zlacker

>>colawa+(OP)
There is something even MORE important to be released and that is the police training manuals and materials which the NYPD have been hiding from FOIL requests for over a decade now.

To all New Yorkers: You are currently NOT ENTITLED to see the methods and techniques taught at the NYPD academy.

Requests are being denied on these grounds: "Deniable records include records or portions thereof that: (e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which if disclosed would: iv. reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures;"

>>school+Uh
Very likely they're using military psychological training. The rules of engagement they adopt against citizens don't seem that different from those used by soldiers in enemy territory. The complete lack of empathy towards human life reminds of the depersonalizing of the enemy that helps soldiers remain efficient and detached while they slaughter their "targets". For that matter, even more important than the manuals are the speeches by their instructors; I would like to see the videos and what indoctrination techniques they use during training. A cop can't turn himself into 9/10 of a psychopath just by reading books. And of course I would push for mandatory drugs and steroids abuse tests for all of them.

>>square+mp
This post is at odds with the fact that the military teaches stricter rules of engagement than police forces. There may be a culture problem in the force but this post is hysteria.

Police deal with violent criminals who have no regard for police life; in fact often they are explicitly against police. They're going to learn techniques appropriate for dealing with such people. Some of those techniques will be violent and resemble "military" tactics, but that's only because the military also deals with violent adversaries.

>>mtgp10+Mr
The problem is that these violent criminals are in the extreme minority; while certainly police need to be trained to handle them, they also need to be trained to handle the other 99% of the people they will encounter, who are not violent. But they aren't, so they revert to treating everyone as if they were a violent criminal fractions of a second away from attacking them. That's why we have the problem of police brutality in the first place.

>>kelnos+8L
The majority of victims of police brutality (at least deaths by police, of course there are other forms of police brutality but killings by police is what the current conversation is about) are violent criminals. Of the ~1000 people killed by police in 2019 538 were armed with a gun, 159 with a knife, 60 with a vehicle, and 63 with another weapon. 41 were unarmed, 23 had a toy weapon, and 49 is unknown. [0] The majority of people that cops interact with overall are not violent criminals, but the majority of people subject to the type of police brutality which is overwhelmingly controlling the conversation (i.e. killings by police) are violent criminals.

[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/5211/us-citizens-killed-by-po...

>>metrok+OU
"They have a gun", the statement, is different from "they have a gun", the fact. There's no actual oversight to these reports - the closest we have is the Washington Post performing the intensive work of collecting reports from individual police departments, but they're unable to verify the reports.

In other countries like England & Wales, when a police officer seriously injures or kills someone, there's a formal investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, an independent body at a centralised Government level with powers equivalent to a police officer for matters they investigate. They also usually provide public reports, for example, https://policeconduct.gov.uk/recommendations/police-response.... (Also note the limited use of force - two shots, one of which struck - and immediate care.) It's still not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than what the US does.

>>vertex+d21
Being unable to verify the reports does in no way make them false. There must be some actual evidence of widespread falsification of reports. Many of these killings have actual recorded evidence of the criminal shooting or drawing a firearm, such as the video a month or two back of a black man fleeing from police in a park. Currently your claim that armed suspects shot by police were not actually armed is simply a theory which has no evidence to back it up. How many of these cases do you believe are framed by the police? 20%? 40%? 80%? All of them?

All officer involved shootings are investigated, but you take issue with the investigation being internal. If an independent investigation office was created, would you accept the results if the results still were the same? What group, would you accept results from in independent office from as not compromised or part of a pro-police conspiracy? Certainly not any Trump appointed office, no matter how seemingly neutral.