|
ActusRhesus posted:Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived. He was shot because he posed a threat to the officers. He posed a threat because they recklessly approached someone acting erratically without regard for their own safety. They approached because their training is awful and is entirely about shows-of-force and escalation until they achieve compliance. They arrived at the scene with that training because he was smashing cars. That is how causation works. The immediate cause is #1, but #3 is the reason he's dead.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually we have a number of black victim capital cases here. Do you think you could actually post it instead of just stating things without anything to back it up? Also does anyone have a breakdown over what happened? Did the cops just turn up and immeadiately shoot him? Or did they turn up, try and get him off the top of the car, taze and then shoot? I've read several versions of the events so far and none of them really match up. Harik posted:He was shot because he posed a threat to the officers. He posed a threat because they recklessly approached someone acting erratically without regard for their own safety. They approached because their training is awful and is entirely about shows-of-force and escalation until they achieve compliance. They arrived at the scene with that training because he was smashing cars. This isn't really fair though is it. If someone was smashing up someones house or car and the police arrived, I'd expect them to try and get them to stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:So then perhaps non lethal force, such as the aforementioned calling backup and subduing the offender with numbers would be the better response? Do you just read headlines and not the whole story? Go back and read the entire post that I was quoting. It was a question of overall policy, not this particular case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Do you think you could actually post it instead of just stating things without anything to back it up? At the risk of being doxxed? No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Harik posted:They approached because their training is awful tell me what they do for training, specifically
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Well seeing as the poster himself seems to have confirmed my reading, I'm not sure I did misread it. I was talking about AreWeDrunkYet, who has not posted after the post we (or I) was talking about. As to your difficulties I am very sorry communication is so hard for you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Stop with the slap fights, please. The thread is gonna get locked again. We discuss poh-leece, not posters. Pretty please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
botany posted:As to your difficulties I am very sorry communication is so hard for you. AR wasn't being a prick to you dude. How do you expect someone to respond to dumb poo poo like this? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived. Unless his behavior included being in the process of killing someone, I don't see how the cops actions could be justified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Unless his behavior included being in the process of killing someone, I don't see how the cops actions could be justified. No one said it was justified. He wasn't shot for smashing cars, which a lot of people are saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Cole posted:Where did i once say the cops should have shot the guy? If they are gonna end up killing someone, yes they should.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:This isn't really fair though is it. If someone was smashing up someones house or car and the police arrived, I'd expect them to try and get them to stop. Police don't even have a duty to step in to protect your life, so no, I don't expect them to needlessly risk their own lives to prevent a smash-and-grab on my car stereo. I expect them to act professionally, and if that means in their judgment it would needlessly endanger themselves or the suspect to approach alone that they should document the theft and follow the suspect while waiting for backup. When I say judgment, I mean after retraining on acceptable use of force and de-escalation and how not to be an idiot cowboy with a hip full of courage. Cole posted:tell me what they do for training, specifically http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/ Harik fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Harik posted:Police don't even have a duty to step in to protect your life what the gently caress do you think police are for? i'm not asking what they do, i'm asking what you think the intended purpose of police are
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Cole posted:what the gently caress do you think police are for? Its from 2005 so might have changed but here http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Jose posted:Its from 2005 so might have changed but here believe it or not, the constitution is not the be all, end all for laws or policies. it's illegal for me to burn your house down, but it doesn't say that in the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
mastervj posted:If they are gonna end up killing someone, yes they should. The problem here is that generally police don't have the benefit of hindsight to know when they are going to kill someone. I absolutely agree that training needs to me more about persuasion than command presence and force, but you are presenting an unreasonable standard here. If the arguement is that the police should interfere with a property crime unless the police are going to kill someone, you have created a no win situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
That's to avoid lawsuits based on the fact that you can't save everybody.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Cole posted:what the gently caress do you think police are for? Intended? Suppression of minorities, protection of business interests, revenue gathering and a veneer of civilization. That's the historic resposne. "Protect and serve" is the current blue-washing but they've fought against being held to that, as Jose pointed out. The police exist to protect the status quo, not you, and not your property. They're agents of the state, not bodyguards or mall security.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Cole posted:believe it or not, the constitution is not the be all, end all for laws or policies. I'm not from the US, I just assume that is what people are talking about when they say the police don't have a duty to protect someone
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'm not from the US, I just assume that is what people are talking about when they say the police don't have a duty to protect someone they are knee jerk reacting to a report that says it isn't constitutionally mandated that police protect you. it also isn't constitutionally mandated that doctors treat you or firefighters put out a fire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
nm posted:The problem here is that generally police don't have the benefit of hindsight to know when they are going to kill someone. Yes, but as a society we can collectively look at their actions, and how they're trained, and determine that that aggressive assert-control-at-all-costs style does, in fact, result in needless shootings. Then we can change that, because as a society we do have the benefit of hindsight to shape future policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Cole posted:they are knee jerk reacting to a report that says it isn't constitutionally mandated that police protect you. They're not legally mandated to either, or it wouldn't have become that particular constitutional question. Aside from their "protect and serve" slogan, what do you have that documents the police's obligation to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Harik posted:, and how they're trained again, tell me how they are trained, specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Harik posted:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/ I should have posted an excerpt with that, me culpa: quote:Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world. They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.” Edit: expanded the quotes. Harik fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Harik posted:Yes, but as a society we can collectively look at their actions, and how they're trained, and determine that that aggressive assert-control-at-all-costs style does, in fact, result in needless shootings. There's a difference between saying that the police should be training and operated with a culture that sees preservation of all human life as its main goal and uses force as a last resort and saying that the police shouldn't intervene in a situation involving only property damage if there is even a slight chance of death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
nm posted:The problem here is that generally police don't have the benefit of hindsight to know when they are going to kill someone. As long as any cop who kills a person does not have a good chance (no additional info, pure stats) of going to jail for at least manslaughter, you are gonna keep getting this end result. If you find that cops actually need to regularly kill people to perform their duties, you don't need cops: you need soliders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Some news that isn't unarmed black teens being gunned down by police scared of their inhuman demon power. Still not doing enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
nm posted:There's a difference between saying that the police should be training and operated with a culture that sees preservation of all human life as its main goal and uses force as a last resort and saying that the police shouldn't intervene in a situation involving only property damage if there is even a slight chance of death. Why not? Why not just wait it out? Who the hell cares about stuff?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Why not? Why not just wait it out? Who the hell cares about stuff? The guy who's poo poo is getting broken. Do you know what happens to a small business owner if you destroy their business? It's not like wal-mart where there are four in the town they can go work at.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Cole posted:The guy who's poo poo is getting broken. Sorry, but to me that's nothing compared to a dead kid. And at least potentially we can solve the problems of the business owner. Not so much for the corpse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Harik posted:I should have posted an excerpt with that, me culpa: Right, so that's not a great source. It's a former Tallahassee police officer, current law school professor at U of SC who's been making the rounds based on his former police status to sell confirmatory writing to a few different audiences. His statements are categorical and unsourced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Why not? Why not just wait it out? Who the hell cares about stuff? So in every situation involving a property crime, the police should just sit, watch and let him have his fill? Or only in those where someone might possibly die? And if it is the latter, how shouldbthey know what is what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Why not? Why not just wait it out? Who the hell cares about stuff? Yeah why not just sit back and watch while someone trashes that shop. Oh he's set fire to it. Its spread to the rest of the block. Oh well, its just stuff after all. Whoops, there was an old lady who couldn't escape her building in time and burnt to death. Now obviously thats not going to be the situation 99.9% of the time, but I have to think 99.9% of arrests for property damage don't end in someone getting shot either. Although I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on that. Although if it becomes common knowledge that the Police will not stop someone from destroying your car or whatever, it wouldn't be long before you had property owners shooting them instead, and they'll do that with much less provocation and an even greater degree of legal getting away with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Right, so that's not a great source. It's a former Tallahassee police officer, current law school professor at U of SC who's been making the rounds based on his former police status to sell confirmatory writing to a few different audiences. His statements are categorical and unsourced. The poblrm is even with systems like POST police training is so balkanized, it is hard to say what they say. However, I'd venture that intentionally or unintentionally at least 50 of cadets leave training scared shitless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
nm posted:The problem here is that generally police don't have the benefit of hindsight to know when they are going to kill someone. It doesn't take hindsight for officers not to put themselves or anyone else at harm over property damage. No one is saying they shouldn't respond, or protect themselves if they are legitimately being threatened. Just don't close to the point where an unarmed person can create enough of a threat by being non-compliant. Orders can be given from a distance, and if the suspect simply isn't cooperating but only damaging property, well then, I guess some property is going to get damaged. The police can continue to monitor the situation, try to talk them down (or have experts try to talk them down), and wait to respond with deadly force until the suspect begins to threaten something other than property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Right, so that's not a great source. It's a former Tallahassee police officer, current law school professor at U of SC who's been making the rounds based on his former police status to sell confirmatory writing to a few different audiences. His statements are categorical and unsourced. That's fine, this isn't a legislative session, this isn't being put into law. I'm fine with an informal op-ed as a response to a question posed to me as an all-lowercase oneliner. If you have a better source I'd like to read it, though. Even/especially if it disagrees with mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I guess some property is going to get damaged but somebody else, that "some property" could be how they make a living. destroy that and you destroy their life because you didn't want to physically stop someone from breaking their poo poo. is that what you will tell them? "i guess your property is going to get damaged."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It doesn't take hindsight for officers not to put themselves or anyone else at harm over property damage. No one is saying they shouldn't respond, or protect themselves if they are legitimately being threatened. Just don't close to the point where an unarmed person can create enough of a threat by being non-compliant. Orders can be given from a distance, and if the suspect simply isn't cooperating but only damaging property, well then, I guess some property is going to get damaged. The police can continue to monitor the situation, try to talk them down (or have experts try to talk them down), and wait to respond with deadly force until the suspect begins to threaten something other than property. Yeah. What's so hard to get?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Cole posted:but somebody else, that "some property" could be how they make a living. destroy that and you destroy their life because you didn't want to physically stop someone from breaking their poo poo. Only if for reason you think you can't, for example, mandate insurance for this kind of thing. Or, you know, the scary word (taxes) (for everybody, but specially the rich). And yes, you tell them that. It ends up being better for everybody, and you don't even have to mag dump on random people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Cole posted:but somebody else, that "some property" could be how they make a living. destroy that and you destroy their life because you didn't want to physically stop someone from breaking their poo poo. Yes, it is. Then the person who damaged it will be in jail instead of in a grave, and your plight will be noticed instead of the outcry over yet another unarmed black teenager shot by police. This isn't that difficult. Property is less important than people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:13
|
|