People really piss me off.
msnbc.com U.S. & World News - Officer reported shot to death in Oregon
Sometimes I come across a story and read the posted comments. Sometimes they really get my dander up, which compels me to write a reply.
I normally post these here on my own blog because often times no matter how long or short my posts are, they are censored or filtered. Especially when they contain lots of facts and supporting references.
Oddly enough any nutbar who posts completely bogus and inflammatory party line rhetoric always seems to get their words in.
It truly is amazing to me how people can turn anything into a political statement, and lay the blame for societal ills and their own personal problems or failings on the party they oppose. Sometimes it seems like people go out of their way to try and establish a political link and causation to a particular party or administration. (this includes anyone from any party) Even when the story or subject matter in question is completely politically benign or neutral.
I wrote the following response to a particular reply to the above news story, which somehow digressed into not only politics, but the Iraq war and even references to the economy, and it being the fault of the police because of the type of training that American police officers receive… Two of which I will post in their entirety because they were just that silly.
We’ll start with MtMike-571674 who writes:
“The US is using a military confrontational "style" of law enforcement!
Police, trying to ALWAYS "take control" of all situations, without compromise, quickly escalate confrontations to deadly shootings!
Police need to be taught better how to handle conflict situations and how to be "non-confrontational".
Many troubled people get the necessary "push" from police to turn a situation deadly! The police seem to like it that way.
The idea government police can never do wrong, is simply not realistic.
The results speak for themselves!”
Big Mike, had you read the story, you would have noticed that the police chief was shot and killed AFTER a struggle with the suspect. There are three possibilities based on the story as presented, all of which disprove your thesis that the Police escalate things that result in a shooting.
Possibility 1, If you choose to entertain the 3rd party statement that the journalist never should have included in the story, (“Dusty Rockwood, an employee at the Exhaust Shop and Tire Center, told the Oregonian newspaper that he had been told a man who had broken into a car wrestled with the officer, took his gun and shot him.”) the Chief’s weapon was holstered (Which seems likely in a small town comprised of five officers and the Chief of Police who also actively patrolled.) and the Chief attempted to take the man into custody non violently which resulted in the struggle and the suspect taking the Chief’s weapon and shooting him. Clearly escalated by the suspect, who then turned murderous.
Possibility 2, the Chief attempted to take the man into custody at gunpoint, but rather than shooting the man, attempted to physically take him into custody and was shot after a struggle. If the Chief drew his weapon there must have been a reason, and since he was shot, the suspect obviously had a firearm. Again, an escalation by the suspect who was armed and then turned murderous.
Possibility 3, the Chief’s weapon was holstered, he attempted to take the suspect into custody and there was a struggle, perhaps after the Chief discovered the suspect was armed. The suspected turned murderous and shot the Chief. The suspect escalated the confrontation into violence and murder.
Keep in mind this is all completely speculative, as the only piece of detailed information in the story came from a guy “who was told” that the suspect shot the Chief with his own weapon. I was raised to respect authority and to respect my elders as well as respecting the police. If and when I am ever or have ever been approached by a police officer, I give them my full attention and do precisely as I am told until the situation is resolved. My momma taught me that.
I am quite certain, not even knowing the Chief, that he didn’t wake up that day and intend to get shot and killed, nor did he, in that small town decide at 1045 in the morning that he needed a little action and was going to randomly shake down some random person.
Had the man complied with the Chief’s instructions, he would have been cuffed and taken to the station. Non violently. No one would have died or even wrestled. Had the suspect been innocent it would have been cleared up at the station and he would have been released. Had there been evidence to hold him, he would have been provided an attorney to defend him. No one would have died or even wrestled AND the suspect would have been provided a bed and free meals.
I suppose the Chief after instructing the suspect to surrender and not receiving compliance should have just let the suspect go until such time as his disposition was improved to the extent that he would surrender willingly?
Hey big Mike, you may not realize it, but what you describe is in fact actually what the police get paid to do. Their job IS to ALWAYS take control and maintain order. I can assure you as well that the police do in fact receive a LARGE amount of training in the areas of conflict de-escalation, non violent or less than lethal responses and many other types of training dealing with human behavior and how to deal with and resolve problems. They learn things like reading body language and determining a persons mental state and whether or not they may be impaired by drugs or alcohol.
The police are also extensively trained in escalation of force and proper use of force. These types of training are just a small fraction of what types of training police officers routinely must complete to be a police officer in the first place. Additionally most states and cities require their officers to have at the very least completed several college course in criminal justice and criminal law, with some of the larger departments requiring a degree in that or a related field. This is so the police have an understanding of the law, and YOUR civil rights and legal rights before making an arrest, detaining or questioning you.
Improper procedure and conduct on their part means bad guys go free. As a professional soldier I can tell you without a doubt that if they were being trained solely in a similar fashion to the military, then you are most likely correct. There would be far less confrontation. You see the body count would be much higher, and conflict resolution would be in the form of superior firepower and maneuver. Not letting the conflict happen in the first place by violently executing an assault or bringing the fight to the enemy and laying down fire and moving through to an objective.
Most American police departments shy away from that type of law enforcement or so I am told. With that being said, police often do in fact receive military style, or para-military training. This is a valid and important training requirement brought about by the fact that more and more criminals and gangs operate in large numbers and are in possession of military grade automatic weapons and military grade body armor. Things which incidentally you big Mike, the average citizen are not allowed to posses. Also you (if you are a law abiding average citizen) won’t ever be on the receiving end of a SWAT high risk entry.
There are of course bad apples everywhere, and you will always have that one abuser of the system and laws. That abuser of power. This is and has been an exception, however that is the type of thing that makes the news, slanders entire police departments and breeds public distrust. (Which in turn results in more offenses and violence directly against police officers, go figure.)
So while you talk down about American policing, and make blanket statements about the police and infer that it is they that incite people to violence I would ask this one thing: Do some research on non American policing and police departments. Outside of Canada and the UK (Which have similar policing styles and training to the US) You will find that in all the countries that have no constitution or guarantees of liberty and individual rights, far less tolerant and far more violent methods of policing.
I would encourage you to try and get lippy with a German Polizei, or a French Gendarme. You will catch the beating of your life for anything short of immediate and complete compliance. No understanding or conflict resolution involved.
I won’t even describe to you the methods of policing in the middle east, and Asia. I would challenge you to find a single country that has anything even close to American standards, training and dealing with people on an individual level.
American police must abide by the Constitution, along with all local and state laws regarding civil rights. This even applies to those individuals actively being taken into custody. The police most often have such strict rules of engagement that they are trained not to even draw their firearm unless there is immediate threat of loss of life or personal safety.
When was the last time you were militarily assaulted while receiving a traffic citation?
Perhaps we would lose less officers in the line of duty if they DID NOT spend so much time assessing and trying to resolve and de-escalate conflict and instead went in straight away shooting and swinging? I much prefer the current style and standard.
Mike, please feel free to move to another country and experience foreign policing for a period of time and return and share with us your experiences and your change of opinion.
David in Kenosha, WI writes:
“And with Republicans running things, these situations will be a common occurrence. Remember: people with nothing have nothing to lose. It is very sad that our police officers will stand the brunt of this. It's too bad the conservatives (Republicans and their far right cousins the Tea Baggers) could care less - they just want it all for themselves. The streets of Iraq are now safer than the streets of America, thanks to conservative policies that concentrate all the wealth in the hands of the few. It's how empires were destroyed, and it is destroying America.”
Big Dave,
Bearing in mind that this story was about a thug shooting and killing the police chief and the fact that it was the second law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty in 2011:
"With Republicans running things"... Seriously? Crime / murder are now the fault of Republicans too? Have you missed that last couple of years? The Republican majority in Congress begins THIS MONTH (January, 2010) Prior to that Democrats had a supermajority. (This means they didn't need Republican support of votes to pass anything.) That being said, the Democrats still have a Senate majority and the Presidency. (Read veto power)
With those pesky facts out of the way, let’s get to some more. How precisely is it the fault of either political party that some punk chose to kill a police chief? It seems to me that you have to already have a complete disregard and lack of respect for authority to choose to commit crimes in the first place. Imagine how much more so it takes to kill a police officer (or another fellow human being) and more still the Chief of Police. It really has not a single thing to do with party affiliation.
It would be really nice if people would actually do some small amount or level of basic research before posting their opinions. It's difficult to have objective, open discussions when people post complete BS, as it serves only to incite people. My research, data, facts and info for this reply come from the fact that I am an American who has lived in several different American cities and states over the past 36 years and is presently spending a year, of which the better part of 10 months is complete in Iraq. Basra, where I am located is considered one of the “safest and most stable” areas and city in Iraq. We take indirect fire and IEDs constantly. Apparently it isn’t really news anymore, at least not until several soldiers or a large number of civilians are killed. The random single deaths of soldiers are apparently not worth discussing.
Criminals are criminals. If liberals and anti- gun nuts get their way, no one will have guns, except for the criminals (who aren’t getting them legally anyway) or if by some miracle guns are completely removed from everyone, the criminals will still commit their crimes with knives, other types of blunt force weapons or fists. This has nothing whatsoever to do with who's in office or what political party is in power.
As to your comments about the safety of the streets of Iraq, spent a little time walking these streets have you? How many 107mm rockets did you take last night when you were trying to get some sleep? Do you have to walk around in armed buddy teams in your neighborhood so you don't get kidnapped?
I'll take a stroll through the most dangerous areas of America's "dangerous" cities long before I'd go anywhere in Iraq. Sure I'm American, so that makes me a target. The problem is, Iraqis have the same problem based on their tribe, their religion and in the case of Muslims the particular brand of Islam they subscribe to.
How many Christian churches, Mosques, police stations and government offices were bombed, burned or attacked today in your city, county, state or the entire country? How many letters did you get today from your local chapter of ( XX insert terror group or religious sect name here XX) did you get today stating that if you owned or opened a barber shop, night club or sold American or European goods you would be beheaded? Or anyone caught assisting or working with Americans would be killed?
Do you feel the need to hide your face and name from your fellow citizens, the police officers you see, and even Army soldiers? It's really interesting to notice how many things the press is NOT reporting, now that the President has said that the "war is over" and we are in "Operation New Dawn". The problem is I don't believe the bad guys got that memo.
My interpreters have to wear disguises and use code names for fear that they will get turned in BY THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN to these terrorists and then be killed along with their entire families. The police are constantly shaking down people for money and property, and the Iraqi Army and Police turn blind eyes to the guys setting up the rockets and firing them at us. (And THEM)
We get incoming rocket fire pretty regularly, almost every night in fact, which involves spending lots of quality time in a bunker so you don’t get killed. End of the war notwithstanding. Please, I’m a huge free speech and personal opinion guy, but when you post absolute falsehood, that can easily be disproven or dismissed by FACTS and not something even merits discussion based on available facts, evidence and data, you simply present yourself as a fool with a political agenda.
Where do I get my facts, data and info? I’m here. I’d gladly trade this for an American inner city, time now.
Sometimes I come across a story and read the posted comments. Sometimes they really get my dander up, which compels me to write a reply.
I normally post these here on my own blog because often times no matter how long or short my posts are, they are censored or filtered. Especially when they contain lots of facts and supporting references.
Oddly enough any nutbar who posts completely bogus and inflammatory party line rhetoric always seems to get their words in.
It truly is amazing to me how people can turn anything into a political statement, and lay the blame for societal ills and their own personal problems or failings on the party they oppose. Sometimes it seems like people go out of their way to try and establish a political link and causation to a particular party or administration. (this includes anyone from any party) Even when the story or subject matter in question is completely politically benign or neutral.
I wrote the following response to a particular reply to the above news story, which somehow digressed into not only politics, but the Iraq war and even references to the economy, and it being the fault of the police because of the type of training that American police officers receive… Two of which I will post in their entirety because they were just that silly.
We’ll start with MtMike-571674 who writes:
“The US is using a military confrontational "style" of law enforcement!
Police, trying to ALWAYS "take control" of all situations, without compromise, quickly escalate confrontations to deadly shootings!
Police need to be taught better how to handle conflict situations and how to be "non-confrontational".
Many troubled people get the necessary "push" from police to turn a situation deadly! The police seem to like it that way.
The idea government police can never do wrong, is simply not realistic.
The results speak for themselves!”
Big Mike, had you read the story, you would have noticed that the police chief was shot and killed AFTER a struggle with the suspect. There are three possibilities based on the story as presented, all of which disprove your thesis that the Police escalate things that result in a shooting.
Possibility 1, If you choose to entertain the 3rd party statement that the journalist never should have included in the story, (“Dusty Rockwood, an employee at the Exhaust Shop and Tire Center, told the Oregonian newspaper that he had been told a man who had broken into a car wrestled with the officer, took his gun and shot him.”) the Chief’s weapon was holstered (Which seems likely in a small town comprised of five officers and the Chief of Police who also actively patrolled.) and the Chief attempted to take the man into custody non violently which resulted in the struggle and the suspect taking the Chief’s weapon and shooting him. Clearly escalated by the suspect, who then turned murderous.
Possibility 2, the Chief attempted to take the man into custody at gunpoint, but rather than shooting the man, attempted to physically take him into custody and was shot after a struggle. If the Chief drew his weapon there must have been a reason, and since he was shot, the suspect obviously had a firearm. Again, an escalation by the suspect who was armed and then turned murderous.
Possibility 3, the Chief’s weapon was holstered, he attempted to take the suspect into custody and there was a struggle, perhaps after the Chief discovered the suspect was armed. The suspected turned murderous and shot the Chief. The suspect escalated the confrontation into violence and murder.
Keep in mind this is all completely speculative, as the only piece of detailed information in the story came from a guy “who was told” that the suspect shot the Chief with his own weapon. I was raised to respect authority and to respect my elders as well as respecting the police. If and when I am ever or have ever been approached by a police officer, I give them my full attention and do precisely as I am told until the situation is resolved. My momma taught me that.
I am quite certain, not even knowing the Chief, that he didn’t wake up that day and intend to get shot and killed, nor did he, in that small town decide at 1045 in the morning that he needed a little action and was going to randomly shake down some random person.
Had the man complied with the Chief’s instructions, he would have been cuffed and taken to the station. Non violently. No one would have died or even wrestled. Had the suspect been innocent it would have been cleared up at the station and he would have been released. Had there been evidence to hold him, he would have been provided an attorney to defend him. No one would have died or even wrestled AND the suspect would have been provided a bed and free meals.
I suppose the Chief after instructing the suspect to surrender and not receiving compliance should have just let the suspect go until such time as his disposition was improved to the extent that he would surrender willingly?
Hey big Mike, you may not realize it, but what you describe is in fact actually what the police get paid to do. Their job IS to ALWAYS take control and maintain order. I can assure you as well that the police do in fact receive a LARGE amount of training in the areas of conflict de-escalation, non violent or less than lethal responses and many other types of training dealing with human behavior and how to deal with and resolve problems. They learn things like reading body language and determining a persons mental state and whether or not they may be impaired by drugs or alcohol.
The police are also extensively trained in escalation of force and proper use of force. These types of training are just a small fraction of what types of training police officers routinely must complete to be a police officer in the first place. Additionally most states and cities require their officers to have at the very least completed several college course in criminal justice and criminal law, with some of the larger departments requiring a degree in that or a related field. This is so the police have an understanding of the law, and YOUR civil rights and legal rights before making an arrest, detaining or questioning you.
Improper procedure and conduct on their part means bad guys go free. As a professional soldier I can tell you without a doubt that if they were being trained solely in a similar fashion to the military, then you are most likely correct. There would be far less confrontation. You see the body count would be much higher, and conflict resolution would be in the form of superior firepower and maneuver. Not letting the conflict happen in the first place by violently executing an assault or bringing the fight to the enemy and laying down fire and moving through to an objective.
Most American police departments shy away from that type of law enforcement or so I am told. With that being said, police often do in fact receive military style, or para-military training. This is a valid and important training requirement brought about by the fact that more and more criminals and gangs operate in large numbers and are in possession of military grade automatic weapons and military grade body armor. Things which incidentally you big Mike, the average citizen are not allowed to posses. Also you (if you are a law abiding average citizen) won’t ever be on the receiving end of a SWAT high risk entry.
There are of course bad apples everywhere, and you will always have that one abuser of the system and laws. That abuser of power. This is and has been an exception, however that is the type of thing that makes the news, slanders entire police departments and breeds public distrust. (Which in turn results in more offenses and violence directly against police officers, go figure.)
So while you talk down about American policing, and make blanket statements about the police and infer that it is they that incite people to violence I would ask this one thing: Do some research on non American policing and police departments. Outside of Canada and the UK (Which have similar policing styles and training to the US) You will find that in all the countries that have no constitution or guarantees of liberty and individual rights, far less tolerant and far more violent methods of policing.
I would encourage you to try and get lippy with a German Polizei, or a French Gendarme. You will catch the beating of your life for anything short of immediate and complete compliance. No understanding or conflict resolution involved.
I won’t even describe to you the methods of policing in the middle east, and Asia. I would challenge you to find a single country that has anything even close to American standards, training and dealing with people on an individual level.
American police must abide by the Constitution, along with all local and state laws regarding civil rights. This even applies to those individuals actively being taken into custody. The police most often have such strict rules of engagement that they are trained not to even draw their firearm unless there is immediate threat of loss of life or personal safety.
When was the last time you were militarily assaulted while receiving a traffic citation?
Perhaps we would lose less officers in the line of duty if they DID NOT spend so much time assessing and trying to resolve and de-escalate conflict and instead went in straight away shooting and swinging? I much prefer the current style and standard.
Mike, please feel free to move to another country and experience foreign policing for a period of time and return and share with us your experiences and your change of opinion.
David in Kenosha, WI writes:
“And with Republicans running things, these situations will be a common occurrence. Remember: people with nothing have nothing to lose. It is very sad that our police officers will stand the brunt of this. It's too bad the conservatives (Republicans and their far right cousins the Tea Baggers) could care less - they just want it all for themselves. The streets of Iraq are now safer than the streets of America, thanks to conservative policies that concentrate all the wealth in the hands of the few. It's how empires were destroyed, and it is destroying America.”
Big Dave,
Bearing in mind that this story was about a thug shooting and killing the police chief and the fact that it was the second law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty in 2011:
"With Republicans running things"... Seriously? Crime / murder are now the fault of Republicans too? Have you missed that last couple of years? The Republican majority in Congress begins THIS MONTH (January, 2010) Prior to that Democrats had a supermajority. (This means they didn't need Republican support of votes to pass anything.) That being said, the Democrats still have a Senate majority and the Presidency. (Read veto power)
With those pesky facts out of the way, let’s get to some more. How precisely is it the fault of either political party that some punk chose to kill a police chief? It seems to me that you have to already have a complete disregard and lack of respect for authority to choose to commit crimes in the first place. Imagine how much more so it takes to kill a police officer (or another fellow human being) and more still the Chief of Police. It really has not a single thing to do with party affiliation.
It would be really nice if people would actually do some small amount or level of basic research before posting their opinions. It's difficult to have objective, open discussions when people post complete BS, as it serves only to incite people. My research, data, facts and info for this reply come from the fact that I am an American who has lived in several different American cities and states over the past 36 years and is presently spending a year, of which the better part of 10 months is complete in Iraq. Basra, where I am located is considered one of the “safest and most stable” areas and city in Iraq. We take indirect fire and IEDs constantly. Apparently it isn’t really news anymore, at least not until several soldiers or a large number of civilians are killed. The random single deaths of soldiers are apparently not worth discussing.
Criminals are criminals. If liberals and anti- gun nuts get their way, no one will have guns, except for the criminals (who aren’t getting them legally anyway) or if by some miracle guns are completely removed from everyone, the criminals will still commit their crimes with knives, other types of blunt force weapons or fists. This has nothing whatsoever to do with who's in office or what political party is in power.
As to your comments about the safety of the streets of Iraq, spent a little time walking these streets have you? How many 107mm rockets did you take last night when you were trying to get some sleep? Do you have to walk around in armed buddy teams in your neighborhood so you don't get kidnapped?
I'll take a stroll through the most dangerous areas of America's "dangerous" cities long before I'd go anywhere in Iraq. Sure I'm American, so that makes me a target. The problem is, Iraqis have the same problem based on their tribe, their religion and in the case of Muslims the particular brand of Islam they subscribe to.
How many Christian churches, Mosques, police stations and government offices were bombed, burned or attacked today in your city, county, state or the entire country? How many letters did you get today from your local chapter of ( XX insert terror group or religious sect name here XX) did you get today stating that if you owned or opened a barber shop, night club or sold American or European goods you would be beheaded? Or anyone caught assisting or working with Americans would be killed?
Do you feel the need to hide your face and name from your fellow citizens, the police officers you see, and even Army soldiers? It's really interesting to notice how many things the press is NOT reporting, now that the President has said that the "war is over" and we are in "Operation New Dawn". The problem is I don't believe the bad guys got that memo.
My interpreters have to wear disguises and use code names for fear that they will get turned in BY THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN to these terrorists and then be killed along with their entire families. The police are constantly shaking down people for money and property, and the Iraqi Army and Police turn blind eyes to the guys setting up the rockets and firing them at us. (And THEM)
We get incoming rocket fire pretty regularly, almost every night in fact, which involves spending lots of quality time in a bunker so you don’t get killed. End of the war notwithstanding. Please, I’m a huge free speech and personal opinion guy, but when you post absolute falsehood, that can easily be disproven or dismissed by FACTS and not something even merits discussion based on available facts, evidence and data, you simply present yourself as a fool with a political agenda.
Where do I get my facts, data and info? I’m here. I’d gladly trade this for an American inner city, time now.
posted by Josh at 12:53 AM
0 comments
