The play written by students of LaGuardia Community college, “Intersections” is a very thoughtful and fascinating production. It gives us insights of financially unstable households, their mindset, their way of dealing with problems and how they behave in certain situations. There is a plain theme behind the play that says “Every action that you take today, lays the groundwork for your future choices”. You can also conclude the idea that your actions as a professional, have huge impact on other’s lives. just like by the end of the play, Alex who was a newly became police officer, shot an unarmed girl to death because he didn’t know what is the actual procedure to follow.
It was not just the ignorance of the procedure, Alex was scared for his life. As the event unfolded in the play, ALEX: Hands up now, Hands up (hands go for gun) Janelle: (hands up shakily) My hands are up They are up ALEX: I need to see your ID. (She goes for her pockets) DO NOT REACH INTO YOUR POCKETS I–. The above conversation clearly shows how confused and scared Alex was. He instantly considered those people a threat to him. I think that was basically a result of the training he was given as a police officer. The basic theme of the training was the idea that everyone on the street is a potential danger to these policemen. Which is unfortunately also happen to be the general practise of police training in the United States. This idea plays a major role in avoidable deaths of innocent people by police officers. It is a clear understanding that when you think the person next to you is a threat. Then it does not matter whatever they try to do or however they try to behave, your mind finds a way to make them look like a violent criminal and an immediate threat. These are the same misunderstandings that are the reason behind almost all of the police killings which turned out to be caused by a mistake, the suspect was reaching for his wallet to show his id or he was just angry on officer’s behavior and showed some resistance. Either way, the cost of this action was his life because apparently there is a common phrase among cops that says, “Better to be judged by 12, than carried by six” (Stoughton). I have taken this extract from an article written by Seth Stoughton, Seth has served as a police officer in a large municipal police department and now he is a scholar who researches policing, so he has a valid credibility. Seth also mentions that, “Officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized” (Stoughton). They are taught that the risks of mistake are less than the risks of hesitation which actually means that officers’ lives are more important than normal people. In addition, police officers in United States are more likely to take out their firearm and use it instead of going for other options, such as pepper spray and baton. This is considered to be the last option in these situations. According to an article written by Catherine Taibi, “In the United States this year alone, there have been more than 400 fatalities as a result of police gunshots. In Germany, there have been four” (Taibi). Catherine quotes Christian Science Monitor writer Sara Miller Llana to explain the reason behind it. In Germany, police officers are trained in a very detailed and rigorous way. They are taught that even in very extreme situations, they should use other options to control the situation rather than directly going for firearm.
These are the main reasons behind the avoidable deaths of innocent people by police officers in the United States. I think that our law enforcement personals need to be trained in a way where they realize the responsibilities and restrictions of their job, and the importance of normal citizens’ lives. Police officers should take extra cautions for their safety but they should not forget their main purpose, which is the safety of common citizens.
Work Cited
Stoughton, Seth. “How police training contributes to avoidable deaths”. Publish in the The Atlantic on December 12, 2014.
Taibi, Catherine. “The fairly obvious reason police in other countries kill fewer people than American police do” Published in the Huffington Post on July 2nd, 2015.
Questions for peer review
1) Do you think that I was able to cover the main idea or theme of the play in the introduction?
2) What did you think of the conversation from play that I added in the beginning of second paragraph? Like does it make it clear what I’m trying to say.
3) Do you think that that I was able to successfully convey my argument to my audience?
4) I always find it kinda hard to write a complete and thorough conclusion. Do you want to add something in my conclusion?
5) Any other suggestion you want to make? clarify anything? or if something sounds kinda off. let me know.
Saeed,
This is an intriguing and well thought-out paper, and I’m eager to get deeper into it in class next week. Your choice of topic and the way you arrange your thoughts is great, and it carries the reader with it pretty darn well!
For now, I’d like to ask, in response largely to your first two questions — do you have something you’re trying to argue? A thesis? I think I can identify it (and we’ll talk more about all this next week), but what you seem to be using your sources to argue is that police training (where? when? make sure you’re specifying all these things!) teaches folks to shoot before truly assessing (shoot who? Does the gif above [I love gifs and I totally get why you chose it] really reflect what we’re talking about here? An old white dude being beaten on by cops — is that what the research, and the play, was talking about?). What I mean is, you seem to be arguing one thing, but in your intro you state that Alex shot Janelle “because he didn’t know what is the actual procedure to follow.” Then later you seem to be arguing that he *was* following procedure (which, if you go deeper into the play — and you should! — Alex keeps repeating the procedure he was taught to himself), because procedure *is* to do what Alex did… So I guess I’m encouraging you to really dive in and get more specific in your claims — it’s totally okay to have contradictions in your paper, but contradictions in our writing are usually most effective when we make them very intentionally. If you want to claim that procedure would endorse what Alex did (which you seem to be doing with your paper), go for it! Don’t let the intro take away from that, you know?
Overall, I’d encourage you to use your sources even more expansively — we’ll talk more about this next week — and dig deeper into more of the play in that intro!
I’m super excited for where this winds up — wonderful work so far!
1.As a reader you have introduced to us what you will be discussing but I feel that the theme can be a bit more clearer. Maybe looking at a certain aspect of the police training.
2. I liked that you have added the conversion between Janelle and Alex because we can read for our self in case we had forgot. Also it proves the point your trying to make. You should definitely keep that in your essay. I feel that you just add your opinion as well to what you feel about what was happening between the scene you had added in your paper. Provide your feedback.
3. What your trying to say can be clear by separating the ideas because I feel that when you talked about how police officers should be trained and be more cautious. Add how you feel that these changes could be brought apart. Maybe adding how in Germany they do this that the United States could implement that in there training. I feel that if you add some specific resolutions that you see other countries using or what your feel what changes should happen can make the point your making much more greater.
4 . In the conclusion you said “I think” just say what you want. Don’t try to seem unsure it’s your paper you added these points that are valid to the point your making don’t contradict yourself.
5. When you said”. Then it does not matter whatever they try to do or however they try to behave, your mind finds a way to make them look like a violent criminal and an immediate threat.” I was bit confused of who you were taking about. Who are ” them” are you taking about a certain race in particular or just in general.
The paper is good with a few changes I feel by adding your insight and going deeper to the points your making the paper will be great.
1) I think you were to cover your main idea/introduction in your first paragraph, however, I feel like you need to add a little more information to make it clear to make the reader understand it better.
2) the conversation of the play you have chosen was a good one because it was a conversation that people have forgotten about. It was clear in what you wanted to say, however, you can probably add a little more detail instead of just focusing on police education (like in becoming a police officer)
3) you were able to convey your audience, however, just add a little more detail to make it a little more interesting to read.
4) your conclusion could be a little better, I wouldn’t just focus on Police (example police brutality, etc), maybe you can add another argument of some kind that relates to the police force and or a personal example (if you can).
5)you have an amazing argument/paper to begin with and other than that just add a little bit more detail to your paper.
1. Your intro looks good. It seems as though your thesis can be a bit clearer. You can help nudge the readers into the right direction so that we can follow along a bit easier. However, I love that you start off with a connection to the play as it instantly grabs the reader.
2. I think that the conversation was an amazing way to put what you wanted to focus on front and center. The immediate high tense conversation that ends with a gunshot captured my attention right away and made me excited to read more of your work.
3. I feel as though I want more of your own thoughts and analysis in your articles. You did a great job putting in the research, but putting in more of your thoughts and how you feel about each work would be a great way to add more substance in your in paper!
4. Your conclusion looks solid. Maybe just bring in everything else in the paper a little bit. A brief summary of what you argued in the paper would make your already good conclusion even better.
5. Like I already mentioned, I would love to see more of your own thoughts. Your analysis and arguments are intriguing and more would make your paper more of a ride that we are taken on that you are driving. Being taken from thoughts to thoughts would definitely be great.