|
Jarmak posted:So now that the actual evidence and video shows you guys were full of poo poo I take it the new direction this is taking is "Its the cop's fault the kid attacked him and beat the poo poo out of him because he left himself open to attack by making a tactical error" The actual evidence and video showed that the cop used screaming and initially an attempt at physical force (followed up by threatening with a Taser) to get an arrest on someone who didn't have a driver's license, tased someone who was non-violently resisting, and then shot an unarmed person when he responded to being shot with a Taser for not having his arms behind his back with an attempt at defending himself. None of that is in contention. You just seem to be enough of a nutbag to think that was all okay.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:So now that the actual evidence and video shows you guys were full of poo poo I take it the new direction this is taking is "Its the cop's fault the kid attacked him and beat the poo poo out of him because he left himself open to attack by making a tactical error" Decided to escalate the situation into violence by using his taser to torture the kid for non-violently not complying. A "Tactical error". But anyway, no it's not just the cop's fault, it's the entire policing system that failed him with respect to funding, manpower, training, and institutional culture behind him that turned a kid flashing his headlamps and driving without a license into a violent confrontation that ended in death. That cop should have had a partner, he should have had backup available, he should have been trained in deescalation, he should have been trained in the proper use of his taser, and if he was temperamentally unsuited for police work he should have been put behind a desk or let go for the public's safety and for his own. But, as usual, you won't address any of those points, because you have to win points for Team Cop. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So now that the actual evidence and video shows you guys were full of poo poo I take it the new direction this is taking is "Its the cop's fault the kid attacked him and beat the poo poo out of him because he left himself open to attack by making a tactical error" What "actual" evidence? Everything being discussed was in the original video that was posted. Criticizing cops for pointlessly escalating non-violent situations isn't even a new direction for the entire loving thread let alone this particular discussion which once again leaves me wondering what the gently caress you're doing here and what exactly you intend to contribute besides being the worst troll this thread has had to endure today/a huge piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its amusing that you are self aware enough to notice the giant glaring holes in your argument but instead of causing you to question it, you just get preemptively pissy about that fact people are going to call out the giant glaring holes in your argument. I'm not pointing out glaring holes in my argument, I'm pointing out glaring holes in your logic. The problem here is that you see the world very differently, you think it's totally cool that things went down how they did. You are only worried about whether or not it was "technically legal", as if that somehow justifies the death of a 17 year old kid. I'm merely pointing out that there's no point in arguing, there is no circumstance where a police can be held responsible for excessive force with your worldview, that's what's hosed up and stupid. I am having trouble coming up with a scenario where an officer could be at fault using your logic. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Officers' own escalating actions being used to justify their deadly force is a real problem. Look at all these officers purposely entering the sacred 21 foot circle of death, then executing a person holding a knife. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUIYJ0Ydt7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKJZanyNUhE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEuZiTcbGCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIvQVU_pmBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt1mFQG3tJg for comparison here's an actual knife attack on an officer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YSsNPAJ0yA The fact the officers always handcuff the dead or dying victim makes the Neptune, NJ wife killing even more troubling as officers are clearly trained that a person can survive multiple gunshot wounds in such condition they could still be a threat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I find it kinda disturbing that the police apologists in this thread who are claiming that it's completely normal and human to not shoot a fellow cop even when he's in the middle of committing cold-blooded murder on the wife he previously beat and threatened to kill have also defended the rationale of shooting unarmed people (including in the back) because their motions looked slightly suspicious. Even if it is completely justifiable to shoot someone, it will still always be harder to shoot a friend than a complete stranger. This has nothing to do with police at all and you'd honestly have to be an autistic robot to not understand that. Like that isn't an insult, you would literally have to be completely autistic to think it would be just as easy to kill a friend than a stranger. It has nothing to do with "apologia" it has nothing to do with the "blue line", it's just a really basic human thing. Toasticle posted:I beg you to stop letting yourselves be fishmeched by sociopaths. People should stop saying incredibly stupid things if they don't want those stupid things to be pointed out. The sad thing is the person then just doubles down and accuses the other person of being a police lover or some nonsense, because apparently 'you are either with us or against us'. These threads would be so much better if people just admitted they said something dumb like "it's easy to kill your friend' and then productive conversation could happen. tsa fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
the real problem is that US cops are some pussy bitches who can't even handle a teenager without pulling a gun on them. "but they might have a gun/knife/armed negro guerilla fighter backup" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
tsa posted:Even if it is completely justifiable to shoot someone, it will still always be harder to shoot a friend than a complete stranger. This has nothing to do with police at all and you'd honestly have to be an autistic robot to not understand that.  It's the gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
I think we've all learned that, instead of flashing your brights to warn people of a cop ahead, you need to turn your lights on/off instead, which is completely legal during the day. Even cars with DRLs will often have a DRL intensity and a higher low beam intensity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Sure buddy people are less likely to kill people they know in any sense, as backed up by evidence you are supplying like: Like no joke, people here are seriously debating this point, it's amazing. In this forum saying it's hard to kill a friend is a controversial statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like no joke, people here are seriously debating this point, it's amazing. In this forum saying it's hard to kill a friend is a controversial statement. That cop shot his ex wife, no problem. Pretty sure they were at least acquaintances. edit: The thin blue line is exactly officers standing by and doing nothing when they see a fellow officer doing wrong. That's the entire point. They know each other, they look the other way. Sometimes it's while parking in front of a fire hydrant. Sometimes it's while executing your wife in broad daylight on main street. DARPA fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
DARPA posted:That cop shot his ex wife, no problem. Pretty sure they were at least acquaintances. Correct. People are being very intellectually dishonest by trying to analogize those domestic violence heat of the moment situations with what happened so it's a good thing you pointed out how they are different. Also the women was dead before the cops could do anything about it so the suggestion that they protected their friend at the cost of her life is incorrect as well. I'm also unsure what the point people are trying to make is- officers should be more trigger happy? That because officers in other departments are trigger happy they naturally should be as well, so by not shooting they are protecting him? It's all very stupid, for obvious reasons but for some reason people here love to double down on these sorts of points rather than trying to contribute to productive discussion. If people can't even take 'it's hard to kill a friend who has a gun to their head' without screaming why post in a debate forum?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
It sure was easy to make sure a "brother" wasn't even inconvenienced before he shot the hell out of his ex-wife. Taser the man who has already shot a defenseless woman? PSH, HES A BROTHER! Nah, don't take him down non-lethally (you know, friend and all), just let him do what he came to do. Edit: It was the heaaaaat of the moment. The heaaaaat of the moment, showed in your casual walk to the front of the car to shoot your wounded wife a few more times, unabated by your friends behind the squad caaaaar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
I slipped in an edit above buttsa posted:Also the women was dead before the cops could do anything about it so the suggestion that they protected their friend at the cost of her life is incorrect as well. Why do officers handcuff shot up suspects as policy? It's because they know just because someone took a few bullets they might still be not only alive, but an actual threat plus officers aren't capable of prounouncing someone dead. These officers however decided she wasn't savable because..?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
If you couldn't honestly shoot your co-workers at any moment, I would question whether you've actually worked a day in your life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
If she was dead, why would he shoot her some more? Is not this fine gentleman also a police officer? Unquestionable determiner of life and death? The heat of the moment showed in her eyes perhaps? Talmonis fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
tsa posted:Also the women was dead before the cops could do anything about it so the suggestion that they protected their friend at the cost of her life is incorrect as well. How do you know that she was already dead? How would the cops have known that? I'm pretty sure they didn't check, since their good buddy was hovering over her with a gun. quote:I'm also unsure what the point people are trying to make is- officers should be more trigger happy? When a man has a gun, has shot somebody, and is standing over the body of the possibly-still-alive-at-this-point victim where he might at any moment fire more bullets into said victim, that is the precise and exact time when cops should maybe be a little trigger happy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Taser the man who has already shot a defenseless woman? PSH, HES A BROTHER!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:When a man has a gun, has shot somebody, and is standing over the body of the possibly-still-alive-at-this-point victim where he might at any moment fire more bullets into said victim, that is the precise and exact time when cops should maybe be a little trigger happy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
tsa posted:Correct. People are being very intellectually dishonest by trying to analogize those domestic violence heat of the moment situations with what happened so it's a good thing you pointed out how they are different. spousal abusers like to claim that things are done impulsively "in the heat of the moment" but the carefully controlled and directed use of violence shows that to be bullshit
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
tsa posted:Even if it is completely justifiable to shoot someone, it will still always be harder to shoot a friend than a complete stranger. This has nothing to do with police at all and you'd honestly have to be an autistic robot to not understand that. Nobody has argued that it's easy to kill your friend. It should be a difficult choice to kill anybody. The points that were being debated were that there's no evidence that they were friends beyond working in the same department, and that the fact that the guy had already shot his ex-wife and went back to shoot her more and the cops did nothing to stop it or help her makes them lovely cops. Even if they were friends, we expect them to do their jobs, and when they don't they get criticized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You don't Taser a guy with a gun. You shoot him, or if you're the NYPD, you shoot everyone else. poo poo man, I'm trying to give the fine officers who had a brother in peril the benefit of the doubt. They CLEARLY can't shoot a friend after all, and they're fine upstanding officers, so they obviously wanted to save the ex-wife. Why not try the taser if you're so distraught about the idea of killing a brother (as again, it wasn't a matter of hesitation)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
The idea of making a scrap book for the dude who just pumped 12 rounds into his ex wife as she sits their bleeding out is insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Right? This is basically the scenario used to justify giving police guns, for gently caress's sake. No, police need guns in case the unarmed teenager they decide to torture for getting sassy panics and fights back and gets the upper hand. Not for when their friends want to murder their wives, then it's time to sacrifice her life for the greater good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
The last thing I'm going to say regarding the legality stuff people bring it up is this then I'll drop it. This is not intended as an attack on any poster here. What frustrates some people in regards to pointing out that "well actually X is illegal" is that it really doesn't matter to the heart of the issue that any stop by the police can be quickly escalated to the level where an officer can use lethal force and then be exonerated by the law even a stop that is unlawful. The kid with the head lights probably didn't think he was doing anything illegal since a lot of people believe that flashing headlights is a common courtesy when you see someone with their brights on even though this is incorrect, even that driver's guide had the misconception. It's true what he did was illegal but it's really not relevant to his death other than it started the altercation which could easily have been started in many other legal and non-legal ways. What people frustrated with police killings in what shouldn't be aggressive situations often hear when someone interject with legal corrections when someone was needlessly killed is that the minor illegal act is comparable or even responsible for the lethal action at the end even if that person didn't mean it that way because other people will use an illegal act on the victim as justification for anything that happens afterwards. The main issue is that police, through a lack of funding or otherwise, often put themselves into situation where they think that lethal force is justified when it shouldn't have to be (there is absolutely no reason a stop for flashing headlamps should end up with the driver killed) and the main thing a lot of people are concerned about is how to stop that from happening. People in this thread already know intersections with police can quickly turn fatal and that illegal actions are dangerous because of that. It's the implication, although not intended, that if the person had not done something they would be alive when the fix should be stopping police from aggravating encounters since people are always going to do minor unlawful stuff or sometimes be pissy when a cop pulls them over. Disrespecting a cop should not be a de facto capital offense. That's not to say that someone clearing up a legal misconception is wrong since often it can be interesting, just that it is easily misinterpreted if it's done in a glib way. People are free to disagree with that opinion since I'm just another rear end in a top hat but I wanted to try and clear it up. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
A wife-beating philanderer with a pornography addiction holding a gun still hot from firing round after round into his ex-wife to his head as his daughter watches while listening to her mother's death rattle, or as I like to think of him friend
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
tsa posted:Also the women was dead before the cops could do anything about it so the suggestion that they protected their friend at the cost of her life is incorrect as well. Actually every single story that I've seen which specifies the location of Tamara's death says that she died at the hospital later. For example: Tamara Seidle, also 51, was taken to a hospital, where she died a short time later. No other injuries were reported in the shooting. You may have been confused because most news stories have used the phrase "shot and killed his ex-wife", but this phrase can be used whether the instant of death occurs just after the shooting or long after and far away. So, yes, the huge delay in resolving the situation may have been the deciding factor in whether this woman lived or died.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like no joke, people here are seriously debating this point, it's amazing. In this forum saying it's hard to kill a friend is a controversial statement. Since loving when? Nobody's saying "Cops should be emotionless robots who gun down their best friend without shedding a tear." What we're doing is comparing the extremely high rate of police killings of civilians to a moment where the person they would need to kill is a fellow cop, and suddenly they put their guns down and start assembling a scrapbook while letting his victim bleed out so they can convince him to surrender. We have a police force that simultaneously blows away unarmed people with nary a second thought, but stops to baby a violent killer with a gun in his hand who's literally in the process of shooting someone because he's "one of them". You can't simultaneously defend the killing of unarmed, sometimes completely innocent people and then go "DON'T YOU PEOPLE HAVE COMPASSION?" when we ask why a police officer in the middle of violent murder is treated with kid gloves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Since loving when? Nobody's saying "Cops should be emotionless robots who gun down their best friend without shedding a tear." What we're doing is comparing the extremely high rate of police killings of civilians to a moment where the person they would need to kill is a fellow cop, and suddenly they put their guns down and start assembling a scrapbook while letting his victim bleed out so they can convince him to surrender. Um I think you'll find that these police officers are literally different people than those other police officers. To have an actual opinion as to whether police officers treat people differently based on their blackness, whiteness, or copness, you'd need to have the exact same group of officers encounter the exact same situation with the only difference being the black/white and cop/not statuses of the offenders, and record the results. And then do the same thing for every other conceivable group of officers in the country, otherwise you've just proved that a few bad apples exist, whereas my local police department does things the right way. Also they weren't bad apples, they feared for their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:Um I think you'll find that these police officers are literally different people than those other police officers. To have an actual opinion as to whether police officers treat people differently based on their blackness, whiteness, or copness, you'd need to have the exact same group of officers encounter the exact same situation with the only difference being the black/white and cop/not statuses of the offenders, and record the results. And then do the same thing for every other conceivable group of officers in the country, otherwise you've just proved that a few bad apples exist, whereas my local police department does things the right way. Also they weren't bad apples, they feared for their lives. Um, the issue has become endemic enough that police (and their defenders) shouldn't be taken aback when citizens question their motives. You could literally figure out the exact percentages of EVERYTHING given a long enough timeline. While your suggestion is noble, it's also untenable. The fact of the matter is that the Jersey case, juxtaposed against so many others, seems very egregious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:While your suggestion is noble, it's also untenable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/18/us-states-police-use-of-force-standards-amnestyAmnesty International posted:Every state in the US fails to comply with international standards on the lethal use of force by law enforcement officers, according to a report by Amnesty International USA, which also says 13 US states fall beneath even lower legal standards enshrined in US constitutional law and that nine states currently have no laws at all to deal with the issue. quote:The analysis, which Hawkins said he believed was the first of its kind, compared state statutes on law enforcement’s use of lethal force with international legislation, including the enshrinement of the right to life, as well as United Nations principles limiting lethal use of force to “unavoidable” instances “in order to protect life” after “less extreme means” have failed. Further UN guidelines state that officers should attempt to identify themselves and give warning of intent to use lethal force.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I do love that we've hit a point in America that it's appropriate and legal to respond to a black child punching you (if that poo poo even happened), by shooting them repeatedly. We didn't hit that point...we've been at it forever. What's changed is that a lot more people actually notice it now, thanks to the proliferation of cameras and the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:Actually every single story that I've seen which specifies the location of Tamara's death says that she died at the hospital later. For example: Tamara Seidle, also 51, was taken to a hospital, where she died a short time later. No other injuries were reported in the shooting. You may have been confused because most news stories have used the phrase "shot and killed his ex-wife", but this phrase can be used whether the instant of death occurs just after the shooting or long after and far away. So, yes, the huge delay in resolving the situation may have been the deciding factor in whether this woman lived or died. This can be very much based on the situation, and how it's reported. Like, if someone is transported to the hospital and the doctor calls the death vs. the medics on scene. If you are transported to the hospital and the doctor calls time of death there, you "died at the hospital". Even if for all other factors you were really dead on scene. This happens all the time when you read about victims from crashes. The article will say someone died at the hospital, when in reality they were dead at the scene but rescue/medics decided to try and resuscitate and transport them or fly them out, delaying official time of death until pronounced by an ER physician. In a lot of places medics will not call a death unless it's considered obvious, ie. missing a head and you've been dead for days, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Untagged posted:This can be very much based on the situation, and how it's reported. Like, if someone is transported to the hospital and the doctor calls the death vs. the medics on scene. If you are transported to the hospital and the doctor calls time of death there, you "died at the hospital". Even if for all other factors you were really dead on scene. This happens all the time when you read about victims from crashes. The article will say someone died at the hospital, when in reality they were dead at the scene but rescue/medics decided to try and resuscitate and transport them or fly them out, delaying official time of death until pronounced by an ER physician. In a lot of places medics will not call a death unless it's considered obvious, ie. missing a head and you've been dead for days, etc. You're right, we should just assume everyone died at the scene and dick around for 30 minutes while the killer is loose and able to fire another shot into the victim just in case the first hail of gunfire didn't finish the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Untagged posted:This can be very much based on the situation, and how it's reported. Like, if someone is transported to the hospital and the doctor calls the death vs. the medics on scene. If you are transported to the hospital and the doctor calls time of death there, you "died at the hospital". Even if for all other factors you were really dead on scene. This happens all the time when you read about victims from crashes. The article will say someone died at the hospital, when in reality they were dead at the scene but rescue/medics decided to try and resuscitate and transport them or fly them out, delaying official time of death until pronounced by an ER physician. In a lot of places medics will not call a death unless it's considered obvious, ie. missing a head and you've been dead for days, etc. I am aware of this; none of the stories I came across were willing to venture that she died on the scene, or instantly; some were willing to state that she died at the hospital. It is possible that she died in that car while the police were making a photo album, and that these articles saying she died in the hospital said so because that's where the trained doctor was (no one else is allowed to pronounce death in New Jersey, it seems). But assuming that this was the case in order to excuse poor police performance is inappropriate, which is why I introduced the possibility that she survived even up until the point where she was no longer in police custody.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
These threads would be so much better if people just admitted they said something dumb like " the women was dead before the cops could do anything about it so the suggestion that they protected their friend at the cost of her life is incorrect as well' and then productive conversation could happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:These threads would be so much better if people just admitted they said something dumb like " the women was dead before the cops could do anything about it so the suggestion that they protected their friend at the cost of her life is incorrect as well' and then productive conversation could happen. Are you saying she was dead and it was clear she was dead so there was no point in trying to save her?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Rah! posted:We didn't hit that point...we've been at it forever. What's changed is that a lot more people actually notice it now, thanks to the proliferation of cameras and the internet. It's actually not that simple. While the criminal justice system has pretty much always been a fraudulent disaster and black Americans and other persons of color have pretty much always been the favorite target of police brutality (some would say the very origin of police in America was the practice of recapturing freed slaves), the specific changes in law enforcement tactics and mission that lead to our current state of affairs are both real and a matter of recent history. It's not just a question of more people recording incidents and therefore more people taking notice. There's a lot more going on, actually, and I think pretty much anyone who has spent enough time in communities targeted by police repression can attest to the fact that the recent history of law enforcement (let's say 50 years) is not simply business as usual. I mean even the weakest form of this argument needs to account for a few decades of relevant Supreme Court decisions, don't you think? It's very much worth understanding the specific changes that have taken place in modern policing. It's a big topic. You can look at federal crime initiatives in the late 60s, post-Vietnam adoption of counter-insurgency tactics in domestic policing, insinuation into local communities (euphemized as "community policing" by reformists who think its actually a good thing) coinciding with the War on Drugs, Broken Windows theory in the 80s, CompStat and riots in the 90s leading up to a major sea change in tactics and equipment following WTO protests and post-9/11 antiwar movements, including the establishment of the DHS as an outfitter for local police, post-NAFTA immigration enforcement, even just Occupy had a major nationwide effect on how the police think and operate. Basically every decade has gotten a little bit worse and its not good enough to say things were always like this. It was always bad, but it wasn't always worse. At the very least, a lot of the poo poo cops used to pull that would have been called brutality at the time is now simply reincorporated and normalized into conventional police tactics and responsibilities. Just as an example, look at how Plain Old loving Harassment became a "Terry Stop" became "Stop and Frisk".
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted: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! Terraplane posted:How do you know that she was already dead? How would the cops have known that? I'm pretty sure they didn't check, since their good buddy was hovering over her with a gun. ElCondemn posted: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. Occasionally, chitoryu will drop in with "X number of people have been killed by police this year" and everyone nods sagely and agrees that This Number Is Too High, but when I ask what percentage of those deaths was reasonably avoidable, or what a realistic number we should look to achieve at would be, no one wants to think about specifics. It's easy to say that too many people are shot by police, but a lot harder when you start drilling down into things like use of force and reducing traffic accidents. chitoryu12 posted:The actual evidence and video showed that the cop used screaming and initially an attempt at physical force (followed up by threatening with a Taser) to get an arrest on someone who didn't have a driver's license, tased someone who was non-violently resisting, and then shot an unarmed person when he responded to being shot with a Taser for not having his arms behind his back with an attempt at defending himself. None of that is in contention. You just seem to be enough of a nutbag to think that was all okay. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:38
|
|