|
mastervj posted: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). insurance doesn't cover you immediately. insurance claims on property take a lot longer than insurance claims on a car because investigations are involved when they are over a certain dollar amount, and property damage is a lot harder to investigate than a car insurance claim. it could take weeks or months for insurance to come through. you are asking people to go through several weeks or months of no income. that isn't feasible nor is it fair to them.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Again, you're failing to take into account what will happen when it becomes common knowledge that people can wreck your stuff without the police doing a thing about it. What you're suggesting is a good idea, but in practice in a country with more firearms than people, all it will accomplish is having twitchy shop owners shooting people instead of calling the police.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Harik posted: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. I'm saying this source of evidence is completely meaningless. Stoughton has absolutely no idea how the officers at issue were trained- a fact he tries to elide in his writing (I've checked some of his other "articles") by avoiding saying where he was a police officer or what he does. His sole purpose and benefit is to provide value-free information that confirms the prior intuitions of his audience, hiding behind the fact that he was a police officer once. As nm says, police training is balkanized- categorical statements of the sort Stoughton is peddling are definitively wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Some news that isn't unarmed black teens being gunned down by police scared of their inhuman demon power. I was a service provider for a similar sort of program. We were able to help a large number of people but overall it was a pretty soul crushing experience. We could only treat what you might consider 'low hanging fruit': people who realized they had a problem and simply didn't have the connections or economic means to get treatment. I think these types of programs work better in countries where there is a well-funded infant-to-adult approach to mental illness and overall better social welfare programs. Where I worked in the USA, there seemed to be a lot of cases where the client we were supposed to help had been sexually and physically abused throughout their time in the foster care system and had been discharged with no social support. Severe emotional trauma existed together with diagnoses such as bi-polar with psychotic features. One issue is that in a community setting, without a court order, you can't force a client to take medications to manage their psychiatric illnesses. We had so many clients who were just too high risk to manage in the community because when they were not pulling weapons on members of the public they were doing things like running into traffic. You try to get the ER docs or a psychiatrist to admit them to in-patient care but because the client has calmed down somewhat at the ER, and isn't making any suicidal statements, they are released back into the public. It's stressful as hell for mental health professionals because they get blamed for restricting the rights of clients and also get blamed when the client stabs someone. For example, "It's his money so he can buy a pocket knife if he wants"/"Why did you let him buy a pocket knife?".
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Cole posted:insurance doesn't cover you immediately. insurance claims on property take a lot longer than insurance claims on a car because investigations are involved when they are over a certain dollar amount, and property damage is a lot harder to investigate than a car insurance claim. Well, you can fix that. For example you can spend money on a faster burocracy or more stringent regulations that force insurance companies to pay up front when needed. Cole posted:it could take weeks or months for insurance to come through. you are asking people to go through several weeks or months of no income. Well, you can fix that. For example, you can give money to people that just lost their livehood. Cole posted:that isn't feasible nor is it fair to them. If it is not feasible, well, you won't be able to do it by definition. But I wouldn't give a gently caress about being "not fair" vs "dead kid".
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Well, you can fix that. For example you can spend money on a faster burocracy or more stringent regulations that force insurance companies to pay up front when needed. you have got to be trolling
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Again, you're failing to take into account what will happen when it becomes common knowledge that people can wreck your stuff without the police doing a thing about it. The "thing the police do about it" is putting the person in jail once they have control of the situation. The consequence is jail, prison, fines, etc. The "common knowledge" consequence of vandalism or breaking and entering or robbery is not "death by cop" right now, so I don't know what you're trying to say. And if shop owners murder people then they will face consequences as well, such as jail, prison, civil suits, the mental issues that come with taking a life. There are things beyond killing or doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Cole posted:you have got to be trolling Why? Because I value the life of a person more than any, fixable and temporal, inconvenience to anybody?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
beejay posted:The "thing the police do about it" is putting the person in jail once they have control of the situation. The consequence is jail, prison, fines, etc. The "common knowledge" consequence of vandalism or breaking and entering or robbery is not "death by cop" right now, so I don't know what you're trying to say. I'm not saying shoot someone because they are wrecking your poo poo. But there are less than lethal but effective methods of getting someone under control.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Cole posted:insurance doesn't cover you immediately. insurance claims on property take a lot longer than insurance claims on a car because investigations are involved when they are over a certain dollar amount, and property damage is a lot harder to investigate than a car insurance claim. But it is fair to execute someone who is causing property damage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Do you think you could actually post it instead of just stating things without anything to back it up? Ok. Compromise. I just went through our current capital cases. Here are the ten most recent: 1. White defendant, 2 white victims. One of whom was a child. 2. White defendant, rape and murder 3 white victims. 2 children. 3. White defendant, rape and murder 3 white victims. 2 children. 4. Black defendant, rape and murder of 21 year old Hispanic mother. Plead guilty to additional murder of young black man. 5. Black defendant, double murder. Two black victims, one child. 6. Hispanic defendant. Murder for hire. Race of victim not clear. 7. Black defendant. Triple murder. 3 black victims. 8. White defendant. Murder. White child victim. 9. Black defendant. Murder of police officer. White victim. 10. Black defendant. Murder. White victim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:But it is fair to execute someone who is causing property damage? No, but it also isn't fair when law enforcement stands there and watches your poo poo get destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ok. Compromise. I just went through our current capital cases. Here are the ten most recent: Your state isn't ever going to actually execute anyone anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:wait to respond with deadly force until the suspect begins to threaten something other than property. We don't know that didn't happen here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
beejay posted:The "thing the police do about it" is putting the person in jail once they have control of the situation. The consequence is jail, prison, fines, etc. The "common knowledge" consequence of vandalism or breaking and entering or robbery is not "death by cop" right now, so I don't know what you're trying to say. Whats being argued is that if there is any risk of death, even a minute one, then police should step back and just let said person continue on their merry way of destruction until they're done. Like letting a toddler scream themselves out in a temper tantrum. Since there's no possible way to prove there isn't any chance of death, this will mean police officers will never intervene. So, extrapolating from that, when it is obvious the police will not protect your property, the property owner will do it instead, and the most likely way of doing that will be by waving a shotgun in someones face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Again, you're failing to take into account what will happen when it becomes common knowledge that people can wreck your stuff without the police doing a thing about it. You're failing to take into account that the cops can still arrest someone. It's not like they shrug their shoulders and say 'welp' and drive away. Did you not think this through at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Cole posted:No, but it also isn't fair when law enforcement stands there and watches your poo poo get destroyed. What if they do that until backup arrives and then they stop the person in a more safe manner? Isn't that fair to everyone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
nm posted:Your state isn't ever going to actually execute anyone anyhow. I know. But the constant appeals and habeas factory pays my bills sooooo...
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:What if they do that until backup arrives and then they stop the person in a more safe manner? Isn't that fair to everyone? I also think cops should travel in pairs, but unfortunately departments seem to be too understaffed for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:You're failing to take into account that the cops can still arrest someone. It's not like they shrug their shoulders and say 'welp' and drive away. Did you actually read the post i'm responding to? Where they say if theres any chance of risk to life they should just step back and let them carry on doing what they're doing, because its only property? Can you not see the ramifications that would lead to. You wouldn't even get the police being called in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Cole posted:No, but it also isn't fair when law enforcement stands there and watches your poo poo get destroyed. That's a false dichotomy though. The question isn't "kill the offender or do nothing". There's a continuum of force, and that generally speaking the police should reasonably take actions that end the crime without killing him versus killing him to save the property. That means that the officer needs to use judgement and discretion. Property damage can be anything from breaking glass to torching the place. Breaking glass and destroying stock in a business is not going to get people killed. Torching the block on the other hand would. Edit to clarify : that's on both ends of this argument. The police should be exercising good judgment. If someone's trashing a business, but isn't harming others, yes take the time to end it non lethally. If the offender is doing something that could hurt others (fires, explosives, etc.) then yes the officer(s) should prioritize the safety of other people. I guess what I'm driving at is in terms of prioritizing it should be something like Citizens > offender = officer > property damage Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Cole posted:I also think cops should travel in pairs, but unfortunately departments seem to be too understaffed for that. I'm all for better funding of the police. I guess we have that issue solved. Go team.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:What if they do that until backup arrives and then they stop the person in a more safe manner? Isn't that fair to everyone? I think the point here is that before handling a real-time execution to someone, you make drat sure that they are in the process of killing or seriously hurting others. Otherwise, if you shoot and kill someone you should be charged with at least manslaughter more or less by default. However, as ActusRhesus said, we don't even know if that was happening here. But don't be surprised if I doubt it, and instead I think it was trigger happy cops that will probably walk away scott free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:We don't know that didn't happen here. We know he was unarmed but I guess being really big is grounds for lethal force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:I'm all for better funding of the police. I guess we have that issue solved. Go team. No, I think their pay should be examined and their pensions eliminated - why should the only people who still have pensions be taxpayer funded? That would be enough to put more people on the force right there. Instead, police should receive VA style benefits, in addition to an enlisted person's military pension. Because in no *loving* way is a cop worth more than a soldier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Did you actually read the post i'm responding to? Where they say if theres any chance of risk to life they should just step back and let them carry on doing what they're doing, because its only property? Can you not see the ramifications that would lead to. You wouldn't even get the police being called in the first place. The policy that people are advocating (deescalate until you can safely apprehend, don't risk death) is the one in use in many countries, including Germany, where I'm from. We have very few officer-related deaths as a result. The police, I can assure you, is still regularly called and they still arrest people. They just don't kill quite as many of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Did you actually read the post i'm responding to? Where they say if theres any chance of risk to life they should just step back and let them carry on doing what they're doing, because its only property? Can you not see the ramifications that would lead to. You wouldn't even get the police being called in the first place. There are whole contries where that's more or less what police do. Yet Findland refuses to fall into anarchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
I'm from the UK where that policy is more or less used too. Can you tell me what the main difference between Finland, The UK and Germany is with regards to the US? Aside from the racist police officers of course. (Although thats debatable.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:We know he was unarmed but I guess being really big is grounds for lethal force. He did play football. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Cole posted:No, but it also isn't fair when law enforcement stands there and watches your poo poo get destroyed. Call for backup, talk to the suspect from a distance, close in only when you have enough officers in the area to be safe. Most vandals are going to respond to police by running away. Someone who doesn't likely either has a grudge against the owner or is on drugs. Either way, it's safer for both parties to wait for backup. Keep in mind that by continuing to destroy property, they're not exactly off the hook. Police will arrest them, and they will be charged. There's a deterrent in play regardless. Anyone who continues to destroy property in light of that fact is a special case that could be more dangerous than normal and warrant more officers on the scene.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No, I think their pay should be examined and their pensions eliminated - why should the only people who still have pensions be taxpayer funded? That would be enough to put more people on the force right there. Why can't everyone be paid more? A few corporate tax law fixes and we're golden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:We know he was unarmed but I guess being really big is grounds for lethal force. Because no one has ever killed someone without a weapon? Radbot posted:No, I think their pay should be examined and their pensions eliminated - why should the only people who still have pensions be taxpayer funded? That would be enough to put more people on the force right there. A. State funding vs federal funding. B. do you know was an E-9 with over 25 years gets in pension? Answer: a lot. (Especially when you add in the VA money)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I'm from the UK where that policy is more or less used too. Oooh ooooh pick me I know! public access to guns
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:
According to this analysis, the story is a bit more complicated than that. The defense claimed that Gilbert only meant to shoot out the tires on the car Frago was fleeing in, and that she was hit by a fragment. She died seven months later. This would seem like a slam dunk for manslaughter, but apparently that charge wasn't included in the jury instructions, even though it is a lesser included offense. The defense raised the recovering property defense as an alternative reason for the jury to not convict, which they have a professional obligation to do if they think it will help their client. I have no idea how accurate that analysis is, but I find the possibility that a jury didn't want to convict on murder and didn't have other charges to consider more plausible than Texas legalizing the murder of escorts. quote:The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant’s claim that he didn’t intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas’ homicide statute, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert “intentionally or knowingly” killed Frago or intended to cause her “serious bodily injury.” The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away, he was aiming for the tire. The bullet hit the tire and a fragment, “literally the size of your fingernail,” according to Defense Attorney Bobby Barrera, hit Frago. Barrera does not believe the jury acquitted because of the defense of property law. He believes they acquitted because they believed Gilbert didn’t mean to shoot her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:We know he was unarmed but I guess being really big is grounds for lethal force. Didn't they say he was like 5'10" and ~180. That's kind of skinny. I'm bigger than him. Guess I'd better not make any erratic moves!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No, I think their pay should be examined and their pensions eliminated - why should the only people who still have pensions be taxpayer funded? That would be enough to put more people on the force right there. A nice way to help de-militarize the police. You want to remove pensions out of grudges against police themselves. Of course public jobs should be an example to private jobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Why can't everyone be paid more? A few corporate tax law fixes and we're golden. As soon as those corporate tax law fixes go through, I'll be on that side. Until then, though, not so much. ActusRhesus posted:A. State funding vs federal funding. B. do you know was an E-9 with over 25 years gets in pension? Answer: a lot. (Especially when you add in the VA money) LOL, if you get to E-loving-9 you deserve that pension. I'm OK with any cop who puts the equivalent amount of effort in to get to E-9 getting that pension, absoutely. Vahakyla posted:A nice way to help de-militarize the police. Once pensions return in the private sector (lol), I'll be advocating for restoring them to police. Until then, they can have a pension equal to that of an average enlisted person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Radbot posted:
Ooohhh so now we are deserving and not deserving pensions here and drawing lines. Who deserves health care? Non-cops? Also a cop is literally nothing like an enlisted dude in the military. Where is this retarded equivalency based in your head?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Because no one has ever killed someone without a weapon? Multiple cops should be able to apprehend or subdue an unarmed man without resorting to lethal force. Jesus loving Christ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Ooohhh so now we are deserving and not deserving pensions here and drawing lines. Who deserves health care? Non-cops? We're talking pensions here, not healthcare, try to keep up. And yes, we absolutely do draw lines about who is deserving of a retirement here in America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:44
|
|