|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This is unrelated to the release of the new weight loss drugs that have been discussed all over the place (including this thread), but it is pretty ironic timing. There’s an Italian bakery I started going to and was shocked to see a Jenny Craig location next door, I assumed they had already went under long ago.
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm pretty sure the coast guard doesn't need to shoot at a drug runner's boat because they have helicopters and you, in a boat, aren't going anywhere they can't follow you. The navy and coast guard do VBSS all the time- my Buddy literally shot at drug boats from another small boat.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:And if cops in other countries fire warning shots and kill less people, why shouldn't we at least look at if having this step in the escalation chain makes a difference or not? Do we actually have any evidence that firing warning shots kills less people? OctaMurk posted:Obviously, warning shots have some chance of killing people, but its far, far lower than shooting to kill. I could easily believe warning shots have a much lower kill rate than shots to kill for the intended target. What about bystanders? KillHour posted:Going back to the video we are talking about, that person should not have fired his gun - not warning shots, not shot to kill, nothing. You're acting as if the options there are "where do I shoot" and not "do I shoot."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Senator Scott is running for President. No, not that Senator Scott. The one from South Carolina. His campaign seems to be mostly about identity. Specifically, that he is an evangelical Christian, grew up poor and made it in America, and he exemplifies that conservative messaging to black people about personal responsibility and not giving up on trying because you are obsessed with oppression aren't racist. Given his big fumble with abortion and lack of any major accomplishments or unique policy proposals, I doubt he ends up catching on. But, on paper, he isn't a bad Republican candidate. He has tried to make a bipartisan police reform bill (that eventually died over disputes about qualified immunity), is young, African-American, very conservative, has an impressive personal story, and isn't personally unpopular (he isn't well-known at all, so that may also be a weakness). He just doesn't offer anything beyond checking some personal boxes and isn't anyone who is going to excite people - especially not when Trump and DeSantis are still both options. https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1652857807144624129 quote:Sen. Tim Scott teases ‘major announcement’ on May 22 as he explores White House bid
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Literally train cops to view civilians like soldiers were trained in Baghdad and they shoot less people. Almost any other tactic than “everyone is a criminal out to get you” will kill less people. Like basic cop training is to inundate them with videos of the .00001% of cases where a routine incident happens to be with an armed crazy, and they get to hear/see the dying cop in vivid detail.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:I think true spoons point is that if theres only two steps of escalation -- not shooting and shooting to kill -- then the cops are going to err on the side of shoot to kill a lot more often. This is what I'm trying to get at. There's a tendency to approach the issue in a vacuum, in terms of generalizations and, like, first principles. But America has a horrendous issue with gun violence, including from police, so I think it's important to consider that we (Americans) are products of our environment-- even those of us who are anti gun--and this makes our intuition on the subject unreliable. Again, I'm not saying warning shots are a good idea. Just that blanket proclamations that they're bad should probably engage with the fact that they're used by a number of organizations that kill fewer innocent people per capita. That may be a coincidence or it may not. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 15:48 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Do we actually have any evidence that firing warning shots kills less people? Well thats what I'm saying -- maybe it is something that should br studied instead of simply dismissing the whole idea out of hand.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:I think true spoons point is that if theres only two steps of escalation -- not shooting and shooting to kill -- then the cops are going to err on the side of shoot to kill a lot more often. This is the post that started warning shot chat Gyges posted:I think he was just shooting into the air for warning shots. Still psychotic as all gently caress, but slightly less than everyone being lucky that Gary is a bad shot. "Just shooting into the air for warning shots" is being dismissive about firing a gun in the situation, even if it wasn't intended to be. Dragging the conversation kicking and screaming to "well some police departments use warning shots in limited situations" is moving the goalposts out of the stadium and down the street. The dude started firing his gun because people were fishing. That is unhinged and dangerous. Can you come up with a contrived situation where discharging a gun reduces the likelihood of injury or death? Maybe. This was definitely not one of those and any attempt to say "warning shots are actually good sometimes" is just muddying the waters around this guy doing the absolute stupidest poo poo possible. That is the exact reason why gun safety people say "warning shots are bad." Not because they literally never work, but because they normalize firing a gun at people and being able to argue "oh I didn't mean to hurt them." If you are shooting at someone, you need to be okay with that person dying from it, and you need to be able to back up your actions with "I had a right to kill that person." If you can't, don't fire a gun. Edit: saying "well we should study this and look at the data we don't know" is the same poo poo Fox News pulls when they want to distract from the context of what is being talked about. We're talking about this guy firing a gun in the air because people were fishing at his pond. KillHour fucked around with this message at 15:53 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This is what I'm trying to get at. There's a tendency to approach the issue in a vacuum, in terms of generalizations and, like, first principles. But America has a horrendous issue with gun violence, including from police, so I think it's important to consider that we (Americans) are products of our environment-- even those of us who are anti gun--and this makes our intuition on the subject unreliable. The whole "warning shot" issue is also different with police vs. random people. A warning shot is always an escalation. If you are running from the police and you get a warning shot, then you pretty much know what the situation is. The example above where a random guy with a gun pointing it at you while you're fishing firing a warning shot is a huge escalation and you have no idea who this person is, why they are shooting, or what they intend to do. It is a massive escalation in a way that is slightly different from the coast guard firing a warning shot at a boat. Either way, I don't think there is really any drive or desire on any side of the issue to push for American police to use warning shots. It's not really going to happen and warning shots are generally not a great idea when civilians use them to try and settle a conflict. The best possible outcome is everyone runs when they hear gunshots, but the many possible bad outcomes are much worse than trying to break up a fight or scare someone off without firing a gun. In basically every jurisdiction in the U.S., you can be criminally charged for firing a warning shot as a civilian. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 15:52 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Example study on warning shots: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/warning-shots-revisited quote:Many police departments have had a policy against warning shots for years. Such a policy is due to the concern that a warning shot may be misplaced and result in unintended injury or death to a suspect or bystander. On the other hand, there is evidence that a safely placed warning shot can shock a suspect into compliant behavior that precludes shooting the suspect. Thus, warning shots may prevent injury or death rather than cause it. In reviewing dozens of cases in which officers or civilians fired a warning shot, the authors found the shots were effective in the vast majority of cases, and no further shots were fired. Case after case showed that criminals ceased to flee and surrendered, even though they had committed serious crimes. In the cases where warning shots were fired, the arrests remained valid; and the courts were not concerned about the use of warning shots. Research shows that warning shots have resulted in little legal litigation. If an officer's option is to fire a safely placed warning shot or shoot to kill or incapacitate a suspect, the option of the warning shot is less likely to lead to a civil action against the department. Perhaps it is time to look at the possible use of warning shots in certain cases in which it would be an alternative to injury or death. KillHour posted:Edit: saying "well we should study this and look at the data we don't know" is the same poo poo Fox News pulls when they want to distract from the context of what is being talked about. We're talking about this guy firing a gun in the air because people were fishing at his pond. I feel like the conversation pretty clearly moved on from that, to police and warning shots. There is nobody who thinks randos should be firing shots because of people fishing. OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 15:56 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Finnish police definitely are trained to shoot non-lethally and it seems to work. For example the 2017 knife attack quote:At around 16:02, Bouanane, armed with the two knives, stabbed four people at the west corner of Market Square.[25][26][27] The Emergency Response Centre alerted all nearby police patrols to the incident.[28] Bouanane stabbed six more people while yelling "Allahu akbar" and running towards Puutori, approximately 465 metres (1,526 ft) away. Bystanders intervened in the attacks and chased the attacker while simultaneously warning other people.[22][29][30] When police confronted Bouanane stabbing a victim at street address Brahenkatu 14 near Puutori, he ignored verbal orders and was immobilised with a single shot to the thigh and a taser at 16:05. He was given first aid and taken into custody.[25][28][31][22] In 2017 the police did 84 internal reviews about gun use (this includes warning of the use of gun, threatening with a gun as well as firing it), there were zero deaths and four shots were fired toward a person.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:It sure reads to me like they addressed your points. It's not "dogma" to question a person's ability to think critically about how to respond to a dangerous, possibly even deadly situation, or to point out that firing "warning shots" is not safe, at all. The question is how likely bad outcomes are using different approaches to training and this question cannot be answered by these simplistic best practices. That various European police forces use this kind of escalation (jncluding warning shots and shots to the limbs) and in general kill far less people (and far less unarmed people) than American cops might be an indication that this kind of approach would at least not be worse (though it might even be worse in the USA due to societal differences like the prevalence of guns!). I just think being a little bit inquisitive on how the training people receive might contribute to the problems there are with gun usage in the US is in order. EDIT: Question to European gun users (not professional): What kind of training did you receive as far as shooting on people is concerned? Are the best practices similar to the ones brought up by Americans? true.spoon fucked around with this message at 16:01 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
There's not really a one size fits all situations answer. Warning shots can be useful and less dangerous in certain specific situations with trained individuals but are psychopathic dangerous escalations when done by random dudes who are mad that you're fishing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Example study on warning shots: That study only looks at a few dozen cases. It's not particularly exhaustive. The main reasons that they don't do warning shots are: 1) Could potentially harm bystanders. 2) Could escalate a confrontation. 3) If the suspect is running and not armed, then you shouldn't be firing your gun in general. 4) If the suspect is armed and a potential life-threatening danger, then you should be discharging your gun to kill and not fire a warning shot. Some cops have been fired or sued for firing warning shots and there isn't really any drive to make them a part of training because they usually (for both legal and personal safety reasons) don't want the police discharging their guns in any situation except to kill or disable an armed person.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Finnish police definitely are trained to shoot non-lethally and it seems to work. For example the 2017 knife attack A hit to the thigh is extremely dangerous. Sounds more like they got lucky and weren’t trained to mag dump than they activated VATS. It’s real disingenuous to claim shooting to wound works when the real solution demonstrated here is train cops to not shoot
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Some cops have been fired or sued for firing warning shots and there isn't really any drive to make them a part of training because they usually (for both legal and personal safety reasons) don't want the police discharging their guns in any situation except to kill or disable an armed person. Clearly whatever training they're doing on this part hasn't been working.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That study only looks at a few dozen cases. It's not particularly exhaustive. While this is true, I think it is worth pointing out that it is the only actual data anyone has posted in this discussion about warning shots.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:A hit to the thigh is extremely dangerous. Sounds more like they got lucky and weren’t trained to mag dump than they activated VATS. Shooting to kill is also "extremely dangerous".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Clearly whatever training they're doing on this part hasn't been working. Right, which is also part of the reason why training to use guns in even more situations, including against unarmed people, is something a lot of people don't want to do.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:There's not really a one size fits all situations answer. Warning shots can be useful and less dangerous in certain specific situations with trained individuals but are psychopathic dangerous escalations when done by random dudes who are mad that you're fishing. . . . and are a loosening of the rules for use of force that contemporary American police would 100% abuse the everliving gently caress out of.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
Aegis posted:. . . and are a loosening of the rules for use of force that contemporary American police would 100% abuse the everliving gently caress out of. Yes, unless the other theory is true and American police discourage warning shots so that they can escalate and kill more easily. There's not actually a lot of data here as we're finding out. Also it's agency to agency. Some allow them and some don't.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:While this is true, I think it is worth pointing out that it is the only actual data anyone has posted in this discussion about warning shots. Sure, but the reason they aren't used much is that they may help catching some people, but there isn't really counter evidence that they wouldn't have caught them anyway without a warning shot. It's basically a risk-assessment calculation. The potential upsides for using a warning shot against unarmed people are pretty low (may catch people more often without a chase) and the potential downsides are pretty high (may kill someone unnecessarily, may injure civilian, may increase danger to officer, and may escalate situation). They are trying to avoid the worst possible scenario as much as possible, even if it is pretty rare and hurts the upside. It's the same thing with various safety rules and regulations that people complain about - 99% of the time, people will do the job as intended and the rules aren't necessary. But, that 1% of people/times is why the rules are there. They sacrifice general convenience and efficiency with the goal of reducing the disasters to the lowest possible limit. This is what the Las Vegas Police Department and DOJ say are the optimal use of force policies regarding warning shots that provide the best outcomes: quote:Officers are not authorized to discharge their firearm: The DOJ and LVPD rules basically say you shouldn't be drawing your gun unless it is to stop or incapacitate someone who is going to perform an act that can cause serious bodily injury or death. That basically means that there isn't an "ideal" situation to use a warning shot because if you are shooting, then you should be shooting at someone in order to stop an immediate injury or you should be using tactics that don't involve a gun if it has not escalated to that point. https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/use-of-force.pdf Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:31 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
Cops can't stand in front of a car and shoot at the driver, missing every shot and then doing a sick rear end roll over the hood when the car is just about to hit them? This is the future liberals want.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
Why do cops need to put 85 bullets into a guy reaching for his wallet when one or two will do?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS is preparing to fire the kill shot at the modern administrative state So does this mean most federal regulations would be done? Faa, fcc,environmental regs and so on? We'd become a trash country overnight.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:I think true spoons point is that if theres only two steps of escalation -- not shooting and shooting to kill -- then the cops are going to err on the side of shoot to kill a lot more often. There's a lot more than two steps of escalation, and most of them don't involve guns at all. Most situations should theoretically be possible to resolve without the cops pulling a gun. Drawing a gun necessarily escalates the situation quite a bit because the threat of deadly force comes into play the moment that weapon leaves its holster. That's the principal risk in "warning shots" and "shooting to wound". Pulling a gun instantly turns a confrontation into a life-and-death situation, and should be avoided whenever possible. Maybe in countries where gun usage is tightly controlled or heavily restricted, warning shots and shooting to wound can work as a second-to-last-resort. In the US, where basically every cop carries a gun, it's very important to discourage any line of thinking that causes the cops to view guns as a lower, less-lethal rung on the ladder of escalation. Moreover, gun availability among the population is significant as well, because it affects the other side's ability to respond in kind or escalate further. If a cop pulls a gun on a suspect with a knife, then the only people at risk are the suspect and anyone in the cop's line of fire. If a cop pulls a gun on a guy with a gun, then there's potential for a firefight that endangers everyone in the immediate area, and even immobilizing the suspect with a shot to the leg doesn't necessarily stop them from shooting back. None of this has anything to do with random rednecks popping off "warning shots" at anyone who approaches their property, though. OctaMurk posted:Example study on warning shots: The text of that paper doesn't seem to be available, but the abstract shows some massive glaring flaws. It compares "cops shooting a fleeing suspect" to "cops firing warning shots at a fleeing suspect", but doesn't even consider "the cops could just not pull their guns on someone running away" as an option. Moreover, it didn't seem to pay all that much attention to the chances of injury, because it's more concerned with reducing the chances of lawsuits against the police department. Wikipedia frames that as "Research has shown that situations where warning shots were used had a largely de-escalating effect", but the text available to us doesn't really seem to clearly establish that. On the contrary, the abstract suggests that the paper is about comparing various methods for the police to escalate against someone who is trying to deescalate the situation by leaving it. As expected of a paper from the 90s, it's an extremely cop-centered view.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:A hit to the thigh is extremely dangerous. Sounds more like they got lucky and weren’t trained to mag dump than they activated VATS. It's a hoot that you're saying someone else is being disingenuous when you're citing a video game. In actual fact, the Finnish police force uses guns very rarely. Yleisradio posted:– Miljoonasta hälytystehtävästä ampuma-asetta on käytetty vuosittain vain noin kymmenessä tehtävässä, ja niissäkin kohdistettu laukaus ihmistä kohti on ammuttu vain puolessa tapauksista, sanoo poliisitarkastaja Ari Alanen Poliisihallituksesta. Translation by Rappaport: "Out of a million alarm events [someone calling the emergency number] a police fire-arm has been annually used in approximately ten cases, and out of those a shot directed towards a human being were present in half the cases." ACAB and all, but it seems wildly weird to claim that a police force cannot be trained to use force judiciously, based on a (apologies to ropekid) video game.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Meatball posted:So does this mean most federal regulations would be done? Faa, fcc,environmental regs and so on? We'd become a trash country overnight. No, the rules would still be there, but every judge could substitute their own "expertise" for that of subject matter experts and there would be little way to overturn those opinions on appeal. More judge as king type poo poo basically
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Meatball posted:So does this mean most federal regulations would be done? Faa, fcc,environmental regs and so on? We'd become a trash country overnight. It depends how far they actually go in the ruling. They can rule against the case without overturning Chevron. It would not eliminate all regulations. It would essentially just mean that congress has to give explicit permission to regulatory agencies when they create new rules. Example: The EPA currently uses the 1963 & 1970 Clean Air Acts as its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants because the CAA says that the EPA must "regulate major sources of pollution" from power plants. However, carbon dioxide is not technically a pollutant and was definitely not considered a "major pollutant" when Congress passed the bill. They definitely weren't imagining the Obama administration using the law almost 50 years later to regulate carbon dioxide. If the Supreme Court goes all the way with the ruling, then in situations like the Clean Air Act above, Congress would need to explicitly write into laws that the agencies should be doing X instead of agencies themselves determining where their legal authority comes from in cases where they don't have explicit legal authority to do something.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Other than WW2, when have capitalists ever allied with communists for anything? Didn't the US ally with the commies in Iraq against Saddam, and actually maintain that alliance for a while pretty successfully?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Didn't the US ally with the commies in Iraq against Saddam, and actually maintain that alliance for a while pretty successfully? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Communist_Party
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
Ben Cardin (D-MD) isn't running for re-election in 2024. It will almost certainly be a safe D seat, but he waited a long time to announce and people thought he was running again. There isn't anyone currently running or who has even mentioned they were interested in running publicly yet. The most likely candidates are: - Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks - U.S. Rep. David Trone - Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski Jr. - U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin If either (or both) of the current U.S. House members run, then it would also put two vacancies up in the House. Raskin was diagnosed with cancer last year (but, he recently said he had successfully completed chemotherapy and was in remission) and represents a deep blue district in Montgomery County. David Trone represents a swing/lean D district in Northwest Maryland. https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1653061382869229570
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I was just looking for this, and can't find any mention of such an alliance from googling. The US famously supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, however. The Kurdish ones, specifically, seem to be part of our larger middle east coalition alliance, or at least they used to be from what I remember? I don't know, maybe I'm remember wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I was just looking for this, and can't find any mention of such an alliance from googling. The US famously supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, however. Yeah, the US and Soviets both piled aid on Saddam during Iran-Iraq out of shared hatred of Iran, and only turned on him once he got into a different military adventure. I'm not sure if Soviet leadership was as explicit with "I hope they both lose" as the US was, but it was a weird exception to the common proxy war dynamic of the cold war.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The whole "warning shot" issue is also different with police vs. random people. A warning shot is always an escalation. If you are running from the police and you get a warning shot, then you pretty much know what the situation is. Yeah absolutely. For the record I was deliberately focusing on a sub issue that actually has room for discussion, rather than "oh good another deranged yahoo about whom I can do nothing" which makes me sad. In most municipalities, firing a gun in town without good reason is a crime. Even in the sticks, "warning shots" by civilians should be treated like intimidating with a firearm at best. Christ, this country.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The Kurdish ones, specifically, seem to be part of our larger middle east coalition alliance, or at least they used to be from what I remember? I don't know, maybe I'm remember wrong. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
The bigger reason is that Germany had to go through the Allies' allies to be able to fight the Soviets, so they never had the option. If Hitler could have somehow invaded the USSR without chewing up eastern Europe first, the capitalists would have backed him instead.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The bigger reason is that Germany had to go through the Allies' allies to be able to fight the Soviets, so they never had the option. Yeah he was so eager to fight the Soviets he signed a non-agression pact with them, complete with a Secret Protocol to carve up Eastern Europe between the two. And in return the USSR was only far too happy to engage in Anti-Semitic actions and help cause Genocide in Poland.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Why do cops need to put 85 bullets into a guy reaching for his wallet when one or two will do? Because they're cowards who almost never face consequences, OP
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Yeah he was so eager to fight the Soviets he signed a non-agression pact with them, complete with a Secret Protocol to carve up Eastern Europe between the two. And in return the USSR was only far too happy to engage in Anti-Semitic actions and help cause Genocide in Poland. Invading the USSR, destroying communism, and slaughtering everybody living there to resettle the land with Germans was the driving force of Nazism. Byzantine fucked around with this message at 18:13 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:10
|
|