Artie Burns is not happy with new NFL National Anthem policy

[tom444]

How Police Training Contributes to Avoidable Deaths

To save lives, cops must be taught to think beyond the gun belt.

.............................

Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world. They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.”

Officers aren’t just told about the risks they face. They are shown painfully vivid, heart-wrenching dash-cam footage of officers being

beaten

,

disarmed

, or

gunned down

after a moment of inattention or hesitation. They are told that the primary culprit isn’t the felon on the video, it is the officer’s lack of vigilance. And as they listen to the fallen officer’s last, desperate radio calls for help, every cop in the room is thinking exactly the same thing: “I won’t ever let that happen to me.” That’s the point of the training.

More pointed lessons come in the form of hands-on exercises. One common scenario teaches officers that a suspect leaning into a car can pull out a gun and shoot at officers before they can react. Another teaches that even when an officer are pointing a gun at a suspect whose back is turned, the suspect can spin around and fire first. Yet another teaches that a knife-carrying suspect standing 20 feet away can run up to an officer and start stabbing before the officer can get their gun out of the holster. There are countless variations, but the lessons are the same: Hesitation can be fatal. So officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late.
But what about the consequences of a mistake? After all, that dark object in the suspect’s hands could be a wallet, not a gun. The occasional training scenario may even make that point. But officers are taught that the risks of mistake are less—far less—than the risks of hesitation. A common phrase among cops pretty much sums it up: “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”

In most police shootings, officers don’t shoot out of anger or frustration or hatred. They shoot because they are afraid. And they are afraid because they are constantly barraged with the message that that they should be afraid, that their survival depends on it. Not only do officers hear it in formal training, they also hear it informally from supervisors and older officers. They talk about it with their peers. They see it on police forums and law enforcement publications. For example, three of the four stories mentioned on the cover of this month’s Police Magazine are about dealing with threats to officer safety.
Officers’ actions are grounded in their expectations, and they are taught to expect the worst. The officers who shot John Crawford may have honestly believed that he was raising his rifle to a shooting position even though security camera footage shows him on the phone, casually swinging the BB gun back and forth. The same may be true of the Phoenix officer who shot an unarmed man because he thought, mistakenly, that the suspect had a gun in his waistband. The officers saw what they were afraid of. They saw what they were trained to see. And they did what they had been taught to do. That’s the problem.


https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...rguson/383681/

[Mojouw]

And yet, that is also why the police need to listen to the community and understand their situation, because the police seem to be thinking that not listening immediately means threat. Now, while I will probably always agree that in the moment, an officer has to make those assessment, it would also be good for the officers to understand that in reality, non-compliance doesn't always mean threat. Sometimes, noncompliance occurs because of fear or misunderstanding or believing that a person's rights are being violated and the officer is in the wrong.

Once the police really begin to understand that, then they can also start learning how to deescalate issues before they get to the point of shooting. Will it always work? Nope. Not at all. There are a lot of knuckleheads out there. However, I also think it will make a big enough impact to be worth it, and in the long run, it'll save lives on both sides, both the physical life, but also the emotional/psychological trauma from such acts that hinders a person from having a life.

I just can't help seeing this from the perspective of a person who carries a weapon concealed (as I know we both do). If the 50 state concealed carry law goes through, I will be carrying in California as I have business there at least once a year. Yet, I fear that ignorance among Californian police officers when it comes to guns will put me in a very bad situation every time I get pulled over (and most likely, cause at least a minor violation of my civil rights). The best way to combat that is through education of the police officers that CCW = 99.8 percent chance you are dealing with a law-abiding citizen from whom there is no threat. That education would have to come from people who are authorities on the subject as well as statistical proof and finally, create a change of culture within the California police fraternity.

Now, I also recognize the differences between what I wrote above and what police are dealing with on the streets: I am very careful never to make sudden moves, always keep my hands where they can be seen, and am always respectful. If you don't present as a threat, there's a greater chance you won't be seen as a threat. With that said, though, what I presented above also allows me to understand the frustration of people who believe there is a culture permeating certain elements of law enforcement that automatically puts you at greater risk simply because you are acting within your rights.

Amazing post. I really do think ignorance on all sides is a crucial compounding factor and can conspire to produce fatal outcomes.

I got pulled over for speeding in a small town some years back. I was speeding and knew I was completely in the wrong. As the officer was working in his vehicle, I began reaching around the passenger compartment of my car. I turned off the radio, gathered my license and registration etc. I noticed in my side mirror that the cop approached cautiously and with his hand on his holstered service weapon. As I began to roll down my window I was met by loud commands to stop moving and place my hands on the dash. Thinking this was all overzealous on the officers part, I complied. Cop berated me at length for my actions. I apologized, explained my rationale that I was only attempting to ready myself to guilty admit to traffic violations. Officer grudgingly acknowledged that and continued to forcefully tell me how I was stupid.

Now since I was a 30 something white guy at the time with zero history of negative interactions with law enforcement, I nodded, apologized, got my ticket and left. Kinda just figured it was a combination of fairly innocent mistakes on my part and a bit of an overreaction on the cop's part. But what if I had been through different lived experiences? Maybe I mouth of to the cop, assuming he is aggressively hassingly me for past actions of mine or making assumptions based on how I look, the car I drive, the part of town we were in, or what have you. How easily could the interaction have turned terriblely combative?

None of the above is meant to excuse individuals from responsibility or to cast that cop and any police in a negative light. Simply want to point out that it isn't really difficult to imagine a scenario where bias and prior experience conspire to drive a negative outcome. Bottom line, I didn’t take issue because I had no reason not to trust the police. What if I didn’t trust the cops?

None of this is simple. It all takes place in shades of grey that are placed in entrenched assumptions based on decades of bad feelings. Only continued dialogue, no matter how painful and confusing, has any hope of making things better for both police and the citizens they serve.

[Mojouw]

How Police Training Contributes to Avoidable Deaths

To save lives, cops must be taught to think beyond the gun belt.

.............................

Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world. They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.”

Officers aren’t just told about the risks they face. They are shown painfully vivid, heart-wrenching dash-cam footage of officers being

beaten

,

disarmed

, or

gunned down

after a moment of inattention or hesitation. They are told that the primary culprit isn’t the felon on the video, it is the officer’s lack of vigilance. And as they listen to the fallen officer’s last, desperate radio calls for help, every cop in the room is thinking exactly the same thing: “I won’t ever let that happen to me.” That’s the point of the training.

More pointed lessons come in the form of hands-on exercises. One common scenario teaches officers that a suspect leaning into a car can pull out a gun and shoot at officers before they can react. Another teaches that even when an officer are pointing a gun at a suspect whose back is turned, the suspect can spin around and fire first. Yet another teaches that a knife-carrying suspect standing 20 feet away can run up to an officer and start stabbing before the officer can get their gun out of the holster. There are countless variations, but the lessons are the same: Hesitation can be fatal. So officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late.
But what about the consequences of a mistake? After all, that dark object in the suspect’s hands could be a wallet, not a gun. The occasional training scenario may even make that point. But officers are taught that the risks of mistake are less—far less—than the risks of hesitation. A common phrase among cops pretty much sums it up: “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”

In most police shootings, officers don’t shoot out of anger or frustration or hatred. They shoot because they are afraid. And they are afraid because they are constantly barraged with the message that that they should be afraid, that their survival depends on it. Not only do officers hear it in formal training, they also hear it informally from supervisors and older officers. They talk about it with their peers. They see it on police forums and law enforcement publications. For example, three of the four stories mentioned on the cover of this month’s Police Magazine are about dealing with threats to officer safety.
Officers’ actions are grounded in their expectations, and they are taught to expect the worst. The officers who shot John Crawford may have honestly believed that he was raising his rifle to a shooting position even though security camera footage shows him on the phone, casually swinging the BB gun back and forth. The same may be true of the Phoenix officer who shot an unarmed man because he thought, mistakenly, that the suspect had a gun in his waistband. The officers saw what they were afraid of. They saw what they were trained to see. And they did what they had been taught to do. That’s the problem.


https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...rguson/383681/

Thanks for posting the article. A ton to consider there. For me the critical point is that racial issues cans should be discussed outside of the context of racism or racist connotations. The two are fundamentally different things. Hopefully, we can all work to move the conversation to that footing rather than the binary and overly simplified racism/not racism divide it is frequently couched in.

[tom444]

To keep it in perspective, here is a list of the 10 most dangerous jobs for men. Being a police officer isn't one of them. Over the years I've never seen police officer make the list of the top ten most dangerous job. While it certainly is great to have them around. It is a safer world because of them, and many times they display courage and sacrifice. However, remember the next time you pay a bill the old fashion way that the paper envelope you put the check in, as well as the check itself, were both brought to you by men doing the most dangerous job, logging.

Have you ever seen a loggers funeral on television, with a bagpiper? Neither have I.

.................................................. ...............................


There were 4,836 fatal work injuries in 2015, not counting active members of the U.S. armed forces. Ten industries in particular saw the highest rate of deaths per 100,000 full-time workers. Most of these jobs are done by men.

The number of fatal work injuries for civilian workers rose slightly from 2014 to 2015, according to the most recent data by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of deaths of Hispanic or Latino workers, as well as workers over 65 years of age, remains relatively high.
Here are the most dangerous jobs for men, according to government data.

10. Supervisors of landscaping, lawn service and grounds-keeping workers

The fatal injury rate for supervisors in the landscaping industry was just over 18 per 100,000.

Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

9. Electrical power-line installer and repairer

The fatal injury rate for power-line workers was approximately 21 per 100,000.


Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

8. Farmers, ranchers and agricultural managers

The fatal injury rate for farmers and ranchers was approximately 22 per 100,000.


Getty Images
A cattle farmer organizes his cattle while moving them to a new field for grazing in Raymond, Neb.

7. Truck drivers

Their fatal injury rate was approximately 24 per 100,000.


Philippe Huguen | AFP | Getty Images

6. Structural iron and steel workers
Their fatal injury rate was approximately 30 per 100,000.


Robert Nickelsberg | Getty Images
A floor crew pull steel pipe out of a natural gas well in the Barnett Shale of Fort Worth, Texas that is owned by Chesapeake Energy Corporation.

5. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
Their fatal injury rate was approximately 39 per 100,000.


Mike Clarke | E+ | Getty Images

4. Roofers

Their fatal injury rate was just under 40 per 100,000.




Terry J Alcorn | E+ | Getty Images

3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers

Their fatal injury rate was slightly more than 40 per 100,000.




Nardus Engelbrecht/Gallo Images/Getty Images

2. Fishers and fishing workers
Their fatal injury rate was about 55 per 100,000.



Damien Meyer/AFP/Getty Images

1. Logging workers

Their fatal injury rate was slightly more than 132 per 100,000 people, making logging by far the most dangerous industry in the U.S.




Ty Wright/Bloomberg via Getty Images


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-for-men.html

[86WARD]

Paragraphs and paragraphs of debate...the simple answer...if questioned or approached by a police officer, shut your fucking mouth, be respectful and do what the officer says. Otherwise...your asking for trouble. Period. It’s really not a hard concept...

Now about Artie Burns...if you wear a teams uniform, you represent that team. If that team wants you to stand on your head for the anthem, you stand on your head. If they want you to sit Indian style for the anthem, you sit Indian style. You work for that team and you follow that teams set of rules. If you don’t like it, you quit and find a new job.

[tom444]

[pczach]

To keep it in perspective, here is a list of the 10 most dangerous jobs for men. Being a police officer isn't one of them. Over the years I've never seen police officer make the list of the top ten most dangerous job. While it certainly is great to have them around. It is a safer world because of them, and many times they display courage and sacrifice. However, remember the next time you pay a bill the old fashion way that the paper envelope you put the check in, as well as the check itself, were both brought to you by men doing the most dangerous job, logging.

Have you ever seen a loggers funeral on television, with a bagpiper? Neither have I.

I'll answer your question.

That's because police officers protect the public. The job description is exactly that. They are often times killed while protecting others and putting themselves in harms way so that others are not. The simple fact that you don't get that reveals that you are nothing more than a hater and a troll that should be removed from the conversation as you clearly lack any perspective. You have completely undermined your own argument with your asinine comment.

I don't get the total lack of respect you show for the police and what they do. The comment I bolded in your post is ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting something so ignorant and inflammatory. Your comments are completely out of bounds.

If a logger falls from a tree and dies, it is indeed tragic.

If a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it affects so many people on a personal level because the police officer has been a part of so many positive things while on duty to help so many people, that there is a connection there.

They save lives by putting themselves in harms way.

Police officers are often the first responders to horrific accidents where they help people, treat the wounded, and save lives.

They occasionally deliver babies in emergency situations.

They often show leniency to try to reach someone rather than bringing the hammer. This is almost never talked about, but goes on all the time.

They go to schools to talk to kids to try to save many from taking the wrong path.

They show up to incidents that everyone else is running from.

They often take their jobs home with them more than the average person does from an emotional and psychological standpoint, resulting in a high rate of marital problems.

Having to confront a 16 year old kid that suddenly turns with a 9mm in his hand and having to shoot him is a position almost none of us will ever be in. Lying in bed at night with your own kids sleeping in the rooms next to you while you stare at the ceiling and sometimes silently weeping at things you have had to do to protect others.

Having to live with the things they experience isn't easy, and it is lost on people like you that only want to highlight the negative, while ignoring the overwhelmingly positive things that police officers do.

I have mostly stayed out of this conversation, as there is no winning this debate. There are good points made on both sides, and there is obviously a problem that we all wish didn't exist, but it does because the human condition is going to have a fail rate....particularly in high-pressure situations when split-second, life-or-death decisions are made... and the inability of people to follow instructions and their lack of knowledge of what is or is not an aggressive move to a police officer that believes their lives are in danger.

There are incredibly bad decisions made by a small number of police officers that result in death. Those that cross the line and commit criminal acts should be treated as such. The rest should never be in that position again, and should be removed from duty.

Funny, I don't see many videos of police officers being harmed putting themselves between good people and assholes with weapons. I only see videos where they may have made mistakes.

Those of you that only see the negative need to get a little more introspective.

[tom444]

I'll answer your question.

That's because police officers protect the public. The job description is exactly that. They are often times killed while protecting others and putting themselves in harms way so that others are not. The simple fact that you don't get that reveals that you are nothing more than a hater and a troll that should be removed from the conversation as you clearly lack any perspective. You have completely undermined your own argument with your asinine comment.

I don't get the total lack of respect you show for the police and what they do. The comment I bolded in your post is ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting something so ignorant and inflammatory. Your comments are completely out of bounds.

If a logger falls from a tree and dies, it is indeed tragic.

If a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it affects so many people on a personal level because the police officer has been a part of so many positive things while on duty to help so many people, that there is a connection there.

They save lives by putting themselves in harms way.

Police officers are often the first responders to horrific accidents where they help people, treat the wounded, and save lives.

They occasionally deliver babies in emergency situations.

They often show leniency to try to reach someone rather than bringing the hammer. This is almost never talked about, but goes on all the time.

They go to schools to talk to kids to try to save many from taking the wrong path.

They show up to incidents that everyone else is running from.

They often take their jobs home with them more than the average person does from an emotional and psychological standpoint, resulting in a high rate of marital problems.

Having to confront a 16 year old kid that suddenly turns with a 9mm in his hand and having to shoot him is a position almost none of us will ever be in. Lying in bed at night with your own kids sleeping in the rooms next to you while you stare at the ceiling and sometimes silently weeping at things you have had to do to protect others.

Having to live with the things they experience isn't easy, and it is lost on people like you that only want to highlight the negative, while ignoring the overwhelmingly positive things that police officers do.

I have mostly stayed out of this conversation, as there is no winning this debate. There are good points made on both sides, and there is obviously a problem that we all wish didn't exist, but it does because the human condition is going to have a fail rate....particularly in high-pressure situations when split-second, life-or-death decisions are made... and the inability of people to follow instructions and their lack of knowledge of what is or is not an aggressive move to a police officer that believes their lives are in danger.

There are incredibly bad decisions made by a small number of police officers that result in death. Those that cross the line and commit criminal acts should be treated as such. The rest should never be in that position again, and should be removed from duty.

Funny, I don't see many videos of police officers being harmed putting themselves between good people and assholes with weapons. I only see videos where they may have made mistakes.

Those of you that only see the negative need to get a little more introspective.

I didn't say anything negative about police officers. I just pointed out that lots of people put their lives on the line to provide us with all kinds of things from lumber for our homes, to fish for dinner, to collecting the mounds of garbage we dispose of, and so on, and so forth. This elevating the police to an almost religious level serves no purpose, and in fact can have a negative impact. So, I hope your post made you feel self-righteous because there was no reason for it other than that.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Now about Artie Burns...if you wear a teams uniform, you represent that team. If that team wants you to stand on your head for the anthem, you stand on your head. If they want you to sit Indian style for the anthem, you sit Indian style. You work for that team and you follow that teams set of rules. If you don’t like it, you quit and find a new job.

Sounds like a place of employment, without any kind of standards or union guidelines. Ya know, the way things were in underground mining 100+ years ago.

As far as a pro football player not liking work conditions and quitting to find a new job, how well is that supposed to work out when the NFL is a monopoly? How well is that working out for Eric Reid?

[pczach]

I didn't say anything negative about police officers. I just pointed out that lots of people put their lives on the line to provide us with all kinds of things from lumber for our homes, to fish for dinner, to collecting the mounds of garbage we dispose of, and so on, and so forth. This elevating the police to an almost religious level serves no purpose, and in fact can have a negative impact. So, I hope your post made you feel self-righteous because there was no reason for it other than that.

It isn't about elevating them to almost religious levels. It's about showing respect.

I'm simply explaining why people feel something more when a police officer dies in the line of duty. This isn't hard.

You just seem to lack a simple human understanding of why.

It's the reason why you asked such a stupid question, and why you don't understand my answer.

[tom444]

It isn't about elevating them to almost religious levels.

Sure it is. That's why they play the bagpipes.

As for feeling something more when a police officer dies, vs for example, an iron worker? Not me. I feel just as badly for the iron worker and his family. And I'm just as grateful for the service they provide. If not more so.

BTW, there's a reason I'm continuing to post. It has to do with the times we're in, and human natures susceptibility to being manipulated.

[pczach]

I didn't say anything negative about police officers. I just pointed out that lots of people put their lives on the line to provide us with all kinds of things from lumber for our homes, to fish for dinner, to collecting the mounds of garbage we dispose of, and so on, and so forth. This elevating the police to an almost religious level serves no purpose, and in fact can have a negative impact. So, I hope your post made you feel self-righteous because there was no reason for it other than that.

Maybe your number of officers killed in the line of duty is off.

Here is a link to a story about officer deaths in the line of duty being down in 2017. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...low/984477001/

There were 143 officers killed in the line of duty in 2016, with 66 of them shot and killed.

The number of officers reported killed in the line of duty in this story as of the end of December 2017 was 128.

Do you want to stick to your comparisons to other lines of work and the dangers they encounter?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure it is. That's why they play the bagpipes.

As for feeling something more when a police officer dies, vs for example, an iron worker? Not me. I feel just as badly for the iron worker and his family. And I'm just as grateful for the service they provide. If not more so.

Bagpipes have nothing to do with religion. https://www.thoughtco.com/why-are-ba...nerals-3552967

You're making an ass of yourself.

[pczach]

BTW, there's a reason I'm continuing to post. It has to do with the times we're in, and human natures susceptibility to being manipulated.

…...and the only thing you are showing is that it is you that is trying to manipulate people into believing you when you are basing nearly everything you say on false information.

Well done...…..

[tom444]

Bagpipes have nothing to do with religion. https://www.thoughtco.com/why-are-ba...nerals-3552967

You're making an ass of yourself.

Oh for crying out loud, stop being so literal. They play the bagpipes to pull on your heartstrings.

- - - Updated - - -

…...and the only thing you are showing is that it is you that is trying to manipulate people into believing you when you are basing nearly everything you say on false information.

Well done...…..

Oh please. Show me a list of the 10 most dangereous jobs where the police are high on the list, or even in it. And if you find one there are about 50 where they aren't.

This is all way over your head.

[silver & black]

I'll answer your question.

That's because police officers protect the public. The job description is exactly that. They are often times killed while protecting others and putting themselves in harms way so that others are not. The simple fact that you don't get that reveals that you are nothing more than a hater and a troll that should be removed from the conversation as you clearly lack any perspective. You have completely undermined your own argument with your asinine comment.

I don't get the total lack of respect you show for the police and what they do. The comment I bolded in your post is ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting something so ignorant and inflammatory. Your comments are completely out of bounds.

If a logger falls from a tree and dies, it is indeed tragic.

If a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it affects so many people on a personal level because the police officer has been a part of so many positive things while on duty to help so many people, that there is a connection there.

They save lives by putting themselves in harms way.

Police officers are often the first responders to horrific accidents where they help people, treat the wounded, and save lives.

They occasionally deliver babies in emergency situations.

They often show leniency to try to reach someone rather than bringing the hammer. This is almost never talked about, but goes on all the time.

They go to schools to talk to kids to try to save many from taking the wrong path.

They show up to incidents that everyone else is running from.

They often take their jobs home with them more than the average person does from an emotional and psychological standpoint, resulting in a high rate of marital problems.

Having to confront a 16 year old kid that suddenly turns with a 9mm in his hand and having to shoot him is a position almost none of us will ever be in. Lying in bed at night with your own kids sleeping in the rooms next to you while you stare at the ceiling and sometimes silently weeping at things you have had to do to protect others.

Having to live with the things they experience isn't easy, and it is lost on people like you that only want to highlight the negative, while ignoring the overwhelmingly positive things that police officers do.

I have mostly stayed out of this conversation, as there is no winning this debate. There are good points made on both sides, and there is obviously a problem that we all wish didn't exist, but it does because the human condition is going to have a fail rate....particularly in high-pressure situations when split-second, life-or-death decisions are made... and the inability of people to follow instructions and their lack of knowledge of what is or is not an aggressive move to a police officer that believes their lives are in danger.

There are incredibly bad decisions made by a small number of police officers that result in death. Those that cross the line and commit criminal acts should be treated as such. The rest should never be in that position again, and should be removed from duty.

Funny, I don't see many videos of police officers being harmed putting themselves between good people and assholes with weapons. I only see videos where they may have made mistakes.

Those of you that only see the negative need to get a little more introspective.

Fantastic post... thank you!

[tom444]

Bagpipes, the national anthem, flags, etc., are all designed to manipulate your emotions so you'll respond as a group. That can be good, and it can be bad. And when it's bad, look out.

[Mojouw]

Bagpipes, the national anthem, and flags, are all desingded to manipulate your emotions so you'll respond as group. That can be good, and it can be bad. And when it's bad, look out.

That is all very true. Symbols and rituals can be potent group activities that can be co-opted by the folks in charge for whatever purpose they so choose. That's like Anthropology 101.

But the underlying traditions also have deeper meanings that still carry weight. For instance, the pipes at police funerals go back almost 2 centuries and tie in to the fact that the majority of early cops in large American cities were Irish and Scottish and brought their rituals with them that were incorporated into the foundations of many East Coast police forces - which became the models for the rest of the country.

My point? This stuff is really complicated and requires each of us to look at all aspects in an unemotional manner.

[tom444]

That is all very true. Symbols and rituals can be potent group activities that can be co-opted by the folks in charge for whatever purpose they so choose. That's like Anthropology 101.

But the underlying traditions also have deeper meanings that still carry weight. For instance, the pipes at police funerals go back almost 2 centuries and tie in to the fact that the majority of early cops in large American cities were Irish and Scottish and brought their rituals with them that were incorporated into the foundations of many East Coast police forces - which became the models for the rest of the country.

My point? This stuff is really complicated and requires each of us to look at all aspects in an unemotional manner.

That's right, and the purpose was to present as one, undivided, group. And as I said, that can be a great thing, but it can also be a very bad thing. I'll let you decide which category this falls in today, which is much different than yesterday. For me, someone who fought all over the world, I say look out.

[pczach]

That is all very true. Symbols and rituals can be potent group activities that can be co-opted by the folks in charge for whatever purpose they so choose. That's like Anthropology 101.

But the underlying traditions also have deeper meanings that still carry weight. For instance, the pipes at police funerals go back almost 2 centuries and tie in to the fact that the majority of early cops in large American cities were Irish and Scottish and brought their rituals with them that were incorporated into the foundations of many East Coast police forces - which became the models for the rest of the country.

My point? This stuff is really complicated and requires each of us to look at all aspects in an unemotional manner.

Exactly. I wasn't even trying to pick a side on this issue with my post about tom444 and his comment about bagpipes. It was to try to establish an earned respect for 99 percent of all law enforcement officers out there.

I think there have been very good points on both sides. Hell, I can show youtube videos of protesters standing in front of riot police to protect them and imploring protesters not to attack police officers. I can also show video after video of cops risking their lives to help people. I mean.....what the hell are we talking about here?

These issues are extremely complex in their scope and their origins. Many that have posted in this thread are hard on police officers even though they have close ties to many. Of the law enforcement people that I know, they get so pissed every time a bad cop is discussed because they know that in many people's minds it discredits them in some way. They absolutely loathe law enforcement people that dishonor the oath or the moral code. Nobody is happy about the deaths of wrongly killed people.

It's hard to discuss with the written word, because in every post it appears that so much is left out. It just isn't the best venue for deep discussions.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

It was to try to establish an earned respect for 99 percent of all law enforcement officers out there.
.

99%? How many police officers do you know?

I honestly know 6 friends my age from highschool that are police officers, 2 of which I played football with. The majority of them started the job interested in policing and being good at their job. Within 3-5 years on the force I think they all become jaded in that they are just moving garbage cans to the curb each week and new piles or garbage appear on a regular basis.

I would say that 3 of the 6 still like the job and feel they are making a difference, but their experience has made them realistic about criminals, while the other 3 are more or less doing the job for the paycheck and pension that comes at the end. Just like a lot of jobs, I know teachers, police, nurses, accountants, salespeople,etc that are good at their job and those that are less than average. I would not say that I give a blanket 99% "earned respect" to police officers based upon those that I know and see.....just like any other profession.

[Craic]

I'll answer your question.

That's because police officers protect the public. The job description is exactly that.

Actually, no, they don't. As noted here, the police due not have a duty to protect someone per the supreme court decision in 2005. It is also why "to protect and serve" is not found on police cars anymore.

[Craic]

Paragraphs and paragraphs of debate...the simple answer...if questioned or approached by a police officer, shut your fucking mouth, be respectful and do what the officer says. Otherwise...your asking for trouble. Period. It’s really not a hard concept...

It's so easy to say in an environment like this. But, let's take it into real life. I'll even offer a few real life situations.

(1) An officer pulls you over. In the course of the encounter, he finds out you have a gun (legally) and requires you to hand it over (most states allow this, so still legal). When you do, the officer proceeds to unload the weapon, including removing all the rounds out of the magazine. Now, nothing wrong yet, right? The only problem is, when this happened to someone, the officer had no idea how to handle that particular weapon and while looking for how to eject the magazine, was pointing a loaded gun directly at the person's face. What do you do? Do you sit there mutely as your life is in danger through utter ignorance? (and yes, having a loaded weapon pointed at you no matter the reason is a danger to life or limb).

(2) A police officer asks to see your identification, but you are not doing anything against the law. The officer is therefore clearly violating your constitutional rights, already. When you refuse (politely) after asking him if you are under suspicion for violating law and learning you are not, that officer presses harder. What do you do? What do you do if you are a friend standing a few feet away? Go on youtube and find out. They start filming, which is again within their constitutional rights, but police officers often will try intimidate a person into shutting off the camera or in some cases, force them to do so, again in clear violation of rights. I agree you should always be polite and respectful, but that does not include willingly giving up constitutional rights.

(3) You are pulled over and a police officer approaches your car. Because of a former stop or problems at home or maybe he's just coming down with a bug and doesn't know it yet, the officer is rude and short with you to the point where it is coming close to harassment (don't think it doesn't happen that often; it happens as often in the police as it does in any other job). Do you shut up and take it? No, you respectfully request his superior to accompany him on the stop, because you as a human being and a person under the protection of the US constitution are not required to be subjugated to such actions.

Don't interpret what I have typed here as being "against" the police. Just the opposite. However, to blindly say that in every case, a person just needs to shut up and respectful and there will be no problem is to turn a blind eye to reality. Sometimes, not too often, but sometimes, the problem is the police officer. I'd go further and submit that most of the time when it is the police officer, it's a problem of unintended consequences (again, perhaps getting sick and not knowing it, and so it sours his attitude, which drives unintended consequences), but once in a long while, it's the person itself.

How, then, do I deal with police officers when confronted? In my car I pull over, roll down whatever side window I see them approaching (I leave the other side up so it doesn't look like I'm hiding illegal tint on the windows), turn on my cablight so they don't have to struggle to see inside the car, turn off my car and put the keys on the dashboard so the officer doesn't have to worry about me running off, and rest my wrists on the steering wheel at the 11 and 1 occlock positions. I also move slow when the officer asks for my registration, opening the box really slow so he can see in and note there is nothing threatening (Also, I hand over my CCL with my drivers license).

However, if he asks to search the truck, I say no. There is no reason for him to search it. If he starts to do any of the things above, I quietly and respectfully stand for my rights and if he pushes, I ask for a supervisor.

[tom444]

....................

(1) An officer pulls you over. In the course of the encounter, he finds out you have a gun (legally) and requires you to hand it over (most states allow this, so still legal). When you do, the officer proceeds to unload the weapon, including removing all the rounds out of the magazine. Now, nothing wrong yet, right? The only problem is, when this happened to someone, the officer had no idea how to handle that particular weapon and while looking for how to eject the magazine, was pointing a loaded gun directly at the person's face. What do you do? Do you sit there mutely as your life is in danger through utter ignorance? (and yes, having a loaded weapon pointed at you no matter the reason is a danger to life or limb).................

Several years ago I had to show a police officer how to unload a Ruger single action revolver (Super Blackhawk). I was stunned.

[pczach]

99%? How many police officers do you know?

I honestly know 6 friends my age from highschool that are police officers, 2 of which I played football with. The majority of them started the job interested in policing and being good at their job. Within 3-5 years on the force I think they all become jaded in that they are just moving garbage cans to the curb each week and new piles or garbage appear on a regular basis.

I would say that 3 of the 6 still like the job and feel they are making a difference, but their experience has made them realistic about criminals, while the other 3 are more or less doing the job for the paycheck and pension that comes at the end. Just like a lot of jobs, I know teachers, police, nurses, accountants, salespeople,etc that are good at their job and those that are less than average. I would not say that I give a blanket 99% "earned respect" to police officers based upon those that I know and see.....just like any other profession.

I thought the entire conversation was about how many police officers mistakenly kill people. Nobody here is talking about going through the motions to earn a pension.

Now you're going to compare people that get tested on a regular basis in life or death situations with a gym teacher, math teacher, principal, or guidance counselor? So you only respect 50% of all these professions without knowing all of them?

Come on Gonzo.

If I made the comment that I didn't respect 50% of all teachers, nurses, accountants, etc... that would be jumped on as being systematically jaded against those professions.

Now I can see why I stayed out of the conversation. Make a comment to defend cops that don't kill people, and my judgement is doubted by someone who knows 6 cops and states half of them don't give a shit about their job. I'm sure you friends would be happy to hear that.

Many of the people here that are saying nobody is willing to listen to the protestors side try to make a huge point out of defending the police that have never had such an incident where they have wrongfully killed someone. That doesn't sound like open-mindedness to me when I am merely stating the obvious.

[pczach]

Actually, no, they don't. As noted here, the police due not have a duty to protect someone per the supreme court decision in 2005. It is also why "to protect and serve" is not found on police cars anymore.

I understand your point.

They are not bound to the individual, but to the public at large. I understand the ruling, but there is obviously a lot of uncertainty about what is and what is not required of an officer. Many officers feel a need to go above and beyond the call of duty, and maybe some don't completely understand the consequences of acting, or in some cases....failing to act.

Here is a great link to try to give a better understanding to police officers and the public explaining what is required.

https://www.policeone.com/police-job...duty-doctrine/

Unfortunately, after reading the entire piece, there is still much doubt about what is required in multiple aspects and can help people understand how difficult it is to make these decisions under stress. It still leaves much to question.

[Craic]

Several years ago I had to show a police officer how to unload a Ruger single action revolver (Super Blackhawk). I was stunned.[/INDENT]

Honestly, it doesn't surprise me. For instance, although I consider myself very proficient with new models such as Glocks, SAXDs, and so on, I've seldom handled a 1911 (although, I do understand that it is the same basic mechanisms for releasing the magazine) and am not so comfortable with some other weapons (I've shot a revolver once in the last thirty-three years, and have handled a revolver maybe half a dozen times since then. So, although I'm familiar with the mechanics, I'm still clumsy with it).

That said, when I bought my first AR-15, I knew very little about it. So, I went to my shooting range and ask the young guys behind the rental desk (who all knew their stuff, thankfully) to show me the ins and outs and anything thing special I needed to know for proper handling and safety outside of common gun safety things.

I understand your point.

They are not bound to the individual, but to the public at large. I understand the ruling, but there is obviously a lot of uncertainty about what is and what is not required of an officer. Many officers feel a need to go above and beyond the call of duty, and maybe some don't completely understand the consequences of acting, or in some cases....failing to act.

Here is a great link to try to give a better understanding to police officers and the public explaining what is required.

https://www.policeone.com/police-job...duty-doctrine/

Unfortunately, after reading the entire piece, there is still much doubt about what is required in multiple aspects and can help people understand how difficult it is to make these decisions under stress. It still leaves much to question.

Funny, I actually saw that link when I was looking for a good link to reference my comment to. I do agree that it's very much in doubt. From what I could manage to learn, I understand the police officer has no legal responsibility to put himself or herself in harms way any more than any other citizen. Their responsibility is to enforce the law, but that can be done once it is safe to do so. Now, in all honesty, I really don't have a problem with that as I truly believe the primary responsibility for me, my family, and my house falls to me.

That said, we then run into the problem of officers assigned to black neighborhoods who are no longer there for protection, but only to arrest people after they commit a crime. With the history of the police in the US, especially back east and down south, I can see how that alone is unsettling. All it takes is a couple of questionable shoots for things to erupt. It's why I still think the best thing we can do is get community leaders to go through the police training and really see the situation from the side of the police, and then somehow get the police to go through training to see how they might be setting off negative responses and how, if it is possible for them to do so without more risk to themselves, change the way they approach things.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I thought the entire conversation was about how many police officers mistakenly kill people. Nobody here is talking about going through the motions to earn a pension.

Now you're going to compare people that get tested on a regular basis in life or death situations with a gym teacher, math teacher, principal, or guidance counselor? So you only respect 50% of all these professions without knowing all of them?

Come on Gonzo.

If I made the comment that I didn't respect 50% of all teachers, nurses, accountants, etc... that would be jumped on as being systematically jaded against those professions.

Now I can see why I stayed out of the conversation. Make a comment to defend cops that don't kill people, and my judgement is doubted by someone who knows 6 cops and states half of them don't give a shit about their job. I'm sure you friends would be happy to hear that.

Many of the people here that are saying nobody is willing to listen to the protestors side try to make a huge point out of defending the police that have never had such an incident where they have wrongfully killed someone. That doesn't sound like open-mindedness to me when I am merely stating the obvious.

My point is that police are just like any other profession, there are police who like their job and do it because its something they are passionate and proficient about and there are police like in every other occupation, probably should move onto something they would be more interested in doing, but they don't because they have too much time and effort invested in the job for the pension.

Giving 99% of police credit just because the wear the badge, or 99% of teachers credit just because they show up to teach isn't realistic IMO, as a lot go thru the motions.

I agree that there are police that are good at their jobs. I don't think the majority of them are looking to shoot unarmed people on a daily basis and in fact its a very small percentage, but the fact that we can pull up YouTube video of a dozen cases where citizens are wrongly shot by police or cite the cases of where pro athletes like James Blake, Thabo Sefalosha and Sterling Brown were wrongly beaten by police......means there is a problem with policing in America today.

The real point of this thread IMO, is that the NFL is enforcing censorship as their latest solution and somehow people that feel so strongly about the Anthem, feel indifferent to censorship and freedom of speech.

[silver & black]

The real point of this thread IMO, is that the NFL is enforcing censorship as their latest solution and somehow people that feel so strongly about the Anthem, feel indifferent to censorship and freedom of speech.

I said I was out of this.... but, that is just wrong. Most of us feel that your JOB is the wrong venue for your protest. It's really just that simple.

[Dwinsgames]

[DesertSteel]

Personally, I see the Flag protests to be on the same par as TO not going to Canton to "make sure this doesn't happen to other players" (get penalized by writers). It drew a lot of press, but if anything it will make writers even more punitive of TO types. This flag protest is so misdirected that it causes more harm than it ever will bring positive change.