The Eagles can still win the Superbowl without Wentz, but it will come down to the defense more than Nick Foles

With today's absolutely crushing and gut-wrenching news about Carson Wentz suffering from a torn ACL, it has left Eagles fans everywhere trying to salvage every last scrap of hope they have left somewhere deep within themselves to continue on to hopefully get that Superbowl parade that has forever eluded the city. Nick Foles, a QB who has been relegated to a backup the last few years certainly doesn't instill a ton of confidence... at least not in the same universe Carson Wentz does. However, all hope is not lost. The Eagles are still a viable contender. Anyone who says otherwise, well, I'd question their football knowledge. Are they the favorites anymore? I don't think so, but the favorites don't always win. Especially in a sport like the NFL.

All of the talk today has been about Nick Foles, and rightfully so. He will be the man under center leading the team the rest of the way. Foles is a big key, but the most important aspect of this Eagles team in getting that Lombardi Trophy will come down to the defense. "Defenses win championships" is a cliche that doesn't always ring true. I think complete teams win championships. But it's impossible to ignore the overwhelming success elite defenses have in the NFL Playoffs. We see it every single year. Put an elite offense up against an elite defense and the defense usually wins. Superbowl XLVIII: the NFL's best Seahawks defense going up against the league's best Broncos offense. Seahawks blow the doors off the Broncos 43-8. John Elway vowed after that game to never see a defense that poor again, so two years later the suddenly defensive-oriented Broncos owning the best defense in the league face the NFL's top offense of the Panthers. The Broncos defense dominated the game and totally shut Carolina down all game. The Broncos, now built around their defense win the Superbowl 24-10. To say Peyton Manning was a shell of his former self is putting it lightly. He was one of the worst QBs in the NFL that season and was basically used as an apparatus to hand the ball off and occasionally throw a wobbly pass to an open receiver. Defenses rule the NFL's postseason and the Eagles have the makings of an elite defense.

With a dominant defensive line and an improved secondary, for the Eagles to get to Minneapolis in February, the defense is going to have to keep games low scoring, punish QBs, and force turnovers to give a suddenly less dangerous Eagles offense more chances to score points. Nick Foles does not have to be Carson Wentz, and thankfully so, because he can't be Carson Wentz. He doesn't have the talent or the physical tools to do so. He just needs to be accurate and take care of the football, and hope the defense keeps the pressure off of him to worry about having to play beyond his means. The Eagles defense dominates at home, so home field advantage throughout will be huge. Great defenses always start up front, and there is no front 4 in the NFL I trust more than the Eagles.

Unfortunately, we've seen some cracks in the foundation the last couple of weeks. Missed tackles, poor angles to ball carriers, etc. Those are teachable and can be cleaned up. We haven't seen much of that all season, I have confidence those will get fixed. But this team has stepped up all season long. The "next man up" mantra is not just a cliche, it's a lifestyle for them. They live it in their preparation and they live in in their play. We saw that in spades last night when Trey Burton steps in for Zach Ertz and had a monster game. This time is different. An entire unit needs to step up and dominate to keep those parade hopes alive. They certainly have the talent. They've shown they have the character. Now they just need to go out and do it. With a couple more wins the Eagles will lock up home field advantage throughout. Then, to quote the late, great Jerome Brown: "They brought the house and we brought the pain."

The promising young Sixers are starting to show their fatal flaws

Heading into December 4th's game against the Phoenix Suns, the 13-9 Sixers appeared destined to be a top 5 seeded playoff team with a win mark in the high 40's. Unfortunately, sometimes appearances can be deceiving. They have some promising things under their belt. They've beaten some of the NBA's best teams--some of those wins coming on the road. Simmons looks like the clear Rookie of the Year and Embiid has progressively improving every week, picking up where he left off last season. Even TJ McConnell has even developed into a really valuable piece, commanding the offense, taking care of the ball, playing pesky defense, and improving his 3 point shot. However, as we've seen over the past couple weeks, this team has flaws. Fatal ones.

They are the NBA's worst team in turnovers, they are a poor free throw shooting team, they blow leads seemingly almost every game, they regularly go through long stretches where they can't score, and they have one of the NBA's worst benches. Additionally, for a team that relies so much on the 3 ball with their 'pace and space' style of play, they are a below average 3 point shooting team sans two players in Robert Covington and JJ Redick. They put tons of pressure every night on two players to majorly produce from beyond the arc, as regulars like TLC, Saric, and Anderson(when he plays) are not consistently reliable from downtown and they generally don't have a lot of shooters on the roster to begin with.

Covington started off the season among the tops in the NBA in 3 point shooting percentage, and as we've seen lately, it was not sustainable. Covington is a good 3 point shooter, not a great one. I suspect he'll finish the season somewhere around 38%. When he and/or Redick struggle shooting the ball, the Sixers really struggle to score consistently since they rely so much from distance. That leaves the young Ben Simmons and Joel Embiid up to put the team on their backs and carry them night after night; a tall task for the young duo, as immensely talented as they are.

As teams continue to play the Sixers, coaches will learn how to match up against them, and the longer the grind of the season continues, their flaws will become more and more evident, and the lack of a bench is going to hurt them. Teams without quality depth rely so much on their starters and it wears them down over the course of a long season. Flaws always bubble up to the surface over the long haul for any team, it's the nature of sports. And don't even get me started on injuries. This team can ill-afford to lose TJ McConnell for a long stretch right now, let alone Embiid or Simmons. One injury to one of their best players and they're in serious trouble very quickly.

I got caught up in the Sixers excitement just like anyone else. They certainly are not a bad team by any means, and I think it goes without saying this is just the first step in many years of great basketball to come. But for this season? I'm sorry, a top 5 seed and more than 45 wins is unrealistic. They simply aren't good enough. I hope I'm wrong, but I think this is a borderline playoff team, a 7th seed at best, and that's not a bad thing. It's just a little disappointing when one is guilty is getting caught up in the hype.

My review of Netflix's Stranger Things 2

After a strong and surprising debut of Netflix's Stranger Things series, I was both excited and a little bit skeptical of how season 2 would fare. Season 1 kept some plot lines up in the air in its conclusion, but also resolved enough to the point where I was concerned that they would have to manufacture artificial storylines. Turns out those fears were misplaced, as Stranger Things 2 picks up on the greatness season 1 left us with.

I will refrain from diving into deep plot specifics to avoid spoilers, so I will speak generally about the story, and just say that season 2 gives us the same enjoyable cast of characters, as well as some likable new additions. Max(nicknamed Mad Max), a tough and rugged kid girl who brings a little badassery and fearlessness to the group, and Billy(Max's brother) who represents the prototypical 80's cliched badass high school bully jock. Sean Astin was also added to the mix, playing a dorky tech nerd named Bob who dates Winona Ryder's character Joyce. Each new character proves to be a quality newcomer to the show and they don't feel forced, out of place, and fit into the story organically.

The plot this time around is more epic in scale with the threat feeling greater, and from the jump the writers give you a constant sense of foreboding that gradually ramps up with each episode. Like season 1, the story unravels slowly, like opening a package one corner at a time instead of tearing it open. They don't thrust too much onto the viewer at once and give you time to enjoy and digest the characters and plot developments.

However, one of my main gripes with this season is in regard to the plot. Once I found out what that main threat that they tease you with actually was, I was slightly disappointed. I don't think the pay-off was rewarding enough with all the build-up they gave us, and I found this season's enemy actually less intimidating and scary as season 1's Demogorgon. This isn't a huge deal, as I still think the writers did a good job at having everything come together in interesting and fun ways, and it was still every bit as thrilling as season 1 overall, but the Demogorgon of the previous season definitely provided more intrigue and thrills for me.

My other gripe with the show is I felt they mishandled Eleven's character arc. To avoid heavy spoilers, let me just say I think they left a lot of meat on the bone with her character and she was isolated away from the show's group of kids for much of the season. I get why they decided to go the route that they did, but I think it could have been handled better, and at times I think it took away from the enjoyment I had the spending time with these kids in their adventure. She was instrumental in season 1 as the cog that brought the kids together with a purpose, and watching her unleash her powers on-screen was always entertaining. This season, she was basically relegated to slamming doors and opening locks with her mind for 90% of it, and I found that a bit of a letdown.

One final thing. For season 3, I hope they find another of the characters to pick on other than poor Will. The little guy has gone through more than enough, and using him in that same role for a 3rd straight season would start to feel redundant.

Overall, Stranger Things 2 was a big thumbs up from me. I rank it on par with the first season in almost every way. The characters stayed true to form, they were properly developed, and the story was entertaining from beginning to end. If you enjoyed season 1, definitely check out the new season ASAP.

My review of David Fincher's new series Mindhunter on Netflix

"Do the ends justify the means?" is a question every human asks themselves at some point in life. Such a question can be used in a variety of scenarios in everyday life. Perhaps none more so than in law enforcement.

David Fincher's Mindhunter explored a variety of multi-layered subjects, but the one theme front and center for all 10 episodes was exploring whether taboo or sometimes forbidden practices used to catch or predict the actions of criminals would make it all worth it in the end. Main character Holden Ford said "You want truffles? You've gotta get in the dirt with the pigs."

The series is about two FBI agents, the young Holden Ford and older Bill Tench, joined by a psychologist from Boston named Dr. Wendy Carr. They work in the FBI's behavioral science unit in the 1970's, when that degree of criminal profiling was in its infancy. They believed that if you can better understand killers and learn their tendencies by interviewing and studying them, you can create profiles that help predict criminal behavior and identify mystery killers based on these psychological patterns and similarities.

It starts off very slow, and this series certainly is not for everyone. If you tune in expecting a Se7en-esque "whodunnit" then you're likely to be disappointed. However, if you can appreciate the inner-workings of criminal psychology and psychological profiling used to catch killers, then this may just be the show for you.

If you're familiar with Fincher's other productions, you know he's not afraid to get dark, gritty, and show things as they are. In this case, it's totally necessary and he does it well. You can't sweeten or polish the vile mind of a serial killer or the crimes they committed without watering down the product. 

It's based on real-life events and killers, so if you are interested be prepared to be acquainted with the likes of Edmund Kemper, Dennis Rader, and Richard Speck. All of whom are incredibly well-acted and have the uncanny resemblances and demeanors of their real-life demented counterparts. Whoever did casting and the makeup and wardrobe work for this production deserves an Emmy.

Mindhunters is realistic, grim, unafraid, and tackles the tough moralities of their worlds expertly. Most of the procedural elements are authentic, and the terminology and vernacular is nailed down to a T. All 3 leads are relatively new to this, and are learning on the job and each has a strong belief in how the job should be executed to expand and grow this innovative methodology. It doesn't try to push an agenda, make a statement, or guide the viewer in any one direction. They leave it up to you to decide if the work they're doing is worth it, and debate with yourself on if you lean more toward agent Ford's stoic, relentless, unapologetic, obsessed, and maybe sociopathic(?) method of doing the job, or Tinch and Carr's more conservative, measured, and sensitive approach. The interactions between the characters are great(especially Ford and Tinch) and they develop all 3 of them very well, without giving you too much to have their acts wear thin on you.

I very much enjoyed debating all these questions throughout all 10 episodes, and when it's over it leaves you with plenty to think about. I love a series that doesn't end once the final credits roll and is nuanced and ambiguous with its message and storytelling. 

There are at least 5 seasons planned apparently, but unfortunately word is season 2 won't hit until 2019, so you have plenty of time to dive in and slowly savor the greatness that is Mindhunter. It's refreshing, unique, bleak, and glorious. If this is up your alley definitely check it out.

Why I'm pretty sure Markelle Fultz does indeed have a shoulder injury

The Sixers are 0-3, and when fans are not panicking about the poor play to start the season, or calling for Brett Brown to be fired, their ire has been directed at something else: Markelle Fultz's jump shot. There were no signs of anything heading into training camp, but once practices started, people started to notice a funky free throw form, and even his regular jumpers were off as well. At first, he was kind of mum about it, and eluded to the fact that he was practicing with a shooting coach in the summer. After a while, when his form continued to regress and regress, Fultz eventually admitted that his shoulder was bothering him, and this was confirmed by Brett Brown. Fast forward to 3 games into the season, and the jumper still looks wonky as hell, and continues to change a little bit from game to game... and not getting any prettier.

Since the Sixers refuse to elaborate publicly on exactly what is going on(as per usual) it has been left to the masses to speculate. There seem to be two prevailing theories.

1. He's actually legitimately hurt, and possibly worse than they are letting on.

2. He's not really hurt, and the organization is so embarrassed that he altered his form without the team's consent, that they are concocting an elaborate scheme to hide said embarrassment.

I'm in camp #1, for a variety of reasons. To start, I can't think of another situation in NBA history where a player messed with their form and became afraid to shoot because of it. "The yips" don't happen in basketball. Shooting is a natural motion. You pick up a basketball and you basically go where your arm motion takes you. Does that mean your natural form will be perfect? No, but it will still look better than the freak show Fultz is bringing out there, which isn't the least bit natural, and looks totally like something forcefully altered to compensate for an injury. Even without mechanical corrections in shooting, you can have a pretty jumper. And there is no reason for any athlete to be afraid to shoot. Do you know what players do when they develop bad habits with a jump shot? They shoot their way out of it by repetition. Over and over and over and over again. In practice, in workouts, in shoot-arounds, and in games.

Fultz barely shot any jumpers in training camp, is barely shooting any jumpers in practice, refuses to shoot jumpers in shoot-arounds, and has not taken a single 3 pointer through 3 games this season. He hasn't even considered taking one. The thought does not cross his mind. If Fultz was trying to correct bad mechanical habits with a jumper, and he was not injured, I guarantee you the coaches would be pounding into his head to "SHOOT!" Brett Brown would have drawn up a few plays in the first few games to get him a wide open 3 pointer to build his confidence. This hasn't happened. Nothing has changed, and the coaching staff seems perfectly content allowing him to not even consider jump shots. The obvious answer is because they know he's hurt. How could I believe that a player who was cut in high school and had the confidence to rebuild his playing career and become the #1 overall pick in the NBA Draft is so mentally fragile that he's flat-out afraid to shoot? Why should I believe that a player who didn't see a field goal he didn't like in the Summer League would suddenly become so terrified of taking jumpers in a game merely because of mechanical issues?

To take it a step further, in tonight's game against Toronto, Fultz's first(and only) field goal attempt in the first half was a left-handed layup. He had several clean looks at the basket from 10 feet and in, where he could have easily dribbled a few steps and put up a clean right-handed layup and turned it down. Later on in the game he forced some awkward jumpers, which were no greater than 12 feet and missed all of them. He had a jump ball attempt that he went up with his left hand. It all adds up to an injury.

So, you ask. "If he's hurting, why can he attempt layups and grab rebounds, but not shoot? Surely, it should all feel the same pain-wise." Not necessarily the case. I had a friend and sister who both tore their labrums. Both did so lifting weights, and neither realized they hurt it until weeks later after they got MRIs. Both of them waited so long to get it checked out, because it didn't hurt all the time. Some motions hurt worse than others. With a ball and socket joint, different angles and motions cause different levels of pain. It's not a "if one thing hurts, all things hurt" type of deal.

The next question is "If he's hurt, why is he playing?" This is the Sixers we're talking about. The organization who allowed Embiid to do fancy under-the-leg dunks while recovering from a broke navicular bone in his foot. The organization who allowed Embiid to play in a game with a bone bruise and a torn meniscus. They are proven to be incompetent. I think that is far more likely than to suggest they are scheming some elaborate plot to convince the world he's hurt. So elaborate that they have him taking jump balls with his left, not shooting in practice(which is counterproductive to his development), not shooting jumpers in training camp(also counterproductive to his development), not shooting jumpers in shoot-around(counterproductive to his play on the court) and being perfectly ok with him not attempting any perimeter jumpers whatsoever just to keep a defense honest.

BULL-SHIT. The guy is hurt. How hurt remains to be seen. I know this sucks, and it is just another season with an injured first round pick, but it's time for the people to ditch the conspiracy theories and admit the sad reality. The Sixers medical staff managed to screw up yet another one. As long as the labrum isn't torn, I expect him to eventually be fine, but as everything currently stands, the most likely scenario is the Sixers have done what they always do: fuck up a player's health.

Can we stop mass killings in the US? And the use of the term "terrorism"

Every time a mass shooting occurs in the United States, the same age-old topics bubble back to the surface. What can we do about gun control and is there a way to stop mass shootings? I'm an advocate of gun control. How much control to implement is much trickier than many realize. With the amount of violence in the United States, I do believe we may have reached a point of "no return" or at least a point that will take many many decades to correct, that will extend long past our lifetimes. The United States is simply more violent than a lot of other nations even taking guns out of the equation. I'll get into that a little bit later. So, would I feel comfortable telling someone who lives in Detroit, Chicago, or Philly that they can't own a gun if they pass certain criteria? Could I feel good about denying someone with the right to protect themselves? I think banning guns entirely would make the world a better and safer place, but I think banning a lot of things in this world would make it much safer, and people's rights have to be taken into account whether we like it or not. Those who are against gun control or who even believe in having more guns on the street will tell you that guns prevent gun violence, which is such shallow and factually false logic. Owning a gun or having a gun in your possession rarely saves your life. Most gun victims are taken unawares, and don't have the time or the composure to take out their gun, aim it, and fire it at a target who already has you in their crosshairs. It's rare that a firearm is used in self-protection to prevent a homicide. Plus, each death, regardless of whether someone took an innocent life via firearm, or a life was taken in defense of your own safety, they all count the same in the annual gun death statistics.

There are too many gun fatalities in this country. Far too many. Especially compared to other first world nations. We have roughly 33,000 gun deaths in the US every year, though "only" approximately 11,000 of those are via homicide. Most are suicides. I think changes need to be made in gun control. My issue is the ease in which individuals can possess what I'd call "weapons of warfare." Even though there are laws in place against semi-automatic rifles and automatic weapons, people still get their hands on them too easily. Those are weapons of war created to kill other human beings efficiently and quickly. Automatic weapons should be deemed completely illegal and banned in every state for any civilian, despite when they are manufactured, including ex-military or police officers or off duty military personnel or officers. The problem is, none of these changes are going to happen anytime soon, because you know, politics. So, I basically hate discussing any form of gun control because it's a major waste of time for the foreseeable future. Americans love guns, they're ingrained in our culture, and I don't know if that will ever change.

That doesn't mean we are hopeless as a society. I think we can cut down on mass killings, shootings, and violence. It won't be easy. Science has suggested that human beings are generally good-natured at heart, but we are also the alpha species on the planet earth, we are the most competitive species, we are the species most governed by emotions, and therefore we are violent. Humans have always been violent. Wars have existed since the beginning of time. Senseless slaughter has existed since the beginning of time. Thousands of people used to gather in stadiums to watch gladiators hack each other to death for sport, and then cheer the victory as a mutilated body was laying right there for all to see. Genghis Khan was responsible for the death and rape of millions. Hitler started a war that killed hundreds of millions and initiated a genocide that killed 6 million Jews. Violence will never cease to exist. Even on large scales. Hell, if there is another planet out there with a full species of advanced intelligent life, I can guarantee you they are violent as well.

Every form of violence is motivated by something different. Some are territorial, some are jealousy, some are love, some are hate, some are greed. Add in thrill killings, sexual deviancy, etc. Mass shootings typically involve some form of deep-seeded hatred or anger brought about by years of mental distress. Whether you are sold propaganda by a terrorist organization or you have just grown up to despise certain people, or possibly even all people, it's all built up animosity that erupts in the ultimate form of violence. To stop mass shootings, if we can't do anything about gun laws, then we need to limit the amount of mentally disturbed people in the United States.

This country has an inordinate amount of sick individuals. The state of California alone has had more serial killers in the state's recorded history than several first world countries combined. And no, it isn't just guns, most serial killers actually don't use guns. They prefer to kill their victims in a more personal way. This country has a mental instability issue, and until we correct that, these issues will never stop. So what causes these mental issues? I think a lot of it stems from bad parenting, for starters. Other countries simply teach better core values to their children, and we pollute the minds of our children with rhetoric at an early age. Too many of our parents teach their kids oppressive ideals in regards to sex, entertainment, and associating with others. It's no coincidence that whenever one of these tragedies occurs, and information about the perpetrator becomes public, we learn about their rough childhoods, abusive parents, being sexual abused when they were young, having strict religious parents, etc. Kids are super impressionable and these issues usually start to develop at a young age and expand over time. All of these factors play a part in people growing up to have serious mental issues. Look at countries like Canada, England, Ireland, Japan, etc. Yes, their gun laws are different from ours, but they also are generally much more peaceful. Let's look at Japan as a comparison to why a first world highly developed country may be less violent than the United States. Japan actually has a very high suicide rate, higher than the United States, but a low crime rate. They suffer from mental illness and distress like Americans do, but by nature their suicide rate in comparison to their crime rate shows their lack of violent tendencies against their common man. They typically are raised with better values, in stronger homes, with stronger parenting and lower divorce rates. Religion in Japan is also much different than the United States. It isn't as strongly enforced and pushed on children in families like it is in the States, and neither Shinto or Buddhism have shown the same history of oppressive or violent ideals of religions that often dominate countries that are prone to mass violence. Japan is just one specific example, and each violent person or tragedy is its own entity, but I think if you compare our country with others, and the values kids are taught and the things they are(or aren't) exposed to as children, we can get a clearer picture of what causes people to become mentally unstable and develop into killers.

Until we become better parents, stop forcing hateful or oppressive beliefs onto our children, build stronger families to raise them, and put more money and passion into mental health awareness and research, then I don't see the problem improving. Mental health is still not taken as seriously as it needs to be in society, and many people mock those who suffer from anxiety and depression making them angrier, more vindictive, and more likely to act in violence down the road. All the pressures in a competitive and cutthroat world we live in today can break someone who didn't develop the mental fortitude to handle it at a young age.

The use of the term "Terrorist"

I don't know how it all started, but for some reason people today seem to be obsessed with making everyone know who should and should not be labeled a terrorist. I don't know the exact motivations for each individual behind this "movement" but I suspect it has something to do with them trying to make it a point to announce to the world that "See?! Other people besides Muslims can be terrorists too!" Everyone knows this.

Whenever you get into labeling people anything, things get tricky. In a nutshell, the federal law defines "terrorism" as an act of violence against the general population that is driven by political motivations or goals. Now, states have their own definitions of what qualifies as terrorism. Point being, the definition varies, so for people to preach to the world about how ignorant someone is if they don't use that term on a specific killer is absurd and incredibly misguided. As long as everyone knows how awful they are, what they did was wrong, then that's what is important at the end of the day. A lot of people simply see terrorists as someone who causes terror to the general population. If that were the case, then Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, and Richard Ramirez(The Nightstalker) would all be terrorists and not serial killers. They killed dozens of victims, just spread out over a longer period of time, but it all adds up to the same amount of lives lost. Serial killers can terrorize cities and neighborhoods for years. In California, women were afraid to go to sleep at night because The Nightstalker may break into their homes at night and kill them. Does that not qualify as terror? Look, I know Muslims are persecuted all over the world because of some of the awful teachings of Islam, and it isn't fair for good people who happen to believe in a religion that preaches archaic and oppressive ideals to be treated unfairly. They are still people and should have the same rights as anyone else. But it's not exactly without reason or logic for terrorism to be associated with people from the Middle East.

If someone of Middle Eastern descent commits mass murder, the odds that it is going to be in the name of Islam or as part of an Islamic terrorist organization(which only accepts Muslims, or those who convert to Islam) is significantly larger than it would be for a Caucasian or African American, who are statistically much less likely to believe in Islam. That doesn't mean that every Muslim is a terrorist or all Muslims are bad. Many people associate these politically driven acts as the true definition of terrorism, as is the definition of the term under federal law. A Korean guy who shoots up a mall isn't going to be immediately labeled or suspected to be a terrorist by the press, because the statistical odds of that person being associated with a religion or group that often is involved in violent ideals is much lower. However, if all the facts come out and it is found that this person committed that act with political motivations, I guarantee you they will be more commonly referred to as a terrorist. All of these squabbles are ancillary issues to the real problem and getting up on your soap box to tell the world how someone should label or define another is not going to solve a problem and will only cause more of a divide. At the end of the day, we all want the same thing. Regardless of how we get there, we want less violence however we can achieve it. As long as we have that common ground, then there is cause for hope no matter how small it may appear at times.

My thoughts on our nation's police and criminal injustice in America

There has been so much talk over the last several years about cops in our country, as well as racial injustice regarding our officers, and I have long wanted to get my thoughts out on the matter. I have always have thought it would be too long and too difficult to type out. However, because of Trump's comments over the last few days re-stoking the flames, I figured now is a better time than any.

I'm the son of a retired Philadelphia police officer turned detective, a nephew of another retired Philadelphia police officer, and a close friend of another. I have a deep connection to law enforcement ever since I was a kid, and true crime and criminal justice have long been passions of mine. I have learned an incredible amount just reading over the last 15 years of my life, but I have a lifetime of discussions with my dad, uncle, and now friend which has given me invaluable insight into the life as a cop, and the inner-workings of our justice system.

First, I will say flat out that our society does have racial injustice. There is no question about it. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is delusional. It has existed for a long long time, and while society has improved much in this regard, we are a long ways from getting where we need to be, and dare I say may never get there at all. At least in our lifetimes. However, the notion that police officers are just out there like the wild west killing unarmed black people, or anyone else for that matter, whenever they want to is a misguided and disingenuous narrative that is making the jobs of police officers much more difficult than they already are.

Gun fatalities by police officer are actually quite rare. Less than 1% of gun deaths in this country come via police officers on unarmed civilians. The far majority of gun fatalities by police are what are officially deemed "justifiable homicides" which generally means the person was considered a danger to the officer or to other civilians and lethal force was necessary. The numbers get tricky, but statistically, a US citizen is probably more likely to get struck by lightning in a single year than for an unarmed person to be shot dead by a police officer. Further, depending on where the information is coming from, on average, the total gun fatalities via cop(all instances included) in our country every year is anywhere from less than a percent to about 2%. Still an extremely small number.  Even further, if you spread out those small percentages between each race, you lower the numbers even more. Not that any killing of an unarmed person is okay and not completely tragic, but everything must be kept in the proper perspective. Statistically, roughly double the white people are killed annually, but you are more likely to be killed by an officer(per capita) if you are black than white. So it isn't just African Americans being killed by policemen, though they are indeed more likely to be killed by officer-related shootings than white Americans. I would be naive to say that none of it happens because of racial bias, because that simply would not be true. Whether it be racism, or racial biases with no hatred, some deaths will be related to the cop's perception of that individual because of their race. It goes much deeper than that though, as unfortunately, most of those shootings come from our state's major cities, where both the African American population and crime are much higher than that of small towns. So just by pure math, if a cop is working in a predominantly black city or neighborhood, and crime is high, there will be more gun deaths. For example, take Chicago, which currently is our most dangerous and violent city in the country.

The most dangerous part of Chicago is easily the south side, but with it having an extremely high African American population, the odds that the majority of gun deaths in that part of town, by cop or otherwise, are going to be African American is significantly higher than it would be in smaller towns with a smaller African American population and less overall crime. It's a very complex subject with a lot of layers, and goes a lot deeper than racial biases and prejudices. You can technically go as far as even blaming poverty and decades of social inequalities, which contribute to the drugs, gangs, and violence, which in turn makes it more likely to have an encounter with policemen.

There simply is not an "epidemic" of police shootings going on across the country like many claim and the data clearly supports this. The incidents have actually lessened and were more common in the 80's and 90's when crime was at its highest in the United States. The big issue now is with social media today, everyone knows about every incident. 20 years ago, someone in Philadelphia wouldn't know if an unarmed person in Lexington, Kentucky got shot by a cop. Now, with social media we have an influx of stories we aren't used to, so it seems like it is a far more common occurrence when the opposite is actually true. Statistically, most of gun deaths in this country of innocents or unarmed persons come from within their own race. White on white crime, black on black crime, etc.

Each situation is a case-by-case basis. All incidents happen because of different circumstances, in different cities, for different reasons, and by different officers. They cannot all be lumped into one group. So, like anything in life, to get the answer you have to ask yourself why. Why are unarmed civilians being shot by police officers? Is it really as easy as people saying "Just don't pull the trigger"? To better understand, let me delve into why it's such a complex issue.

Being a police officer is an extremely difficult job. Arguably the most difficult and trying job a person can have, up there with first responders and our military. Especially in big cities, where crime is most prevalent. Just like one has to try and put themselves in the shoes of a victim or their families to understand their plight, one must also try and put themselves in the shoes of a cop. Our officers deal with the worst our country has to offer on a daily basis. Murderers, rapists, child molesters, gang members, drug dealers, domestic violence offenders, bank robbers, rogue nutjobs, and everything in between. Cops see things that we wouldn't have to see in our worst nightmares. Dead bodies, severed limbs, mutilated corpses, sexually abused children, among countless other heartbreaking things. Just like with military veterans, PTSD is very common in the police force. Suicide rates are extremely high. Unless you see and experience the things a police officer does, we can't even begin to comprehend what it's like to handle certain pressure-packed situations. When you work a job where many have been shot at, every time you pull someone over or approach a suspect, you never know if that is going to be your last moment on this earth. It's very easy to play armchair quarterback and say that "I wouldn't have an itchy trigger finger!" Frankly, that is impossible for anyone who is not a police officer to say. What if an officer had previously been through an almost identical situation where they were shot at? What if an officer was in a similar situation where they didn't pull the trigger on a suspect who they were unsure if they were armed, and they ended up killing their partner? When you approach someone, you have your own life, the life of a partner, and the lives of all surrounding civilians in your hands. In the heat of the moment, there is no easy decision, especially one that has to be made in a matter of seconds. Cops make the call they think is best in that moment and have to live with the consequences of those actions. That does not necessarily mean they just brashly and carelessly used their firearm on a civilian. When the public has a mindset that the police are out to get them, right or wrong, it makes a civilian more likely to act aggressively toward an officer, and increases the likelihood for violence or injury; both for the cop and the individual.

Cops often have to trust their gut. It's a critical part of the job whether you are a street cop or a homicide detective. If a cop sees a car or civilian that looks suspicious to them, they have a decision to make. They can either trust that gut feeling, do something, and risk being labeled a racist or a bad cop if they're wrong; or ignore their gut and let that car or person go by and hope they aren't up to anything nefarious, and avoid being accused of approaching said individual for racial motivations. Lives are saved all the time by pulling over cars that look suspicious, and crimes are often prevented by stopping civilians on the streets. Many people think if a civilian is stopped on the street, especially if they're a minority, that it's automatically because that officer is a racist or is committing racial profiling. This can be the case, and has been the case, but is not always so and not as often as many people think. We don't know each officer's motivations. We simply don't know if an officer could have gotten a call over dispatch telling them to keep an eye out for a similar looking car, or a person who fits their description of someone who just robbed a convenience store. Every officer knows the potential repercussions or backlash if these instances go wrong, and they have to live that. It's a lose-lose proposition. However, more is lost from not approaching that suspicious car or person than doing so. If you do so and are wrong, it's much easier to live with being accused of racial profiling than having that person commit another crime, possibly take a life, or if that car is holding a kidnapping victim and missing that chance to save someone's life.

Does that mean cops should have carte blanche to just shoot anyone whenever they want? Of course not. And there are bad policemen out there. There are policemen who shoot unarmed civilians when they shouldn't, and commit other types of heinous crimes, and for that they need to be held accountable. But, I can promise you from speaking to people in law enforcement regularly that 99% of cops actually don't want to use their firearms at all. Especially on unarmed people. Do you think a cop wants to have to deal with being questioned by internal affairs, face possible prosecution which means potential loss of freedom and their careers, have their names being put out on social and news media so their reputations can be forever tarnished, and have the lives of their families put in danger? No officer wants any part of it. Hell, even for a cop who has racist ideals, it's much easier for them to be a closet racist than to have to deal of all the repercussions of shooting an unarmed civilian. Generally, cops use their guns not out of malice but out of fear or poor judgement.

So, what can we do to limit or prevent these shootings from happening, given all the circumstances that exist and all police have to go through? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. We can start with better training for our officers. Many aren't adequately trained, and given the necessary tools to handle the daunting tasks they are required to. We can create better funding for our departments so they can provide everything our officers need to best do their jobs. We as civilians can help too. We can have more good, quality difference-making people join our police forces, so they don't have to desperately hire officers not cut out for the job out of the necessity of needing more badges out on the streets. And as people, we can listen to offers when they tell us to do something, even if we think it's wrong or have done nothing wrong. It's much easier to get over a pat-down because of mistaken identity than it is to recover from a bullet to the abdomen. Remember, every time a cop stops a person, there is fear involved in the officers too. They have no idea who they are approaching or what, if anything, we are capable of. Most police shootings occur because of civilians not following orders. At the end of the day, when guns are involved, unfortunately there will be innocent deaths. I wish it was a perfect world where it would never happen, as no innocent person deserves to die, but far more lives are saved every year by officers than are lost. We can do a better job of holding bad officers accountable, as that could potentially deter other unfit officers from doing the wrong things. However, in the court of law, defense teams are going to touch on everything I have stated in this blog post thus far, which makes it hard to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and convict unless the act is overly blatant. The good news is 99% of cops are good people. They get involved in law enforcement by choice because they want to make a difference and save lives. Putting your life on the line comes with the territory, and generally, only the most serious about the job pursue this career path. There are no more bad cops in this country than there are bad plumbers, bad contractors, bad businessmen, bad technicians, etc. The difference is, only one of those jobs require you to carry a firearm around with you, and subject you to a lifetime of danger that require you to use it.

One thing that still saddens me is the stigma that has long been attached to police officers, which still exists today. Over time, people have come to single out cops as "pigs" and other cheap nicknames, and unfairly, you only really get this attitude with cops. You don't hear any of it about our military, who are essentially tasked with similar objectives. Generally our country doesn't have the same pride or honor for our men and women in blue in the same frequency or passion as they honor our armed forces. That's one thing I have never understood. Our military protects us overseas and our officers protect us right here at home, day to day on a very personal basis. Cops are eviscerated for the killings of unarmed people, but you rarely hear a peep about all the innocents that die or face unspeakable acts at the hands of our military. And if you think that is untrue, do yourself a favor and google Abu Ghraib and read about the horrific torture certain members of our military put Iraqi prisoners through. Thousands of innocents die from drone strikes, innocents can be gunned down because soldiers they aren't sure if they are carrying a suicide vest or not, so many shoot and ask questions later.

This is not intended to be a knock on our military. It's just a reality that I felt I needed touch upon to point out the inconsistencies in the minds of people today, many of whom buy into groupthink and instigating rhetoric. I love our military and everything they do for us. Even thinking about the state our country is in as I type this, I'll never not be proud to be an American. Regardless of who our president is, or how many riots there are, or how divided we are. This is my home, it has given me freedoms I'll always appreciate, and our military veterans are a major part of that and will always hold a special place in my heart. In a dangerous imperfect world, split second decisions have to be made in war zones. Extremely difficult calls are made everyday and there is so much grey area. Just like with our military, cops make mistakes. Some neighborhoods in this country are practically war zones themselves, like the city of Chicago. Whenever you are charged to protect an entire nation of people, including your own comrades and yourself, there isn't a more difficult task one could envision. The pressures are unimaginable. This is the cruel, unfortunate reality of the world we live in today. It's a vicious cycle. Preconceptions, biases, violence, danger, and fear all create an unstable environment and an impossible situation. I simply think it is unfair to single out cops, when both our armed forces and police forces charged to protect our country have innocent deaths on their watch.

I hope I did not come off as unsympathetic in this piece, because that is certainly not my intent. I feel for every innocent victim, and I feel for every minority who deals with injustices more commonly than I ever have, and I wish no one would ever have to go through it. I can't imagine what it's like to be African American in this country. I'm a white guy and I have no business pretending to know what it's like to live through the difficulties minorities face. I'm just trying to give some insight as I spent a lot of time in my life picking the brains of police officers and trying to understand the complex nature of criminal justice, and why I believe others should give it some extra thought before tearing into our policemen whenever someone gets shot. Learn about the situation, try to read all the facts, understand what our officers deal with, and form an objective unbiased opinion. I never try to participate in groupthink, and I always try to form an opinion by looking at all the facts, understanding as much as I can from all angles, and going with the opinion that makes the most sense to me. That doesn't mean that I am right or anyone else is wrong, as strongly as I do believe in it. I'm always open to hearing and learning more, as I don't have all the answers, and I don't believe anyone on this planet does. I've always believed that you learn more in life from listening to differing opinions than you do from those that jive with your own. You can always learn from debate, and I'm always open to it. I just wanted to give a different point of view on a very debated subject matter. And I hope one day there won't even be the need for debate, and no unarmed innocents have to be buried by their loved ones.