|
ActusRhesus posted:you're right...in a situation like that, they should have just opened fire. Because opening fire in a hostage situation always goes well. Is it really a hostage situation when the person being held hostage is the person with a gun? He put the gun to his own head; he wasn't training it on his child or his wife who had just been shot. I would agree with your assessment if he hadn't just shot his ex-wife, but that isn't the case.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Restraint is great, I'd like police to use it more! Don't be afraid to take half an hour negotiating. Unless the actual victim is bleeding to death while you try to talk your buddy down. I don't know if they could have stopped the second shooting, but even assuming they couldn't have, they wasted half an hour that could possibly have saved Tamara Seidle's life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:What the apologists are also not getting is many of these "feared for his life so had to waste him" situations got to that point because the cop was demanding immediate compliance and escalated to a physical then violent confrentation. Idiot kid with no license who didn't get out of the car? There was zero threat to anyone if he didn't get out immediately but since he didn't cop gets pissy and starts screaming orders. Since he didn't put his hands in the right spot fast enough he gets tazed and freaks out. Police apologists expect loads of empathy, but only for the cops. We're told to empathize with the officers when they may be faced with the choice of killing a fellow officer, but also told to empathize with them when they start screaming and pointing weapons at unarmed, non-threatening people or shooting someone who goes into a backpack to get their ID too fast. At no point have we ever been expected to give empathy to civilian victims.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so whether or not something was correct depends upon an after the fact analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Got it. Yes. I believe you may be familiar with the process - it's called a 'trial' in some languages. Edit: More specifically, the benefit of hindsight and making the judgments of whether or the outcome could have been avoided when it results in loss of life. So far the common thread when people in this thread criticize police actions is that each time someone has died, the police could have acted differently and potentially changed the outcome of encounter. Kid refusing to show his license? Summon backup, or let him go and mail the ticket to the vehicle owner. Man shooting a woman after running her off the road? Tazer, beanbag round, or hell, shoot the individual who actively attempted to murder someone else in their line of vision, and then get the EMTs on site. This isn't rocket science. I don't feel safer with the police around when their judgment in heated moments seems to have a pattern of leaving unarmed bodies in its wake. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Restraint is great, I'd like police to use it more! Don't be afraid to take half an hour negotiating. Since cops are conditioned to believe any cop, they probably took him at his word when he said she was already dead. "Oh ok sarge."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so whether or not something was correct depends upon an after the fact analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Got it. What the hell are you talking about? In the situation we are talking about a man has pulled a gun, out and visable, and shot someone twice. Someone he knew, which by your logic means he should have had a hard time killing her. This isn't a Tamir Rice situation where he looks like he could be reaching for something so the officer blasts him away in 12 seconds, where no one else is in danger of dying because they are actively bleeding out. There was no 30 minute negotiation there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:At no point have we ever been expected to give empathy to civilian victims. In fact, we've been told by one poster that empathy for the victim was irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Anora posted:What the hell are you talking about? In the situation we are talking about a man has pulled a gun, out and visable, and shot someone twice. Someone he knew, which by your logic means he should have had a hard time killing her. I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you can't tell the difference between murder and shooting someone you know out of necessity I don't know what to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you can't tell the difference between murder and shooting someone you know out of necessity I don't know what to say. It's really quite amazing this has to be explained. I honestly cannot understand why posters here are finding this so difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:What the apologists are also not getting is many of these "feared for his life so had to waste him" situations got to that point because the cop was demanding immediate compliance and escalated to a physical then violent confrentation. Idiot kid with no license who didn't get out of the car? There was zero threat to anyone if he didn't get out immediately but since he didn't cop gets pissy and starts screaming orders. Since he didn't put his hands in the right spot fast enough he gets tazed and freaks out. To bad this post is already in the process of being ignored by disingenuous posters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so whether or not something was correct depends upon an after the fact analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Got it. No, I'm pretty sure the whole time the cops knew that there was a woman bleeding out in the front seat, they just cared more about their friend than her. "Hindsight" means that you have access to extra information, like the results of one of their decisions or mitigating factors unknown to the people in question. In this case, there's no hindsight needed at all! They hosed up severely and potentially let someone die!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:In fact, we've been told by one poster that empathy for the victim was irrelevant. Its not just irrelevant its actively prejudicial, there's a reason why evidence to that effect would be banned from any courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its not just irrelevant its actively prejudicial, there's a reason why evidence to that effect would be banned from any courtroom. Yes, when your goal is to defend the actions of police no matter what, empathy for victims is definitely prejudicial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:To bad this post is already in the process of being ignored by disingenuous posters. Ignoring toasticle's consistently bad posting has nothing to do with being disingenuous, which is a word better used to describe the characterization of that 17 year olds actions as that of a "scared kid", or somehow not noticing that there wasn't non-lethal options to subdue the guy waving the gun around like there was with tasering the kid who was resisting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Ignoring toasticle's consistently bad posting has nothing to do with being disingenuous, which is a word better used to describe the characterization of that 17 year olds actions as that of a "scared kid", or somehow not noticing that there wasn't non-lethal options to subdue the guy waving the gun around like there was with tasering the kid who was resisting. If it was a black civilian and there were no non-lethal options to subdue him, how would have the cops reacted?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Yes, when your goal is to defend the actions of police no matter what, empathy for victims is definitely prejudicial. Also in literally every modern justice system regardless of the accused or the crime, its like a foundational principle of the fair application of justice. I was pretty amazed that "hey its a natural human reaction to be reluctant to shoot a friend/mentor " was somehow not understood by people in this thread, but apparently even understanding the probabtive vs prejudicial value of evidence/arguments is a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:If it was a black civilian and there were no non-lethal options to subdue him, how would have the cops reacted? Probably the same as if it was a white civilian whom they didn't have a close personal relationship with, shoot him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I was pretty amazed that "hey its a natural human reaction to be reluctant to shoot a friend/mentor " was somehow not understood by people in this thread, but apparently even understanding the probabtive vs prejudicial value of evidence/arguments is a bridge too far. Everyone gets that, what you don't seem to understand is how that's a perfect example of one of the pro-police biases that exist in our law enforcement system. The fact that police treat each other like humans and everyone else like animals isn't less of a problem because there are good excuses as to why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Probably the same as if it was a white civilian whom they didn't have a close personal relationship with, shoot him. What, no scrapbook?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
I'm imagining the shooter sitting on the car hood sobbing, the wife wheezing through multiple wounds as the life pours from her body, while four feet away the police officers have organized a team to pick out the most in-focus shots of his kids, and a team to design the floral patterns to frame them. The rookie is starting to wonder if he should call in an ambulance for the wife, he will not survive the beat. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Probably the same as if it was a white civilian whom they didn't have a close personal relationship with, shoot him. Haven't there been multiple times where white civilians waved guns around in public and they were talked down rather than being shot? Are you sure a white civilian would have been shot in this case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Haven't there been multiple times where white civilians waved guns around in public and they were talked down rather than being shot? Are you sure a white civilian would have been shot in this case? It's legal to open carry in Oregon. They film a compliant confrontation with police when the armed person is white, then they re-do it with a compliant black guy. Guess who gets tazed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvW_zBvJlsA
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Everyone gets that, what you don't seem to understand is how that's a perfect example of one of the pro-police biases that exist in our law enforcement system. You keep saying this, but its always immediately followed by other posters contesting this very thing you say everyone understands, its kind of comical really, though mostly convenient because it saves me the effort from having to dig up quotes from the pages and pages of people not getting that. The issue is with the treating them general public like the enemy, or "animals" as you put it. Having cops not treat people they have close personal relationship with like they've never seen them in their life is going to have to wait for the robot overlords. Which is if I remember correctly almost exactly what I said when I first posted about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
I think people understand it just fine, they just don't excuse it, especially when cops are so trigger happy in every other scenario. It's just more of the pro-police rhetoric people are just supposed to buy into. Think about how they FEEL. (Never think about the victims)
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You keep saying this, but its always immediately followed by other posters contesting this very thing you say everyone understands, its kind of comical really, though mostly convenient because it saves me the effort from having to dig up quotes from the pages and pages of people not getting that. Are you sure they treat the general public as the enemy rather than a certain potion of it? It seems that a certain majority part of the general public gets the benefit of the doubt, while another minor part gets shot on sight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also in literally every modern justice system regardless of the accused or the crime, its like a foundational principle of the fair application of justice. The problem is that you are defending a system that violate these very principles everyday and you refuse to learn from it. When the system washes itself of it's crimes by self declaring it so regardless of the evidence, you're there defending it. You are not interested in seeking justice, you are only interested in reinforcing a system that is committing millions of injustices everyday so you can score points and be smug. How is it you are not horrified by what you are defending?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Are you sure they treat the general public as the enemy rather than a certain potion of it? It seems that a certain majority part of the general public gets the benefit of the doubt, while another minor part gets shot on sight. Yes there is definitely a systemic racism issue with most if not all police in the US, I don't think this is an example of that problem and this flourish of "but racism exists!", or any of the other myriad of posters pointing at different anecdotes of unrelated police misbehavior, does not serve any point in the context of this conversation other then to play a game of "don't look at the man behind the curtain, look over there! look how bad cops are!" whenever it gets pointed out they don't know what they're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes there is definitely a systemic racism issue with most if not all police in the US. Cool, I'm glad you agree. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Anora posted:There's a difference between "think he has a gun", and actively has a gun and is using it on civilians. Does the wife he was filling with holes not count as a civilian?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'm imagining the shooter sitting on the car hood sobbing, the wife wheezing through multiple wounds as the life pours from her body, while four feet away the police officers have organized a team to pick out the most in-focus shots of his kids, and a team to design the floral patterns to frame them. You know that they just tossed him a phone with his facebook pulled up, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You know that they just tossed him a phone with his facebook pulled up, right? 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 29, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes there is definitely a systemic racism issue with most if not all police in the US, I don't think this is an example of that problem and this flourish of "but racism exists!", or any of the other myriad of posters pointing at different anecdotes of unrelated police misbehavior, does not serve any point in the context of this conversation other then to play a game of "don't look at the man behind the curtain, look over there! look how bad cops are!" whenever it gets pointed out they don't know what they're talking about. If you think none of the poo poo in this thread is ever a problem why do you think there's a problem?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
DARPA posted:http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/what_did_cops_give_suspected_shooter_during_asbury.html This article has cell phone bystander video of the event including the shots fired, although it is clipped into a minute of excerpts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If you think none of the poo poo in this thread is ever a problem why do you think there's a problem? I'm sorry that you're such a partisan hack that you can't see any opinion on these issues more nuanced then "the cops seek only skulls for the skull throne" as thinking that there isn't a problem with something. I've stated, repeatedly, the problems I see with different situations, no one ever wants to talk about the actual problems or how to do things better in any dimension approaching reality. They just want to jerk each other off and see who can throw out the best one liner about those murderous pigs. We never get to having any sort of real discussion about policy or training because we never get past poo poo like "traffic accidents aren't murder", "its harder to gun down your friend", or " if someone isn't compliant the cops shouldn't just throw up their arms and let him go".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:We never get to having any sort of real discussion about policy or training because we never get past poo poo like "traffic accidents aren't murder", "its harder to gun down your friend", or " if someone isn't compliant the cops shouldn't just throw up their arms and let him go". Unless I am truly crazy, you're the one pushing these lines. You're the one who insist on defending every incident in an attempt to absolve them of accountability. Every time someone comes up with some sort of reform even when they were part out the system and had intimate knowledge of said wrong doing and solutions to said problems, one of you either blast it for being fluff, then demanding more details while providing nothing themselves or straight up ignoring them like you have. Go read this and come back. hallebarrysoetoro posted:I can't figure out how to make this link a normal, non-paned page but here's a WaPo article on the former BPD cop talking about what we'll be reading about in the DoJ report that will be handwaved away as, I don't know, some stupid Facebook meme?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you can't tell the difference between murder and shooting someone you know out of necessity I don't know what to say. They knew the wife too. Are you saying your response to one of your friend trying to murder another would be to let you friend bleed out while you hugged the other one into turning himself in. Holy gently caress, do you people not get that they knew the victim too? It is their job to stop poo poo like this, they weren't a bunch of steel workers chilling around when Bob decided to ventilate some random dude/lady. Booourns posted:Does the wife he was filling with holes not count as a civilian? congratulations, you got my point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm sorry that you're such a partisan hack that you can't see any opinion on these issues more nuanced then "the cops seek only skulls for the skull throne" as thinking that there isn't a problem with something. I've stated, repeatedly, the problems I see with different situations, no one ever wants to talk about the actual problems or how to do things better in any dimension approaching reality. They just want to jerk each other off and see who can throw out the best one liner about those murderous pigs. We never get to having any sort of real discussion about policy or training because we never get past poo poo like "traffic accidents aren't murder", "its harder to gun down your friend", or " if someone isn't compliant the cops shouldn't just throw up their arms and let him go". I'm serious, you spend all day being an apologist for police behavior, what is it you think is the problem if they're never at fault? I never see a video of police abuse in this thread without you defending the police, but you seem to agree there are problems? From my perspective you seem to be arguing that police are "just doing their job" and that they don't need to change. What problems do you see? And please be specific, platitudes about institutional racism mean nothing, where are the everyday occurrences of these abuses or failures that you agree exist but we never see in this thread? Are all the problems just nebulous, hard to define and observe issues that you can't blame anyone for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
If you can't harm a fellow police officer to prevent the death of an innocent person, you shouldn't be a cop. Period. This keeps getting taken to mean "THEY'RE NOT ROBOTS THEY CAN'T JUST KILL HIM!" but the police didn't even do anything to save the victim. They never used a Taser, beanbag shotguns, tear gas, pepper spray, K-9 unit, anything. They never once used any method that would immediately end the standoff to let them save the victim, even ones that wouldn't kill their friend. They spent the entire 30 minutes negotiating and assembling what he requested, and likely resulted in an innocent life lost to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Cool, I'm glad you agree. Just want to apologize for this post, here's how I should have continued it - I think that the question here is, would a black cop have survived this situation if he started shooting his ex-wife? This isn't a sure bet, since black cops have been misidentified by white cops before. Perhaps it depends on whether or not he was in uniform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Anora posted:They knew the wife too. If you categorically can't work out why its easier for someone to commit murder, usually while in a heightened emotional state or a minor psychological break and someone having to shoot their friend out of necessity I honestly don't know anymore. Thats like, a level of disconnect I didn't think was possible. This is not to say what the police officers did is correct, I think it was a monumental gently caress up on all parts. I just take issue with that statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:15
|
|