U.S. Police Gunfights

4.6 (5 votes)
U.S. Police Gunfights 4.6 out of 5 based on 5 ratings. 5 user reviews.

Support SouthFront

Another opinion on the situation with police brutality in the USA.

CAUTION: Salty language

Written by Andrey Cruz; Originally appeared at andrey-cruz.livejournal, translated by AlexD exclusively for SouthFront

I do not give a damn about the American police and its problems, but this situation causes me to look into it from a purely research point of view, so I will try to examine it in detail.

As it happens, yesterday I was sitting in a bar and a clip was playing in the box in which a cop from Minnesota, panicking and shitting in his pants without any obvious reasons, shot the head of the school cafeteria, a law-abiding citizen, with a license for carrying a concealed weapon, who was not threatening at all. I will say more: as much as I am capable of reading people, and read them I can, when he was screeching at the girlfriend, “Do not move”, “Hands!!!” and so forth, at that moment what he wanted most of all was to shoot her as well, to reduce the evidence to a minimum, but she diligently did not give him any reason, and he could not make up his mind. Her telephone was taken from her, but she managed to post a video on Facebook, with the result that it spread around the whole world. Here the local police department behaved absolutely brutally, not allowing her to say goodbye to the dying man, lying to her to which hospital he was sent. While she was searching him in the various hospitals, the man died [link here].

The second incident happened in Baton-Rouge. There the situation seems understandable [link here]: a fat black man with an illegal gun in his pocket, two white police officers, scuffling, a shout “He’s armed!!!!” and on the spot shoot at close range. Elton Sterling, a hoodlum with a gun, killed on the spot, the police officers are temporarily suspended for the duration of the enquiry. I am sure that they will not get anything because if we look at the situation from the rules’ point of view, everything is legal. It just happened that way, and the victim should not have pointed the gun at the people on the street or, at most, had to get out before the police arrived and not sell CDs further. At the root, this situation differs from the other, what do they have in common? Both killed were black?

I’ll throw in a few links of dead whites. A student is stopped in the parking lot of the campus for speeding by a hysterical local cop [link here]. Being some prick, he started to threaten the student about something (an honours student, by the way), with a gun. The student said something like: “So what, you’re going to kill me now?” the “Officer” felt at that moment feared for his life for some reason, even though the student had no gun and in general the lad was small and skinny, and opened fire. The student died on the spot. For speeding.

A white teenager with a girl drove to a fast-food drive-thru [link here], suddenly a police car flew in, blocking them the entrance. As the cop testified later, the teen tried to run him over with his car, but for some reason the shot was carried through the side window, and even slightly from behind, so how was he run over, no one knows. And how the hell can you be run over by standing on the spot? The girl was in the line of fire, a bit of marijuana was found in the car; they did not have any guns. The reason given was that police suspected the teen of selling that same marijuana.

And today this morning’s news: in Dallas, some unknown persons opened fire on police officers during the Black Live Matters demonstration, killing and wounding many. Of course, those that were killed never shot any citizens, but with a 99% certainty were honest sloggers, honestly trying to protect the citizens from all kinds of troubles. As happens with such untargeted crimes. But this particular event is absolutely logical: this had to happen sooner or later.

And who is guilty? The criminals? Guns? No, in this case the criminals and their guns stand only as tools. The problems were created by the American police system itself, and it was created over a long period and diligently.

I am very far from all this to accuse the police officers en masse. As I said before, the vast majority of them are honest people, trying to do their job as best they can. As in the majority of countries. So why such a conflict started to develop between the public and the police, especially in America? The Brazilian police force works in much more dangerous conditions, and shoots criminals, there are a lot of videos, but are there any videos as these? It is true that there are no videos about how a group of police officers tosses someone hours on end for the sale of individual cigarettes, and along the way, strangling him accidentally. And he did not resist, a conversation about a small fine, so what the hell was the point of jumping on him, seizing him and throwing him on the ground – who the hell knows. Or how about this fat-assed “officer” throwing a shoplifter on the asphalt, who absolutely had to be tossed, laying her on the ground, putting a knee on her neck and hand-cuffing her, even if she was going where she was lead. And these kinds of videos are numerous especially from America. Seventy-year-olds in wheelchairs who absolutely had to be fucked with a Taser, just as ten-years-old children needed to be tasered and so on to no-end.

What the fuck?

And shit, it boils down to the fact that the police created such procedures, basing on the false idea that the “security of the officer first”, that inherently escalate to a conflict situation. The rules themselves are flawed. It starts with the “security of the officer”. Since when did it become a priority? Not the security of the citizens, not the compliance of the law, but specifically personal safety? A man going to work for the police has to agree with the fact that he came to do a dangerous job and they pay him accordingly and by taking the risks himself, prevents crimes and maintains the law. As, in general, it happens in all normal countries.

When looking at any police videos from America, it is surprising to see that no one does more for the escalation of the conflict than the police officers themselves. If logic dictates about what is happening, here we can resolve the problem with a few words, jokingly, so tossing and arresting anyone is not necessary, the people will separate by themselves, but American police officers, start throwing people on the ground, sitting their fat asses on heads, trying to hand-cuff everyone, screaming orders. They do everything to anger the parties to the maximum, to bring the conflict to a boiling point and cover themselves with “following the rules”. Justifying all the personal safety requirements. What the fuck?

I saw how cops in London dispersed a fight that was about to start in Soho. Two groups of people, a few people in each, a couple of police officers, no cause for immediate reinforcement with dogs and machine guns. Friendly tone, explanation with “so here, kids, now you will fight and will finish the night in the slammer or in the hospital, and you need this? Calm down, go back home, no one is arrested because nothing happened yet”. They let off some steam, excused themselves, the cops said “take care”, that is they said their goodbyes and that’s it. It was all over. They did not flash lights, did not look for witnesses with iPhones, did not scream, spitting words like “Stay back!!” as the scared-shitless cops do, because they created this bare-ass shit. Following the rules.

About ten years ago, when my youngest was a toddler and did not sleep well his nights, I was holding him in his bed while watching the TV show Cops, just about the everyday life of ordinary police patrols from different cities and towns. There was nothing else to do. And now, thinking about that show, one can see the difference in the police’s behaviour and methods between then and now.

  1. Back then it was very rare that they would put people’s faces to the ground. Only the obvious criminals and in specific situations. In all other events they only asked to put their hands on the hood, for example. What is the difference? The difference is that the exchange with the police is already stressful. If it’s “hands on the hood”, then in general, it’s neutral and reasonable, nothing dangerous. But here if a person, already nervous, is told by the “officer” to lie down with the face on the ground only because the “officers”, shit, are calmer, right away thoughts like “why don’t you, officer, fuck yourself with your calmness? You fucking bitch live off of my taxes and you want me to crawl on my belly through the shit?” start floating in people’s heads. This is how the officers start most conflicts.
  2. “Officers” start ordering. Right away they start screaming orders, which are mandatory to all, right down to the Lord. They may be lawful demands from a police officer but they must be conveyed in a different way. Somewhere a conflict starts and the police arrive. Everyone is tense, everyone is angry. An intelligent person will start with something like “Hey, hey, guys, let’s calm down first and then we will sort things out, OK?” Right away the temperature drops. Instead of this some ruddy fat boy starts giving orders, non-negotiable, causing a reaction in the style: “And who are you? Why don’t you go fuck yourself?” Tension grows, fat boy, shitting from the results of his own actions, calls for reinforcements and depending on how further it unfolds, can kill someone, because it’s officer’s safety first.
  3. Small power attracts notorious idiots. In the end results, there are more and more of those in the police force. And it is because of them there are so many problems. Many of them simply seek someone to legally shoot. To experience power. To become God. Do you remember the event when a homeless man was killed in New Mexico because he held a knife (a video that I never saw) [link here]? I’ll bet a 100 quids that he was killed because the shooter fucked up his AR15 with so many “tactical” accessories that is was impossible not to shoot from this gun. It wasn’t done for nothing?

Such cretins jump as if in a football game on a seventy-year old skinny Indian man standing on the sidewalk, who came to visit his son, because he did not understand what the young asshole in uniform wants from him. As a result he is paralyzed for the rest of his life. Such cretins start for some reason to associate an old man, the size of a stool, small and skinny, my apologies, as an expire by date number (and the man simply stood on a dealer’s corner and was working and changing cars from place to place). There was talk of a fine and so why for fuck’s sake do we need to throw some completely non-aggressive person’s face on the ground – who the fuck knows.

  1. Extremely low level of training, especially physical. Fatties cannot run and pursue, they can only shoot.
  2. “The law for the rich”. Sometimes laws are accepted as seemingly intelligent, which later are turned inside out for self-defence after violations. There is a law that employees (any employee) are not held personally responsible for the decisions and actions taken in the fulfilment of their duties. It is a good law, giving people the possibility of taking responsibilities for their decisions, without fearing lawsuits for every sneeze and for any reason, and they love it. But in the end, police officers presently do not take any personal responsibility for their actions. Police officers exceed their powers; someone from this dies or ends up in hospital. They are sued, they win the lawsuit but the compensation is paid out from the city budget. That is, by the taxpayers. The police officer doesn’t give a shit. Last example: Atlanta Airport, a girl with a brain tumour, almost deaf and blind in one eye, did not react fast enough to the “legal demand from the officer.” Her mother standing beside her was pushed aside, even if she was warning that her daughter does not see well and hears almost nothing. But here the fat-assed “officers” all of a sudden feared for their safety, jumped on the girl, throwing her face first on the concrete floor with all the consequences. They are being sued, but they don’t give a fuck, the budget will pay. But this is another penny to the piggy bank of hatred towards the police.

The second law again is good: here a twosome goes to rob a store, but the owner kills one of them. So here the killer is not the owner but the survivor, because once you decided to go and rob, you are responsible for everything. Excellent law, it is fair. How does it work for the police? In New York the cops open fire on a “mass shooter” who happens to be totally unarmed. Well, it was a small misunderstanding. He is grievously wounded, but at the same time they shot random people. But the killer is accused of their killings. Even if he didn’t have any guns and didn’t shoot, they fell into shitty hysterics again about the safety of the “officers”. And the “officers” again are not to blame.

  1. The hardening of the public mood, of hatred towards the police leads to the separation of the police from the public. The people are starting to wish bad karma to the police and everything bad (not all, but quite a few), and the cops get the feeling that they are “one against all”, and this is the worst because each citizen begins to see himself as an enemy that has to be defeated. By any means.
  2. Militarization. All police departments receive armour, military equipment and form their own SWAT teams. But in fact the SWAT hardly does anything according to the profile; big arrests and situations with hostages happen very seldom, but they must justify their existence. As a result the SWAT team goes on a raid at four o’clock in the morning, takes down the door of the house of an old lady, shoots her dog, gets her face on the ground, screams, puts on handcuffs, throws and destroys her belongings. Guess what they came for? To catch Al-Qaida? Get the fuck out! They came on the instructions of the city council to verify the zoning, if the gas and electricity are connected to the house. Just like that. When living under normal circumstances people get the visit of an unarmed official, giving the papers saying: “Excuse me, we must verify, here is the decision”; here four SWAT fighters jump in, seven police officers in uniform and yes, one inspector. Isn’t that fucked up? This is how they inspect farmers, if they do not sell their products to bypass the regulations and many others.
  3. As was mentioned, the concern about the “security of the officer” is defined officially. The well-know video, where in the middle of a parking lot stands in the cross-hairs a drunk man with a knife, and around him a dozen fat “officers” with guns, dogs and others, who from the start yell at him, and then all of a sudden start feeling the threat of “security of the officer” and gun him down from all the barrels. They could have released the dog, used gas and taser, they were after all a whole bunch, and the drunk didn’t stand on his feet.

Then it turns out that all was within the limits of the “department’s policies”, that is, the police writes its own laws and yes it does observe them. Auntie calls the police because the not quite normal relative misbehaves, the “officers” drive over, without investigating, grab and knock down the caller, drive her to the jail, she screams, then they decide that she is totally crazy, for some reason undress her completely naked (out of concern for their and her safety) [link here], and with the strength of the manly personnel, knock out a tooth, and tough shit. All is done “within the department’s policies”. The arrested is accused of resisting arrest and all sorts of other accusations, why she all of a sudden refused to undress in front of these guys when the “officer told her so”?

Here I would add: if something happens to my family, I would not sue but simply ambush these “officers” and fucking kill them, without the slightest hesitation. So… we are coming to the point, right?

I can add many other elements, such as unlawful confiscations and others, but the above is enough. The laws, on which the police perform, can only cause conflicts. The concern about the “safety of the officer” seems like normal, but in such circumstances it begins to look like arrogance.

Racial factor: it does not exist. Black “officers” proceed the same way as the whites against all, the bias against blacks in police shootings is explained as a mere crime statistic. The crime rate among them is much higher than among whites, accordingly are checked more often and more severely. But about race there is nothing definitive. If the whites were to behave worse, more whites would be killed. That means that the main slogan of BLM (Black Lives Matter) has nothing to do with reality.

And once again I will return to the fact that 99% of police officers despite all are honest workers, protecting people, saving them, first to get to bad places and so forth. And here is the whole phenomenon: many very good people within the existing regulations begin to act like bad people, causing much frustration in the society. To change this with propaganda about “officers – good men” cannot be done, because they are good but everything goes out through their ass. The only way is to change the laws. Even at the expense of the authority of the police over the citizen. We can take as an example the Russian police, or the British one or the Brazilian one.

By the way, my friend, having served 25 years in the Liverpool police force, said that in many cases arms (in Britain the police do not carry guns) would only be troublesome. The unarmed police officers primarily lower the tension in any given situation before the conflict. In the event of big problems he can quickly call for armed support. I am not a supporter of disarming the police, but the concept is straghtforward – not to change a bad situation to make it worse. But it develops precisely in that way, the police valuing its power and privileges, goes on the defensive.

And here it happened. Personal or not, or a group of idiots decided to announce a war, having their fill of watching such videos, I do not know. But fools are already the result of it – the whole conflict from beginning to end was created by the police itself. I do not think that this is the last shoot out, more will come, until then, the cops must realize that they must change.

Support SouthFront

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Brilliant article. This man is absolutely correct. In the US, the police are causing the trouble. No one knows why.

But most police are good – let’s assume. And until the bad ones are stopped from doing this, it won’t end, Or rather, it won’t end well. And the author nails the reasons – the laws or policies that say the officer is to be protected first, above all people. It’s not what any society expects from its police. Officers must put the lives and safety of citizens above all other concerns. Only then do they earn the respect and praise we have long been accustomed to give them. The equation is really quite simple.

Something is working to destroy the domestic peace of the US. I understand that people around the world have a complete right to be glad about this, but still it’s important to know what causes this civil unrest, and how to overcome it, because it can happen anywhere.


I don’t know if most American police ‘are good’. I do know that I keep on seeing video of police committing cold blooded murder. Shooting someone as they run away, or lie helpless on the ground is cold blooded murder in my morality.

I would like to make a point concerning BLM which I often read in commentaries. There I often read that ‘blacks kill blacks’ more frequently than cops do. The point is when ‘blacks kill blacks’ it is regarded as a crime. The perpetrator can expect harsh judgment in the courts up to the death penalty. However, when cops do the killing it is hardly regarded as a crime at all. Prosecution is seldom and halfhearted when it does happen, with the prosecution acting more like a defense.

Although I think BLM is odious in the way it operates I don’t think sight should be lost that in the USA cops can kill with a large degree of impunity.

I need to add that this is not just something that affects the USA, but does seem particularly prevalent there.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x