Should schools teach students how not to be killed by police?

I guess you don’t even see the humor here you are calling me hateful while spewing disrespecting and hating cops
Ps I didn’t know you’re political leanings...guess I do now!

 

Where's the humor again?
"And there are parents who say the same thing to their kids about teachers...ya know, them “libral” teachers"

I guess to liberals it's considered funny to degrade anyone right of center.

 

Thehumor, or should I say irony, is you’re indignant about what some parents say...but defend daddy telling you to disrespect cops. You say i hate people eifht of center but yet you’re spewing hatred against cops, that’s ironyI am just trying to show you that some parents say the same thing about teachers that your father says about cops.I have heard this over and over about teachers being liberal and complaints about it from righties ...to me it is the same mentality when the parent puts down other professionals by telling his children to disrespect them..and yes I don’t respect parents who teach children to deliberately disrespect authority..right or left.

 

I'm a teacher. I haven't been bullied. Bullies target the weak. Not the strong.


Teaching your child that they can't trust the police will limit any trouble that child gets into with the police.

You don't have to teach people that the police force attracts bullies, they will work that out on their own.

Yes, teachers may be bad too. If you wish to teach your children to stand up for themselves against there teachers, that's your choice.
Why do you feel you are in a position to "call for the parents" if you hear they have taught students something you don't like?

It is never the place of a teacher to undermine the parents of a student. Trust is required between parent and teacher in order for the job to be done properly.
A teacher is required to teach what the parents want taught, not his own beliefs.

And I think that's what this is all about.
Children are raised to lie to police and in my case be confrontational with police, because their parents don't trust the police.

Policemen shooting children, is a bloody good example of why.

 

now cops come to the schools to tell children how nice and friendly they are... this is sending mixed messages, maybe they should show video's of cops killing innocent people to make them fear cops rather then think they can be reasoned with, instead have defense lawyers come in and talk to children, sure the defense lawyer will give them better advice, be calm, be respectful as possible, call a lawyer after it's over if needed

and of course to tell them they want their parents\lawyers present before any questioning as they are children

 

Where exactly did I do that? Post # please.

 

How to get shot by police 101

 

When you send a gunman out to (potentially) kill someone, don't cry when he does.
That man is in a situation and the best judge of that situation at the time is him.
He is human, he will make mistakes, and if the stakes are life and death, mistakes will involve death.

That's the nature of the job.

What would I do? Get a proper job, springs to mind.

So if you have gunmen working for you. Back them up. Don't hang them out to dry first mistake they make. Don't question their judgement.
What would I do to improve police procedures? I wouldn't have gunmen working for me. I would not routinely place them in that environment to start with.
I'll take a civil police force or none at all. And if you start shooting children, uniform or no, I'll draw the line there and summarily execute you myself on the spot.

 

Bring it.

 

I had no problem with it because you might be like Sam Harris and arrive at a moral code through logic, reasoning, and observation what immorality creates in a society. But to think all atheists are this intelligent, is probably nonsense.

The problem I have is that we have never seen an organized group of atheists that promoted a basic morality. So, unlike many religions, this has never been important enough to do that, given that moral codes are socially conditioned. Just like a particular culture depends upon social conditioning. Atheists really do indict themselves on this issue. It is their history. And their lack of caring for promoting morality by being involved in the social conditioning. Hard to refute this, and you can't. Instead, many atheists spend their time tearing down the only institution which has been a conduit for morality over thousands of years. They would willingly toss out the baby with the bath, while offering up no alternative, other than private musings.

 

All that I know is this. I would have never shot the man, because of context, and his actions up to that point. He would not be dead today and I would still be alive.

I read the situation, and would have handled it differently from the get-go. This cop was incapable of doing that, and should not be a cop. If I had his mentality, I would have killed my comrades in arms in Nam, from friendly fire. On at least one occasion. Being able to read a situation, much faster than this cop was able to do, is the difference.

 

Irrelevant. Juries don't always get it right, especially when most juries don't have any clue what their true roles are and are often misled.

http://fija.org/

 

I don't know if you've ever been religiously educated or not but from my own personal experience I've never come across that. There are numerous examples of teachings about those in the bible who question and that issue is nearly always resolved in some manner.

 

Of course it's nonsense and irrelevant. You have a bad habit of generalizing points that were never made. Who said or thinks that?

Since I'm not part of any atheist organization I can't speak for these people and I doubt you can either. From my understanding, most atheist groups are formed for the purpose of advocating against laws and issues that bias them and are immoral to begin with.

Sorry but you're not only generalizing, you're making things up. The same could easily be said about organized religion. The difference is religion teaches a specific "morality" appropriate to the religious belief(s). Atheism is in most cases, not organized nor a system of indoctrination.

 

Juries don't always get it right but you have to accept the verdict and move on. The OJ "trial of the century" was a farce from beginning to end.

 

No one has to "accept and move on" anything. This thread exists because many here don't accept the fact that police are often acquitted of committing crimes against innocent people or never even brought to justice. A jury is not an ultimate authority on anything. They are just part of a legal system, one that is thoroughly corrupt and broken. You're advocating bending over to such a system.

So are many other trials. Many innocent people have been jailed and some even executed for crimes they did not commit. While in other cases the guilty have gone free.

 

Our justice system is imperfect but in the vast majority of cases justice is served and to not accept the verdict is to embrace anarchy.

 

I understand what you're saying. I, too, feel sorrow and anger whenever some criminal kills a police officer.

Police work is dangerous. But the "prime directive" of police work is to protect life. And sometimes it is necessary to take life to protect life. It is a tremendous responsibility. During my career I was always ready to do it if necessary. At the same time, I did not want to do it unless it was absolutely necessary. Striking that balance in a pressure situation is not easy, and there are no "do-overs". It's either the right decision or the wrong one, and you can't take it back. To illustrate this, let me tell you what happened to me one time when I was a young officer.

I responded to a prowler call. Two college age women were living in a neighborhood of duplexes, and they called because they saw a man outside looking into their duplex through a window. I remember how dark it was - middle of the night, solid cloud cover eliminating any moonlight. I doused the patrol car headlights as I drove into the neighborhood, and I parked the car out of sight, and walked about two blocks to get to the duplex. A second officer was responding to the call, but he wasn't there yet. I got to the complainant's duplex. It had a garage on one side of it. I peeked around the corner of the garage, giving me a view of the side of the duplex. It was a dark piece of greenspace between the complainant's duplex unit and the duplex next to it, maybe about 20 feet wide. The two buildings blocked out most of the ambient light from any street lights, but beyond the back of the duplexes was a little bit of light from the street behind this street. It was just barely enough to slightly light the back yards of these two duplexes, and what that did was allow for a profile of a man standing between the two duplexes to become visible to me.

I remember thinking, OK, now just wait quietly for my back-up to get here, and then we'll take him. I hoped the man would just stay there another minute or two.

No such luck.

He was just loitering there, and then I could tell he made a decision to leave. He took a couple steps away from me towards the back yards of the duplexes, and I thought I was going to lose him if I didn't do something. So I turned on my flashlight and yelled, "Police! Don't move!"

He did not comply. Instead of stopping all movement, he turned around and faced me and simultaneously moved his right hand into his jacket pocket. I drew my .357 magnum revolver and yelled, "Freeze!"

But he didn't freeze. Instead, he started pulling his hand out of the jacket pocket. My finger tightened on the trigger. And as his hand came out of the pocket, the light from my flashlight reflected off of something metal, the color of stainless steel. Now I started pulling the trigger.

"Drop it! Drop it! Drop it!", I screamed as I continued pulling the trigger of my double-action .357. We were about 20 feet apart, and I was still at the corner of that garage which gave me some partial cover. In a micro-second, I had this sensation that I didn't believe this was happening. The revolver's cylinder was turning, and the hammer was drawing back. The silvery object cleared his pocket ...

I probably had a quarter of an inch more trigger travel left before my gun fired ...

... and he dropped it.

I backed off the trigger. All of this happened in just seconds.

Moments later my back-up officer arrived, and we cuffed the guy, and we figured out what happened.

I remember he was about 18-21 years old. He had been a guest of the young man living in the next door duplex. And while he had been visiting and drinking with his friend, he had decided to steal something from his friend, a small microphone, about 4-5 inches long which had that brushed stainless steel color. Then, being somewhat intoxicated and feeling horny, he had decided to skulk over to the neighbor's duplex and peek in the windows. And when I challenged him, he knew he had that stolen property in his pocket, and he wanted to ditch it.

We arrested him for 2nd Degree Theft and Trespassing, both misdemeanors.

He nearly lost his life over a cheap piece of sound equipment, probably worth 15 bucks.

And me? I had been a fraction of second away from killing an unarmed man. And I would have gotten to live with that.

So ... What did I take away from this? Well, for one thing, I found out that if I ever had to shoot, I would shoot. I had made that decision, and I was carrying it out.

But I had ordered him to drop it, and I gave him that one chance to drop it, and I was pulling the trigger just slowly enough to see if he would or if he would elevate the silvery object in my direction.

Did I take a chance? Did I take a risk?

Yeah, I did.

But am I satisfied with the chances I took?

Yeah, I am.

This happened about 36 years ago. Sometimes I wonder about that guy. He wasn't from my city. I never saw him again. I hope he made something of his life. I hope he did good things. Lots of young men do stupid things and then straighten themselves out and live good lives. I hope he was one of them. I almost took his life that night, and so I hope he has led a good life.

As I went through my career, there would be other decisions I had to make that wouldn't be easy.

It's not a safe profession. It involves risk. It is not for everybody.

But I will tell you this ...

If I had been that SWAT officer in that hotel hallway (referenced earlier in this thread), I would have been ready and willing to shoot that young man without hesitation if necessary. If he had attempted to draw a gun, he would have died, and I am as certain as I can be that I would have lived. But he didn't have a gun. And I am telling you that, if I had been that SWAT officer, that young man would not have died that night.

Seth

 

You start out talking a good game but then you show yourself to be just another one of these who refuses to back the police when the game gets rough and the situation is uncertain. The only cure for a wishy washy attitude like yours is to have to confront a criminal who is holding a gun on you sometime. Think your attitude might change? The problem isn't police shooting children, baff. The problem is that anyone who can pull a trigger can kill someone if they have enough criminal intent. Hopefully we will always have enough police who are willing to protect us from them.

 

`
Every document I've read pertaining to how to deal with cops (legally) particularly "bad" cops, starts off by saying "don't argue with them and follow their instructions." This Kid Rock video is amusing.
`
`

​

 

Imperfect? No, it's corrupt to the core and severely broken. The evidence is everywhere.

Not when there is a 99.8% conviction rate and the profit margin relies on the highest incarceration rate possible and the longest sentences possible. True many are convicted that should be convicted but even in those cases, the system that convicted them is far from one within a constitutional common law process that protects due process rights. The US has the highest number of people behind bars and in the criminal justice system on the planet, both in numbers and ratio. Justice is not served merely by conviction or exoneration.

The founders were anarchists then. Label me what you want, I refuse to accept human rights atrocities. For me a justice system fully compliant with the Constitution is the only one I would accept. And even then I would want some reasonable (to me) modifications.

 

Prisons are overcrowded and plea bargain for shorter sentences are the rule of the day so I don't know where you are getting that. As for the founders being anarchist you are also mistaken. Everything they did was according to rule of law and they formed a continental congress who officially and legally appointed Washington as general of the continental army.

 

Ha! That is a classic!

 

Problem is, I might be considered a criminal myself. And all of us when we see a policeman instinctively double check to see if we are doing something wrong.
We are scared of them.

I have had guns pointed at me. I've confronted criminals and criminal gangs.
OO you're so tough.
Got news for you. You aren't the only one.

Now I don't need your protection. Take you gun and jog on.
You aren't here to protect me. You are here to enforce someone else's will on me. To oppress me and to rob me.
Sod off.

Point guns at people will you? Expect to get shot.

What is it the yanks say about having guns to protect themselves from the state?
Disarm the state. The weaker you are, the safer from you I am.

Policemen with guns. Pfft, backward arsed people.
Civilise yourselves.

 

You wouldn't have "gunmen" working for you? Oh.

So, who could protect you better from robbers, burglars, thieves, gangbangers, drug-addict murderers, and those who play "the knockout game" and commit other crimes of violence just because a victim is a member of another race? Oh, I know... maybe you'd prefer to hire a 'clown posse' singing "Kumbaya"...?

. Yeah, 'da boyz in da 'hood' gonna be big-scared of this bunch....