I've seen the quietest people you could meet resist arrest before. Doesn't mean they deserve to be killed, or shot though for doing so. People react differently, to things. If what you said here is what you really believe, then you really have a strange way of viewing the World. Compassion and common sense, are sorely lacking in your mindset, believe me!

I have personally not heard of such lawsuits being waged or won either.

People, in the end, get held responsible for their own crimes. The answer is not death to avoid lawsuits that would try to argue differently, especially not one that would argue they should kill a person rather than let them run away and 'possibly' cause a car accident or commit some other crime. AS long as they make reasonable effort to DETAIN, (not kill) there is no liability.

agree...msharmony
this is what is happening with the looting mainly whites wanting to divide the races even more ...

https://www.startribune.com/man-charged-with-arson-of-mpls-third-precinct-station/571115042/?refresh=true





great solution... I have ever heard happen ... that is a great thinker and
someone who deeply knows an cares ... how to get peace for everyone in Camden NJ ...



https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html

16 Mind-Blowing Facts About the Police!
https://youtu.be/vweMc91ra-k

It is not that they should kill the suspect so there won't be a lawsuit!! The issue is preventing a lawsuit or holding the police responsible if they do let someone free and someone gets injured or killed. Why do police, when they discover a DUI, arrest the person, take them in and book them in jail, and then have their vehicle impounded? In order to get them out of jail, someone has to come, show they are not intoxicated, and then sign an agreement to take responsibility for the DUI recipient. At least that is the way Minnesota operates.

In the Atlanta case, why didn't they just issue a citation and a summons; take his drivers license, take his car keys, and then let him go wherever he wanted to? Probably not what the law allows them to do.

Compassion is for people who befall something bad or devastating beyond their control such as natural disasters; compassion is not for people who befall hard times because of poor choices or stupidity!

There is a group called Basketball Cop Foundation who are great examples of police out there helping the community with positive interaction and not JUST round them up mentality.

That seems like a difference between intentionally letting someone go and perform something that is a threat to others, and losing someone who is only 'possibly' going to perform something. Big difference. I am sure the law has plenty of discretion on what a cop 'can' do.

My compassion even falls for poor choices and stupidity, when it comes to death. I have not been free from poor choices or stupid things myself. And I did not and should not expect the death penalty for it. IMHO. When it comes to poor choices and poverty, that is not a call I have the ego to make for strangers. For me, if the effort is being made, help is the human way to respond, especially if it involves children who don't get the choice.

Children are a very different situation. No child should ever be relegated to severe poverty or forced to live in a dysfunctional home. Unfortunately, society has not yet demanded the necessary changes to parental custody laws to end those atrocities!!

I suspect that discretion is mostly non-existent. When I was young (yes, once upon a time long, long ago) if the cops caught you drinking when you were underage, they took your beer/booze and then called your parents. There where times when an adult had too much to drink and the cops made sure they got home safely. We have gotten away from the idea that the purpose of the police is to ensure everyone's safety and now to the only way to make the general population safe, is arrest and book into jail. Maybe the idea is how much can they collect for the city coffers!! I see no real reason to arrest and book someone who is not an imminent threat to the public; issue the citation and the summons, then let them go!! If they fail to show for their summons, then deal with them!!

When they have no obligation to protect, that gives them plenty of discretion. Some people get warnings and others citations. Some pros get taken in and some get used as informants. Discretion is a mainstay of the entire justice system, making social and racial implicit bias even more dangerous.

Funny how I stay in the UK and the Police don't carry guns, but they can deal with people armed, or not that resist arrest, without shooting them, or killing them. Is it not just the case that a some of the Police in the States are going about with the attitude that they're above the law and can do whatever they want while on the job, to whoever they want? Seems like it to me!

I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'.

These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self.

America was founded on the concept of caring for oneself and being able to be self reliant. For most of it's existence it has been very rural with a very small segment of the population living in crowded cities. Europe has been the opposite of that for centuries with large concentrations of populations requiring more mutual cooperation among people. The 2 environments and expectations are very different.

Here in the US today, we have those 2 extremes: large urban areas and small rural areas. The people who live there have very different perspectives on life especially when it comes to self sufficiency. There is also much less racial conflict in small cities as there are very few minorities especially African-American. Those that are in the area tend to meld in and be part of the community. Kids all go to the same schools and have the same opportunities and teachers. When you are in the same class, have lunch together, and all support the same sports team for many years you don't recognize that many differences. There is also a much more uniform exposure to role models and people in the community. The larger the cities, the more social and racial dysfunction that exists.

I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO.

I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them".

I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO.

I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them".

I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO.

I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them".

I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO.

I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them".

I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO.

I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them".