shocking news..at 11)..you lose 5 friends in a year.all to cops..all "justifiable".

would you begin to think there was a conspiracy?
targeting you and your neighbors?

i BET you would.
i know i would.

now lets look at the cops.

they are just a tool.
an instrument for the state to uphold the law and write citations for infractions.they dont MAKE the laws,nor the infractions,not even the fines.

they just do what they are told.

and they are told to go into these poor and working poor neighborhoods and write tickets,a LOT of tickets.

do you really think they are unaware of the growing hostility towards them? the looks of disgust,fear and apprehension?

but...this is their job,and they do what they are told.

they see.
they know.
they are aware of the growing hatred towards them,and this makes them anxious..and defensive..and in some horrible,tragic cases...trigger happy.

a natural and normal response to heightened stimuli in the face of great uncertainty.

so they react impulsively and out of fear in a way that ten years ago would have been unheard of.

they think themselves good cops.
they do a good job.
they do what they are told.
and the people hate them for it.
so they respond instinctively and with poor judgement.

we..as citizens,respond with disgust and indignation when a cop abuses his/her authority.we see this as a major moral breach in the citizen/cop relationship,because we feel as agents of the law they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us...and rightly so,but when you put a human being in a tense and dangerous situation,not of their making,they will fail at some point to react correctly and with sound judgement.

they SHOULD be held accountable,but so should the city council members and the mayor and all the local representatives who created this toxic climate in the first place.

the lesson to be learned here is that nothing is a binary situation when people are concerned.

so when black lives matter protestors address people to make them aware of the situation,this is what they are talking about.the police killing are only a last stage manifestation of a situation that began in 2008 on wall street.

and we need to be aware,because right now it is the predominantly black communities,but soon coming to a neighborhood near YOU.

the poor and working poor have become expendable.no longer relevant to the system.which is why police shootings are being handled the way they are.our value is ever increasingly being judged on how well we can feed the system.

until this disparity is addressed there will continue to be police shootings.people will die and there will be no indictments.

because police do what they are told.

it is up to us to make policy makers accountable for their actions,and in doing so address a toxic climate that both the poor,working poor and cops alike have to swim in.

stop forcing cops to write tickets to fund a city that lost it's savings due to fuckhead bankers.

this blood..all of it..is on those bankers hands.