When is this killing of police officers going to end !!!!!!!!!!?????????nt

Are we talking about killing OF cops or BY cops?

motivated by tevenge for those black men killed by other policemen?

Better call Fox News -- They seem to think so too.

I would say 'any' cop killings of unarmed African Americans with impunity. I don't think FOX is interested in the whole story, only part of it to make their case.

eta: and, "killed by other policemen"? The good cops should report on made-up b.s. statements that was reported by the bad cops if they have the evidence to prove it was a lie. Otherwise, they taint the whole department, in my view.

I've met and known some very good cops in my time. It's horrible if jerks start singling out cops because of their uniform. That, is sick and dangerous.

I know, some cops will do that to people of color, but again, I don't think all cops are bad. The bad cops need to be gotten out of the force.

As another poster just said and I strongly agree, some cops need jail time, but the system seems to pass them over. There is way too much of an old boys club going on. Some cops murder for sport!

they need to get over this tendency to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bad cops. When the good cops figure out that the actions of the bad cops paint them all as bad maybe they will take needed action.

it may be more out of fear than sympathy for the offending cop/cops?

This cop who was gunned down by two white & one black guy, lived about 5 miles from me.
He has four children and was, by all accounts, a good, tespectful public serbant who was well liked by the community in which he lived and worked.thank

in between.

I'm hoping that one of these days the police realize that.

working in innumerable separate local, state and federal jurisdictions. These officers represent all genders, races, ethnicities, socio-economic backgrounds, etc. Despite some media reports, most officers are conscientious and law abiding. Like all professions they have bad apples, some certainly much worse than others. However, any attempt to generalize and stereotype all police officers is as offensive and downright dangerous as many conservatives talking about the purported criminality of all "minority youth."

and will not make an exception for law enforcement officers. To do so would be decidedly illiberal and hypocritical.

This is the whole bad apples fails to address because one would have to an authoritarian mindset to be a cop (me personally I have no interest in contributing to the nation's massive incarceration rate) so in situations where 'noble cause corruption' occurs they think they are the good apples that have to bend the rules to put this guy their cop 6th sense knows in guilty by testilying or doing this or that. I've seen The Wire, even Lester Freemen ends up running an illegal wiretap but he could get a legal wiretap though but the city cut funding for police, bad morale due to deficits related to the schools.

---

hat Is Noble Cause Corruption?
Noble cause corruption in policing is defined as "corruption committed in the name of good ends, corruption that happens when police officers care too much about their work. It is corruption committed in order to get the bad guys off the streets…the corruption of police power, when officers do bad things because they believe that the outcomes will be good."2 Examples of noble cause corruption are, planting or fabricating evidence, lying on reports or in court, and generally abusing police authority to make a charge stick.

The policing profession attracts, among others, a certain type of individual: authoritative and responsible, one with leadership skills, who acts on behalf of others, with a high disregard for his or her own well being. Some academics suggest police applicants have a preconception of the profession-the noble cause-that makes them stand out as promising prospects. This preconceived notion is a profound moral commitment to make the world safer.3

Police corruption, traditionally, has been defined as the following:

"a misuse of authority by a police officer for personal gain,"4

"accepting money or money's worth to provide a service they are duty bound to provide,"5 or

"physical, psychological or legal abuse used by police."6

A recent survey demonstrated that officers felt corruption for personal gain was a much more serious charge than engaging in corrupt behavior that appears "to benefit society at large."7 This sub cultural value system rationalizes constitutional rights violations.

Officers do not normally define "a bending of the rules for a greater good" as misconduct or as corruption; rather, they rationalize that such behavior is part of the job description, in a utilitarian sense, to get the criminals off the streets, regardless of the means.8

<snip>

The Rationalization Defense
Shortcuts taken in police procedures and investigations in everyday misdemeanor arrests are a large part of noble cause corruption. Rationalizations, such as the "citizen is so drunk he won't remember what happened," may lead to officers' skipping the field sobriety tests or the breath tests, while reporting that they were performed. Before performing a breath alcohol test, officers must read specific constitutional rights to the citizen informing him or her of his or her right to refuse the test and informing the citizen that this refusal, alone, may result in a suspended driver's license. Testimony affirming that specific police procedures were followed, when they were not, is a police crime, especially when confronted with probable cause issues in pretrial motions.

Additionally, the "contempt of cop" or "it's my word against his" attitude opens the door for further shortcuts and constitutional violations. An officer may perform a valid traffic stop, but if the citizen is belligerent or disrespectful, chances are that person is going to jail. In this same vein, officers may issue "sewer tickets"-that is, write a ticket but instead of giving it to the citizen throw it in the sewer-causing a failure to appear in court, a warrant to be issued, and several future problems for the citizen.

<snip>

Systemic Arrogance Contributes to Corruption
Arrogance has no place in policing, and agencies that have a culture of arrogance will only foster allegations of organizational tolerance for noble cause corruption and betrayal of the public service philosophy. When officers and administrators believe that the ends justify their means, such as illegal searches, "articulation" in report writing, illegal arrests and "testilying," they corrupt their own system.9

Noble cause corruption is rooted in this sense of arrogance, in which officers will rationalize constitutional violations for their own perceived greater good: a safer community. Middle managers, then, engage in a supervisory logic of good faith based on the belief that subordinates always tell the truth and follow the law as their training dictates.10

When internal red flags surface-such as multiple citizen complaints for one officer, or subordinates who ask not to have to work with that officer for no specified reason-supervisors must look deeper into the reasons for this sudden turn of events. It may be personal in nature, but it is the duty of the supervisor to make reasonable inquiries into the cause.

<snip>

Supervisory Cowardice Contributes to Corruption
Along with arrogance, police supervisory cowardice reinforces organizational tolerance of noble cause corruption. Cowardice in this sense is the inability of supervisors to make the difficult administrative decisions that relate to subordinate misconduct.12 Police administrators must struggle with misconduct cases and weigh the pros and cons of the appropriate disciplinary actions. Chiefs must openly investigate allegations of scandal or politically motivated police actions and disregard their own occupational survival in this role.

Favoritism, nepotism, political concerns, or image preservation must not prevent the chief from thoroughly investigating and disciplining officers for policy violations. Impossible conflicts of interest arise in policing every day, and professional police administrators must adhere to a predetermined set of guidelines and decision-making processes to best serve their community and their agencies. Allegations of departmental cover-ups are immediately followed with calls for external investigations, removal of the chief, and massive reform.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1025&issue_id=102006

Watch the last part of this documentary on what NYPD brass cops did coming into the home of the whistle-blower cop and the whole reason the cops were doing what they were doing because of what was trickling down from the Mayor's office.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-nypd-abused-citizens-in-the-name-of-data-and-how-one-cop-exposed-it-all/

People are very naive that most people wouldn't approve of certain things this or that but they aren't willing to risk a loss of career, being deemed EDP because you were blowing the whistle, just don't minimize or deny others experiences and events or allowing this sort of thing to become expanded, enabling the cops, prosecutors, whoever to get away with this behavior because the public trusts. "Testilying".

How The NYPD Abused Citizens In The Name Of Data, And How One Cop Exposed It

By FiveThirtyEight

Exposing police misconduct can be risky, even for a cop.

“Crime By The Numbers,” a short documentary directed by Don Argott for FiveThirtyEight and ESPN Films’ Signals series, tells the story of Adrian Schoolcraft. Schoolcraft, as a New York Police Department officer, blew the whistle on the NYPD’s abuse and misuse of CompStat, a system to track crime trends in New York City.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-nypd-abused-citizens-in-the-name-of-data-and-how-one-cop-exposed-it-all/

Watch the end what they did going into his home, watch it.,

are corrupt or incompetent and why it's sometimes tolerated. You may very well be right. There are a myriad of reasons why malfeasance and criminality exists in certain professions and large groups (such as "minority youth". However, that still does not in any way justify impugning hundreds of thousands of very diverse law enforcement officers working in a multitude of very different jurisdictions, cultures and circumstances in the USA.

Attempts to justify stereotypes based on what still represents a comparative few is not progressive and dangerously justifies other stereotyping such as conservatives use of crime statistics in minority neighborhoods or among male minority youth.

I will continue to base my judgments of people and events solely on individual merit and conduct.

those apples start to rot, people bear the very real brunt oftentimes resulting in physical violence or death. They need to be held to an absolute standard.

have a disregard for the law. Now the law enforcement officers, they should be held to a higher standard than a criminal. If you disagree, maybe you would be so kind as to reason it out for me.

but they're criminals, so they seem to
have a disregard for the law. *AGREED*

Now the law enforcement officers, they should be held to a higher standard than a criminal. *disagree*
Yes police should be held to a high standard...but if you were to have a home invasion, is it rational to hold the protectors
to a higher standard than the offenders? I think in that situation...."standards" take the hindmost.

including criminally when necessary. Nevertheless, individual law enforcement officers should be judged on their own conduct, not by membership in such a large and diverse group.

I would additionally note that police officers are hardly the only group where corruption or institutional tolerance of such corruption have wider systemic effects and could pose a danger to the community. If I were to play devil's advocate, for instance, I would note liberals purported tolerance of some criminal conduct and incompetence among teachers, largely in pursuit of their defense of labor rights and unions, despite its potential negative effects on children.***

*** You don't need to comment to tell me I'm wrong about teachers and unions. I've actually represented unions as an attorney against some of these allegations. I'm simply noting that our ideological opponents can use similar arguments against groups we value, and such political battles are very rough and often unfair!

That has to start happening frequently. Body cams will help, just because the worse of them will fear being caught.

because the reporting person become a witness in the proceeding be it disciplinary or legal action. No one wants to be on the receiving end because of someones actions.

or conservative claims that black only care about dead young black men when white police officers are involved despite horrific rates of black and black crime in minority neighborhoods. It's misleading, often condescending, and does not justify stereotyping and broad generalizations.

Nevertheless, many officers do indeed assist in getting bad officers off the streets, often at the risk of their own careers, friendships and social standing. It's just not news when they do, particularly since many disciplinary actions are confidential.

I also have absolutely no objections to body cameras, so long as essential privacy rights are retained by the relevant officers and the public with whom they interact, many of whom are not alleged perpetrators of crime or witnesses. In fact, a great many officers actually support cameras. Just as they record police misconduct, they also serve as an exceptionally useful defense against false allegations of police misconduct. Simple Google searches readily reveal how police are now releasing videos and audio recording that routinely exonerate them from claims of malfeasance and bias (See, e.g., Danielle Watts and Taraji P. Henson).

They are employees, they can be recorded and observed by their employers while they are at work.

As government employees, police have a number of constitutional, statutory and contractual privacy protections, regardless of whether you believe "they have a long way to dig out of the hole" of the criminal justice system.

More importantly, the public at large has constitutional privacy rights that could potentially be infringed with police cameras absent careful and clear policies on their use. It is an evolving and complicated area of law and policy.

I also hope you remember your claims about the purported ease and acceptability of recording public employees because many Republicans and conservatives would just love the opportunity to record the mostly liberal and unionized workforce of whom public employees are mostly comprised. I believe you need to have a word the various teachers unions...

gun sellers would be more responsible to avoid getting tangled up in criminal homicide investigations.

but registration is a non-starter for me. I still have not heard a strong enough reason for registering guns. Besides that, it's a losing issue for Democratic candidates. Minnesota elected a lightweight republican to the U.S. Senate solely because of the gun issue.

Interesting post. Interesting number of posts.

Like Jerad and Amanda Miller or Eric Frein?



These teabag cop killers need to be stopped!

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/

I just wanted to mention that fact.

That's a good find. I usually have used ODMP in the past and will add your resource to them from now on.


To put this into even more perspective.

(No, I am not kidding) and we have had a few more accidents, so not surprised. I see weapons related are still under last year's numbers, but we are on track to have a higher number.

... from 1980–2014, an average of 64 law enforcement officers have been feloniously killed per year. The 2013 total, 27, was the lowest during this 35-year period. Last year there were 51.

I can't find statistics for this year that specify cause of death, and since a large majority of officers who die in the line of duty die of traffic accidents, the numbers I could find are less than useful.

Generally, these numbers don't appear to be going up. If anything, they've decreased - which may have more to do with police officers wearing more and better protective equipment than anything else.

That's Dylann Roof thinking and it caused the church massacre in South Carolina.

?

I thought maybe that you were mocking Fox's blaming of police deaths on BLM. Maybe not?

an officer was shot in the back of the head last week about 2 miles from my house.(Texas)
And then the new one in Illinois this week. Pisses me off.

As the stats posted upthread indicate.

The OP.seemed to be gloating about them. His OP was alerted on twice.

The first -- They only do the first -- was voted "let it stand" 5-2.

He/she got a post hidden downthread, so he's off the thread now.

It's sad. I think bad cops ought to be fired and corrupt ones jailed. No one here thinks they should be shot.

But, yeh, the OP seems to be missing the big picture. This kind of tragedy is a rarity. It's horrible, but rare. Police harassment of minorities is routine and maddening (and probably not the work-product of the majority of police officers) and the result of systemic bias.

and their obsession with blaming BLM for the recent publicized killings of police officers. Nobody (in their right minds) wants police officers (or anybody else) killed, of course. The way the OP was written, I thought that maybe I missed an epidemic of police officer killings (or that Fox was being trolled for their BLM hysteria). OP explained to me what their intention was in a reply, so I get it now.

Although certainly not common, I've recently seen a depressing number of posts (thankfully, they're usually altered on a quickly hidden), often by longtime DU members, that have indeed encouraged, justified or excused the shooting or assault of law enforcement officers in response to or because of police corruption and incompetence.

Nevertheless, I generally agree with the rest of your post.

Cop killer wannabes, maybe?

"The 828 deaths on the job in 2013 equates to a 3% increase over the previous CFOI." http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/the-most-and-least-dangerous-jobs-072415.html

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

This does not surprise me.

The piece about whining is offensive. Lumberjacks cut down trees, they aren't putting up with all the BS that society provides, like DUIs, domestic violence calls, or someone randomly shooting them in the back for no good reason. Cops, like the general population, include bad actors. That doesn't mean all cops are bad, and the fact is the vast, vast majority are doing the job they are paid to do in an appropriate manner.

Nothing happens. It's not like you're going to wake up in the morning with leprosy.

So what if you find it offensive? Deal with it and move on.



Isn't it interesting that both groups CHOSE their profession?

Isn't interesting that the individuals that became cops or lumberjacks did it KNOWING the dangers, but did so anyway?

Sorry, but I have lost all the respect I used to have for police officers. That doesn't mean I want to see them killed or murdered or die an untimely death while on the job (of a heart attack, for instance which is, when added to Automobile accident, a more likely cause of death than being shot while on the job). But a handful that have been shot in the last few weeks does not a trend make and while it is terrible that they died, it is no more tragic than the thousands of civilians that have died at the hands of the police over the years.

Can you say "bad analogy"?

And watch it, slick.

Keep it up, though. You're the gift that keeps on giving.

Maybe with your stronger glasses this time.

Keep trying, genius.

I'll ask one of the McKinney officers at the next pool party.

If you feel better about yourself by alleging so, feel free to do so. I only wish I had the patience and persistence to pull off what you project onto me.

Your irrelevance is consistent.

(space provided below free of charge to entertain additional irrelevancies to better assist any self-validation you may require. Tip the managers...)

Yet who responded to whom? However, rather than pointing out the irony of your charge, I'll simply presume your knowledge of the word 'stalker' is dramatically lacking.

(insert vapid rationalization below to better deflect unintentional satire)

Why don't you just tell us what you really feel, like a good liberal? Like you say you are? Liberals shouldn't make stupid false equivalences, or accuse people of being socks to rely on fact-free truthiness (now, with more misspellings!.)

Usually its conservatives who complain about parts of the government that they hate, like the IRS, and idolize the parts that they love love love.

Freudian slip, maybe?

If you think you have evidence that those three posters are all the same send it to Skinner or EarlG.
They need the laughs.

Why doesn't anybody tell me these things?

He's posting better stuff on the kcr screenname.

And me, I have all this dreck.

Heads will roll!

Damn that Obama.

Traffic fatalities up. Is this some kind of sarcastic comment on police killing unarmed civilians?

Make stuff up much?

Maybe you should confirm that with Fox News, 'cause that's their opinion, too.

So your question doesn't really make any sense. Can you clarify? Are you being sarcastic? Can't tell.

And if they do, I hope you get your answer.

was thinking this morning, while listening to yet another story of a police officer begin killed, followed by, yet, another story of an unarmed person getting killed by a cop ...

How many/much of these killings (in both directions) is traceable to a culture of that values escalation over de-escalation ... forcing (immediate) compliance ... being a "hero" over waiting for help?

From what I see ... every (most) of the killings that I recall, have that cultural element in each.

perhaps if police departments were to engage in a systems review of the killings, i.e., track every relevant step leading up to the killing, looking for alternative paths, that would avoid the killing (just like industry does to address a rash of industrial injuries); then, institutionalize the less deadly path.

But I suspect, when the options are narrowed to escalate vs de-escalate/withdraw (to a safe distance), there will be much resistance because it is the job of law enforcement to control the situation and secure compliance ... right?

(that is the cultural root that would likely answer your question, though not totally.)

every time an officer discharges his/her weapon. That being said, I would bet that the vast majority
of officers would much rather de-escalate a situation, just as the majority of intelligent civilians would
rather not put an authority figure in a position where an he/she has to make that kind of life altering decision.

The distance from being Officer Friendly to beating the crap out of someone or killing them can be measured with a micrometer.

Entirely too many police officers seem to take the position that if you do not do exactly what they tell you to do the instant they tell you to do it, you deserve to be punished, REGARDLESS of whether or not the victim has actually committed a crime.

They don't do a particularly dangerous job and it is, after all, a job they CHOSE.

I'm convinced that a large proportion of police officers get into "Law Enforcement" (a misnomer if there ever was one) because they like the idea of being able to tell others what to do. They relish the power their badge and gun gives them and if you don't like it, you had better watch out.

What would happen to my industry if truck drivers began running people off the road for the slightest infraction on the highway? How long would I be able to keep my job if I put people into the ditch for not letting me over when I have my turn signal on? What would be the reaction of the general public if trucking companies rallied around bad drivers and gave them "Administrative leave"?

The police have become an entity unto themselves and they have repeatedly demonstrated they hold the opinion that they deserve to go home more than the general public. An attitude shift needs to happen if they want to get back to the point where their profession is actually respected and looked up to, instead of being considered the band of armed thugs who can hurt the populace with impunity that is the case today.

You can call what I wrote "stupid" all you want, but it is a fact. All of it.

The idea that most cops are good is nonsense because if it was true, there would be no bad cops.

The repeated circling of the wagons police departments do when one of them has done something demonstrably wrong is tantamount to me publicly defending a truck driver I know to be incapable of operating a 75' long vehicle in a safe manner.

It happens all the time with police departments. All the time. And if you don't know that or don't want to admit it, then that is YOUR problem, not mine.



Really? Is that in the rule book somewhere? What a stupid fucking statement.

And BTW, Saying something that is factually true about a person or group is not a stereotype.

It is stating a fact.

That has to be the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on DU.

(I haven't been posting on DU for too long, but I was a longtime lurker before registering.)

That is completely wrong. If you don't think being a policeman is dangerous you should do it. Setting aside which job is the "most" dangerous, I can't think of any occupation in which you might get shot for simply wearing the uniform, other than the military. Cops are often faced with situations that may lead to their death -- traffic stops, domestic violence cases, drug arrest, etc. The "armed thugs" are the ones killing policemen and their fellow citizens.

I am much more likely to be killed doing what I do for a living than a policeman is.

The chances that a cop might get shot "for simply wearing the uniform" is statistically negligible, so that is a specious argument at best. It is a complete myth that being a cop is a dangerous profession. They have guns and clubs and radios which can summon similarly equipped individuals.



Yup. So am I. Doesn't make them special. Doesn't make me special either.

and most of the 900,000+ law enforcement officers in this country.

I would be most interested reviewing the actual studies or primary data that support your conclusions? Given their exceptionally broad and pervasive nature, citations should be readily available, and remember that the plural of anecdotes is not necessarily data.

I must be wrong to characterize an entire profession in a way that conflicts with your perceptions, eh?

Yes, those valiant protectors of my safety, upholding their oath to protect the Constitution at every second, diligently sitting at the end of the block, waiting and watching for the bad person to step foot on my lawn late at night with ill intent, competently doing their "Law Enforcement" thingy.

Uh huh. Sure.


I can really only see one or at the most, two scenarios where I (or someone close to me) would willingly summon a member of that profession to my house;

To clean up a body (either mine or the intruder) or to remove a belligerent, which is pretty much the same thing.

Doing so still risks having them come over and making things worse.

Per my prior post, I will anxiously await your primary statistical data and studies that confirm your broad generalizations about a highly diverse group of 900,000+ individuals working separately in a multitude of jurisdictions and conditions.

Anxiously or otherwise.

The cows will be home soon.

Tell me again where I am supposed to jump right on it to satisfy your request for information?

Cops are, for the most part, all the same. The ones that aren't get drummed out of the profession.



You want to know the kind of cop I have sympathy for?

This kind:

http://www.rt.com/usa/trooper-watts-sues-cops-harrasment-575/

The woman has gone through utter hell for daring to handcuff a douchebag cop she ran down for speeding on the interstate.

perfectly said.

The male macho thing. Can't be seen to back away. Would rather be killed than called a sissy by some idiot. Yep, that and there being so many guns (that people have so many means cops have to have them and cops realize anyone could have one).

Reminds me of a video of British police avoiding a guy with a knife - they eventually took him in without killing him. In the video they are seen running from him to another position when he gets too close - and sure enough in the comments section they are called weak for it.

Our criminal justice system has built a monster over past 100 years and it will never get better.

Of course it is wrong to lash out and kill people, but we have a society full of people who haven't been treated the same as others.

And the answer is not to create fake traffic stops for wealthy people or privileged classes...the police have to change and the local courts and police have to change.

Police and our criminal justice system (especially LOCAL, local, LoCaL) has to 'change' first. Much easier for the authorities to change.

Police need to be outright fired for any abuse, wear the damn body cams and ride in 2s.

https://www.freespeech.org/text/despite-what-traditional-media-implying-killings-police-officers-way-down-under-obama

"For the first six years of Bush’s presidency (2001-2006), the total number of cops intentionally murdered was 426. This doesn’t count 911-related deaths, which would obviously skew Bush’s number higher. During the first six years of Obama’s presidency, the total number of cops intentionally murdered was 382. That’s a 10 percent drop.

In the seventh year of Bush’s presidency, there were 77 cop killings, by our definition. So far this year, Obama’s seventh in office, there have been 35. Statistically speaking, we’re on pace for a total of 52 in 2015, which would be the lowest total in this century."

And what the fuck is an "oppassable" thumb?

The answer is no. No, you're not.

Let's see if you can address anything on this thread with a straightforward answer, or if you're just a ... well, I think we all know.

I have seen more than one person dismiss this question by stating when police officers stop killing unarmed black men. Fact, the gross majority of police officers in this country have never fired a weapon (other than the range to qualify or practice) let alone actually use one in self defense or kill someone. The death of black men at the hands of racist police officers is abhorrent. The death of police officers in retaliation is ALSO abhorrent. Some of these comments are apologia for vigilante justice AND murder. MURDER. What is wrong with you people? Do you stop to consider your comments before you start typing? Some of you clearly have your head on straight. Others, well (and I recognize this might wind up in jury) your head is firmly lodged in your colon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7126811

Ever watch "Kids in the Hall?"

you should have been hidden for that accusation.

in a post in the Lounge. Ha!

A very heartfelt thank you to all who had the ability and the class to respond in an
evenhanded intelligent manner. The others? you know who you are. See you soon.

Wow, that GoFundMe really paid off!

We primitives are just jealous of one so highly intelligent and evolved! We know who we are.

If someone substituted "unarmef black men" for "police officers' in an op like yours, you'd be screaming " racist" at all over the board.

That being the case, how about not shiiting on the graves of these men you do NOT knpw because you've pre-judged them as unworthy of respect or dignity because of the uniform they wore.

but at least police can depend on the shooter to be held accountable. When the police shoot unarmed citizens being held accountable is extremely rare.

gonna end?"


And no, I dont think the two are related, I just wonder if this concern of yours is limited to police.

I dont know you that well, maybe you have done a thread like that.

Oh wait, I have now been educated as to your posting history so my question is moot.

Your attitude and position is clear to me now.

sigh

I would gently suggest that we take a deep breath.
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/09/02/a-look-at-recent-law-enforcement-deaths-across-the-us

I hope K.K.K.ops stop K.k.k.illing unarmed American citizens with impunity too.

Human lives have value and those who disregard that and take lives are monsters.

Just a guess…

For a very long time now, my entire life and i am over 50, the police have been killing, shaking down and harressing people of color in America sometimes justified but many times unjustified and nothing happens to the police.

Is it right to shoot police? no comment.

Be that as it may, it is what it is and from my POV and not having to go through life worrying that a cop is going to shoot me for well damn near any reason they have. White privlidge does have its advantage in this case. I see this whole thing as blow back.

I am of the opinion it is going take a drastic change in policing in America. Do I have the answer for how it should change no, not at this time but I do know what we are doing now is not working but if change does not happen soon the result will be more dead cops

We should also thank the NRA for their unyielding support of every American right to quickly and easily obtain a firearm and ammo. That is also part of the problem too that few will even mention

The 1% decided having plenty of people to fill up the private prisons for profit is more important then actually wanting to serve and protect the people so the cops are told by TPTB fill the prisons but in order to do that they have to bust a few heads so to speak down in the hood, to keep the prisons full. Why the hood because the folk in the hood lack the resources to fight back. It is as simple as that. The primary target of the police is those who can't fight back. It is the same reason why the well off kids don't go directly to jail for less then an oz of weed they have the lawyers, money and connections to make life miserable for the police so why would the police even bother with going after those who can defend themselves?

People will only take so much abuse before they fight back. No I do not know for a fact the the killing of police is an organized activity. But I do know that everything is cause and effect and if cops don't change the way they do their jobs the funeral industry will be the big winner.

Get rid of the occupation. No more police means no more police getting killed.

The murder rate seems to have jumped up everywhere, among all groups, and in all parts of the country.

It's still much safer to be a cop today than 20 years ago, or even 60 years ago. A cluster does not always correspond to an actual underlying trend.

or at least they could bring themselves to report the bad ones

we have gone from
never shoot someone
to its okay to shoot someone sometimes
to open season