| Submit your comments on this article |
| -War on Police- |
| Changing Perceptions About Deadly Use Of Force |
| 2019-01-24 |
| [Townhall] Police departments across the nation have been struggling to convince communities they protect that deadly use of force is not unduly influenced by race through the Trayvon Martin "stand your ground" shooting, the days of protests in Ferguson, MO., and possibly even as far back as the LA riots that followed the arrest of Rodney King in 1991. The latest push to scale back the ability of officers to employ deadly force comes from New Hampshire where a new bill is expected to be voted on this month that could revoke officers’ right to use deadly force during arrests. In Washington state, Community Police Commissions have been set up for some time to police the police, as it were. They have stirred controversy by attempting to change the legal definition of "deadly use of force" to make it easier to prosecute officers who find themselves faced with circumstances where they had to use it. Police departments have pushed back on these efforts, saying they will make it much harder for officers to do their jobs effectively and may unnecessarily put them in harm’s way. In a 2018 Pew Study of 8,000 officers, 86 percent said they believe the public "does not understand the risks and challenges of their jobs, even though 83 percent of U.S. adults rated officers’ jobs as very risky." It’s these misunderstandings that Bryan Patterson and Bruce Thayer of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF)in Virginia hope to address with a use of force simulator program they offer to journalists and community members interested in knowing the kind of pressure and intense decision-making officers face when put into potentially life-threatening situations. The mission of LELDF, according to their website, is to "support and defend the law enforcement profession and those law enforcement officers who have devoted their lives to upholding the Constitution and serving the United States and its citizens while enforcing its laws. We also seek to educate the public about the many risks and threats to law enforcement personnel in order to build a more informed, respectful, and appreciative society." |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #6 No deadly use of force = less policy involvement in dangerous situations. This promotes criminals to escalate. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2019-01-24 15:02 |
| #5 So long as they shoot white people, it's okay. Hell, it's de riguer. |
| Posted by: charger 2019-01-24 12:19 |
| #4 Look out for vigilantes when cops can't do their job, no peace without justice. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-01-24 11:36 |
| #3 It's all about 'entitlement class' exemption from the [sarc off] |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2019-01-24 08:40 |
| #2 Make every weasel politician go through 10 live simmuntion deadly force scenarios that include physical violence. Oh...you have to get all 10 right before yo can vote on this. |
| Posted by: Bangkok Billy 2019-01-24 08:36 |
| #1 If there's special laws for police, they're not police. Simple as that. Peel's Principles. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2019-01-24 03:23 |