@2 - Not following procedure but who can blame him. You're not in a profession where you could get ambushed and shot in the face just sitting in your car.

Regarding protests, it is noteworthy than none of the recent "protests" in Seattle don't carry signs or have an organized theme just as BLM. It's just mobs now.

At least the puppies are returned, and are safe at home now.
Wish I could say the same about our democracy.

@5: Where's your compassion?

'compassion'?
what 400 years of Oppression?

End Slave Patrols
yesterday if not Sooner.

@1:

In France? Birthplace of street mime - and it's most beloved practitioner Marcel Marceau - where the image of a lanky, chalk-faced guy in a beret and striped shirt is a veritable cultural icon? I would think mime-skills would be a prerequisite for the job...

@3:

Given the number of times cops have shot unarmed people in cars, literally every BIPOC in this country falls into that category. Also, it's so strange the protesters have never reached out to you for your oh-so-expert advice on Correct Demonstration Protocols. I wonder why that would be?

@9 Peaceful protesting only works when your opponent has a conscience.

@3: Breonna Taylor was asleep in her bed.

Comparison data or anecdotes shouldn't preclude our ability to be compassionate for the people who are employed in the profession for which we pay taxes and that we count on to do their jobs under tremendous stress and risk to their safety and lives.

@3 -- I've had a gun pointed at my face twice. Once at home, as part of an armed robbery. The second by a couple of cops, while acting as a good Samaritan. The irony of the second case is especially crazy -- way to build support for the police, idiots.

Anyway, it is common for bar tenders and cashiers of small stores to be threatened. Some are shot in the face, with little warning. Most don't walk around with weapons. None of them are employed by the state to maintain peace. The cop that has become paranoid should change professions, or the police should change it for him.

@13,

I don't know why the DNC doesn't just bioengineer a hyper-intelligent 3-D animatronic cyborg with pre-programmed talking points and zingers to debate in his stead. Seems like a no-brainer.

@10: Having a conscience means you don't use a perceived lack of one as an excuse to be violent.

We can hardly call what is going to happen tonight a debate. Trump will make a lot of noise and lie is face off and there's a 50-50 chance he'll walk out, like he's been doing at his "press conferences." He's a fucking baby and a bully who will whine and lie and say nasty things and people will pretend a debate happened. Trump is a shit show. This is a pointless exercise that provides him another opportunity to behave like the asshole he is and the so-called news to report about it. They're not even going to fact check the motherfucker during his lie fest. So what's the point? It is a total and complete waste of time.

@14: Yes, he should probably take a leave for a desk job. It's really too bad that cops aren't perfect, isn't it?

@18: That's one passionate couple.

@21: Oh relax thyself. I was already doing a screenplay casting Jamie Lee Curtis.

@22 isn't that essentially what we do now? There has been cases of pilots who have crashed and killed everyone on board and surgeons performing unethical procedures and yet somehow the rest of us understand that doesn't mean the entire profession is faulty. I'll even go one better for you. We also accept that a percentage of teachers are predators and yet we still send kids to school and there is no call to remove the teachers union for protecting them. @23 has it right. The police are a reflection of society so you can abolish them and replace them with some community whatever and the same underlying issues will still be present.

So Rich, in the same news roundup, you're calling the first presidential debate "an empty spectacle overburdened with meaning," and then later snidely criticizing random people on the street "whose civic maturity remains arrested at a 5th grade level." Pick a goddamn lane, man.

Might I suggest that lane be the one that encourages civic engagement, at a time when one of the contestants for the big desk is a conman and wannabe fascist dictator that has trampled on the law and the Constitution every single day? Your own link describes not the presidential debate, but the post-debate discussion, to be the waste of time anyway.

@16: OK, interesting you have that notion. Now apply that same argument to the case of the cop sitting in his car with his gun drawn, aaaannnd...?

@21: That's how you interpreted it? I interpreted it as him marrying the rifle or the handgun. Or both? Truly a match made in Arkansas. It's almost certain to be a fake story anyway, made up to "own a lib," so why not?

@23: OK. Applied, and totally copasetic as our ideals are evaluated against the imperfect human condition.

@29 refers to 28.

@20 -- No, cops aren't perfect. That isn't the problem. The problem is a culture within the police force that says it is OK. Surgeons aren't perfect, but if they keep fucking up, they are fired. Same with pilots, fire fighters and other professions. In any other profession, this guy would be told to get another job. But because he is a cop, we make excuses.

Here is another example. Imagine you are a shop keeper and you've been robbed, at gunpoint, a half dozen times. Almost every time it was a black guy that robbed you. So you say to hell with it, and you won't let any black people in your store. You would be fired -- if you own the store, the store would be closed.

But if you do the same thing as a cop, someone covers for you. Your partner knows you are a racist, but looks the other way. Maybe you have a temper problem, too, but that is excused (its a tough job, after all). That is the problem. It isn't that there are "a few bad apples", it is that they "spoil the whole barrel". Fuck, it is an old idea -- the phrase goes back to the 16th century -- and yet the cops still don't get it. It is quite likely that most cops are good people. Most cops, working in a different environment, would be fine. But a few bad cops has spoiled the system, and the folks in charge don't get it.

What is crazy is that the union has completely lost track of how successful unions operate. They hold a high standard for themselves and their members. They then use that a bargaining chip to get what they want. Oh, they will protect their members when it comes to unfair allegations -- as well they should -- but if you fuck up, you're gone.

A good example is the NBA Players Union. In the '70s and '80s, there were a lot of players with problems. Violence, drugs, other crime. In more recent years this is rare. The union spends a lot of money making sure players avoid those kinds of problems. As a result, the union has become a lot more powerful and the NBA has grown in popularity. The players now get over half the profits -- better than just about any union.

The police unions are fucking up, and creating an antagonistic, us-versus-them approach. Defending members of their union by saying "it is a tough job", is like excusing an NBA player who beats his wife because he is "under a lot of pressure". Sorry, tough shit. Time for the police unions to demand a better code of conduct for their members AND steps to ensure they live up to it. That means not only getting rid of those "bad apples", but training to prevent frustrated cops from becoming bad ones. It also means changing the culture (especially at the mid-level) so that every cop see themselves as part of every community instead of as antagonist.

@16 yes the gop sees anyone with conscience as easily exploitable. Guess the only response is to give them everything they want since there is nothing to be done.

@12:

Cops don't even make the Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs list - hell being a garbage collector is more dangerous, and we pay for their salaries with our taxes too:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-according-to-bls-data.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/workplace-fatalities-25-most-dangerous-jobs-america/1002500001/

@32: Yes, but we don't have the luxury of setting police aside while we fix (or "reimagine") the only career on earth tasked with the job.

Reform, not defund.

@41: Right because the cost is zero as "police malpractice insurance" does not currently exist.

@44: Hey, you're the crayon eater by hanging your hat on a "sort-of". However, there is actually such insurance being discussed:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/york-legislators-introduce-bill-require-liability-insurance-police/story?id=71750394

@38: And I don't think you can hang your hat on "semantics." Defund means to remove funding. Reform does not inherently imply anything about funding. And this defund experiment is not going so smoothly:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/us/minneapolis-defund-police.html

@37 I disagree with your assertion there are no consequences for police who act outside their scope of authority but that is not the point I was trying to make. The current narrative we hear time and time again is that ALL cops are bad and policing as an institution is racist and so on. I can't think of any other profession or group that is labeled solely on the basis of their bad actors. There is no argument that if a cop is found to have acted maliciously they should be punished where we diverge is that we should assume all cops are bad until they prove otherwise.

@46 We get your points that nothing is perfect and that the GOP will never cooperate with anyone therefore we should just "Shhhh, let it happen" so you can take a break from posting and have a word with yourself.

"The current narrative we hear is that ALL cops are bad" I fucking love this shit, someone spray-painted ACAB on SCCC therefore Joe Biden is an Anarchist! Yep, its either give cops tanks or have no cops, nothing in-between. Extremely goodfaithed analysis.

@19 xina, agree, and not only is it a waste of time, but it's likely causing more harm than good. As you suggest, it's just another huge platform for Trump to spread his (and Republican's) BS.

Biden has nothing to gain from this, and something to lose. Trump has nothing to lose, period.

I know Wallace is considered by some as a "respected" news person, but he's on a network that is not legitimate news, and his Fox affiliation makes him a non-starter. That Biden and the Dems agree to this, for the first and likely most watched debate no less, and continue to reward and legitimize Fox news, is just another in a never-ending sequence of stupidity.

@28 Knat, I'm not following the connection. You think the debate is one of civil engagement? There is nothing to be learned from these debates. If you want to teach civics, it seems a bit odd to start off with the cumulation of the massive failure of our political system.

@50: Sure, I can always be more circumspect. And you as well.

@49: Oh, the 'ol see if a 'GOP' barb will work. It doesn't.

@58: Why do you presume that such a challenge has anything to do with circumcision?

@57 Prof, I've heard arguments on both sides for making appearances on Fox News for the reasons you stated. At some point people of integrity have to take a principled stand. Dems legitimized Fox News. It's up to them to un-legitimize it. They do have to pick their spots, and what hills they're going to die on. If they're not going to die on it, at least say SOMETHING about it rather than pretending this is legitimate.

But, one, the debates are being carried on all the networks, so this isn't about going into the lions den. Second, Democrats ALWAYS are the ones compromising and capitulating. They just accept it, like everything else. Third, as you suggest, they're not reachable, period. Literally no one who exclusively watches Fox News/right wing media is going to vote for Biden.

At some point, SOMETHING has to change, otherwise everyone here should just hang it up, because we are so fucked beyond belief, there is no point to anything.

@59 raindrop, it doesn't. We just want you to STFU already.

@61: Well, use your umbrella and stop complaining.

Note that the Presidential debate will also be televised on 6 free-to-air TV channels in English (4-1, 5-1, 7-1, 9-1, 13-1 and 22-2) and one in Spanish (51-1) if you don't want to tie up your internet with streaming it. If you are in the greater Seattle area you should be able to get at least one of these channels on your TV; just stick a paper clip or rabbit ears in the antenna input and hit scan. If you can watch it this way, do so as to not tie up the streaming services for those who can't watch any other way.

@3 - I can blame him and do.

Pulling a gun on random people that approach you like that without an articulable and specific reason for doing so is inexcusable, and he needs to be taken out of public contact assignments...if he's not fired.

If he truly thought those people were dangerous, he should exit his car. Sitting in his car with his gun drawn while assailants have freedom of movement outside it is dangerous and stupid. Better yet, he should have sped away out of the compromised position he's in to an advantageous position a short distance away still within sight, taken cover and called for assistance.

Since he didn't do those things, he knew he wasn't really in danger and just wanted to be an asshole for the sake of being an asshole...a dangerous asshole.

So, many years ago...like back in the 80's or 90's sometime...I read a study somewhere, probably a trade magazine or periodical, that stated the average officer in an average-sized or larger metro area could expect to be involved in a justified officer-involved shooting roughly once for every 20 years of operational assignment. Operational assignment are assignments like Patrol, Traffic and Tactical. They are not support of even investigatory assignments, like being a detective.

In my very admittedly anecdotal experience and/or professional observation, I found that to be pretty accurate. When former officers say they never fired their gun, find out what their assignment history was. If they did their minimum 3 years in patrol and then worked as a detective or support services officer the rest of their career, their boast doesn't mean much. The same is true if their operational assignment was confined to Beverly Hills or Mayberry. If all their time was in Patrol outside such enclaves on the other hand...

In my experience and in keeping with the stat in the article, I would expect an officer that has spent 20 or more years in operational assignments in an average metro environment of middle-class and tougher neighborhoods to have been involved in 0-2 righteous shootings...that's just where they had to fire their gun regardless of result, be it a miss, wounding or fatality.

You should really wonder if someone was too quick on the trigger if it was 3-4 shootings, and anything more than that, and you have someone who quite likely really wants to shoot people.

Hell, now that violent crime is roughly 50% lower now than it was in the 80's and 90's, you can reduce all those numbers of shootings to consider by, hmmm, let's say at least 1. So, 0-1 shootings for the average street cop over 20ish years, 2-3 should cause a hard look, and more than that is almost certainly a trigger-happy cop who likes the idea of shooting people. That's no matter how tough an area they worked during those years.

I can assure you there are more cops like that than you probably assume. And it's tough to fire people simply because you "know" they're just dying to shoot someone. You need hard evidence, not cop instinct, and they're usually smart enough to make that hard to come by.

Every cop has been involved in numerous situations during which they would have been legally justified pulling the trigger, but they don't. I can rattle off a dozen such instances of my own right off the top of my head...they're hard to forget, after all. Trigger-happy cops looking to shoot someone don't hold back in those situations nearly as often. They just shoot, and the shootings are often barely legally justified. But barely is enough.

Remember, there's justified, and there's necessary. They're not always the same thing. In fact, they're often not.

So, this is all to say that this cop pulling his gun on people who are not threats inside his car and who has been involved in "several" shootings in a period of less than 20 years on the street is all but certain to my mind to be a trigger-happy cop dying to shoot someone and who is a menace to the public he supposedly serves.

That's just my professional and personal opinion, though.

@55 Facts are pernicious things and when you look at the facts of most cases involving police violence very often there are extenuating circumstances that lays some of the blame on the victim. I have no problem prosecuting bad cops or punishing those who have crossed moral lines however the blanket statements coming out of the defund and abolish movement that applies to all police is equally flawed.

@71: You're not debating in good faith using a patronizing put-down instead of an intelligent response.

@67

I always appreciate your insights on this topic, Morty. Thanks.