|
serious gaylord posted: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. I can see that in my personal life, where I'm not paid tax (or fine) payer's money to put that aside and protect the public. Than again, I'd like to think I wouldn't stand around while someone I knew was in the process of seriously hurting someone else I knew, even if I knew one of them less. And sorry I have a level of disconnect that says "oh poo poo, my bro is popping a cap in his wife, and I'm covered in body armor with a variety of tools to stop him that may not result in his death, I should stop him," and then have the ability to make that call within 30 minutes. Why couldn't one of the officers pulling up to the scene just run their car into him, that was apparently a way to deal with a man threatening to kill himself with a gun earlier in this thread. serious gaylord posted: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. So you're just being a pedantic shitlord?
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
serious gaylord posted: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. Do you think this unbreakable bond of friendship causes officers to ignore other wrongdoing by their friends as well? Or this just an isolated incident without further implications for how police treat outsiders? Lots of posters seem very concerned some of us aren't being sensitive enough regarding these poor officers. They were complicit in murder. I don't believe murder is special case officers look the other way on out of brotherly love. But please continue focusing on the real victims in this incident.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
A touch off topic, but for an interesting historical perspective about corruption in law enforcement you should check out The Seven Five. I had a chance to watch it over the weekend and if anything it shows how much police are willing to overlook with respect to their peers. Here's the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBB7DolmQPY And here's a link to a ny daily news article about the documentary and the central crooked cop, Michael Dowd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Anora posted:And sorry I have a level of disconnect that says "oh poo poo, my bro is popping a cap in his wife, and I'm covered in body armor with a variety of tools to stop him that may not result in his death, I should stop him," and then have the ability to make that call within 30 minutes. You've never heard of the trolley experiment, apparently. It is a lot easier for people to choose to let someone die by inaction rather than to kill someone by action. It doesn't make it right, but it makes it understandable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Do you think this unbreakable bond of friendship causes officers to ignore other wrongdoing by their friends as well? Or this just an isolated incident without further implications for how police treat outsiders? I think this is the case yes. Police officers will regularly protect each other because thats the culture they've been trained in. But I dont really give a poo poo about these police officers, I just take issue with the fact people expect human beings to be robots when confronted with an emotional situation. Even with the best training in the world its proven that people hesitate and make mistakes when faced with tough decisions regarding people they know. This is why doctors are advised not to treat family members. 'Its very difficult to shoot someone you know out of necessity' is not a controversial statement. If this thread could move away from both sides trying to win points against the other I don't think this would have ever have been an issue, never mind posted about for 5+? pages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I think this is the case yes. Police officers will regularly protect each other because thats the culture they've been trained in. Given that we can't trust cops to police other cops, who should deal with a cop who starts murdering people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I think this is the case yes. Police officers will regularly protect each other because thats the culture they've been trained in. They didn't even loving try. They went well beyond hesitating. They not only did they let a dying women continue to be held hostage, they did nothing when she was shot again. Their failure is so complete they were negligent to the point they might as well be accomplices. The problem with the statement 'Its very difficult to shoot someone you know out of necessity' is context. When they first rolled up, yeah sure fine, you don't really know what's going on other than you're beloved sarge waving a gun around so you hesitate, you break protocol a little by trying to talk him down. You start picking up the hostages and the wounded women in your mind, time has become a very strong factor, you have to bring him down, you don't have a choice on this. How you bring him down is your choice. "When" becomes the question with the answer "very, very soon". But then Sarge shoots the women with a second volley and you don't loving act? Get hosed. Washing the chain of events over this single statement is disgusting. Remember this very same Blue Wall BS stopped the wife from getting out of the relationship safely when she couldn't get protection from her abuser. If they weren't willing to protect the wife they could have dealt with the sarge, get him help since they loved him so much. She couldn't get protection even when she was getting actively murdered. They failed time and time and time again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Yeah if they are that unwilling to do anything even non-lethal to their co-worker while his victim is bleeding out it gives some serious concerns as to how often they are willing to look the other way when other cops are committing crimes, especially ones not seen in public as blatantly as this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:They didn't even loving try. Okay, and I'm not arguing against that, nor excusing said police officers from making colossal errors in this situation, the biggest of which was their inability to neutralise their colleague after they'd removed the child from the situation and before he'd returned to shoot his wife again. Compounded by their actions afterwards where they took his word for the fact she was dead and went about talking him down from blowing his own brains out, when if it was not a police officer, he'd have had 20 bullets in him the second he came out from behind the car. I only took issue with the people who cannot tell the difference between how its possible for someone to murder someone they know and someone hesitating to shoot someone they know. serious gaylord fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I only took issue with the people who cannot tell the difference between how its possible for someone to murder someone they know and someone hesitating to shoot someone they know. I don't think anyone actually took this line unless they were using it to defend the cops. It's also an asinine line to take because it wasn't about hesitation, that's why people are arguing against the above statement. It was more along the line of "He is shooting her right the hell now, bloody do something to stop him!" rather than scrape booking and organizing the hug patrol. It is a microcosm of how hosed up even this one aspect of not-policing is. This is juxtaposed to every other incidents where cops are absurdly trigger happy or committing cover-ups or whatever systemic failures you care to name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Okay, and I'm not arguing against that, nor excusing said police officers from making colossal errors in this situation, the biggest of which was their inability to neutralise their colleague after they'd removed the child from the situation and before he'd returned to shoot his wife again. Compounded by their actions afterwards where they took his word for the fact she was dead and went about talking him down from blowing his own brains out, when if it was not a police officer, he'd have had 20 bullets in him the second he came out from behind the car. Cops treat each other differently then they treat citizens. This is not a new concept, nor is it surprising. I find it funny that in this instance, we are finding fault with the cops for "not" being trigger happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I don't think anyone actually took this line unless they were using it to defend the cops. It's also an asinine line to take because it wasn't about hesitation, that's why people are arguing against the above statement. It was more along the line of "He is shooting her right the hell now, bloody do something to stop him!" rather than scrape booking and organizing the hug patrol. It is a microcosm of how hosed up even this one aspect of not-policing is. This is juxtaposed to every other incidents where cops are absurdly trigger happy or committing cover-ups or whatever systemic failures you care to name. I just wanna try to add to this point that WHILE the cops were being so absurdly trigger happy it was entirely based in the justification that hesitation could cost lives and in an active shooting situation that would be completely unacceptable. Does everyone remember the guy who got shot to death in a retail store for brandishing a toy gun sold in the store? He had no 'hostages' and thirty minutes of dialog would have saved every single person in that store. They shot immediately. Who the cops were tasked with enforcing the law upon is meaningless. Either the recent tragedy regarding the officer shooting his wife should have happened and the retail case should have been prevented; or this tragedy should have been prevented and the retail tragedy should* have happened. The police and any defending their actions are attempting to have their crappy cake and eat it too. *And let me be perfectly clear; While I personally believe that we could have prevented death in BOTH of these circumstances and when I said should I was speaking from the hypothetical perspective held by many defenders of the police that immediate violent force can prevent tragedy to attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I don't think anyone actually took this line unless they were using it to defend the cops. It's also an asinine line to take because it wasn't about hesitation, that's why people are arguing against the above statement. It was more along the line of "He is shooting her right the hell now, bloody do something to stop him!" rather than scrape booking and organizing the hug patrol. It is a microcosm of how hosed up even this one aspect of not-policing is. This is juxtaposed to every other incidents where cops are absurdly trigger happy or committing cover-ups or whatever systemic failures you care to name. It was actually the post I was responding to that started this: 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. Equating murder to be exactly the same as shooting someone out of necessity and using the argument that because the nutcase shooting his wife knows her, its impossible for the responding officers to have difficulty shooting him. Again, if you had to put me in a camp it would be in the 'gently caress cops' one, but this thread has devolved into ridiculous hyperbole from both sides just trying to score points. There's no debate happening here, its just a contest to shout the loudest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Camp "gently caress cops" sounds like a cool place, I'm picturing Ug telling Donkey Lips to put away his Free Mumia stickers but the other kids helping him hide the stash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Parody Threads posted:I'm picturing Ug telling Donkey Lips Who are these people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who are these people? Characters from the Nickelodeon TV show "Salute Your Shorts", a show about a summer camp that aired in the 90s. I think the one thing some people are not getting (or more likely, purposefully ignoring) is that in this VERY THREAD, it has been pointed out and argued to death by one side that cops have no choice but to make split second life or death decisions, and that these decisions to use deadly force are completely backed by the law, since they only need to PERCEIVE a threat. We've spent pages and pages and pages arguing about how cops shouldn't be demonized for making such quick judgments, and how it isn't their fault when people don't listen and follow commands, etc. But in the Jersey case, now we are hearing the complete opposite. That the cops should absolutely not be expected to have made any quick decisions, and shouldn't be demonized for being unwilling to neutralize an armed suspect. That is the disconnect. If the cops in NJ acted reasonably, then all of those other cops who shot people who didn't have weapons, or posed less of a threat than a man with a gun actively shooting a hostage, acted unreasonably, which means any post defending their actions is likely unreasonable or disingenuous. ToastyPotato fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Dahn posted:I find it funny that in this instance, we are finding fault with the cops for "not" being trigger happy. 'Trigger happy' has a well established and understood meaning that doesn't fit what anybody in this thread is asking for at all. Shooting an armed person who is committing murder right in front of you is not being trigger happy. Using appropriate force when necessary is not being trigger happy. Nobody in this thread has faulted the police for failure to be 'trigger happy.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:'Trigger happy' has a well established and understood meaning that doesn't fit what anybody in this thread is asking for at all. Shooting an armed person who is committing murder right in front of you is not being trigger happy. Using appropriate force when necessary is not being trigger happy. Nobody in this thread has faulted the police for failure to be 'trigger happy.' That is another thing people are being dishonest about. People in this thread aren't complaining about cops shooting people. They are complaining about cops shooting people who are not armed or pose no serious/immediate threat. Trying to paint the situation as either or is very revealing, but just in case people are genuinely that dense, here is a basic explanation of what most people want from cops: Bad guy doing bad things and is armed? Be trained to stop him and not let him do the bad things. "Suspicious person" may or may not be armed but not posing an immediate threat either way? Be trained to not shoot at the first sign of movement and instead assess the situation to determine what the hell is going on. Don't escalate minor interactions into violent ones, regardless of what kind of day you are having. Don't give other cops special treatment. Obviously there is a whole different can of worms when it comes to things like people being arrested over nothing, including numerous cases where charges are then dropped, or sometimes not even filed. But that is a much bigger topic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:That is another thing people are being dishonest about. People in this thread aren't complaining about cops shooting people. They are complaining about cops shooting people who are not armed or pose no serious/immediate threat. Trying to paint the situation as either or is very revealing, but just in case people are genuinely that dense, here is a basic explanation of what most people want from cops: There does seem to be a rush to lethal force. Scenario: Your walking along minding your own business. Cop approaches you and asks to search your pockets. You refuse and ask "what did I do?" Cop tells you to turn around and put your hands behind your back. You again ask "What did I do?" (now your resisting) 1 second later, Cop grabs your arms, you instinctively pull away (assault of a peace officer) Cop trips and pulls you down with him (more assault) Your on top with the cop holding onto you. he is alone and perceives that he is in danger. Cop pulls his gun, and points the barrel at you. You instinctively push the gun away from you. (you just went for his gun) Bang Bang, good shoot, no bill. Maybe we have too many cops, is there some study that shows that more cops equals less crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm waiting for a town to mandate that police officers walk their beats and are encouraged to interact and listen to community members. It seems like actually integrating officers into the communities they are supposed to represent would help with this clusterfuck of a situation we have. It might even help with racism when cops realize that no, black people aren't crazed honkykillers. Ideally there'd be reserve units kept close by the police station who could have access to patrol vehicles, which would have handguns in a lockbox within the trunk to respond to emergency situations. Otherwise walking cops and traffic cops would be nonlethally armed. It seems like it'd only take a few towns having success and publicizing it to spark debate about how hosed up interaction between civilians and cops is on a national scale. That the ideal police image is supposed to be "Officer saves cat from tree" and not "Officer shoots family dog in no-knock raid over speeding tickets" (also the obvious suggestions everyone's already made; bodycams, guncams, a department separate from cops who investigate altercations, properly funded public attorneys, bail limits, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
I don't think you can fairly compare the Neptune NJ case with the Walmart shooting at all. In the NJ case the murderer demonstrated very clearly that they were armed and using deadly force against a victim. If there were any doubt it was removed when the man shot his wife a second time with a volley of bullets. Yet still nothing was done for an extended period of time where neutralizing him could result in her receiving medical attention and at least a chance of survival. The police in the Walmart situation had vague and incomplete information and shot immediately without making any effort to confirm the threat posed by the person with the weapon, as did the cop in the Tamir Rice case. The NJ cop was definitely armed and definitely shooting. Not only did him shooting his wife establish his intent and the threat he posed without a doubt, it imposed an additional burden on the cops on the scene to resolve the situation as quickly as possible to allow aid to the injured party, which would have been very different had it been merely a hostage situation where he hadn't already shot someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I don't think you can fairly compare the Neptune NJ case with the Walmart shooting at all. In the NJ case the murderer demonstrated very clearly that they were armed and using deadly force against a victim. If there were any doubt it was removed when the man shot his wife a second time with a volley of bullets. Yet still nothing was done for an extended period of time where neutralizing him could result in her receiving medical attention and at least a chance of survival. The police in the Walmart situation had vague and incomplete information and shot immediately without making any effort to confirm the threat posed by the person with the weapon, as did the cop in the Tamir Rice case. You don't understand, whatever the cops do is right. There is literally nothing they can do that's wrong as long as police believe they're right, that is the argument Jamark and others are using and the law seems to be on their side. But also we all agree there are problems with police use of force, just none of those problems are visible in any of the videos or cases posted in this thread. If you whiny liberals would just quit nitpicking everything the police do we can talk about the real problems that are invisible and hard to pin on any one person. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I don't think you can fairly compare the Neptune NJ case with the Walmart shooting at all. In the NJ case the murderer demonstrated very clearly that they were armed and using deadly force against a victim. If there were any doubt it was removed when the man shot his wife a second time with a volley of bullets. Yet still nothing was done for an extended period of time where neutralizing him could result in her receiving medical attention and at least a chance of survival. The police in the Walmart situation had vague and incomplete information and shot immediately without making any effort to confirm the threat posed by the person with the weapon, as did the cop in the Tamir Rice case. You can compare them because of the massive difference between the police response. In cases where police have incorrect or incomplete information about the threat a civilian poses, they immediately resort to lethal force with little or no effort to negotiate or learn more about the situation. In the case of an unarmed civilian who's non-violently resisting (like refusing to surrender a backpack or put his hands behind his back) or simply confused as to what's happening, they throw the person to the ground and threaten to tase them while screaming orders and are liable to actually cause harm if these orders aren't followed. But in a case where a police officer is actively committing murder and is threatening people with a loaded gun in between shooting an innocent person, the police don't do anything except negotiate a surrender at the expense of his victim, who is left with fatal wounds untreated in the time it takes to negotiate a 100% violence-free surrender. The police response to the Neptune officer is such a polar opposite to how civilians are treated that it immediately sets off alarm bells. Civilians get zero benefit of the doubt and police are expected to treat them as threats and use force and intimidation to gain immediate compliance (or even kill if they personally deem it necessary), but a fellow officer's life is put so far above civilian life that even a psychotic cop repeatedly shooting his wife has his own well-being placed above that of his bleeding victim. Meanwhile, the police apologists who previously excused and defended officers killing people merely on the pretense of a threat immediately switch to "DON'T YOU HAVE EMPATHY?" when asked why a cop who's an active armed threat doesn't get anything but careful and kind negotiation and hugs as he's handcuffed and why the police let an innocent woman bleed to death in the interim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Meanwhile, the police apologists who previously excused and defended officers killing people merely on the pretense of a threat immediately switch to "DON'T YOU HAVE EMPATHY?" when asked why a cop who's an active armed threat doesn't get anything but careful and kind negotiation and hugs as he's handcuffed and why the police let an innocent woman bleed to death in the interim. You're such a dummy, clearly you're saying killing your best friend in the world is easy!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Cops treat each other differently then they treat citizens. This is not a new concept, nor is it surprising. I wouldn't consider shooting someone who is in the process of killing another human to be "trigger happy" honestly
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
It's almost like people can think that shooting someone because you thought they had a gun and not shooting someone because you know them and think that you can talk them down are both understandable decisions and that there should be some empathy for the person who made that decision given the situation they made it in, but can also think that neither was actually the right decision to have made. I can accept that shooting, or not shooting, in those situations was a reasonable choice even while at the same time not thinking it was the best choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's almost like people can think that shooting someone because you thought they had a gun and not shooting someone because you know them and think that you can talk them down are both understandable decisions and that there should be some empathy for the person who made that decision given the situation they made it in, but can also think that neither was actually the right decision to have made. I can accept that shooting, or not shooting, in those situations was a reasonable choice even while at the same time not thinking it was the best choice. stop thinking like a lawyer. Not everyone ITT has 200K to throw at law school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:stop thinking like a lawyer. Not everyone ITT has 200K to throw at law school. I don't know. Most of this thread seems to think like they graduated from Cooley.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I can accept that shooting, or not shooting, in those situations was a reasonable choice even while at the same time not thinking it was the best choice. Right, you believe it's acceptable for police to shoot unarmed people because police fear their safety, you also think it's reasonable to not intervene with lethal force against an armed active threat. That is the problem, you guys think it's reasonable to do things that are terrible. You have no empathy for the victims, and you act like this is normal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:stop thinking like a lawyer. Not everyone ITT has 200K to throw at law school. Haha, gently caress you. Way to tell everyone to shut up because they can't really understand the reality because they don't have your education. You make me want to vomit. Oh, you didn't say that? It was implied, you loving lawyer. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Right, you believe it's acceptable for police to shoot unarmed people because police fear their safety, you also think it's reasonable to not intervene with lethal force against an armed active threat. That is the problem, you guys think it's reasonable to do things that are terrible. You have no empathy for the victims, and you act like this is normal. I have lots of empathy for the victim, I'm just not a sociopath who has zero empathy for the wrongdoer. You can empathize with both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I have lots of empathy for the victim, I'm just not a sociopath who has zero empathy for the wrongdoer. You can empathize with both. Poor murderers, when will they catch a break! All these sociopaths treating them like... murderers, those monsters!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:stop thinking like a lawyer. Not everyone ITT has 200K to throw at law school. What is this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:stop thinking like a lawyer. Not everyone ITT has 200K to throw at law school. I don't see anyone pretending to conduct a trial in here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:stop thinking like a lawyer. Not everyone ITT has 200K to throw at law school. That doesn't stop most people from doing it anyways! Jarmak fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That doesn't stop most people from doing it anyways! People are saying the laws, training and atmosphere need to change in the police departments. You can't seem to understand this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Pohl posted:People are saying the laws, training and atmosphere need to change in the police departments. You don't seem to understand that was a joke about the student debt of law students
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You don't seem to understand that was a joke about the student debt of law students Poor joke. Not my fault if you tell intelligible jokes. drat, you can't be funny even when you try.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Poor joke. Not my fault if you tell intelligible jokes. Don't worry, you weren't the target audience
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Don't worry, you weren't the target audience That was funny. Good for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:16
|
|