Us Cop Shoots Black Teenager.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4208568/Police-release-man-fatally-shot-Baltimore-officer.html

Sad that one of such a young age no matter of what colour. has to end it in such a way,

But this "American cop on black shooting" seems to be totally justified.

[SnookerPlayer]

If I thought this officer was unaffected by what has happened, I would be seriously worried.

So, I suggest would his employers, who will take him off the streets until an investigation is competed, and offer him counselling if he requires it.



Conselling ????? he deserves a medal for clearing scum off the streets. Lets hope he had a few pints with his colleagues later that day.

[andy-hughes]

vortex - //Andy H //So, I suggest would his employers, who will take him off the streets until an investigation is competed,//

He has been placed on admin duties I believe. //

I understand that is standard and mandatory procedure when an officer has killed someone in the line of duty.

It prevents an officer suffering from the effects of the incident from maybe hesitating next time, and getting him or herself shot first.

[andy-hughes]

SnookerPlayer - //Conselling ????? he deserves a medal for clearing scum off the streets. Lets hope he had a few pints with his colleagues later that day. //

My point revolves around the concept that, no mater how justifiable taking a life is - and here it clearly is justified - that does not mean that the officer will not be affected by what he has done.

Counselling is offered, with the strong recommendation that it is taken - for a good reason.

[vortex]

I don't think there will be any doubt that the officer will be 'affected' in some way. It is perhaps the first time he has killed someone.

The question is, how and to what degree?

There are plenty of eye witness accounts from locals who are, rightly or wrongly, critical of the police actions that led to the shooting.

The officer, despite police backing, may well have nagging doubts about his reputation rather than the shooting being valid. He may not be able to eat or sleep properly, who knows?

For the record, I believe it was the correct course of action.

[vortex]

divebuddy, these officers are not robots or devoid of human emotions are they?

It's not just a case of 'all in a days work'.

Yes, the figures are bad and it's a tough job but so is being a soldier.

How many of them have returned with PTSD?

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //Any American policemen who are as hyper sensitive as you seem to be wouldn't last two shifts on the job before they were a gibbering wreck. //

It's not about being 'hyper-sensitive', it's about having the feelings and reactions that make us human.

So - for the record, if I had been that policeman, would I have shot that teenager? Yes, in a heartbeat.

But - and this is the crux of my point - would I have endured a few sleepless nights because I have killed someone, yes I would.

And in conclusion - would it stop me going back to my job, and in the circumstances, doing exactly the same thing again? No, it would not.

I hope that illustrates where I am coming from on this.

[anotheoldgit]

/// So - for the record, if I had been that policeman, ///

Another day - another example of the 'So' rule!

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - I am speaking hypothetically and you know that full well. I would not join any police force for a gold pig.

I am not minded to get into a machismo contest with you, it's pointless and demoralising, and I have been drawn in before to my regret.

I have stated my view, you have stated yours, you think I'm, bleeding heart wimp, I think you are a gung ho macho man - shall we leave it there?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - ///// So - for the record, if I had been that policeman, ///

Another day - another example of the 'So' rule! //

Do try and keep up!

The 'So' rule does not come into effect simply because someone uses the word.

It is the 'So' rule when the word starts a post,. which then goes on to completely ignore / contradict / either - the post to which it is replying.

You can see that in this case, none of those is in place.

I'm not likely to break my own rule am I!

Still - nice to see that you are edging slowly back to speaking to me again.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - ////I am speaking hypothetically //
Why should I know that. Is there a code or something to tell us when you actually mean what you say and another for when you don't. //

Since you know enough about me (you have been rude enough about it in the past!) to know that my job is not being an American policeman - how could I be speaking any other way than hypothetically?

If you can't take it as read that I don't know how an American policeman thinks and feels because I am neither American, or a policeman, then you are either not paying attention, or you are deliberately looking to start an argument.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - If I don't know what I am talking about, then neither do you, and neither does anyone else on here who is not an American policeman who has shot someone in self-defence.

As I have said many times, you do not need direct experience of anything in order to have a view and an opinion and to express it.

If we did, the entire site would have shut down years ago, there is a distinct absence of Muslim terrorists or American presidents on here to chat among themselves about things only they know about!

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //I very much doubt that you would have passed the psychological tests to become an American police officer. //

Have you experience of the psychological tests to become an American police officer?

No, well in that case, you don't know what you're talking about!!!

Except that, as I have pointed out, I don't need or even expect your direct experience to offer a viewpoint - all you need to do is extend that courtesy to me, and we can carry on our discussion.

[Gromit]

// Another day - another example of the 'So' rule! //

What is the 'So' rule?