|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...16f7_story.htmlquote:MILAN — A man on trial for fraudulent bankruptcy opened fire in Milan’s courthouse Thursday in a “cold, premeditated” spree, killing his lawyer, a co-defendant and a judge before being captured nearly 25 kilometers away as he fled on a motorbike, officials said. Italy managed to capture a guy who killed a bunch of people in a court house, and was captured alive with a loaded pistol. It blows my mind every time I hear about a case like this, and then next week you hear a cop shot someone because they were afraid for their life and the guy was unarmed and just vaguely moving in a way the cop didn't like, and then everyone's fine with it.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
There's a weird attitude in the U.S (and it's present on these forums sometimes as well) where police interactions with non-police is a zero sum game where if you ask cops to not be as trigger happy, you are directly calling for more officers to be killed. That is not hyperbole at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Lemming posted:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...16f7_story.html I believe this also has a lot to do with the American attitude to say "it's his fault" and "he asked for it". I always wondered how a culture could develop such an attitude to basically be okay with someone who did a minor mistake to suffer catastrophic, life ruining results. I remember reading about this German kid who broke (or just stumbled) into a garage and was gunned down by the owner (I am german btw) and read some comments in American newspapers and I was dumbfounded how many actually blamed the victim for it. Like it is totally okay for someone to die because he went into the wrong garage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
demonicon posted:I believe this also has a lot to do with the American attitude to say "it's his fault" and "he asked for it". I always wondered how a culture could develop such an attitude to basically be okay with someone who did a minor mistake to suffer catastrophic, life ruining results. Just the other day at work there was some employees talking about shooting anyone who came to their house. One person recounted a story of someone knocking on her door at ten pm and her standing looking through the peep hole with a loaded gun watching them (the person outside was black). She ended the story with the person eventually pulling out a cell phone and calling someone that they weren't sure they were at the right address and turns out they were a few houses down the street off and they left but it was pretty unnerving that the person telling the story didn't seem to think it was bad that they were ready to shoot someone who was just lost. Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The extremely low number of officers shot to death in the line of duty that I provided shows exactly what threat cops have from guns: slim to none. The 2nd Amendment allows for legal firearms ownership, but I don't think legally owned firearms are commonly used to shoot the police anyway. The chance of an American officer being shot to death by a civilian is less than a hundredth of a percent...but the chance of them shooting you is literally orders of magnitude greater. You have as much chance of being murdered by a police officer as you do of being murdered by a civilian in Texas. chitoryu12 posted:Again, highly doubtful. There's an estimated 270 million firearms in civilian hands in the US but police death by shooting is less than a hundredth of a percent of all officers; at 30 shooting deaths in 2013, that's about 0.00001 police officers killed for every legally owned gun in the country. The number of guns in the US always gets brought up to justify armed officers who whip their guns out at every chance they get, but police murder literally over 3500% more civilians than civilians murder cops. For example, in 2013 there were only nine fatal commercial aircraft accidents according to the ICAO. However, most people would not conclude that the relatively low rate of accidents indicates that aviation safety is not a serious concern and that we should reduce our spending on aviation safety mechanisms because they are largely unnecessary. Rather, it indicates that our aviation safety mechanisms are highly effective. If hostile suspects are frequently deterred by the display of a firearm, that would be an argument if favor of arming officers, but much like "accidents prevented," aggressors deterred by an officer's firearm are impossible to capture in data. Similarly, although relatively few officers are being killed by aggressors compared to historical trends, it may only indicate that officer safety training has increased their ability to mitigate risk. It could also be due to improving medical treatment and wide issue of Kevlar vests allowing more officers to survive wounds that previously would have been fatal. The number in a vacuum tells us nothing. I also take serious issue with your characterization of every single officer shooting as a murder. Comparing unlawful killings of police to every single person killed by police in the line of duty including those killed in unambiguously lawful shootings is going to skew the numbers a bit. Again, we run into a data problem. I'm not going to expect you to assume that every single shooting that ends up being deemed justified by internal affairs to be lawful, but if the vast majority of police shootings are of armed, violent suspects and the examples in this thread are the outliers, it deflates a lot of your argument. Again, a data collection problem, but you can't reasonably assume that every officer involved shooting is by default unlawful and unjustified. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Just the other day at work there was some employees talking about shooting anyone who came to their house. One person recounted a story of someone knocking on her door at ten pm and her standing looking through the peep hole with a loaded gun watching them (the person outside was black). She ended the story with the person eventually pulling out a cell phone and calling someone that they weren't sure they were at the right address and turns out they were a few houses down the street off and they left but it was pretty unnerving that the person telling the story didn't seem to think it was bad that they were ready to shoot someone who was just lost. I once mentioned to someone I was toying with the idea of target shooting as a hobby and asked about what kind of costs he runs into with his pistols, and it almost Immediately flipped around to him telling me about how to reposition bodies in my apartment to make sure I'm legally in the clear. And you know what? This didn't surprise me. There's a lot if people out there with "self-defense" murder fantasies taking up a lot of real estate in their heads and treating it as part of gun culture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I also take serious issue with your characterization of every single officer shooting as a murder. Comparing unlawful killings of police to every single person killed by police in the line of duty including those killed in unambiguously lawful shootings is going to skew the numbers a bit. Again, we run into a data problem. I'm not going to expect you to assume that every single shooting that ends up being deemed justified by internal affairs to be lawful, but if the vast majority of police shootings are of armed, violent suspects and the examples in this thread are the outliers, it deflates a lot of your argument. Again, a data collection problem, but you can't reasonably assume that every officer involved shooting is by default unlawful and unjustified. You keep saying "data problem" as if it's just this reality that we need to deal with, when in fact it's a figure that's intentionally hidden by cops. I'm not making an argument about any sort of conclusion you'd draw from that information, just commenting on your framing. You shoud replace "data problem" or "data collection problem" with the more accurate "problem with collecting data which are intentionally and systemically obfuscated by the police."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I also take serious issue with your characterization of every single officer shooting as a murder. Comparing unlawful killings of police to every single person killed by police in the line of duty including those killed in unambiguously lawful shootings is going to skew the numbers a bit. Again, we run into a data problem. I'm not going to expect you to assume that every single shooting that ends up being deemed justified by internal affairs to be lawful, but if the vast majority of police shootings are of armed, violent suspects and the examples in this thread are the outliers, it deflates a lot of your argument. Again, a data collection problem, but you can't reasonably assume that every officer involved shooting is by default unlawful and unjustified. This is something police have been caught doing for decades, just rarely on camera and daylight. Nobody is able to say how common or uncommon this is, not you, not me. It is a fair assumption that it's way more common than people who have been caught doing it, and the ease with which this case was done implies it's more common than "just an outlier", along with actual current and former LEOs saying it's more common than you think, and taking a "data doesn't support" stance is quite naive given the cards lie entirely in the hands of the people who stand to lose in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Lemming posted:You keep saying "data problem" as if it's just this reality that we need to deal with, when in fact it's a figure that's intentionally hidden by cops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Charleston, not North Charleston, city PD officer barricaded inside his house. 100 people trapped in houses, County SWAT on scene. http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...st-ashley-house
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:because the question of whether a shooting was justified (as opposed to lawful) is inherently a value judgement. Posters in this thread have stated that they think any shooting in which there was any possibility for the officers to take the suspect in alive, even at great personal risk, is unjustified. The law doesn't necessarily agree. Law is not an issue here and the law in the US regarding justified shootings by the police is almost identical to those of other western nations. And these countries have nationwide statistics. The thing is that literally all cases in this thread were cases where officers (or anyone else) were never in great personal risk. Noone here is arguing that us police officers should behave like super ninjas and bare handedly wrestle guns out of the hands of criminals. We are talking about cases where people were shot in the back while running away unarmed or were sleeping children were killed. Or where people with toy guns were killed without ever noticing that police was there. These are all situations where the shooting is both Unjustified and unlawful. The thing is that the law is never applied. Would the law actually be applied you would just use the data about prosecuted officers involved in shootings and have these statistics. demonicon fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Looking at pure numbers of people shot by officers Where are those numbers? I was under the impression that they aren't officially tracked. Untagged posted:In a lot of jurisdictions the officer involved does not actually write "the report". The official report is written by the investigating agency, IA, or a supervisor, etc. Ok, I messed up. I didn't mean report. I should have said sworn statement. He had to give it at some point. News articles keep referring to differences in the police reports vs the video. I just want to read what the police said before the video came out. spacetoaster fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Mavric posted:This here. Its very obvious from the amount of people approving of deadly force in situations that could have easily ended without a gun being involved, not just in cop shootings but also civilian on civilian shootings. Even with this shooting with a video showing how completely in the wrong cop is you will find comments everywhere approving of his actions simply because the guy resisted. Americans are scared armed children, and the 2nd amendment supporters have done nothing to mitigate this fear which only leads to approval of deadly force. Let's be honest - this would be a huge deal to them if the guy killed was a white Tea Partier. It's racism at its heart. I also don't understand why it's wrong to call on officers to risk their lives - soldiers know they may sacrifice their lives in service to their country, yet somehow we're not "directly calling for soldiers' deaths" when we ask them to defend (lol) us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Is there any discussion about the short amount of training the officer received? Because the german newspapers all report that he only received 9 weeks of training which sounds totally ridiculous around here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Because it is a profession. Not military service.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Let's be honest - this would be a huge deal to them if the guy killed was a white Tea Partier. It's racism at its heart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
demonicon posted:Is there any discussion about the short amount of training the officer received? Because the german newspapers all report that he only received 9 weeks of training which sounds totally ridiculous around here. I was under the impression that it was academy training followed by a year of apprenticeship with a veteran officer before being allowed to patrol on his own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:A York County, South Carolina deputy shot an unarmed 70 year-old disabled white war veteran on video two months ago. Nobody cared because the victim lived, and also white people getting shot by cops isn't much of a story. I'm unaware of both the old white dude's political affiliation and how Stormfront may or may not have commented on YouTube about the incident. I think the whole dying vs. living aspect is important, personally. Not sure what that other poo poo about Stromfront is about, guessing some lame attempt at a snipe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Nobody is able to say how common or uncommon this is, not you, not me. demonicon posted:We are talking about cases where people were shot in the back while running away unarmed or were sleeping children were killed. Or where people with toy guns were killed without ever noticing that police was there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Because it is a profession. Not military service. Here it's a profession too but you receive 2 1/2 (at a university and on the job) years of training before you even start at the lowest rank (basically traffic) and then you need another 2 years of study at a university to become an investigative officer. And in order to become an executive officer you then need to study at a police University for another 2 years. Edit source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landespolizei demonicon fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I think the whole dying vs. living aspect is important, personally. Not sure what that other poo poo about Stromfront is about, guessing some lame attempt at a snipe. Edit: Or possibly from NaturalNews, depending on topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Not really. Statements like "this suspect was only deterred by the display of a firearm" or "they could have safely taken the suspect into custody without shooting him" are by their nature counterfactuals. Even if there was mandatory nationwide reporting of every officer involved shooting, (something I support, btw) it wouldn't get you the information you want, because the question of whether a shooting was justified (as opposed to lawful) is inherently a value judgement. Posters in this thread have stated that they think any shooting in which there was any possibility for the officers to take the suspect in alive, even at great personal risk, is unjustified. The law doesn't necessarily agree. You could very easily categorize some as being vague. However, my point was still accurate. In this case, the official word from the police was that the shooting was justified. It very obviously was not. The data point exists, but the police were attempting to cover it up, like I said. The data does exist. It's not the cosmic nature of reality that we can't ever know statistics about police shootings. We don't know them because the police intentionally cover them up or lie about them. Dead Reckoning posted:OK, let's look at the cases of the cop who choked Eric Garner to death and the SWAT team that flashbanged a toddler. In both cases, a grand jury of ordinary citizens, not police, declined to indict. They legally found that there wasn't enough evidence to charge the officers with a crime, and legally those cops are in the clear. (Sort of like how OJ is legally not guilty of killing his wife.) In both cases, I would agree that the jury's logic was flawed and that the result was unjust, but you're complaining about an unjust result, not an illegal one. What do you think we should do to prevent that sort of unjust result in the future? What's the chance that the prosecution intentionally threw the grand jury indictment there, like they did in Ferguson? I'm going to go with eleventy billion percent likely. Only for them, the judge sealed the proceedings so that we never get to know for sure. Hooray, the system works! I'm sure the prosecution aren't friends with the cops or anything. Lemming fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Which is what I mean by a data problem. People want to say that the police need better oversight, no argument here. If they want to say that the police should be disarmed because the ratio of police unlawfully killed to people unlawfully killed by police is too high, they should probably acknowledge that they have no idea how many police shootings are unlawful, especially in light of chitoryu's position that literally everyone killed by police was murdered. Police officers should be tried before something akin to a court-martial. Of course with officers that operate on a federal level and don't involve anyone from the officers state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
demonicon posted:Here it's a profession too but you receive 2 1/2 (at a university and on the job) years of training before you even start at the lowest rank (basically traffic) and then you need another 2 years of study at a university to become an investigative officer. And in order to beome an executive officer you then need to study at a police University for another 2 years. Lemming posted:You could very easily categorize some as being vague. Eleventh billion percent based on what? Here are two concrete examples, and your argument is "I think the result is unjust, so it must have been due to prosecutorial malfeasance. QED." demonicon posted:Police officers should be tried before something akin to a court-martial. Of course with officers that operate on a federal level and don't involve anyone from the officers state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
demonicon posted:Police officers should be tried before something akin to a court-martial. Of course with officers that operate on a federal level and don't involve anyone from the officers state. Hmm, seems like removing civilians from the courtroom entirely wouldn't make the problem better, but maybe it would? At least the trials would be shorter, all the cops could just touch their dicks together and go for brewskis after the Not Guilty verdict was delivered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm having a hard time figuring out what the "nine months" is referring to. For example, basic Federal law enforcement training in the US is about 18 weeks, but eligibility usually requires an undergraduate degree, which takes two to four years to complete. After that, the officer would require various follow on training which can vary significantly in length, followed by a supervised probationary period, followed by periodic refresher training. Not 9 months. 9 weeks. According to a German newspaper here:http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/usa-kritik-an-ausbildung-von-polizisten-a-1027698.html linking to a wall Street article here http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-training-time-needed-for-south-carolina-police-experts-say-1428510642?cb=logged0.6995546384791691 the officer should have received 12 weeks of training originally but only underwent 9 of those. Which seems ridiculously short to me. Dead Reckoning posted:I'm curious, how much do you know about how court martials work in the United States? Only what I know from Wikipedia. The basis idea was that officers would be tried by actual professionals (including police officers) that are specifically trained for that but after thinking more about that, this would have a really bad witch-hunt character and would also be totally unconstitutional and undemocratic, so disregard that 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Even if there was mandatory nationwide reporting of every officer involved shooting, (something I support, btw) it wouldn't get you the information you want, because the question of whether a shooting was justified (as opposed to lawful) is inherently a value judgement. This is overthinking it, because the fact is that number (number of people killed with the police) should be easily available in a developed country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
demonicon posted:Only what I know from Wikipedia. The basis idea was that officers would be tried by actual professionals (including police officers) that are specifically trained for that but after thinking more about that, this would have a really bad witch-hunt character and would also be totally unconstitutional and undemocratic, so disregard that mastervj posted:This is overthinking it, because the fact is that number (number of people killed with the police) should be easily available in a developed country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And, as I stated earlier, "number of people killed by police" is not a useful measure of anything. Then why do you want it, if it's not useful? Dead Reckoning posted:Not really. Statements like "this suspect was only deterred by the display of a firearm" or "they could have safely taken the suspect into custody without shooting him" are by their nature counterfactuals. Even if there was mandatory nationwide reporting of every officer involved shooting, (something I support, btw) it wouldn't get you the information you want, because the question of whether a shooting was justified (as opposed to lawful) is inherently a value judgement. Posters in this thread have stated that they think any shooting in which there was any possibility for the officers to take the suspect in alive, even at great personal risk, is unjustified. The law doesn't necessarily agree. If categorizing whether or not the shooting was justified is impossible like you claim, the only thing that reporting on every police shooting would get you is the literal number of people killed by police. Now, claiming that you can never categorize these shootings is incredibly loving stupid (for example, shooting Walter Scott to death was not loving justified, but the cops tried to cover it up and claim it was! Whew, that was hard), but I'm just pointing out a contradiction here. Dead Reckoning posted:Eleventh billion percent based on what? Here are two concrete examples, and your argument is "I think the result is unjust, so it must have been due to prosecutorial malfeasance. QED." I based it on having a human brain that's able to reason. A man was killed on camera by a police officer using a chokehold that was banned by the department, and he was barely able to squeak out "I can't breathe," the cause of death was listed as a homicide by the coroner, and it's notoriously easy for prosecutors to get indictments if they actually want one. There was no indictment. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the case was thrown. I'm not going to give the system that charges itself the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Then why do you want it, if it's not useful? quote:I based it on having a human brain that's able to reason. A man was killed on camera by a police officer using a chokehold that was banned by the department, and he was barely able to squeak out "I can't breathe," the cause of death was listed as a homicide by the coroner, and it's notoriously easy for prosecutors to get indictments if they actually want one. There was no indictment. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the case was thrown. I'm not going to give the system that charges itself the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I assumed people would understand that "reporting" implied more extensive information than, "yep, our department shot thirteen people this year". Knowing the times, locations, and basic information (Was the suspect armed? With what? What sort of call were the officers responding to?) is useful for criminology, and trend analysis, and public record keeping even though it doesn't allow for holistic good shoot/bad shoot judgements that are based on the totality of circumstances. This sort of information is an excellent start for questions like, "let's examine why this county has twice the number of officer involved shootings as it's neighbors for the last five years" even though it is insufficient to draw conclusions on it's own. This is some Stats 101 stuff, so I guess it was a little generous of me to assume that people understood it. You're literally saying that we both can't determine whether or not a shooting was justified, and also that we should trust the results of the cops' internal investigations. We are easily able to determine that the shooting of Walter Scott was unlawful. Why do you keep insisting that this is not generally doable? I agree all of the information you suggested would be useful to have. I also think that it would be possible, if the police didn't try to cover it up or lie about it, that we could also tell how many of those shootings were justifiable or appropriate. This is the core point. You insist that we can get all sort of useful information, except anything that would suggest that the police are in the wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Second officer in Walter Scott video sued over alleged attack on handcuffed manThe Guardian posted:The second policeman in the video showing Walter Scott’s killing by officer Michael Slager is being sued by another black resident in South Carolina, who alleges police stomped on his face while he was handcuffed and lying on concrete. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/09/second-officer-walter-scott-video-sued-stomping
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:Second officer in Walter Scott video sued over alleged attack on handcuffed man
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
since cops can't be trusted with body or dash cameras, we should use taxpayer funds for equipping black people with body and dash cameras instead
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:since cops can't be trusted with body or dash cameras, we should use taxpayer funds for equipping black people with body and dash cameras instead It would have a lot of support. "Yeah, make sure those ni--thugs can't commit crimes. They wouldn't ATTACK POLICE so often if they had these!" And then when inevitably police kill less black people, "See, with cameras on them they commit less crimes and resist the police less, too!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
CNN just released the dash cam footage. You obviously can't see the shooting take place since he was pulled over away from where it occurred, but you see Slager ask Scott for his insurance paperwork and go back to his cruiser before Scott gets out of the car and flees. You hear Slager yelling at him to get on the ground before the video cuts. Not sure it really changes much given the video of the actual shooting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
http://www.wistv.com/story/28761385/sled-releases-dash-cam-footage-of-michael-slagers-patrol-car-before-fatal-shooting-of-walter-scott Is this the first time it's been noted that there's a passenger in the car?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Then you really might know what it's liiike. . . .
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:since cops can't be trusted with body or dash cameras, we should use taxpayer funds for equipping black people with body and dash cameras instead Or as a friend said, invest it in remaking Police Academy. Bring back Steve Guttenberg and Michael Winslow as Mahony and Jones, who now run the Academy. Make cops fun and cuddly for all the family again, instead of minority executioners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Then you really might know what it's liiike. . . . Ahahahaha oh my god, holy poo poo how is that real
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:41
|
|