|
paragon1 posted:People who take the risk that the dog running at them isn't a killer warbeast: literally everyone not in an active combat zone. Cops don't have the luxury of assuming they aren't in an active combat zone. It boggles my mind that people who hate cops and see them as nothing but pure evil also have some kind of mental block in front of understanding why cops would be on higher alert than anyone else.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Cops don't have the luxury of assuming they aren't in an active combat zone. It boggles my mind that people who hate cops and see them as nothing but pure evil also have some kind of mental block in front of understanding why cops would be on higher alert than anyone else. It boggles my mind that cops assume everyone wants to kill them and their immediate response to anything that could even possibly be perceived as a danger is shoot to kill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:It boggles my mind that cops assume everyone wants to kill them and their immediate response to anything that could even possibly be perceived as a danger is shoot to kill. I definitely agree that they should show more restraint in general, but choosing shooting dogs as your hill to die on is a very poor strategic choice, since it's a clearly defensible position that people deliberately choose not to understand because they've chosen to have a best friend that is indistinguishable from a potentially lethal threat to a stranger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:I definitely agree that they should show more restraint in general, but choosing shooting dogs as your hill to die on is a very poor strategic choice, since it's a clearly defensible position that people deliberately choose not to understand because they've chosen to have a best friend that is indistinguishable from a potentially lethal threat to a stranger. You do realize that you can rather easily detect when a dog is saying 'Hi there!' and when he is saying 'gently caress off!', right? It's not something that you have to be a loving dog whisperer for. I could say this right now, straight up. If a cop came into my home, and shot my dogs, I don't know what I'd do. I don't know if I'd be able to stop myself from trying to hurt the officer to defend my animals. If cops are so loving terrified of people, they should be terrified of what those people might do in anger or in the attempt to save their animals. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Cops don't have the luxury of assuming they aren't in an active combat zone. It boggles my mind that people who hate cops and see them as nothing but pure evil also have some kind of mental block in front of understanding why cops would be on higher alert than anyone else. I really don't hate cops at all but thanks for assuming that. Maybe, just maybe, a siege mentality isn't super conducive to law enforcement that doesn't shoot children while aiming for household pets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:People who take the risk that the dog running at them isn't a killer warbeast: literally everyone not in an active combat zone. Quite right. That's cats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Cops don't have the luxury of assuming they aren't in an active combat zone. Neither do 7-11 clerks or taxi drivers. Does that mean they should be allowed a different standard in the use of force?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Cops don't have the luxury of assuming they aren't in an active combat zone. This isn't your neighborhood, it's fuckin' Fallujah. War on Crime is 24/7/365 citizen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Neither do 7-11 clerks or taxi drivers. Does that mean they should be allowed a different standard in the use of force? The only reason I can think of why someone would want to attack or kill someone for being a 7-11 clerk or a taxi driver is if someone was robbing them, which is a risk inherent in any job that involves handling money. I can think of a lot more reasons why someone would want to attack or kill someone for being a cop, and the general attitude of this thread is pretty exemplary of them. People seem to regard them as subhuman scum because of the highly visible bad things that a few of them do, while the largely invisible ways we benefit from them are ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Cops don't have the luxury of assuming they aren't in an active combat zone. It boggles my mind that people who hate cops and see them as nothing but pure evil also have some kind of mental block in front of understanding why cops would be on higher alert than anyone else. It has never been safer in American history to be a cop then it currently is and that's a trend that keeps going in the right direction every year and has been doing so for decades. Violence is going down in society, not up. Someone is making a lot of money convincing police officers that they need to fear for their lives which simply isn't loving true. The list of occupations which have more deaths and accidents in America alone is enormous and that's in occupations where people aren't out to kill you ever. Police offers getting shot/stabbed/kicked happens but it's not significant cause of death in the field. As was mentioned a few pages back the vast majority of cops who die on the job do so driving their cars. Despite that I don't hear police talking about how the freeway is a warzone and civilian drivers are enemy combatants. Guns don't kill people, cars do. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Everything you need to know about policing in America. Pretty much. I'm just glad the cops in my tiny town haven't subscribed to that mentality yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Why should we pretend being a cop is dangerous when cops have the unlimited right to shoot any person or dog based on third-degree hypotheticals? You're not ever in danger if you get to shoot every dog you see because it might be part of a criminal conspiracy and might clamp onto your leg so a person who might exist can get the drop on you. You're taking ridiculous precautions against made-up dangers to ensure you never face any actual jeopardy, at the expense of everyone else's safety and freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:The only reason I can think of why someone would want to attack or kill someone for being a 7-11 clerk or a taxi driver is if someone was robbing them, which is a risk inherent in any job that involves handling money. I can think of a lot more reasons why someone would want to attack or kill someone for being a cop, and the general attitude of this thread is pretty exemplary of them. People seem to regard them as subhuman scum because of the highly visible bad things that a few of them do, while the largely invisible ways we benefit from them are ignored. So if it's a risk inherent to the job, taxi drivers and 7-11 clerks have the right to shoot any costumer they come across because they don't know that costumer's intentions? E: or is it just police that are allowed to do this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
I'm still wondering why the guy shot the dog that was in a locked car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:So if it's a risk inherent to the job, taxi drivers and 7-11 clerks have the right to shoot any costumer they come across because they don't know that costumer's intentions? Especially given that taxi drivers are, as a matter of actual fact, killed on the job more often than cops...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm still wondering why the guy shot the dog that was in a locked car. Because cops enjoy killing things and know they will never be held responsible. That dog could have been an advance scout for an invisible drug dealer!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:So if it's a risk inherent to the job, taxi drivers and 7-11 clerks have the right to shoot any costumer they come across because they don't know that costumer's intentions? If I'm not mistaken, you have the right to defend yourself if someone's legitimately threatening you (anyone, not just cops). Cops don't have the luxury of assuming that dogs running towards them aren't threatening. I understand that most people see this as ridiculous, but most people aren't cops and deliberately choose to not understand because they seem to think that cops should be suicidally altruistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
No one has disputed the right to defend yourself from a person or dog who is actually attacking you. What does that have to do with breaking into someone's house or car and shooting their dog, a common cop recreational activity that is the subject of the incidents cited on this page? You don't get to claim dog self-defense when the only reason the animal is physically able to interact with you at all is because you illegally broke down a barrier between you and the dog in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:If I'm not mistaken, you have the right to defend yourself if someone's legitimately threatening you (anyone, not just cops). Cops don't have the luxury of assuming that dogs running towards them aren't threatening. I understand that most people see this as ridiculous, but most people aren't cops and deliberately choose to not understand because they seem to think that cops should be suicidally altruistic. A legitimate threat, you say. Not just a possible one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
You still haven't explained why a lone dog calls for lethal force. Why is a gun the go to as opposed to the array of other tools that police have at their disposal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:People who take the risk that the dog running at them isn't a killer warbeast: literally everyone not in an active combat zone. The police are in an active combat zone. Everyone everywhere is an insurgent waiting to kill them. Weren't you listening? Anyway, I've yet to hear a real reason why the rules governing use of force on animals (that aren't the subject of a call) are different for the police (who just happened to hop a fence without warrant or invitation) and anyone else who might go to someone's door.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:You still haven't explained why a lone dog calls for lethal force. Why is a gun the go to as opposed to the array of other tools that police have at their disposal. There seems to be an unstated assumption here that cops should treat dogs like little people. I hate to break this to you, but dogs aren't people. I understand that this is hard for some to grasp since they get so emotionally invested and attached to them. I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as other options (hit it with a baton? dog has successfully distracted you. pepper spray it? i'm not sure that would actually be effective in most situations). On that note, I think it's absolutely absurd that shooting a police dog is equivalent to shooting an actual human cop in the eyes of the law. Dogs are not people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:There seems to be an unstated assumption here that cops should treat dogs like little people. I hate to break this to you, but dogs aren't people. I understand that this is hard for some to grasp since they get so emotionally invested and attached to them. I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as other options (hit it with a baton? dog has successfully distracted you. pepper spray it? i'm not sure that would actually be effective in most situations). I fully acknowledge that dogs are property. I don't think cops should destroy my property for fun. You seem to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
How about not escalating the situation and calling animal control? Or, if time is a factor, there is pepper spray marketed specifically for use against aggressive dogs, as well as other non-lethal repellents. Unless your argument is that any attempt to not kill the dog is a ~distraction~ that will get the police officer killed. What about in situations with more than one officer? Why can't one deal with the dog while the other covers him? I guess de-escalation is just a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Furthermore, dogs are hardly the issue here. The issue is a completely permissive police culture that allows abuses like this to occur http://youtu.be/u7B1VIbl4x4 E: At least these officers lost their jobs, but have since been fighting to be reinstated and given back pay. The fact of the matter is that they should have been arrested and charged for their actions like any other citizen would be. E2: Stop resisting Eugene V. Deadlift fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
More people want to kill cops than your average civilian. Their paranoia seems a little justified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Cole posted:More people want to kill cops than your average civilian. Their paranoia seems a little justified. quote:http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/27/16196680-police-deaths-down-23-percent-this-year-across-us http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/16/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/ quote:But the 2012 murder rate — 4.7 murders per 100,000 people — was significantly higher than in most other wealthy nations. You are more than 7 times as likely to be murdered as a "civilian" than a cop. The idea that cop work is particularly dangerous or life-threatening just isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Cole posted:More people want to kill cops than your average civilian. Their paranoia seems a little justified. Let's further militarize the police and give them more latitude, that should end the cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Let's further militarize the police and give them more latitude, that should end the cycle. Or we could repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all guns so that police wouldn't have to be militarized just to be able to stop an average criminal, but it's not like that's ever going to happen. You can either let everyone have all the guns they want OR de-militarize the police. You don't get to have both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Or we could repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all guns so that police wouldn't have to be militarized just to be able to stop an average criminal, but it's not like that's ever going to happen. Urban areas aren't the ones with gun nuts stockpiling weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Urban areas aren't the ones with gun nuts stockpiling weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Let's not get too far into gunland, but with 300 million weapons in circulation police won't go feeling safer just because we pass some extra laws. And the bottom line is that police are not particularly in danger, which is why I mentioned the jobs of cab driver and convenience store clerk earlier. Perceptions of danger do not validate disproportionate use of force, as we all said in the old Trayvon threads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Neither rural or urban areas are under any epidemic of gun crime or police deaths, both of which have been on a continuous year-to-year downturn for decades. The "all those civilians trying to murder me" cop mentality is solely due to cops being paranoid, violent, and dumb and not due to anything in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Neither rural or urban areas are under any epidemic of gun crime or police deaths, both of which have been on a continuous year-to-year downturn for decades. The "all those civilians trying to murder me" cop mentality is solely due to cops being paranoid, violent, and dumb and not due to anything in reality. Has anyone considered that police die at a relatively low rate as a consequence of their overzealous brutality, or does that make too much sense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Has anyone considered that police die at a relatively low rate as a consequence of their overzealous brutality, or does that make too much sense? Generally zealous brutality makes people more likely to want to see you dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Has anyone considered that police die at a relatively low rate as a consequence of their overzealous brutality, or does that make too much sense? Increased cop deaths are an acceptable tradeoff for returning civil liberties and the rule of law to this country. Cops want to crow about how dangerous their work is and how they should get so many benefits as a result, they should put their money where their mouth is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Has anyone considered that police die at a relatively low rate as a consequence of their overzealous brutality, or does that make too much sense? So do you think this justifies overzealous brutality?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:If I'm not mistaken, you have the right to defend yourself if someone's legitimately threatening you (anyone, not just cops). Cops don't have the luxury of assuming that dogs running towards them aren't threatening. I understand that most people see this as ridiculous, but most people aren't cops and deliberately choose to not understand because they seem to think that cops should be suicidally altruistic. "Everyone is out to kill me, so I should kill them first" is not a healthy attitude for someone to have if they are going to be put in a position of power. If that's the only reaction they can muster, they shouldn't be serving the public. If you think that's altruism, then yeah, they should be altruistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
So is Ableist playing devil's advocate, or does he legit believe that cops can do no wrong and we are blessed when they kill only our dogs and not us?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
E-Tank posted:So is Ableist playing devil's advocate, or does he legit believe that cops can do no wrong and we are blessed when they kill only our dogs and not us? This is what I'm talking about when I say people are blinded by emotion. Shooting dogs is perfectly justified; just because you know your dog is a sweetheart and loves people doesn't mean a stranger can tell that. Police can't take the risk that it's some kind of attack dog. Not even considering the cop's perspective of not wanting to be bit by a dog, it's in the public's best interest for the police to not expose themselves to unnecessary risk of death while doing their job. Don't conflate shooting dogs with legitimate issues of police brutality, it isn't doing you any favors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:34
|
|