|
POWELL CURES KIDS posted:Friendly reminder that US police actually have no duty to protect, and would've been legally within their rights to eat ice cream and put on suntan lotion while the shooting was in progress. Same applies to firemen and cops in most countries. It isn’y a big gotcha.
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
It is when American cops spend most their time jerking themselves off about being heroic sheepdogs who are the thin blue line between society and chaos.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
TGLT posted:It is when American cops spend most their time jerking themselves off about being heroic sheepdogs who are the thin blue line between society and chaos. So let’s not loving jerk with them?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If you are making a performative vote then 'we tried to be bipartisan but they refused and are now voting against it' is more effective. It really isn't. Did this already after Sandy Hook.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:You would not, and this is super cringy right wing adjacent hero fantasizing. It is not superhero worship to expect a police officer to act in a stressful situation to save children from an active shooter. Yes it is tough and demanding but that is the point. If we can expect doctors and nurses to put themselves at risk of COVID we can expect police to try to save children even if a normal person would not. Not because they are special but because that is what they are supposed to be trained ro do. That is the theoretical reason why they have special legal protection.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:So let’s not loving jerk with them? I don't think expecting the people with a shitload of guns and armor to shoot a teenager with a scary vest is feeding into the idea that they're superhuman heroes. They're usually pretty loving good at doing that.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I don't think expecting the people with a shitload of guns and armor to shoot a teenager with a scary vest is feeding into the idea that they're superhuman heroes. They're usually pretty loving good at doing that. Most of them aren’t great at it because they never do it and nothing ever happens statistically. Only in big city SWAT would you have any routinee, really.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:DND mods have now officially sanctioned and endorsed the use of "pissing in their pantaloons" as a gender neutral description of the behavior of Hero Cops. I second this motion.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Same applies to firemen and cops in most countries. It isn’y a big gotcha. Which countries, just out of curiosity?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Most of them aren’t great at it because they never do it and nothing ever happens statistically. If we have to deal with these stupid assholes armed to the teeth and routinely murdering us simply for crossing their paths, then the least they can do is attempt to stop a shooting in progress. If they're fundamentally unable to do so then they shouldn't have weapons at all.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Most of them aren’t great at it because they never do it and nothing ever happens statistically. I'm saying when it's a black kid in a hoodie you can't stop them from magdumping. They had overwhelming numbers, equipment, and training, and instead they elected to chill out in a parking lot while they "contained him" in a classroom full of children. Expecting them to do the thing they are trained and paid to do when they have clear superiority isn't demanding they be heroic - it's demanding they do the thing they ostensibly exist for. Pointing out the clear disconnect between police rhetoric and actual police action is not feeding into some Thin Blue Line narrative. edit: Well, clearly not what they are paid to do but what they keep saying to justify their gargantuan budgets. Like the solution isn't to just replace them with "the good hero cops" but gently caress me if all this isn't just blood boiling. TGLT fucked around with this message at 18:31 on May 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Man you're the loving senator from CT you did this already what do you expect negotiating with Republicans is going to get you. What a waste of time. It's the chance to actually pass legislation. As previously discussed, the actual pressure dynamic on gun control has only gotten worse for the gun lobby in the interim; in particular, the NRA is literally in bankruptcy, and it's actual bankruptcy rather than "we're hiding all our assets in NRA 2" bankruptcy. This is serving the dems relatively well as a wedge issue on R constituencies at this point, a state of affairs that works better because there's now a cultural awareness and consensus on it built upon previous press coverage and failed bills, as well as literacy in debunking the anti-talking points (which the NRA has no real capacity to update). The BATF rulemaking also reduces potential surfaces in the legislation to attack.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
POWELL CURES KIDS posted:Which countries, just out of curiosity? In Finland, the duty to rescue ties both bystanders and government workers, but clearly defines that to the extent of their abilities and the totality of circumstances. In italy, the duty to rescue ties similarly both, but has a looser definition. Most Civil Law countries have a duty to rescue, or duty to act, that compels all bystanders of sound mind and body to act to their extent, but also where the duty is defined in legal terms as duty to act within reason or with the totality of the circumstances in mind. For the fire service, it can not be held against them that the house burned down, or they didn't make it there on time. For police, they can not be required to act in all situations, as not to create a legal burden where A Bad Thing Happening makes the organization of Police liable to some extent. A strict requirement to act uniformly in all situations would mean that. Patrol car didn't make it on time? Your fault, you are legally responsible because your duty ties you to all events equally. It's the same here. Committing crimes should mean you get convicted as a cop, and does when you're a fireman. Breaking department rules mean admin punishment. But bad things happening isn't your fault, nor your responsibility. To some extent, depending on jurisdiction, laws, and department policies, it often is summed as "at any given moment, you _should_ do what you reasonably and safely can". That is what the Supreme Court decision also ultimately affirms. The fact that cops loving suck, and that cops don't do what's expected is a grave issue, but stems from cops being poo poo and cop unions being poo poo and politicians being poo poo, but it isn't fixed with an arbitrary requirement that law enforcement (and by that extent the authority behind them; county, state, municipality etc) would be liable for harm. That would mean you can sue your city and get money if cops or firemen didn't appear in half a second, or even patrol your domicile. It isn't some gotcha, because it's the way the issue is viewed in all countries pretty much. No succesful public entity could bear the burden of being responsible for emergencies.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Most of them aren’t great at it because they never do it and nothing ever happens statistically. I don't think it's fundamentally unreasonable to hold cops to their own standards, since these are the cops who have claimed they need all this tacticool bullshit to be Heoroes, and call these specific cops disgusting cowards. That said, it's also obviously true that there is no "good" armed response to this scenario for the reasons you indicated, and randoms with guns will also just get themselves killed or kill random other innocent people Like yeah, the police need to be defunded, not BECAUSE they're cowards (even though they obviously are), it's because a cop based solution fundamentally doesn't work no matter how virtuous the cops are or how well they actually try to do their jobs
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I'm saying when it's a black kid in a hoodie you can't stop them from magdumping. They had overwhelming numbers, equipment, and training, and instead they elected to chill out in a parking lot while they "contained him" in a classroom full of children. Expecting them to do the thing they are trained and paid to do when they have clear superiority isn't demanding they be heroic - it's demanding they do the thing they ostensibly exist for. Pointing out the clear disconnect between police rhetoric and actual police action is not feeding into some Thin Blue Line narrative. It's very blood boiling, and cops don't really prevent crime like fire inspection prevents fires. When the bullets fly, the best case scenario is to mitigate the damage, but you won't stop a shooting. It's already happening. That's also what's so maddening about all the loving right wing talking heads who wank off over cop tactics or number of cops. I don't want a society where shootings are resolved with gunfire. I want them not even start.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I don't think it's fundamentally unreasonable to hold cops to their own standards, since these are the cops who have claimed they need all this tacticool bullshit to be Heoroes, and call these specific cops disgusting cowards. That said, it's also obviously true that there is no "good" armed response to this scenario for the reasons you indicated, and randoms with guns will also just get themselves killed or kill random other innocent people Precisely. Which is why my ideal society has some small well trained and regulated armed response force to mitigate the worst situations, but otherwise poo poo is resolved with other means. Cops in America, or elsewhere, are just a security blanket for most people, and they often aggravate societal ills, and most certainly don't loving help most of them, and their only actual useful utility is an armed response force in the most gravest situations, but instead they shoot black kids. But, it's worth pointing out to the poster of that twitter link that establishing a perimeter that no one can go into, and no one can get out, is like textbook 101 A Good Thing Armed Cops can do at an event like this, no matter how frustrating it feels to watch.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:It's very blood boiling, and cops don't really prevent crime like fire inspection prevents fires. When the bullets fly, the best case scenario is to mitigate the damage, but you won't stop a shooting. It's already happening. That's also what's so maddening about all the loving right wing talking heads who wank off over cop tactics or number of cops. I don't want a society where shootings are resolved with gunfire. I want them not even start. You are literally arguing that you can't do anything about an active shooter so all you can really do is let them slaughter children and try to stop the next one. Like I agree with the argument that the best prevention is before, not during, but any idea of mitigation that involves leaving children alone with someone trying to murder them is loving monstrous.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/1529861503158976512?s=20 To the surprise of no one. I hate.to call for it but there needs to be riots
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
I'm counting this in the body count https://twitter.com/Ernie_Zuniga/status/1529872688939995136?s=20&t=h_m8Zzzm0pUWLttocgDbiA
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
I'm in favor of votes just to put lovely people on the record, but as a vector of change I don't see how it will do anything more than not holding one since it's not like anybody voting to kill it is going to face a single consequence as a result, from anybody, at any level. I support it for the singular reason that the shittiest morons in congress and in the party with a trifecta oppose it, so it must be good. A sort of modified Law of Kristol. I've tried to put words to my despair these last few days, but I'm not good at words and have failed to produce something up to snuff. Liz Bruenig just published a piece for the Atlantic that comes closest of all, but it's more of an accounting and asking of the question if it's time we stopped thinking of our nation and culture as a shining beacon on a hill with a bright future if only we try hard enough and instead operate with something more realistic no matter the terrible truths that may be incurred. So, for my buddy who is a good socialist with a kid the same age as all the ones murdered, putting words to an existing unwillingness of the system to stop any of this may be helpful. Other people, what do I tell them? I don't want to lie and say things will get better because there are good people with power in knock down drag out fights to fix this, and it's not like they'd believe me anyway. We are all in the trenches and anybody who is fortunate enough to not have their heads above the rim is in the mud, watching both live grenades and ticking time bombs falling into it around them. Our generals are waiting for breaks in the fire to yell about compromise and if you end up a casualty maybe you'll be lucky and get a hashtag so your GoFundMe for your medical and funeral expenses won't get lost among the thousands of others. The new American dream. So I'm going to skip work and spend some time with my elderly dog and try to find solace in the fact that at least it'll probably be a day or two until the next enormously monstrous thing is imposed upon us as our vaunted allies shrink from action. We're not yet to the point where it's a daily thing yet, it's still just mostly weekly or biweekly. Despair.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's the chance to actually pass legislation. As previously discussed, the actual pressure dynamic on gun control has only gotten worse for the gun lobby in the interim; in particular, the NRA is literally in bankruptcy, and it's actual bankruptcy rather than "we're hiding all our assets in NRA 2" bankruptcy. This is serving the dems relatively well as a wedge issue on R constituencies at this point, a state of affairs that works better because there's now a cultural awareness and consensus on it built upon previous press coverage and failed bills, as well as literacy in debunking the anti-talking points (which the NRA has no real capacity to update). The BATF rulemaking also reduces potential surfaces in the legislation to attack. I'd love to be wrong and they get 10 Republicans to sign on to a bill but I'm almost certainly going to be right.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
POWELL CURES KIDS posted:Friendly reminder that US police actually have no duty to protect, and would've been legally within their rights to eat ice cream and put on suntan lotion while the shooting was in progress. Just in case anyone thinks the poster here is exaggerating, they aren't: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html SCOTUS ruled sometime ago the police only a have duty to protect the public in general (i.e property rights) and not individuals. The shooter could have been standing outside mowing down the parents, too, the police could legally just walk away without doing anything. It's pretty hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:If we have to deal with these stupid assholes armed to the teeth and routinely murdering us simply for crossing their paths, then the least they can do is attempt to stop a shooting in progress. If they're fundamentally unable to do so then they shouldn't have weapons at all. All I know is that cops saving their own kids and then loitering in a parking lot, holding back other parents while their kids die isn't doing any favors to the argument that nobody needs guns except the police. We would've been better served if the cops had taken off their gear and handed it to some parents. We have video proof that if you're in a dangerous situation its reasonable to expect that you'll need to save yourself or die.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You are literally arguing that you can't do anything about an active shooter so all you can really do is let them slaughter children and try to stop the next one. This is still kind of just Good Guy With A Gun mentality, there are vanishingly few good, honest people who would sign up to legitimately, actually risk their lives in this kind of scenario. It's also a big part of why all guns need to be banned, there's nothing you can really do to stop someone with one from just immediately killing a ton of people. It's terrifying but that's just the reality
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You are literally arguing that you can't do anything about an active shooter so all you can really do is let them slaughter children and try to stop the next one. Where do I argue that? Establish perimeter, prevent more people going in, and prevent anyone from leaving. Gather enough forces, and go in and do what you can. Letting random parents in doesn't solve it, and running in with two school cops is also probably not gonna do it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Lemming posted:This is still kind of just Good Guy With A Gun mentality, there are vanishingly few good, honest people who would sign up to legitimately, actually risk their lives in this kind of scenario. It's also a big part of why all guns need to be banned, there's nothing you can really do to stop someone with one from just immediately killing a ton of people. It's terrifying but that's just the reality The 'Good Guy with a Gun' mentality is exactly how every mass shooting ends where the shooter doesn't commit suicide. The only difference is you're expecting the police to be the good guy with a gun. You stop violence with violence.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:All I know is that cops saving their own kids and then loitering in a parking lot, holding back other parents while their kids die isn't doing any favors to the argument that nobody needs guns except the police. We would've been better served if the cops had taken off their gear and handed it to some parents. We have video proof that if you're in a dangerous situation its reasonable to expect that you'll need to save yourself or die. Unfortunately Buffalo is a good case where 'Good Guy with a Gun' is in no way a surety. Its almost always fantasy that you will be better prepared than someone with murder already on the mind and in the state to do so. Bishyaler posted:The 'Good Guy with a Gun' mentality is exactly how every mass shooting ends where the shooter doesn't commit suicide. The only difference is you're expecting the police to be the good guy with a gun. You stop violence with violence. Yes, true, but if you are visibly carrying (like the guard in buffalo) you are a priority target. The reality is you are likely not the good guy with the gun who is going to stop this.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
I got too late to a scene to help a dead cop out of a river who was an idiot related to this discussion. During a major flooding event in Pennsylvania a lady was stuck in a car inside massive floodwater confluence, and this cop was radioing us firefighters to get there. People screaming on the scene yelling that something has to be done eventually peer pressured the cop, without a safety line or a partner, to go into the water to try to help the woman. The cop got washed away, entered a manhole, and washed (obviously dead) ashore some five miles from that scene. We got there, put on a dive suit, and with a safety line rescued the woman. The cop didn't help anyone, and only caused further injury, and demanded more from already stressed emergency services by having people look for him. Similar situations happened with non-cops putting themselves into the flood waters to try to help. Ultimately the cop just loving died and didn't help anyone. He did precisely what one is supposed to not do, because it doesn't loving HELP. I think it's similar to this. Limiting the scope and size of the emergency is a valid tactic, and also very important. Recognizing that you can't improve something is also a valid tactic, and waiting for more manpower, or a map or whatever, or a loving safety line for water rescue, is valid too.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:The 'Good Guy with a Gun' mentality is exactly how every mass shooting ends where the shooter doesn't commit suicide. The only difference is you're expecting the police to be the good guy with a gun. You stop violence with violence. Except they don't end with the cops saving people, they end with the shooter having exhausted all their targets and not having anywhere else to go. Nobody in danger is saved, they just stop it from spreading anywhere else. As in this case, from what I understand the shooter was boxed into one room, killed everyone there, and then was eventually taken out. That's as good of a response as is possible, and it's obviously completely dogshit. It doesn't matter how close to a theoretical ideal the Government Violence Force is, someone with a gun can successfully kill a ton of people if they want to
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I got too late to a scene to help a dead cop out of a river who was an idiot related to this discussion. During a major flooding event in Pennsylvania a lady was stuck in a car inside massive floodwater confluence, and this cop was radioing us firefighters to get there. People screaming on the scene yelling that something has to be done eventually peer pressured the cop, without a safety line or a partner, to go into the water to try to help the woman. The cop got washed away, entered a manhole, and washed (obviously dead) ashore some five miles from that scene. Waiting 40 minutes as you can hear the gunshots is not helping, and this wasn't a lack of access or training, all these cops are trained to deal with mass shooters. This was outright negligence. The scenario you pointed out is in no way comparable.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
I shouldn't have to say this but a flood is not a guy armed with a rifle.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Where do I argue that? You're saying you think the cops did the right thing, then. Wouldn't change anything.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
WorkerThread posted:You're saying you think the cops did the right thing, then. Wouldn't change anything. I don't really think ultimately American cops can do very many things right and I think they often make things worse with their loving gun play.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I shouldn't have to say this but a flood is not a guy armed with a rifle. Two school cops who have never been in a gunfight armed with two pistols facing against a guy in armor and with a rifle is probably actually comparable. The rifle nerd has probably more ammo in his one mag than one cop carries total. It's a pretty hopeless situation. They will serve as targets, or as donators of two new pistols.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately Buffalo is a good case where 'Good Guy with a Gun' is in no way a surety. Its almost always fantasy that you will be better prepared than someone with murder already on the mind and in the state to do so. Of course the shooter will always be better prepared, but the alternative is to be defenseless in such a situation. If you can't flee and you can't rely on police to engage the shooter, your other option is to die.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I don't really think ultimately American cops can do very many things right and I think they often make things worse with their loving gun play. You're evading my question by answering something I didn't ask.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
People who are arguing that the situation could have been improved with better cops are implying there could be a GOOD cop based solution to this problem. There can't be! It is, fundamentally, impossible! That these cops are disgusting cowards does *not* imply they could be replaced with a competent army of John Wicks! This is not a problem that can be solved or even improved by "fixing" the poo poo cops
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
WorkerThread posted:You're evading my question by answering something I didn't ask. Containment and assault were probably in this case the most reasonable solution.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Of course the shooter will always be better prepared, but the alternative is to be defenseless in such a situation. If you can't flee and you can't rely on police to engage the shooter, your other option is to die. And how would that address a school shooter? Arm the kids? Arm the teachers? Make teachers BIGGER targets while we refuse to pay them a living wage? Who is the good guy with a gun in a public school? Its not the SRO either. Vahakyla posted:Containment and assault were probably in this case the most reasonable solution. If the reports are accurate, they contained him in a classroom and let him massacre a class. That was not a reasonable solution.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Two school cops who have never been in a gunfight armed with two pistols facing against a guy in armor and with a rifle is probably actually comparable. The rifle nerd has probably more ammo in his one mag than one cop carries total. It's a pretty hopeless situation. They will serve as targets, or as donators of two new pistols. They had more than two cops there for a while before this thing ended.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2022 19:03
|
|