If You Are Mentally Ill, American Police Will Kill You

[Flagg]

Aren't you mentally ill? Have the police killed you?

Not yet.

[Simon_Jester]

Aren't you mentally ill? Have the police killed you?

Maybe they blew out his brains and it didn't stop his posting; that might explain why his posts fail to grasp basic logic or probability.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There are no cases of Redheads being called for help and then gunning down the person needing help. And a redhead is born a redhead unless you include dyejobs, because why not? We're already in the stupidest analogy ever! I'm sorry, Simon you're a smart guy and I like ya, but Redheads?

Do you have rocks between your ears?

The point here is to take a group that is neutral, which we are not already predisposed to think nasty shit about, the way you are predisposed to think nasty shit about "cops." Then take the actual literal statistics about interactions between the police and the mentally ill to this neutral group. Then ask yourself "would this statement be intellectually honest?"

And the point is that NO, it is not intellectually honest to say "if you are mentally ill, American police will kill you."

It would be intellectually honest to say "Holy shit, American police kill too many mentally ill people!" Or "American police killed like 300 mentally ill people last year," if there were evidence for that. Or even "American police are trigger-happy lunatics compared to other countries' police," if you can substantiate that, and maybe you can.

But what the actual thread title SAYS is as intellectually dishonest as saying "if you drive a car, you will get in an accident and die."

Worldwide, something on the order of one person in 10000 dies in a car accident.

Now, there are tens of millions of mentally ill people in America. Something like a million more are diagnosed each year. The police can't possibly be killing more than, oh, several hundred of them a year, since the total annual number of killings by police is in that ballpark.

So the risk of dying of a car accident over your lifetime is on the same order of magnitude as the risk of being killed by police if you are mentally ill.

If DA had titled a thread "getting in a car will cause you to be killed by traffic accidents," we'd be saying he was full of shit, for treating a 1 in 10000 occurrence as though it was a sure thing.

But because he's saying nasty things about cops, you go on into this salivating rant about how much you hate cops and how everyone who disagrees with you or DA on this is full of shit.

Have I ever said we don't need a police force? No. We need a vast cultural and structural change from the bottom to the top nationwide. There are several ways this could happen. The top 2 IMO in no order are: They end up getting the public so riled up that there are nationwide riots when people are finally fed up. And in the aftermath the needed changes take place for pure political expediency. The other, and the one I really, really hope comes to fruition is the politicians get sick of Police Unions and kneecap them, making it easier to eject the psychos and gradually the changes will take place as long as promotions are based on merit.

How is "police reform is needed" in any way related to "this thread title is intellectually dishonest?"

[Soontir C'boath]

If we are to recognize the issues with police corruption and lack of oversight, calling all of them corrupt will not help anyone. Just like calling all politicians corrupt. It just breeds a sense of apathy and a "it is what it is" mentality rather than actually calling for reform as the problem then seems insurmountable if ALL of them are at issue.

[Dominus Atheos]

You guys are missing the key word in the (obviously hyperbolic) title. It's not "kill", it's "American". Several times in the article it compares outcomes between American police and British police. For example:

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

Obviously american police don't kill every mentally ill person they interact with. I'm sure they don't even kill 1% of the mentally ill people they interact with. However, while american police "only" kill a fraction of a percentage of mentally ill people, other country's police forces kill zero mentally ill people.

That's what my (once again, hyperbolic) title means. In america, if you are mentally ill there is a non-zero chance that the police will kill you. In other countries, there is a zero percent chance that police will kill you.

[Simon_Jester]

How much of this is due to differences in police activity? How much of it is due to deficiencies in the American health care system increasing the number of untreated mental illness that results in victims of those illnesses confronting the police unnecessarily?

And this is still like saying "if you drive a car, Brazilian roads will kill you!" because car accidents are common in Brazil and less common (granted, vanishingly rare) elsewhere.

There's a line between hyperbolic statements and statements that are so defiant against the facts that they encourage sloppy thinking by idiots with grudges.
______________________

*(i.e., say, one driver in five thousand is killed in a car wreck, meaning that the average driver could easily go a hundred thousand years or more without dying.)

[Dartzap]

The reason that British police are somewhat better at this sort of thing is due to the fact they have been forced to evolve into the Militant Wing of Social/health Services.

I'm trying to find the relevant statistic which was released by the National Police College last week, but a vast number of incidents that the police attend are mental health related, especially at night.

[Jub]

How much of this is due to differences in police activity? How much of it is due to deficiencies in the American health care system increasing the number of untreated mental illness that results in victims of those illnesses confronting the police unnecessarily?

And this is still like saying "if you drive a car, Brazilian roads will kill you!" because car accidents are common in Brazil and less common (granted, vanishingly rare) elsewhere.

There's a line between hyperbolic statements and statements that are so defiant against the facts that they encourage sloppy thinking by idiots with grudges.
______________________

*(i.e., say, one driver in five thousand is killed in a car wreck, meaning that the average driver could easily go a hundred thousand years or more without dying.)

The US police shouldn't get a free pass just because they work for a nation with poor social policies. It's their responsibility to be better and live up to the standards of the police forces in other western nations. It's on the officers to stand up and say 'No, I won't be a part of this no knock raid. I'd rather be fired than be part of a corrupt system.' It's on police forces to clean themselves up and be transparent in spite of the challenges they face.

*TLDR; the US police forces need to be open, honest, and accountable before I'm willing to cut them any slack.

[Dartzap]

Beeb

The College of Policing has attempted to calculate a typical day in a typical force - and according to their analysis, there's not a lot of time for chasing bad guys in a two-door Ford Gran Torino.

Officers might expect to make 50 arrests and deal with 101 anti-social behaviour incidents every 24 hours, but an increasing amount of their effort is spent on what is called "public safety and welfare" (PSW) work.

According to the College, officers will respond to 14 incidents flagged as being linked to mental health issues on a typical day. They will probably have to detain one or two of those people under the Mental Health Act and, often, use police vehicles to transport those patients to a secure mental health facility.

There's a diagram in there as well.

[Block]

You guys are missing the key word in the (obviously hyperbolic) title. It's not "kill", it's "American". Several times in the article it compares outcomes between American police and British police. For example:

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

Obviously american police don't kill every mentally ill person they interact with. I'm sure they don't even kill 1% of the mentally ill people they interact with. However, while american police "only" kill a fraction of a percentage of mentally ill people, other country's police forces kill zero mentally ill people.

That's what my (once again, hyperbolic) title means. In america, if you are mentally ill there is a non-zero chance that the police will kill you. In other countries, there is a zero percent chance that police will kill you.

So your claim is that every other country never shoot anyone with mental illness? I'd like you to prove that.

[Flagg]

Aren't you mentally ill? Have the police killed you?

Maybe they blew out his brains and it didn't stop his posting; that might explain why his posts fail to grasp basic logic or probability.

So do you 2 fuckfaces use someone's mental illness as insults to them on the Internet only? I assume you must since your faces aren't rearranged and you still have all your teeth.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There are no cases of Redheads being called for help and then gunning down the person needing help. And a redhead is born a redhead unless you include dyejobs, because why not? We're already in the stupidest analogy ever! I'm sorry, Simon you're a smart guy and I like ya, but Redheads?

Do you have rocks between your ears?

The point here is to take a group that is neutral, which we are not already predisposed to think nasty shit about, the way you are predisposed to think nasty shit about "cops." Then take the actual literal statistics about interactions between the police and the mentally ill to this neutral group. Then ask yourself "would this statement be intellectually honest?"

And the point is that NO, it is not intellectually honest to say "if you are mentally ill, American police will kill you."

Yes it is you fucking scum. DA has a whole article of cops killing mentally ill people. So how is the title dishonest, pond Scum? It is literally a proven fact that if you are mentally ill a cop or cops will kill you. No one ever claimed they seek out to murder mentally ill people, just that they do. Maybe you should brush up on things like reading, and not being an out and out cunt willing to insult someone because they are mentally ill.

Have I ever said we don't need a police force? No. We need a vast cultural and structural change from the bottom to the top nationwide. There are several ways this could happen. The top 2 IMO in no order are: They end up getting the public so riled up that there are nationwide riots when people are finally fed up. And in the aftermath the needed changes take place for pure political expediency. The other, and the one I really, really hope comes to fruition is the politicians get sick of Police Unions and kneecap them, making it easier to eject the psychos and gradually the changes will take place as long as promotions are based on merit.

How is "police reform is needed" in any way related to "this thread title is intellectually dishonest?"

I dunno, how is my mental illness in any way related? Oh it's not? You and Block are just lowlife dicksnots who are lucky you were in front of a keyboard instead of me when you made your sick, disgusting comments. Think on that for awhile you piece of shit.

[Block]

I'm not using your illness as an insult, I'm pointing out that they don't go hunting for the mentally ill, as you're still around, and that they don't shoot as soon as it's revealed that someone is mentally ill. Are there problems? Sure. I wouldn't dispute that at all. But the broad claim made by the thread title implies that they shoot on sight, and that's a problem.

[Flagg]

I'm not using your illness as an insult, I'm pointing out that they don't go hunting for the mentally ill, as you're still around, and that they don't shoot as soon as it's revealed that someone is mentally ill. Are there problems? Sure. I wouldn't dispute that at all. But the broad claim made by the thread title implies that they shoot on sight, and that's a problem.

Who claimed they went hunting for the mentally ill? And as for the bizarre statement about the titles implications... Maybe you're suffering from delusions as the title alone says nor implies anything of the sort. If DA hadn't made the post no one would give 2 shits about the title, but because DA is prone to hyperbole, which is perfectly within the rules, everyone jumps in to pile on.

[Block]

I'm not using your illness as an insult, I'm pointing out that they don't go hunting for the mentally ill, as you're still around, and that they don't shoot as soon as it's revealed that someone is mentally ill. Are there problems? Sure. I wouldn't dispute that at all. But the broad claim made by the thread title implies that they shoot on sight, and that's a problem.

Who claimed they went hunting for the mentally ill? And as for the bizarre statement about the titles implications... Maybe you're suffering from delusions as the title alone says nor implies anything of the sort. If DA hadn't made the post no one would give 2 shits about the title, but because DA is prone to hyperbole, which is perfectly within the rules, everyone jumps in to pile on.

The use of the word WILL instead of MIGHT makes the implication. Sorry, that's the way language works, word choice matters. As for hyperbole, his follow up posts make it clear that this is part of his narrative that all police are bad, thus not really hyperbole.

[Simon_Jester]

The US police shouldn't get a free pass just because they work for a nation with poor social policies. It's their responsibility to be better and live up to the standards of the police forces in other western nations. It's on the officers to stand up and say 'No, I won't be a part of this no knock raid. I'd rather be fired than be part of a corrupt system.' It's on police forces to clean themselves up and be transparent in spite of the challenges they face.

*TLDR; the US police forces need to be open, honest, and accountable before I'm willing to cut them any slack.

There are two separate issues here. One is "the police are corrupt and dodge accountability."

The other is "Because of the way the US operates, it is actually rather likely for police to run into mentally unstable, armed people who are genuinely dangerous." Dealing with such people without killing them requires special training (and money), and limiting the number of such people requires institutions (and money) dedicated to doing so.

The police can't dodge responsibility for anything they do that is blatantly illegal, but they ARE expected to uphold certain laws and given certain tools and training to do it with. If you put police in an impossible situation of cleaning up after a society that leaves messes all over, you cannot reasonably expect the police to do a satisfactory job of making bricks without straw

Aren't you mentally ill? Have the police killed you?

Maybe they blew out his brains and it didn't stop his posting; that might explain why his posts fail to grasp basic logic or probability.

So do you 2 fuckfaces use someone's mental illness as insults to them on the Internet only? I assume you must since your faces aren't rearranged and you still have all your teeth.

I do not mock your mental illness.

I mock your stupidity, your inability to process logical arguments, to grasp analogical reasoning, and to try to overcome your biases.

I mock no mental illness. "Rocks for brains" is not a form of mental illness.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There are no cases of Redheads being called for help and then gunning down the person needing help. And a redhead is born a redhead unless you include dyejobs, because why not? We're already in the stupidest analogy ever! I'm sorry, Simon you're a smart guy and I like ya, but Redheads?

Do you have rocks between your ears?

The point here is to take a group that is neutral, which we are not already predisposed to think nasty shit about, the way you are predisposed to think nasty shit about "cops." Then take the actual literal statistics about interactions between the police and the mentally ill to this neutral group. Then ask yourself "would this statement be intellectually honest?"

And the point is that NO, it is not intellectually honest to say "if you are mentally ill, American police will kill you."

Yes it is you fucking scum. DA has a whole article of cops killing mentally ill people. So how is the title dishonest, pond Scum? It is literally a proven fact that if you are mentally ill a cop or cops will kill you.

"If A, then B" means that if A is true, then B is true.

But "if you are mentally ill, then the cops will kill you" is not true in America, because somewhere between 999/1000 and 99999/100000 mentally ill people are not killed by police, despite many of them coming into regular contact with the police for all sorts of reasons.

It's like saying "if you ride in a car, then you will die in a car crash." Sure, a very few people are killed in car accidents. But the majority of people who don't die in car accidents is huge, and the normal experience of people riding in cars is not to die in an accident.

No one ever claimed they seek out to murder mentally ill people, just that they do. Maybe you should brush up on things like reading, and not being an out and out cunt willing to insult someone because they are mentally ill.

And you, in turn, need to brush up on basic logic.

"Police sometimes unjustly kill a mentally ill person" is not remotely the same as "if you are mentally ill, the police will kill you." They are not equivalent statements.

And again, I do not insult you for being mentally ill. I insult you for being a babbling idiot. If I thought your babbling idiocy had anything to do with a mental illness, I would be more sympathetic, not less.

How is "police reform is needed" in any way related to "this thread title is intellectually dishonest?"

I dunno, how is my mental illness in any way related? Oh it's not?

Indeed it is not. I did not reference it. I did assert that you have no brains, or rocks for brains, as an insult. But I did not assert anything about any illness of the brain that you may or may not have.

Again, "dumb as a box of rocks" is not a form of mental illness.

[Thanas]

Official mod order:
If shitposts like the ones above don't stop, I will temp ban people.
That also goes for people who whine about this mod order.
And also for people who engage in rules lawyering.
Or for idiots who want to argue what is and what is not a shitpost.
"He started it" is NOT a valid excuse.
You all have been warned.

[Dominus Atheos]

You guys are missing the key word in the (obviously hyperbolic) title. It's not "kill", it's "American". Several times in the article it compares outcomes between American police and British police. For example:

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

Obviously american police don't kill every mentally ill person they interact with. I'm sure they don't even kill 1% of the mentally ill people they interact with. However, while american police "only" kill a fraction of a percentage of mentally ill people, other country's police forces kill zero mentally ill people.

That's what my (once again, hyperbolic) title means. In america, if you are mentally ill there is a non-zero chance that the police will kill you. In other countries, there is a zero percent chance that police will kill you.

So your claim is that every other country never shoot anyone with mental illness? I'd like you to prove that.

Not every other country, in this case just Britain, which as you can read in TFA killed zero people in 2013 mentally ill or otherwise.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... med-police

[Flagg]

Shit, wrong thread. Sorry. Please delete if you have the time pleasant passing moderator.

[Jub]

There are two separate issues here. One is "the police are corrupt and dodge accountability."

This is a rather large issue and partly why I don't cut the slack for the second issue. If they were honest and open about why things happen it would be far easier to devise a means to help prevent the ones that can be prevented.

The other is "Because of the way the US operates, it is actually rather likely for police to run into mentally unstable, armed people who are genuinely dangerous." Dealing with such people without killing them requires special training (and money), and limiting the number of such people requires institutions (and money) dedicated to doing so.

So you're saying that the training to prevent people being killed in these situations costs some large amount of both time and money. I'm going to need you to show that Britain or Germany spend that much more than the US per officer on training.

The police can't dodge responsibility for anything they do that is blatantly illegal, but they ARE expected to uphold certain laws and given certain tools and training to do it with. If you put police in an impossible situation of cleaning up after a society that leaves messes all over, you cannot reasonably expect the police to do a satisfactory job of making bricks without straw

Then perhaps these police forces should be open and honest about why they can't perform their jobs better rather than becoming more withdrawn from the public eye.

[Flagg]

Do you have rocks between your ears?

The point here is to take a group that is neutral, which we are not already predisposed to think nasty shit about, the way you are predisposed to think nasty shit about "cops." Then take the actual literal statistics about interactions between the police and the mentally ill to this neutral group. Then ask yourself "would this statement be intellectually honest?"

And the point is that NO, it is not intellectually honest to say "if you are mentally ill, American police will kill you."

Why would we treat the cops as neutral? We know for a fact that they have and will almost certainly continue to overreact or outright maliciously kill the mentally ill (we'll ignore all of the dead minorities in this thread). And why would we compare them to people of a certain hair color when hair color is not a determining factor of who can and cannot act with the authority of the state behind it? Again, it's a downright dumb comparison.

And actually, even though everyone including the author of the title which you are all whining about agrees it is hyperbole, all I pointed out is that it's accurate hyperbole. And it all comes down to a single word: "Will". Let me get my handy internet dictionary...

Will:

1) used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job> <if we will all do our best> <will you please stop that racket>

2) used to express frequent, customary, or habitual action or natural tendency or disposition <will get angry over nothing> <will work one day and loaf the next>

3) used to express futurity <tomorrow morning I will wake up in this first-class hotel suite — Tennessee Williams>

4) used to express capability or sufficiency <the back seat will hold three passengers>

5) used to express probability and often equivalent to the simple verb <that will be the babysitter>

6) a - used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness <I have made up my mind to go and go I will>

b - used to express inevitability <accidents will happen>

7) used to express a command, exhortation, or injunction <you will do as I say, at once>

So while the word is on the hyperbolic side, it's also not an incorrect usage of it. So yes, in fact, it is 100% intellectually honest to use the title "If You Are Mentally Ill, American Police Will Kill You" especially when the very author says openly that it's hyperbole.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actually, if you want to be technical, the title is 100% accurate as American Police have and will kill you if you are mentally ill. So no, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the title itself.

Sure, can count on your support if I write an article with video and or stories of mentally ill individuals killing school children and then title it "In American The Mentally Ill Will Gun Down Your Child"?

And no, the blue wall of silence is not a red herring. Just because you wish something is true doesn't make it true. I'll bet there are a lot of departments that could be charged under RICO laws since their organization don't rat, y'see?

Yes, it is. It doesn't nothing to support or contradict the validity of the title. It's a completely different subject.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How much of this is due to differences in police activity? How much of it is due to deficiencies in the American health care system increasing the number of untreated mental illness that results in victims of those illnesses confronting the police unnecessarily?

And this is still like saying "if you drive a car, Brazilian roads will kill you!" because car accidents are common in Brazil and less common (granted, vanishingly rare) elsewhere.

There's a line between hyperbolic statements and statements that are so defiant against the facts that they encourage sloppy thinking by idiots with grudges.
______________________

*(i.e., say, one driver in five thousand is killed in a car wreck, meaning that the average driver could easily go a hundred thousand years or more without dying.)

The US police shouldn't get a free pass just because they work for a nation with poor social policies. It's their responsibility to be better and live up to the standards of the police forces in other western nations. It's on the officers to stand up and say 'No, I won't be a part of this no knock raid. I'd rather be fired than be part of a corrupt system.' It's on police forces to clean themselves up and be transparent in spite of the challenges they face.

*TLDR; the US police forces need to be open, honest, and accountable before I'm willing to cut them any slack.

No, the police shouldn't get a free pass and I don't think anyone is saying that. What is being said is the solution of police violence in the US is far more complicated than asking what can the police do about it and then citing examples of countries as if their social problems are the same.

For example, in the UK the majority of their police are unarmed. The UK has a population of 64 million but only has 6,653 authorized firearm officers and they only responded to 12,550 operations which firearms were authorized. So, it's not that surprising that they would have far fewer instances of police use of deadly force.

The United States has a population of over 300 million and we have over 800,000 police all who are armed. The last UK police officer that was murdered was in 2013 and that officer was ran over by a fleeing suspect. The last ones to die by the hand of a suspect whether it be hand, knife, or gun was back in 2012. In fact, since 2000 only 9 UK officers have been killed by direct suspect contact (hand, knife, or gun).

In the year 2012, 48 US cops were killed by firearms and 5 were stabbed. Those fatalities resulted from just over 2000 instances of US police being attacked with firearms and in total a bit over 10,000 were attacked with what is considered deadly force. US cops have killed approximately 1000 people in the same year. Please feel free to post similar statistics for the UK.

I can go more in depth and start talking about the total instances of violent crime in either country if you would like.

Anyway, to finish. DA's article does show a few examples of where US police demonstrated either gross incompetence or failure to plan. It then shows us one example of the UK demonstrating competent police work but it doesn't break down each instance and talk about the differences and how they played a role in the outcome. I can, if you like. That being said DA is right that the real message is in the statistics and that shouldn't be disregarded even if the title is absolutely wrong and inflammatory and designed to troll some and outrage others.

[Flagg]

Actually, if you want to be technical, the title is 100% accurate as American Police have and will kill you if you are mentally ill. So no, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the title itself.

Sure, can count on your support if I write an article with video and or stories of mentally ill individuals killing school children and then title it "In American The Mentally Ill Will Gun Down Your Child"?

Umm... Yes? Because they do?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actually, if you want to be technical, the title is 100% accurate as American Police have and will kill you if you are mentally ill. So no, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the title itself.

Sure, can count on your support if I write an article with video and or stories of mentally ill individuals killing school children and then title it "In American The Mentally Ill Will Gun Down Your Child"?

Umm... Yes? Because they do?

Well, I wouldn't because such a title would piss me off because it's bullshit and I would take it as designed to demonize the mentally ill. However, I can see now we just have a difference in how this subject is received. I'll drop discussion on this particular subject.

[Jub]

For example, in the UK the majority of their police are unarmed. The UK has a population of 64 million but only has 6,653 authorized firearm officers and they only responded to 12,550 operations which firearms were authorized. So, it's not that surprising that they would have far fewer instances of police use of deadly force.

It looks like disarming a nation, in conjunction with increasing the size and scope of the social safety net, does actually make it safer then, far from what people whined loudly when I suggested that we disarm the citizens on the United States in the last gun crime thread.

The United States has a population of over 300 million and we have over 800,000 police all who are armed. The last UK police officer that was murdered was in 2013 and that officer was ran over by a fleeing suspect. The last ones to die by the hand of a suspect whether it be hand, knife, or gun was back in 2012. In fact, since 2000 only 9 UK officers have been killed by direct suspect contact (hand, knife, or gun).

In the year 2012, 48 US cops were killed by firearms and 5 were stabbed. Those fatalities resulted from just over 2000 instances of US police being attacked with firearms and in total a bit over 10,000 were attacked with what is considered deadly force. US cops have killed approximately 1000 people in the same year. Please feel free to post similar statistics for the UK.

So US police are fearful of 1-in-15,000 odds of being killed and this makes them over react? The police in the US gun down far more people each year than they're even remotely at risk of losing themselves. Can we really say that a significant percentage more police would be dead if they didn't kill anybody? Even if it was one dead officer per 10 of those thousand people killed, I'd take ~150 dead US cops yearly an 1-in-5,333 odds of them being killed in the line of duty over innocent people and animals killed and maimed by the police. Citizens don't have the expectation of danger that police officers have and the US police need to accept less safety in order to better protect those that they should 'protect and serve'.

[Flagg]

Sure, can count on your support if I write an article with video and or stories of mentally ill individuals killing school children and then title it "In American The Mentally Ill Will Gun Down Your Child"?

Umm... Yes? Because they do?

Well, I wouldn't because such a title would piss me off because it's bullshit and I would take it as designed to demonize the mentally ill. However, I can see now we just have a difference in how this subject is received. I'll drop discussion on this particular subject.

I dunno, I just think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Even though mental illness is in many cases something you are born with, it's true that many, maybe most school shooters seem to have some mental illness. So if someone who isn't fond of people with mental illnesses due to incidents like school shootings and decided to post a hyperbolic and incendiary title that is literally true... I can't say I would like it, but the world is as it is.