I don't judge individuals by the behaviors of other people.
You try not to, but ultimately it's impossible to enter in to an interaction with another person with a completely blank slate. Our previous interactions with people affect how we perceive the world around us. If a subset of people are found to be murderers then the risk of meeting someone in that set who isn't a murderer decreases - to use an ad absurdum example, if there are 1,000,000 police officers and 999,999 of them are murderers, you wouldn't meet the last one thinking "I really ought to give him the benefit of the doubt."
At the moment, the number of police officers who have killed innocent people is still absolutely tiny, so the risk of being killed by one is also tiny, and to that end we should still see police officers as useful, helpful members of society who aren't going to murder us. But also, rationally speaking, the police should welcome every technology that makes people trust them, and that includes cameras that record them rather than us.
"At the moment, the number of police officers who have killed innocent people is still absolutely tiny"
There is no way to verify your claim. In my own antidotal
world, I have seen cops ruin people's lives by harassment, and revenue collection!
There are two statements made by Eric Holder's Justice Department that didn't get the traction I felt they needed:
“Local authorities consistently approached law enforcement not as a means for protecting public safety, but as a way of generating revenue,” Holder said
Officers in Ferguson “routinely violate the Fourth Amendment,” Holder said, and stop citizens without reasonable suspicion and then use unreasonable force against them. Incidents often “blatantly cross the line,” he said.
This investigation was specific to Ferguson, Missouri, but I have a feeling they are systemic problems in many towns and cities across America.
I have no way if proving my own personal suspicions about the average Cop, in the average police department, but I don't trust them anymore. I know I have been pulled over for no reason. I have been ticketed for incidents I honestly didn't
think I committed. I'm a white dude living in a wealthy community; I often wonder how minorites are treated in other parts of the country?
(I have no answers to the injustices I see, other than arming your vechicle, and person with a video cam. The problem I see now is most cops will be on the lookout for any recording
devise.)
I once read an article which reported a real police officer's take on Miami Vice.
In the TV show, the drug cop fires his gun at least once each episode. That would lead the show's fans to expect that most law enforcement officers use their service pistols at least once per week, if not every single day.
In reality, most cops fire their guns at most once during their entire lives. That is, fire them at a suspect and not at a practice target.
I expect they draw their guns a fair amount, but those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them.
Once, one of my father's enlisted men damn near shot his own foot off when he was verifying that his pistol really was unloaded. He followed the US Navy's documented procedure for unloading his gun, the very last step being to pull the trigger.
> those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them.
This was one of the biggest criticisms I heard[1][2] (and raised) regarding the protests in Ferguson. The police officers had their weapons constantly trained on the protesters, including sniper rifles and other unnecessarily large weapons. It really sent a bad message, that they were seemingly ready to kill anyone who stepped one foot over the line they laid down. Whether or not this was actually true, it certainly seemed that way.
See my first comment in this thread; that signaled very clearly they were willing to kill them, although nothing about intending (and indeed they didn't). See also a lot of the bad behavior after the Boston Marathon bombing in the futile Watertown search, lots of contemporary pictures, plus there's a recent report that's well discussed here that tells us just how badly managed it all was: http://weaponsman.com/?p=21830
but those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them
Nope, Rule 2 is "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy." (Emphasis added.) Big difference between "fully intends" and willing.
Roughly when did the Navy incident happen? As of late, like the last couple or so decades, I've read that the firearm training has really been shortchanged. It was very different when my father started at Great Lakes before being tapped for OCS.
I think it was in 1973 or 1974. My father had a rotating duty to help guard the main gate at Concord Naval Weapons Station in the east San Francisco Bay. That is every couple weeks he would supervise the men in the guardhouse.
You try not to, but ultimately it's impossible to enter in to an interaction with another person with a completely blank slate. Our previous interactions with people affect how we perceive the world around us. If a subset of people are found to be murderers then the risk of meeting someone in that set who isn't a murderer decreases - to use an ad absurdum example, if there are 1,000,000 police officers and 999,999 of them are murderers, you wouldn't meet the last one thinking "I really ought to give him the benefit of the doubt."
At the moment, the number of police officers who have killed innocent people is still absolutely tiny, so the risk of being killed by one is also tiny, and to that end we should still see police officers as useful, helpful members of society who aren't going to murder us. But also, rationally speaking, the police should welcome every technology that makes people trust them, and that includes cameras that record them rather than us.