|
Yes but doctors are melee DPS, cops use ranged burst DPS which is imba E: this is probably my 82nd terrible snipe, here is dog on his birthday: 
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Ah well you see the relationship between doctors and death is generally that the doctor is trying to prevent the death but there is a non-person actor, i.e "a disease" which is killing the person. So when the person dies we say the disease killed them. And getting diseases to not kill people is actually very difficult and something that 99.9% of doctors are trying to do all of the time. Wheras the relationship between police and death is that they end up killing people directly with their weapons and cars because they think, correctly, that they are allowed to do that sometimes because the government wants them to do it. I think these two things are different!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
Rugz posted:What is your opinion on the legality of killing someone in self defence as a private citizen? because god forbid we hold the police, who are armed and allegedly highly trained, to a slightly higher standard than the general public
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ah well you see the relationship between doctors and death is generally that the doctor is trying to prevent the death but there is a non-person actor, i.e "a disease" which is killing the person. So when the person dies we say the disease killed them. And getting diseases to not kill people is actually very difficult and something that 99.9% of doctors are trying to do all of the time. A properly trained doctor would surely be able to cure the disease. If not why are they a doctor? This is the same rationale you are using as to why police should never kill anyone, even in a situation where it would be warranted to do so (paradoxically only if they were not a police officer though) Julio Cruz posted:because god forbid we hold the police, who are armed and allegedly highly trained, to a slightly higher standard than the general public I don't think 'They should be fired and locked up without trial' is a slightly higher standard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Rugz posted:That is different because the context is a professional should be more aware of the capability of their fists. This is not a question in the case of killing in self defence because the argument is not whether or not the person intended to kill or had sufficient training to be sufficiently deadly with a weapon, but whether they were justified in thinking they had to kill. a "trained" police officer with a firearm has much less justification in "having to kill" than a random guy on the street
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
I consider myself a very charitable and pragmatic person so I may be willing to offer some conditional leniency in practice on the matter of "all killer cops should be in prison" but let's say we should at least start with that and see how we go. I think it would be a very good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Rugz posted:I don't think 'They should be fired and locked up without trial' is a slightly higher standard. who said anything about them not facing trial?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
There's a very simple test in unlawful killing which is the 'but for' rule, namely "The victim would have lived but for the actions of the accused." So if that guy would have lived but for the actions of the cop. A sick patient would still be dead if the doctor hadn't intervened. Quite a simple and elegant test that neatly negates that argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:who said anything about them not facing trial? OwlFancier posted:I would suggest that the police regulartory bodies don't have a point except to make excuses for the police. And that whatever changes are necessary should be made so that police are not able to get away with killing people. This is the context of the discussion on what police should and should not be allowed/legally empowered to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
You may have noted that I am suggesting that the law should be amended so that trials reach the desired verdict more frequently. Which, you know, is how laws normally work. People find that the judicial system is not producing the desired outcome and the law is changed so that it does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
Rugz posted:This is the context of the discussion on what police should and should not be allowed/legally empowered to do. I think the argument Owl is making is not that they should be jailed without trial but that the trials they face should be fair and just and not just a show trial to make it look like justice is happening when the prosecution has no intention of actually making a case
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You may have noted that I am suggesting that the law should be amended so that trials reach the desired verdict more frequently. And at what point do you accept that the outcome you are seeking is actually unjust and not just a case of institutional system failure?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Oh and also that there is quite possibly something wrong with the people in society if they think it is OK for the police to kill people. Another, I think, relatively uncontroversial idea in generalities, that people are capable of having bad ideas and it would be better if more people in society held better ideas.Rugz posted:And at what point do you accept that the outcome you are seeking is actually unjust and not just a case of institutional system failure? I fail to see any reason presently why I should accept that? Again, the mere fact that the legal system produces an outcome does not actually make it just or unjust. Justice and injustice are a matter of personal conviction, all the law does is dictate how the state directs force.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
Rugz can you state your position clearly, because I kind of get the impression you and Owlfancier are arguing the same essential point. Then kiss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Yes but doctors are melee DPS, cops use ranged burst DPS which is imba Dangerous bully type not on a lead in a public place. Bringing back the hits
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Oh and also that there is quite possibly something wrong with the people in society if they think it is OK for the police to kill people. Another, I think, relatively uncontroversial idea in generalities, that people are capable of having bad ideas and it would be better if more people in society held better ideas. Can you detail what your expected course of action is for the police in Streatham on 2nd February 2020 given your opinions on what they should and should not be allowed to do? Man in suicide vest running around stabbing people. What training do you envision them being given that informs them of a non-lethal way to address that situation? By your measure these people should be in prison, so what steps would you advise they should have taken to remain free? Rugz fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Rugz posted:And at what point do you accept that the outcome you are seeking is actually unjust and not just a case of institutional system failure? pretty sure that requiring an armed, supposedly trained officer to face justice for shooting an unarmed man is not actually unjust
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:pretty sure that requiring an armed, supposedly trained officer to face justice for shooting an unarmed man is not actually unjust 'Going to prison' is not justice. Hell 'going to trial based on political weather rather than evidence' is not justice either but we're past that now anyway. Bobby Deluxe posted:Rugz can you state your position clearly, because I kind of get the impression you and Owlfancier are arguing the same essential point. Pretty sure we aren't. It is sometimes necessary but regrettable that the use of lethal force is required in the course of performing the duties required of a police officer. I certainly do not share the opinion of someone who thinks any officer who kills someone should be fired and banged up for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Can you detail what your expected course of action is for the police in Streatham on 2nd February 2020 given your opinions on what they should and should not be allowed to do? Man in suicide vest running around stabbing people. What training do you envision them being given that informs them of a non-lethal way to address that situation? By your measure these people should be in prison, so what steps would you advise they should have taken to remain free? The man did not, in fact, have a functional bomb vest on, as is frequently the case with people whose best attempt at terror attacks is indiscriminate stabbings. The police should be capable of subduing a man with a knife without killing him, and willing to risk their lives to do so. As, for example, several members of the public were willing to do with, I believe, the london bridge knife attacker before the police turned up, pulled the members of the public off him, and then shot him on the ground. Which I saw footage of them doing. The impression it left me with is that the police are more cowardly than general members of the public and did not, seemingly, give much thought to the possibility that shooting him would trigger any supposed explosive device, which leads me to think that they are not generally acting with that much thought when they kill people. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Rugz posted:'Going to prison' is not justice. Hell 'going to trial based on political weather rather than evidence' is not justice either but we're past that now anyway. what is justice, then? if we're using your "judge them by the standard of regular people" guideline, if I shot an unarmed person I'd certainly expect to go to prison for it
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The man did not, in fact, have a functional bomb vest on, as is frequently the case with people whose best attempt at terror attacks is indiscriminate stabbings. The police should be capable of subduing a man with a knife without killing him, and willing to risk their lives to do so. As, for example, several members of the public were willing to do with the london bridge knife attacker before the police turned up, pulled the members of the public off him, and then shot him on the ground. Irrelevant. Or are you expecting the police to take the chance it is non-functional? Or are you expecting them to take the suicidal option over the other option on the basis that 'They should be prepared to risk their life so they should risk it as plan A'? Julio Cruz posted:what is justice, then? if we're using your "judge them by the standard of regular people" guideline, if I shot an unarmed person I'd certainly expect to go to prison for it Would you expect to go to prison if the unarmed person was driving a car at you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Or are you expecting them to take the suicidal option over the other option on the basis that 'They should be prepared to risk their life so they should risk it as plan A'? Exactly that. Again, random members of the public are willing to do this, if the police are not then what is the point of them? You could replace the police with publicly available catchpoles and the public would have done a better job of bringing those men to trial than the police did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Would you expect to go to prison if the unarmed person was driving a car at you? you mean "driving a car down a street that I blocked off"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Exactly that. Again, random members of the public are willing to do this, if the police are not then what is the point of them? You could replace the police with publicly available catchpoles and the public would have done a better job of bringing those men to trial than the police did. Random members of the public do it because they do not have the tools to resolve the situation without doing so. If an unarmed bystander wants to grapple with a suicide bomber then more power to them but don't pretend that same person would act the same if they were armed. Why would the police, so armed, decide to martyr themselves for no reason? quote:On 9 July 2012 PC Ian Dibell was off duty and at home when he was alerted that a firearm was being discharged nearby. He went to investigate, returning briefly only to pick up his warrant card and mobile telephone. Outside a lone gunman was in pursuit of two of his neighbours who were running away, having already been shot at. The gunman was in a car that had come to a temporary stop and this enabled PC Dibell to intercept the vehicle. He leaned in through an open window and attempted to disarm the gunman. Using both his hands, he attempted to wrestle the revolver from the gunman but was fatally shot when a bullet was discharged. The gunman took his own life the next day. The coroner’s verdict was that PC Dibell was killed unlawfully. Do you think this is a preferable outcome to quote:On 9 July 2012 PC Ian Dibell was off duty and at home when he was alerted that a firearm was being discharged nearby. He went to investigate, returning briefly only to pick up his warrant card, firearm and mobile telephone. Outside a lone gunman was in pursuit of two of his neighbours who were running away, having already been shot at. The gunman was in a car that had come to a temporary stop and this enabled PC Dibell to intercept the vehicle. He discharged his firearm into the vehicle striking the gunman who subsequently died of his wounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
"If you gave people guns they would be more likely to kill people" is not, I think, a good argument for giving cops guns and then telling them they're also actually allowed to kill people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Would you expect to go to prison if the unarmed person was driving a car at you? and, if the IOPC report is to be believed, this should be "driving a car towards a vehicle which I wasn't in at the time"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"If you gave people guns they would be more likely to kill people" is not, I think, a good argument for giving cops guns and then telling them they're also actually allowed to kill people. 'You should be prepared to die to protect people' is not, I think, a good argument for depriving the police of equipment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
I’m as ACAB as it gets but uh if someone is literally running around a busy place stabbing people with what looks to be an explosive device attached to them I’d quite like someone to shoot them rather than worrying about their well-being.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Rugz posted:I certainly do not share the opinion of someone who thinks any officer who kills someone should be fired and banged up for it. E: at least in the sense of courts and trials, which is what you seemed to be arguing last page. Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
By that logic why not give them tanks? Or give all cops guns? The equipment you give them determines their behaviour. Give them body armour, give them ballistic shields, give them tear gas launchers before you give them guns. If you give them guns and license to use them they're going to kill people with them, as you entirely correctly observe, simply because they can, because that is an easy option available to them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:By that logic why not give them tanks? Or give all cops guns? And your assertion is that they don't need them because the nature of the job means that if it ever came to a situation where a gun would be justified (such as in a case where a non-officer would be justified in using one) then they can just get themselves killed in the line of duty instead because it's part of their job description.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:My point was that if you discuss Owlfanciers points at face value instead of constantly going "oh so you think [thing he definitely didn't say] do you?" then you might find you are circling the same kind of point and we can go back to discussing crisps. They only have to deploy these "oh so you think..." lines because owlfancier's opinions are always so dense and ill-considered that you need to hit them with a metaphoric sledge hammer to try and knock any kind of sense out of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:I’m as ACAB as it gets but uh if someone is literally running around a busy place stabbing people with what looks to be an explosive device attached to them I’d quite like someone to shoot them rather than worrying about their well-being. It's just asking the police to do a bit of thinking. Someone with an explosive vest almost certainly intends to detonate it, and the 'best' outcome for the person with the vest is almost always detonating it near as many people as possible. Something that is hard to do when you start chasing after people with a knife. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask well-trained professionals to apply that sort of logic, and if their first instinct is to panic and shoot first, then I'm happy with the courts deciding if that's their fault or their employer's for either not selecting the right people or not training them well enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
They can utilize their equipment and training to uphold what should be the responsibility of the office, to protect other people and defuse violent situations so that they can be resolved with words and in the open, at length. And if they aren't willing to do that they should not be in the office. We expect firefighters to risk their lives in a similar way, and we give them all the equipment and training to protect themselves in the process. There are plenty of dangerous jobs where the person doing it is putting themselves at risk and must behave professionally to ensure theirs' and others' safety. The alternative position is that occasionally we just need judge dredd to summarily execute people because expecting the police to take on the same or lesser risks than random, untrained, unequipped people on the street is just too much. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They can utilize their equipment and training to uphold what should be the responsibility of the office, to protect other people and defuse violent situations so that they can be resolved with words and in the open, at length. And if they aren't willing to do that they should not be in the office. This is absolute pie-in-the-sky thinking. I have no idea where this 'there is always a solution through dialogue' idea comes from. You are demanding police officers to die for your idea that a nice cup of tea and a chat rights all wrongs. OwlFancier posted:We expect firefighters to risk their lives in a similar way, and we give them all the equipment and training to protect themselves in the process. And you are here saying we need to take away the fireman's hose because if they aren't prepared to blow the fire out like a candle then they shouldn't be in the job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
Rugz posted:This is absolute pie-in-the-sky thinking. I have no idea where this 'there is always a solution through dialogue' idea comes from. You are demanding police officers to die for your idea that a nice cup of tea and a chat rights all wrongs. We normally call those "trials". Something that you were apparently very keen on everybody having a right to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:It's just asking the police to do a bit of thinking. Someone with an explosive vest almost certainly intends to detonate it, and the 'best' outcome for the person with the vest is almost always detonating it near as many people as possible. Something that is hard to do when you start chasing after people with a knife. Eh, if I was one of the people being chased about by the knife wielding mass murderer with the explosive vest I’d be quite annoyed if they didn’t shoot that person as soon as possible. In general police shouldn’t have guns (well; they shouldn’t exist, but here we are), but I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to say there are zero situations where armed police should be able to shoot someone. If this was the case it wouldn’t be too hard to get hold of a firearm and just start blasting; and there wouldn’t be a ton to be done about you until you ran out of ammo. Obviously I think police in general are bloodthirsty bastards but I think it’s a bit of a case of political theory taking precedence over practical reality to say that never, ever shoot anyone no matter what is sensible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:We normally call those "trials". Your assertion is still 'There is always a non-lethal way to deliver someone to a trial'. Pie-in-the-sky thinking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:If this was the case it wouldn’t be too hard to get hold of a firearm and just start blasting; and there wouldn’t be a ton to be done about you until you ran out of ammo. The police in the US are already armed to the teeth and people commit mass shootings all the time. Police, however heavily armed, are not an effective deterrant against mass violence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Rugz posted:This is absolute pie-in-the-sky thinking. I have no idea where this 'there is always a solution through dialogue' idea comes from. You are demanding police officers to die for your idea that a nice cup of tea and a chat rights all wrongs. equating unarmed Black people to fires that need to be put out is not a good look
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:03
|
|