|
VitalSigns posted:Speaking of European cops, amusing contrast between I can't comprehend you're inability to understand that killing a stranger is a different emotional process then killing someone who the responding cops characterized as (if I remember correctly) "like a father to them". I also can't comprehend why you think that having cops that will coolly and calmly show up and gun down close personal relations without hesitation like the loving terminator is the direction that will improve policing in this country.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Who cares about their emotions? If you can't overcome your emotions and do your job you shouldn't be doing that job. Cops love to talk a big game about hard decisions but I guess when the decisions are actually hard they go to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I can't comprehend you're inability to understand that killing a stranger is a different emotional process then killing someone who the responding cops characterized as (if I remember correctly) "like a father to them". You don't have to be a robot to stop a murder. And you realize you're now openly advocating for police to be above the law right, if we not only shouldn't expect police to be prepared to use deadly force to stop a murder and save lives if the perp is a cop, but now you're openly celebrating that and telling me we need to be pleased when cops let cops murder their wives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Regardless of the department definition of "active shooter", the fact remains that there was a man currently in the process of shooting a person and officers made no effort to save the victim's life (or prevent him from attacking other people) out of an attempt to avoid having to treat a fellow officer like a civilian would have been treated. The defense of "How can you expect them to shoot their friend?!" only ends up making it look worse when it's spouted by the same people who defended the shooting of unarmed people who merely looked like they were drawing a gun. The message that defense sends is that police simultaneously have such love for their co-workers that they can't be expected to harm them even when they're murdering people and should have so little care for civilian life that they can kill them immediately if they even look like they might be threatening without having to pause to confirm the situation. Not sure if any of this was aimed at me or just in general about the topic, but for the record I think the cops should have given him a warning to drop his weapon and then shot him if he hadn't done so in a timely fashion. I would generally like the US police to shoot less people, but when someone has already shot someone and is preventing aid being given to his victim then the shooter's life is worth less than the victim's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who cares about their emotions? If you can't overcome your emotions and do your job you shouldn't be doing that job. Cops love to talk a big game about hard decisions but I guess when the decisions are actually hard they go to pieces. You're right, we need more Unfeeling Murder Machines on the streets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who cares about their emotions? If you can't overcome your emotions and do your job you shouldn't be doing that job. Cops love to talk a big game about hard decisions but I guess when the decisions are actually hard they go to pieces. Yeah they did fail to make the hard decision there, but some decisions are harder then others and I think gunning down someone with which you have a close personal relationship crosses the line into "hard enough you don't deserve to be crucified for failing". If we're basing our standards of who has what it takes to be police on the ability to make that decision every time then I don't think we're going to a lot of people capable of passing that standard, and I'm not sure you want a police force made up of people who can make that particular decision the right way every time. VitalSigns posted:You don't have to be a robot to stop a murder. This is the second time in barely a quarter of a page that you've just made up what I've said whole cloth, I never said any of those things. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:You're right, we need more Unfeeling Murder Machines on the streets. It turns out we don't have any of those, because when a fellow cop blows a gasket they have nothing to offer but feelings and scrapbooks. Jarmak posted:Yeah they did fail to make the hard decision there, but some decision are harder then others and I think gunning down someone with you have a close personal relationship crosses the line into "hard enough you don't deserve to be crucified for failing". Crucifixion is inappropriate, but firing a cop and making sure they are never a cop again is not crucifixion. They let a woman die because of favoritism towards cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Remember, police are professionals and we should respect them for it, but we should never hold them to professional standards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah they did fail to make the hard decision there, but some decisions are harder then others and I think gunning down someone with you have a close personal relationship crosses the line into "hard enough you don't deserve to be crucified for failing". Good thing killing 12-year-olds is an easier decision. Jarmak posted:If we're basing our standards of who has what it takes to be police on the ability to make that decision every time then I don't think we're going to a lot of people capable of passing that standard, and I'm not sure you want a police force made up of people who can make that particular decision the right way every time. I'm trying to think of another professional field where anyone would say "well maybe we don't want people who can do the job, isn't a little corruption and favoritism more human?" Lol cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Crucifixion is inappropriate, but firing a cop and making sure they are never a cop again is not crucifixion. They let a woman die because of favoritism towards cops. No, they let a women die because of a close personal relationship with the specific person. Not being able to pull the trigger on a close friend is not the same thing as "hey you've got a badge so I'll do you the professional courtesy of letting you hurry up and finish offing your wife"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Do you really want a surgeon who wouldn't let his friend steal your medication and sell it on the black market, if he can't even have empathy for his friends how can we trust him to have empathy for his patients?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not being able to pull the trigger on a close friend is not the same thing as "hey you've got a badge so I'll do you the professional courtesy of letting you hurry up and finish offing your wife" Actually this is exactly what happened since they told her to gently caress off when she reported his spousal abuse, they were perfectly fine giving him that professional courtesy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, they let a women die because of a close personal relationship with the specific person. Boy, you'll really go to bat for cops for pretty much anything horrible they do, huh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Good thing killing 12-year-olds is an easier decision. I've already said, repeatedly, that that man was so obviously grossly mentally unfit to be a police officer that I hold whoever approved that at least morally culpable in the Rice shooting. VitalSigns posted:I'm trying to think of another professional field where anyone would say "well maybe we don't want people who can do the job, isn't a little corruption and favoritism more human?" Lol cops. Every other professional field would bar the professional from working on someone who they had a relationship like that with because they recognize that asking people to make objective decisions in that context is impossible, these police did not have that option. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually this is exactly what happened since they told her to gently caress off when she reported his spousal abuse, they were perfectly fine giving him that professional courtesy. Yes, which is why I made the distinction earlier between the shooting itself and the previous sweeping under the rug of the abuse claims, that was professional courtesy and it deserves all the scrutiny and derision you're giving the events at the shooting. But then again I already said this, you're not even attempting to engage with what I'm saying in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Every other professional field would bar the professional from working on someone who they had a relationship like that with because they recognize that asking people to make objective decision in that context is impossible, these police did not have that option. I am pretty sure doctors aren't barred from working with longtime mentors in the field or being friends with their co-workers. Just doctors are real professionals and no one gets a chubby when they keep the undesirables down, so there's no incentive to defend one if it turns out he's playing favorites with coworkers who are committing crimes. Jarmak posted:Yes, which is why I made the distinction earlier between the shooting itself and the previous sweeping under the rug of the abuse claims, that was professional courtesy and it deserves all the scrutiny and derision you're giving the events at the shooting. Okay you realize the same people were complicit in both events right, and this is one of the things that make your "but but the cops just loved too much" defense for letting their buddy murder her laughable right
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you really want a surgeon who wouldn't let his friend steal your medication and sell it on the black market, if he can't even have empathy for his friends how can we trust him to have empathy for his patients? Surgeon's are not allowed to work on family members or people they have similarly close personal relationships with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, they let a women die because of a close personal relationship with the specific person. Not pulling the trigger on a close friend is probably not the same as pulling the trigger on a close friend who is currently, unmistakably murdering someone you know for a fact he has been also been abusing. It's not like the refused to let him commit suicide by cop in an empty space, devoid of any other circumstance. He was committing murder right in front of them, and they had a chance to save the victim, who they also knew (and who they knew he was abusing before hand.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Surgeon's are not allowed to work on family members or people they have similarly close personal relationships with. The cops didn't have a relationship with the murdered wife, they had a relationship with their co-worker, and surgeons are allowed to work with their co-workers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am pretty sure doctors aren't barred from working with longtime mentors in the field or being friends with their co-workers. I'm struggling to see your point through the strawman, but I think you're saying that doctors aren't barred from working with their friends or mentors. Of course they aren't. They would however have a conflict of interest if they ever had to treat a colleague or mentor, as the emotional connection is widely proven to cause the doctor to behave in irrational ways so are advised, and dependent on hospital policy actively barred from doing so. Using your analogy doesn't make any sense as the responding officers aren't 'working' with their mentor. They are effectively 'treating' him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, they let a women die because of a close personal relationship with the specific person. Do you understand what favoritism is? quote:Not being able to pull the trigger on a close friend is not the same thing as "hey you've got a badge so I'll do you the professional courtesy of letting you hurry up and finish offing your wife" It is in practice, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:They would however have a conflict of interest if they ever had to treat a colleague or mentor, as the emotional connection is widely proven to cause the doctor to behave in irrational ways so are advised, and dependent on hospital policy actively barred from doing so. Using your analogy doesn't make any sense as the responding officers aren't 'working' with their mentor. They are effectively 'treating' him. Okay and? A doctor might still have to make the tough decision of whether or not to stop a co-worker from breaking the law. Conflict of interest is a reason not to get into such a situation if you can avoid it, it's not an absolution for doing the wrong thing if you happen to find yourself in it anyway. What are you advocating here, that we should just accept that cops won't use deadly force to save innocent life if the perp is a cop, that can't be what you're advocating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay and? A doctor might still have to make the tough decision of whether or not to stop a co-worker from breaking the law. Conflict of interest is a reason not to get into such a situation if you can avoid it, it's not an absolution for doing the wrong thing if you happen to find yourself in it anyway. Yes, it would be a tough decision to stop a co-worker from breaking the law. But, fundamentally, it is completely different from the reasons doctors are actively dissuaded from operating on/treating a family member/close personal friend. Your analogy is not that of a doctor observing another doctor doing something illegal, like writing unnecessary prescriptions etc. It is that of a Doctor having no choice but to cut open someone they think of as a father figure. poo poo goes wrong in situations like that. VitalSigns posted:What are you advocating here, that we should just accept that cops won't use deadly force to save innocent life if the perp is a cop, that can't be what you're advocating. That's not what i'm advocating at all. Please respond to what I'm actually saying and not what you think i'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay you realize the same people were complicit in both events right, and this is one of the things that make your "but but the cops just loved too much" defense for letting their buddy murder her laughable right Unless I'm forgetting something from one of the articles we have no reason to believe that these are the same people that swept the abuse allegations under the rug, in fact I would find it to be highly unlikely they were considering they very very junior to him and I would think the wife would make such allegations to someone senior. Maybe they were, and if so they should punished severely (criminally if possible) for it. But its really irrelevant to what I'm saying, and what you keep (I'm starting to think intentionally) ignoring, which is that one of those things represents a situation where letting your emotions get in the way of making the objectively right decision is understandably human, and the other represents a situation were letting your emotions gets in the way is utterly despicable and should be punished harshly. One represents a conscious decision to abuse power to help a person with whom you have a personal relationship, the other represents an inability to do your duty because it involves taking the life of a person with whom you have a personal relationship. Yes they exist on the same continuum, are we really unable to recognize there's a point on that continuum where someone's inability to make the objectively correct decision is understandably compromised? ToastyPotato posted:Not pulling the trigger on a close friend is probably not the same as pulling the trigger on a close friend who is currently, unmistakably murdering someone you know for a fact he has been also been abusing. It's not like the refused to let him commit suicide by cop in an empty space, devoid of any other circumstance. He was committing murder right in front of them, and they had a chance to save the victim, who they also knew (and who they knew he was abusing before hand.) Assuming these two in particular did know, or believe that, yes, but its a difference of inches compared to a difference of miles. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, they let a women die because of a close personal relationship with the specific person. Jarmak posted:Surgeon's are not allowed to work on family members or people they have similarly close personal relationships with. If I'm reading this right, and forgive me if you feel I'm putting words in your mouth, you're admitting that fellow police officers are generally biased towards their own and would be unwilling to take actions that impact them negatively? I mean isn't that kind of the thrust of much of this thread; the pro cop assertion is that police are normal citizens in the eyes of the law, but their behavior and recent events clearly indicates that police officials enjoy a great deal more power either explicitly or implicitly by virtue of their status, without any kind of corresponding check on that power. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:If I'm reading this right, and forgive me if you feel I'm putting words in your mouth, you're admitting that fellow police officers are generally biased towards their own and would be unwilling to take actions that impact them negatively? I 100% agree that there needs to be better oversight of police officers from sources that are independent from the department itself, ubiquitous body cameras are a good start, and South Carolina's SLED unit seems to be doing a lot of good work with conducting this oversight at the state level. If these two things were in place across the board I think that would at least be a very very good start. Despite the propensity of people wanting to get in snide remarks the police being beholden to the same laws has usually been brought up primarily to make the point that loving with said laws also effects civilians, particularly when people talk about loving with things that tread on due process rights. We argue frequently over whether particular outcomes and actions are the result of favoritism or corruption, or are appropriate, but I don't think anyone with the emotional intelligence of a parakeet can make the argument that people don't treat their friends different then strangers on at the very least a subconscious level. I don't think its even possible to prevent that nor is it always necessarily inappropriate, it is after all essentially the result of having known a person enough to feel comfortable making a positive character judgement about them, it would be like trying to ban analytical thought. That's why its important to have oversight be independent, its perfectly reasonable to expect people to not actively impede investigations or cover up crimes, but there is some level of preferential treatment that is understandable, and I think that level is higher then what we should consider capable of conducting effective oversight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I 100% agree that there needs to be better oversight of police officers from sources that are independent from the department itself, ubiquitous body cameras are a good start, and South Carolina's SLED unit seems to be doing a lot of good work with conducting this oversight at the state level. If these two things were in place across the board I think that would at least be a very very good start. "It's harder to shoot a friend than a stranger" isn't a bad argument. The problem is that it's come from people who previously argued that it's also okay to shoot someone unarmed because it's too risky for the officer to take even a literal second to judge the situation and actually figure out if they're a threat. Tamir Rice is one thing, but there was a previous incident brought up where the victim simply had his hand pulling up his shirt by his waistband in a motion. He never actually had a gun and wasn't pulling one out, but it was judged okay because it looked a bit like a threatening motion. Making both arguments simultaneously requires them to believe in a huge disconnect in how much officers care for other people's lives: they need to love their brethren enough to be unable to harm them even when they're in the middle of violent murder, but also need to have so little love for the life of civilians that they can kill them under ambiguous circumstances. The only consistency is that it consistently values the life of a police officer more than the life of a civilian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:"It's harder to shoot a friend than a stranger" isn't a bad argument. The problem is that it's come from people who previously argued that it's also okay to shoot someone unarmed because it's too risky for the officer to take even a literal second to judge the situation and actually figure out if they're a threat. Tamir Rice is one thing, but there was a previous incident brought up where the victim simply had his hand pulling up his shirt by his waistband in a motion. He never actually had a gun and wasn't pulling one out, but it was judged okay because it looked a bit like a threatening motion. I've said this before, but to reiterate, I absolutely agree the correct course of action would have been to shoot that cop, preferable before he shot his wife a second time, but at least afterwards so they could get her timely medical treatment. My argument isn't that shooting is correct in one situation and not in another, my argument is that the gently caress up those officer's made by not shooting him was understandable based on the situation they were put in. Between that and the fact we as a rule tend to not punish people for not shooting people when they should have (as opposed to shooting people they shouldn't have) is why I was simply arguing they don't deserve to be punished particularly severely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I've said this before, but to reiterate, I absolutely agree the correct course of action would have been to shoot that cop, preferable before he shot his wife a second time, but at least afterwards so they could get her timely medical treatment. My argument isn't that shooting is correct in one situation and not in another, my argument is that the gently caress up those officer's made by not shooting him was understandable based on the situation they were put in. At the very least, I think the officers involved are deserving of a civil suit for their actions. It's quite probable that their 1+ hour negotiation and scrapbooking to force a surrender (screw semantic arguments, that's what I'm calling it) had a direct impact on the victim's chances of survival by delaying medical care for a long period of time. Plus some level of administrative punishment, though I can't reliably say what they would deserve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:"It's harder to shoot a friend than a stranger" isn't a bad argument. The problem is that it's come from people who previously argued that it's also okay to shoot someone unarmed because it's too risky for the officer to take even a literal second to judge the situation and actually figure out if they're a threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:(bold added) This seems like an ongoing problem in this thread. Is this even true? And even assuming it's true, why should I care? Like maybe you proved some random unspecified poster is a hypocrite, but you haven't demonstrated their current position is bad or wrong, or maybe they changed their mind and just didn't bother to include the fact they changed their mind, and you haven't demonstrated anything. The fact that you aren't naming names never mind actually demonstrating they are doing the thing you say they are doing is enough for me to suspect you've conflated anyone who has disagreed with you into the same person. Especially considering the person you are responding to is explicitly not doing the thing you are talking about. I can actually call people out if you really want me to and I really care about your individual approval, but it requires going back to the previous thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:At the very least, I think the officers involved are deserving of a civil suit for their actions. It's quite probable that their 1+ hour negotiation and scrapbooking to force a surrender (screw semantic arguments, that's what I'm calling it) had a direct impact on the victim's chances of survival by delaying medical care for a long period of time. Plus some level of administrative punishment, though I can't reliably say what they would deserve. I'm much more comfortable with saying people should be going to jail and the department should be getting sued for the domestic abuse cover up. I'm a little unsure about the shooting incident, I'm a little squeamish about the idea of setting the precedent that people (or in this case the department, QI would definitely apply) can be held legally liable for not shooting people. I'm also very much of the opinion that primary fault for that women being dead (I mean other then the cop that shot her of course) is the years of coverup regarding the domestic abuse. Putting it on the the two cops who happened to be on hand at the time this rotten house finally collapsed just because through exemplary action they had a chance to prevent it is misplacing the the moral culpability of this situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm much more comfortable with saying people should be going to jail and the department should be getting sued for the domestic abuse cover up. I'm a little unsure about the shooting incident, I'm a little squeamish about the idea of setting the precedent that people (or in this case the department, QI would definitely apply) can be held legally liable for not shooting people. Yeah, I mostly agree with you there. I still don't think the officers who failed to act should be completely let off the hook (since the ability to do your job without letting emotional investment endanger people is kinda what being a cop is all about), but the failings that led to her death are pretty deeply rooted in there.....like just about every story of bad American policing. The "emotional investment" thing is similar to what I think happens with deaths like Tamir Rice, John Crawford, and Dillon Taylor: officers believe that they're responding to a potentially action-packed gunman and let that belief carry them into a dangerously gung-ho attitude, interpreting otherwise benign motions or objects as threats to be immediately responded to and acting without thinking or analyzing the situation to make sure they're not making a mistake. Instead of calming themselves beforehand and looking at it logically, they get their brains into "Stop the active shooter" mode and maybe even "Be a hero!" mode over a mistake. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Yeah, I mostly agree with you there. I still don't think the officers who failed to act should be completely let off the hook (since the ability to do your job without letting emotional investment endanger people is kinda what being a cop is all about), but the failings that led to her death are pretty deeply rooted in there.....like just about every story of bad American policing. I'd add to this the dehumanization of the public that has become too common in police culture, it makes it much too easy for officers to slip into the mode of thinking where they're just dealing with a "threat" and not a person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'd add to this the dehumanization of the public that has become too common in police culture, it makes it much too easy for officers to slip into the mode of thinking where they're just dealing with a "threat" and not a person. Exactly my thinking. When you approach a situation believing it to be dangerous, you're not going to respond like a normal person would. The article on Dillon Taylor I linked perfectly describes this. The officer believed he was responding to a gunman outside 7-11, so he interpreted a friendly wave to a driver as a threatening motion and unarmed people not engaging in anything really suspicious as potentially armed suspects. So he approaches a bunch of unarmed guys not doing anything assuming that they're planning to kill someone, and immediately draws a gun and starts screaming for compliance. When one of the suspects doesn't listen to him and makes a benign action (lifting his shirt and not having one hand visible), the officer opens fire without even confirming the presence of a weapon. Now an innocent, unarmed man is dead for no good reason. Likewise, John Crawford. A highly embellished 911 call about a potential active shooter, and the cops show up with AR-15s combat gliding down the main aisle. Judging from the security footage matched up to the audio, they gave little to no warning before opening fire as soon as Crawford came into view. Even more egregious since, as with Rice, it's an open carry state and Crawford wasn't doing anything illegal. But a legal action commonly performed by fat white guys with more money than political knowledge suddenly became a deadly threat, and officers are trained to respond to deadly threats with immediate lethal force. So a man not doing anything illegal with a fake gun is dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
I think one of the underlying principles that seems problematic in many or most of these police shootings is that the lives of the citizenry, whose protection is presumably the primary duty of police, are not valued at all, or seem valued far less than that of the police themselves. The theme that seems to emerge is that it's worth killing a hundred innocent citizens, a hundred unarmed Tamir Rices to be gunned down, for instance, in order to prevent the slightest possibility that a police officer might get killed in the line of duty. This seems at odds with the idea that police have the dangerous job that our culture makes it out to be and are putting their lives on the line to protect the citizenry. It seems reversed, that the lives of the citizenry are fit to be sacrificed to minimize any possible risk to the police. This idea is even specifically stated in some of the training, the idea that your primary duty is to get home alive. As opposed to protect the citizenry. If your primary duty was protection, then it'd be preferable if a policeman took the very small chance of being shot to death to take some time to assess a situation like Tamir Rice so as not to needlessly and carelessly kill an innocent person. Does that increase the possibility by a tiny amount that an officer could be harmed? Sure. But it greatly decreases the chances that someone harmless like Tamir Rice, or the black teenager with the BB gun in the Ohio Walmart, will be killed when they were not going to harm anyone. Occasionally we actually see examples where the police expose themselves to some additional unknown risk to themselves to try and defuse and assess a situation without killing the citizen. But it seems like the opposite mentality is the one that is embraced by most of U.S. policing culture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I think one of the underlying principles that seems problematic in many or most of these police shootings is that the lives of the citizenry, whose protection is presumably the primary duty of police, are not valued at all, or seem valued far less than that of the police themselves. The theme that seems to emerge is that it's worth killing a hundred innocent citizens, a hundred unarmed Tamir Rices to be gunned down, for instance, in order to prevent the slightest possibility that a police officer might get killed in the line of duty. The prime example of that is probably Jesse Kidder. When a mentally disturbed man with a hand in his pocket began charging him, Kidder held his fire. He already had his gun aimed and ready to fire, so he could have dropped the guy if he actually confirmed that he was in danger (21 foot rule only applies to holstered guns, after all). Instead, he called the bluff and managed to arrest someone without taking any lives. By risking his own safety, he kept anybody from having to die. Kidder's a military vet, which is likely what gave him the cooler head and training necessary to actually take that risk and trust himself to react in time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Exactly my thinking. When you approach a situation believing it to be dangerous, you're not going to respond like a normal person would. I think Crawford is a good example of this but not Taylor, all of Taylor' actions reinforced the fact that he was a potential threat. When a bunch of people are pointing guns and screaming at someone to halt and they not only ignore those commands but turn around and act deliberately obstinate about it make themselves out to be threats. Why? Because most people don't respond to being surrounded by gun barrels with a deliberate and conscious "gently caress you I'm going to do what I want" (characterizing the action not quoting dialogue), and the venn diagram of people who do overlaps substantially with people who pull guns on cops. Also that combined with the manner in which he was eyeing the cops while walking away and not attempting to actually flee yet makes it looks like he's either hesitating doing something like pulling a gun, or waiting for his opportunity to do so. I can only speak from wartime experience not policing, but there's a big difference between non compliance due to confusion, mental illness, or wholesale flight, and the the sort of calm and deliberate non compliance in that video, when the latter happens its very much an "oh gently caress this is about to get bad" feeling, and even knowing from reading the article it wouldn't happen I got a subconscious chill and a feeling of "oh gently caress that dude's about to pull a gun" when I watched it for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think Crawford is a good example of this but not Taylor, all of Taylor' actions reinforced the fact that he was a potential threat. When a bunch of people are pointing guns and screaming at someone to halt and they not only ignore those commands but turn around and act deliberately obstinate about it make themselves out to be threats. Why? Because most people don't respond to being surrounded by gun barrels with a deliberate and conscious "gently caress you I'm going to do what I want" (characterizing the action not quoting dialogue), and the venn diagram of people who do overlaps substantially with people who pull guns on cops. Also that combined with the manner in which he was eyeing the cops while walking away and not attempting to actually flee yet makes it looks like he's either hesitating doing something like pulling a gun, or waiting for his opportunity to do so. I can only speak from wartime experience not policing, but there's a big difference between non compliance due to confusion, mental illness, or wholesale flight, and the the sort of calm and deliberate non compliance in that video, when the latter happens its very much an "oh gently caress this is about to get bad" feeling, and even knowing from reading the article it wouldn't happen I got a subconscious chill and a feeling of "oh gently caress that dude's about to pull a gun" when I watched it for the first time. I'm guessing his behavior may have been from a general "gently caress all y'all" attitude toward police. If he lived in an inner city or poorer area, he may have been subjected to (justified or otherwise) harassment from police over his lifetime. poo poo, it could have exclusively been justified harassment for crimes; he had convictions for felony robbery and obstruction of justice at the time. He may have just been so fed up with how poo poo was going at the time that he stopped behaving rationally even if it got him killed. That said, Taylor still never drew a weapon or even presented something that looked like one and his shirt lifting only really looked like a weapon draw if you've already convinced yourself that he's drawing a gun. The officer still should have delayed firing before confirming the presence of a weapon. Better yet, approach people with something other than screaming and drawing a gun as your first interaction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Surgeon's are not allowed to work on family members or people they have similarly close personal relationships with. Yes they can. Obviously if they are the only surgeon available and otherwise it is only the opinion of the AMA code of ethics (opinion 8.19) that they shouldn't but they aren't barred from doing so. A hospital may have its own rules (again barring 'only person available') but the AMA has no rule against it, they just don't think it's prudent, There may be some state or city law somewhere but it is allowed otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:18
|
|
