Easily avoided by treating the residents like people. By being courteous, and respectful, and you'll receive courtesy, and respect right back.
And what to do if one of the residents start trying to take your gun?
Ah yes, that's the problem... I assume that you've never spend a lot of time in poor,
majority black or ethnic neighborhoods?
I also assume that you've never read what a black policeman thinks on what happened in Ferguson? I think you may find it enlightening to see that they agree with the GJ decision.
The problem Isn't a sudden nor drastic epidemic in the number of young black men killed by police.
That number has stayed more or less the same for many years. It was around 450 in 1994, and 20 years later it's 461.
(According to USA Today about 96 of those involved a white police officer and a black victim.)
In a country of 300 million thats a blip on the radar. To put it in perspective, according to the National Safety Council, in a recent year 744 people died of food obstructing their respiratory tract.
Yes, you read that right. We could probably save more young black males, by increasing awareness about chewing food properly.
So what has changed since this is suddenly such a dramatic issue?
It's tolerance and respect. Tolerance for opinions and those who hold them, and respect for words and their meaning.
Words like genocide used to mean something. And certainly not what you see protesters using it to describe. racism" used to mean something. Today people casually throw it around, and is often likely to be used as a slur, to shut down debate or to show your disapproval with a given subject. (Is a law "racist", if it gives police a very wide leeway into using deadly force? It may be problematic and you may disagree with it, but a black policeman would disagree with the fact that the law is racist.)
And the same goes for tolerance for others opinions. Dissent used to be tolerated. And difference of opinion. At the end of the day, people agreed to disagree, and as long as your professional life didn't suffer, business and universities found room for all sorts of dissenting, outrageous and nutty ideas.
(But McCarthyism! Yes. Exactly. It didn't take long for McCarthy to run out his welcome...)
Today however? Today we fire CEOs for having made political donations.
So its no wonder that we see a hysteria like this after the tragic death in NYC, or the Grand Jury finding in Ferguson. Instead of discussing the issues, stores are set on fire, and protesters insist that they can't be wrong.
And while police brutality is a problem overall, it can't be that justice was done in this case.
After all, the law is racist. As is everyone who doesn't share our opinion. And justice can't have been done, unless it goes the way we want it to go!
The only reason to be optimistic, is that the protests are still tiny compared to former protest movements...
If crime statistics had also remained static for all those years you'd have a point, but crime has dropped considerably in 20 years. While the number killed remains the same the number of criminals has dramatically dropped so the percentage killed has risen.
And what to do if one of the residents start trying to take your gun?
Ah yes, that's the problem... I assume that you've never spend a lot of time in poor,
majority black or ethnic neighborhoods?
I also assume that you've never read what a black policeman thinks on what happened in Ferguson? I think you may find it enlightening to see that they agree with the GJ decision.
You assumed wrong. I'm hispanic, born and raised in minority neighborhoods, and have spent the last 25 yrs working in some of the worst neighborhoods in Brooklyn. The vast majority of the residents are law abiding citizens that want what everybody else wants. They want to go to work, and come home safely, they want their kids to get educated in a safe environment.
If I was a cop, and someone reached for my gun then I'd have to defend myself, which doesn't necessarily mean that I have to kill them.
Apple, Please Close the Store as soon as possible, pull the Chains down, secure the product, station armed private security guards or pay several off duty police officers inside and we will order from the internet.
This is not a forum for politics.
The genius of the Apple Store is the simple fact that the physical apple store prices are the same as the online prices at apple.com. Think about that for a minute. It's going to take longer to get something by ordering it online than it is to go in person to the store. As far as I can tell almost every other retailer charges more at their physical location than online. Now of course if you don't live near a store that is a problem but you can still get it at same price! This is the main reason why I like going to apples stores because I can touch the merchandise. I know I won't be getting it cheaper if I order it online so I may as well pay for it at the store and I get instant gratification. But of course if there's some thug demonstrating I can simply order it online and avoid the hassle. That demo at the Apple Store was very stupid really but since when has mob been clever it's simply a blunt instrument real change happens from within.
And what to do if one of the residents start trying to take your gun?
Ah yes, that's the problem... I assume that you've never spend a lot of time in poor,
majority black or ethnic neighborhoods?
I also assume that you've never read what a black policeman thinks on what happened in Ferguson? I think you may find it enlightening to see that they agree with the GJ decision.
You assumed wrong. I'm hispanic, born and raised in minority neighborhoods, and have spent the last 25 yrs working in some of the worst neighborhoods in Brooklyn. The vast majority of the residents are law abiding citizens that want what everybody else wants. They want to go to work, and come home safely, they want their kids to get educated in a safe environment.
If I was a cop, and someone reached for my gun then I'd have to defend myself, which doesn't necessarily mean that I have to kill them.
I think the problem is that even if you argue that the policeman might have managed to arrest Michael Brown without having to kill him, it's almost impossible to argue that he was in the wrong, due to the mitigating circumstances. Yes, another policeman might have managed it, but just because this one didn't doesn't mean that he acted unlawfully. The very nature of the policeman's job requires that one gives them the benefit of the doubt to a greater extent than a civilian. This almost certainly results in justice not being done on some occasions, but the Brown case isn't one of them.
Capitalist America? What the heck does Apple have to do with racism or police violence?
I guess the protesters didn't have the cojones to stage their activity in a location that was actually relevant, such as in front of a police station or at the locations of the crimes.
Do these people think that this will force Apple to make some sort of statement in support of their cause? By intentionally crippling a business establishment, they are taking the company hostage. There is no moral high ground.
This "capitalist America" line is just a manufactured excuse for rationalizing an unethical action. I support their cause in as much as the principle behind fighting racism and oppression, but this does not justify their choice of targets. I don't care if the target was an Apple store, a McDonalds, a Home Depot or whatever it may be. You don't take a random hostage and then presume to claim any sort of moral high ground.
I think it's about time a few black cops kill (read: murder) some white criminals during arrest
The fact that you didn't know, that only roughly a fourth (96 out of 450) of police-related deaths last year was caused by a white officer and black victim, shows how ignorant you are of the issues here.
You seriously didn't know, that there are also cases of black officers killing white suspects and black suspects? Wow...
I would bet good money, that it's an ignorance that's pretty representative of the protesters.
People don't listen to cops all the time. It doesn't merit using deadly force. If someone is agitated they probably have high amounts of adrenaline running through their body, and might not hear a command unless told a few times. If a person is acting violently then it shouldn't be difficult to defuse the situation by talking.
I disagree. If a person is acting violently, this situation is now more difficult to defuse by just talking. That seems rather obvious to me, but I'm willing to listen as to why you think adding violent behavior to any situation makes discussion more effective.
In my observations and limited personal experience, any interaction with the police is best served by letting the police stay in control of the situation. Even if I feel my civil rights are being denied, I will do what the police say at that moment. The time to address any grievances with the police is later, with a lawyer and through the courts. If I refuse to let a police officer - right or wrong - take charge of the situation then I have escalated the situation which might cause the officer to be fearful for his safety or the public safety. No good will come of this.
I also find it interesting that people are so concerned about prejudice, but are quite willing to lump all police officers into one category, either all good or all bad. Once again just going by my limited experience, I have met officers who are fantastic people and I have met officers who are total assholes. I just have to be open minded in all situations.
The author of the story takes (in my opinion) far too much time explaining that he either dislikes Rand Paul or attempts to distance himself from his party in order to appeal to the typically East Coast Democrat audience they serve, but the core point of the discussion survives.
I disagree. If a person is acting violently, this situation is now more difficult to defuse by just talking. That seems rather obvious to me, but I'm willing to listen as to why you think adding violent behavior to any situation makes discussion more effective.
In my observations and limited personal experience, any interaction with the police is best served by letting the police stay in control of the situation. Even if I feel my civil rights are being denied, I will do what the police say at that moment. The time to address any grievances with the police is later, with a lawyer and through the courts. If I refuse to let a police officer - right or wrong - take charge of the situation then I have escalated the situation which might cause the officer to be fearful for his safety or the public safety. No good will come of this.
I also find it interesting that people are so concerned about prejudice, but are quite willing to lump all police officers into one category, either all good or all bad. Once again just going by my limited experience, I have met officers who are fantastic people and I have met officers who are total assholes. I just have to be open minded in all situations.
That should've read 'isn't acting violently'. It's easy to say that you'd let the police control the situation, but you cannot know what it's like to be constantly harassed by them. It's easy to ignore being poked once, or twice, but anyone is going to lash out after being poked 8,9,10 times, no matter who's doing the poking.
If I was a cop, and someone reached for my gun then I'd have to defend myself, which doesn't necessarily mean that I have to kill them.
Of course not. Even a policeman doesn't have the right to use lethal force indiscriminately.
What the law does say, is that police have the right to use lethal force if they believe that they, or other people are in danger.
Michael Brown got shot less than 30 seconds after he had punched the officer, the fight in the car and the gun going off.
The policeman has adrenaline surging through his body, he sees Brown come in his direction. Now in that moment, does he have reason to believe his live is in danger?
Of course. His life may not actually have been in danger. But it's not unreasonable to assume that he DID feel that way in that split second. And that's why the grand jury chose not to prosecute him.
It doesn't mean that policeofficers can do anything they want. Or even that a policeman can use lethal force whenever he's attacked.
It only means that in this situation, the officer can't be prosecuted for firing his gun.
And hey, I ain't no great fan of police. Are there violent and corrupt cops? Sure. It's a lot fewer than in the past, but it's still a problem.
Are police in general too violent? Sure. They're also too quick to pull the gun in many cases, and the US justice system in general have serious issues.
But this is not a case that exemplifies any of these things. And neither does it have anything to do with racism.
Of course not. Even a policeman doesn't have the right to use lethal force indiscriminately.
What the law does say, is that police have the right to use lethal force if they believe that they, or other people are in danger.
Michael Brown got shot less than 30 seconds after he had punched the officer, the fight in the car and the gun going off.
The policeman has adrenaline surging through his body, he sees Brown come in his direction. Now in that moment,
But the police have much, much more latitude in their use of deadly force. You or I cannot fill in for the police whenever we want without risking significant personal liability.
As a protester, your main goal is to get your story into the media. Mission accomplished here.
Wrong. The media has already selected and overhyped this story and others like it to create a false narrative. Adding this nonsense to it tries to create a feedback loop to continue that false narrative. Then pundits and experts scratch their heads and wonder "What's wrong with____________" when people don't vote, buy into or believe their false narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Better to do something off-base, misguided, unfocussed, and poorly-directed, than to do nothing at all. And it does help (a little) to keep this real and important issue in the eye of the public and media. An issue that matters far more than anyone's "inconvenience" or a trivial drop of a corporation's profit ocean. Anyone who thinks police treatment of blacks is not a huge and nationwide problem hasn't seen what I've seen (and has probably seen an awful lot of sand around their head).
Still... even better to put the same time and energy into the same issue in a way that, you know, makes even a trace of actual SENSE! Just a thought. (Hint: "capitalism" is not the root of the problem. Try other "isms" and you will find it!)
I've lived and worked in these neighborhoods for years. The police are far from the problem. The daily actions of most people in said neighborhoods is crime on a magnitude for beyond the comprehension of most people. If you've ever had a friend or family go to jail you know that the criminal justice system in the country is profoundly overtaxed and that the last thing they really want to do short of actual violent crime is stick you in a cell. They plead everything down. Time off for good behavior, in California and other places almost anything related to drugs is just sent for treatment not criminalized. Call the cops for most trivial stuff and they won't even show up because it is a civil or insurance matter in their opinion. There is a reason this man had over 30 prior arrests
It has become ridiculous. People expect the system to be flawless and save people from themselves no matter their own actions, lifestyle or choices.
Why is it so hard to comply with a request? A request to respect the rights and property of others isn't racism. A request to follow the law isn't racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
I really don't understand what capitalism has to do with the problem. But then again I'm white and don't quite understand what the problem is. I've had some black friends lecture me on white privilege and how I had it easy and stuff. My mom was a waitress and my dad was a maintenance man and they worked hard to give us a better life. I was able to go to college and started my own businesses. Nobody ever gave me anything. We didn't resort to crime and we certainly respected those placed in authority over us.
The folks who subscribe and push Critical Race Theory basically grabbed their beliefs from Critical Theory which holds that the oppressed and their wretched lot are the fault of the oppressors. Take out oppressed and oppressor and substitute black and white. Revolution is the only answer in both instances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader
I'm not sure you're entirely wrong.
Perhaps it is time for a shoot first system. If a cop tells you to do something, shoot the cop dead.
Maybe thousands of dead cops is what it's going to take. Maybe that's the only thing that will get the message across to these thugs in blue that we're done with their brutality. Maybe that will fix it.
I sincerely hope not. But the attitude that I'm seeing here suggests that maybe it is.
Police brutality is out of control in this country. If annoying a few people at an Apple store is what it takes to get the message across, then I say "wonderful!" But I'm afraid that with your attitudes it won't do any good. Eric Garner was murdered by a police officer. Michael Brown was murdered by a police officer. Hundreds of other people are murdered every year by police officers in this country.
In Germany in 2011, police fired 85 bullets. In America, police had murdered 85 people before March ended that year. The cops murdered more people in Utah last year than any street gang. And every time, they get away with it.
There are two options here. Either police stop murdering people and getting away with it, or police blood WILL run in the streets. Pick option one, it's better for us all.
And no, I'm not going to go out and start shooting cops. But this is NOT the time to be an Apple fanboi, pressure your legislators to bring the cops under control, or this country will see a shitstorm like it hasn't seen since the 1860s. As to the boxes, we're still at soap. Help take it to ballot, jury isn't working, and none of us will benefit if it progresses to ammo.
You've got to be joking. Germany is over 92% European. It is 0.7% African. You aren't comparing the same things. 94% of black murder was black on black murder. If you want to stop black murders you have to focus on the 94% first and foremost. The point is to stop looking at the exception and making it the rule and instead start looking at the rule and work to make it the exception.
Of course not. Even a policeman doesn't have the right to use lethal force indiscriminately.
What the law does say, is that police have the right to use lethal force if they believe that they, or other people are in danger.
Michael Brown got shot less than 30 seconds after he had punched the officer, the fight in the car and the gun going off.
The policeman has adrenaline surging through his body, he sees Brown come in his direction. Now in that moment,
He should've been trained for that moment, and taught to keep his cool. I'd like to know how they train pilots to remain calm when the airplane, or helicopter they're flying is going down. Teach that to police officers, and they'll be less killings.
Perhaps police violence is an issue of human nature without any reference to race. Let's see what Zimbardo or Milgram would have to say. Sometimes people treat other people horrifically because of the position they are assigned or because it's what they were instructed to do.
Nah, let me put the lid back on that can of worms...
Perhaps police violence is an issue of human nature without any reference to race. Let's see what Zimbardo or Milgram would have to say. Sometimes people treat other people horrifically because of the position they are assigned or because it's what they were instructed to do.
Nah, let me put the lid back on that can of worms...
That should've read 'isn't acting violently'. It's easy to say that you'd let the police control the situation, but you cannot know what it's like to be constantly harassed by them. It's easy to ignore being poked once, or twice, but anyone is going to lash out after being poked 8,9,10 times, no matter who's doing the poking.
Okay, now your original statement now makes sense. Conversation should be the basic tool that an officer relies on.
However I still disagree. Why bet on a losing course of action? It would be hard to take, but I would take any amount of harassment. There would be not one possible outcome that would be positive if I lashed out. Not one.
Okay, now your original statement now makes sense. Conversation should be the basic tool that an officer relies on.
However I still disagree. Why bet on a losing course of action? It would be hard to take, but I would take any amount of harassment. There would be not one possible outcome that would be positive if I lashed out. Not one.
Just about everyone has a breaking point in which outcome be damned.
Comments
And what to do if one of the residents start trying to take your gun?
Ah yes, that's the problem... I assume that you've never spend a lot of time in poor,
majority black or ethnic neighborhoods?
I also assume that you've never read what a black policeman thinks on what happened in Ferguson? I think you may find it enlightening to see that they agree with the GJ decision.
If crime statistics had also remained static for all those years you'd have a point, but crime has dropped considerably in 20 years. While the number killed remains the same the number of criminals has dramatically dropped so the percentage killed has risen.
You assumed wrong. I'm hispanic, born and raised in minority neighborhoods, and have spent the last 25 yrs working in some of the worst neighborhoods in Brooklyn. The vast majority of the residents are law abiding citizens that want what everybody else wants. They want to go to work, and come home safely, they want their kids to get educated in a safe environment.
If I was a cop, and someone reached for my gun then I'd have to defend myself, which doesn't necessarily mean that I have to kill them.
I think the problem is that even if you argue that the policeman might have managed to arrest Michael Brown without having to kill him, it's almost impossible to argue that he was in the wrong, due to the mitigating circumstances. Yes, another policeman might have managed it, but just because this one didn't doesn't mean that he acted unlawfully. The very nature of the policeman's job requires that one gives them the benefit of the doubt to a greater extent than a civilian. This almost certainly results in justice not being done on some occasions, but the Brown case isn't one of them.
I guess the protesters didn't have the cojones to stage their activity in a location that was actually relevant, such as in front of a police station or at the locations of the crimes.
Do these people think that this will force Apple to make some sort of statement in support of their cause? By intentionally crippling a business establishment, they are taking the company hostage. There is no moral high ground.
This "capitalist America" line is just a manufactured excuse for rationalizing an unethical action. I support their cause in as much as the principle behind fighting racism and oppression, but this does not justify their choice of targets. I don't care if the target was an Apple store, a McDonalds, a Home Depot or whatever it may be. You don't take a random hostage and then presume to claim any sort of moral high ground.
The fact that you didn't know, that only roughly a fourth (96 out of 450) of police-related deaths last year was caused by a white officer and black victim, shows how ignorant you are of the issues here.
You seriously didn't know, that there are also cases of black officers killing white suspects and black suspects? Wow...
I would bet good money, that it's an ignorance that's pretty representative of the protesters.
I disagree. If a person is acting violently, this situation is now more difficult to defuse by just talking. That seems rather obvious to me, but I'm willing to listen as to why you think adding violent behavior to any situation makes discussion more effective.
In my observations and limited personal experience, any interaction with the police is best served by letting the police stay in control of the situation. Even if I feel my civil rights are being denied, I will do what the police say at that moment. The time to address any grievances with the police is later, with a lawyer and through the courts. If I refuse to let a police officer - right or wrong - take charge of the situation then I have escalated the situation which might cause the officer to be fearful for his safety or the public safety. No good will come of this.
I also find it interesting that people are so concerned about prejudice, but are quite willing to lump all police officers into one category, either all good or all bad. Once again just going by my limited experience, I have met officers who are fantastic people and I have met officers who are total assholes. I just have to be open minded in all situations.
I fully understand that but if race were not an issue, then there'd be 134 people on the CEO-list.
There's a twentyfold "error margin"... That makes my point not too absurd.
I completely understand your point, but then how do you explain Satya Nadella, or (non-American) Carlos Ghosn and other billionaires and/or CEO's?
Here's a video snippet and article in which Rand Paul makes an excellent point about what factors led up to that man selling cigarettes dying: http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/6/7343613/eric-garner-michael-brown-rand-paul-police-reform
The author of the story takes (in my opinion) far too much time explaining that he either dislikes Rand Paul or attempts to distance himself from his party in order to appeal to the typically East Coast Democrat audience they serve, but the core point of the discussion survives.
That should've read 'isn't acting violently'. It's easy to say that you'd let the police control the situation, but you cannot know what it's like to be constantly harassed by them. It's easy to ignore being poked once, or twice, but anyone is going to lash out after being poked 8,9,10 times, no matter who's doing the poking.
Of course not. Even a policeman doesn't have the right to use lethal force indiscriminately.
What the law does say, is that police have the right to use lethal force if they believe that they, or other people are in danger.
Michael Brown got shot less than 30 seconds after he had punched the officer, the fight in the car and the gun going off.
The policeman has adrenaline surging through his body, he sees Brown come in his direction. Now in that moment, does he have reason to believe his live is in danger?
Of course. His life may not actually have been in danger. But it's not unreasonable to assume that he DID feel that way in that split second. And that's why the grand jury chose not to prosecute him.
It doesn't mean that policeofficers can do anything they want. Or even that a policeman can use lethal force whenever he's attacked.
It only means that in this situation, the officer can't be prosecuted for firing his gun.
And hey, I ain't no great fan of police. Are there violent and corrupt cops? Sure. It's a lot fewer than in the past, but it's still a problem.
Are police in general too violent? Sure. They're also too quick to pull the gun in many cases, and the US justice system in general have serious issues.
But this is not a case that exemplifies any of these things. And neither does it have anything to do with racism.
But the police have much, much more latitude in their use of deadly force. You or I cannot fill in for the police whenever we want without risking significant personal liability.
As a protester, your main goal is to get your story into the media. Mission accomplished here.
Wrong. The media has already selected and overhyped this story and others like it to create a false narrative. Adding this nonsense to it tries to create a feedback loop to continue that false narrative. Then pundits and experts scratch their heads and wonder "What's wrong with____________" when people don't vote, buy into or believe their false narrative.
Better to do something off-base, misguided, unfocussed, and poorly-directed, than to do nothing at all. And it does help (a little) to keep this real and important issue in the eye of the public and media. An issue that matters far more than anyone's "inconvenience" or a trivial drop of a corporation's profit ocean. Anyone who thinks police treatment of blacks is not a huge and nationwide problem hasn't seen what I've seen (and has probably seen an awful lot of sand around their head).
Still... even better to put the same time and energy into the same issue in a way that, you know, makes even a trace of actual SENSE! Just a thought. (Hint: "capitalism" is not the root of the problem. Try other "isms" and you will find it!)
I've lived and worked in these neighborhoods for years. The police are far from the problem. The daily actions of most people in said neighborhoods is crime on a magnitude for beyond the comprehension of most people. If you've ever had a friend or family go to jail you know that the criminal justice system in the country is profoundly overtaxed and that the last thing they really want to do short of actual violent crime is stick you in a cell. They plead everything down. Time off for good behavior, in California and other places almost anything related to drugs is just sent for treatment not criminalized. Call the cops for most trivial stuff and they won't even show up because it is a civil or insurance matter in their opinion. There is a reason this man had over 30 prior arrests
It has become ridiculous. People expect the system to be flawless and save people from themselves no matter their own actions, lifestyle or choices.
Why is it so hard to comply with a request? A request to respect the rights and property of others isn't racism. A request to follow the law isn't racism.
I really don't understand what capitalism has to do with the problem. But then again I'm white and don't quite understand what the problem is. I've had some black friends lecture me on white privilege and how I had it easy and stuff. My mom was a waitress and my dad was a maintenance man and they worked hard to give us a better life. I was able to go to college and started my own businesses. Nobody ever gave me anything. We didn't resort to crime and we certainly respected those placed in authority over us.
The folks who subscribe and push Critical Race Theory basically grabbed their beliefs from Critical Theory which holds that the oppressed and their wretched lot are the fault of the oppressors. Take out oppressed and oppressor and substitute black and white. Revolution is the only answer in both instances.
I'm not sure you're entirely wrong.
Perhaps it is time for a shoot first system. If a cop tells you to do something, shoot the cop dead.
Maybe thousands of dead cops is what it's going to take. Maybe that's the only thing that will get the message across to these thugs in blue that we're done with their brutality. Maybe that will fix it.
I sincerely hope not. But the attitude that I'm seeing here suggests that maybe it is.
Police brutality is out of control in this country. If annoying a few people at an Apple store is what it takes to get the message across, then I say "wonderful!" But I'm afraid that with your attitudes it won't do any good. Eric Garner was murdered by a police officer. Michael Brown was murdered by a police officer. Hundreds of other people are murdered every year by police officers in this country.
In Germany in 2011, police fired 85 bullets. In America, police had murdered 85 people before March ended that year. The cops murdered more people in Utah last year than any street gang. And every time, they get away with it.
There are two options here. Either police stop murdering people and getting away with it, or police blood WILL run in the streets. Pick option one, it's better for us all.
And no, I'm not going to go out and start shooting cops. But this is NOT the time to be an Apple fanboi, pressure your legislators to bring the cops under control, or this country will see a shitstorm like it hasn't seen since the 1860s. As to the boxes, we're still at soap. Help take it to ballot, jury isn't working, and none of us will benefit if it progresses to ammo.
You've got to be joking. Germany is over 92% European. It is 0.7% African. You aren't comparing the same things. 94% of black murder was black on black murder. If you want to stop black murders you have to focus on the 94% first and foremost. The point is to stop looking at the exception and making it the rule and instead start looking at the rule and work to make it the exception.
He should've been trained for that moment, and taught to keep his cool. I'd like to know how they train pilots to remain calm when the airplane, or helicopter they're flying is going down. Teach that to police officers, and they'll be less killings.
Nah, let me put the lid back on that can of worms...
A superiority complex certainly plays a part.
Okay, now your original statement now makes sense. Conversation should be the basic tool that an officer relies on.
However I still disagree. Why bet on a losing course of action? It would be hard to take, but I would take any amount of harassment. There would be not one possible outcome that would be positive if I lashed out. Not one.
Just about everyone has a breaking point in which outcome be damned.