|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah and it's the first one I've been seeing more of lately. Where? You may be associating with assholes. Dirk the Average posted:Fair enough. I would argue that the outcome is unacceptable, as long as the kid didn't pose a threat to anyone. Property can be replaced, and odds are that the business carries insurance for precisely this sort of reason (theft/vandalism). Again, he was not killed over destruction of property. He was killed for allegedly responding erratically to police requests. Saying he was shot for vandalizing a car is disingenuous. As for why law enforcement entered the situation...is your position that police should not respond to crimes in progress?
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Prostitute case is appalling but probably due to lack of victim sympathy. It sucks but if juries don't care about the victim they are more likely to aquit. If he had shot a cleaning lady over $150 he probably would have been convicted. Doesn't make it right but juries can be assholes. Oh for sure the jury had less sympathy for her because of her job. In fact if she had been a cleaning lady he may have been less inclined to shoot her. And while that's an explanation, it's not a justification; that the law exists and this guy was allowed to go free is enough evidence that some people are ok with killing people just because they break laws. That she was a prostitute is just a double burden on her: the crime of alleged theft, and the crime of being a prostitute. Though of course there are a lot of other issues at play re: the victim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Oh for sure the jury had less sympathy for her because of her job. In fact if she had been a cleaning lady he may have been less inclined to shoot her. And while that's an explanation, it's not a justification; that the law exists and this guy was allowed to go free is enough evidence that some people are ok with killing people just because they break laws. That she was a prostitute is just a double burden on her: the crime of alleged theft, and the crime of being a prostitute. Though of course there are a lot of other issues at play re: the victim. Right. But I honestly think it has less to do with texas's Wild West penal code bullshit and more to do with #hookerlivesdontmatter. We see a lot of acquittals in cases where the victim is "unsympathetic"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Right. But I honestly think it has less to do with texas's Wild West penal code bullshit and more to do with #hookerlivesdontmatter. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. The Texas wild west penal code is going to end up disproportionally putting "unsympathetic" people at risk though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Which is really problematic when you consider most victims of crime are already "unsympathetic" in that they tend to be lower socioeconomic status and generally have some unfavorable info in their background.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Again, he was not killed over destruction of property. He was killed for allegedly responding erratically to police requests. Saying he was shot for vandalizing a car is disingenuous. As for why law enforcement entered the situation...is your position that police should not respond to crimes in progress? *damages proerty* "Stop damaging property!" *damages property erratically* BANG BANG
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:We will need to wait for more details to come out, but at the end of the day we need to understand why and how someone was killed over the destruction of property. Judging from the video, I'm going to go with "cops aren't trained to respond appropriately to interactions with members of the public who aren't 110% compliant". The kid looked high or drunk or otherwise just plain not acting coherently, though, so He Was No Angel will be why he was killed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Cole posted:What else is law enforcement supposed to do? This isn't regards to killing anyone, this is strictly about getting involved in a situation where the kid poses a threat to them/they posed a threat to him. Just let him continue to damage property and break the law? Yes. Absolutely, yes. Life is always more important than property - no officer should risk their life to prevent property damage, and as such no officer should have ever been in a position to be threatened by this guy and wouldn't have needed to shoot him. It's entirely their fault, because current training is to aggressively maximize risk then use that threat as justification for summary execution. The correct thing to do, and that they need to be fired for not doing: Call for more backup and an ambulance, then dogpile him. Subdue him by outnumbering him, cuff him, then immediately get the EMTs to check him out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Harik posted:no officer should risk their life to prevent property damage, and as such no officer should have ever been in a position to be threatened by this guy and wouldn't have needed to shoot him. i don't think it's built in to the training to do that for that purpose, but i have never been to the police academy or trained with cops, so i am not in position to say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Cole posted:What else is law enforcement supposed to do? This isn't regards to killing anyone, this is strictly about getting involved in a situation where the kid poses a threat to them/they posed a threat to him. Just let him continue to damage property and break the law? Pretty much, yeah. Until he's actually a threat to a person, there's no reason not to keep some distance if he's behaving erratically and not responding to police commands. Then they can attempt to deescalate the situation in other ways, or attempt less lethal alternatives to bring him under control. Lethal force should be the absolute last alternative and only used to prevent harm from coming to another person, and never an option to protect property. And no, cops claiming they felt threatened because they inserted themselves into or escalated a situation unnecessarily doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Pretty much, yeah. Until he's actually a threat to a person, there's no reason not to keep some distance if he's behaving erratically and not responding to police commands. The thousands of dollars in damages might be a reason. Just because someone is covered by insurance doesn't mean it's ok for their poo poo to get broken. If someone t-bones my car and totals it and it isn't my fault, that still leaves me without a car and I'm screwed even though I am covered by insurance. Insurance claims on businesses and property damage take longer than a car insurance claim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:*damages proerty* Oh. You were there? I tend to not make up my mind on things until i have more info. But if that's how it went down...
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Cole posted:What else is law enforcement supposed to do? This isn't regards to killing anyone, this is strictly about getting involved in a situation where the kid poses a threat to them/they posed a threat to him. Just let him continue to damage property and break the law? It worked in Neptune, NJ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Cole posted:The thousands of dollars in damages might be a reason. So exactly how much property outvalues a human life? If he was in a store at night relentlessly snapping q-tips would that be enough in losses to end his life to prevent, or...?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Cole posted:The thousands of dollars in damages might be a reason. Oh no you might be inconvenienced better kill a guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Cole posted:The thousands of dollars in damages might be a reason. Ah, yeah. Wouldn't want a business owner to be inconvenienced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So exactly how much property outvalues a human life? If he was in a store at night relentlessly snapping q-tips would that be enough in losses to end his life to prevent, or...? Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived. Stop saying he was shot for destroying property. That's not how causation works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Cole posted:The thousands of dollars in damages might be a reason. There's a pithy quote from the Lord of the Rings series that echoes in my head whenever we talk about when it's justified to kill someone. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. Insurance claims and thousands of dollars don't bring back the dead, but they do eventually repair or replace damaged property. If we had a way to reverse death, you'd probably have more support. Until that time, you're advocating that it is justified to kill a person over something that can be repaired/replaced. That's a difficult position for many to accept, since you're claiming that we should use the same punishment reserved for mass murderers and other heinous crimes to resolve a property dispute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived. Cole said it might be justified to shoot somebody over "thousands of dollars in damages" the reply was completely on point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Where did i once say the cops should have shot the guy? I said cops shouldn't stand around and watch someone destroy property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
botany posted:Cole said it might be justified to shoot somebody over "thousands of dollars in damages" the reply was completely on point. If you find where I said it was justified to shoot someone over thousands in damage, I will post a banme. Or did I possibly say police shouldn't stand by and watch someone destroy property? Which was it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Some news that isn't unarmed black teens being gunned down by police scared of their inhuman demon power. http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/press-releases/2015/NYCSafeFactSheet.pdf Mayor DeBlasio, of NYC, has funded a program targeting the violent mentally ill, with a focus on the homeless. A system is being set up which will funnel information to a central hub, puts mental health professionals on teams with social workers to coordinate treatment, and maintains contact with patients on the street for monitoring. Overall I think it's a pretty good divergence from the current standard of arresting the mentally ill, and cycling them through the justice system just to release them untreated guaranteeing another run in with law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Oh. You were there? "We don't have all the facts yet" is a weak argument that treats this case as though it were in a vacuum. Sure, this case might still be somewhat up in the air, but it's part of an overall concrete pattern of police escalating to violence far too quickly. Instead of saying "we don't know everything about this particular case so I can't offer a solution", the correct way to view this is that it is yet another tile in the overall mosaic of police violence. The issue isn't "this kid was killed". The issue is "police are too quick to kill". This thread gets too easily derailed every time a new incident happens as people argue over the details of that case. The details of each case are unimportant. The discussion at hand should be about how we get cops to exhaust all other options before shooting people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived. No, but this is literally what Cole is stating as his position. There is some merit in explaining why that position is untenable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived. I wasn't trying to say that, I was just responding to Cole's argument about damage to property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
botany posted:Cole said it might be justified to shoot somebody over "thousands of dollars in damages" the reply was completely on point. I think you misread Cole's post. I read it as saying police should respond to burglaries after someone seemed to suggest they should not. Responding to crime in progress does not automatically mean shooting suspect. Example: I was crew for a film shooting in Compton. Despite our having a permit, there was a break in near where we were shooting and we were mistaken for suspects. LAPD arrived. Ordered me to put my hands on my head and get on the ground. Gun was drawn. I complied and gun was not used. Once officers felt we were not a threat we explained our presence. Told them where to find our permit. And we all went on our way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:"We don't have all the facts yet" is a weak argument that treats this case as though it were in a vacuum. Sure, this case might still be somewhat up in the air, but it's part of an overall concrete pattern of police escalating to violence far too quickly. So your position is literally "facts don't matter." You do see the problem there I hope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Cole posted:i don't think it's built in to the training to do that for that purpose, but i have never been to the police academy or trained with cops, so i am not in position to say. I don't care if there's no signed memo stating that the academy needs to train recruits to close within 20 feet then use that to legally murder someone, it's the far-too-frequent outcome and it needs to be changed because of that. If the best we can do is "the officer violated their training and department policy and is being let go" then that's better than a 2-week paid vacation and back out there risking lives again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So your position is literally "facts don't matter." You do see the problem there I hope. And your position seems to be "well another person was killed by police because they didn't immediately comply with the police in the exact manner the police wanted them to, and also they were on drugs and/or a criminal, if only they'd done things differently, they'd still be alive." Which many people find incredible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Cole posted:If you find where I said it was justified to shoot someone over thousands in damage, I will post a banme. Are you saying that lethal force is not justified to prevent damage to property? Like is that your position or is it something else? Cause if so, I agree. edit: and just to be clear I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case, I'm speaking in the realm of policy and legislation here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Are you saying that lethal force is not justified to prevent damage to property? Like is that your position or is it something else? Cause if so, I agree. Lethal force isn't justified when a guy is damaging property. But standing by watching a guy damage someone's property isn't right either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So your position is literally "facts don't matter." You do see the problem there I hope. Facts matter, but it's equally important to realize that the underpinning argument is that this seems to be a recurring problem with police forces. There's a recurring trend in this thread to reject the notion that this is part of a trend where black unarmed people end up dead in situations that in hindsight could have been handled non lethally. Humans are wired to recognize patterns, and the pattern in the past year seems to be that black men get killed because the attacking officer feared for his life. After the fact it comes to light that the dead man is unarmed, and in many cases it can be argued that the officer escalated the situation needlessly. So you disagree that it merits some discussion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
beejay posted:And your position seems to be "well another person was killed by police because they didn't immediately comply with the police in the exact manner the police wanted them to, and also they were on drugs and/or a criminal, if only they'd done things differently, they'd still be alive." Which many people find incredible. That seems pretty reasonable actually
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Cole posted:Lethal force isn't justified when a guy is damaging property. But standing by watching a guy damage someone's property isn't right either. Ok, cool, thanks. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Right. But I honestly think it has less to do with texas's Wild West penal code bullshit and more to do with #hookerlivesdontmatter. This is also where the observable racial differences in conviction rates comes from. Convictions and sentencing are primarily based on the race of the victim followed by the race of the defendant. I'm not sure what the exact % was but probably around 75/25 ( that is of the variance explained by race 75% comes from the victims race). I don't have the stats offhand, but the breakdown from most likely to get convicted to least is: black defendant white victim > white defendant white victim > black defendant black victim > black defendant black victim. At least for the time period I looked at death penalty is pretty much never given when the victim is black (and only to black defendants). Anyway it's something that's commonly missed in these discussions, when people focus on racial disparities they focus on the defendant but the effect is mostly from the victim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Cole posted:What else is law enforcement supposed to do? This isn't regards to killing anyone, this is strictly about getting involved in a situation where the kid poses a threat to them/they posed a threat to him. Just let him continue to damage property and break the law? Get involved in the situation without putting themselves at risk from an unarmed person. Police are (theoretically) better trained, armed, armored, and they outnumber an individual. What would be a risk to John Q. Public is not a risk to a group of armed and armored police officers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think you misread Cole's post. I read it as saying police should respond to burglaries after someone seemed to suggest they should not. If that's actually the way you read the post you should probably stop complaining that people misread yours. The original position was that police should deescalate situations that merely involve property damage if there is no option to control the offender without serious harm to their person. That's because human life is more important than property. This also means that if you have no choice to safely control somebody who is currently damaging property but not threatening anyone, you let them damage that property until you can safely control them, e.g. by getting backup, contacting people who can help and so forth. Cole is unwilling to accept that his car is less important than somebody's safety. By the way, two more points: (1) I have no idea how you misread "Then they can attempt to deescalate the situation in other ways, or attempt less lethal alternatives to bring him under control." as "police should not respond to burglaries", but even if you did, (2) "Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived." would be a complete non-sequitur, since under your reading nobody was talking about police not responding to threats to their persons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
beejay posted:And your position seems to be "well another person was killed by police because they didn't immediately comply with the police in the exact manner the police wanted them to, and also they were on drugs and/or a criminal, if only they'd done things differently, they'd still be alive." Which many people find incredible. That's an interesting way to spell "I am not going to form an opinion until I have all the facts." TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is also where the observable racial differences in conviction rates comes from. Convictions and sentencing are primarily based on the race of the victim followed by the race of the defendant. I'm not sure what the exact % was but probably around 75/25 ( that is of the variance explained by race 75% comes from the victims race). Actually we have a number of black victim capital cases here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
botany posted:If that's actually the way you read the post you should probably stop complaining that people misread yours. The original position was that police should deescalate situations that merely involve property damage if there is no option to control the offender without serious harm to their person. That's because human life is more important than property. This also means that if you have no choice to safely control somebody who is currently damaging property but not threatening anyone, you let them damage that property until you can safely control them, e.g. by getting backup, contacting people who can help and so forth. Cole is unwilling to accept that his car is less important than somebody's safety. Well seeing as the poster himself seems to have confirmed my reading, I'm not sure I did misread it. As to your "two points" I am having a very hard time understanding what you are trying to convey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Cole posted:Lethal force isn't justified when a guy is damaging property. But standing by watching a guy damage someone's property isn't right either. So then perhaps non lethal force, such as the aforementioned calling backup and subduing the offender with numbers would be the better response? We need a restraint mechanism that can incapacitate an assailant without relying on pain. Tasers and pepper spray don't work when the target is irrational, and bullets are a little too permanent a solution. Edit: this sounds really snarky, but I agree with that Cole - lethal force isn't justified, but we need some way to mitigate an offender who is causing damage. I think the important point is that in the end, the offenders life should be given more deference than the property being destroyed. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:28
|
|