Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

A thing that puzzles me, in both Atlanta and Kenosha, the police apparently had the suspect on the ground attempting to detain him, and the suspect not only got on his feet, in both cases he walked away from the police, who outnumbered him.  Had they had success in restraining either initially, there would have been no subsequent shooting.

I know "back in the day", a suspect who resisted arrest would get clobbered with a billy club, which generally takes the enthusiasm out of the victim.  Are those now banned?  

Are the police insufficiently trained in "hand to hand"?  Keeping your knee on a suspect's head for 9 minutes is obviously ridiculous (anyway I can see it).  In all three cases, initially restraining the victim successfully and properly eliminated the shooting, or the "need" for a knee on the guy's head.

Do you view his comments as being racist?

What makes you think he is referring mostly to black people?  He uses the term "they" repeatedly.  Do you think black people are more apt to be repeat offenders and fathers of multiple children?

These attitudes of law enforcement people "in general", on what do you base your opinion?  Does this apply to black LEOs as well as white?

I sometimes think folks develop an opinion and then stick to it regardless of actual information to the contrary.  Or they have no basis for said opinion.  It's just a notion.

These attitudes of law enforcement people "in general", on what do you base your opinion?  Does this apply to black LEOs as well as white?

I sometimes think folks develop an opinion and then stick to it regardless of actual information to the contrary.  Or they have no basis for said opinion.  It's just a notion.

It can - there is a popular theme among law enforcement that there are "criminals" and there is "us" and if they just catch all the criminals and lock them up and throw away the key then the "us" will be in great shape.  It hasn't really worked out that way, but people cling to the notion, nevertheless. 

More history

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS502

In several industrialized countries the beat police don't carry firearms at all. I wish we could do that here, but with our elevated levels of firearms ownership, I don't know that police officers could do their jobs safely without their own firearms.

That sucks, too.

I don't know if it's more or less common that police draw their handguns on people, but I believe (without knowing or any specific evidence) that we have militarized our police more than in the past. I also believe there have been good reasons for much of that change--for instance most police wear body armor now. That didn't happen by accident.

I'm not sure if we've discussed this here before, but Kalashnikov's rifle revolutionized individual firearms, which, particularly following the expiration of the hideously named "Federal Assault Weapons Ban, has revolutionized the weaponry the common U.S. citizen (who chooses to) carries. Yes, bad guys could always get guns, and what good mob movie doesn't include Tommy guns (fully automatics were't illegal until 1934)? Nonetheless, the individual weapon of choice has changed and is much more powerful now than it used to be. I don't know the specifics, and it isn't limited to a change in rifle ownership--a similar change has occurred in handguns. I suspect (again, without anything more than belief) that police are more fearful now of the threat posed by individual gun owners than in decades past. Which is curious, because although the number of firearms sold has gone up, the number of firearms owners has declined significantly.

No, the power of the weapons produced now are no more powerful than they were previously.

As I believe you are referring to the most common gun sold in this country for the past few years, the AR-15, you would do well to educate yourself on the matter. The most common AR-15 models are chambered in either 5.56mm or .223 caliber. An AR-15 chambered in 5.56mm is capable of also shooting .223 caliber rounds. 

Both of those rounds are slightly larger than a .22 caliber round that is one of the smaller rounds available to the consumer. However, they do have a larger amount of gun powder than a .22 and do produce a higher muzzle velocity. Those rounds have been available for some time and have not changed much over the years to increase the power of the round. 

During the time of the Revolutionary War and subsequent, the drafting of the Bill of Rights in which the 2nd Amendment was include, the rifles at the time were much more powerful. They were generally caliber'd .50 caliber and larger. The damage done to the human body by a .50 caliber compared to a .556 or .223 was far greater and usually fatal. 

Here is a decent chart showing different rounds available now, and shows them in comparison to one another. It helps to somewhat explain the differences.