|
chitoryu12 posted:Are you really so divorced from reality that you don't understand the difference between "Aiming something that looks identical to a real gun without actually grabbing and examining it" and "Isn't actually holding anything but tugs at his waistband"? In that case, being told, "One of these three people likely has a gun," followed by one of the three acting belligerently, then moving quickly to pull something out of his waistband, would constitute a chain of events that can be reasonably perceived as a threat of imminent lethal danger.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I was seriously asking, I should've known that's exactly what you meant, people in this thread are literal sociopaths. Somehow killing innocent people is justice and arguing against it is wrong and stupid. No, its not wrong and stupid; I didn't mean it that way - I'm sorry. I meant that everyone here started off trying to have a policy debate, and the minute one person (not me, at first) disagreed with the party line, it became a poo poo flinging contest. I think you are right, in that we should be having the discussion; I get frustrated when the discussion becomes, "Well, you have a different perspective than me, you're a literal baby killer."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
It doesn't take a warrior not to piss your pants in fear every time you see a young person in baggy pants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:It doesn't take a warrior not to piss your pants in fear every time you see a young person in baggy pants. And Heart to heart you'll win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Also lol to your reasoning that somehow a cop will be found liable for someone's death for attempting to render medical aid. I mean, cops can't even be held liable when they fill someone with holes, cuff them, and then shout at their prone bodies until they bleed out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:No, its not wrong and stupid; I didn't mean it that way - I'm sorry. I meant that everyone here started off trying to have a policy debate, and the minute one person (not me, at first) disagreed with the party line, it became a poo poo flinging contest. Well, when the party line is, 'gee, maybe police shouldn't be so eager to kill unarmed citizens in what is supposedly a first-world democracy,' then yeah, it's kind of hard to see why anyone can disagree with that. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And Heart to heart you'll win. fool_of_sound posted:blarzgh have you ever been a black man arrested by a police officer with a drawn weapon? you aren't allowed to say that he acted incorrectly unless you can prove you could have done better in the same circumstances
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
You know, I think I've changed my mind. I used to think that people were generally non-violent and the chance of being killed was slim to none. But now that I know that there are people who think it's perfectly ok for people to die for no reason, well, the world seems a lot scarier now. Still waiting to get pricing details for my new suit, http://www.securityprousa.com/noname125.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Oh, I guess ya'll are right. Better keep posting on the internet about it instead. People are allowed to talk about things on the internet. If people debating about police abuse bothers you why are you reading a thread called "let's debate about police, criminal justice and Baltimore riots"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you think empowering the police to provide liability free medical care to non-consenting suspects will improve things? Well, when they've already provided them with liability free bullets I really don't see how it could be worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Well, when the party line is, 'gee, maybe police shouldn't be do eager to kill unarmed citizens in what is supposedly a first-world democracy,' then yeah, it's kind of hard to see why anyone can disagree with that. Thats not a "party line." Its hyperbolic, inflammatory rhetoric, designed to create a line in the sand. Its argument by proxy, "If you disagree with anything I say, its because you love cops and love killing innocent children. Mostly I object because its a flawed basis for a discussion about the use of force by the state, and thus an impediment to actual "debate" and "discussion."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:blarzgh have you ever been a black man arrested by a police officer with a drawn weapon? you aren't allowed to say that he acted incorrectly unless you can prove you could have done better in the same circumstances I wasn't black at the time, but I was in my underwear and wasn't doing anything illegal. It was a cold night in jail, I'll tell you that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Well, when they've already provided them with liability free bullets I really don't see how it could be worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:blarzgh have you ever been a black man arrested by a police officer with a drawn weapon? you aren't allowed to say that he acted incorrectly unless you can prove you could have done better in the same circumstances Additionally, blarzgh, talking about it here isn't going to change anything about people being pissed at police even if you were, so you should probably just stop posting in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Thats not a "party line." Its hyperbolic, inflammatory rhetoric, designed to create a line in the sand. Its argument by proxy, "If you disagree with anything I say, its because you love cops and love killing innocent children. You've provided nothing but apologia for people who have repeatedly murdered the poo poo out of unarmed citizens for extremely minor provocations. What are you even suggesting? That the opening scene in Predator 2 is a documentary about crime and us neoliberal anarchists just don't see the dangers out there for a cop?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Well, when the party line is, 'gee, maybe police shouldn't be so eager to kill unarmed citizens in what is supposedly a first-world democracy,' then yeah, it's kind of hard to see why anyone can disagree with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I was seriously asking, I should've known that's exactly what you meant, people in this thread are literal sociopaths. Somehow killing innocent people is justice and arguing against it is wrong and stupid. That was apparent about 140 pages ago when it became clear that property has more value than a human life, even something as insignificant as a wallet. It's also why I'm vehemently anti-gun. I grew up around them (Hunter uncle, father had his army sharpshooter thing and a decent collection) and as an object I have no issue with them whatsoever. I was brought up with the "Every gun is loaded, period" and "Do not point a gun at something you don't intend to kill" drilled into my head. The problem I have is the TFR sociopaths are the ones that want them. It's not worth the tradeoff. Granted watching a grandfather blow away his grandson at a gunshow because he didn't follow those two simple rules (Guy brought a gun to his booth, checked the chamber and noticed a round was in it, fingers slipped and the gun went off which was pointed at his grandson) and going to a gun range half a dozen times also helped me realize gun nuts love to parrot the bullshit but don't follow any of it. After the gun show my father decided it wasn't worth it and sold his entire collection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You've provided nothing but apologia for people who have repeatedly murdered the poo poo out of unarmed citizens for extremely minor provocations. What are you even suggesting? That the opening scene in Predator 2 is a documentary about crime and us neoliberal anarchists just don't see the dangers out there for a cop? See, this is what I mean; calling someone an "apologist" for saying they can see both sides of a scenario - for admitting they don't have divine knowledge of the situation, and what was in the brains of the people who lived it. The cop says he reasonably believed he feared for his life, I believe cops should be allowed to use deadly force to defend their lives and the lives of others, and I don't personally believe that I have enough evidence or information to form a belief that controverts his statement of the facts. Based on that chain of information, what other position could I possibly take?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Are we now accepting the proposition that something which appears to pose an imminent lethal danger can be reasonably responded to with deadly force, even if later turns out to have not been dangerous? Stop being disingenuous. There's a massive difference between an actual identical replica of a real gun being held and completely empty hands making a slightly suspicious motion. You're trying to conflate the two as the exact same thing and both worthy of the exact same response when they're not even in the same ballpark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Your license only allows you to practice medicine if you shoot the patient first." Aren't cops taught really basic first aid in the academy, or at least CPR? I've seen videos of cops saving choking babies so I don't think there's some loophole in the Good Samaritan law that prevents them from rendering aid. Is it the fact that the chest/head wounds they inflict with a "good shot" are untreatable by their extremely limited medical training?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:In addition to what blarzgh said, this is a totally non-productive party line. The police aren't magically going to become less eager to kill unarmed citizens, we have to craft policy that creates that effect. Unfortunately policy needs to measured against reality, and a lot of the conflict comes into play when people examine how some proposals work in general, rather than in the specific circumstances the news reports. Every suggestion brought up in terms of changes to policy, training, etc. has pretty much been dismissed offhand as hippie bullshit from people who just don't understand the reality of how dangerous one of the least dangerous professions in America is. How do you even measure these things outside of specific news reports when you're talking about hundreds and thousands of different police departments, none of which are held to any particular overarching standard, none of whom reliably report all relevant data to a governing agency? In a society in which riots are apparently necessary to attract the attention of the Department of Justice?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Every suggestion brought up in terms of changes to policy, training, etc. has pretty much been dismissed offhand as hippie bullshit from people who just don't understand the reality of how dangerous one of the least dangerous professions in America is. quote:How do you even measure these things outside of specific news reports when you're talking about hundreds and thousands of different police departments, none of which are held to any particular overarching standard, none of whom reliably report all relevant data to a governing agency? In a society in which riots are apparently necessary to attract the attention of the Department of Justice?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The cop says he reasonably believed he feared for his life, I believe cops should be allowed to use deadly force to defend their lives and the lives of others Show me one case where a normal beat cop saved the life of someone else by shooting an assailant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you have a proposal you want to discuss, you should do that instead of making up unproductive, basically tautological "party lines". I made a case that guns should be banned from use as self-defense. I also think I said normal beat cops shouldn't have guns too. But everyone seems to think it's a joke or something, that it's not possible for americans not to kill each other and that guns are saving lives every day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Show me one case where a normal beat cop saved the life of someone else by shooting an assailant. I'm not on blarzgh's side at all, but there actually is at least one case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Show me one case where a normal beat cop saved the life of someone else by shooting an assailant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Stop being disingenuous. There's a massive difference between an actual identical replica of a real gun being held and completely empty hands making a slightly suspicious motion. You're trying to conflate the two as the exact same thing and both worthy of the exact same response when they're not even in the same ballpark. Rhesus Pieces posted:Aren't cops taught really basic first aid in the academy, or at least CPR? I've seen videos of cops saving choking babies so I don't think there's some loophole in the Good Samaritan law that prevents them from rendering aid. Is it the fact that the chest/head wounds they inflict with a "good shot" are untreatable by their extremely limited medical training?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I'm not on blarzgh's side at all, but there actually is at least one case. It's really hard to see what's going on in that video, but I won't argue that the cop might have saved that girls life by ending the life of someone else. Though I do argue that there might've been an alternative solution that didn't require the death of anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Every suggestion brought up in terms of changes to policy, training, etc. has pretty much been dismissed offhand as hippie bullshit Maybe, but now I think people are more receptive. The problem is that there were 623 people killed by Police in 2014. We think that was too many. Over 200 of them were found to be "unjustified." Some of those that were found to be "justified" we believe were not. So the question is, 1) how to identify and categorize the questionable ones in the middle, and 2) how to develop solutions to address the ones in the middle, and to prevent as many of them as possible from a) happening again, and in the alternative b) prevent them from being erroneously deemed "justified", after the fact. Can we agree on this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
This is what I was looking for, seems legit. Though I still think it's incredibly rare that cops are there just in time to save the day, though I'm sure the security guard definitely appreciated it. edit: actually, this is not what I was looking for, these cops were at this event as security. I'm talking about cop stumbles on a crime and saves the day, not a trained police force tasked with providing security at an event. edit2: I should explain. What I'm trying to quantify is how often is it beneficial for normal every day beat cops to be running around with guns. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
the assailant began “counting down” the last seconds of the young girl’s life. edit: not a quote, using your /url tag because I'm lazy. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:This is what I was looking for, seems legit. Though I still think it's incredibly rare that cops are there just in time to save the day, though I'm sure the security guard definitely appreciated it. Why does it matter? What is your point? That in the all of human experience, all 375,000,000 Americans, interacting with thousands of one another every day, just because you haven't thought of a scenario where a police officer would be justified in using deadly force, then there probably isn't one? Honestly, if you feel that way, you're entitled to that opinion. But I can't imagine there is a discussion to be had about the procedures for the use of deadly force by police, if your position is that there should never be the use of deadly force by police. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not being disingenuous, some posters were arguing earlier that the fact of a threat is more important than the perception of it. If we accept my proposition, then we're just arguing about what constitutes a reasonable perception. An airsoft gun without an orange tip is literally a perfect external replica of a real gun until you're either a foot away or you physically pick up the gun and examine it. Someone without anything in their hands pulling up their waistband is not even close to the same thing and should never be reasonable cause to murder someone. ElCondemn posted:It's really hard to see what's going on in that video, but I won't argue that the cop might have saved that girls life by ending the life of someone else. Though I do argue that there might've been an alternative solution that didn't require the death of anyone. That's actually pretty unlikely. It's hard to tell, but the officer didn't fire until the guy with the knife actually began pushing the blade into his hostage's flesh. He literally tried to get a surrender until the very final moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Maybe, but now I think people are more receptive. Yeah, of course, but this has nothing to do with any of the ridiculous poo poo that you've been saying to defend Cruz. Honestly, I think that fear of not making it home has been woven so tightly into cop culture that there isn't really a good way to go about fixing the problems with American policing short of completely tearing it down and building it back up from scratch. For starters, we could stop using the Dinkheller boogyman as a training aid and recognize it as an extreme outlier. Maybe let cops know where they rank in terms of America's most deadly professions. Train them to realize that the majority of the people they interact with on a daily basis are not in fact looking for an excuse to gun down a cop, not even criminals. I mean, it could at least help in situations like the one we're currently discussing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:the assailant began “counting down” the last seconds of the young girl’s life. This is precisely what I'm saying we should do, if some knife wielding maniac shows up the normal beat cops cordon the area off and the trained ones with guns can come and save the day. That's what I'm envisioning is what would happen most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Why does it matter? What is your point? That in the all of human experience, all 375,000,000 Americans, interacting with thousands of one another every day, just because you haven't thought of a scenario where a police officer would be justified in using deadly force, then there probably isn't one? My point is that I believe most police interactions that end in death could be avoided if regular untrained scared beat cops didn't have guns. I'm all for trained people coming in when a real threat has been determined, but not so cool with joe schmoe cop making a split second decision to play hero. At my work we have what's called "escalation procedures", if the untrained desk jockey can't resolve the issue we escalate to a more qualified department/individual. I don't think it's super likely that the average street cop is an awesome sharp shooter or all that good at assessing threats. I would prefer that cops run away when they feel they're in danger rather than starting a gun fight in the streets. If the threat continues after the tier 1 cops flee we can bring in cops who've been trained for this kind of thing. I'm just trying to figure out if the benefits of cops having guns outweigh the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:edit: actually, this is not what I was looking for, these cops were at this event as security. I'm talking about cop stumbles on a crime and saves the day, not a trained police force tasked with providing security at an event. What are you asking for? Some kind of scenario where a crazed murderer, hopped up on goofballs, states to several impartial camera crews "I will kill a person immediately and not wait for other police to show up!" before Andy Griffith takes him down with his trusty .38?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Yeah, of course, but this has nothing to do with any of the ridiculous poo poo that you've been saying to defend Cruz. I think its going to be hard to convince any human, who's job it is to confront the crminals of the world, to change their perspective. There's only like 50 police deaths every year from being shot by defendants, but there are 50,000 assaults on police officers every year. Anyone who wanted to would attribute the low death, high assault ratio to police being better trained, and equipped than their assailants, thus fewer assaults resulting in death. I think the solution is better on the back end - body cams are the right solution. First and foremost, I'm just not a big proponent of what I perceive to be "just change human nature" as a solution. I think incentive based measures have and will always produce the best results. I think its the rare, true double-edged sword that rewards justified conduct, and punishes unjustified conduct. The protect officers from unecessary liability (from my bretheren) and protect individuals from the police at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm just trying to figure out if the benefits of cops having guns outweigh the cost. Then i think, in fairness, you'd have to account for all the crime that didn't happen because police had guns but didn't use them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm just trying to figure out if the benefits of cops having guns outweigh the cost. There are cases when a sidearm is absolutely necessary to protect the officer's life and the life of his or her partner and the surrounding area. Here's a good example, skip to about 1:55: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q19u2qivGbw
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:01
|
|