I also want to say human beings do not stop being human beings because of other labels or job status. There are good and bad, violent and non violent, stable and unstable. Trying to address the 'bad', violent, or unstable does not mean being against anyone else but the bad, violent, or unstable. Certainly people do hate police, often because of their interactions with them, just like people hate lawyers or politicians. That is because people are HUMAN and some are hateful. That type of all inclusive hate is illogical and serves no purpose.

However, anger over injustice by authority when it is excused is not illogical and addressing it is not purposeless. In fact, some of those protesting and speaking out out on this injustice are also cops. Cops in some places are getting out there and making the children in the community feel safe and trusted and being involved in ways other than treating them suspect and guilty. If it weren't for so many of the good cops, this place would be chaos. And turning a blind eye to the bad ones is exactly how the good ones lose face. The bad ones HAVE to be addressed so that we can continue to have more of the good.

I hope these protesters get EVERY demand they want.

However, it should be required that they have to remain in the community once they get them so they get to completely enjoy the fruits of their labors....

not like most can move or have it much worse

IT is not party politics, people are individuals first, no party exclusively good or exclusively bad, because each have a number of INDIVIDUALS within it

Funny it's never party politics when the left is in charge yet civil right violations continually happen year after year after year...

It's also never party politics when the left has been in charge for decades, or even a century, for these same cities with the country's highest crime rates.

It's only party politics when they can blame those on the right...

Let me ask this: If cities and states ban police from using certain physical restraints that could cause death and an officer is dealing with someone physically superior resisting arrest, what action do you expect the officer to take? Please be specific!

how are the 'left' or 'right' in charge? Which individuals have dictatorships?

personally, I would expect an officer to be TRAINED in assessing a situation. I would expect officers who have BACK UP, (multiple officers) should not very easily be dealing with a single individual who is superior physically alone and unarmed than they are together. I also expect cuffs to be used. I also do not expect someone to be pulled OUT of a police car and then have four officers putting pressure on their backs and neck just to restrain them, and certainly not for eight minutes.

There is no one size fits all. There is only what is REASONABLE. Force REASONABLY necessary to restrain is kind of what I expect. Force that potentially KILLS just to restrain an offender is not.

IF there are going to be potentially fatal tactics, they better well be trained in where the LIMITS of those tactics are and assessing when they are crossing the line to fatal.

I agree with harmony ... I expect the officer to

Be trained in risk assessment , conflict resolution and to safely engage in challenging situations .

To recognise when they do not have control of a situation .. to back down if safety is compromised or call for backup .

To use appropriate deescalation techniques and culturally safe communication.

To know how to safely defend themselves when there is a physiological difference or threat .

To React professionally and ethically .

George Floyd complained of feeling claustrophobic ...( a condition often associated with panic and fear ...) he was “pulled “ from the vehicle ... I would expect the risk assessment of that situation to consider the consequence of his state of mind and functioning at that point .

He did not have a weapon .. he was not combative or aggressive . Why they felt the need to restrain him in the manner they did is not clear . I am sure their rationale and motivation will come out in the legal proceedings .

P.s.... I would be more than happy to share my knowledge of restraints and behavioural psychology with the police force

New Orleans has been run exclusively by the Democratic Party for over 150 years. Yet when the levies broke, due to their yearly upkeep funding being "diverted" to other areas, it was immediately blamed on outside agencies. Even though the names change, the same political policies remain in effect and THAT is your dictatorship.

I've already gone through the tip of the extensive list of American cities that have been run by one-party politics for 5+ decades. St. Louis, Minneapolis, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Washington DC...etc etc etc...all complain about how corrupt the police are in their cities, how change is needed, how crime is rampant. Yet somehow the regimes that have been running the show exclusively for decades suddenly now are "woke" to the issue of corruption...



We already did this dance in 2012 when the appointed one and his illustrious regime were in complete control. New DOJ rules of interaction, restriction and policy were put forth and if not followed federal funding was supposed to be cut...

and yet somehow we're right back in the same mud puddle, this time even deeper, looking to the same people who "fixed the issue" less than a decade ago to fix it again. Maybe we should put more of the failed policies into effect...I'm sure that 2-5 generations of failure only exists because they need more time.

your argument fails muster in answering the question.

1. If you are using a 150 year range, many INDIVIDUALS have been mayors in those cities.
2. Those INDIVIDUALS have had to answer to many GOVERNORS in those states. And many have city managers they work with as well, not to mention councils.
3. Some years in those 150 have been good years and some have not.
4. The parties themselves have not stayed the same during that 150 year period.
5. A city has many departments, many roles, and none of them are dictatorships. They are all working with OTHERS in some capacity. And it is NOT as simple as which party an individual in those roles happens to belong to.

And then,pay them more for meeting what SHOULD be the required skill set for that position.

You know what?

I'm done with this BS 🤬
In London another monument has been defaced. Its for the air crew of bomber command (dambusters) ww2.
Same as the other day they compared churchill with Hitler 🤬
Funny thing is that if churchill hadn't of been such a strong leader along with the Americans then there probably wouldn't be any ethnic minority or black people because Hitlers goal was to get rid of all of them and make the supreme race!
So
Where as I would have sympathy for a demonstration they can all go f### themselves, I'm done 🤬

The thing with comparisons are they are just that, only a comparison. If someone was a scientific genius but also a pedhophile, comparing them to other scientific geniuses would only be comparing their similar scientific genius, and not necessarily the pedophilia.

Great humans make terrible mistakes and can rarely, in a lifetime, do terrible things to others. And terrible humans can sometimes make great choices, and can rarely, in a lifetime, do some great things for others. It is not black and white.


Humans have similarities and differences because they all have being human in common. Instead of immediate defense, I like to ask in what ways the two are considered similar. Sometimes the answer may be accurate. Sometimes it may not be.


In political discussions especially, such statements are used to invoke fear, that because a leader is similar to some other leader in some ways, they will duplicate the worst things the other leader has done, which is just silly. All sides commit such silliness.

Because they are saying they both murdered people

Best of all is they are dishonering their own who died so the Scum can do this.

If they did. It is an accurate comparison. If they did not, it is not. Not to make light at all, but good and bad is sometimes only a matter of who was harmed and who was spared harm. I am sure that between the two they see the outcomes and the motivations quite differently.

Surely you know that the nazis wanted to get rid of all?
Started with the Jews and was progressing to other races?
We were stopping that?
Anyway, it's diversed from the ot.