Crime POTWR 2019 Vol 1: Shots Fired! Examining Police Shootings In America

[Cubo de Sangre]

Can't say that I'm familiar but it sounds horrific. If it's as simple as that, it sounds like a poor decision or malicious behavior by the officer rather than a recrimination of the laws and procedures in place, though. I.E., "fuck that guy" as opposed to "fuck the police."

Kid was a total dumbass, but it stressed me the fuck out and I wasn't the one about to be shot.

I believe this actually resulted in a murder conviction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

Mesa Police Department officer Philip Brailsford shot and killed Daniel Leetin Shaver of Granbury, Texas in the hallway of a La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel on January 18, 2016.

After the shooting, the rifle, which remained in the room, was determined to be a pellet gun. Following an investigation, Brailsford was charged with second-degree murder and a lesser manslaughter charge and found not guilty by a jury.[1] Prosecutors argued the shooting was unjustified.[2] In March 2018, it became known that the United States Department of Justice has reopened the case and is looking into a possible civil rights violation by Brailsford.[3]

 

[Trotsky]

Kid was a total dumbass, but it stressed me the fuck out and I wasn't the one about to be shot.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

Aw, shit. I could have sworn that was one of the few convictions

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Aw, shit. I could have sworn that was one of the few convictions

What did the jury get wrong?

 

[sleepwalk]

As far as officers escalating a situation, this case always stuck with me.




The kid does some stupid shit for sure by reaching into the ol' waistband, but what leads to that is the cops rolling up on him like it's a drive-by or something. Seems a little more reckless than is necessary for public safety at the time. Can some officers please comment on that?

Yeah. That was heart-breaking. 12-years-old. Cute kid. Playing cops & robbers or army men in the park when a neighbor got worried about the gun.

The officers were responding to a gun call and were told that the kid was in another location in the park. As he was in the area where Tamir Rice was, he saw the (toy or BB) gun come out of the waistband (if memory serves me correctly, it was then held out from the body/pointed) and the officer pulled and fired.

Not the best position to pull up to but, much like the Ferguson shooting, how much blame do we want to place on the officer for being caught flat-footed? That's kind of a "look what she was wearing" sort of argument, isn't it?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yeah. That was heart-breaking. 12-years-old. Cute kid. Playing cops & robbers or army men in the park.

The officers were responding to a gun call and were told that the kid was in another location in the park. As he was in the area where Tamir Rice was, he saw the (toy or BB) gun come out of the waistband (if memory serves me correctly, it was then held out from the body/pointed) and the officer pulled and fired.

Not the best position to pull up to but, much like the Ferguson shooting, how much blame do we want to place on the officer for being caught flat-footed? That's kind of a "look what she was wearing" sort of argument, isn't it?

Thanks. Sorry if I missed this fact. So the cops rolled up like that thinking they were going to a part of the park where the suspect wasn't? And that when they screeched in to a halt they just happened to be face to face with the guy with the gun? That would certainly be the difference here in my mind, as opposed to just going in all cowboy.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Kid was a total dumbass, but it stressed me the fuck out and I wasn't the one about to be shot.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

That one was particularly egregious. Poor guy.

 

[JDragon]

. Equipping all 36,000 NYPD officers would be so expensive at $1500 a pop.

That doesn't sound expensive at all. 1500 bucks is like the cost of a day or two of training.

Personally I am not convinced it is desirable to give all cops everywhere tasers btw. I think it lowers the threshold for violence. But then again I am also critical of stuff like using LRADs versus protest crowds.

 

[cleetus]

I have a question that may or may not be off topic.

For a long time we have heard about the militarization of police. Many have seen memes, showing one picture of Andy Griffith, and another showing a cop in tactical gear.

I imagine that if any saw anything that really disturbed you, you would be looking for a change of profession. However, I wonder if their have been things you questioned. Things that got your tin-foil tingling. Change in procedure. Change in law. Changes in training. Ect.

Basically my question is, have you seen or experienced any change in LE, that caused you to question the real purpose of that change.

Not, are you convinced the deep state is about to launch martial law in this country, but what kind of things, if any, have you seen or experienced that caused you pause in a potential nefarious militarization of police?

There is no 'militarization' of the police. If anything, we're outgunned and outmanned. You have to remember, it's roughly 3 cops per thousand people, give or take a small change. In the town I work in, it's 2.4 at night and 0.7 during the day, which would assume every single person on the dept is working at that time.

The one thing that's often overlooked is bad guy's tactics have evolved, so we must adapt to the change. This includes equipment.

If you had a European style ballistic sheild, would that change this calculation for you?

No. Also, you are assuming we have time to run back to the car, or to HQ to grab a shield to begin with. We don't arrive at a job or see something happen and then automatically grab a less lethal shogun, rifle, shield, and road flares just in case something happens. I think you're assuming every tool or piece of equipment is available or on scene in all instances, which is FAR from true. For at least half my career, no one on the road even had a long gun available.

10 years fed LEO. My job involves arresting large amounts of people alone in the middle of the desert, mountains, canyons etc.

Backup can sometimes be literal hours away and the nearest road (dirt or otherwise) could be a half days walk. My AOR ranges from a major metropolitan area to the type of terrain I just described.

I have a very solid use of force record and due to the types we arrest I usually get my message across with solid officer presence and no nonsense crowd control techniques. My biggest beef is the lackadaisical approach many departments take to use of force training which trickles down to the agents I work with.

I am a three stripe purple belt, long time wrestler, and I won my one and only MMA fight. I believe this is why I’ve never actually even thought about drawing my firearm in a use of force situation because I feel so confident in my skills. I feel if more LEOs took this approach there would be a lot less “bad” shoots.

God bless you on that. Working solo in that environment is nuts.

Most black males don't commit felonies, much less serious violent crimes, and yet you will still defend racial profiling of black males. If you don't want police judged by their worst elements, then maybe don't do the same for blacks especially when you're vested with the authority by the state to rob them of their freedom and even kill them.

Btw when you talk about violence in their communities, that also applies to the cops. Some cop on the beat in some retirement town is usually not the kind of cop people are worried about, its the ones working in the militarized and alienated police forces of the large cities that present the most threat. Ya know, like the ones who will assume their suspect is armed and resort to lethal force

You can't escape stats. ALL the stats show blacks are involved with violent crime at a much higher rate than any other group. Blame those stats on environment, education, or whatever else you want, but don't blame a cop's reaction when presented with a violent criminal - black or white. Race-baiting doesn't work anymore. It got all used up shortly after the 2016 elections, and few people still believe that shit.

This is shaping up to be a very American discussion, and maybe that's ok because most poster on this board are American, too, and the police violence discussion is largely an American one as well.

Therefore, I am going to make some points and ask some questions to those involved.

1) The subjective element

I learned in this thread that the judgement of whether use of force (especially shootings) is justified is based on the facts available to an officer at the time. Now in the U.S., bodycams have become a thing, and I think that's good for everyone involved. False accusations by suspects can be countered, but also cops who go too far or otherwise would go on a power trip can be kept in check. At the same time, this is always going to be a tough concept to apply. We had a case in Germany where a Hells Angels member shot and killed a SWAT team member through the closed alabaster door. Police had tried to raid his house and had failed to identify themselves; there is no such thing as the castle doctrine in Germany, but the Hells Angels dude credibly stated he had assumed a Bandidos attack on his life.

Conversely, there also has been the case of Iain McLeod who was an innocent Scotsman living in Germany, who was shot and killed during a raid in 1972 as a suspected RAF member. He was killed with shots through the closed bedroom door; the cop claimed he had feared for his life. The case was never brought to trial.

The subjective element is crucial and still so problematic.

2) Culture of violence

I get a really, really bad feeling when I read what @SpAzNeT is writing. I can well understand where he is coming from; it doesn't feel right to put your life on the line for some dipshit criminals, and his experience as a member of SWAT teams certainly has strenghtened that position. But his stance - escalate violence - to me is very illuminative of the larger issue. Sure, every situation is different, and there certainly are instances where this is exactly the right approach to end a situation quickly. But at the same time, there are certainly also situations where standing down, clearing the area, waiting for backup, deescalating etc. is also a possible approach - see the very measured stance @nhbbear has. I think a lot of the issues come down to the culture of violence in the US. To me, it seems that yes, US police has a violence probem and should be trained better (I just LOL whenever I hear about 10-12 week training courses, training should at least be 3-4 years). But the larger problem is the US culture of violence, which includes the reasonable assumption that suspects carry guns, and also the assumption that police must immediately establish dominance and end even non-immediate threats. The rule of law does not crumble instantly if you try to deescalate.

3) Personnel situation

One further issue that gets way too little attention IMO is the personnel situation. Just a short Google search tells me that there are about 800k sworn cops in the United States; that is about 0.25% of the population. Germany has about 275k cops, which is about 0.33% of the population. That means Germany has ((0.33 / 0.25)-1)*100)=) 33% more cops. And that despite the fact that violent crime is much more of a problem in the US than in Germany. Take a look at the facts here:

(Source: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime)

Why am I mentioning this? Well, in my opinion, there are a number of factors to consider.

First, if you are stretched thin and have potentially to wait longer for backup, you will be more likely see yourself compelled to "force" an end to a tense situation.

Second, and maybe more importantly, cops are never alone in Germany. They always have a partner when they are on patrol. This is crucial for many situations and introduces a different dynamic than when people are on their own (as I understand is often the case in the U.S.)

Of course, this does not come for free. And here I believe the U.S. obsession with low taxes comes into play. A well-trained and well-staffed police force comes at a price. Are you willing to pay it?

Are you suggesting that bringing a gun to a knife fight is escalating violence? If so, you're looking at this entirely backwards. Consider the cop wouldn't be there to begin with but for that guy with the knife. The cop REACTED to the violence. Liken it to some guy slapping you in the face. You going to slap him back or punch his teeth down his throat?

 

[cleetus]

I got into Thai boxing as well. I met some guy while lifting and the crazy bastard Thai kicked a metal pole. I commented on it and we became friends and trained together for about 2 years. He wrote for black belt magazine and made several trips to Holland for training.

My point is that he taught me how to kick really hard and I really really want to Thai kick someone before I retire.

And i am certainly never advocating that we be someone’s voodoo doll. But with adaquste lethal force and training, as well as the less lethal tools, we should be able to disarm knife wielding subjects without killing them. The use of less lethal force does not always work, or the subject is too violent to risk even attempting less lethal

I disagree that we "SHOULD." In SOME instances you can physically disarm a guy with a knife. I've done it twice - once in a domestic (steak knife) and once when a guy was trying to kill himself (pocket knife.) Those were my choices based upon the small window I had to react and the totality of circumstances where I was comfortable taking that risk. But you in a leadership position should never tell your officers we SHOULD forego safety and use of force protocol when presented with an armed subject, but rather in some cases you COULD or MAY be able to.

 

[sleepwalk]

Thanks. Sorry if I missed this fact. So the cops rolled up like that thinking they were going to a part of the park where the suspect wasn't? And that when they screeched in to a halt they just happened to be face to face with the guy with the gun? That would certainly be the difference here in my mind, as opposed to just going in all cowboy.

In the news piece, it said that the caller described Tamir Rice as being by the swings. But, by the time the call concluded, the officers were dispatched, and then arrived, Tamir Rice had walked over to the gazebo. Whether they saw him at the gazebo upon approach or stopped only because they saw him suddenly, I can't say but the officer who fired the shots wasn't the one driving.

Whether the driver's approach was poorly executed or completely situational, the passenger officer was now within feet of a subject pulling a gun out of his waistband. His reaction ended the life of a 12-year-old boy. But what laws did either officer break? What did they do that was unreasonable under the circumstances? What charges would you bring against them in a court of law?

After this case, I remember two main arguments by detractors who couldn't commit to the preceding paragraph: 1) "The officer wouldn't have shot a white kid under the same circumstances" and 2) "A (insert Eastern European nation) police chief said that his officers can't take their weapons out of the holster unless somebody is armed with a gun and actively firing at them." The first, even if true, is unprovable and, if the officer would be justified in shooting a subject of any age/race/gender, then they should not be made more/less culpable in response to the subject's age/race/gender. The second statement, even if true, I find to be unreasonable.

 

[JDragon]

Phone pwnt right now, but I'll go into greater depth later.

 

[LMP]

My issue has always been having different standards for police when it comes to the use of force.

 

[SpAzNeT]

My issue has always been having different standards for police when it comes to the use of force.

Such as?

Should a 4’11” female officer have a different UOF standard than her male counterparts? If so, why?

 

[Andy Capp]

I will respond to two aspects you mentioned. The culture of violence that you mentioned, in relation to spaznet’s comment-American police have traditionally been taught the 1+1 theory, that states that the officer is to respond to a resisting or combative subject with one level of force higher than the suspect. If they come at you with fists, you use a baton. They have a knife, you use a gun. Training has been evolving to get away from that concept, but it was taught to me, and I, in turn, taught it to officers for a while.

As for the the number of police, it is so difficult to find good recruits. This is directly related to the negative attitude towards police, which we certainly deserve to some extent. The low pay in most departments for such a difficult and frustrating job is another factor. The quality of recruits is a serious issue. We get too many applicants that are removed from the list because they used drugs(many, just weeks before being interviewed), or for other crimes.

When I tested, there were three hundred people taking the test. Now, there are rarely more than thirty. Many do not pass the physical requirements, which eliminates them from taking the written test, which again, many fail. So we end up with 15 candidates, and many are disqualified for the reasons I listed.

One way to change this is to increase pay, add incentives for college grads and military, or offer some assistance with student loans. Otherwise, we are left with subpar candidates and departments may have to lower stabdards. We heavily recruit females and minorities, but we get very few female or minority applicants, and most of the applicants fail somewhere in the process.

I'm curious to know the starting salary and the pay after, say, 1 or 2 years, to get an understanding of what you mean by low pay, whether that's relative to what they should be paid based upon how dangerous the work is, or whether that's relative to the standard of living one expects from pretty much any (semi-)skilled job.

I'm also curious to know why there is much more to this discussion than what you said before, that there needs to be better training. I can't cite the source right now, but I recall reading some departments instituted additional training and incidence of weapons use, possibly use of force in general, went down quite a lot.

Certainly, I think your point about better public relations and recognition for officers would be a good step as well. As a non-American, I don't have much of a basis for experiential comment, but it seems like the evidence for the need for more/better training is already out there, and failing to do anything about it is a disservice to LEOs and the public.

It might also help if the overall decrease in crime rate were more of a story in the media, but sadly, good news doesn't get ratings.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You can't escape stats. ALL the stats show blacks are involved with violent crime at a much higher rate than any other group. Blame those stats on environment, education, or whatever else you want, but don't blame a cop's reaction when presented with a violent criminal - black or white. Race-baiting doesn't work anymore. It got all used up shortly after the 2016 elections, and few people still believe that shit.

That goes both ways. They're not dumb, they know how you guys see them and so they remain suspicious and do not trust you and would rather avoid you. So if that is how you interact with them do not be surprised when they also do not give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I completely get what you are saying, and I know that most black males are not criminals, but there are those that are committed to very violent lifestyles and are dangerous. In bad neighborhoods, the odds of running into such a person is greatly increased, and that is always on an officer’s mind. Likewise, there are thuggish cops that are total pieces of shit, and I would not want to be pulled over by them, and i am a pasty white male.

I did not mean to imply that being black equals being a criminal. I just get frustrated when there is a justified police shooting, and the guy is a total scumbag, yet there are protests and a lot of anger directed at police, but police shootings are very rare in comparison to the violence in some communities and the hundreds of thousand interactions with police for every one shooting.

Couple of things to consider

I hold you to a higher standard as someone vested with the authority to detain me and even kill me in certain situations. That's why people like me are uniquely preoccupied with police violence despite it happening less often. If a black thug commits a violent act and you know his name, you pick him up. But a cop can find himself roaming the streets after killing someone, big difference. As such I expect you to give a citizen the benefit of the doubt much more than I expect the citizen to do the same for you. I expect you to uphold law and order and part of that law and order is a black citizen not feeling uniquely afraid of cops just because of stats associated with his race. I know cops aren't robots and will give into these mental shortcuts but I expect you to do everything to avoid profiling, not justify it and accept it. Its going to happen on an unconscious level, there's no avoiding that, but at least conscious profiling should be avoided.

 

[sleepwalk]

In my circuit, shooting / killing mentally ill was a big problem. There's now a published case that says a suspect's mental illness, once it is made known to officers, is something they must take into account before using deadly force. IMO it makes sense because mentally ill people are, by definition, unable to react normally. That doesn't mean I expect police to not stop an active shooter just because he's mentally ill, but certainly if someone is insane you have to be resourceful enough to not choose deadly force as a first resort.

LOL I guess I'm just a bit of a bleeding heart on that subject.

Doesn't make you a bleeding heart, it makes you human. Last winter, we got called for an out-of-control subject. I was the most "hands capable" guy on scene by most of our estimations... or maybe not as I was one week back on the road from shoulder surgery. We get there and a 6'7" 350lb dude who is described by his wife as getting monthly shots to curb bipolar disorder and aggression had run out of his cousin's house in socks and run into the dirt floor cellar of a multi-family dwelling down the street. He came out, easy enough but then sat on the porch and refused to walk any further because, "This is not their home. The outside is free space.," or to talk with us because, "I am Illuminati." All communication was shut out or shouted down by him. We called for a psych screener to respond (hour plus wait.) While waiting, his wife agreed with us that he was likely to have to go the hospital's psych unit, he was going to physically resist, and that, to get him there, we were going to have to beat the living hell out of him to make that happen. My training would've been negated by my less-than-100% status and the sheer size difference. To make that the last resort, we stood out there in the cold for over two hours, looking like jackasses. Screener showed up, got shut down and told him he had to get evaluated. He refused and his wife told us "Do what you have to but please make sure you don't grab for your tasers and end up grabbing something else." Then a rookie from the next shift just pulls up and say, "Hey. We gotta go." And he does. Out of nowhere. Load him into an ambulance because he won't fit in the cars.

Now, we managed to take care of that without hurting the guy (or us.) But, had he presented danger to us or others, we would have had to go that route. Not because of a lack of sympathy but because of necessity.

People confuse subjective thoughts / motivations with objective circumstances often enough.

In more than one direction.

 

[cleetus]

To me, it's clearly a matter of fear and perhaps lack of training. The average even POG in the Army or the Marines does relatively extensive MOUT/CQB Training, I don't think that's the same for all police departments (isn't that what SWAT is for? i'm asking)

There's no reason you can take (no offense to my fellow Veterans) some of the lets say non most intelligent people in the country who don't even undergo Pysch evals before joining (like Cops do), and then train them to operate under stricter ROEs in the military overseas. We couldn't fire until fired upon, i.e. imminent danger.

There's NO reason an unarmed civilian should EVER be shot, period. Escalation of Force procedures should prevent that

I get that things like rubber bullets are looked down upon b/c of physical damage lawsuits, but at least people wouldn't be killed by actual bullets, perhaps that needs to be looked into.

I quoted this for the "unarmed civilian" concept, but I think that's been addressed. Suffice to say, if Mike Tyson decides he's going to KO me, he's getting blasted. My job isn't to lose or take a beating and lose my gun while I'm unconscious, it's to win and maintain order.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you as to the "armed" shooting, at least partially. There are many armed standoffs that turn into police executions because of the popular belief among officers that "gun + suspect = FIRE AT WILL." Aside from depriving suspects of Constitutional rights, sometimes these suspects are not complete pieces of shit. Sometimes they are in fact the victims of police overreaction / escalation. I still expect law enforcement officers to act as professionals and not precipitate the crises they react to.

But as to the unarmed shootings, yeah that's a huge problem. Unless someone is aiming a realistic fake gun at officers, officers should never be "mistaken" about the threats posed by innocuous objects such as cell phones, waistbands, or garden hoses.





I have extremely high standards for officers. I expect that they show restraint when a mentally ill person attempts "suicide by cop," and I expect them to intervene effectively during an active shooter situation (e..g, the Parkland Shooting). I don't expect them to be perfect, but I do expect them to be professional. Deadly force must always be the last resort. Instead of using the "objectively reasonable" test, I would adopt something closer to the "damn fucking sure test" (well, maybe something a little more practical than that). I never lose sight of the fact that when an officers kills someone, that person has parents, children, siblings, relatives, and friends who are affected. It's like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven:



In my opinion, the law is far too lenient on police uses of deadly force.

That said, the USA is a violent, deadly place. There are many reasons for this, and that's perhaps a good subject for another sticky thread.

If anything, our uses of force are scrutinized, Monday morning quarterbacked, and shredded by the media and courts day in and day out. Just look at the examples already provided of cops getting charged with murder for doing their jobs - perfectly.

I'm curious to know the starting salary and the pay after, say, 1 or 2 years, to get an understanding of what you mean by low pay, whether that's relative to what they should be paid based upon how dangerous the work is, or whether that's relative to the standard of living one expects from pretty much any (semi-)skilled job.

I'm also curious to know why there is much more to this discussion than what you said before, that there needs to be better training. I can't cite the source right now, but I recall reading some departments instituted additional training and incidence of weapons use, possibly use of force in general, went down quite a lot.

Certainly, I think your point about better public relations and recognition for officers would be a good step as well. As a non-American, I don't have much of a basis for experiential comment, but it seems like the evidence for the need for more/better training is already out there, and failing to do anything about it is a disservice to LEOs and the public.

It might also help if the overall decrease in crime rate were more of a story in the media, but sadly, good news doesn't get ratings.

Pay doesn't represent knowledge. The laws change daily. The training and updates we get on these changes are few and far between. Know the last time I went to a search/seizure class? In was in the academy, 22 years ago. I paid for a search/seizure class out of pocket
in November, and let me tell you, the landscape is ridiculously different.

As for our pay, the adage of "we get paid not for what we do, but what we might have to do" rings true. I know this job has legitimately shortened my life - from shift rotations, a decade of working midnights, stresses of failing at saving some people, threats of lawsuits, the administration's penchant for clueless, stupid decisions, poor sleep patterns, being on-call, working through numerous legit life and death situations, not knowing if that next car you stop is going to be your last, and the list goes on and on. I'm not making excuses, as this job is my calling, but at some point the pay doesn't matter. I know I won't live long after my retirement that I hope to start in 4 years. I carry too much emotional baggage from this shit show.

If you want numbers however, our rookies start in the mid $50's and top out after 8 years at $115k or something like that. MIND YOU, the cost of living in this state is ridiculous, 10% of our pay goes to the pension off the bat, and the cost of benefits exceeds $10k for a family.

That goes both ways. They're not dumb, they know how you guys see them and so they remain suspicious and do not trust you and would rather avoid you. So if that is how you interact with them do not be surprised when they also do not give you the benefit of the doubt.

That's ridiculous. In this day and age, people making the claims of rampant racism are beyond hope. If you don't act like an asshole, you won't get treated like an asshole. For those that take a blanket look at cops like we aren't there to help, then shame on them. They are ignorant.

Couple of things to consider

I hold you to a higher standard as someone vested with the authority to detain me and even kill me in certain situations. That's why people like me are uniquely preoccupied with police violence despite it happening less often. If a black thug commits a violent act and you know his name, you pick him up. But a cop can find himself roaming the streets after killing someone, big difference. As such I expect you to give a citizen the benefit of the doubt much more than I expect the citizen to do the same for you. I expect you to uphold law and order and part of that law and order is a black citizen not feeling uniquely afraid of cops just because of stats associated with his race. I know cops aren't robots and will give into these mental shortcuts but I expect you to do everything to avoid profiling, not justify it and accept it. Its going to happen on an nconscious level, there's no avoiding that, but at least conscious profiling should be avoided.

Reactive profiling works. Period. Sorry you disagree, but that's just life. Don't mix up reactive and racial profiling as they are two separate things.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Kid was a total dumbass, but it stressed me the fuck out and I wasn't the one about to be shot.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

IMO one of the most egregious police shootings of the last few years, that cop seems to be an evil, sadistic human being who should never have been trusted with a gun and the authority of the badge

Aw, shit. I could have sworn that was one of the few convictions

Probably because it should've been.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That's ridiculous. In this day and age, people making the claims of rampant racism are beyond hope. If you don't act like an asshole, you won't get treated like an asshole. For those that make a blanket look at cops like we aren't there to help, then shame on them. They are ignorant.

How is that ridiculous when you yourself said this?

You can't escape stats. ALL the stats show blacks are involved with violent crime at a much higher rate than any other group. Blame those stats on environment, education, or whatever else you want, but don't blame a cop's reaction when presented with a violent criminal - black or white.

You're appealing to the stats to justify racial profiling and then getting mad when people say your profiling affects the way citizens see police? You can't have it both ways, either don't profile or accept that you will be judged for it.

You also have to understand the history here. You guys call yourselves the thin blue line, well you used to be the thin blue line between whites and blacks in many places. That history has consequences into the present. Young black men today may not remember those cops but its likely someone in their family does. Communities have memory too and the black community remembers when police were the enforcement arm of a racist state.