THE POLICE PROBLEM

That's an interesting observation. But, I can also feel that the point of journalism is to deliver facts about what has transpired, not to place blame, unless it is unequivocally true along with proof. It is however important to expose weaknesses in society, so that people don't get away with murder, literally or figuratively.

Still, that's something very interesting that you brought up. It could be just a style common in journalism, or more deliberate so as not to take responsibility for calling anyone out.

Funny you say that…the same police force almost killed some kid with tasers.

https://fox4kc.com/news/former-independence-police-officer-sentenced-to-4-years-for-tasing-arrest-that-put-teen-in-coma/

Oh, they use those when they want to torture you.

There was an alternative option out there that I haven't seen much of - it's an attachment on normal 9mm pistols, that dampens the first shot with a less-lethal projectile. The idea is, if someone is resisting, you can use the shot and avoid killing them. If they're playing Superman, then you still have lethal force ready in the rest of the magazine.

Police departments haven't favored it. I assume, because they just gosh darn love killing.

I don't want to defend the police here. It seems like they're more than capable of defending themselves against toddlers and innocent people sleeping in their homes.

What I will say though is on the efficiency of tasers. They're grrrreat, if you get skin contact with both electrodes, on the first try. But both prongs must hit, pierce the clothing, and get skin contact. Reloading the taser, or switching to the side arm, can take too long. There's a lot of myths about what will stop a taser, and I guess that some of the myths are affecting cops in their choice of force method.

But going for the gun on a disturbance call about a woman with a baby and the baby's grandmother? And shooting the baby? What, as the baby identified as an armed and dangerous fugitive?

And then fire blindly at nothing at all (see the acorn incident)

My husband is brown, and had a cop intentionally try to antagonize him into responding emotionally so the cop could violently arrest him.

Used aggressive language, threats to bring him to the station, veiled threats alluding to a guy who had been paralyzed and left in a coma by police the week before. It was sick and fucked up. It left my husband literally shaking afterwards. I've never seen him scared like that. I hate that cop with every fiber of my being. My husband is a gentle, kind, and loving person just trying to get his car fixed.

His offense that got him pulled over? Going to the mechanic to get his car fixed so it would pass emissions and we could update the registration.

To folks reading this, cops will absolutely try to antagonize you and escalate the situation. Don't let them. It gives them every excuse to shoot you and get away with it.

Cops can go fuck themselves to death.

Yeah, if this were a criminal case in my country it would look like this: murder(+?)/manslaughter on the child (+) no justification, not in the line of duty (+), ergo (+); manslaughter mother (+), justification? Self-defense? Mother herself justified? No imminent attack, child OS already dead, but her attack excused. Self defense possible for the officer, but self-defense provocation at least carelessly, most likely on purpose = heavy reduction of self-defense measures to basically just evasion and restraining, using the firearm in excess of that = not justifiable; possible excuse excess of violence for self-defense, caused the situation and escalated it beyond anything reasonable, better trained and armed, not excusable = manslaughter on the mother (+)

This would likely get you life in prison (so earliest parol after 15 years) here. And I doubt this would be something any officer or DA would dare to burn their hands over to cover up, as they would be held accountable for that coverup or meddling and go to prison themselves

Ok, I think this needs to be explained because people don't understand the whole "on administrative leave" thing. It's not a slap on the wrist, it's the first step they have to take to fire him.

Cops have unions. One of the things those unions have put in place is that most cops can not immediately just be fired except in extremely narrow and specific circumstances. Beyond those circumstances, there has to be an investigation. During the investigation, the cop is placed on administrative leave. Even if it's super cut and dry, statements still need to be taken, a report still has to be written, and it's gotta go through the whole process.

Now, do these investigations often get intentionally delayed? Yes. Do they often come out weeks or months later saying "cop did nothing wrong, everyone move along." Also yes. But the point is administrative leave is not the punishment and does not mean that consequences aren't going to be coming. Saying "Why put them on administrative leave? Just fire them!" is kind of like saying "Why fill out the forms HR needs to fire them? Just fire them!" It's a process, and administrative leave is the first step.