This “killology” stuff is a cancer within American policing. Not to say the rest doesn’t have a lot of problems. But this is the worst of the worst and many PD unions fund this kind of training.
2/ I'd recommend reading up on the subject. But the gist is it trains police to approach encounters with the default assumption of a kill first or be killed mindset - even though very few encounters police officers will ever have actually resembles anything like this.
3/ Needless to say, training police to operate like this is a good way to get a lot of civilians killed. The deeper part of it is to desensitize people to what the originator of the theory rightly sees as an ingrained reluctance (he calls it a phobia) to kill other people.
4/ One might fairly phrase as a training to overcome the fact that most people are not sociopaths. As others have noted, this is a kind of training that might arguably have some value in war fighting contexts. But civilian policing is not a war, though obviously there ...
5/ are some overlaps and police need to be prepared to use lethal force in certain circumstances to protect the public and themselves. In any case these trainings train police to see their jobs as akin to combat and to see much of their work through the prism of the quite ...
6/ rare instances where they genuinely face a split second decision that will determine whether they're killed or kill a homicidal assailant first. Policing, whatever its ills (and there are many) is a stressful and sometimes dangerous job. But this stuff is flawed ...
7/ on the merits, a cancer within the profession of policing and, as I said, a good way to get a lot of civilians killed.
8/ tl;dr the fact that it's called "killology" is probably a good tip off that it ain't good.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @joshtpm

20 Apr
This chyron from Greenwalds appearance on Fox last night illustrates what yesterday’s high-fiving was all about. Sicknick’s death “was weaponized to portray mob as barbaric & murderous.” As it was from the start with Greenwald and his pals on the right, the controversy over ...
2/ the modalities of Sicknicks death was a conspiracy to demonize Trumpite insurrectionists, to turn their exuberant 1st amendmentism into something “barbaric and murderous.” For Greenwald the baddies here r some mix of “neoliberalism”, people who won’t admit Hillary Clinton ...
3/ deserved to lose and the vast array of villains who at various points refused to validate and applaud Greenwalds latest hobbyhorse as the most righteous ever. Just why Sicknick died seems likely to remain a permanent mystery. As the Medical Examiner himself suggested ...
Read 11 tweets
16 Apr
I mentioned in another thread that in addition to all the other issues implicated in police killings, having a heavily and indiscriminately armed civilian population makes demilitarizing policing much harder. Virtually anyone can have a firearm and tons of people do.
2/ But this raises another issue in America's culture and politics of gun ownership, one that has evolved largely in tandem with what we might call the hyper-militarization of policing over the last two or three decades. One of the major supporters of gun restrictions ...
3/ used to be police organizations and police unions. This is hardly surprising. Police want superior firepower and a decisive advantage in armed confrontations. This is obvious whether you have a benign or malign view of police. Over the last couple decades though you've ...
Read 4 tweets
10 Apr
The key part of Tucker's recitation of 'Great Replacement' theory is this: "the democratic party is trying to replace the current the electorate … the voters now casting ballots - ***with new people, more obedient voters from the third world**." The racism here is clear ...
2/ enough. But this second element is the key that unlocks the whole thing. It's not immigrants coming tot he US who will change the country. All immigrants do that. The country evolves over time, transforming and being transformed. It is rather than people who are here ...
3/ now are bringing in new people "who are more obedient". In other words, the new folks, whatever their color are basically passive actors. They're brought here by domestic bad people because the domestic bad people will be able to control them more easily.
Read 5 tweets
8 Apr
In theory I understand what's being argued in the argument George Floyd's cause of death. But I marvel at the absurdity of the idea that Floyd's body finally gave out from drug use at the moment a cop was kneeling on his chest and compressing his diaphram so he couldn't breathe.
2/ I thought it was a pretty established principle of law that different people's bodies have different levels of fragility. What breaks one person might not break another. And when you kill someone, or take actions that could kill someone you take on that unknown at ...
3/ your own risk.
Read 5 tweets
7 Apr
This is such a small thing. But it jumped out at me. In that Robert Pape oped on people arrested during the insurrection there’s this paragraph.
2/ As I understand the grammar and relationship between the two sentences this identifies Putnam county as one of the 14 counts that Biden won. 14 counties then “one of these”, i.e. one of the 14. But Biden lost Putnam county. Not by much but he lost.
3/ I went back to make sure I remembered this and looked at several sources. Here’s the final results from the Times.
Read 6 tweets
6 Apr
On the issue of whether voter suppression has any effect here's a recent study that comes to the conclusion that laws to make voting easier lead to more people voting. Not terribly counter-intuitive. But good to know! publicwise.org/2021/03/02/whe…
2/ Again, both strategically and actually, we shouldn't be focused on who it makes more likely to win. In a democracy you are on the right side if you put as few impediments as possible in the way of people exercising their fundamental right as citizens. Democrats are in a...
3/ good position because ease of voting probably does advantage them. But that's fine. That doesn't make it self-interested or illegitimate. The side that supports democracy is always on the right side in a democracy. People make various arguments to the effect of well, voter ...
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!