What are you getting at, Prof. B?

Since he's from Billings, he's a de facto racist?

I am quite sure there are many Oregon towns with even less diversity than Billings, Montana.

The point shouldn't be that Sery is from Montana, the point should be that the Portland Police do not have adequate race sensitivity training. (Though I tend to doubt you can teach sensitivity, but whatever...)

However, if it is relevant to the case that Perez was hopped up on cocaine. Then where Perez grew up should also be relevant.

The "victim's" coke level is irrelvant, but now we have to check the African American population of the childhood homes of all police officers and determine who much sensitivity they need?

whatever

If they're 24 and they're from a place like Billings, yeah. Or maybe they all should get it. If you're from L.A., it will be a waste of time. But if you're from Billings, it might help you do your job without killing someone needlessly.

I grew up in a town where those numbers would all be adjusted to zero (with the exception of population, but even that approaches zero).

So I must be an even worse racist, yes?

I haven't been following to the case, but my hunch is that no matter where Sery is from, and regardless of how much sensitivity training he received, the outcome would likely be the same.

Yes, he apparently had problems here. But those are his problems, not those of the state.

Isn't this suggestion kinda like profiling?

you make a good point about the need for race sensitivity training in the police force, but the argument could easily be made without focusing on where Officer Sery hails from.

All officers should have extensive training in these areas, irrespective of where they grew up. It seems to me that white folks growing up in LA, where there are serious racial issues, could use the training just as much as white folks from Montana who haven't had to deal with the issues.

Excuse me, folks, but I never once said the man was a racist, or anything of the sort. I did imply, correctly I'm sure, that he had very, very little contact with African-American people in his life before he moved to Portland. He could have benefitted -- even more than someone from a racially integrated city -- from some education about what it's like to be a black person in Portland before he was handed a gun and sent out in North Portland to do justice.

By not insuring that he got that training, the PPB let all of us down, including him second most of all.

while sensitivity training may not be a bad idea, when you say that the lack of training let down the person who was shot most of all, you are basically stating that he shot the guy because he was black. How is that not calling him a racist?

I'll go one further. Just because Perez was black doesn't mean that is the reason he shot him.

even further. Maybe the officer lived on the same block as a good portion of those 495 african americans in Billings. Maybe he spent a summer visiting an uncle in a city with alot of african americans. Maybe he dated an African American. Maybe his roomate is african american. Maybe in his five years in Portland, his three best friends were african american.

it's nice to know that Perez' background isn't important to you, but you somehow know what was going through the policeman's mind based on problems that other Portland officers have had.

And since I grew up in a town with zero african americans, I will be sure to get some training before working with my african american co-workers. I know the point you were trying to get across was a good one, but I'm sorry. As someone who grew up in a town with less diversity than Billings, MT, I find that train of thought offensive.

As a law enforcement professional who has undergone mandatory sensitivity training, and also lived nine doors away from the projects, I think you are off base with your valuation of sensitivity training as it pertains to a police shooting.
The decision to use deadly force should always involve a "reasonable response" to the threat of deadly force. Cultural awareness of another's way of life is a noble bit of training, but has very little bearing on the permissable use of deadly force. Policemen and women are forced to make frequent, split second decisions on drawing and using their weapons and do not have time to include cultural, ethnic, feel-good information into that difficult decision making process.
Unnecessary deadly force may or may not have been used in Portland, and a Grand Jury should decide that issue. My first look at the situation always looks at the histories of the shooter and the person shot. Whether you like it or not, the toxicology report on the decedent normally is a telling bit of evidence concerning the actions of the decedent.
Sorry, bro, but sensitivity training adds little or nothing to this tragic investigation. Public airing of the evidence at this early time would encourage fake witnesses with agendas to come forward and make matters worse.The only justice in these types of situations comes from full, fair investigations. Knee-jerk, "sitting in the bleachers" guesses at the significance of the procedural aspects of the investigation are equally empty in their worth as it pertains to the true facts of the case.
I am currently on trial in a case where a female police officer who stopped to help what she believed to be a stranded motorist was sucker punched, had her gun taken and pushed against her face as she lay bleeding on the highway. She trusted an individual, and it nearly cost her her life. The defendant later shot and killed a Good Samaritan truck driver who, like the police officer, stopped to help.
Their job is tougher than we know. In their buisness, they sometimes lose their lives by a bad decision. Let the Grand Jury process work.
.