|
False flag and hoax reports all over Twitter gently caress this dumb planet
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Scott Forstall posted:False flag and hoax reports all over Twitter gently caress this dumb planet They're right. He shot 20 people but in CA you can only have a 10 round magazine so I doubt this tragedy is real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:They're right. He shot 20 people but in CA you can only have a 10 round magazine so I doubt this tragedy is real. Have you tried reloading an AR with one of those dumb bullet button releases? You'd get rushed and beaten to death in the time it takes to fiddle around with that thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Why would anyone have a terrorist attack in San Bernardino? They've suffered enough as it is! But seriously, gently caress this country. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Have you tried reloading an AR with one of those dumb bullet button releases? You'd get rushed and beaten to death in the time it takes to fiddle around with that thing. Yes. I live in CA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
KTLA is now doing the "news reporter covering other news reporters" type coverage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
The top trending hashtag on Twitter spells "San Bernardino" wrong. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
And now a police-involved shooting in San Francisco. On the lighter side... Rash of squirrel attacks in Marin County prompt warning
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
loving christ I'm like half an hour / 45 minutes away from San Bernadino and used to live like 20 minutes away from Bayview.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Christ... 20 dudes just waiting for an excuse to pull the trigger. gently caress this place. Wasnt this the whole reason behind tasers? None of the police officers are in danger here. Taser him and arrest him FFS SFPD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Christ... 20 dudes just waiting for an excuse to pull the trigger. gently caress this place. Wasnt this the whole reason behind tasers? None of the police officers are in danger here. Taser him and arrest him FFS SFPD. It's kind of like how a firing squad would only have 1 rifle loaded with live rounds and the rest would have blanks so the people doing the execution wouldn't know who fired the killing shot. Except everyone has live rounds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Christ... 20 dudes just waiting for an excuse to pull the trigger. gently caress this place. Wasnt this the whole reason behind tasers? None of the police officers are in danger here. Taser him and arrest him FFS SFPD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Turns out tasers kill people too. Turns out that a common use of tasers is to punish criminals you don't like. Yeah this. I remember taser being sold as a non-lethal alternative to guns. Turns out they're just used for pain compliance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Yeah this. I remember taser being sold as a non-lethal alternative to guns. Turns out they're just used for pain compliance. Makes me miss the "don't tase me bro" guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
SFPD regulates Tasers. They won't let you use a taser if the person is too old or too young.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:SFPD regulates Tasers. They won't let you use a taser if the person is too old or too young. The SFPD doesn't have tasers. And the victim was 26, which I'm guessing isn't too old or too young to get tased
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:SFPD regulates Tasers. They won't let you use a taser if the person is too old or too young. You should definitely shoot them instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Rah! posted:The SFPD doesn't have tasers. And the victim was 26, which I'm guessing isn't too old or too young to get tased As far as I know it's an optional carry. Most officers don't and SFPD doesn't give them to you. Also I was told he was 60+, didn't realize he was 26. Either way he had a knife and deserved to be blasted. And he was bean bagged originally then refused to stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Either way he had a knife and deserved to be blasted. See this is the attitude I have a problem with. These cops aren't judge dredd. Arrest the dude and bring him before a court where he can get the justice he "deserved." The cop's weapon is to protect the lives of innocents, not to mete out justice. This guy wasn't an imminent threat to any of the twenty dudes standing in front of him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:See this is the attitude I have a problem with. These cops aren't judge dredd. Arrest the dude and bring him before a court where he can get the justice he "deserved." The cop's weapon is to protect the lives of innocents, not to mete out justice. This guy wasn't an imminent threat to any of the twenty dudes standing in front of him. Cosigned. Note that we've gotten to the point that "I think he was reaching for a weapon" is grounds for death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
It's really frustrating to me that the conversation is "how much lethal force should cops use to protect themselves" instead of "how much lethal force should cops use to protect non-cops." Because in exchange for the awesome privileges of power granted to law enforcement officers, there is an inherent assumption of increased personal risk. Police are supposed to put themselves at risk, in order to protect the innocent. And, suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It follows that the maximum force permitted by a police officer is the minimum force necessary to protect the public. Beyond that, officers can and should be expected to put themselves at personal risk, in order to avoid applying excess risk to suspects. Occasionally a suspect may appear to be so imminently threatening to the public that lethal force is the only option to keep the public safe. OK. I doubt there's many people who would argue with that. But much more often, police use excess force, including lethal force, in order to avoid having to undertake modestly increased personal risk to make an arrest. And that is not OK, because some percentage of suspects are innocent (for example, mentally disabled; or not actually as armed as the officer believes them to be; or a case of mistaken identity; or legally bearing a weapon in the mistaken belief that the officers themselves are unlawful/dangerous attackers) and those innocent people have just as much of a right to be protected as the rest of us. Law enforcement officers unwilling to trade their personal safety for the safety of the public, including the safety of suspects, don't belong and shouldn't be tolerated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Cosigned. Note that we've gotten to the point that "I think he was reaching for a weapon" is grounds for death. Yeah which just equates to any noncompliance means justification of lethal force. America as a whole seems pretty okay with this, regardless of individual political leanings. We basically internalized as a society that a peace officer can blast you at any time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
I agree with the gist of your argument, but personally I think it's a hard ask for police not to have the right to defend themselves from death. Or serious bodily harm for that matter. What you say about suspects being innocent until proven guilty and cases of mistaken identity and all, completely agree. And I'm not a police officer nor do I know any personally, but they're not soldiers. In my view, they have a social "pact" for lack of a better word with the society they protect to put themselves at risk in order to keep the peace but not necessarily in the face of imminent death. The problem is how do you determine when you are in imminent danger. Humans are apparently not very good at making that determination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:What you say about suspects being innocent until proven guilty and cases of mistaken identity and all, completely agree. And I'm not a police officer nor do I know any personally, but they're not soldiers. In my view, they have a social "pact" for lack of a better word with the society they protect to put themselves at risk in order to keep the peace but not necessarily in the face of imminent death. The problem is how do you determine when you are in imminent danger. Humans are apparently not very good at making that determination. I do know a bunch and imo it's a pretty hosed up culture. In general they get off on the power and violence. Off duty it tends to be pretty insular, only socializing with other officers and such. There is a big us vs them mentality and it comes out in a big ugly racist way after a few drinks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I do know a bunch and imo it's a pretty hosed up culture. In general they get off on the power and violence. Off duty it tends to be pretty insular, only socializing with other officers and such. There is a big us vs them mentality and it comes out in a big ugly racist way after a few drinks. I wonder how many of these issues could alleviated by creating a well funded, pervasive, community policing program nation-wide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:The problem is how do you determine when you are in imminent danger. Humans are apparently not very good at making that determination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I agree with the gist of your argument, but personally I think it's a hard ask for police not to have the right to defend themselves from death. Or serious bodily harm for that matter. I think police officers do have a right (and for that matter, professional duty) to protect themselves, and one another, from death. However, I believe their duty to the public trumps that general duty to a large degree; to the point that, yes, they can use lethal force when someone is clearly and unambiguously using lethal force against them in an unlawful way; but they have a greater duty towards restraint than the general public does, because of their (sworn and binding) commitment to placing the public safety above their own personal safety. To put it more clearly: I, as a private citizen, should be considered to have more leeway to use lethal force to protect myself, than a police officer does. Currently, it's the other way around: police officers get the benefit of the doubt, and absent overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, are routinely excused for using excessive or lethal force in situations where a citizen would wind up severely punished for using the same amount of force. I feel that's backwards, wrong, creates a very bad and harmful impression with police officers that they are personally above and beyond the laws that bind civilians, creates a culture of fear of the police that exacerbates the difficulty of their jobs, and perhaps worst of all, helps to encourage the very very bad and long-term trend of militarization of the police. Because of course, soldiers also are placed in that legal/moral space where they're allowed, and actively encouraged, to use lethal force in circumstances where civilians would be tried and convicted of murder for using the same lethal force. Which I'm also not OK with, but at least soldiers are explicitly trained for those situations, and their job (unlike that of the police) is to destroy and defeat an enemy, not "to serve and protect" a civilian population. Arsenic Lupin posted:Police officers in other cultures somehow seem to manage it. This isn't due just to fewer people with guns; it also has to do with training for deescalating situations. Yeah. Police training is increasingly focused on paramilitary action, police officers are increasingly confined to squad cars, and the community engagement skills are going out the window. De-escalation of situations should be the focus and priority of all police activity; instead, we see military tactics being used, from no-knock warrants, overwhelming shock-and-awe raids, up-armored hyper-aggressive crowd control, to just the basic response of drawn-guns and shouting orders to any situation with even the vaguest threat of potential violence. Our cops are embattled, and rightly so. They know it and they feel it and they're responding predictably by further entrenchment and escalation. Their role in our society is being questioned, and at every level they're acting based on the training and role our society has pushed them into, as warriors rather than as helpers, as keepers-of-the-peace through force of arms rather than creaters-of-peace through mediation and de-escalation. It's grotesque. And... uh, probably a bit tangential of a rant, since we were talking about that mass-shooting in San Bernardino which almost definitely wasn't "terrorism," a word that hasn't had a coherent meaning since at least 2001 and is increasingly meaningless with every passing day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:As far as I know it's an optional carry. Most officers don't and SFPD doesn't give them to you. He Was No Angel™
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
I have no idea what cops do for training with weapons, but based on all these cellphone and dash cam videos you see, they must be told to empty the clip before you can return to the station. Jesus loving christ, it sounded like a war zone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Currently, it's the other way around: police officers get the benefit of the doubt, and absent overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, are routinely excused for using excessive or lethal force in situations where a citizen would wind up severely punished for using the same amount of force. quote:KCSO deputies have been caught rewarding colleagues for aggressive use of batons with a “baby seal” prize for the best clubbing. Others have modified their patrol cars with decals declaring “We’ll kick your rear end”. They are now viewed with fear by some of those they police: “It’s horrible,” said Carol Lessley, Le Mon’s sister. “I think the cops have some kind of disease. It’s rampant.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Maggot Soup posted:I have no idea what cops do for training with weapons, but based on all these cellphone and dash cam videos you see, they must be told to empty the clip before you can return to the station. Jesus loving christ, it sounded like a war zone. PUIT ANOTHER CLIP IN MY GLOCK 17 .JPG)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
I thought that getting pepper-sprayed and tazed (under controlled conditions) was a normal part of training so that in the aftermath of an excessive force accusation they can say that they know the level of force was appropriate because they have experienced it themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:PUIT ANOTHER CLIP IN MY GLOCK 17 Oh no, someone called a magazine a clip!  Thank you for setting the record straight about a tiny unimportant detail that has nothing to do with the point being made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Someone write a gun-nut bot that auto-posts about clips any time someone uses the word "clip".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
withak posted:I thought that getting pepper-sprayed and tazed (under controlled conditions) was a normal part of training so that in the aftermath of an excessive force accusation they can say that they know the level of force was appropriate because they have experienced it themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
The family of Mario Woods is now suing SFPD for excessive force. Of course they presented a video which shows that Woods staggered towards an officer, so I'm sure the police will continue to call it justified, even though it completely disproves SFPD's claims that Woods was threatening that officer with an outstretched arm!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:And now a police-involved shooting in San Francisco. If the guy ends up getting close to and lunges with a knife at somebody the people are going to point fingers at the cops for not killing him earlier. I'm ok with this. Sorry black dude for not learning common sense. Sucks. But poo poo happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:I hate to say it but he deserves to be shot No one deserves to be shot, you fucktard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Runaktla posted:(though not 20 of them lol). lol!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 05:08
|
|
