|
Lemming posted:Go gently caress yourself you hypocritical rear end in a top hat. You asked a hypothetical, nobody took the bait the way you wanted, and then you still accuse people of thinking things they don't, right after taking exception to someone doing the same thing to you. gently caress you. Actually pointing out repeatedly observed behavior is not the same as making ad hom attacks about someone's livelihood and integrity, but thanks for playing.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's not racist to tailor a hypothetical to one of this threads persistent themes: cops (allegedly) love to kill young minorities. As evidenced by this thread's prior instances of losing it's poo poo over suicides by cop. Under those facts, if they shot you would be screaming that they were too trigger happy and you know it. I love how you ignored almost everything I said only to defend yourself, in the exact manner I predicted you would. And you state it was a hypothetical, which means you made poo poo up. Then, you made more poo poo up. Good for you, I hope I never live anywhere near you because you sound like a dangerous and malicious prosecutor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Missed it. Phone posting. Link please. quote:More likely, if we navigate out of the current climate, guns are drawn by LE already while trying to talk shooter down; if he threatens victim again, drop him like a bad habit. Not the "perfect" scenario, but the victim seems to be more important at that point. And I posted that as someone who is steeped in the current climate of relations between minorities and LE agencies. Again, not an ideal as far as violent crime is concerned (wherein "perfect" is a non-violent resolution with a suspect apprehension), but regardless of gender/race (and given the exact same parameters of the actual case), I wouldn't have any problem with LE engaging the shooter upon presentation of a threat to the victim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I challenge any of you to find a police-invovled homicide that was justified based on the news report. Charles Whitman
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:And I posted that as someone who is steeped in the current climate of relations between minorities and LE agencies. Again, not an ideal as far as violent crime is concerned (wherein "perfect" is a non-violent resolution with a suspect apprehension), but regardless of gender/race (and given the exact same parameters of the actual case), I wouldn't have any problem with LE engaging the shooter upon presentation of a threat to the victim. Ok. And I agree that's the appropriate response. However some in this case think the officers should have fired immediately. When you consider that the appropriate response is to try to talk down, and add the additional complication that cops knew shooter personally the whole thing turns to poo poo. Yes. They should have dropped him. It's wrong they made the wrong call. It's understandable they didn't. It's the whole difference between justification and excuse. One gets you an acquittal one gets you a lesser sentence due to mitigating factors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I love how you ignored almost everything I said only to defend yourself, in the exact manner I predicted you would. To be fair, I hope you never live near me either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:To be fair, I hope you never live near me either. You are literally a child.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Charles Whitman Lol I went to A&M where the craziest thing they do is clone more sheep to gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Pohl posted:You are literally a child. Whereas your posts are the soul of maturity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ok. And I agree that's the appropriate response. However some in this case think the officers should have fired immediately. And a number acknowledge they may have been unable to prevent the second shooting, but should still have shot him (after a brief negotiation) in order to get his victim help instead of assuming she would die and leaving her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Look if you want to call bullshit on the whole group of posters claiming real world experience unanimously tell you that you don't know what you're talking about then go ahead, that's on you. But no one knows that you aren't just googling poo poo yourself. Which is why it's loving STUPID to bring up alleged personal expertise when it is completely unverifiable and irrelevant. And just having gone to school for something, or working in a field doesn't make you an expert either, because in the REAL WORLD it is understood that there is a spectrum of competence that applies to pretty much every skill that you can possibly have. Which means even if you DID go to school and ARE employed as a whatever, there is no way to verify on a random lovely internet thread that you are even competent at your job and that you aren't just googling poo poo yourself. The only time that halfway makes sense is when someone makes the kind of claim that "X never happens or always happens within Y setting" and you have a personal experience that directly contradicts that broad statement. If you want to argue specific laws and interpretations of the law, or specific legal terminology, you should be able to do so without stating your profession, because you aren't the one who invented those things or drafted that legislation in the first place. You are reciting other people's work at that point anyway so the fact that you got it from a text book or some manual or other document instead of a google copy of the same text is pointless. But instead, what we have are people who claim some connection with the law or law enforcement (or something similar in general) harping on their professional expertise while making arguments that almost always seem to be at least partially defensive on behalf of police. Which makes it seem like there is a bunch of biased disingenuous bs on that side of the argument. ActusRhesus posted:Ok. And I agree that's the appropriate response. However some in this case think the officers should have fired immediately. When you consider that the appropriate response is to try to talk down, and add the additional complication that cops knew shooter personally the whole thing turns to poo poo. Yes. They should have dropped him. It's wrong they made the wrong call. It's understandable they didn't. It's the whole difference between justification and excuse. One gets you an acquittal one gets you a lesser sentence due to mitigating factors. Fired immediately as in Tamir Rice or Crawford style? I don't think I remember anyone advocating for that approach, and anyone who did is obviously being some kind of idiot. What I do see plenty of is people saying that the cops had more than enough time to assess the situation and possibly save that woman's life by taking down an armed and dangerous criminal. I also see plenty of people trying to perform mental gymnastics as to justify why they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ok. And I agree that's the appropriate response. However some in this case think the officers should have fired immediately. When you consider that the appropriate response is to try to talk down, and add the additional complication that cops knew shooter personally the whole thing turns to poo poo. Yes. They should have dropped him. It's wrong they made the wrong call. It's understandable they didn't. It's the whole difference between justification and excuse. One gets you an acquittal one gets you a lesser sentence due to mitigating factors. Nah, this isn't it, and that misrepresents how things panned out too. The cops had plenty of time to actually interceded and get in between and attempt to save the woman's life but they wouldn't even attempt to risk escalating it in order to save her life, despite the painfully obvious the dire nature the situation. No matter how much people harp on the "But frrrrriends" angle it doesn't even begin to excuse their inaction. If the bastard actually tried to physically stop them from getting that woman help they should have subdued him. If he resisted, they should have used force. Period. The idea that people wanted the officers to jump out of their vehicle and immediately gun him down because that is what the situation demanded is fictional. They had the time AND reason to get that man away from her, disarm him, get in-between him and the car, loving anything, ANYTHING but let him walk over and shoot her again. If it did escalate to the point where he lifted his gun against THEM instead of HER then this tangent would be moot. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
No gymnastics. It's loving hard to kill a friend. Even when they deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:See, if I wrote a post like this you'd accuse me of having a meltdown. This thing only exists in your head. No one gives a poo poo that you are woman. Stop playing the victim. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Whereas your posts are the soul of maturity. Hey, you were the one that said you can't make another poster mad. Why are you mad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Pohl posted:This thing only exists in your head. No one gives a poo poo that you are woman. Stop playing the victim. I said nothing about gender. But the fact that's immediately where your mind went is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No gymnastics. It's loving hard to kill a friend. Even when they deserve it. Well yeah, its pretty hard when they are possibly just as corrupt and potentially hosed up as the friend is, sure I guess. But when your "friend" is an abusive rear end in a top hat who has just shot his wife, and is preventing people from saving her life because he won't put his weapon down and then he shoots her again while you rescue his 7 year old child, then maybe your duty as a police officer should kick in and you should neutralize the threat and save a goddamned life. Again, the police were pretty much 100% wrong in this situation and it is BAFFLING that we are still hearing honest to goodness arguments in their defense. They hosed up. They had a history of loving up with regards to dealing with this man. A woman is dead because of these gently caress ups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I said nothing about gender. But the fact that's immediately where your mind went is interesting. You do it all the drat time, that is why my head went there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Actually pointing out repeatedly observed behavior is not the same as making ad hom attacks about someone's livelihood and integrity, but thanks for playing. No, it's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Both are personal attacks that have nothing to do with the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I challenge any of you to find a police-invovled homicide that was justified based on the news report. About the New Jersey situation, I do not have years of legal education and criminal justice experience. This looks like a very clear situation where an officer was allowed to commit a murder due to his close professional relationship to responding officers. AR calls us dumb for feeling like the murder's response was mishandled, and is citing her years of education and experience as allowing her to analyze this in a way normal citizens cannot. Because she feels so totally differently about this then I do, I'd like to hear her thoughts rather than simply calling us wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:I believe most officers' shootings are totally justified. Even in our recent headlight discussion I feel he was justified using deadly force, yet the officer there should still be reprimanded for losing control to such an extent. I think it is important to focus on cases where such use of force was misapplied, where an officer misuses their discretion, and towards other miscellaneous abuses to help find out what went wrong and ensure such situations don't happen again. Take AR's opinion about the situation with a grain of salt, because up until this post ActusRhesus posted:Report I read said simultaneous. she didn't actually know what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
I can verify that Actus Rhesus does in fact do the job they say they do, and is recognized by their peers as being good at it. The disparity in belief systems on display is a matter of perspective, but its not one of education or expertise. When people in the D&D Hostage Negotiation Squad look at an incident like the Jersey cop, they ask, "How could this have been done differently to avoid the tragedy?" Thats the objective: to undo the injustice by thought process, and, barring that, assign enough blame to satisfy our thirst for justice. Think from the ground-level up to the top. People like AR, and other professionals on the business end of the criminal justice system ask from the other direction. Were the proper procedures followed, and if so, do the procedures need amendment?" "Was this incident a failure of the system, or a failure of humanity?" There's a difference, and one of those two things can't be fixed. Its a top-down thought process. It would be really simple to stop officer-involved homicides - fire all cops, or take away their weapons and cars and tazers. Obviously that would have unreasonable consequences. But break it down more narrowly; "how do we reduce officer-involved homicides?" "Can we do so without impinging the police's ability to protect the rest of society?" "Am I willing to accept cops are necessary, and that people will die as long as there are cops?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
To be fair, I don't think AR is calling anyone "dumb." "Reactionary" and "vitriolic" maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I can verify that Actus Rhesus does in fact do the job they say they do, and is recognized by their peers as being good at it. Then they are probably assholes, too. When we talk about structural problems, you telling us that the structure likes her doesn't do a lot to make us feel better. Did you really think saying that hey, the structure likes her, was going to make all of us cower down and rethink our ideals? blarzgh posted:To be fair, I don't think AR is calling anyone "dumb." "Reactionary" and "vitriolic" maybe. So there are acceptable insults now? Good to know. Pohl fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
I'm pretty amazed people are actually arguing against posters using facts, citations, logic and/or reasoning in their posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Whereas your posts are the soul of maturity. It's telling that out of your four probations, two are from this thread and one is from the Michael Brown thread. To recap my earlier phone-post: people wouldn't call your integrity into question if you actually expressed some integrity. Specifically you and DR keep deflecting about minor bullshit like "what constitutes an active shooter" that at the end of the day, doesn't change the fact that an officer of the law drove a woman into a crash, then shot her, then held emergency responders at bay by threatening to shoot himself. All of this in front of his 7 year old daughter. And that when the police confronted the man who had done all of this, instead of actually subduing the offender who literally just attempted to murder someone, they hosed around for a period of time that any lay person could consider absolutely ridiculous getting him pictures of his kids. Which ordinarily, if someone wasn't literally bleeding out in the car while they were doing said loving around, I would be happy to see a non-violent resolution. But this approach completely flies in the face of every previous encounter in this thread where an armed officer shoots an unarmed civilian for suspecting the civilian carried a weapon. This was a case were the man confirmed having a gun, and demonstrated a willingness to use it to lethal effect. That this particular case involved a woman who had filed repeated DV complaints with zero, literally zero, repercussions to this point, simply exacerbates the already very damning appearance of impropriety. And you are somehow trying to make the argument that this obvious collusion to protect one of their own and complete failure of a police force at every conceivable level to do the jobs they were entrusted to do is a unique situation that is isolated to this one location. And yet we shouldn't dare question your integrity. gently caress off. ActusRhesus posted:No gymnastics. It's loving hard to kill a friend. Even when they deserve it. Certainly prosecutor, you'd do your absolute best to secure a conviction in this scenario, regardless of your personal feelings, right? Or is this a valid legal defense for the officers who failed to intervene when this guy murdered a woman? Because the events here seem to fit the description of gross negligence on the part of the officers in question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Then they are probably assholes, too. When we talk about structural problems, you telling us that the structure likes her doesn't do a lot to make us feel better. Hey look, I don't particularly care what it means to you. Somebody said "how do we even know..." If it matters to you people, then the answer is, "yes and she's good at it." I do oil and gas/real estate litigation in Texas. I barely touch criminal stuff. I know hardly poo poo about how it works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No gymnastics. It's loving hard to kill a friend. Even when they deserve it. It should be at least close, if not just as hard to kill a stranger. Especially when they don't deserve it. One of the big disconnects here is we never have that empathy discussion in other situations. When it's a cop with a long history of questionable DV calls, and very likely coverup, it's cries for empathy. I don't think anyone is truly clamoring for how he should have been immediately executed. Even those who appear to be, they sure seem to be hyperbolically proclaiming the disparity. Not that cops should gun down their friend without hesitation, but that others should be afforded a shred of that same hesitation. When it's a guy with a toy in a store, or a kid with a toy in a park, we never hear it. Certainly don't hear it if it's an unarmed man who might have been aggressive. If it's also hard to shoot a friend who your department (and possibly yourself) have covered up all manner of domestic abuse and violence..well it gets people riled up when people are gunned down for the slightest of reasons and the shooter excused almost out of the gate, and then when it's someone who it's looking more and more like they should have and moreover could have been stopped if things were equal..well for him, empathy. Unlike how you implied earlier, because I suppose you were throwing me in with everyone else arguing with you and how you view them (Which I understand, you get dogpiled - Empathy  ), I do recognize it's difficult, if not impossible to shoot someone you care for. We should also use this human emotion to scrutinize all the many other incidents which get brought up here.I nod again to you, Toasticle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm pretty amazed people are actually arguing against posters using facts, citations, logic and/or reasoning in their posts. No one is doing that. Stating "I am a lawyer" is not the same as any of those things, but I am sure you knew that before you made this dishonest post. blarzgh posted:Hey look, I don't particularly care what it means to you. Somebody said "how do we even know..." If it matters to you people, then the answer is, "yes and she's good at it." That somebody was mostly me, and my point for bringing it up is that it has no relevance here at somethingawful.com. AR either has some facts to drop or not. Being a lawyer has nothing to do with it. The only reason to bring that poo poo up is if you are trying to posture yourself and your opinion as being more important.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Take AR's opinion about the situation with a grain of salt, because up until this post Do you have an article that shows the time lapse between when police pulled kid out and when second round was fired? Every article I've seen makes it appear as though that part happened pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Being a lawyer has nothing to do with it. The only reason to bring that poo poo up is if you are trying to posture yourself and your opinion as being more important. My response: The disparity in belief systems on display is a matter of perspective, but its not one of education or expertise. When people in the D&D Hostage Negotiation Squad look at an incident like the Jersey cop, they ask, "How could this have been done differently to avoid the tragedy?" Thats the objective: to undo the injustice by thought process, and, barring that, assign enough blame to satisfy our thirst for justice. Think from the ground-level up to the top. People like AR, and other professionals on the business end of the criminal justice system ask from the other direction. Were the proper procedures followed, and if so, do the procedures need amendment?" "Was this incident a failure of the system, or a failure of humanity?" There's a difference, and one of those two things can't be fixed. Its a top-down thought process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:No one is doing that. Stating "I am a lawyer" is not the same as any of those things, but I am sure you knew that before you made this dishonest post. One side is asking for posters to actually lay out the reasoning, logic, proof or argument behind people's statements rather and that was not met with laying out of said reasoning et al, correct? Please note I never said posting things other than logic/citations/reasoning/arguments is bad, just that people are asking for more of it and there is apparently disagreement on that topic. Appeals to authority are fine and all, especially when that authority is valid. But as many many posters point out, this thread would do better with more logic, citations, and plainly stated arguments and less personal statements and attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Do you have an article that shows the time lapse between when police pulled kid out and when second round was fired? Every article I've seen makes it appear as though that part happened pretty quick. "Pretty quick" and "simultaneous" are two very different things. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/16/officer-shooting-ex-wife/28819983/ quote:Once Philip Seidle stopped shooting, he put his gun to his head and started walking around her vehicle, police said. Officers, who were nearby investigating an unrelated motor-vehicle accident, started talking to him and got him to allow them to take his daughter out of his SUV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:People like AR, and other professionals on the business end of the criminal justice system ask from the other direction. Were the proper procedures followed, and if so, do the procedures need amendment?" "Was this incident a failure of the system, or a failure of humanity?" There's a difference, and one of those two things can't be fixed. Its a top-down thought process. We are talking about changing the system because it is broken. We say, "man that poo poo is hosed up." She says, "no it was legal." We say: "That poo poo is really hosed up and needs to change." She says: "But they were only following the law." We say: "the law needs to change!" She says: "But they didn't break the law."  John Crawford is still dead. Pohl fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So police respond to gunshots and see, let's say, a black teenager. They think there is another black teenager in the car, possibly shot. Possibly bleeding. There is a kid in the car too. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot the kid if they draw their weapon. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot himself or them if they draw their weapon. They have no way to know the extent of the injuries to the teen in the car. Shoot the gunman or talk him down? Oh no, if they shot the man when he walked over to point his gun at his bleeding ex-wife, he might have shot her again! blarzgh posted:I guess I just don't get it. If they start a shootout in that crowded neighborhood, and a young black kid gets hit in the crossfire, you guys would have the exact opposite opinions. Wtf is this. Find me some quotes from this thread of people saying police are never justified in shooting even if the man has walked back over to his bleeding victim and is aiming at her again. I'll give you one for trolling but find me two posters who think this or shut the gently caress up with this "bu--but you all said cops should never shoot anyone ever" bullshit. Complaining that cops shoot 12 year olds with imaginary weapons is not the same as saying cops shouldn't shoot someone in the act of murdering someone while threatening to murder any paramedics who approach. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Lemming posted:"Pretty quick" and "simultaneous" are two very different things. Lol, finding something to cite that didn't say it happened simultaneously would have probably made your point a little stronger. But this was funny as hell so thanks. Trabisnikof posted:One side is asking for posters to actually lay out the reasoning, logic, proof or argument behind people's statements rather and that was not met with laying out of said reasoning et al, correct? This isn't happening, at all, it's just the latest line of bullshit from the "how dare you bring facts to my circle-jerk" brigade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
You are correct. Which is why some posters, including me, feel like bringing up personal expertise doesn't help the discussion, since personal, professional expertise isn't some objective piece of information that can be cited and sourced and relies completely on strangers on the internet taking people at their word. I even agree, as I did in an earlier post, that there are times when it actually even makes sense to state your profession (at least in theory, since it is still the internet and it still demands the same level of trust) such as when someone makes a claim about a certain profession itself. For example, if I state that most chefs do some stupid gross thing, and you are a chef and don't know anyone who does that, it actually makes sense to negate their claim with a claim of your own. But if there is a debate on the proper methods of butchering a certain kind of seafood, then being a chef is less important than just posting a link to a verifiable source explaining how the professionals do it. If people are still going to argue after every professional source has been exhausted, then obviously the conversation is toxic and might as well just be ignored anyway. Staying involved in a stupid internet slapfight doesn't do much for one's image as a professional in that case. And it certainly doesn't reflect well if said professional was going to be all smug and condescending about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Lol, finding something to cite that didn't say it happened simultaneously would have probably made your point a little stronger. It very obviously says that the girl was being taken away when the shots were fired, which means that it was after she was pulled out of the car, which is the event we're talking about. This video is of the cop shooting his ex-wife to death, so don't watch if you don't want to see that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg15AKh4gjA I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to whether the small girl being led away by the hand by a cop is the child in question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It very obviously says that the girl was being taken away when the shots were fired, which means that it was after she was pulled out of the car, which is the event we're talking about. Excellent. Thank you for this. Cops should have taken the man down when he fired a weapon at a person in their presence. The first time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Excellent. Thank you for this. Cops should have taken the man down when he fired a weapon at a person in their presence. The first time. It's a little bit unclear but I *think* the first one is the second shooting, the timing of the shots sounds like it lines up. The second half of the video also doesn't include the first shots, I believe. Edit: Either way, the wording of all the articles, and what you can glean from the video all indicate there was a gap between the girl getting out of the car and the guy shooting the woman a second time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:08
|
|