|
SkaAndScreenplays posted:
Citation Needed.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
SkaAndScreenplays posted:Ask anyone in the military...UN Peacekeepers have the most absurd uniforms and are far and away some of the worst people in combat zones. 1. Police are not military and there should be no comparison. 2. UN Peacekeepers are not intended for combat and their lack of camouflage and the nature of their training reflects that. 3. UN Peacekeepers don't have uniforms per se, as they wear whatever their host nation issues them and then supplements it with blue coloration. 4. What the Christ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:1. Police are not military and there should be no comparison. UN Peacekeepers are soldiers from the sending nations and they have been used for Peace Enforcement and not just peace keeping, and taken part in plenty of battles, with tanks and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:UN Peacekeepers are soldiers from the sending nations
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Which means their quality varies wildly. They are generally no better or worse than the average of wherever they are from, which can be anything from hardened professionals to uniformed thugs. Their leadership is often somewhere between indecisive and a total clusterfuck based on which nations are nominally in control of the mission and how much they care about its objectives. I don't doubt that, but the thought of them being "the worst" is what I struck against. (also the nordic ones are really respected) 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I made the mistake of bringing this up in the Mike Brown thread, but it's probably a better topic here - wouldn't we see better outcomes by creating a degree of separation between police and firearms by keeping guns in a locked space, like a center console or car trunk? I understand the arguments against generally disarming police in a country like the United States, but even adding a basic step between a cop and his ability to use deadly force seems like it would discourage escalation at the drop of a hat by requiring some explicit decisions to bring a situation to that point. At the same time, the risk of suspects going for officers' firearms should basically disappear since they wouldn't even be accessible in the first place unless there was a reason to use deadly force. Yeah, I like this idea. Also add a tamper-evident seal that is inspected regularly that requires some sort of report if it's broken for any reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I made the mistake of bringing this up in the Mike Brown thread, but it's probably a better topic here - wouldn't we see better outcomes by creating a degree of separation between police and firearms by keeping guns in a locked space, like a center console or car trunk? I understand the arguments against generally disarming police in a country like the United States, but even adding a basic step between a cop and his ability to use deadly force seems like it would discourage escalation at the drop of a hat by requiring some explicit decisions to bring a situation to that point. At the same time, the risk of suspects going for officers' firearms should basically disappear since they wouldn't even be accessible in the first place unless there was a reason to use deadly force. Police unions imagine your glee at seeing a young rookie cop fumbling at his trunk seals, black horde advancing with sharpened toothbrushes
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
it's cute that you guys live in areas where people don't try to shoot police. Check your privilege, please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:it's cute that you guys live in areas where people don't try to shoot police. In an actual war zone - as I understand it - soldiers facing almost certainly armed & hostile belligerents often have to ask for permission before they can engage with lethal force. I don't think it's too much to give put at least that same amount of space between a police officer and their right / ability to deploy a weapon. It's not like they're dying in droves out there or like the average beat cop is infiltrating warehouses full of armed mooks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
The Ender posted:In an actual war zone - as I understand it - soldiers facing almost certainly armed & hostile belligerents often have to ask for permission before they can engage with lethal force. you understand it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:it's cute that you guys live in areas where people don't try to shoot police. How many police officers get shot per year, and how does that compare to the number of people who get shot by police officers? What about the number of fatalities on each side?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How many police officers get shot per year, and how does that compare to the number of people who get shot by police officers? What about the number of fatalities on each side? http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/ do you suggest that the number of officers killed should equal the number of suspects killed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/ He is saying that if more officers died he would be ok with the statistics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/ Perhaps that would make them more hesitant to use lethal force on unarmed or mentally handicapped "suspects".
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Perhaps that would make them more hesitant to use lethal force on unarmed or mentally handicapped "suspects". your logic is faulty...an increase in officer fatalities would make them MORE likely to deploy force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:your logic is faulty...an increase in officer fatalities would make them MORE likely to deploy force. Yeah. But it could possibly even out the dead people ratio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Cole posted:Yeah. But it could possibly even out the dead people ratio. and that's the important thing. As long as dead cops to dead suspects is 1:1, the system is fair!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Asking for numbers is not suggesting that more cops should be killed to 'even it out.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Seriously that's some incredibly disingenuous poo poo. It's also sadly an impossible request since they don't keep reliable statistics on people killed by the police.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/ That's only law enforcement firearms fatalities, there's nothing in that link about how many people are shot and killed by police. How do those figures compare? And I'm not implying that the numbers should be equal, and how in the world you got to that conclusion is beyond me. I'm saying that if police officers getting shot is an extremely rare occurrence (and your stats do confirm that), increasing the safeguards on police officer firearm use would increase the risk to police officers minimally if at all while making things safer for the people who have to interact with them. e: It would also protect officers from all those cases where they claim someone was going for their gun. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:increasing the safeguards on police officer firearm use would increase the risk to police officers minimally if at all while making things safer for the people who have to interact with them. And you know this from your extensive firearms training?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And you know this from your extensive firearms training? What does firearms training have to do with it? What part of "keeping police officers' guns locked away would make things safer for the people who have to interact with police" are you disputing exactly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What does firearms training have to do with it? What part of "keeping police officers' guns locked away would make things safer for the people who have to interact with police" are you disputing exactly? the part where it also results in officers more likely to be shot. but, you know...KILL ALL PIGS!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:the part where it also results in officers more likely to be shot. but, you know...KILL ALL PIGS! Do you go around lawyering with that literacy problem of yours? It explicitly says "the people who have to interact with police" in that post. That said, you pointed out that barely a few dozen police officers are shot and killed every year. You've repeatedly ducked the question about how many people are shot and killed by police, but even a cursory search will bring up far more cases than that. Are you saying it's unacceptable make an attempt to protect the people who interact with police if that may increase the barely existent instances of police officers getting shot? SedanChair posted:You just linked to total fatalities and talked about officers killed. Thanks for pointing that out. Firearms related fatalities would include training accidents, friendly fire, etc - the number of actual, intentional shootings of cops is even smaller than that already tiny number. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/ You just linked to total fatalities and talked about officers killed. A liar
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You just linked to total fatalities and talked about officers killed. what do you think the word fatality means?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Do you go around lawyering with that literacy problem of yours? It explicitly says "the people who have to interact with police" in that post. you do realize that many people who interact with the police, particularly those who end up shot, are not strolling up to offer the cop a hug, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you do realize that many people who interact with the police, particularly those who end up shot, are not strolling up to offer the cop a hug, right? You do realize that many people who interact with the police, including some who end up dead as a result, are not out to kill anyone? Are police lives worth more than regular peoples' in your mind or something? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You do realize that many people who interact with the police, including some who end up dead as a result, are not out to kill anyone? so how many of these fatalities (and I agree the fact there is not an accurate data point on this is a problem, and the first reform I would propose) do you think are just innocent bystanders, and how many do you think are posing a threat to the officer? your answer will determine how much privilege I think you are showing. and to answer your edit question...in the abstract, no. One life is not worth more than another. In a situation where an officer's life is in danger because of the suspect...yeah, I'd rather the cop live. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so how many of these fatalities (and I agree the fact there is not an accurate data point on this is a problem, and the first reform I would propose) do you think are just innocent bystanders, and how many do you think are posing a threat to the officer? There was probably a perceived threat in almost all of the cases. The problem is that someone going for a cell phone in a waistband, someone putting their hands up in a way that it looks like they're going for a cops' gun, someone who didn't hear an order because they are deaf or have multiple officers yelling conflicting orders at them, and so on and so on are all perceived threats that justify the use of deadly force. I don't think there's any way to show this using actual data, but I do believe that there is a very significant portion of police shootings that may be technically justified but could have in all likelihood been resolved without a dead body had some restraint been exercised. Hence the suggestion to create that level of separation between cops and their guns. Even locking it in a center console in the car that's easily reachable would require an officer to assess a situation, conclude that deadly force may be an acceptable option, and take explicit steps to introduce a deadly weapon into said situation. Ideally, accessing the weapon would require written justification after the fact as well and misuse would be addressed through training. Are there hypothetical situations where split-second access to the ability to kill someone is a matter of safety for a police officer? Sure, to some extent, but even a lot of those scenarios could have been prevented with a bit more caution. I do honestly believe that the increased danger to officers would be minimal, while a measurable number of non-police lives would be saved. Who knows, it may even make things safer for police overall by avoiding some accidental discharges and instances of suspects grabbing a gun. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
unfortunately they don't always have the luxury of time in which to make that assessment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:unfortunately they don't always have the luxury of time in which to make that assessment. Better safe than sorry right? What's the lives of a few civilians to the possible harm to the sainted police of America? They're just a few mud faced peasants after all, who knows what sort of crimes they might have been up to...
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:unfortunately they don't always have the luxury of time in which to make that assessment. Right, hence my assertion that the danger created to police would be outweighed by the reduction in danger to the general public by a slight increase in the time required for them to deploy deadly force. I don't know that you could prove that statement one way or another, which would appear to leave us at an impasse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Better safe than sorry right? What's the lives of a few civilians to the possible harm to the sainted police of America? They're just a few mud faced peasants after all, who knows what sort of crimes they might have been up to... so you would prefer the officer be shot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so you would prefer the officer be shot? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so you would prefer the officer be shot? If one additional officer getting shot is the price for two or three or ten members of the general public not getting shot because they were reaching for a wallet, who wouldn't prefer that outcome?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If one additional officer getting shot is the price for two or three or ten members of the general public not getting shot because they were reaching for a wallet, who wouldn't prefer that outcome? Probably the dead officer? Your nuts if you think the world is how you see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Better safe than sorry right? Which is a great argument for not doing what you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If one additional officer getting shot is the price for two or three or ten members of the general public not getting shot because they were reaching for a wallet, who wouldn't prefer that outcome? How about we kill you and promise to take guns from cops. Will you be ok with that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Untagged posted:Probably the dead officer? Your nuts if you think the world is how you see it. it really is a stunning display of privilege. but then, I have to worry about getting shot (not by cops) leaving my office too late at night. What can I say...it leaves me with a bit of a bias.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:00
|
|