17 yo boy shot by police because he wasn't resisting arrest.

[Lonestar_logic]

She goes with a 20th century model in a 21st century world. This isn't 1967 or 1975. We're living in a completely different world now than we did back then.

Huh? I wasn't even alive then. Lol.

Then why post about that era?

She goes with a 20th century model in a 21st century world. This isn't 1967 or 1975. We're living in a completely different world now than we did back then.

So, what argument do you have against more police training?

First tell us why the current training isn't adequate and what improvements you believe need to be made.

I guess you didn't bother to read the article. It is comparing the way we used to train officers to how we train them now and things we could do differently.

No, it doesn't address how things are different it addresses how it became mandatory and the length of training time increased. There was no details about the specific training that was received.

You were asked specifically what additional training

Notice how when she starts getting her argument destroyed....she all of a sudden "has to go to work"?

Her argument was destroyed the minute she made it and even after she moved the goalpost.

 

[bucs90]

Huh? I wasn't even alive then. Lol.

Then why post about that era?

So, what argument do you have against more police training?

First tell us why the current training isn't adequate and what improvements you believe need to be made.

I guess you didn't bother to read the article. It is comparing the way we used to train officers to how we train them now and things we could do differently.

No, it doesn't address how things are different it addresses how it became mandatory and the length of training time increased. There was no details about the specific training that was received.

You were asked specifically what additional training

Notice how when she starts getting her argument destroyed....she all of a sudden "has to go to work"?

Her argument was destroyed the minute she made it and even after she moved the goalpost.

True. I just jumped in at the end of it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What gets me is ChrisL believes she proposed a solution to stop events like the one in the OP. But she obviously doesn't know what a solution is.

A solution is the solving of a problem and she readily admits it will not be 100 percent effective so therefore it is not a solution because it solves nothing. Events such as th eone illustrated in the OP will continue to happen.

My answer is there is no solution when dealing with irrational people.

The officer was doing his job, whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant, he had a job to do. He was attacked, he had literally a split second to react, He relied on his years of service and training to protect himself. Unfortunately it resulted in the death of the young man. Want to blame someone? Blame the young man that attacked the cop.

 

[sealybobo]

Cop kicks phone out of teen's hand, shoots 7 times - CNN Video

Oh wait, he was.

When you resist police, you increase the chances of getting hurt or ventilated. Body bags will continue to fill as long as thugs keep ignoring this simple truth.

That's right. Submit. Then tell it to the judge. Cops should be treated with the same respect we all give judges. Whatever they say goes.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, unlike all of you old men, I have to get to work now. Have to pay those cops, you know?

You don't pay much with a fry cook salary. I'll mail you a dime and we'll be even.

Actually, I work from home on my computer as a medical transcriptionist, meaning I can POP in here any time between jobs. Save your dime for your funeral.

 

[ChrisL]

So you say they need better training....but have absolutely no clue what it should be. Got it.

She goes with a 20th century model in a 21st century world. This isn't 1967 or 1975. We're living in a completely different world now than we did back then.

So, what argument do you have against more police training?

More training or different training? None at all. The difference is....I know the topic very well and you do not. People who bash the cops had better be able to offer something other than just criticism.

You say they need different training....well....inform us. Otherwise let the professionals deal with it.

The article, quoted above, IS from professionals. Read it and learn.

That article addressed training requirements from the 50s 60s and 70s...and stops at 1987. Nearly 3 decades ago.

Really? Thats your info? You have no clue what you're talking about. My state SC requires a 13 week academy. That's longer than all 5 branches of the military require for basic training. Then they do a 15 week field training program. Oh....and SC is known to have one of the shortest academies in America. NC is 26 weeks for basic academy. 2x longer than all military branch boot camps.

You really wanna discuss this with me? Because I'm going to embarrass you.

You didn't read the article. The article is from 2015, and is gleaning information taken from a meeting between officials in 2008 about how they can better train officers.

 

[ChrisL]

What gets me is ChrisL believes she proposed a solution to stop events like the one in the OP. But she obviously doesn't know what a solution is.

A solution is the solving of a problem and she readily admits it will not be 100 percent effective so therefore it is not a solution because it solves nothing. Events such as th eone illustrated in the OP will continue to happen.

My answer is there is no solution when dealing with irrational people.

The officer was doing his job, whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant, he had a job to do. He was attacked, he had literally a split second to react, He relied on his years of service and training to protect himself. Unfortunately it resulted in the death of the young man. Want to blame someone? Blame the young man that attacked the cop.

Well, unfortunately, most adults realize that no solution is 100% effective. The point is to cut down on these types of incidents.

 

[ChrisL]

She goes with a 20th century model in a 21st century world. This isn't 1967 or 1975. We're living in a completely different world now than we did back then.

Huh? I wasn't even alive then. Lol.

Then why post about that era?

She goes with a 20th century model in a 21st century world. This isn't 1967 or 1975. We're living in a completely different world now than we did back then.

So, what argument do you have against more police training?

First tell us why the current training isn't adequate and what improvements you believe need to be made.

I guess you didn't bother to read the article. It is comparing the way we used to train officers to how we train them now and things we could do differently.

No, it doesn't address how things are different it addresses how it became mandatory and the length of training time increased. There was no details about the specific training that was received.

You were asked specifically what additional training

Notice how when she starts getting her argument destroyed....she all of a sudden "has to go to work"?

Yes, I work 40 hours a week.

 

[bucs90]

Well, unlike all of you old men, I have to get to work now. Have to pay those cops, you know?

You don't pay much with a fry cook salary. I'll mail you a dime and we'll be even.

Actually, I work from home on my computer as a medical transcriptionist, meaning I can POP in here any time between jobs. Save your dime for your funeral.

Don't lie. Your home job is walking to the mailbox to pickup your welfare check.

That aside....do you have anything else to offer on the debate other than a link that talked about police training from 40 years ago?

 

[ChrisL]

Huh? I wasn't even alive then. Lol.

Then why post about that era?

So, what argument do you have against more police training?

First tell us why the current training isn't adequate and what improvements you believe need to be made.

I guess you didn't bother to read the article. It is comparing the way we used to train officers to how we train them now and things we could do differently.

No, it doesn't address how things are different it addresses how it became mandatory and the length of training time increased. There was no details about the specific training that was received.

You were asked specifically what additional training

Notice how when she starts getting her argument destroyed....she all of a sudden "has to go to work"?

Her argument was destroyed the minute she made it and even after she moved the goalpost.

My argument has been consistent. Police need better training and two police officers per car would help to cut down on these incidents.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, unlike all of you old men, I have to get to work now. Have to pay those cops, you know?

You don't pay much with a fry cook salary. I'll mail you a dime and we'll be even.

Actually, I work from home on my computer as a medical transcriptionist, meaning I can POP in here any time between jobs. Save your dime for your funeral.

Don't lie. Your home job is walking to the mailbox to pickup your welfare check.

That aside....do you have anything else to offer on the debate other than a link that talked about police training from 40 years ago?

Do you have any evidence that I'm lying? I don't collect social services.

The article is from 2015. Put on your glasses.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, unlike all of you old men, I have to get to work now. Have to pay those cops, you know?

You don't pay much with a fry cook salary. I'll mail you a dime and we'll be even.

Actually, I work from home on my computer as a medical transcriptionist, meaning I can POP in here any time between jobs. Save your dime for your funeral.

Don't lie. Your home job is walking to the mailbox to pickup your welfare check.

That aside....do you have anything else to offer on the debate other than a link that talked about police training from 40 years ago?

What are you so offended about anyway? Care to explain? Just old and cranky?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What gets me is ChrisL believes she proposed a solution to stop events like the one in the OP. But she obviously doesn't know what a solution is.

A solution is the solving of a problem and she readily admits it will not be 100 percent effective so therefore it is not a solution because it solves nothing. Events such as th eone illustrated in the OP will continue to happen.

My answer is there is no solution when dealing with irrational people.

The officer was doing his job, whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant, he had a job to do. He was attacked, he had literally a split second to react, He relied on his years of service and training to protect himself. Unfortunately it resulted in the death of the young man. Want to blame someone? Blame the young man that attacked the cop.

Well, unfortunately, most adults realize that no solution is 100% effective. The point is to cut down on these types of incidents.

If it doesn't solve the problem then it's not a solution. And you cannot provide any evidence that it would cut down these types of incidents.

 

[ChrisL]

What gets me is ChrisL believes she proposed a solution to stop events like the one in the OP. But she obviously doesn't know what a solution is.

A solution is the solving of a problem and she readily admits it will not be 100 percent effective so therefore it is not a solution because it solves nothing. Events such as th eone illustrated in the OP will continue to happen.

My answer is there is no solution when dealing with irrational people.

The officer was doing his job, whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant, he had a job to do. He was attacked, he had literally a split second to react, He relied on his years of service and training to protect himself. Unfortunately it resulted in the death of the young man. Want to blame someone? Blame the young man that attacked the cop.

Well, unfortunately, most adults realize that no solution is 100% effective. The point is to cut down on these types of incidents.

If it doesn't solve the problem then it's not a solution. And you cannot provide any evidence that it would cut down these types of incidents.

Again, there is no such thing as a solution that would be 100% effective. If it could cut down even 20% on these incidents, that would be a positive outcome.

 

[bucs90]

What gets me is ChrisL believes she proposed a solution to stop events like the one in the OP. But she obviously doesn't know what a solution is.

A solution is the solving of a problem and she readily admits it will not be 100 percent effective so therefore it is not a solution because it solves nothing. Events such as th eone illustrated in the OP will continue to happen.

My answer is there is no solution when dealing with irrational people.

The officer was doing his job, whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant, he had a job to do. He was attacked, he had literally a split second to react, He relied on his years of service and training to protect himself. Unfortunately it resulted in the death of the young man. Want to blame someone? Blame the young man that attacked the cop.

Well, unfortunately, most adults realize that no solution is 100% effective. The point is to cut down on these types of incidents.

Cut down on them? Ok.

1. HOW??

2. Do the math. There are 1,000,000 cops in America who work collectively 2080000000 hours of police work a year. Yes...2 trillion hours of police work. And cops kill around 500 people a year...give or take some based year to year. Out of 350,000,000 citizens and 14,000,000 arrests. And almost all of those are clearly justified.

SO....statistically....the odds of a person being involved in a shooting with a cop is so tiny...something like 0.0000000001% chance (do the math).

So....isn't it ALREADY "cut down"?????

 

[ChrisL]

What gets me is ChrisL believes she proposed a solution to stop events like the one in the OP. But she obviously doesn't know what a solution is.

A solution is the solving of a problem and she readily admits it will not be 100 percent effective so therefore it is not a solution because it solves nothing. Events such as th eone illustrated in the OP will continue to happen.

My answer is there is no solution when dealing with irrational people.

The officer was doing his job, whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant, he had a job to do. He was attacked, he had literally a split second to react, He relied on his years of service and training to protect himself. Unfortunately it resulted in the death of the young man. Want to blame someone? Blame the young man that attacked the cop.

Well, unfortunately, most adults realize that no solution is 100% effective. The point is to cut down on these types of incidents.

Cut down on them? Ok.

1. HOW??

2. Do the math. There are 1,000,000 cops in America who work collectively 2080000000 hours of police work a year. Yes...2 trillion hours of police work. And cops kill around 500 people a year...give or take some based year to year. Out of 350,000,000 citizens and 14,000,000 arrests. And almost all of those are clearly justified.

SO....statistically....the odds of a person being involved in a shooting with a cop is so tiny...something like 0.0000000001% chance (do the math).

So....isn't it ALREADY "cut down"?????

Well, in the particular incident described in this thread, two officers would have been able to control this boy easily without resorting to shooting him.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Then why post about that era?
First tell us why the current training isn't adequate and what improvements you believe need to be made.

I guess you didn't bother to read the article. It is comparing the way we used to train officers to how we train them now and things we could do differently.

No, it doesn't address how things are different it addresses how it became mandatory and the length of training time increased. There was no details about the specific training that was received.

You were asked specifically what additional training

Notice how when she starts getting her argument destroyed....she all of a sudden "has to go to work"?

Her argument was destroyed the minute she made it and even after she moved the goalpost.

My argument has been consistent. Police need better training and two police officers per car would help to cut down on these incidents.

What better training do they need in your opinion? You've been asked this before and yet you haven't responded.

So you have zero evidence that two cops in a car and better training, whatever the hell that consists of, would reduce these types of incidents. We are just supposed to take your word for it. A person with zero law enforcement experience. SMH

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, and the officers would also be safer on patrol with immediate backup available for them.

 

[bucs90]

The #1 thing that will "cut down" these incidents....which are already statistically EXTREMELY rare....is a massive public campaign to STOP RESISTING ARREST.

Public service announcements and commercials. Just like the "Just Say No" federal drug campaign in the 80s. "Just Comply". Resisting arrest is overwhelmingly the #1 cause of these incidents.

 

[ChrisL]

I guess you didn't bother to read the article. It is comparing the way we used to train officers to how we train them now and things we could do differently.

No, it doesn't address how things are different it addresses how it became mandatory and the length of training time increased. There was no details about the specific training that was received.

You were asked specifically what additional training

Notice how when she starts getting her argument destroyed....she all of a sudden "has to go to work"?

Her argument was destroyed the minute she made it and even after she moved the goalpost.

My argument has been consistent. Police need better training and two police officers per car would help to cut down on these incidents.

What better training do they need in your opinion? You've been asked this before and yet you haven't responded.

So you have zero evidence that two cops in a car and better training, whatever the hell that consists of, would reduce these types of incidents. We are just supposed to take your word for it. A person with zero law enforcement experience. SMH

I already explained that in the beginning of this thread. They need to learn how to de-escalate situations and not escalate them. I think that is an important thing to learn how to do for an officer, and that would take a bit of training.