The 3 seconds it might take me to ask questions and wait for a response could be all it takes before my toddler is shot dead.
Like the 1 year old in the video? So the mother would have been justified running those cops over, right? When someone runs at me shouting with a gun drawn should I assume they just want to talk?
Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat. The only threat in this situation was entirely brought by the police: they drew weapons and they put themselves in harms way by stepping in front of a moving vehicle.
“Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat.”
Evidence for this claim? I am a scientist and researcher by profession, as well as a formally trained, collage educated researcher. My own past research does not support this claim. Quick current searches can find data that contrasts your proposition:
In 2025, 1,201 people were killed by police in the US. 90% of those killed by on-duty police are armed with a firearm or other weapon, according to data compiled by Everytown Research. Only 98 are from cases where an individual is completely unarmed.
And even if we were to argue that half of all police killings are completely unjustified, we’re talking about 601 deaths.
Over 4,500 people die from unintentional drowning each year. 450 people die each year from falling out of bed. 72 die each year from hornet, wasp, and bee stings.
The “solution” proposed in this thread is “more training”, but what training, exactly? Current “quality” training is noted to reduce the tendency for violence used by police by roughly 30%, but that doesn’t mean it reduces killing by 30%. Not all violent altercations end in a shell discharge. So what are we talking about for a fix here? This ethereal training that will reduce physical altercations by 30% that reduce killings by 20%, dropping the number from 1,201 to 961. So you maybe save 241 lives at the cost of what, exactly?
Enhanced police training programs are primarily funded through local property taxes, state sales and income taxes. The total cost to recruit, equip, and provide advanced field training to a single officer can exceed $100,000 in their first 18 months. This excludes their salary.
Municipal budgets tend to go over capacity for salaries and overtime as it is today. Large-scale training updates also require physical equipment upgrades which cost multi-millions in costs. Such trainings often require simulation infrastructure. And keep in mind that there is no such thing as universal federal law on policing, policing conduct, rules, structure, hiring practices, and training are rooted at the state and local levels, so everywhere you go they have different criteria. So how do you make these trainings a universality? How do you get people to pay for it in Las Angeles vs. say, New Square New York, a village known for its high poverty rate and a low average family income near $20K? Is the proposed answer just to, “eat the rich”?
So again what is your ACTUAL proposal? You can’t just raise taxes, that will not work. You also can’t mandate that training changes happen universally across the country. Nobody has that authority. Districts hold their own authority independent of one another. And even if you could get the funding AND make it universal, the average American will not vote for it. You propose a cost of say, 3 billion to give all officers in the US enhanced training and tell them this is estimated to save 241 lives annually and they will scoff at your proposal and assume 75% of those people saved are likely hardened criminals anyway, so why exactly are we putting 3 billion to save the lives of known felons?
If you want to make change, you have to convince your fellow man to live righteously, which is no easy task. Change doesn’t happen overnight because some government mandate was put in place or because some money was thrown at some police districts for “enhanced training”.
Hell, simply removing laws that have no victim would reduce all police altercations by anywhere from 20-80% (impossible to strictly judge this with any available data). Don’t arrest someone for drug possession for example because there’s no need to. Let people live their lives the way they want and put into their body what they want because its their life and their body and these things would organically reduce anyway. The government IS a HUGE part of the problem alone.
I never said that she wouldn’t have been justified in running a cop over if he drew a gun on her depending on the situation. She could be completely, 100% justified.
Like the 1 year old in the video? So the mother would have been justified running those cops over, right? When someone runs at me shouting with a gun drawn should I assume they just want to talk?
Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat. The only threat in this situation was entirely brought by the police: they drew weapons and they put themselves in harms way by stepping in front of a moving vehicle.
“Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat.”
Evidence for this claim? I am a scientist and researcher by profession, as well as a formally trained, collage educated researcher. My own past research does not support this claim. Quick current searches can find data that contrasts your proposition:
In 2025, 1,201 people were killed by police in the US. 90% of those killed by on-duty police are armed with a firearm or other weapon, according to data compiled by Everytown Research. Only 98 are from cases where an individual is completely unarmed.
https://everytownresearch.org/graph/percent-of-deaths-of-civilians-caused-by-police-are-with-a-firearm/
And even if we were to argue that half of all police killings are completely unjustified, we’re talking about 601 deaths.
Over 4,500 people die from unintentional drowning each year. 450 people die each year from falling out of bed. 72 die each year from hornet, wasp, and bee stings.
The “solution” proposed in this thread is “more training”, but what training, exactly? Current “quality” training is noted to reduce the tendency for violence used by police by roughly 30%, but that doesn’t mean it reduces killing by 30%. Not all violent altercations end in a shell discharge. So what are we talking about for a fix here? This ethereal training that will reduce physical altercations by 30% that reduce killings by 20%, dropping the number from 1,201 to 961. So you maybe save 241 lives at the cost of what, exactly?
Enhanced police training programs are primarily funded through local property taxes, state sales and income taxes. The total cost to recruit, equip, and provide advanced field training to a single officer can exceed $100,000 in their first 18 months. This excludes their salary.
Municipal budgets tend to go over capacity for salaries and overtime as it is today. Large-scale training updates also require physical equipment upgrades which cost multi-millions in costs. Such trainings often require simulation infrastructure. And keep in mind that there is no such thing as universal federal law on policing, policing conduct, rules, structure, hiring practices, and training are rooted at the state and local levels, so everywhere you go they have different criteria. So how do you make these trainings a universality? How do you get people to pay for it in Las Angeles vs. say, New Square New York, a village known for its high poverty rate and a low average family income near $20K? Is the proposed answer just to, “eat the rich”?
So again what is your ACTUAL proposal? You can’t just raise taxes, that will not work. You also can’t mandate that training changes happen universally across the country. Nobody has that authority. Districts hold their own authority independent of one another. And even if you could get the funding AND make it universal, the average American will not vote for it. You propose a cost of say, 3 billion to give all officers in the US enhanced training and tell them this is estimated to save 241 lives annually and they will scoff at your proposal and assume 75% of those people saved are likely hardened criminals anyway, so why exactly are we putting 3 billion to save the lives of known felons?
If you want to make change, you have to convince your fellow man to live righteously, which is no easy task. Change doesn’t happen overnight because some government mandate was put in place or because some money was thrown at some police districts for “enhanced training”.
Hell, simply removing laws that have no victim would reduce all police altercations by anywhere from 20-80% (impossible to strictly judge this with any available data). Don’t arrest someone for drug possession for example because there’s no need to. Let people live their lives the way they want and put into their body what they want because its their life and their body and these things would organically reduce anyway. The government IS a HUGE part of the problem alone.
I never said that she wouldn’t have been justified in running a cop over if he drew a gun on her depending on the situation. She could be completely, 100% justified.