Huey Driver Loc: Texas

Give me a break

Now there are those who are pushing for laws banning police from using tear gas, flash grenades or rubber bullets. Exactly what do these morons expect the police to do when they, in the performance of their duties, are expected to stop violent or unruly protesters or gangs that outnumber them sometimes a couple hundred or more to one? Use their cel phones and call the protesters mommies and tell them about their unruly behavior?
In my opinion anyone who would v**e for these laws deserves no assistants or protection from the police if they themselves need help.

polonois Loc: Lancaster County,PA.

Right on!

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

It is reasonable to demand that the police follow their motto, "to protect and serve." Beating the crap out of people is not what they are supposed to do. There has to be a better way

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Maybe have them part time. They can go from home when they get a call. Oh yea, they will have to stop at the police station to pick up a gun, only if needed. Have the city council v**e on if they will need the gun on that call. PLEASE have common sense

williejoha

What does all of this have to do with photography? Join a political blog but leave your politics of this one.
WJH

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

If you only want photography posts, stay out of the non-photography forums.

Ruthlessrider

Interesting how police in most, if not all of Western Europe, operate daily without a firearm strapped to their hip. Yes, they have well trained SWAT teams, and they are able to deal with perps using firearms, but they have fewer police k**led and fewer citizens k**led. Maybe if we did away with the ridiculous, outdated notion that everyone should have ready access to firearms, our police would be less lethal and have growling support for their activity instead of less.

Please don’t use the argument that “when citizens can’t have their own weapons only the criminal will” or something similar. One of the reasons criminals have guns is because they are so readily available in our society.

Cookie223 Loc: New Jersey

Obviously you've never been on the job, lost a family member who was trying to do their job, and all the other daily abuse, and disrespect they face.

There are bad apples in all sections of society, Floyd did deserve to die, but lost his life because of one cop. Floyd was no pillar of society, he had numerous felony convicts, and was high on cocaine and meth, and committed yet another felony by passing a counterfeit $20.
For all of those that want to do away with law enforcement, they should create their own city, stay in it, and lets see how well they'll do.
We will never recover from all this nonsense, and we're watching the end of America as we knew it.
Wish you and your family will.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

A better way that what under what conditions? What does a cop do when someone wants to try to beat the crap out of him?
Say "Lets sit down and talk about this."???

The key might be when a cop says do something, one does it.
Do they do that in Western Europe?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

TOTALLY different mindset in Western Europe!

CaptainBobBrown

Our model of policing requires that every policeman be available to deal with all kinds of things that shouldn't require force but typical police training is how to subdue a resistant suspect. This requires an often violent mindset where a better mind set would be how to defuse a situation. Certainly shooting "suspects" in the back or applying choke holds rather than letting a suspect go to be picked up at a later time is preferable to murder.

It would take an a******l collection of individuals with extraordinary education to be able to calmly assess a situation and distinguish true need for force situations from those simply requiring intervention by people trained to deal with the specific problem.

Take homeless populations as an example. Who do we look to to deal with homeless encampments? Police who come in with orders to "clear them out" so they take it as their mission to use wh**ever force is necessary regardless of the circumstances giving rise to the homeless condition. Some in the homeless population have mental illness problems but aren't inherently violent. Why not deal with their problems with better mental health facilities. No funding.

Some are there for mutual protection and support because of unfortunate circumstances like job loss in a p******c. Should they be confronted by gun toting police who have no training or way to deal with the problem other than use of force.

At the very least we should evolve police forces into sets of specialists in the kinds of problems not requiring force or threat of lethal violence on every occasion. It's unrealistic to expect gun toting police trained mostly in use of violence to which they are attracted to begin with to deal with the real problems of society. When all you've got is a hammer everything looks like a nail to be beat on.

Finally, if you take guns from most police in most situations they are left with their own native wits and caution instead of regarding every situation as a potential challenge to their authority.We really, really do need to rethink what we want policing to be like rather than stuck in a "police must do it all" mentality left over from the days of Marshall Wyatt Earp.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

"...from my cold dead hands!"

Ruthlessrider

I find it difficult to disagree with anything you’ve said.

In discussions like this, I am always reminded of my own experience in combat. In 68 and 69 I flew a light observation helicopter in an air cavalry unit in the central highlands of Vietnams. Everyday we would report to the tactical operations center of the unit we were flying in support of that day. We were given an area of operation and a situation report for what that unit knew of the area and what they wanted us to cover. Most days we were given free reign to fire as needed (recon by fire, fire at anyone who we found, etc.), because there were no known friendly forces in the area assigned. We called these “free fire zones.” On other occasions we were told that we could fire only when fired on, because there were friendly forces in the area that may be on the move. On those occasion, because we did not want to inflict casualties on our own friendly forces, we never fired unless fired upon. So my question to those who think or argue in favor of armed police who are freely able to use lethal force in our civilian populations, WHY? If in combat I can be ordered into a no fire zone and adhere to the orders given, why are police always given permission to operate in a “free fire zone” with our civilian populations?

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I thought the police use something else now. However, most states still have r**t acts from the 1800's (for striking workers)--if a crowd does not disperse when ordered, the police can gun them down, disperse them with violence, or arrest them forcibly (their choice). This is not a political question--it is the way things are (but not much to do with photography?)
There is a real problem when people r**t and l**t (or worse) and police cannot use wh**ever force it takes. Wisdom, alas, cannot be legislated, either for demonstrators or cops. I suspect people don't object to police force against violent criminals in the act--they object to violence against peaceful demonstrators.
Ordinary rights have never applied in r**ts (or under martial law). The government has authority over us--otherwise, law is nonsense--and government has to be able to k**l someone if necessary. (And who decides when it is necessary? The government, of course--who else?)
But if government uses its authority do disperse peaceful, harmless gatherings, the only resort is the courtroom or b****t box--later. Even Britain, which has long used unarmed patrol cops, has firearms available when needed, if authorized by the officers in charge.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Don't go to the hospital as you may get a bad doctor. We have a small percentage of dad doctors.

Also bad food in the store or restaurant. Grow your own and be carful with natural fertilizer, may come from a sick animal.