BREAKING: Two Boston Police Officers Shot – Manhunt Underway – Conditions Unknown

originally posted by: Echo007
The general public don't care if police get shot these days, it's like hearing about a shooting in Chicago.

Police being targeted will continue to rise, until cities finally train police like they do in the UK. Rookie officers don't carry a gun for 3 years, that makes them learn other skills, when dealing with the public. They must go through 100's of hours of training too.

US trains police to think of everyone as a threat, pull your gun if you feel at all threatened or if the person won't do as you command. Police have the mindset that were below them, just like prison guards do about inmates.

Great idea. Considering a single police officer responds to between 20 and 30 calls a night in urban areas, rarely resulting in shootings mind you, and in a society that has easily accessable gun possession. Yep, taking guns from the cops will solve everything and thats going to save lives. /sarcasm

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: Boadicea
All statistics you will find relate to cops killed. If I were to use your terminology and we're " shot at" then I think the number would far exceed 365 a year (no statistics provided).

Um... I was quoting you; so your terminology and your hypothetical. I just did the math. One cop shot every day is 365 cops shot per year. (And still far less than the number of civilians shot at and killed by cops).

I do find it alarming that it's near impossible to find government statistics on wounded officers. Statistics are only highlighting deaths. I know america has a strange stance on government statistics when it involves shooting (especially unlawful police killing citizens) but you would think they would still provide it.

I find it very alarming also. Considering just how much the government tracks us, one would think this information would also be tracked and provided, for the officers' protection if no other reason! And especially if officers are going to be trained (brainwashed???) into believing that everyone on the streets is out to kill them.

I learned recently about a newly proposed theory of an ongoing chronic traumatic stress disorder. I'm sorry I don't remember the clinical name for the condition. As opposed to post-traumatic stress disorder (after the traumatic experience is over), the chronic stress disorder applies to people who live under constant stressful conditions (and fears for one's life being under constant threat would definitely qualify). The context I read about the proposed disorder related to inner-city kids in drug and crime-ridden areas... I can see that. But I can definitely also see it for the police officers assigned to patrol those areas. Especially given that (as I understand it) the vast majority of ALL crime is committed by gang bangers which tend to concentrate within the inner cities.

If officers are being fearmongered into believing that we're all just iching to kill them, then we are putting all officers into that constant state of traumatic stress and they will act (or re-act) accordingly, whether the danger is real or perceived. That's not good for anyone.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Y O U C O N T R A D I C T E D Y O U R S E L F

So which is it? Do we have trigger happy cops, or do we have cops that don't shoot their gun throughout their entire career?

No contradiction on my part. I've never made the ridiculous assertion that ALL cops are trigger happy cops. In fact, I specifically referred to "bad cops" at least once. So my reference to the fact that most officers never shoot their weapons in the line of duty is a clear indication that I understand not all cops are trigger happy. Even while some people want to give them a license to kill -- no questions asked.

I contradicted nothing. You, however, assumed much.

How do you expect me to hold a conversation with someone who contradicts themselves? Whom can't even see they contradicted themselves? Whom doesn't know basic mathematical concepts?

Please. See above. Then answer your own question... if you can get past your assumptions and confirmation bias. (No math needed!)

a reply to: Boadicea
Not that it matter shut I didn't say shot at, you did (semantics, don't matter).

But most cops in america do suffer from fear. Cuffing people just jn case for their safety with no indicators they are a direct threat, needing to see hands at all points. Does come down to guns ultimately this fear but that's another debate.

a reply to: Boadicea

Sorry but this isn't correct at all.

The overwhelming majority of police shootings are completely and totally justified, with no ambiguity or debate aside from those that think hugs solve everything. The number of shootings that require significant articulation is a small percentage, and the number of shootings of people who were "no threat at all" is smaller still.

Requiring cops to only shoot after being shot at wouldn't have any statistically relevant change other than more cops killed and wounded in the line of duty.

If you really want to parse the available statistics down, I would suggest spending some time on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. They release a report every few years that goes into a pretty deep level of detail about police/civilian interactions. That's where the much-ignored-on-ATS statistic of "less than one percent of all police/civilian encounters result in the use of deadly force" comes from. To put a point on it, unjustified shootings accounted for something like 0.001% of all interactions I think.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Lol in juvenile corrections, there is this new philosophy that it is not the youth's fault for their own poor choices and that consequences are punitive and counter productive.

When I was working in probation, we started affectionately naming that philosophy the Hugs for Thugs program.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

Sorry but this isn't correct at all.

Maybe... maybe not.... maybe not now, but if current patterns and demands continue, it may be more true than either of us want to believe.

The overwhelming majority of police shootings are completely and totally justified...

I would like to believe so. At one time, I did believe so. And so the authorities would have us believe. But none of us can back those beliefs up with facts and statistics because there are none. Nor can we trust the authorities to conduct a fair and honest investigation. Nor can we trust that officers do not have a "throwaway" which would suggest to authorities that the killing was justified. And on and on and on.

But more to the point, LEOs too often shoot due to a perceived threat as opposed to a real threat and those deaths are deemed "justifiable". In other words, officers shoot because someone MIGHT have a gun, not because someone DOES have a gun... and even if the person does have a gun, that does not automatically mean that person will use that gun against the officer.

...with no ambiguity or debate aside from those that think hugs solve everything.

Okay. Yeah. Gotcha.

The number of shootings that require significant articulation is a small percentage...

That may very well be true but neither one of us knows for sure because the records are not kept, and the transparency is not there, therefore any/all statistics are skewed.

It may also be a matter of perspective. For example, if an officer acts in a reckless and dangerous manner, thus creating a life-threatening situation for all involved, then even if he can rightfully state that he subsequently felt his life was threatened (by those whose lives he/she threatened), then the officer is still criminally liable for a lesser charge.... even if that was exactly how they were trained and even if their buddies in the prosecutor's office refuse to prosecute.

I understand that we ask our LEOs to provoke confrontations and put themselves at risk (and too often for the worst reasons), but I also understand that for exactly because we do so, we have the greater responsibility to make sure it is done cautiously and carefully and minimizes any unnecessary danger to anyone. And that's where I blame the top. The brass. They are putting officers and the public in no win situations... and to hell with our right to life.

...and the number of shootings of people who were "no threat at all" is smaller still.

Well, of course, because everyone is already deemed a threat -- guilty until dead, right? -- so with that attitude and perspective, no one is "no threat at all."

Requiring cops to only shoot after being shot at wouldn't have any statistically relevant change other than more cops killed and wounded in the line of duty.

I'm not saying that. But can we at least make sure the threat is real rather than imagined? Can we at least give our officers more defensive training and equipment so that they are less vulnerable at all times? Can we at least make sure that we're doing everything possible to ensure that the cop is telling the truth as he knows it? Can we at least make sure that a proper investigation is conducted? Can we at least make sure that killing someone isn't the first and only line of defense?

If you really want to parse the available statistics down, I would suggest spending some time on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. They release a report every few years that goes into a pretty deep level of detail about police/civilian interactions. That's where the much-ignored-on-ATS statistic of "less than one percent of all police/civilian encounters result in the use of deadly force" comes from. To put a point on it, unjustified shootings accounted for something like 0.001% of all interactions I think.

I have spent time on the BJS website. And even Comey admits that reportings of such interactions are incomplete, and no such reporting is mandatory. So we really don't know the true numbers.

But I will assert, again, that if we continue expecting -- and excusing -- cops to shoot on suspicions and fears rather than real and demonstrated threats, that more and more innocent people will be killed. And in that case, our right to life -- and therefore all of our rights -- mean nothing.

We can do better than that.

a reply to: Boadicea

The records are kept. They're just not kept in one tidy little summary for everybody to peruse. I gave you a resource to look deeper into interactions.

At some point you have to either accept an explanation or not accept it. The whole "well I wasn't there so who's to say what happened" is great, until evidence starts coming to light. And that's regardless of whether the evidence is a positive or negative impact on law enforcement's behalf. At some point, one can either accept the evidence and come to a conclusion or ignore evidence and pretend that there's no conclusion to be made.

ETA - and I will continue to state that cops have just as much a right to life as everybody else, and that advancing the notion that the should have to wait until a threat is "demonstrated" is dangerous to not only law enforcement, but anybody else who may be around when an incident takes place. An officer should not have to wait till he/she or a civilian is shot in order to engage, for the sake of armchair quarterbacks who want to be able to pontificate. Reasonable efforts should be made to minimize unjustified shootings, but short of eliminating the human angle altogether, there is no way to completely eliminate human error.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Echo007

The general public don't care if police get shot these days, it's like hearing about a shooting in Chicago

That is precisely the attitude they're going for. Distraction from what they're busy preparing for, and desensitization of the public. When people are complacent and detached, they're easier to control...and most importantly, easier to catch off guard.

I am not personally ready to say that, but I will say that no matter what none of this is good for anyone. At all.

Looks like this asshole was a stolen valor prick:

Task and Purpose

The Boston constable who was killed in a shootout with police officers on the evening of Oct. 12 appears to have grossly exaggerated his military service in order to build a career in private security.

Kirk Figueroa, 33, injured two police officers before he was mortally wounded in the firefight. The officers entered the deceased gunman’s home after he open fired on them with what officials described as a “tactical shotgun,” which he was not authorized to carry.