Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

SurgicalOntologist posted:

This is perhaps the least important of all the incorrect and misleading claims you've been making, but since this is an area I have expertise in I felt like correcting you. At the risk of another pointless derail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mental_chronometry

How dare you correct someone about a mistaken impression they have in an area that you know more than they do.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 19:59

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

Taser was only half connected. Good kill.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:13

SurgicalOntologist: Jun 17, 2004

Well, I didn't spell out the implications, but you see Dead Reckoning was claiming that split-second decisions were impossible and so not reacting in an 8 second volley isn't that unexpected. After all people are slow to react so 8 seconds isn't that long. Then he brought science into it to support this claim.

In reality though, as others were saying, 8 seconds is a long loving time. Dead Reckoning wasn't just a little off on human reaction time, he was way off. By nearly an order of magnitude. This does make a difference in interpreting these cases and determining what kind of opportunity the individuals involved had to react.

My point isn't DR, you're so stupid. It's that DR is not arguing in good faith. The idea that people have a reaction time of greater than 1 second is not some common misconception. If anything most people think it's quicker than it is. It seems likely that DR pulled that out of his rear end to support his interpretation of events.

SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jun 19, 2015

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:15

ElCondemn: Aug 7, 2005

SurgicalOntologist posted:

Well, I didn't spell out the implications, but you see Dead Reckoning was claiming that split-second decisions were impossible and so not reacting in an 8 second volley isn't that unexpected. After all people are slow to react so 8 seconds isn't that long. Then he brought science into it to support this claim.

In reality though, as others were saying, 8 seconds is a long loving time. Dead Reckoning wasn't just a little off on human reaction time, he was way off.

In this very thread people were saying 30 seconds was an eternity, now 8 seconds is a split second. It clearly has nothing to do with the amount of time, it has to do with the fact that police are incapable of being wrong.

If they feel like something is a threat they are allowed to kill it, if they feel something isn't a threat they can do nothing, there are no ramifications to any action they take. Whatever action they take is legal because it's based on what the officer feels is right.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:18

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

ElCondemn posted:

Let's try this out, where do you live? I will travel to where you are and sit on top of you and taze you, let me know when you feel the urge to fight back.

I wasn't aware I had the right to do anything I had the urge to do, regardless of the law or morality. Does that mean if you travel here and I just beat the poo poo out of you that its your fault because you gave me the urge to do so with your stupid posting?

Thats not even touching the fact that civilian randomly assaulting someone with a tazer is not the same thing as a cop using a tazer to effect an arrest on a resisting subject.

edit:

ElCondemn posted:

In this very thread people were saying 30 seconds was an eternity, now 8 seconds is a split second.

Both of these can be true depending on the circumstances, stress is one hell of a drug

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:20

SurgicalOntologist: Jun 17, 2004

ElCondemn posted:

It clearly has nothing to do with the amount of time, it has to do with the fact that police are incapable of being wrong.

Yes, exactly. Making up some sciency sounding fact out of thin air is just part of the post-hoc justification game. Which is why I thought it worthwhile to correct.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:22

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

SurgicalOntologist posted:

Yes, exactly. Making up some sciency sounding fact out of thin air is just part of the post-hoc justification game. Which is why I thought it worthwhile to correct.

Right. Making up some legalese after the fact is just part of the post-hoc asserting the driver was completely in the right game. That's why I felt it was worthwhile to correct.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:24

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Jarmak posted:

I don't generally agree with the way cops like to use tazers as compliance tools, but with the way this guy warned the kid about a million times that he was going to taze him if he didn't stop resisting this is about the least egregious example of that I've seen to date, particularly in light of the fact he was alone .

This is even dumber than your usual dumb garbage. You are literally saying you think it's OK to do something bad as long as you warn someone first.

Jarmak posted:

Either way, Monday morning quarterbacking every detail of the way the cop conducted the stop and effected the arrest to find minor mistakes that enabled the assault does not take responsibility for the assault away from the kid.

The cop assaulted the kid. He started by shooting at him with a taser because he wasn't following orders fast enough. The kid was already face down on the ground. There was literally no reason for the cop to attack him.

Jarmak posted:

Nor does it change the fact that after the kid attacked the cop and gained the upper hand he didn't flee, but decided to ground and pound the guy. This is ridiculously blatant victim blaming, the cop failing to prevent being assaulted does not make it the cops fault he was assaulted, that agency lies with the one pinning him to the ground and beating him bloody.

There is no evidence that this was the sequence of events beyond the word of the cop. Luckily for him, there was no video, so boot lickers like you will accept it unquestioningly.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:25

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

I'm losing a fight I started with an unarmed kid! The clear solution is to shoot him to death.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:26

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Kalman posted:

How dare you correct someone about a mistaken impression they have in an area that you know more than they do.

There's a difference between expertise and simply being well-versed in treasured cop canards.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:26

Zanzibar Ham: Mar 17, 2009; You giving me the cold shoulder? How cruel.; Grimey Drawer

Kalman posted:

Right. Making up some legalese after the fact is just part of the post-hoc asserting the driver was completely in the right game. That's why I felt it was worthwhile to correct.

You do know that a person can be wrong without deserving to be shot over it, right?

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:26

tsa: Feb 3, 2014

DrNutt posted:

Wow good thing we've got you here to let us know which complaints about the hosed up US system of justice are valid.

She has more authority to do so than 99.9999% of the posters here, so yes it is a good thing.

tsa fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 19, 2015

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:27

SurgicalOntologist: Jun 17, 2004

Kalman posted:

Right. Making up some legalese after the fact is just part of the post-hoc asserting the driver was completely in the right game. That's why I felt it was worthwhile to correct.

Maybe I'm dense but what's your point here.

Edit: are we really debating whether the kid broke any laws? Seems beside the point.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:29

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

tsa posted:

He has more authority to do so than 99.9999% of the posters here, so yes it is a good thing.

She's a she. :ssh:

By all means, continue to lick authoritarian boot.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:30

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Lemming posted:

This is even dumber than your usual dumb garbage. You are literally saying you think it's OK to do something bad as long as you warn someone first.

The cop assaulted the kid. He started by shooting at him with a taser because he wasn't following orders fast enough. The kid was already face down on the ground. There was literally no reason for the cop to attack him.

Cops have the right to use physical force to effect an arrest, playing the "he started it" game is really loving stupid

Lemming posted:

There is no evidence that this was the sequence of events beyond the word of the cop. Luckily for him, there was no video, so boot lickers like you will accept it unquestioningly.

There is a ton of evidence that I've both summarized and posted direct links to.

SurgicalOntologist posted:

Yes, exactly. Making up some sciency sounding fact out of thin air is just part of the post-hoc justification game. Which is why I thought it worthwhile to correct.

You mean like quoting physical human reaction time like it is more then tangentially related to the time required to process a highly stressful event and make a difficult decision.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:31

tsa: Feb 3, 2014

SurgicalOntologist posted:

This is perhaps the least important of all the incorrect and misleading claims you've been making, but since this is an area I have expertise in I felt like correcting you. At the risk of another pointless derail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mental_chronometry

at comparing those sorts of experiments to actually making a thoughtful decision. You really ought to be ashamed because of how stupid that is.

Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law is what you are looking for, and it clearly points out that as complexity of choices increases reaction time significantly slows down. Which is kinda obvious.

tsa fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 19, 2015

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:31

SurgicalOntologist: Jun 17, 2004

tsa posted:

at comparing those sorts of experiments to actually making a thoughtful decision. You really ought to be ashamed because of how stupid that is.

I am not the one who made that comparison.

Dead Reckoning posted:

You have no idea what you are talking about. Even alerted perception-reaction time, where a person is taking a single action (like pushing a pedal) to react to a stimulus they have been expecting, tends to hover around 1-1.5 seconds. Humans are, for the most part, not actually capable of literal split second decision making.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:33

ElCondemn: Aug 7, 2005

Jarmak posted:

I wasn't aware I had the right to do anything I had the urge to do, regardless of the law or morality. Does that mean if you travel here and I just beat the poo poo out of you that its your fault because you gave me the urge to do so with your stupid posting?

Thats not even touching the fact that civilian randomly assaulting someone with a tazer is not the same thing as a cop using a tazer to effect an arrest on a resisting subject.

So are you cool with me coming to where you are and doing what the officer did to that kid? You didn't say no. I promise I wont kill you at the end, unless you fight back, then I'm in the clear.

Jarmak posted:

Both of these can be true depending on the circumstances, stress is one hell of a drug

So you agree that you were arguing in bad faith before? back when we saw that video of the cop hop out of his car and within 30 seconds kill someone? You agree that time is subjective and your prior argument about 30 seconds being a long time is disingenuous?

I know your answer: "You're stupid, it's totally different for that case, it was like not stressful enough or something, but it was totally enough time to react appropriately to avoid being shot, duh! I'm no apologist, I just change my mind a lot."

ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jun 19, 2015

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:34

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

ElCondemn posted:

So are you cool with me coming to where you are and doing what the officer did to that kid? You didn't say no.

Asking me to show you my license? I mean, I guess so. It's kind of a weird fetish though. Can I be super abrasive and refuse after you're already here?

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:35

ElCondemn: Aug 7, 2005

Kalman posted:

Asking me to show you my license? I mean, I guess so. It's kind of a weird fetish though. Can I be super abrasive and refuse after you're already here?

I only offered to do it to Jarmark.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:37

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

SurgicalOntologist posted:

I am not the one who made that comparison.

Neither did he, he quoted the well-accepted and often quoted average brake response of an alert driver, and you quoted tests that involve something completely different.

ElCondemn posted:

So are you cool with me coming to where you are and doing what the officer did to that kid? You didn't say no. I promise I wont kill you at the end, unless you fight back, then I'm in the clear.

No I'm not, because I haven't broken the law and then resisted arrest and you're not a cop.

ElCondemn posted:

So you agree that you were arguing in bad faith before? back when we saw that video of the cop hop out of his car and within 30 seconds kill someone? You agree that time is subjective and your prior argument about 30 seconds being a long time is disingenuous?

I know your answer: "You're stupid, it's totally different for that case, it was like not stressful enough or something, but it was totally enough time to react appropriately to avoid being shot, duh! I'm no apologist, I just change my mind a lot."

Or I could you know, point out that there's a big difference between 30 seconds and 8 seconds.

edit: especially when one is in context of a fear response and the other a stressful decision.

Jarmak fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 19, 2015

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:43

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

SurgicalOntologist posted:

My point isn't DR, you're so stupid. It's that DR is not arguing in good faith. The idea that people have a reaction time of greater than 1 second is not some common misconception. If anything most people think it's quicker than it is. It seems likely that DR pulled that out of his rear end to support his interpretation of events.

I didn't pull it out of my rear end though. If you google human perception reaction time then the top hits are mostly about traffic studies, which is why I picked "pushing a pedal." In most of them, like this one from the Oregon department of transit place perception-reaction time in the 1-1.5 second range.

quote:

Wortman and Mathias (2) reported both the �surprise� and alerted 85th
percentile perception reaction times. This was in an urban environment;
the time was measured after the yellow indication until brake lights
appeared.

The Wortman et al. research found:
� alerted 85% perception-reaction time 0.9 sec
� �surprise� 85% perception-reaction time 1.3 sec

Recent studies have checked the validity of 2.5 seconds as the design
perception reaction time. Four recent studies have shown maximums of
1.9 seconds as the perception-reaction time for an 85th percentile time and
about 2.5 seconds as the 95th percentile time.

The Oregon one even contains a survey of brake reaction times:

code:

Brake Reaction Times Studies
Percentile             85th  95th

Gazis et al. (1)       1.48  1.75
Wortman et al. (2)     1.80  2.35
Chang et al. (3)       1.90  2.50
Sivak et al. (4)       1.78  2.40

This agreed with my time flying, where calculations for things like emergency braking and collision avoidance typically factored in a second or two for the crew to perceive the situation and begin responding. So either we're talking about different things, or there is some other confusion. Either way, it's a little unfair to say I was pulling it out of my rear end or making the claim in bad faith.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:47

SurgicalOntologist: Jun 17, 2004

Jarmak posted:

Neither did he, he quoted the well-accepted and often quoted average brake response of an alert driver, and you quoted tests that involve something completely different.

I literally study braking. And yes, the average response time for an alert driver to brake in response to an unexpected stimulus is indeed 1--1.5 seconds. The average response time for a driver to brake for a stimulus they are expecting is 0.5 - 0.7 seconds.

I will admit that even though I study braking (although not with a focus on reaction time specifically) and even though DR said "pedal" I did not think of braking. Even still, DR explicitly referred to the latter reaction time rather than the former. Nevertheless, it does seem my reaction was unnecessarily exaggerated even if DR was still incorrect. I retroactively retract my vitriol and apologize for the mistake in the hopes of ending this derail.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Either way, it's a little unfair to say I was pulling it out of my rear end or making the claim in bad faith.

You're right. Sorry about that!

SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 19, 2015

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:52

ElCondemn: Aug 7, 2005

Jarmak posted:

No I'm not, because I haven't broken the law and then resisted arrest and you're not a cop.

So what? You clearly have no problem with officers using the methods they use, you think telling people "stop resisting and comply and you'll be fine" is valid. If you're so sure you'll be able to comply, why are you afraid to try it out? It's just a fun test, lets see how hard it is for you to resist fighting back when I try to dominate you.

Jarmak posted:

Or I could you know, point out that there's a big difference between 30 seconds and 8 seconds.

edit: especially when one is in context of a fear response and the other a stressful decision.

Called it!

# ? Jun 19, 2015 20:52

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

To be clear of course, a "fear response" is only valid if it's from the armed cop. Not from the unarmed civilian who's being attacked for not sufficiently prostrating himself.

Or herself, as in the case with this week's 12 year old girl with a fractured jaw and broken ribs.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:01

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

ElCondemn posted:

So what? You clearly have no problem with officers using the methods they use, you think telling people "stop resisting and comply and you'll be fine" is valid. If you're so sure you'll be able to comply, why are you afraid to try it out? It's just a fun test, lets see how hard it is for you to resist fighting back when I try to dominate you.

What in the gently caress even is this? No I wouldn't have fought back because I would have ended it at the "I'm sorry officer I forgot my license at home" about 30 seconds in. The officer's actions were reasonable (although not all of them tactically optimal) responses to the kid refusing to comply with a traffic stop and then resisting arrest. The reasonable response to your creepy "I'll hunt you down and dominate you" poo poo is to call the cops or kick your rear end depending on the situation.

ElCondemn posted:

Called it!

Yes, again its weird that you already knew why your point was dead wrong but decided to argue it anyways, like accurately predicting the response to something stupid and obviously wrong that you post is some sort of one neat trick to invalidate the obvious response to a wrong argument.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:03

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

I honestly don't know why legality is the primary concern when considering the behavior of the legal system. It seems like the only way for a part of the legal system to do wrong (by this standard) in the American system would be if it was populated entirely by idiots.

Well, OK, there's the explanation that focusing on legality makes it easier to hamper discussion by providing a long, pedantic argument in response to anything except the most egregious cases, "bad apples" that can be conclusively placed outside the system. But I'm sure that nobody would behave in such a conspiratorial fashion.

Jarmak posted:

What in the gently caress even is this? No I wouldn't have fought back because I would have ended it at the "I'm sorry officer I forgot my license at home" about 30 seconds in. The officer's actions were reasonable (although not all of them tactically optimal) responses to the kid refusing to comply with a traffic stop and then resisting arrest. The reasonable response to your creepy "I'll hunt you down and dominate you" poo poo is to call the cops or kick your rear end depending on the situation.

Another interesting trick, in this paranoid line, is to use phrases like "not tactically optimal" (quotes here used to separate the phrase out and not to quote an exact statement, officers!) to refer to killing someone. This would be an excellent way to keep people from discussing things as they are so horrified by the mentality on display that they constantly focus on this easily defensible position where someone could focus solely on self-defense and hamper discussion of why officers somehow get into situations where not having a license becomes an offense worthy of a beating/death.

Effectronica fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jun 19, 2015

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:06

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Jarmak posted:

Cops have the right to use physical force to effect an arrest, playing the "he started it" game is really loving stupid

There is a ton of evidence that I've both summarized and posted direct links to.

You mean like quoting physical human reaction time like it is more then tangentially related to the time required to process a highly stressful event and make a difficult decision.

You agreed yourself that just because the cops have the right to do something doesn't mean they should. The guy tasered the kid completely unnecessarily, which started the fight.

There's evidence of a fight (obviously) but none from the report that indicated that the kid was on top of him and wailing on him. All but one of the shots were from an intermediate range, except for the one to his head, which was the fatal one.

Human reaction time factors literally not at all in the situation where the cops see that a guy just shot his ex wife, and then shot her four more over the course of eight seconds, and then spent thirty minutes making a scrap book for him while she bled out.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:13

ElCondemn: Aug 7, 2005

Jarmak posted:

What in the gently caress even is this? No I wouldn't have fought back because I would have ended it at the "I'm sorry officer I forgot my license at home" about 30 seconds in. The officer's actions were reasonable (although not all of them tactically optimal) responses to the kid refusing to comply with a traffic stop and then resisting arrest. The reasonable response to your creepy "I'll hunt you down and dominate you" poo poo is to call the cops or kick your rear end depending on the situation.

Come on man, I just want to wrestle!

Jarmak posted:

Yes, again its weird that you already knew why your point was dead wrong but decided to argue it anyways, like accurately predicting the response to something stupid and obviously wrong that you post is some sort of one neat trick to invalidate the obvious response to a wrong argument.

As I said before, I can't argue with you because you have a different world view. I know you think 30 seconds is an eternity but 8 seconds is no time at all, because that's how you justify these things. You do not see the fault in what you're saying, it's not possible for me to convince you otherwise because the way you see the world prevents any wrongdoing on the cops part. It is literally impossible for a cop to make a bad decision using the mindset you're using.

What does it take for an officer to do wrong? If he says he was scared for his life he is justified, if he says he saw no threat he's justified, there is no way for him to do wrong.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:18

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

SurgicalOntologist posted:

You're right. Sorry about that!

No worries. Looking back at my post, I could have phrased it better. When I said "expecting," I meant in the sense that someone operating a car or airplane expects that they may have to brake, but doesn't know if or when that will occur. Someone who knows they are driving as part of a study probably has heightened vigilance as well. However, the way I wrote it read closer to a situation where the person knows they have to brake as soon as they receive a signal. My apologies.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:19

C2C - 2.0: May 14, 2006; Dubs In The Key Of Life; Lipstick Apathy

Would you folks PUHHHLEEAAZZZE stop quoting Jarmak. Makes the Ignore function completely worthless.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:20

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Gosh when you put it that way, that you would brutalize me and I would have no recourse, and that whether I lived or died would be entirely up to you, it sounds creepy!

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:21

hobotrashcanfires: Jul 24, 2013

Dead Reckoning posted:

I didn't pull it out of my rear end though. If you google human perception reaction time then the top hits are mostly about traffic studies, which is why I picked "pushing a pedal." In most of them, like this one from the Oregon department of transit place perception-reaction time in the 1-1.5 second range.

The Oregon one even contains a survey of brake reaction times:
code:
Brake Reaction Times Studies
Percentile             85th  95th

Gazis et al. (1)       1.48  1.75
Wortman et al. (2)     1.80  2.35
Chang et al. (3)       1.90  2.50
Sivak et al. (4)       1.78  2.40
This agreed with my time flying, where calculations for things like emergency braking and collision avoidance typically factored in a second or two for the crew to perceive the situation and begin responding. So either we're talking about different things, or there is some other confusion. Either way, it's a little unfair to say I was pulling it out of my rear end or making the claim in bad faith.

You kind of did, though, or else you found something that appeared to support your argument and gave it no other thought. You're referring to a situation where a man chased his ex-wife in his car, endangering his ex-wife, his daughter and everyone around them. Then, after she crashes the car, he gets out and fires a volley of shots into her and her car.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but seems like everyone was aware there was a dangerous individual acting erratically and also already demonstrated a willingness to commit murder. If you're near someone driving perfectly normally and they suddenly swerve and imperil you. That's a surprise. If I'm watching someone swerving all over the road, hit a car, continue swerving, there is no surprise if suddenly I need to brake, which is an enormous difference in any reaction time. Let alone that anyone witnessing such would've taken precautions to not even need to be in a position to suddenly brake.

Just say they didn't want to shoot him because he was one of them, and they likely knew him at least somewhat well. That's understandable. What's also understandable is the ex-wife he murdered had previously claimed a history of abuse, and I believe also that he had pointed a gun at her. Had she called the police while her husband was recklessly pursuing her? Do you think if she had a drat thing would've happened legally? I'm more than willing to grant they didn't expect him to shoot her the first time, that's a freebie. But then they allowed him to do it a second time. If he weren't one of them, he'd almost certainly have been shot at and or killed right after the first shooting. Without a doubt the second time. Anyone else..and yet still, didn't happen.

I think one important thing lost in this whole story is the wife who had claimed lengthy, ongoing abuse, and probably never once felt she could turn to the police. Or if she did, shockingly haven't heard there's a record of it. Look at how it all turned out. It hasn't got a drat thing to do with sudden emergency braking response times, either you know that, or you're allowing your personal bias to cloud your thinking severely.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:22

ElCondemn: Aug 7, 2005

hobotrashcanfires posted:

I think one important thing lost in this whole story is the wife who had claimed lengthy, ongoing abuse, and probably never once felt she could turn to the police. Or if she did, shockingly haven't heard there's a record of it. Look at how it all turned out. It hasn't got a drat thing to do with sudden emergency braking response times, either you know that, or you're allowing your personal bias to cloud your thinking severely.

She should've known better than to be a victim, that's what cops do right. They fire first to prevent themselves from becoming victims, it's the america we all want to live in.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:25

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

Man its almost if the split second reaction that cops go to is to kill unarmed swarthy people there might be a problem.

Doesn't exactly do much to disprove cops being jittery dangerous cowards, though.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:28

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Zeitgueist posted:

Man its almost if the split second reaction that cops go to is to kill unarmed swarthy people there might be a problem.

Doesn't exactly do much to disprove cops being jittery dangerous cowards, though.

They're doing their best through "shoot/don't shoot" scenario-based training to extend that split second reaction to white people.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:41

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Effectronica posted:

Another interesting trick, in this paranoid line, is to use phrases like "not tactically optimal" (quotes here used to separate the phrase out and not to quote an exact statement, officers!) to refer to killing someone. This would be an excellent way to keep people from discussing things as they are so horrified by the mentality on display that they constantly focus on this easily defensible position where someone could focus solely on self-defense and hamper discussion of why officers somehow get into situations where not having a license becomes an offense worthy of a beating/death.

"Not tactically optimal" was being used to describe the fact the cop didn't just wait for backup so he had overwhelming force on his side, or allowing himself to get into a position where the kid was beating on him, and its used to differentiate between causal responsibility and moral responsibility.

Not having a license is never "an offense worthy of beating/death", and that's not why the kid was shot. Hell he wasn't even shot because "beating the poo poo out of a police office" is a offense worthy of death, he was shot to stop the beating.

ElCondemn posted:

As I said before, I can't argue with you because you have a different world view. I know you think 30 seconds is an eternity but 8 seconds is no time at all, because that's how you justify these things. You do not see the fault in what you're saying, it's not possible for me to convince you otherwise because the way you see the world prevents any wrongdoing on the cops part. It is literally impossible for a cop to make a bad decision using the mindset you're using.

What does it take for an officer to do wrong? If he says he was scared for his life he is justified, if he says he saw no threat he's justified, there is no way for him to do wrong.

When did I say any of these cases the cops did nothing wrong? I said the cop in the Tamir Rice shooting was so grossly incompetent that the person who gave him and badge and gun should be held liable, I said the the cops who failed to shoot their wife murdering coworkers hosed up and should be fired, and I said that even mr brightlights made a bunch of tactical errors (although in his case I don't think any of them are unreasonable, unless he violated some sort of department policy).

Yes, 30 seconds can seem like an eternity, and 8 seconds can seem like an instant. Not only is one of those lengths of time almost 4 times longer then the other, its like you're not aware humans that perceive things differently depending on context and stress.

Lemming posted:

You agreed yourself that just because the cops have the right to do something doesn't mean they should. The guy tasered the kid completely unnecessarily, which started the fight.

I think you're thinking of something DR said but I'll agree to that now at least. There is a big difference in culpability between doing something you don't have the right to do, and doing something you have the right to do but in retrospect was a bad idea. Tasering the kid didn't "start the fight," the kid doesn't somehow have the moral right to assault the officer and beat the poo poo out of him because he doesn't like getting tasered while resisting arrest.

Lemming posted:

There's evidence of a fight (obviously) but none from the report that indicated that the kid was on top of him and wailing on him. All but one of the shots were from an intermediate range, except for the one to his head, which was the fatal one.

There was plenty from the report, try actually reading it this time

# ? Jun 19, 2015 21:54

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Jarmak posted:

and I said that even mr brightlights made a bunch of tactical errors (although in his case I don't think any of them are unreasonable, unless he violated some sort of department policy).

Stop, right there. This is you saying he didn't do anything wrong.

# ? Jun 19, 2015 22:02

Wayne Knight: May 11, 2006

Cop shoots a 4 year old while trying to shoot a dog that "accosted" him

# ? Jun 19, 2015 22:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 19:59

C2C - 2.0: May 14, 2006; Dubs In The Key Of Life; Lipstick Apathy

RZA Encryption posted:

Cop shoots a 4 year old while trying to shoot a dog that "accosted" him

"You couldn't keep Police Officer out of the headline!"

Okay, which one of you goons posted in the comments section?

# ? Jun 19, 2015 22:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

«‹›378 »