Okay, so let's do a li'l looksee at your ideology, then, if you're gonna fingerwag.
First off, stop putting words I didn't say.
That's as kindergarden of a move as the next 5 year old in the thread. We are adult enough to tackle a discussion without resorting to that sort of childish "shaming".
1) Do you think police should be able to murder civilians without a threat to their life?
Of course not. Not at a single point I said the killing was justified in this particular case, much less when the aggravant is already handcuffed.
2) Do you think police should be able to ignore the cries for mercy from people who are restrained?
So just because someone cries for mercy it should be left off the hook? A person can cry all they want, but if the person is suspect to a crime, cries are of no help nor change the situation, even if a person calls for their mother.
3) Do you think police should be armed when responding to non-violent crimes, or even regular calls for mental health?
Yes. Officers need to be armed 24/7 to all kinds of calls. Seems you don't know or haven't got a clue of how the real world goes, and how a "non-violent" call can turn into a massacre. Domestic calls are a clear example of this. Oh, and mental health calls are the most dangerous of them all, of the worst kind to deal with if unarmed or with low numbers of officers on the call.
4) Do you think there should be a widespread defunding of the police in tandem with a restructuring of how we respond to non-violent calls?
What would defunding and restructuring do, exactly? Do you think the force just has those rules in place to deal the most damage to citizenship? If you do, then again you have no clue of how the world works. In order for a rule to be followed as proceedure in the force, it's because there has already been a precedent to put it in place. Restructuring the police force with an unarmed "non-violent" task force will end you up with hundreds of officers killed by the month. Good luck keeping order and crime at bay that way.
5) Do you think police should be subject to an independent investigation when they discharge a potentially lethal weapon?
This already happens btw. An officer that discharges their weapon is always subject to an investigation. Where do you get the idea that they aren't?
6) Do you think that oversight and regulation should be applied to police training, and independent reviews should be undertaken to ensure accountability?
Regulation and oversight to what, precisely? A discharged weapon? See above response if so.
7) Do you think that the current police should be phased out, and a new crop of individuals with better training should be built up to replace them?
What kind of utopian "better training" are you speaking of?
Do you even know how the current basic task force train routine goes to even make such a claim of having better trained individuals?
8) Do you think that off-duty police officers discovered to be engaging in hateful rhetoric towards any part of the citizenry should result in an independent investigation and retraining of the police officer?
Hateful rhetoric from whom? The officer or the citizen? If an off-duty officer sees a crime, they can engage either way. Or do you suggest that if a crime ensues they should just pass a blind eye on the situation? Also, I highly doubt the amount of officers doing hateful rhetorics outside of duty, while a possibility, is anything but at the amount of levels the media and movements make it out to be. Officers are under high radars for such behaviour at all times.
9) Do you think that police should be subject to regular training on non-violent resolutions of conflict, and be held to that standard outside of direct threats to their life?
I already answered something similar.
They are trained for all kinds of calls and resolutions. You seem to think a non-violent call will stay that way and everyone will comply happily without hesitance nor resistance. It sounds like a nice sci-fi story but it's not reality. And the "direct threats for their life" thing is just non-existent. The criminal won't shot out that they are going to kill the officer for them to respond back. When a suspect feels threatened, everything goes,
10) Do you think that a retroactive review of police violence should be subject to an independent investigation to determine if the previous verdicts were unjust?
Didn't I answer this already like for the 3rd time now?
All officers undergo an investigation if a case goes south. I really don't understand why some people think this isn't even a thing on the force.
Outside of that, everyone knows that resisting cooperation or arrest from the authority can end up badly. This is a given. Complying with calm and holding your ground is all that's needed for a 5 min interchange to be dismissed and continue (in cooperation cases). For arrests, it's better to be kept calm at all times and comply as well, if you have nothing to hide, you will be freed up with no charges and no problems.
Still, I do want to reiterate that the killing in this case was unjustified, and that the officer(s) should be prosecuted, as they are since months now.
But putting the blame on the entire police force of the whole country for the mistake of one is also unjustified.
It's just like saying tbat because of a negligence of a doctor killing a patient, the entire medical and health care should be defunded and restructured.
@
AncientBoi:
