Black teenager with knife killed by Chicago PD

[cornographic]

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

 

 

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

 

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both.you

id say hes crazy before throwing a racist label on him just to fit an agenda.

 

Like, I said, 1000s of protestors have an "agenda", so...

[HuskerNBigD]

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both. But, evidently, 1000s of protestors in Chicago thought it may just be race related, so I'm not alone.

 

 

Just because you're not alone, doesn't mean you're right. Hitler had a pretty big following at one point in time and many individuals were in favor of slavery.... This game is fun!

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

 

 

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

 

You want to know how to deescalate a situation with law enforcement? Do what the cop says and deal with it in court. That would be super helpful instead of thinking you're a lawyer because you read something on the internet that just has to be true! Things would go much better that way, but law enforcement is the only ones that need to change...............according to some.

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

Why do you shoot center mass?

 

is that really a question????

[VA Husker Fan]

 

BRI, do you really see the guy veer toward the officer? He's pretty clearly moving left to right to put more distance between him and the vehicle as he walks in that direction, and the most I see is that he straightens out his line for a couple steps and looks over at the officer, and gets shot. I think the defense is going to have a hard time convincing the jury that he made a threatening move or any kind of move actually toward the officer, though continuing to carry a knife when presumably the police were telling him to drop it is very stupid. I will buy that in the dark and from the officer's angle it may have looked different.

 

And for the 21 foot rule, that includes the time to unholster the weapon, right. The cop already has his weapon drawn and pointed. Does the 21 foot rule still apply when you've already got your gun trained on the target? I don't think the 21 foot rule is going to fly with a jury either.

 

It's a tough job, of that I'm certain, but I don't think this cop was fit for it.

I said I seen him veer for a split second or at least change his path, split seconds matter in the real world, maybe not in the internet world as that split second now turns into weeks of discussion of how things could've been done better. Depending on the training you've had and how specific that training is depends on how you see that even in the law enforcement world.

 

I'm not playing games with someone with a knife.

 

I'm not saying he was fit for it, people take my words as twist them around constantly when I try and discuss these things. I wonder if everyone else would enjoy that anytime they would comment on something?

 

Thanks, I was just looking for your perspective on it especially with respect to the 21 foot guidelines. Yes, I was questioning your judgement whether he was actually veering toward him at all, but the rest was just offering my own view, not arguing against yours. Did not mean to imply that you made any call about whether the cop was fit for duty. Didn't mean to put you on the defensive at all. Sorry that the way I worded it came out that way.

[HuskerNBigD]

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

 

 

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

 

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. In a perfect world, deescalation would be all that is required, I'm just under the assumption that we aren't living in a world full of sunshine and daisies.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

 

 

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

 

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

 

A 3 inch blade to the neck will kill you, but I suppose cops are expendable and should die from time to time in the name of deescalation huh? Our lives matter too you know..........and sometimes situations evolve so quickly that officers don't have the opportunity to even go that route. I hope like hell I NEVER have to use my weapon and take a life. You have no idea the burden that comes with that decisions. I've seen the effects on officers from having to make that decision, it sucks!

[HuskerNBigD]

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

 

 

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

 

You want to know how to deescalate a situation with law enforcement? Do what the cop says and deal with it in court. That would be super helpful instead of thinking you're a lawyer because you read something on the internet that just has to be true! Things would go much better that way, but law enforcement is the only ones that need to change...............according to some.

 

 

Agreed. Unfortunately not everyone heeds that advice, then it turns into circular arguments such as what is taking place in this thread. It would be great if everyone followed police orders, but we all know that isnt an option. It would also be great if all cops were honorable and took their job as serious as you do BRI, but again,we all know this isnt true either.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both.you

id say hes crazy before throwing a racist label on him just to fit an agenda.

 

Like, I said, 1000s of protestors have an "agenda", so...

 

They're also looking for excuses............

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

 

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both. But, evidently, 1000s of protestors in Chicago thought it may just be race related, so I'm not alone.

 

 

Just because you're not alone, doesn't mean you're right. Hitler had a pretty big following at one point in time and many individuals were in favor of slavery.... This game is fun!

 

win!

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both. But, evidently, 1000s of protestors in Chicago thought it may just be race related, so I'm not alone.

 

So you made an assumption? Assumptions are what has gotten us as a country to where we are at now in reference to "race wars" that seem to be occurring. So you admit your post was complete B.S.? There's facts and there's assumptions, maybe we should wait until all the facts come on before we jump to conclusions. I realize that's a novel idea in today's world and not popular and maybe this guy is as guilty as everyone thinks he is or maybe he isn't. We just don't know completely yet.

 

Actually, the race wars have their roots, you know, when the white man brought over the slaves. KKK/Aryans/Neo Nazis have something to do with it also, you think? You do know that back in the day,when the US police forces were being assembled, they recruited heavily from the Klan, right? Ever hear of Frank Rizzo?

 

 

 

Say the name Frank Rizzo at any old-school dive bar in Philadelphia and you're liable to start a conversation. The former mayor and police commissioner who reigned through most of the 70s might be described as a "tough guy"—or maybe a "racist a-hole."...http://www.vice.com/read/remembering-frank-rizzo-the-most-notorious-cop-in-philadelphia-history-1022

 

J Edgar Hoover, Cointelpro, the Black Panthers? No, sorry, my assumptions haven't done much re: the race wars. Maybe if and when rogue cops stop killing black people who are of little or no imminent threat--and for misdimeanors--the race wars might settle down some. That's what black people are saying, anyway.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

Why do you shoot center mass?

 

is that really a question????

 

Center mass is the best target is what I understand. Are you saying there is another reason? I'm saying if you shoot someone center mass, there is a decent chance they die.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

 

 

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

 

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. In a perfect world, deescalation would be all that is required, I'm just under the assumption that we aren't living in a world full of sunshine and daisies.

 

I think this is an area in which the police force could totally relook, revamp their policy such that these types of deaths don't occur. It's similar to that 12 yr old kid who the cop shot in Cleveland within 3 seconds of pulling up and getting out of his car. Trigger happy training is what it looks like to me or John Q Public.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both. But, evidently, 1000s of protestors in Chicago thought it may just be race related, so I'm not alone.

 

So you made an assumption? Assumptions are what has gotten us as a country to where we are at now in reference to "race wars" that seem to be occurring. So you admit your post was complete B.S.? There's facts and there's assumptions, maybe we should wait until all the facts come on before we jump to conclusions. I realize that's a novel idea in today's world and not popular and maybe this guy is as guilty as everyone thinks he is or maybe he isn't. We just don't know completely yet.

 

Actually, the race wars have their roots, you know, when the white man brought over the slaves. KKK/Aryans/Neo Nazis have something to do with it also, you think? You do know that back in the day,when the US police forces were being assembled, they recruited heavily from the Klan, right? Ever hear of Frank Rizzo?

 

 

 

Say the name Frank Rizzo at any old-school dive bar in Philadelphia and you're liable to start a conversation. The former mayor and police commissioner who reigned through most of the 70s might be described as a "tough guy"—or maybe a "racist a-hole."...http://www.vice.com/read/remembering-frank-rizzo-the-most-notorious-cop-in-philadelphia-history-1022

 

J Edgar Hoover, Cointelpro, the Black Panthers? No, sorry, my assumptions haven't done much re: the race wars. Maybe if and when rogue cops stop killing black people who are of little or no imminent threat--and for misdimeanors--the race wars might settle down some. That's what black people are saying, anyway.

 

Like I've said before..............WAY out there man. WOW!