|
Vahakyla posted:Besides basically The Secret Service, no job will nor should require you to put your life on the line in the United States. If going to the beat would be "putting your life on the line", it wouldn't be done. Firemen? Miners? Oil Rigs? Construction? High voltage line workers? Hell I think crab fisherman is the #1 most dangerous job in the US and that's just so people can eat crab meat, cops are not even in the top ten. Or maybe firemen should start thinking like cops. "Yeah that's a really big fire, someone might die trying to save the people inside. Oh well". I'm pretty sure when people say cops putting their life on the line is part of the job they aren't saying they need tho throw themselves in front of someone being shot at, they mean make the loving effort to de-escalate a dangerous situation first and not poo poo their pants and empty a clip into scary black man because he had something in his hand.
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Except most good departments don't take hail mary passes with big fires. Fully involves and "maybe someone inside? gently caress it". Nice selective response. You said quote:no job will nor should require you to put your life on the line in the United States All the other jobs you somehow missed carry the risk of a sometimes gruesome death so people can have electricity and oil and eat king crab legs and not die in a house fire. Yes there are situations where its too risky for a firefighter. But they drat well risk their lives regularly if they believe they can save someones life and not die but still understand they are risking their own life in the process and somehow are willing to do it but for a cop a screwdriver is just too frightening.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
There is a very clear line between "I could die from a tree falling on me walking to work" and working a job that has carries the risk of death by its very nature. Look at nearly any list of dangerous jobs and fisherman, especially crab is almost always at the top of the list because the job itself has a risk of killing you in addition to all the other random crap you listed. It doesn't sound as heroic as "putting your life on the line" but many jobs carry a risk far far higher by their very nature and its not some mealy "I could die driving to work" risk. If you work in a coal mine you are accepting you could die from a shaft collapsing or flash fire from coal dust. "Food and beverage" doesn't risk the soda machine blowing up in their faces. And I guess news footage I've seen over decades of rescue workers trying to save people in floods and yes firefighters risking their life to try and rescue people were all special effects or something. loving Cory Booker ran into a burning house to save someone. You're saying this is all made up? No other fire/rescue profession ever risks their life for someone?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
tsa posted:A lot of the time? Probably. But mistakes are still very much a possibility. All these things about different colored handles and so on are true but here's the thing- the science of psychology tells us that in these situations the brain isn't really "thinking". Just look at how lovely eyewitness reports are to understand this. It's also very hard to train for these things, it's just too hard to replicate the psychology and there's too many slightly different ways a situation can occur. The military has some success in this area but it takes incredible amounts of time and money. Then take the time and spend the money. We are giving someone a gun and the authority to decide if it's justifiable to kill someone. If they can't be trained to be able to react to situations other than 'poo poo pants, pull trigger' they get a desk job or get to be a traffic cop. There will always be errors in judgement or over reactions but 'it's hard' is not an excuse to give a gun to people like that cop who ventilated the kid with the toy gun (I can't even remember his name right now there's been so loving many of these). The fucker actually cried at the gun range and had multple supervisors report he can't handle stressful situations but someone still armed him and sent him out into the public. Or that fatass cop at the earlier Ferguson demonstrations that was waving his rifle around anyone who looked at him even though all they were doing was walking past him (at least he got suspended if memory serves) People whine about how dangerous and hard it is to be a cop but rarely if ever seem to be outraged that were putting people who can't handle that danger out there anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Do you see no difference between a person with the legal authority to start confrontations and then kill the person if they fight back and a regular citizen who is defending themselves from an unprovoked attacker? Whats nauseating is people (not you) think cops starting a confrontation is perfectly fine when I'm pretty sure the intent is for them to try and END confrontations by some means other than gunfire. People called the cops because there was some kind of issue or fight going on to try and stop the situation but nowadays people are starting to rightfully be frightened of calling the cops because the new method of ending a situation is to kill someone and arrest anyone who took a cellphone video of the murder. That miami incident a few years back where the cops emptied like 200 bullets into a fleeing car in the middle of a crowd (While standing around the car in a loving circle) went around yanking peoples SSIDs out of their phones, they only reason a video got out is one guy saw them doing it and swallowed his before they got to him. Never mind that not complying with a cop or resisting for a non-violent crime isn't supposed to a death sentence by Judge Dredd wannabes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I worked law enforcement for several years before quitting. You know what I did when people ran away from me? I let them. So what if they run away? If this wasn't such a horrible situation with the guy being gunned down and all it would be funny. The cop had his freaking car and identification papers. Where is he going to run to? Man why did you have to quit  Maybe because I'm old but I seem to remember that if a non-violent suspect was running and chasing him down would put bystanders, the suspect or the cop at risk then the choice was 'let him go and track him down'. This macho bullshit of losing control off the situation and I'm sure the real existence of getting poo poo for letting him get away is out of hand. A busted taillight is not in any way a reason to taze someone much less shoot him. So he got away. You have his car, paperwork, what the gently caress is he going to do? Drive around with another broken taillight? I had an idiot friend about 30 years ago that refused to sign a speeding ticket. He's black. All the cop did was write "refused to sign" on it and left it on his windshield. Technically my understanding it can be arrestable but he want a militarized rear end in a top hat where nowadays the same situation he'd get dragged out the windows, tazed to 'comply' and probably kicked in the head.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Cops today are better than they ever were in the US and trying to evoke somekind of image of the better good old times is such blatant bullshit. So is this a 'it's always been like this but now we hear about it because internet' or are you seriously implying the militarization and overall attitude of us vs them has not gotten worse in the lst three decades? Edit: And yes I am saying in the 70's/80's the stories that are coming out almost weekly at this point were loving huge deals on the rare occasions they did happen, or heard about them. I remember dirty cop stories were about stealing drugs/drug money or taking bribes, I cannot remember a single Tamir rice, Brown, the guy with the BB gun or any of the other dozens of hosed poo poo happening on a now regular basis. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I'm not at all implying bias or treating the 'wrong' people more harshly didn't happen, I'm talking about murdering people out in the open on a regular basis.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Because while my memory may well be failing, strangling someone out in the open for selling loose cigarettes or blowing away a guy in a toy store was never something you heard about. Maybe I should clarify: It's become so routine that doing it in full view of the public with video cameras/cell phones hasn't stopped it. Yes with no witnesses it happened but not in any way so loving blatantly as today.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
I said out in full view of the public not off somewhere where nobody saw it happen Edit Jesus gently caress can we acrptually have a conversation like adults without this bullshit. I'm obviously not talking about riots, I specifically said and am talking about the recent slew of completely (Rice) innocent kids or the toy gun guy, not loving open riots. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
I give, cops have been killing kids and innocent shoppers for decades, I just don't remember any of it. You win.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
I said I am wrong. What more do you want.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I just argued with a person that posited that police were better back in the day and that times are getting worse which clearly is not the case unless one only goes by what happens in one's own upper class white development. Im white. Lower class and had exactly one white friend back then. I spent a lot of time in these areas around the people who I incorrectly remembered things like that not happening too nor talked about except for two I can recall that were more than likely stupid enough to draw on a cop which everyone knew and felt "dumb fucker probably pulled his gun out". I am not re-arguing anything, just replacing your straw man with the actual person you were arguing with. And both survived, one got shot once, the other from what I heard poo poo his pants and dropped when they drew on him. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
botany posted:You didn't though, you got incredibly pissy and defensive when we pointed out that your (actually completely correct) position of "I never heard about police abuses like I do now" is explained by the fact that they were not understood to be abuses back then. And yeah, that's the point: you would not have heard of a black guy getting choked to death over cigarettes because who gave a poo poo about that back then? No, I said I don't remember it being this blatant and out in the open and even said it did happen just not choking people to death out in the open. I tried to clarify that's what I was arguing since I wasn't clear that's what I was trying to say. My mistake. Again: I am not saying cops do more awful poo poo than in the past. Only that it's out in the open and despite cameras and cell phones the only change is trying to make it illegal to film a cop doing what they've a,ways done. Sorry if I get pissy but don't try and tell me you don't get frustrated when people argue what they want you have said and not what you are trying (and I failed) to say. I was wrong. No qualifications. Cops have a,ways been horrible it's just a matter of degrees, I concede that. Ok? Edit: before I get jumped on again, SOME cops. There are lots of good ones. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you understand that saying, "Hey guys, we're not going to kick doors on this one because intel says this dude's house is basically one giant IED" is different than what people usually mean when they talk about "showing restraint," which typically refers to refraining from an action for principled or altruistic reasons, rather than fear of ending up in a CSH minus some of your important bits? That's pretty much the new excuse for no knock flash bang and shoot anything that moves warrants, because it's a drug dealer (hopefully) and all drug dealers are armed to the teeth so they have to storm trooper in and take them out first.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:See here: Destroying other oppressed people's property and businesses is somehow standing up to the state: good. Yes. When white people riot and destroy property over a losing a loving basketball game I'm sure you are just as outraged.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
White people riot over losing a basketball game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Solvency posted:That said, I wish there would be less ad hominem attacks on each other. Why can't you all realize you are part of an elite community of people who can afford to pay While I'm guilty of this I'm not going to apologize for it. I have zero problems with someone who wants to actually discuss something even if I disagree with them but look at just this thread since the poo poo his the fan in Baltimore. Over and over and over there is 5-6 pages of talking about the riots, the reasons why its way more complex like you said and in jumps rear end in a top hat #327 with nothing but worthless "LOL defending riots  " one line posts. Even the people who try and engage them seriously get the same empty replies. If someone isn't at all serious or willing to have an actual back and forth then gently caress em.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 21:42
|
|
for an internet forum. Seriously, there has to be some better outlet for your anger than calling each other racists, cop sympathizers, leftists, riot lovers or whatever. If you would just appeal to the mods for help, I'm sure they would be benevolent and work with this community to remove those who are causing trouble. Don't you all realize your back and forth quips make the Debate and Discussion sub-forum look like a bunch of children?
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Firefighters and EMTs really, really don't want to be cops. It interferes with their jobs when people run away from them. I can't remember if it was homeland security or I think the NYPD wanted EMTs and firefighters to report if they saw anything 'suspicious' and luckily the answer was gently caress off, making it so people are afraid to call 911 for someone ODing or a fire because they don't want to get busted is an unbelievably moronic idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
tsa posted:If just one person barricading themselves in? Wait it out. If a repeat of the LA bank robbery? Waiting it out isn't an option. Luckily those sorts of situations are rarer now because of the existence of SWAT teams (bank robbers are not morons and there's lots of evidence to suggest they take into account the probability of success). Who gives a gently caress if heavily armed guys rob a bank. They didn't take hostages, they were trying to get away but since they were stealing the physical form of our god, dollar bills, they need to die because god forbid they get away with that FDIC insured money. They continued the shootout in a loving neighborhood. Yeah they shot first so back off since they were so heavily armored that service pistols weren't going to do poo poo. No, better just start spraying bullets everywhere and risk getting themselves killed because holy poo poo the money! If there are hostages yes call SWAT. If the fear is someone might steal some loving money or flush their ounce of weed down the toilet before the cops can break down the door and flashbang a crib then people need to get their loving heads examined. Its just money. The idea of starting a shootout that bleeds into a neighborhood because they might get away with that money is deranged. The only reason a potential death level of force should be used is if someones life is in danger, the idea that we've reached a point where the thought of someone getting away (Detectives? What are they for again?) for stealing money or a TV or some beer so we need to shoot them before they can escape is completely loving revolting. We value human life above all else unless someone steals some easily replaceable and most likely insured stuff. Then they need to die if there's a chance they might have to do something hard like investigate and try to find them after they got away! Just blow em away when you get the chance.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:"The charge is bank robbery. Now, my caddie's chauffeur informs me that a bank is a place where people put money that isn't properly invested. Therefore, robbing a bank is tantamount to that most heinous of crimes, theft of money." - Judge Ron Whitey. It's amazing how on point Futurama was with that bit, I mean really we care ALOT about bank robberies and theft of easily replaceable assets. 19 officers received some kind police medal of valor in that robbery. 19 officers who risked their lives, lives of innocents (Their were people injured during this) to protect the theft of money is considered an act of valor. 100 pages ago I was scolded for for suggesting there are emergency responders who risk their lives trying to save people as some ludicrous idea. But risk your life to protect insured money? Medals for everyone! Yeah some bystanders got shot too but we got the money back. Priorities people. Yeah one of the guys bled out begging for help for an hour but saving his life was too dangerous.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
No, my point was this: They robbed a bank. No hostages, nobody lives in danger. They did shoot at some cop cars while they were trying to escape. The cops were woefully outgunned, unless some crack shot McGee was able to get a headshot they could not take them down. SWAT had not arrived. Rather then let them get in their car and follow them instead they start a full out gun battle. 10 cops and 6 civilians get shot. Because if they didn't then some FDIC insured money might have to be tracked down. Nobodies life was being threatened, no hostages and up until that point the only casualties were some cop cars. Instead 16 people get shot because they might get away from the scene. If someone's life is in danger, fine. If the danger is they might have to follow them In a helicopter or do something like investigate and find them, don't start a 45 minute gun battle and put the cops and bystanders lives in danger because there's a slim chance they don't get the most important important thing: the money. Robbing a bank is not a capital offense and the decision should be between what is the safest way to catch them. If the immediate situation puts cops and civilians in danger then don't loving do it. I know the thought of them not being caught on the spot is unthinkable but if the outcome could (and did) end a bloodbath over money then wait until the situation can be more safely dealt with. Like maybe wait for SWAT to show up before everyone just starts shooting at two guys playing iron man.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I was seriously asking, I should've known that's exactly what you meant, people in this thread are literal sociopaths. Somehow killing innocent people is justice and arguing against it is wrong and stupid. That was apparent about 140 pages ago when it became clear that property has more value than a human life, even something as insignificant as a wallet. It's also why I'm vehemently anti-gun. I grew up around them (Hunter uncle, father had his army sharpshooter thing and a decent collection) and as an object I have no issue with them whatsoever. I was brought up with the "Every gun is loaded, period" and "Do not point a gun at something you don't intend to kill" drilled into my head. The problem I have is the TFR sociopaths are the ones that want them. It's not worth the tradeoff. Granted watching a grandfather blow away his grandson at a gunshow because he didn't follow those two simple rules (Guy brought a gun to his booth, checked the chamber and noticed a round was in it, fingers slipped and the gun went off which was pointed at his grandson) and going to a gun range half a dozen times also helped me realize gun nuts love to parrot the bullshit but don't follow any of it. After the gun show my father decided it wasn't worth it and sold his entire collection.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Phone posted:I know the answer to this one! He was a known colleague; therefore, the cops standing by knew that he was trained properly and had good trigger discipline. Close, the answer is since he was a cop he knew his buddies weren't going to shoot him and they knew he wasn't going to shoot them so no need to poo poo pants and ventilate him. Plus he was busy pumping his wife full of bullets so he was no danger (to the cops)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
I beg you to stop letting yourselves be fishmeched by sociopaths.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's similar in the sense that apologists for violence like to distract attention away from the murderer by focusing on how stupid the victim was for provoking the killer. It's almost like frightened people in pain from electric shocks or being tossed around like a ragdoll against the pavement or a wall do not react a rational manner! Especially nowadays where its becoming more and more likely that not complying (sometimes contradicting orders) with the guy screaming at you with his gun pointed at you will result in you getting shot, running away from a potential killer or trying to disarm them is a fairly normal human response. You don't think about whether its a cop, your fight or flight kicks in an its get away or stop the guy threatening to kill you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The problem is that if you do this the public is going to freak the first time someone just drives away with a trunk full of kidnapped kids, cocaine, and automatic weapons. Then we'll get the Saving Our Children From Satanic Terrorism Act of 2017 that will make everything other than a fully transparent Smart ForTwo illegal and require us all to drive in our underpants. Yeah that's a tough one. Maybe we should come up with sort of device that the cop could use to follow the person, we could even equip it with a communication device so they could call for the assistance of other cops. Then they could follow the escapee instead of being left standing there powerless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'm confused as to your point, because you seem to be advocating for the police pursuing and apprehending people who resist arrest. Well as you said people would freak if they drove away with a trunk full of straw, I'm just trying to help solve this dilemma. If a lone cop feels he cannot detain a teenager without bullets, perhaps following him until assistance arrives could work. If it's a scared teenager two or three mobile police following him would most likely result in him realizing he's hosed and if he is a terrorist teenager with a military depot in his trunk it would be far safer having multiple police, no?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
What the apologists are also not getting is many of these "feared for his life so had to waste him" situations got to that point because the cop was demanding immediate compliance and escalated to a physical then violent confrentation. Idiot kid with no license who didn't get out of the car? There was zero threat to anyone if he didn't get out immediately but since he didn't cop gets pissy and starts screaming orders. Since he didn't put his hands in the right spot fast enough he gets tazed and freaks out. Where was his 30 minutes to keep the situation calm and non-violent? When he was laying face down aside from not putting his arms in the right position nobody was in any danger. Why does scared kid only get 15 seconds before the tazer comes out from angry screaming cop? No empathy for a teenager who doesn't instantly comply? No trying to calmly talk to the kid and explain exactly what is happening, he either follows screaming cops orders in seconds or out comes the punishment. It's laughable to invoke 'empathy' because they knew him since there seems to be over and over and over situations where showing a non-cop the slightest bit of empathy could easily keep a situation from turning violent rather than just start waving your gun/tazer and someone and screaming at them. Where's that supposed empathy in imagining you've gone from doing nothing wrong (most if the time) to armed rear end in a top hat yelling at you, empathy would make you realize being that person you've gone from zero to "holy poo poo angry cop pointing a gun and screaming what the gently caress what the duck what the gently caress" and maybe you won't be 'beep bop robot' and calmly follow directions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Hey, me too. Nobody.is saying it isn't natural. Everyone is saying and the apologists are pretending nobody is saying is the cops didn't do a loving thing when there was a woman bleeding to death. Fine don't shoot him, taze him, beanbag him, loving do SOMETHING besides spending half an hour putting together a photo album. The second thing apologists haven't even touched is where the gently caress is this patient empathy for anyone else. Someone is loving dying and shot in front of them but instant non-compliance from a non violent non-cop and cops lose their poo poo start screaming at people, whip out tazers and people end up dead for no other reason than instead of treating everyone like their good buddy sarge they get bullshit "resisting arrest" because they didn't go limp and dared to ask what the gently caress is going on especially in cases where their only actual crime at that point is daring to ask what they are being charged with. Nice catch-22. Watch the white and black open carry guys video. White gut gets treated like a human, black guy gets drawn on instantly. People ask why the gently caress doesn't everyone get treated like good old wife murdering sarge and all they can do is waste pages arguing about headlights and how hard it is to have to take down someone committing murder right in front of you because you know him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:It's the exact same thought process, dude. Had the cops reacted like they normally did and hosed the guy up, nobody would be surprised or feel sorry for him because he was resisting arrest and was a crazy murderer. Similarly, when someone who's obviously under arrest for some also-obvious thing resists and ends up getting their rear end kicked, I and many other people have very limited sympathy for them. It just happens that in the first case, the cops had a few reasons to balk at doing what needed to be done. But there is a gigantic middle ground between the responses, it's not like the only two choices are kid gloves or beating the poo poo of someone. And I specifically mentioned people who hadn't actually done anything and I'll include people who have done extremely minor things like flashing a headlight. Like in the video I mentioned, white guy and black guy doing the exact same 100% legal thing yet the black guy has guns drawn on him the second they get out of the car. I'm 99% pacifist, the 1% is I will accept violent acts including killing someone in the defense of another's life. I would not celebrate sarges death but I would accept it as necessary, he was or had already murdered his ex wife. If they had the option to take him down without killing him I'd prefer if but I would accept it if it was the only way to get the wife medical attention. Nearly everyone's beef is EVERYONE should get that treatment. Not immediately complying is no reason to tackle or taze and often end up killing someone. Yeah sometimes it may require that eventually but all people are saying is calm the gently caress down, TALK to them like an adult instead of a grown up Eric Cartman. A lot of people do actually respond to a calm discussion, few people react well to being screamed at by a guy pointing a gun at you especially if they haven't or honestly believe they've done nothing wrong. And sometimes they may react without thinking, is it so hard to believe that if someone thinks their life is in danger they may not react rationally and do something stupid like run or knock the gun away? People are falling over themselves to defend cops who had to make a snap decision that ended up killing someone, why do only cops get a pass? Hell they're supposedly trained to not lose their cool, people can gently caress up too and do something stupid when they're scared, maybe don't freak them the gently caress out because they didn't 'comply' fast enough and they won't do something stupid? I'll stop being a dick, I honestly want to know if you think any of what I just said is unreasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:You do realize the status quo is "if there's no video we believe the cop's version 100% no matter what" right? poo poo, the status quo is believe the cop if the video isn't 100% clear like the cop who dropped his tazer on the body of the guy he murdered. The headlight kid there was 1-2 frames of blurry video of him maybe running. You don't see the cop in it and the phone had obviously been knocked around so he was either running AWAY or some bizarre theory that a teenager was charging the cop. The one or two frames of video don't show either but the second there was a split second of video of the kid running apologists instantly jumped on it as evidence he was running at the cop. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Teenagers are well known for their stupidity but seriously thinking the obvious deduction of that split second video is he was not trying run but attacking the cop?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Yup, exactly what I was talking about. Note I didn't say nothing happened, only that a 2 second blurry video of what looked like the kid moving before any other information came out was "video clearly show he attacked him". Here's a totally wild theory. Cop got hit in the face before that split second clip when he was fighting after the tazing and was trying to run. Video doesn't prove me wrong or right because all it shows is him moving. Could be him going for the cop, could be him running away. But it doesn't matter to cop defenders that the video showed nothing conclusive either way and the conclusion was made before any other information was released that it was him attacking the cop because it supports the cops story. My point is the video doesn't prove anything besides the kid was possibly running, it doesn't show when the cop got hit or if the kid was running towards or away from the cop. That doesn't matter to apologists, cop got hit, video showed movement so we can now use it as proof to support the cops story. Which since this thread now requires repeating things a dozen times: My point was unless the video is 100% clear that the cop was at fault it can now be used as proof to support the cops story despite it not showing anything besides kid moving. It doesn't show when the cop got hit it doesn't show which direction the kid was moving so it doesn't prove anything for either story but that doesn't stop anyone from using it as evidence to support the cops version. It doesn't prove it disprove it but it's still held up as supporting the cops version despite it not supporting anything beyond 'kid was moving'
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So someone's ability to google is the equivalent of years of training and experience. Cool. I'm gonna go over to the doctor goon thread and tell them how neurosurgery works. What the hell, maybe this will help explain why people can't stand you and the other apologists. This thread like most D&D threads is people seeing something hosed up in the world and talking about it. Pretty much everyone realizes they cannot directly and only in a very small amount of cases indirectly do anything to help or change or fix the topic. Nobody in an I/P thread thinks they are going to "Fix" that hellhole yet they still want to discuss it. So here we have a thread on the police and criminal justice. The pattern over and over and over and over is: -Something hosed up happens, generally cops killing someone who in no way deserved to die yet a sequence of usually sketchy events ends with them dead anyway. Or somewhat similar situations like the guy who murdered the people sleeping in his abandoned house. -People discuss how this should not have escalated to death by cop/castle doctrine/whatever. -You, DR, or whatever random apologist derail the conversation for pages and pages over the most pedantic bullshit you can find. Whether flashing your high beams at someone was legal ate up what, three pages? The exact definition of "active shooter". Whether it is technically legal to murder someone for sleeping in abandoned property. None of which add a single loving thing to the conversation and only serve to drone on about how TECHNICALLY what happened was legal. Nobody gives a poo poo, the discussion is about how this should not be happening not bitching back and forth over whether its legal to flash your high beams in state X and distance Y. -As a result the lot of you manage to drone out the conversation people were trying to have: This is not the way things should be. Headlight kid should not have escalated to death by cop. Waistband imaginary gun guy should not have died. And to top it off is the incessant "Have you not empathy" bullshit over sarge when what people want is that empathy shown to everyone. People in positions to know what they are talking about could help further the discussion and maybe even offer insight into how things COULD change yet all the experts use this advanced knowledge to repeatedly explain how dead person is dead because of reason X so oh well. Thanks, we know the system is hosed up that's what the loving thread is for. The hope is to at least enlighten people who didn't realize just how hosed up it was and maybe figure out if its even fixable. Yes, thanks for explaining why its so hosed up but everyone already knew it was, being a snotty rear end in a top hat about the details is just being an rear end in a top hat. That was a waste of 10 minutes but worth a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Again, sorry that people want to have intelligent conversations about what are actual problems and actual reforms and how they'd work in the actual criminal justice system that we have instead of just yelling "gently caress the 5-0". These "pedantic" little derails are actually substantive 90% of the time, that's the loving point, its not what the law "technically" says, its what the law loving says and usually for a reason. If you don't even want to be assed to understand the system that you want to change why the gently caress do you expect anyone who does to take you seriously? This thread goes to poo poo because when someone points out that "hey 'active shooter' is a term of art and that's not what it means" the response is a page of people trying to argue something which is easily provable obviously wrong and then another page of dumb-rear end posts like this crying about how the boot-lickers and apologists keep trying to cloud the issue with their facts. The headlight example is loving great example of this thread throwing a hissy fit because someone had the temerity to point out that the "cop illegally stops teen and executes him on side of road" narrative was total bullshit. It wasn't the "apologists" that kept us from the actual controversy of the action, which was the decision to physically escalate the arrest attempt, it was the people who kept wanting to rant about made up bullshit. This is actually exactly what I was talking about though. The entire reason the headlight incident was even talked about was because the kid ended up dead. Yes, some people were wrong about whether he was pulled over for an actual violation but that has close to zero to do with the conversation and bringing it up just serves to shift the focus from "Why the gently caress is he dead" into "The stop was legal!". Especially since I doubt anyone would disagree that a cop can pull you over for any reason or no reason then make one up. The headlights weren't even the reason he was getting arrested, unless my memory is failing it was because he had no license or at least wouldn't provide it. The discussion should have been "How in the gently caress did a traffic stop escalate to tazing and death by cop". Yes he was a little snotty poo poo. Yes he should have listened listened to the cop. The problem was how in the gently caress did a cop "lose control" of a situation involving an rear end in a top hat teenager so badly it ended with the kid dead. Good for you (Or whoever), you won the argument about whether the initial stop was legal. But who gives a poo poo it served nothing but distract from the overall discussion of how the gently caress did it escalate so quickly and so badly. Same for sarge. No matter how many times people try and point out the entire sequence of events from the numerous domestic abuse calls for help to the 30 minutes photo album while his wife is bleeding out is the problem, arguing over the definition of active shooter has nothing to do with any of that. So congratulations again to whoever won that bit of trivia but again it did nothing but drag the actual discussion into legal minutia that in the end added nothing of use to the conversation. If someone is wrong about a term or law this incessant need to argue over and over as to who is right if it doesn't have anything to do with the overall discussion is the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Here's a new one, apparently back in January a girl had a seizure at a concert in Alabama, and instead of rendering aid the police tazed her and her mother and then arrested the mom for disorderly conduct: Someone from this thread must have read it, out of 15 comments 4 are "We're you there? Do you know all the facts?"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino wasn't. Is it some kind of uncontrollable reflex for you guys? Find irrelevant incorrect item in a post and smugly point it out while throwing in a dick one liner? You loving know his point was "Because he wasn't white", that he got which minority wrong is just being pedantic and throwing in "rush to post how much you hate cops" is just being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
nm posted:Wait, is this the thread that dogpiled on someone yesterday who took one statement and assumed it was correct for not reading the whole article. FYI, Kalman has agreed with you on most things, but it appears he doesn't like the pedantic shitfests (god, I wonder why). What part of that was comedy? And is this so hard? Non rear end in a top hat correction: "No, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino wasn't, he was hsipanic What happened is still bullshit"." Typical rear end in a top hat correction: "No, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino wasn't. What happened is still bullshit, but don't make obvious errors in your rush to post how much you hate cops." Tell me again how the bolded part was comedy or not a repeated "You just hate cops" like every other similar reply.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Actually no. What you have done is absolutely nothing to prove your point. Go watch the open carry video, two guys doing the exact same thing, having a rifle strapped on their backs in an area where open carry is legal. White guy gets talked to. Black guy has guns drawn on him the second the cops get out of the car. Neither of the guys has done anything besides walk down the street with a rifle in open view. No kicking, black guy has done nothing different than white guy yet the immediate response to him is draw and start screaming orders.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I thought that video had been debunked as 'proof' as it was shot in 2 different cities in two different states so it was hardly a case of 'police force in this area treats people differently.' I've seen attempts to debunk it because -they weren't in the same area (my mistake, I thought they were) -they weren't slung on the same way, the black guy could get at his 'faster' the way he had it -different cops or different departments. Forget if it was city cops and state cops No idea if the the third is true but even if the first two were I don't see how that's debunking it. Either you can open carry or you can't, "The black guy carried differently" is pretty weak, he wasn't holding it, just not slung exactly that same way. And different cops I don't see as debunking either, yeah it shows different cops react differently but if it's legal it's legal, which cop responds shouldn't matter. It's not they had any control over who responded. , Maybe there was more but that's all I can remember besides one that said the white version was edited down (it was) but the full version is just a long version of a calm conversation, it didn't not show anything. If anything the white guy was actually trying to rile him up by asking stupid questions which would strengthen it, even after trying to be dicks the white cop was still calm the whole time, black guys cops never even talked unless you call yelling at him to get on the ground as talking. Hell the white responder cop was doing a 'I'll show you mine if I can see yours mines way cooler". Toasticle fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 12:00
|
|