|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Some other cops shot a black guy, so why can't these cops throw aside all human sentiment and gun down one of their co-workers in the middle of a hostage situation?" Did they teach you lovely strawman arguments in the Army?
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
Seems like born talent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
What gets me time and time again about the discussions that come up whenever something like this happens is that nobody really has a solid idea of where the bar should be set as far as treatment goes. It's always in comparison to some other incident, where people are always arguing that authorities gave someone too much/too little leeway compared to incident XYZ, which always feels like we're drifting in mostly empty space as far as standards go. So what I'm wondering is if there's any way to set a standard of treatment that's easily applied to most cases and can be parsed as "this is the measure of diplomatic leeway and compassion that must be shown".
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That guy who said this would be the bootlicker response called it. Seriously it was even on the same page but the rush to try and burn someone was too strong I guess. It's the same thing someone whined at me when I was complaining earlier that maybe everyone should get the leniency we afford police and white self defense proponents. The "  why are you supposed liberals that want police to treat people better asking police to treat people worse? Do you want more innocent people in jail or killed?? " crocodile tears doesn't fool anyone. This wouldn't be so comically transparent if the same people didn't set the bar for legal homicide so incredibly low when the average person (or even more-so a minority) is killed or attacked.When people complain that police treat their own differently it's because they are outraged that apparently cops are totally capable of putting aside their INTENSE FEAR of being shot by a potentially armed suspect and get the person in safely to be handled by the justice system instead of just taking the easiest and cowardly route, not that they want blood for blood. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
I know the answer to this one! He was a known colleague; therefore, the cops standing by knew that he was trained properly and had good trigger discipline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
Phone posted:I know the answer to this one! He was a known colleague; therefore, the cops standing by knew that he was trained properly and had good trigger discipline. He did hit his target without killing any bystanders I'll give him that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
That second article has a headline lower down that reads "Could the Woman have been Saved?" Answer: No, as she had the misfortune of dealing with cops. Edit: All the comments are talking about how the wife was mean for divorcing him and feeling sorry for the cop, what a great way to start a day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:That second article has a headline lower down that reads "Could the Woman have been Saved?" It did have this comment which was hilarious. quote:@Jrzguy8 "I wonder why NJ did not go with joint custody in this case," The pro-wife killer cop comments in the article I read were so over the top they had to be friends of the guy. Thankfully most of the responses were different variations of "are you crazy?" Also if you want to avoid loathsome comments avoid the story where the black family gets beat up by cops at a pool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Some other cops shot a black guy, so why can't these cops throw aside all human sentiment and gun down one of their co-workers in the middle of a hostage situation?" You're a disgusting joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Phone posted:I know the answer to this one! He was a known colleague; therefore, the cops standing by knew that he was trained properly and had good trigger discipline. Close, the answer is since he was a cop he knew his buddies weren't going to shoot him and they knew he wasn't going to shoot them so no need to poo poo pants and ventilate him. Plus he was busy pumping his wife full of bullets so he was no danger (to the cops)
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Some other cops shot a black guy, so why can't these cops throw aside all human sentiment and gun down one of their co-workers in the middle of a hostage situation?" Quiz time. What do you call a hostage situation where the hostage is being executed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
"The Article" posted:Obsessed with pornography and video games and violent from the start, Philip Seidle tortured his wife throughout their marriage
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Quiz time. What do you call a hostage situation where the hostage is being executed? Standard operating procedures
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Some other cops shot a black guy, so why can't these cops throw aside all human sentiment and gun down one of their co-workers in the middle of a hostage situation?" Weren't you previously arguing in this thread that it was justifiable to shoot an unarmed person in the back because he hiked up his pants and the motion kinda looked like he was preparing to pull out a gun? I think I'm just going to ignore you at this point. It's pretty obvious that you're arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Some other cops shot a black guy, so why can't these cops throw aside all human sentiment and gun down one of their co-workers in the middle of a hostage situation?" The point is that in some cases cops are actually capable of holding their fire and negotiating with a violent armed suspect and aren't helplessly conditioned to shoot and kill anything that moves, and therefore it isn't unreasonable to hold them to that standard in all cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Some other cops shot a black guy, so why can't these cops throw aside all human sentiment and gun down one of their co-workers in the middle of a hostage situation?" One trick pony
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Some other cops shot a black guy, so why can't these cops throw aside all human sentiment and gun down one of their co-workers in the middle of a hostage situation?" I would have no problem gunning down my co-workers, hostage situation or not. And I'm not even a cop!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
In all seriousness, part of being a cop is having to make hard decisions that you may not like for the good of everyone else. Yes, that includes the possibility of your friends and family going berserk and killing people because (surprise!) they're still humans and no less inclined toward crime than others just because they're your buddies. If you give someone special treatment even when he's committing a crime as heinous as cold-blooded murder (and is even pulling the trigger right in front of you), you shouldn't be a cop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:In all seriousness, part of being a cop is having to make hard decisions that you may not like for the good of everyone else. Yes, that includes the possibility of your friends and family going berserk and killing people because (surprise!) they're still humans and no less inclined toward crime than others just because they're your buddies. Make up your mind, do you want cops killing people or not?! It's not fair to be mad when they kill innocent black people but also get mad when they don't kill murderers who just happen to be white and police officers. Duh!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Of all the times that cops could shoot someone, I think shooting at someone who has already shot at their unarmed, defenseless spouse and then starts shooting at them again is justified, since maybe you can save someone's life by killing the violent, unstable person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Cops and the justice system (and their defenders in this thread) have made it crystal clear that they consider cops and paranoid, white gun owners to be higher levels of citizenry that are afforded specific rights like "not to be immediately shot" and "oopsie I thought he was scary after I snuck up on him and surprised him." Admittedly when the paranoid gun owner goes after the cops that right is promptly retracted. It's much more important to give that cop respect than it is to protect the life of his ex-wife. The result of these events show I'm not exaggerating.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Continuing from my last post, I know that special treatment among employees and similar people isn't unusual. The problem is that policework is a job that involves being handed various weapons (including guns) and the license to use force (up to and including lethal force) at your own discretion, something entirely unique. It makes special treatment or poorer treatment of certain people way, way worse than in other jobs because now the special treatment involves "This person is more deserving of life than this other person." Instead of just giving someone a buddy discount or filling out their boring paperwork for them, you're now including "I'll kill these guys for lesser crimes but not you when you're shooting your ex-wife right in front of me" among it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
quote:When she confronted him about the [porn and video game] addictions, he grew angry and attacked her, the complaint said. http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/slain_wife_accused_nj_cop_of_abuse_and_excessive_p.html Too bad police aren't held to something like the UCMJ which would have saved this woman's life. Bet she was too scared to call his buddies because she knew they would offer her no protection. Wonder what this officer's complaint file would look like, but at this point I doubt the department even took citizen complaints seriously enough to write down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Looking forward to seeing this guy get off. Even if he doesn't it doesn't bring back his battered wife that the department didn't give a poo poo about because their boy was doing the abusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
He's obviously not going to get off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Zelder posted:I would have no problem gunning down my co-workers, hostage situation or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbkwELpUhmA
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Lemming posted:He's obviously not going to get off. Yeah that's probably right (I'm posting out of frustration) but the point stands that this could have been prevented if not for professional courtesy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Lemming posted:He's obviously not going to get off. How optimistic. (you're right, though. even if Cleveland's finest are trying to brush off the Tamir Rice thing as a big misunderstanding, this one involves a white lady soooo)
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah that's probably right (I'm posting out of frustration) but the point stands that this could have been prevented if not for professional courtesy. Yeah, 100% agreed. That's the problem with what happened, how the cops handled the situation because the guy who was actively shooting an unarmed, defenseless person was also a cop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Lemming posted:He's obviously not going to get off. "Getting off" would be a plea bargain to something ridiculous like 5-10 years for involuntary manslaughter instead of whatever New Jersey does for murder 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
I would not be surprised if this guy gets to see his 7 year old graduate high school. No way he goes to trial for murder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"Getting off" would be a plea bargain to something ridiculous like 5-10 years for involuntary manslaughter instead of whatever New Jersey does for murder 1. I guess that's a fair point. He's definitely going to jail, but might be treated with kid gloves still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I guess that's a fair point. He's definitely going to jail, but might be treated with kid gloves still. There's always a chance a sympathetic DA just declines to press charges. Not much would surprise me anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"Getting off" would be a plea bargain to something ridiculous like 5-10 years for involuntary manslaughter instead of whatever New Jersey does for murder 1. We'll see if he pleads down, but he's currently charged with "first-degree murder, weapons and child endangerment charges" and also after reading the wording in this article, I see how the cops are going to CYA: quote:As the former couple turned their respective cars onto Sewell Avenue, the woman's car hit an unoccupied parked vehicle, authorities said. Prosecutors allege Seidle then drove his car into his ex-wife's vehicle, got out of the Honda, pulled out a handgun and approached the driver's side window of his ex-wife's car. Once he got close, Siedle allegedly fired into the driver's side window several times, then took his gun and held it to his own head. I'm going to bet that the official story will become she died due to the first round of bullets, and thus it was totally ok to let him shoot her the second time. Now, of course, since they didn't render aid to the shooting victim for 30 minutes, there was no way they could have been so sure at the time, but it will be good enough to close any investigation or chance for reform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"Getting off" would be a plea bargain to something ridiculous like 5-10 years for involuntary manslaughter instead of whatever New Jersey does for murder 1. This would be my guess. He's guilty of murder, really obviously. He was off-duty and admitted to killing out of anger without a legal justification like self-defense. Unless there's a technicality or some extreme corruption going on, he's going to get a conviction. The question is just how much punishment he gets. He's had the police on his side literally from the moment he started killing, and officers already get the benefit of the doubt from the courts and DAs above virtually any civilian. Prosecutors who want to keep their close working relations with the police will be loath to throw the book at him unless the rest of the police turn their backs on him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That guy who said this would be the bootlicker response called it. The Mattybee posted:Did they teach you lovely strawman arguments in the Army? Trabisnikof directly compared this to the Tamir Rice shooting, so I don’t see how what I said is inaccurate. It’s a stupid comparison. First, no one is defending the Tamir Rice shooting as an example of fine police work where everything went right. It’s currently under investigation, and pretty much everyone agrees that the officer was too quick to shoot. Half the people who were complaining that the police are too eager to get into gunfights are now mad that two patrol officers didn’t make a snap judgement to open fire on a hostage situation in the middle of a residential street. Trying to say, “oh, they only showed restraint because it was another cop” is dumb, because there are a dozen different factors that made the two situations different. It’s not even the same department. But some posters are so bent on making this a with-us-or-against us thing that they can’t look at a situation where some officers did their level best to deescalate a volatile scenario without shooting, the thing that everyone agrees the police should do more often, without getting mad that some different cops in a different city failed to do that. chitoryu12 posted:Weren't you previously arguing in this thread that it was justifiable to shoot an unarmed person in the back because he hiked up his pants and the motion kinda looked like he was preparing to pull out a gun? Rhesus Pieces posted:The point is that in some cases cops are actually capable of holding their fire and negotiating with a violent armed suspect and aren't helplessly conditioned to shoot and kill anything that moves, and therefore it isn't unreasonable to hold them to that standard in all cases. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Trabisnikof directly compared this to the Tamir Rice shooting, so I don’t see how what I said is inaccurate. It’s a stupid comparison. First, no one is defending the Tamir Rice shooting as an example of fine police work where everything went right. It’s currently under investigation, and pretty much everyone agrees that the officer was too quick to shoot. Half the people who were complaining that the police are too eager to get into gunfights are now mad that two patrol officers didn’t make a snap judgement to open fire on a hostage situation in the middle of a residential street. Trying to say, “oh, they only showed restraint because it was another cop” is dumb, because there are a dozen different factors that made the two situations different. It’s not even the same department. But some posters are so bent on making this a with-us-or-against us thing that they can’t look at a situation where some officers did their level best to deescalate a volatile scenario without shooting, the thing that everyone agrees the police should do more often, without getting mad that some different cops in a different city failed to do that. Of course, if you had read my post that you'd linked, I was comparing the way they treated Tamir's 14 year old sister, handcuffing her after shooting her brother, rather than the shooting itself. They handcuffed a little girl and gave this murderer hugs after he killed a little girl's mother in front of her. Meanwhile you yourself were arguing in this thread that bringing assault rifles to respond to a suicidal person with a knife was a reasonable measure. How on earth is not shooting the person who has: 1. Already shot their victim 2. Has a gun drawn 3. Is walking over to shoot the victim again Not the reasonable course of action? I don't get how one week you can argue that killing any suicidal person with a knife is basically justified and then turn around and say letting this man shoot his victim again is justified. Stop calling it a hostage situation. It wasn't a hostage situation. You can't take yourself hostage and the little girl was already safely away at this point. This isn't loving blazing saddles. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure this time Dead Reckoning will respond and debate in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Trabisnikof directly compared this to the Tamir Rice shooting, so I don’t see how what I said is inaccurate. It’s a stupid comparison. First, no one is defending the Tamir Rice shooting as an example of fine police work where everything went right. It’s currently under investigation, and pretty much everyone agrees that the officer was too quick to shoot. Half the people who were complaining that the police are too eager to get into gunfights are now mad that two patrol officers didn’t make a snap judgement to open fire on a hostage situation in the middle of a residential street. Trying to say, “oh, they only showed restraint because it was another cop” is dumb, because there are a dozen different factors that made the two situations different. It’s not even the same department. But some posters are so bent on making this a with-us-or-against us thing that they can’t look at a situation where some officers did their level best to deescalate a volatile scenario without shooting, the thing that everyone agrees the police should do more often, without getting mad that some different cops in a different city failed to do that. Maybe you're being accused of arguing in bad faith because you're literally saying "These cops didn't use excessive force and you're mad, those cops used excessive force and you're mad, they can't win!" The problem here isn't that some cops used restraint and we wanted them to start a shootout in the streets. It's that the use of force is applied liberally, very liberally against innocent minorities, meanwhile there's seemingly endless restraint shown towards murderous officers, murderous bikers, and even white people at a pool party. There is clearly a problem in how police discretion is negatively impacting people, but instead of understanding and agreeing with that all you can do is justify their use of force in one case but applaud their lack of force in another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Not the reasonable course of action? I don't get how one week you can argue that killing any suicidal person with a knife is basically justified and then turn around and say letting this man shoot his victim again is justified. Basically d.r.'s logic is the same as Dinkheller's was before he was executed. "Can't shoot this white guy/guy who is like me because he poses less of a threat than some unarmed minority". The joke is if dr was in front of Dinkheller's murderer he'd catch a bullet in his eye socket just like he did because a violent armed sociopath doesn't give a gently caress how white or anti-liberal you are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 21:00
|
|