The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[CountDeMoney]

I don't necessarily mind some people carrying concealed, but to do so safely you need a lot of range time with your pistol. You need a lot of practice drawing. You also probably need at least some level of tactical training, you need to learn some of the techniques for keeping yourself calm when you're in a life or death situation. Most cops don't get enough training at this, to be honest, let alone people who spend $400 on a gun, $75 on a CCW, and take the 8 hours or so of training that is usually required to get a CCW. Unless you're in some of the states that are now promoted "permitless concealed carry."

I never envisioned being in the same shooting situation as a private citizen, even back as a bail bondsman--hitting houses, corner jump-outs and transporting cash--as opposed to being a uniformed officer wearing a full-size service weapon like the Glock. 

That's why I prefer my .357: if anything happens, chances are it will all happen within a just a few feet accompanied by one hell of a big boom, a big hole, and a shitload of broken glass and ringing ears.  Not the same as, say, responding to an armed robbery.

[CountDeMoney]

All of this also, to a degree, is something you need to practice so much it's second nature/muscle memory. And like most things of that nature--to remain good at you need to train regularly not once a year regularly. Probably more like once a month at a minimum. It's not just a matter of "get all the training you need before you start", you need to be committed to continually training for as long as you choose to carry a gun in public.

One thing I thought the BPD always did right;  when they went to the Glock in the early 1990's, they allowed any officer with more than 18 years' service to continue carrying their S&W Model 19s until retirement.   

[11B4V]

All of this also, to a degree, is something you need to practice so much it's second nature/muscle memory. And like most things of that nature--to remain good at you need to train regularly not once a year regularly. Probably more like once a month at a minimum. It's not just a matter of "get all the training you need before you start", you need to be committed to continually training for as long as you choose to carry a gun in public.

One thing I thought the BPD always did right;  when they went to the Glock in the early 1990's, they allowed any officer with more than 18 years' service to continue carrying their S&W Model 19s until retirement.

Old Fuddy Duddy

[CountDeMoney]

Old Fuddy Duddy

Glocks kill bathroom sinks dead.

[grumbler]

Fair.

No, it actually isn't.

Cops have no problem saying another cop screwed up - once all the evidence is in.  But the radio guy doesn't want to wait for due process or investigation - they want "hot takes" in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.

Some of these police shootings that garnered police attention have generally shown police actions to be justified (see Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson).  Some of these police shootings appear to show police actions to be unjustifiable (see Philando Castille a few days ago).  But it's wrong to immediately criticize each and every police shooting without waiting for all the facts to be known.

This is utterly untrue.  What the radio guys wants is for cops to be the leaders in the Lives Matter movement, not to issue "hot takes" like they were prosecutors or journalists. It's wrong to argue that a speaker is saying that he wants cops to "immediately criticize each and every police shooting without waiting for all the facts to be known" when that's just something you made up for a post.

[jimmy olsen]

Good on Newt

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/08/newt_gingrich_and_other_conservatives_seem_to_be_coming_to_terms_with_racism.html

Are Conservatives Coming to Terms With Racism in American Policing?

It's almost too banal to call it a prediction: The assassination of five law enforcement officers in Dallas on Thursday night is sure to further polarize the national debate over race and policing, and provide new fodder for those who reflexively oppose any suggestion that American police officers unfairly target black people.

Leon Neyfakh is a Slate staff writer.

Evidence of this has already come in, with former Rep. Joe Walsh tweeting threats at "Black Lives Matter punks" and the New York Post splashing the words "CIVIL WAR" on its front page. And yet, two pieces of writing published on conservative news sites on Friday morning, as well as an extraordinary Facebook Live chat with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, suggest that the combination of Thursday night's carnage and the police killings of two black men earlier in the week might be changing some minds on the right.

The comments made by Gingrich are arguably the most newsworthy:

It took me a long time, and a number of people talking to me through the years to get a sense of this. If you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don't understand being black in America and you instinctively under-estimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk.

The Black Lives Matter movement, Gingrich said, should be seen as a "corrective" that "initially people reject because it's not in their world."

The former House speaker's remarks lit up social media, with many expressing disbelief that Newt Gingrich—the Personal Responsibility Act guy? The one angling for the VP slot on Donald Trump's ticket?—would express such sentiments.

But Gingrich wasn't the only conservative who was moved on Friday to break the rules of conservative discourse. Over at the Daily Caller, writer Matt K. Lewis wrote a post that opened with an unequivocal assertion: "[P]olice brutality toward African-Americans is a pervasive problem that has been going on for generations." In the post, headlined "A confession," Lewis grappled with the fact that, as a white person, he was raised to "reflexively believe the police" and "give them the benefit of the doubt," while many black Americans have reasonably come to the conclusion that they and their children are "living under an occupying army."

Lewis' post ended with an expression of hope that videos of police encounters like the two that surfaced this week would cause "naive, white Americans" to start seeing the issue of police violence against blacks with less cloudy eyes.

One such white American has turned out to be Leon H. Wolf, managing editor of the website RedState. Friday morning, Wolf published what might be the most striking of all the conservative commentary we've seen on Dallas. In a post titled "The Uncomfortable Reason Why It Came to This In Dallas Yesterday," Wolf argued that it was time to acknowledge not only the "lingering mistrust between police and minority communities," but the fact that this mistrust is based on something real: namely, that "police often interact with minority communities in different ways than they do with the white community."

"Look, I don't know," Wolf writes. "I don't want to rush to judgment on either the Baton Rouge shooting or the Falcon Heights shooting, but based upon what we have seen, they look bad. Very bad."

Wolf goes on to violate some basic orthodoxies of conservative commentary on law enforcement, criticizing commenters on his own website "who look for even the smallest hook on which to hang an excuse for the cops" whenever he posts a story about police violence, and questioning their "blind, uncritical belief that the police never (or only in freak circumstances) do anything wrong."

It is surprising and intriguing to see such rhetoric from the right, especially on the day after the murder of five police officers. It's enough to make you think even the most sturdy-seeming ideologies can be dislodged in times of crisis—and that, as horrendously sad as this week has been, it may end up being some sort of turning point.

[11B4V]

Good on Newt

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/08/newt_gingrich_and_other_conservatives_seem_to_be_coming_to_terms_with_racism.html

Are Conservatives Coming to Terms With Racism in American Policing?

It's almost too banal to call it a prediction: The assassination of five law enforcement officers in Dallas on Thursday night is sure to further polarize the national debate over race and policing, and provide new fodder for those who reflexively oppose any suggestion that American police officers unfairly target black people.

Leon Neyfakh is a Slate staff writer.

Evidence of this has already come in, with former Rep. Joe Walsh tweeting threats at "Black Lives Matter punks" and the New York Post splashing the words "CIVIL WAR" on its front page. And yet, two pieces of writing published on conservative news sites on Friday morning, as well as an extraordinary Facebook Live chat with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, suggest that the combination of Thursday night's carnage and the police killings of two black men earlier in the week might be changing some minds on the right.

The comments made by Gingrich are arguably the most newsworthy:

It took me a long time, and a number of people talking to me through the years to get a sense of this. If you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don't understand being black in America and you instinctively under-estimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk.

The Black Lives Matter movement, Gingrich said, should be seen as a "corrective" that "initially people reject because it's not in their world."

The former House speaker's remarks lit up social media, with many expressing disbelief that Newt Gingrich—the Personal Responsibility Act guy? The one angling for the VP slot on Donald Trump's ticket?—would express such sentiments.

But Gingrich wasn't the only conservative who was moved on Friday to break the rules of conservative discourse. Over at the Daily Caller, writer Matt K. Lewis wrote a post that opened with an unequivocal assertion: "[P]olice brutality toward African-Americans is a pervasive problem that has been going on for generations." In the post, headlined "A confession," Lewis grappled with the fact that, as a white person, he was raised to "reflexively believe the police" and "give them the benefit of the doubt," while many black Americans have reasonably come to the conclusion that they and their children are "living under an occupying army."

Lewis' post ended with an expression of hope that videos of police encounters like the two that surfaced this week would cause "naive, white Americans" to start seeing the issue of police violence against blacks with less cloudy eyes.

One such white American has turned out to be Leon H. Wolf, managing editor of the website RedState. Friday morning, Wolf published what might be the most striking of all the conservative commentary we've seen on Dallas. In a post titled "The Uncomfortable Reason Why It Came to This In Dallas Yesterday," Wolf argued that it was time to acknowledge not only the "lingering mistrust between police and minority communities,” but the fact that this mistrust is based on something real: namely, that "police often interact with minority communities in different ways than they do with the white community."

"Look, I don't know," Wolf writes. "I don't want to rush to judgment on either the Baton Rouge shooting or the Falcon Heights shooting, but based upon what we have seen, they look bad. Very bad."

Wolf goes on to violate some basic orthodoxies of conservative commentary on law enforcement, criticizing commenters on his own website "who look for even the smallest hook on which to hang an excuse for the cops" whenever he posts a story about police violence, and questioning their "blind, uncritical belief that the police never (or only in freak circumstances) do anything wrong."

It is surprising and intriguing to see such rhetoric from the right, especially on the day after the murder of five police officers. It's enough to make you think even the most sturdy-seeming ideologies can be dislodged in times of crisis—and that, as horrendously sad as this week has been, it may end up being some sort of turning point.

Politics . He does give a shit about the black man, unless it gets his VP selection from Trump.

[CountDeMoney]

But make no mistake:  Gingrich will continue to wage the War on Wives With Cancer.

[Admiral Yi]

Listed to most of Obama's Dallas speech on NPR.  Pretty typical "both sides are right, both sides are wrong" Obama speech on race (or anything really).

That being said, giving that particular speech at a memorial for dead cops does move the pile a bit IMO.

[derspiess]

Listed to most of Obama's Dallas speech on NPR.  Pretty typical "both sides are right, both sides are wrong" Obama speech on race (or anything really).

That being said, giving that particular speech at a memorial for dead cops does move the pile a bit IMO.

What got me specifically was how he said, "None of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune, and that includes our police departments."

Yep, really great thing to say at the memorial.  I'm sure the cops' families appreciate that.  And as always, when Pres. Obama uses "us" and "we" in a preachy context, he means everyone *but* him and his side.

[Razgovory]

Listed to most of Obama's Dallas speech on NPR.  Pretty typical "both sides are right, both sides are wrong" Obama speech on race (or anything really).

That being said, giving that particular speech at a memorial for dead cops does move the pile a bit IMO.

What got me specifically was how he said, "None of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune, and that includes our police departments."

Yep, really great thing to say at the memorial.  I'm sure the cops' families appreciate that.  And as always, when Pres. Obama uses "us" and "we" in a preachy context, he means everyone *but* him and his side.

[Berkut]

Listed to most of Obama's Dallas speech on NPR.  Pretty typical "both sides are right, both sides are wrong" Obama speech on race (or anything really).

That being said, giving that particular speech at a memorial for dead cops does move the pile a bit IMO.

What got me specifically was how he said, "None of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune, and that includes our police departments."

Yep, really great thing to say at the memorial.  I'm sure the cops' families appreciate that.  And as always, when Pres. Obama uses "us" and "we" in a preachy context, he means everyone *but* him and his side.

Of course. When he says "we" he means "not me".

Your command of Pravda language is impressive.

[derspiess]

He's blameless in his own mind; he just uses a thin veneer of humility.

[Razgovory]

Just like how's he secretly a Muslim and an Athiest.

[dps]

He's blameless in his own mind; he just uses a thin veneer of humility.

If you want to assign blame, let's blame the Dutch for introducing African slaves into the New World.  If reparations are to be paid, it should be The Netherlands doing the paying.