The Hateful Eight

[WRwatchATL]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I wouldn't call QT a genius film maker. He has a genre that he excels in, but is incompetent outside his niche.

His latest leap on to the bandwagon of the moment will preclude me from seeing any of his work in the foreseeable future.

I agree with you. I wouldn't call him a genius, as he is very limited in genre of film he creates. He is also lucky to have very talented group of actors devoted to his film making.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I wouldn't call QT a genius film maker. He has a genre that he excels in, but is incompetent outside his niche.

i couldn't fault a guy for excelling in 1 genre and not another? im still looking for my genre
i know this example is a reach, but hendrix probably couldn't do mozart and vice versa.

Originally Posted by WRwatchATL

I agree with you. I wouldn't call him a genius, as he is very limited in genre of film he creates. He is also lucky to have very talented group of actors devoted to his film making.

as i have stated earlier in the thread, he has disappointed me and i will not support him.
i wouldn't try to negate his talent but i can take away my support.

that said, i do not believe the devoted actors he has are a product of luck, he is talented and has resurrected and re-launched careers into a level they likely would not have seen were it not for his direction. i suspect the devoted actors are with him as part of a symbiotic relationship

[Lordofrolex]

I didn't know he said something against the law enforcement till this thread mention it. Now knowing this I will no longer support him either as I support LE officers 100% as they risk there lives everyday to keep peace and order.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by subtona

i couldn't fault a guy for excelling in 1 genre and not another? im still looking for my genre
i know this example is a reach, but hendrix probably couldn't do mozart and vice versa.

I think Mozart could do Hendrix. He was a populist music composer that excelled in opera as well as instrumental. Beethoven as well. They were geniuses that were exceptional across all the available media of their time.

QT has a genre that he has mastered - namely QT. It's his own style and Hollywierd loves him for it. But, he's not working across the range of available media. And he hasn't mastered the craft outside his genre.

He's popular and talented, in his own world. But, his statements on LE display a complete lack of awareness of the real, physical impact of words on a community. Which ironically, would be exactly the type of communication skill a true film genius would have mastered.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I think Mozart could do Hendrix. He was a populist music composer that excelled in opera as well as instrumental. Beethoven as well. They were geniuses that were exceptional across all the available media of their time.

QT has a genre that he has mastered - namely QT. It's his own style and Hollywierd loves him for it. But, he's not working across the range of available media. And he hasn't mastered the craft outside his genre.

He's popular and talented, in his own world. But, his statements on LE display a complete lack of awareness of the real, physical impact of words on a community. Which ironically, would be exactly the type of communication skill a true film genius would have mastered.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I think Mozart could do Hendrix. He was a populist music composer that excelled in opera as well as instrumental. Beethoven as well. They were geniuses that were exceptional across all the available media of their time.

QT has a genre that he has mastered - namely QT. It's his own style and Hollywierd loves him for it. But, he's not working across the range of available media. And he hasn't mastered the craft outside his genre.

He's popular and talented, in his own world. But, his statements on LE display a complete lack of awareness of the real, physical impact of words on a community. Which ironically, would be exactly the type of communication skill a true film genius would have mastered.

I'm not supporting QT, but you could say that about a lot of great directors...Hitchcock, John Ford, etc...

[Wingman244]

Originally Posted by ralpie

I'll see it when it is free on HBO. I don't feel like giving him any support at the moment. I hope he learns that some people still value our police officers' safety.

Agreed. I WAS a big QT fan, but now, will not give him my money.

[Rondineli]

I have never been a fan. Actually, I walked out on Kill Bill midway as I thought it was a ridiculous movie. I was able to enjoy Inglorious Bastards but endured Django and Pulp Fiction till the end. But, he is not getting any fraction of my money, anymore.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

I'm not supporting QT, but you could say that about a lot of great directors...Hitchcock, John Ford, etc...

I don't know... Hitchcock's use of sound and his camera moves were innovative and significant contributions to the refinement of the craft.

In modern film, Eastwood's films traverse a greater range than QT, with significant critical acclaim. I think Eastwood is a 'great director'. I think QT makes popular genre films, in a Wes Craven kind of way.

[TK-710]

Not a chance. Never again will I watch anything of his.

[GB-man]

I have to be honest, I fuly respect LEOs and understand the job is not only difficult but dangerous.

That said, I feel QT was blasted for speaking his mind which isn't fair.

"I’m a human being with a conscience," he said at the rally. "And when I see murder I cannot stand by. And I have to call the murdered the murdered and I have to call the murderers the murderers."

I don't see how that is anything but his opinion. He is speaking on a very small minority, not police as a whole. Why take it out of context?

It is the job of the police to do the same thing and call it as they see it.

JMHO and if I am missing some critical point I apologize. Just trying to understand this outrage based on the dialogue I procured in my short research on the matter.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by GB-man

I have to be honest, I fuly respect LEOs and understand the job is not only difficult but dangerous.

That said, I feel QT was blasted for speaking his mind which isn't fair.

"I’m a human being with a conscience," he said at the rally. "And when I see murder I cannot stand by. And I have to call the murdered the murdered and I have to call the murderers the murderers."

I don't see how that is anything but his opinion. He is speaking on a very small minority, not police as a whole. Why take it out of context?

It is the job of the police to do the same thing and call it as they see it.

JMHO and if I am missing some critical point I apologize. Just trying to understand this outrage based on the dialogue I procured in my short research on the matter.

Nothing is taken out of context. He made his statements at an anti-LE protest. The guy is anti-LE. He has been for years. Back to his jail days that only he has any record of. Even after the backlash he tried to prove he was Pro LE by telling the story of when he called the police because there was someone trespassing on his property. When the police located a suspect the police couldn't prove it was the same guy that was on his property so they had to let him go. QT stated he was very surprised and impressed with how the police didn't violate any of the suspect's rights! That's his take on police. It's surprising/ impressive when we don't violate suspects' rights. (QT "Oh. OK. There's a threshold here. You don't just make a guy get out of the ... car. There's a threshold and he didn't cross it and you didn't cross it.")

In this case much of the outrage is based on when he said it and when the anti-LE protest/march was; as it corrisponded with the shooting death of an NYPD officer, who actually was murdered. In which he stated the timing was unfortunate.

He's just another celebrity jumping on a cause that has no true understanding of the nature of the problem but feels he has it all figured out. Both the officers in the Garner case and Rice case were no billed in Grand Jury and he still refers to them as murderers and points to it as evidence of racially charged police brutality.

You see the popular and PC view is to blame the police instead of trying to find real solutions to the problems of epidemic violent crime and murders in these communities. He's rode the bandwagon for the sake of popularity at the expense of the police. It didn't exactly sit well with everyone. This guy could have used his voice to build bridges but instead he used it to burn them.

I guess the critical point you are missing is he is free to say whatever he wants BUT others are also free to respond how they want. If you didn't take offense then don't worry about it, you should keep seeing his movies if you want. For those of us who were offended we are not obligated to see his movies and choose not to support him going forward. He made a choice, his choice has consequences, one of which is how it affects the choices others make on supporting him or not.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by JES77

Nothing is taken out of context. He made his statements at an anti-LE protest. The guy is anti-LE. He has been for years. Back to his jail days that only he has any record of. Even after the backlash he tried to prove he was Pro LE by telling the story of when he called the police because there was someone trespassing on his property. When the police located a suspect the police couldn't prove it was the same guy that was on his property so they had to let him go. QT stated he was very surprised and impressed with how the police didn't violate any of the suspect's rights! That's his take on police. It's surprising/ impressive when we don't violate suspects' rights. (QT "Oh. OK. There's a threshold here. You don't just make a guy get out of the ... car. There's a threshold and he didn't cross it and you didn't cross it.")

In this case much of the outrage is based on when he said it and when the anti-LE protest/march was; as it corrisponded with the shooting death of an NYPD officer, who actually was murdered. In which he stated the timing was unfortunate.

He's just another celebrity jumping on a cause that has no true understanding of the nature of the problem but feels he has it all figured out. Both the officers in the Garner case and Rice case were no billed in Grand Jury and he still refers to them as murderers and points to it as evidence of racially charged police brutality.

You see the popular and PC view is to blame the police instead of trying to find real solutions to the problems of epidemic violent crime and murders in these communities. He's rode the bandwagon for the sake of popularity at the expense of the police. It didn't exactly sit well with everyone. This guy could have used his voice to build bridges but instead he used it to burn them.

I guess the critical point you are missing is he is free to say whatever he wants BUT others are also free to respond how they want. If you didn't take offense then don't worry about it, you should keep seeing his movies if you want. For those of us who were offended we are not obligated to see his movies and choose not to support him going forward. He made a choice, his choice has consequences, one of which is how it affects the choices others make on supporting him or not.

Well put....

[rpryan55]

Originally Posted by JES77

Nothing is taken out of context. He made his statements at an anti-LE protest. The guy is anti-LE. He has been for years. Back to his jail days that only he has any record of. Even after the backlash he tried to prove he was Pro LE by telling the story of when he called the police because there was someone trespassing on his property. When the police located a suspect the police couldn't prove it was the same guy that was on his property so they had to let him go. QT stated he was very surprised and impressed with how the police didn't violate any of the suspect's rights! That's his take on police. It's surprising/ impressive when we don't violate suspects' rights. (QT "Oh. OK. There's a threshold here. You don't just make a guy get out of the ... car. There's a threshold and he didn't cross it and you didn't cross it.")

In this case much of the outrage is based on when he said it and when the anti-LE protest/march was; as it corrisponded with the shooting death of an NYPD officer, who actually was murdered. In which he stated the timing was unfortunate.

He's just another celebrity jumping on a cause that has no true understanding of the nature of the problem but feels he has it all figured out. Both the officers in the Garner case and Rice case were no billed in Grand Jury and he still refers to them as murderers and points to it as evidence of racially charged police brutality.

You see the popular and PC view is to blame the police instead of trying to find real solutions to the problems of epidemic violent crime and murders in these communities. He's rode the bandwagon for the sake of popularity at the expense of the police. It didn't exactly sit well with everyone. This guy could have used his voice to build bridges but instead he used it to burn them.

I guess the critical point you are missing is he is free to say whatever he wants BUT others are also free to respond how they want. If you didn't take offense then don't worry about it, you should keep seeing his movies if you want. For those of us who were offended we are not obligated to see his movies and choose not to support him going forward. He made a choice, his choice has consequences, one of which is how it affects the choices others make on supporting him or not.

Um....no. Mr. Tarantino was at an anti-police brutality rally. Surely you'd join all of us in demanding that there be no police brutality, no? That rally was instigated by the brutal shootings of innocents across the country; it lasted three days and had nothing to do with the tragic death of the police officer days before, having been planned and publicized well before that. I am aware of the common American misconception that any criticism of the police, however well deserved and justified, is anti-law enforcement, but honestly, let's get our facts straight.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by rpryan55

Um....no. Mr. Tarantino was at an anti-police brutality rally. Surely you'd join all of us in demanding that there be no police brutality, no? That rally was instigated by the brutal shootings of innocents across the country; it lasted three days and had nothing to do with the tragic death of the police officer days before, having been planned and publicized well before that. I am aware of the common American misconception that any criticism of the police, however well deserved and justified, is anti-law enforcement, but honestly, let's get our facts straight.

If you want to get your facts straight stop claiming any use of force you don't agree with is police brutality especially when the FACTS have proven the officers were justified. Your use of the word innocents and brutal is proof enough that you aren't interested in facts only inflammatory rhetoric. There have been incidents of bad shooting just look at North Charlestown but when you make up narratives like hands up don't shoot and you add other justified incidents in with the bad ones you are creating a false narrative and you are anti LE. And any protest anywhere that anyone is spouting off chants of violence against the police is anti-LE. Any legitimate argument is lost once you create lies and propaganda to increase outrage. Any protest that infringes on the rights of others makes any argument useless. In one article alone he gave 3 incidents of police brutality. In two the police were justified. The one where it wasn't was so egregious that he didn't even need to mention the other two but in doing so he completed defeated his argument and proved he has an agenda.

Don't try to claim intentional inflammatory remarks and out right lies are the same as legitimate criticism over police brutality. I bet you still believe the every 28 hour statistic even after the author admitted to making up the math. That sure helped the problem.

[Demosthene]

As an outsider looking at the USA a lot of us can't help but wonder if QT doesn't have a point.
Granted there are a large number of contributing factors but the sheer amount of civilians shot and killed by your law enforcement are completely out of wack with the rest of the developed world.

http://static.businessinsider.com/im...4f7a/image.jpg

Anyway I'll be watching the movie.
I usually enjoy Tarantino films and Pulp Fiction will forever be a masterpiece.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I think Mozart could do Hendrix. He was a populist music composer that excelled in opera as well as instrumental. Beethoven as well. They were geniuses that were exceptional across all the available media of their time.

QT has a genre that he has mastered - namely QT. It's his own style and Hollywierd loves him for it. But, he's not working across the range of available media. And he hasn't mastered the craft outside his genre.

He's popular and talented, in his own world. But, his statements on LE display a complete lack of awareness of the real, physical impact of words on a community. Which ironically, would be exactly the type of communication skill a true film genius would have mastered.

Just to clarify, no reason to reiterate what QT statements represent.

I am not sure we are understanding each other, my suggestion was that Mozart likely could not have played a guitar like Hendrix and Hendrix could not have composed like Mozart.

Imho QTs appeal was not at all limited to his genre, that is just the current vehicle, it is his direction and dialogue. The genre he excels in is in part because of his unique ability to portray it, (much like Hitchcock as mentioned above) but the pictures wouldn't hold my attention without the dialogue and unique perspective.

Personally I think QT was overcompensating with his inflammatory rhetoric, he has been reprimanded in the past regarding his excessive use of derogatory language as it relates to the very group he was standing with at the rally. Some of his films have been modified from their original versions to assuage those that have a right to be offended.

2 things:
I won't take away my recognition of his talent for his politics.
my money will not be spent on another of his films.


Ps to some other posts above, the anti American sentiment is out of line and under informed... Probably Best to avoid it here, you know, Glass houses and all...

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Demosthene

As an outsider looking at the USA a lot of us can't help but wonder if QT doesn't have a point.
Granted there are a large number of contributing factors but the sheer amount of civilians shot and killed by your law enforcement are completely out of wack with the rest of the developed world.

http://static.businessinsider.com/im...4f7a/image.jpg

Anyway I'll be watching the movie.
I usually enjoy Tarantino films and Pulp Fiction will forever be a masterpiece.

Why is the developed world only four countries in this graphic? And why is it a total number and not a population based rate comparison? A bit of deception is at play here, me thinks.

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by JES77

the FACTS have proven the officers were justified.

Whether or not something is justified is inherently an opinion. I respect your opinion that they were...but I'd hope people can form their own opinions without being labeled "anti-LE." A grand jury's opinion is not a fact.

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk

[Demosthene]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Why is the developed world only four countries in this graphic? And why is it a total number and not a population based rate comparison? A bit of deception is at play here, me thinks.

That was just for 2011 and you can take into account the entirety of Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the data doesn't change in the slightest even when viewed as a percentage of the population.
America is still a substantial outlier.

In 2015 alone for example there were 1126 police deaths in the USA for a population of 316 million
In England and Wales there were 55 fatal police shootings in between 1990 and 2015 for a population of 56.9 million
In Australia 105 fatal police shootings between 1989-90 and 2010-11 for a population of 23 million etc

Originally Posted by subtona

Ps to some other posts above, the anti American sentiment is out of line and under informed... Probably Best to avoid it here, you know, Glass houses and all...

If this was in relation to me then there's definitely no anti American sentiment. Every country has their positives and negatives. It's just important to look at everything objectivity and unemotionally.
PM me if you want to talk about anything specifically as it's nigh impossible to discuss without getting into politics otherwise.

[Syed117]

I saw it and thought it was fine.

I usually see a movie at least twice to make a final opinion. First impression was OK, but nothing special. Don't think this movie will have the impact on pop culture that most of his previous ones have had.

As far as the other stuff goes, I don't really care. Everyone is a part of the mob these days. No one wants to think for themselves. We all choose to ignore the negatives when it comes to the things we care about. We support athletes, musicians, actors and other celebrities despite terrible things they've done.

In this case, a director said something. He didn't commit a crime. He didn't get arrested for drug use, or any form of violence. Yet the reactions are this strong.

Not all police officers are good people. Like every other person in the world, they are just as likely to be absolutely terrible. I've had great experiences with officers the handful of times I've interacted with them. I've also met my share of dysfunctional angry men with below average intelligence on a power trip.

Putting on a badge doesn't make anyone a hero. It's a job. Anyone in a position of power or authority should be held to a higher standard than the common man. They are supposed to be better than the rest of us.

We are constantly being bombarded with footage of officers doing things that any sane person should question. But hey, this is America! Best to point fingers at all sorts of boogeymen than deal with an obvious problem in our society.

[breitlings]

there are some real bad guys out there who would murder you dead (rocky) for your rolex, rape your kids, and burn down (mortar) schools with kids in them and etc. the police make mistakes because they are people but they keep our society going. i am thankful for the job they do.

i hear police apologizing for killing bad guys when they rob off duty cops (md?) its insane to me. that person was a human but it isnt like he is shoplifting bread and our society has safety nets for the unfortunate times. it seems to stem further that even business owners have to apologize when keeping their patrons safe.

i wish they wouldnt write speeding tickets and and such personally i think they have more important stuff to do and it is bad public relations since it is the tip of the iceberg we see versus the iceberg under the water of crimes and terror that they prevent.

if qt pointed out their good works along with specific critique of incidents our justice system adjudicated then i dont think we would be pushing back against his comments.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by powerfunk

Whether or not something is justified is inherently an opinion. I respect your opinion that they were...but I'd hope people can form their own opinions without being labeled "anti-LE." A grand jury's opinion is not a fact.

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk

It's actually not inherently just an opinion it's also a matter of law. That is one of the biggest problems in all of this every one has an opinion on the matter but very few people have even taken the time to actually read the laws or case law pertaining to the justifiable use of force and even fewer have any training in it.

How many actually know the laws of their state that spell out the use of force? In New York, New York Penal Law section 35 outlines use of force. But that is just the tip of the iceberg and that is just state law, there is also case law at the national level such as Graham v. Connor, Tennessee V. Garner, Russo v. Cincinnati and Plakas v. Drinski to name a few of hundreds. These case law have established legal standards for interpreting and determining justification. When forming an opinion how many of those do you think are regularly referenced? The problem is too many people like to judge police brutality with the same standard that Justice Stewert used for pornography "I know it when I see it." It doesn't work that way. Arresting a resisting suspect will never look pretty. Most people have never even been in a real fight in their life let alone tried to handcuff a person who is actively fighting or resisting them. There will never be a video of a justified baton strike that would pass the “ I know it when I see it test.”

An informed opinion based on facts is not Anti LE. To say the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston appears to be unjustified based on the legal standard would be an informed opinion. To say Tarmir Rice was killed because he was black and is a result of rampant racism in LE would be a fact less opinion based on Anti LE sentiment. To say Garner was murdered for selling cigarettes is a complete fabrication of events.

Police officers are not infallible; mistakes are made some have horrific consequences. Some of those mistakes cross the line into criminal liability.

Police are not manufactured they are members of society and come with all the flaws that society has including criminals who betray the trust of the people they are sworn to protect and the notion that they need to be in jail is not anti-LE its pro-LE.

But the majority are good and go to work everyday to help people and sometimes they are put in horrible situations where force is necessary, and it is ugly and it's horrific and life altering for everyone involved and it's justified and 100% legal. And when people can't tell the difference and they lump it all together based on emotion instead of logic and reasoning then yes I find those opinions, whether intentional or not, as anti-LE.

People want to compare the US to other countries with convenient statistics such as how many suspect are killed by the police but never mentioned the difference in the number of officers that are murdered in each of those countries. They use countries that have fewer murders nation wide than just Chicago alone. Or they use countries where the citizens have given up or have little to no rights to bear arms. Or in some countries they use the military in a LE role and those numbers are not included. These are not minor details. This is comparing apples and oranges or to get back on track of this forum comparing Timex to Rolex.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Demosthene

That was just for 2011 and you can take into account the entirety of Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the data doesn't change in the slightest even when viewed as a percentage of the population.
America is still a substantial outlier.

In 2015 alone for example there were 1126 police deaths in the USA for a population of 316 million
In England and Wales there were 55 fatal police shootings in between 1990 and 2015 for a population of 56.9 million
In Australia 105 fatal police shootings between 1989-90 and 2010-11 for a population of 23 million etc


If this was in relation to me then there's definitely no anti American sentiment. Every country has their positives and negatives. It's just important to look at everything objectivity and unemotionally.
PM me if you want to talk about anything specifically as it's nigh impossible to discuss without getting into politics otherwise.

2015 data isn't available yet... at least not from any unbiased sources. We won't see anything for 2015 until late next year.

You are correct that any discussion on this is too political for this venue. Better things to discuss here than crime stats. Have a happy new year

[donas]

Originally Posted by JES77

It's actually not inherently just an opinion it's also a matter of law. That is one of the biggest problems in all of this every one has an opinion on the matter but very few people have even taken the time to actually read the laws or case law pertaining to the justifiable use of force and even fewer have any training in it.

How many actually know the laws of their state that spell out the use of force? In New York, New York Penal Law section 35 outlines use of force. But that is just the tip of the iceberg and that is just state law, there is also case law at the national level such as Graham v. Connor, Tennessee V. Garner, Russo v. Cincinnati and Plakas v. Drinski to name a few of hundreds. These case law have established legal standards for interpreting and determining justification. When forming an opinion how many of those do you think are regularly referenced? The problem is too many people like to judge police brutality with the same standard that Justice Stewert used for pornography "I know it when I see it." It doesn't work that way. Arresting a resisting suspect will never look pretty. Most people have never even been in a real fight in their life let alone tried to handcuff a person who is actively fighting or resisting them. There will never be a video of a justified baton strike that would pass the “ I know it when I see it test.”

An informed opinion based on facts is not Anti LE. To say the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston appears to be unjustified based on the legal standard would be an informed opinion. To say Tarmir Rice was killed because he was black and is a result of rampant racism in LE would be a fact less opinion based on Anti LE sentiment. To say Garner was murdered for selling cigarettes is a complete fabrication of events.

Police officers are not infallible; mistakes are made some have horrific consequences. Some of those mistakes cross the line into criminal liability.

Police are not manufactured they are members of society and come with all the flaws that society has including criminals who betray the trust of the people they are sworn to protect and the notion that they need to be in jail is not anti-LE its pro-LE.

But the majority are good and go to work everyday to help people and sometimes they are put in horrible situations where force is necessary, and it is ugly and it's horrific and life altering for everyone involved and it's justified and 100% legal. And when people can't tell the difference and they lump it all together based on emotion instead of logic and reasoning then yes I find those opinions, whether intentional or not, as anti-LE.

People want to compare the US to other countries with convenient statistics such as how many suspect are killed by the police but never mentioned the difference in the number of officers that are murdered in each of those countries. They use countries that have fewer murders nation wide than just Chicago alone. Or they use countries where the citizens have given up or have little to no rights to bear arms. Or in some countries they use the military in a LE role and those numbers are not included. These are not minor details. This is comparing apples and oranges or to get back on track of this forum comparing Timex to Rolex.

Well said; Being a LEO, it is killing me to bite my tongue during this dialogue and I am glad some are speaking out. The only thing I don't agree with in your post are the Walter Scott comments. I wasn't there nor were you, maybe we should all see what the real evidence presents and not a short clip of what the biased media wants us to see.....might be guilty, might not, lets allow everything to take its course without passing uninformed judgments.

[Demosthene]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

2015 data isn't available yet... at least not from any unbiased sources. We won't see anything for 2015 until late next year.

You are correct that any discussion on this is too political for this venue. Better things to discuss here than crime stats. Have a happy new year

The data was compiled by The Guardian and is a living record.

If you're looking for another source the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimate annual police killings to be around 930
(Full report if you're interested) http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ardpatr.pdf
And to be honest the numbers are such factors higher than the rest of the world that you could halve the stats and it would still be high.

[Aceldama]

Originally Posted by GB-man

I have to be honest, I fuly respect LEOs and understand the job is not only difficult but dangerous.

That said, I feel QT was blasted for speaking his mind which isn't fair.

"I’m a human being with a conscience," he said at the rally. "And when I see murder I cannot stand by. And I have to call the murdered the murdered and I have to call the murderers the murderers."

I don't see how that is anything but his opinion. He is speaking on a very small minority, not police as a whole. Why take it out of context?

It is the job of the police to do the same thing and call it as they see it.

JMHO and if I am missing some critical point I apologize. Just trying to understand this outrage based on the dialogue I procured in my short research on the matter.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Demosthene

The data was compiled by The Guardian and is a living record.

If you're looking for another source the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimate annual police killings to be around 930
(Full report if you're interested) http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ardpatr.pdf
And to be honest the numbers are such factors higher than the rest of the world that you could halve the stats and it would still be high.

You really can't call it the rest of the world. Your assumption that reporting is uniform is inherently biased. Many countries do not report these data. Many others use military and internal security for police actions and do not disclose these data.

You are essentially comparing the US to the EU and Australia, again with the assumption that reporting is uniform. And, these US data do not exclude cases that would be discarded as justifiable self defense, or defense of the protected populace. The political bias is caused by lumping justifiable cases, or cases that haven't been adjudicated into one bucket - a political bucket that portrays all cases as unjustifiable police brutality.

It's a complex subject for certain. One not easily discussed with a calm voice, or in logical terms. And the socio-economic root cause is even more complex. Herein lies the problem with celebrity voices rallying the masses for some sort of undefined public reaction. Masses tend to become mobs when uninformed and fired up. And mob justice tends to be indiscriminate and irreversible. Which feeds the problem rather resolving the cause.