It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Police Actions and The Public Response To Such

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:57 PM
I wanted to post this in Posse but I am not permitted for some reason, there appears to be some restrictions.

I have been, like most of you, observing a complete meltdown of our society with regard to police actions against black citizens. I have, also, noticed a lack of dialogue from said police.

Does that thin blue line preclude police from speaking out on the actions of their fellow officers? They can not all condone the actions, can they?

Let's be fair though, when a police officer is called into a situation or happens upon something nefarious, they only have a few seconds to react.

Their job is to make sure no innocent bystanders that are in the proximity get hurt, but they are also responsible for disarming the situation and making sure it does not escalate. All police officers are supposed to be peace officers, but if you are behaving in an erratic manner or refuse to cooperate when instructed to comply, then at some point you have forced their hand.

Unfortunately, not all police are trained properly and some do have an agenda, but I do not believe everything is based on racial etiquette. There is a rush to judgment on all sides when there is a shooting involving a police officer. There has been a disproportionate amount of reported events, so the rush to judgment is based on repeated situations happening in all parts of this country.

The amount of police involved shootings, however, based on the amount of officers on duty in relation to the amount of calls they are taking and the situations that arise without notice is minuscule, less than 1%, but if any one of them involves a white officer and a black person then they get scrutinized beyond the norm. Interesting enough, we never hear about the reverse situation of black/white shootings? Does that mean they do not happen?

Could there be a better way to handle these situations with non-lethal outcomes? Of course there is, they could be using different ammunition, like rubber bullets and stun guns, but most police are trained to incapacitate violent offenders with center mass to make sure there is a direct end to the threat. The problem is exacerbated by the use of drugs that create very unpredictable reactions from violent offenders, police simply do not have the knowledge of what they are confronting and have to make split second decisions.

They are not going to risk getting injured or letting their partners get hurt or allow the offenders to continue. This does not say that they are incapable of avoiding escalation, just that when the choice dictates it they are going to err on the side of caution. Traditionally, traffic stops are not supposed to be violent, but police officers are at an extreme disadvantage when approaching a seemingly benign traffic stop, they simply do not know what they are walking up on. They can only get so much information beforehand on their dash computers, like is the vehicle stolen or are there outstanding warrants associated with the vehicle registration, or unpaid parking tickets, but they have no idea who is in the vehicle or what emotional state they are in.

Everything that transpires with a police officer is timing and everything that happens is open to hindsight and second guessing whenever there is a less than favorable outcome. As should be, oversight is important for directives and training. The public has lost it's faith though that these situations were or will be handled properly and that is very unfortunate and increases the dangers for police and the public.

Police officers have become the target and have bulls eyes on their backs now, so they are already on the defensive. The public, especially minorities, feel targeted, too, and they have become offensive when being confronted. The fact remains, if you are police or public, there is proper protocol from either direction. Being a police officer is a privilege and comes with grave responsibility, the risks and dangers involved are part of the job, it does not give carte blanche to cover up indiscretions or behave in a manner less than forthcoming, police are not above the law, they represent the law and all that entails.

The public as a whole need the police, but want to feel safe, not afraid, when being stopped or questioned and they simply do not, but that is restricted to a specific demographic. The police do not trust the public to behave properly when going into certain areas. That is not the polices fault, that is the nature of an un-trusting public due to past experiences with police. But they are not willing to cooperate when it comes to their own neighborhoods because of retaliation from the offending parties.

There are just way to many violent offenders out there willing to silence witnesses to protect their turf and so goes the problem, it is not always the police officers fault when they are forced to take a call in an area known for violence and a lack of cooperation from the witnesses. Still, this problem is not going to go away anytime soon and will most likely get worse before it ever gets any better. Cooler heads have to prevail and violent protests will not change it, there are generations to come that are going to be affected.

Social unrest is not something new. Police officers put their lives on the line everyday. 90% deserve the benefit of the doubt, but that thin blue line needs to be eradicated and that 90% needs to step up and quash the other 10% by putting them on notice and standing up to the unnecessary overzealousness that permeates the environment and causes the public to react offensively rather than be cooperating citizens.

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:07 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to training and attitude. Once in Portland, OR I watched as police dealt with a man high on PCP freaking out in the middle of the street at night time. All they did was kind of corral him from a distance, follow him and make sure he didn't leap into traffic or try to hurt himself or someone else. Eventually, he calmed down enough for them to handcuff him and put him in an ambulance instead of a police car. I imagine it would have ended way different if police had rushed up on the man, angry that he isn't respecting their "authority", and had to taze or shoot him to bring him under control.

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 04:02 PM
Yes, the thin blue line you refer to goes further than it should these days. But, that is a knee-jerk reaction to all the false wolf calls made against police. As much as people these days call evil cop during a shooting and automatically assume the LEO's guilt instead of the facts, it is only natural that cops will be defending their fellow LEO's actions up until actual investigations are carried out.

So, if instead of rioting and chanting kill cops and pigs in a blanket . . . maybe give the LEOs a little benefit of the doubt for once, then tensions might just ease a little. As it is, LEOs must enforce the laws, worry if the suspect wants to kill them for just being a cop (because its popular now), worry about monday morning quarterbacks, AND worry about whether they will keep their job for doing it right or wrong either way. And they do all this for less pay on average than just about any other line of work. How come our public servants make less than our lawn maintenance people? Oh yeah, because local governments can't afford to pay them more. But they still do the job, most of them because they truly care about helping and serving the community. So, yes a little respect and perhaps benefit of doubt is in order.

After all, you wouldn't want the cop you automatically assume to be guilty to do the same to you would you?

I only ask you to await evidence in each and every case. And THAT is not too much to ask.


log in