|
Zanzibar Ham posted:I think people's problems with the police is that it seems like being black looks more threatening to them than shooting someone with a gun. Not seems, this is empirically proving it.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:A - Shooting someone you know is hard. It makes you blink. It sure seems really easy for police to shoot someone they don't know. Once again, we've got a police force where unarmed people get gunned down as soon as they hike up their pants or reach into a glovebox too fast but a fellow police officer is allowed to repeatedly shoot someone right in front of the cops without a finger laid on him. This position would be more tenable if American police relatively rarely shot and killed people, but it's a fact that literally multiple civilians per day are being gunned down by cops or mysteriously dying of "excited delirium" in custody. There's such a massive swing between "Kill literally anyone even if they're unarmed and retroactively justify it" and "Don't even raise your voice too much" from how civilians are treated and how a fellow officer is treated that it's a clear sign of dehumanization of victims of police violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's to encourage people to be honest for purposes of civil liability settlements. Same reason things said during negotiations can't be used against you. Most traffic accidents are not criminal matters. Neither was this, it was a $166 fine he got out of. Essentially he pulled the same stunt everyone else does where you show up to traffic court and argue the paperwork is hosed on your speeding ticket. This thread has really jumped the shark if we're calling traffic accidents murder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Neither was this, it was a $166 fine he got out of. Essentially he pulled the same stunt everyone else does where you show up to traffic court and argue the paperwork is hosed on your speeding ticket. Unarmed guy killed a cop with a police car couple of days ago in Hutto TX. Maybe if the cop had jumped on the hood and mag dumped, he would still be alive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
http://deadspin.com/florida-state-seminoles-qb-suspended-allegedly-punched-1714018003quote:Sources say Johnson was involved in an argument with the woman after she cut in front of him while they were waiting to order drinks at a bar near the FSU campus. Witnesses told police the woman raised her arms and then Johnson grabbed them and punched her in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:In defense of the dudes that didn't shoot the cop who killed his wife: The guy shot her once, the police came over, negotiated the release of the kid, and then the guy shot her again, while the police were there. He shot her times over about eight seconds, the second time. In what possible universe should the police be allowed to shoot anybody in any situation and not shoot the guy in this scenario? This isn't monday morning quarterbacking. This isn't shoot first ask questions later. This is "what the gently caress is the justification for shooting black people who twitch too fast for a cop if they won't shoot at someone who is literally in the middle of shooting someone to death?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The guy shot her once, the police came over, negotiated the release of the kid, and then the guy shot her again, while the police were there. He shot her times over about eight seconds, the second time. Seems like it's an extension of the "us vs them" attitude that the former Baltimore cop discussed in depth with Balko in that interview that was just posed. The guy shooting his wife was someone they actually had empathy towards, unlike almost everyone else they come across on a daily basis. I don't understand where all the debate about this is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Seems like it's an extension of the "us vs them" attitude that the former Baltimore cop discussed in depth with Balko in that interview that was just posed. The guy shooting his wife was someone they actually had empathy towards, unlike almost everyone else they come across on a daily basis. I don't understand where all the debate about this is coming from. Some people want to argue that its ok that police treat only other police like humans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Some people want to argue that its ok that police treat only other police like humans. Looks to me like they're saying it's understandable, not that it's right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Looks to me like they're saying it's understandable, not that it's right. They're saying its understandable and not worth complaining about because it is "human nature".
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Why does everyone on the cops side of these arguments always use the term "Monday morning quarterbacking"? There are a bunch of words that mean the same thing, however this one seems to get used a lot by cop defenders...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Looks to me like they're saying it's understandable, not that it's right. It's obviously understandable. For example, I think it would be hard to kill anybody, let alone someone I knew. However, their point is to try to deflect criticism of what the cops did (see the accusations of "Monday morning quarterbacking"), and then accusations that gosh gee I guess you just want the cops to kill everyone, huh?! Guess you can't complain when police kill some black people!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:In defense of the dudes that didn't shoot the cop who killed his wife: The choices you offer are dumb. There's a pretty big middle ground between not shooting this guy, who is the textbook example of the kind of criminal that police are supposed to shoot, and shooting "anyone that might possibly pose a threat to anyone, ever." Unless every decision you make swings wildly between two polar opposites I have to think that you're well aware of that yourself. If you really need it spelled out though, how about a policy of "shoot people who are an active threat to yourself or others. Don't shoot people who aren't." And yes, I realize that still leaves room for interpretation in a number of events. But not this event. This event was nothing more than a blatant failure by these police officers to do their job and it might very well have cost a woman her life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that these officers standing idly by while a coworker murders a woman is just the most extreme case of police ignoring wrongdoing among themselves. If these officers did nothing to stop a murder, would they do something if they see a fellow officer beating a handcuffed suspect? Planting evidence? bad K9 alerts? Blocking a fire hydrant? Harassing ex girlfriends? Robbing a bodega? Falsifying a police report? Committing perjury? The argument that it's just too hard to stop a friend committing a murder also applies to ruining a friend's career over a planted dime bag, some physical retribution against a fleeing suspect, letting him sleep it off after a DUI stop, or a not filing a report after a domestic disturbance call.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
DARPA posted:I'm of the opinion that these officers standing idly by while a coworker murders a woman is just the most extreme case of police ignoring wrongdoing among themselves. Cops can do no wrong, action and inaction are tangential to how they feel about a situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Yeah, it is hard to shoot someone you know. Especially when that someone has been non-stop making GBS threads on his wife to his buddies on the force, loaded with other men who have been subjected to, and are responsible for, lovely marriages, who probably agree 100% with his lockstep mental illness and abuse of his family. He's attacked her twice before this, with no cops helping her, only him. Yeah, just can't imagine why they let her die like that. E: In case you're wondering: I'm calling bullshit. A man calmly unloaded a magazine into his wife and the mother of his children without blinking, like people claim happens with someone you're involved with. Someone you -know- These cops were not married to this man, nor had children with him. It's almost like they totally agree and empathize with him, making saving him a priority, because he's 'good' and viewing things as Good/Evil is a super productive way to do things. Gee, maybe he didn't know his wife at all, considering how easily he killed her. Now the kids have no parents, losing the one that actually gave a poo poo about them. Here's my No Angel defense: he's a wife beating piece of poo poo who shouldn't have a gun or a badge and should've been jailed and treated Day 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Armani posted:Yeah, it is hard to shoot someone you know. The newly minted ex-wife is one of the things that bothers me the most about this situation. Every defense of the police's response to their fellow murderer's actions ignores that she claimed long-term abuse. Here's an abused ex-wife to a cop, shot not once, but twice, in broad daylight. Just after an extremely dangerous chase through the streets that also endangered their 7 year old daughter and everyone else in the area. Once she crashes, he shoots her. Then is allowed to shoot her again. No reprisal whatsoever. Empathy is fine and understandable. Yet any time anyone else is executed out of fear, racial prejudice, etc, we never hear appeals to understand empathy from those so often willing to point it out here. That is a problem. How about empathy for the ex-wife of a cop? She claimed quite a bit of abuse. Did she ever have anyone she could reliably report it to? You have to wonder if she ever felt it worthwhile to try, and if she had would it ever have been recorded in any meaningful way? So she divorced the guy she claimed was severely abusive and unfaithful to her, and he went off and executed her, and was allowed to do so. Anyone who wants to go on and claim that empathy is a suitable excuse here, go ahead. Just also go on ignoring that he executed his ex-wife in broad daylight with his fellow officers standing by. I'm understanding that people didn't want to shoot someone they know. I have no understanding of the willingness to kill people you don't know with usually very little if any hesitation. Anyone defending the lack of action in this situation that will immediately defend the shooting of an unarmed person because, well, you weren't there, it's questionable..you really ought to take a moment of self-reflection. Empathy is fantastic. Extend it to citizens in the not-war-zone that is this country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Stop Monday morning quarterbacking this thing, jesus. No. If you don't like people analyzing your use of force, don't be a cop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
The problem is that people are going beyond "Well, the police mishandled this situation and should have taken him into custody earlier" to "Why didn't they flank around and shoot him as soon as he went to the front of the car? IT CAN ONLY BE BECAUSE THEY WERE OK WITH HIM KILLING HIS WIFE."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
No, you insinuated that it was other peoples position. No one but you claimed this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:In defense of the dudes that didn't shoot the cop who killed his wife: Didn't seem like that cop had a very hard time shooting his wife
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem is that people are going beyond "Well, the police mishandled this situation and should have taken him into custody earlier" to "Why didn't they flank around and shoot him as soon as he went to the front of the car? IT CAN ONLY BE BECAUSE THEY WERE OK WITH HIM KILLING HIS WIFE." Yeah, nope. But if you're interested in having an honest discussion please proceed. If you are only interested in having one with yourself, by all means, have it only with yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem is that people are going beyond "Well, the police mishandled this situation and should have taken him into custody earlier" to "Why didn't they flank around and shoot him as soon as he went to the front of the car? IT CAN ONLY BE BECAUSE THEY WERE OK WITH HIM KILLING HIS WIFE." No one is doing that. In fact the majority of your responses seem to take people's opinions to hyperbolic levels, you really should stop doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm confused how you think this post even makes sense, do you believe humans operate in completely binary reactions? I'm not about to sit around being gawked at by someone who said the natural human reaction to a hostage taker with a wounded hostage is to not expect them to shoot again. You explain that and I'll explain why the police don't usually settle down and chill when someone gets shot and someone with a gun stips them from getting to the victim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
For the record I don't consider 8 minutes of letting someone enjoy a bullet in their body as "hesitation". Maybe that's where we're having problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Yeah, nope. But if you're interested in having an honest discussion please proceed. If you are only interested in having one with yourself, by all means, have it only with yourself. Mavric posted:No one is doing that. In fact the majority of your responses seem to take people's opinions to hyperbolic levels, you really should stop doing that. OK, here's three examples from just this page of people either implying or outright stating that the police's failure to kill the officer before he shot his wife again was due to systematic bias against non-cops, and a willingness to tolerate straight up murder by their peers. Armani posted:Yeah, it is hard to shoot someone you know. DARPA posted:I'm of the opinion that these officers standing idly by while a coworker murders a woman is just the most extreme case of police ignoring wrongdoing among themselves. chitoryu12 posted:Once again, we've got a police force where unarmed people get gunned down as soon as they hike up their pants or reach into a glovebox too fast but a fellow police officer is allowed to repeatedly shoot someone right in front of the cops without a finger laid on him. This position would be more tenable if American police relatively rarely shot and killed people, but it's a fact that literally multiple civilians per day are being gunned down by cops or mysteriously dying of "excited delirium" in custody. There's such a massive swing between "Kill literally anyone even if they're unarmed and retroactively justify it" and "Don't even raise your voice too much" from how civilians are treated and how a fellow officer is treated that it's a clear sign of dehumanization of victims of police violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, here's three examples from just this page of people either implying or outright stating that the police's failure to kill the officer before he shot his wife again was due to systematic bias against non-cops You realize "cops are likely to personally know other cops than non-cops, and thus treat them other cops like humans" is a kind of systematic bias against non-cops, right? Edit: also none of the posts say what you're claiming they're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, here's three examples from just this page of people either implying or outright stating that the police's failure to kill the officer before he shot his wife again was due to systematic bias against non-cops, and a willingness to tolerate straight up murder by their peers. Well, that's different from what you said a minute ago. It's definitely because of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, here's three examples from just this page of people either implying or outright stating that the police's failure to kill the officer before he shot his wife again was due to systematic bias against non-cops, and a willingness to tolerate straight up murder by their peers. The surprise is mostly rooted in the fact that the cop started shooting at his wife a second time, four times over eight seconds, and the cops still did nothing. In none of those quotes does anyone say or imply they should have shot the guy as soon as they walked over. You're mischaracterizing it as people saying the cops should have shot the guy before he started shooting again, when passages like "officers standing idly by while a coworker murders a woman" and "allowed to repeatedly shoot someone right in front of the cops without a finger laid on him" are clearly saying it's absurd the cops did nothing when they were there, literally watching a murderer shoot someone to death with a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, here's three examples from just this page of people either implying or outright stating that the police's failure to kill the officer before he shot his wife again was due to systematic bias against non-cops, and a willingness to tolerate straight up murder by their peers. Was the action of the police officers not significantly impacted by a professional or even personal bias? I don't think anyone is claiming they were gung-ho about tolerating murder being committed by their peer or had any desire for such. I severely doubt any of them were anything but conflicted and upset about the situation. If Neptune Police Sergeant Philip Seidle, after endangering the community through a reckless car chase, and opening fire on his ex-wife, Tamara Seidle, involving and in front of their young daughter, not once but twice over a span of time in the immediate presence of police..if he were anyone else, he would almost certainly be dead. I don't think any of the officers involved in that situation were anything but upset and conflicted about it. I also think they expressed an amazing reluctance to act, and yes bias, because it was one of their own. We can refer to that reluctance and understand it as empathy. Now, why is it in these back and forth debates we never hear about empathy in officer involved shootings of unarmed persons? I would still very much like to know where the empathy for the murdered ex-wife who claimed a history of abuse is. E: If anyone is claiming that they simply tolerated murder by one of their own and shrugged it off, by all means, have it out with them. I really don't think that's what anyone is saying, even if they're a bit hyperbolic about the situation. Which is completely understandable if you aren't biased. hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
None of those are WAAHHHHAH WHY DON'T COP DO BLAH. You are crazy, you are seeing more demons than a white cop in an inner city. Also cops do have systamic bias in favor of their own kind, did you not read that article by the former BPD officer? Like that was the loving thesis.
Mavric fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem is that people are going beyond "Well, the police mishandled this situation and should have taken him into custody earlier" to "Why didn't they flank around and shoot him as soon as he went to the front of the car? IT CAN ONLY BE BECAUSE THEY WERE OK WITH HIM KILLING HIS WIFE." This is exactly it, and exactly what I've been arguing against, and the fact people are trying to pretend this hasn't been said after pages and pages of poo poo like "this just shows that cop's lives are the only thing that matters" is loving disingenuous as all hell. Intel&Sebastian posted:I'm not about to sit around being gawked at by someone who said the natural human reaction to a hostage taker with a wounded hostage is to not expect them to shoot again. You explain that and I'll explain why the police don't usually settle down and chill when someone gets shot and someone with a gun stips them from getting to the victim. Except he's not some random person who they're seeing dehumanized as "a hostage taker", he's "Phill, one of my Sergeants", that's the entire loving point. Intel&Sebastian posted:For the record I don't consider 8 minutes of letting someone enjoy a bullet in their body as "hesitation". Maybe that's where we're having problems. Also this is like the 4th time I've seen someone post this trash. The word hesitating means being reluctant to do something because of uncertainty, nothing about that word implies that the period of hesitation must be brief or that the action its describing is ever even carried out. edit: Booourns posted:Didn't seem like that cop had a very hard time shooting his wife Also this trash, If you can't understand that there's a difference between shooting someone you know out of necessity and shooting someone you know with murderous intent (you know what the word actually means, killing with malice and intent, not traffic accidents). Then you should probably figure out basic human social interaction before posting in this thread. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Except he's not some random person who they're seeing dehumanized as "a hostage taker", he's "Phill, one of my Sergeants", that's the entire loving point. So in other words, we shouldn't trust cops to make life and death decisions since they can't do it without taking their personal biases (racism included) into account. Or to put it another way, yet another argument for getting handguns out of the hands of most cops. Put a locked shotgun in their trunk, or make them call out a properly trained unit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
How dare people get upset that a bunch of cops watched another cop shoot his ex-wife to death, right in front of them, and then watch her bleed out for half an hour while they start focus grouping what font they should be using on the scrapbook.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Re "scrapbook" did they actually do anything more than load up his Facebook page on a phone and toss it to him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Actually I'm pretty sure shooting someone and taking them hostage is what should "dehumanize" someone into being a "hostage taker". You're lecturing me about the shades of grey in human behavior and then giving me a choice between robocops who shoot the guy or some poor conflicted guys who forgot what job they had because their misunderstood besties gun just accidentally went off in his ex wife? And as much as I'd love to parse the Oxford English dictionary with you, I'm going to assume you know what we're talking about. Whatever you'd like to call it, they dithered, they didnt do their job, and they let a guy murder his ex wife. If they did it because they love the guy so much: I understand what happened but I dont emphasize with it and I don't handwave it as something anyone would have done, especially when their job is public safety. I'm not involved in anything even remotely as important or life/death but if I'm so chummy with someone I can't discipline, fire them, or do what's necessary if they begin to get physical on the job, I don't have this job anymore. This is why we have a recusal process for judges and prosecutors. If you cant do the job for personal reasons you should find someone who can as soon as you realize it. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Re "scrapbook" did they actually do anything more than load up his Facebook page on a phone and toss it to him? http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/what_did_cops_give_suspected_shooter_during_asbury.html quote:"The thing that was slid to him was actually a cell phone that contained photographs of his children," Gramiccioni said. "That was a request he had made. He had made that of the people that were trying to get him to surrender."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Re "scrapbook" did they actually do anything more than load up his Facebook page on a phone and toss it to him? A witness narrative: quote:"He was bumping her car like it was bumper cars," the witness said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, here's three examples from just this page of people either implying or outright stating that the police's failure to kill the officer before he shot his wife again was due to systematic bias against non-cops, and a willingness to tolerate straight up murder by their peers. Thanks for backing up my point. Jarmak posted:This is exactly it, and exactly what I've been arguing against, and the fact people are trying to pretend this hasn't been said after pages and pages of poo poo like "this just shows that cop's lives are the only thing that matters" is loving disingenuous as all hell. The cops don't need you protecting them against the Internet. They won, and will always win, like guns. They hosed up here, hard. And the fact that you're weaving emotional arguments into this while giving people poo poo for it over non-cop lives is pretty telling. OF COURSE this is how basic humans act - the loving issue is why I am seeing cops act like basic humans when it involves one of their and not any civilian of any race or gender as of late. And don't feed me 'group mentality' or Blue Lines or whatever. We're loving human beings in 2015 and are capable of a whole lotta poo poo we weren't doing just five years ago. If we realize it, we can overcome it, that's being self-aware and not falling into memetic utterances ("No Angel") when innocent people die. Where does his wife fall into this? That woman you keep ignoring. The person he knew and loved and pro-created with and then tried to murder twice before he successfully did it in public without anyone stopping him. He knew her very well, better than anyone on that force, presumably. He murdered her, dude. Maliciously murdered her, since that's a thing, now. He should have been stopped to the loving ground when those first shots went off - even if a police gets shot trying to take him down. That's their loving job. It's their job to stop this dude before he kills more people. The issue is cops don't see it that way despite us granting them monopoly of force to do so. Do your loving jobs and actually police. Even if it's Phil, your Sergeant. ESPECIALLY IF IT'S PHIL, YOUR SERGEANT. loving A, guys. What kind of friends do you have where this is an acceptable world view? His wife was an acceptable piece of collateral to make sure no one else died, right? Poor loving Phil, gets to keep his pension and friendships and his guns. E: I can already hear you guys going YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND POLICE/HUMAN INTERACTION. No, I understand it just fine! Thanks! Fix your poo poo! Armani fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is exactly it, and exactly what I've been arguing against, and the fact people are trying to pretend this hasn't been said after pages and pages of poo poo like "this just shows that cop's lives are the only thing that matters" is loving disingenuous as all hell. It's great that you're here to argue against the handful of posters who occasionally (or in some cases usually) post with enthusiastic hyperbole. Some of them even deserve a response sometimes. Good work. It's also loving disingenuous as hell to argue that this is an instance explained with empathy, while empathy is never brought up in other cases. And yet still, no one who is defending the (understandably defensible from a position of empathy) cops in this situation, give a moments mention or care about the wife WHO CLAIMED A LONG HISTORY OF ABUSE AND WAS SHOT DEAD, if not the first time, then the second time, certainly. Why does this same empathy NOT EXTEND TO ANYONE ELSE. Shall we go on pretending that the abused wife of a cop had every option available to her throughout the entirety of that abuse? Surely, right? She managed to get a divorce and was only executed in the street a few days later. Sorry for the caps, but nobody seems to pay attention to anything that doesn't fit what they want to talk about. I'm not only responding to you Jarmak, so please don't think I'm ascribing everything to you specifically. Many people have said, hey, it's understandable they didn't want to shoot and kill someone they knew personally, or knew was a fellow officer. It might be a problem when we never talk about empathy when people are killed needlessly. It's always just well, understandable that a cop might've been in fear of their life. They weren't armed? Well, they didn't know that. Shouldn't have made a furtive movement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:18
|
|