|
Grundulum posted:I just did some cursory poking around, and it appears to cost $600-900 to obtain an EMT basic certification. Could not quickly find an answer to how much it costs to recertify and maintain the license. Additional Googling suggests that state and local law enforcement agencies employ about 1,000,000 people full-time. Assuming (perhaps generously) that all of those million are patrol officers, and that EMT licenses must be re-obtained at full cost every year, that's an annual expenditure of just under $1B to get every officer in the US EMT-certified. (Really, the annual cost will probably be substantially lower, since many full-time law enforcement personnel aren't patrol officers, and I am pretty sure EMT certs last for more than a year and don't need to be reobtained from scratch.) How much do we spend at a federal level on grants for former military equipment? Is it about that much, significantly more, or significantly less? Where does the $600-900 go? Is it entirely to cover costs?
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
Rah! posted:The guy was 26, not 60+. Also, the SFPD doesn't have tasers. Just too hard to restrain yourselves from murder, guys?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That clip looks bad mostly because of the absolutely ridiculous amount of cops that are surrounding the guy, but the truth is its irrelevant because excess manpower doesn't really make grappling a guy with a knife less dangerous. Dude just stabbed someone and is continuing to move toward a cop after taking multiple non-lethal rounds and still not going down, no one is getting charged in that situation. He wasn't even moving "toward the cop" at first. He was moving alongside the wall, toward a gap in their circle. An officer stepped directly in front of him as he walked, which is the only reason he was moving "toward a cop" in the first place. It's like when a cop stands in front of a car and then shoots the driver because "He was going right toward me!"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:why are you talking about a car, when we're talking about someone on foot? Moving towards the office as seen on the video, is not the same as attempting to run them over with a car. You're acting like we don't have video evidence here.... I did bring it up as a comparison, but it's a similar situation. The officer was not in sufficient danger to justify shooting until he intentionally placed himself in danger that gave him justification. The guy wasn't exactly sprinting away from the police like Usain Bolt, which might actually justify stopping him if he tries to leave your circle of screaming men with guns (because clearly that's the best way to calm down a mentally ill man who's aggravated and injured). Likewise, if an officer steps in front of a moving car he's only justified in firing in the sense that he gave himself the justification. And then all the rest of the cops had such itchy trigger fingers that as soon as one of them fired, all of them immediately had a reason to start dumping their magazines.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You'd want to control for population size difference and gun ownership rates, at a minimum, in making that comparison. Compare for population size? United States had a population of 318.9 million in 2014. The German population was 81.2 million by the same metric. The United States police were involved in 1108 civilian deaths in 2014. This includes not only shootings, but also people who died of apparent medical issues during custody (such as the infamous "excited delirium" that probably doesn't exist), poor reactions to a taser, or in car crashes during a pursuit. German police were involved in only a single known killing in 2014, a marijuana dealer who was shot in the back of the head as he ran away. I believe the case is under investigation, but I can't accurately find German sources on the matter. I can't find any easy sources on people simply dying in police custody or during an arrest or pursuit for non-shooting reasons in Germany, so I'm going to control this a bit by simply counting shootings over a period of time. Going by Killed by Police, the United States saw 63 police-related deaths in February. By my count, 52 of these incidents were "officer-involved shootings". I chose February only because it had the smallest number of civilians killed by police. I should point out that of the cases that didn't involve shootings, most of them were mysterious and unexplained deaths while in custody, including of restrained suspects and at least one proven instance of a person being beaten to death by an officer; the number would be larger if I used one of the more typical months (which see between 90 and 100 deaths each) or included direct murder through means other than gunfire, like beating or choking. This gives a ratio of 1 shooting death per 6,132,692 people. By comparison, Germany saw a ratio of 1 shooting death per 81,198,000 people. Again, using the least deadly month for police in the entire year saw more than an order of magnitude more shootings than an entire year in another first-world country. If you read the articles for yourself, you'll also find that not all of those 52 involved guns. Many involved knives, bats, bayonets, and in one case someone who threw a rock at a Border Patrol officer. At least one instance had the police backpedaling on whether or not the suspect had a gun at all. And considering how many times just this year the police narrative has been called into question, it's debatable how many of the "definite" instances of gunmen being killed by police actually had armed shooters or if they threatened anyone with the gun. At least two that I remember were suicidal people who the police claimed aimed the gun at them, but I think we can safely take it with a grain of salt after all the bullshit uncovered recently.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:What do you suggest the officers do in this scenario? They don't have access to tasers in San Francisco, I think, so beanbag rounds were the best they could do in the less-lethal department. Are you saying that one or more officers should have moved into arm's reach of a person who was holding a knife and refused orders to drop it? A single gunshot wound (depending on location) is survivable with quick medical care; hell of a lot more so than 15. Use a method other than surrounding a likely mentally ill man with a crowd of screaming men with guns to try and make him surrender peacefully and shooting him if he does anything other than drop the knife and lay on the ground? The escalation we appear to have gotten was: 1. Fire beanbags, don't get immediate effect, decide they don't work. 2. Scream and threaten to kill the man if he doesn't surrender. 3. Begin shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I feel like, if the police have surrounded you, pepper sprayed you, shot you with beanbags, and yelled at you to drop the weapon or they will fire, you've had a lot of chances to give up peaceably at that point. "Look, we've aggravated and injured this mentally ill man to try and force him to sit down and let us grab him. What more do you want?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Now this, not a good shoot. That pop seems too quiet compared to the rifle round. A 5.56mm shouldn't be orders of magnitude louder than a 9mm from such a close distance. She also doesn't move even a little from recoil, none of the other officers seem to react, and there's no smoke or visible casing. I'm guessing it was something other than a gunshot. Also, why the hell did the cop feel the need to shoot again as he was falling? Even assuming this was a good shoot (which it definitely wasn't), he's already on the ground and apparently incapacitated. You're supposed to stop shooting then. An extra round would serve as nothing except extra insurance that he's dead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Honestly the only "good" thing I saw was the fact he fired a controlled pair and then reassessed the situation instead of mag dumping like every other cop shooting video. We can argue the minutiae about whether it should be a single or a pair of shots before reassessment but controlled pair is an extremely common standard because of the likelihood of a single round not stopping a threat and I feel in the grand scheme of things it would be stupid to derail the thread arguing of such a granular detail of the least objectionable part of that video. Every time I've seen controlled pairs of shots being fired, it was a very fast one-two to guarantee that the guy drops. With this he's already got the guy falling and his body's practically hitting the ground when the second shot is fired. It feels a lot more deliberate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:Here's a much better view. The guy points with the hand with a razor but no lunging or anything like that. He's not even looking in the direction he's pointing. It looks like one officer decided to tase and the other saw the taser movement/convulsion and fired. That explains the pop. I was initially going to say that it sounded like a taser firing, but I couldn't see the convulsion really well or any wires and didn't feel confident suggesting it. It's also pretty clear that the guy with the rifle was standing with his finger on the trigger. Unless he's just a bloodthirsty psychopath, my guess is that he was jumpy as hell and upon seeing any kind of fast movement he instinctively pulled the trigger. This makes it worse for him, as now it could be argued that he was now shooting someone who was already incapacitated.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
One thing important to mention is that the leg shot in that case was done with an MP5. Longarms are much, much easier to use for difficult shots like that because of their longer sight radius (the closer the front and rear sight are to each other, the harder it is to accurately gauge whether you've got them lined up properly beyond very close range), lower felt recoil due to the weight of the gun and the in-line stock (the recoil mostly goes straight back, whereas a pistol will flip up as well), and the ease with which they can be steadied on a surface to remove natural hand motions that cause your gun to sway and shake. He also had the advantage that the suspect was barely moving. I think everyone who's a proponent of leg shots should really go out and get some real hands-on time with weapons to see how it works for themselves. poo poo, get some airsoft pistols and some friends and set up scenarios where you get to try shooting each other's kneecaps as the other person moves around. What you'll probably find is that it's really easy at extremely close range, but getting farther away means more missed shots that are liable to ricochet when they hit the ground at an angle. Legs are small targets that don't really stay still.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:So your objection to shooting to wound is almost entirely idealogical despite the evidence showing that it does work. Your training/background has taught you otherwise and you're sticking to it. The same goes for chitoryu12. Exactly how much firearms experience do you have?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
botany posted:That is completely besides the point. It's entirely not. He's trying to argue something on a subject that he doesn't actually have any personal experience in. He's assuming that it must be some super easy thing that any cop should be expected to pull off without endangering others. Does anyone actually have numbers on things like leg and arm shots for European police?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Never heard of an arm shot being practiced. I know of exactly one similar situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVnwkDbeARw Even the sniper admitted after the fact that it was an incredibly lucky shot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:That's true. It's clearly more dangerous to "others" than multiple mag dumps. Just because what American officers do is more dangerous doesn't make trying to do trick shots to use your gun as a less-lethal tool suddenly okay.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
botany posted:This is the contact page for the german federal police. You should probably inform them that this thing they've been doing for years, which works, is actually bad. I'm sure they'll appreciate your incredible insight. Again, does anyone actually have reliable numbers on how many leg shots have hit the target among even a single country's police?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
fosborb posted:German police officers fired a total of 85 bullets in 2011, 49 of which were warning shots, the German publication Der Spiegel reported. Officers fired 36 times at people, killing six and injuring 15. This is a slight decline from 2010, when seven people were killed and 17 injured. Ninety-six shots were fired in 2010 Is there a breakdown of how many shots were fired in the individual situations and the injuries sustained? 36 shots and 21 people hit would suggest that 15 rounds missed, but I can't accurately suggest anything without more data. Also, any word on where the warning shots landed?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
botany posted:Leg shots are not tracked separately in any statistic I know of. I've tried to find stats that discriminate as much as possible between different types of weapon usage by german police. According to those stats, in 2014 german police fired 10336 shots, 10157 of which were not aimed at humans. The remaining 133 shots were directed at humans: 65 were warning shots, 22 were aimed at property, 46 were aimed at humans themselves. 7 people were killed as a result, 31 were injured. 1 bystander was injured as a result of police firearms usage (not included in the 31 injured). In 5 cases, firearms usage directed at persons was found to be improper, in 2 cases firearms usage directed at property was found to be improper. 1 person was harmed as a result of these improper firearms discharges. The thing fosborb used said that only 85 rounds were fired in 2011. Unless Germany was hit by a Chitauri invasion in 2014, I'm wondering if one of you two had an inaccurate source. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
botany posted:It's difficult to access the original sources since I'm quoting some university guy who compiled them, but my stats are more inclusive. For instance, I also have police firing directly at persons 36 times in 2011, and 49 warning shots. In addition, they also fired 30 times against property held or used by persons. This comes to 105 shots directed at persons. My statistics also list an additional 8821 shots not directed at persons. I'm not sure what's included, but I wrote the guy an email, I'll report back when I hear from him. I've asked him to send me the original sources as well, maybe he's kind enough to do that, academic to academic The reason I questioned it is because his source (whatever it was, since he didn't link it) claimed 85 rounds fired total, 49 of which were warning shots and 36 aimed at people. Would the 8821 be training being included?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:http://m.imgur.com/account/kalleerikvahakyla/images/NQMlkPW That shooting is one of my biggest sources of criticism of the NYPD firearms policy. For those who aren't familiar, they're terrified of their poorly trained officers fingerfucking their guns and accidentally shooting stuff or forgetting to deactivate their safety during a sudden attack and getting stabbed or shot because they can't fire their gun...but they also really don't trust modern triggers like the Glock, P226, or Smith & Wesson M&P have as safe enough to prevent negligent discharge from a cop leaving his finger on the trigger. So they mandate an 11 or 12 pound trigger be added to all of their guns and use double-action only pistols so they have a stupidly heavy trigger on every single shot. Works really well for making sure that only a deliberate pull will fire the gun, but it also majorly fucks with your accuracy. If you're willing to spend about $50, you can test this yourself by buying a cheap non-blowback air pistol from Walmart (like the Umarex USP) and playing around with it. You'll notice how the heavy trigger causes the sights to move around even if you pull very slowly and carefully, as the weight of the trigger is so much higher than the weight of the gun itself. When combined with the rapid fire that American cops often use and the recoil of the gun, the NYPD inevitably ends up blasting everything in sight in a crowded urban city. This is how two officers attempting to shoot a single man at close range ended up directly hitting several civilians with missed shots and spraying others with shrapnel and bullet fragments. It's surprisingly hard to find public information on exactly how the NYPD does their qualification, but an NYPD officer did a Reddit AMA in regards to the shooting. The important points: quote:•Every officer hired since the introduction of pistols in the NYPD back in the early nineties is NOT allowed to use a revolver as their service weapon. They must choose between a Glock 19, S&W 5946, or a Sig p226. All of these guns are in DAO variant and have NO external safety.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Also, to add onto the NYPD thing, a problem the officer on Reddit mentions is that NYC is extremely rigid and strict with firearms ownership, even more than New York state is. What this means is that ranges where an officer can practice independently (if he even wants to) are few and far between and tend to charge a premium compared to more gun-friendly states. He says that he has to go out of his way to find practice ranges that aren't charging rip-off prices. This also implies that he doesn't get a big discount by virtue of being a cop.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
botany posted:^^^^ ah, so those are probably mostly animals being put down, thanks! It's pretty slow going translating these myself, since I speak basically no German. Out of curiosity, are there any incidents where an officer responded to a gun-wielding suspect who was actually taking shots at people in a fashion that didn't result in their death?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
botany posted:edit: wait, rephrase that. Are you looking for shooters who were taking shots in a fashion that didn't result in death, or are you looking for police officers who responded in a way that didn't result in death? The latter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
botany posted:18.3.2014: Police interrupt ongoing robbery, firefight between robber and officers ensues, one officer and the robber are injured, both survive. This seems to suggest that German police either fire fewer rounds at suspects, provide more prompt and serious medical attention to injured suspects, or both. Likely both. It's a much more professional way of handling lethal force.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I don't think anybody in the thread advocating leg shots for US policing is doing it in a vacuum without factoring in other changes to make effective. If that were the only thing, then yeah, it would be pretty dumb, and it would just get summarily ignored. I think the changes to American policing that would make leg shots a safe proposition would be so great as to reduce police brutality and needless killings on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why are leg shots less safe than any other shot aimed at a person, considering the rounds usually used by American police travel through unarmored targets? Exactly what ammo are you using for this? There's a huge variety of defensive ammo in use by police around the country with widely varying penetration. Lucky Gunner did a very good series of charts detailing their penetration tests of over 100 common defense rounds for .380 ACP, 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Even among 9mm rounds (which are the highest velocity being tested), most of them were 18 inches or less of penetration. This is sufficient to reach the vital organs after passing through someone's arms and thick clothing, but that's about it. The bullets that exit the body will be coming out at very low velocities. The bullets that had massive overpenetration were generally faulty designs that failed to expand (usually from the hollow point being clogged with clothing). On the other hand, shots that just plain miss will retain lethal velocity for well over 100 yards if they don't hit anything along the way, and shots that miss the legs and hit the ground at an angle can easily ricochet off and fly behind the target.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
The other risk is that cases of fatal shootings would now have further leeway to excuse the deaths as an accident, an inevitable part of the risk of using your gun for non-lethal wounds. Again, the changes in policing, corruption, and the court system having a pro-police bias that would allow for American cops to safely be trusted to use their gun as a safe alternative to tasing or beanbags would likely be such an incredible improvement in American policing as to make that leg shooting redundant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
There really are knives that can fire bullets, but except for one or two Russian special forces knives that you'd be hard pressed to get your hands on they're all just homemade zip guns. Being afraid of a knife because it might shoot you is like being afraid of a pen or a pipe for the same reason.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:So, to use the Denmark numbers as an example, hitting 51 people with 66 shots and wounding (rather than killing) 75% of them is just a big coincidence? And even if it that is just an accidental result rather than intentional policy, awesome, what can we do to get closer to those results? The German chart from earlier had incidents where suspects were shot and wounded, but survived (including suspects who were actively shooting at the police or victims). Combined with the low number of kills in comparison, this suggests that German police only fire until the shooter stops shooting and then delivers prompt medical attention instead of handcuffing their bleeding body.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
botany posted:Update on the statistice from earlier: The guy wrote me back, but didn't say much overall. Training shots are not included in the larger shots fired number, so most of them are probably animals. There is no statistic for legshots, to the best of his knowledge. The source for the statistics is not public, but he told me where I can ask for tha data. That's probably not necessary though, since according to him, the raw data doesn't say much more than his version anyway. There may also be cases where the perpetrator was wounded but the officer wasn't intentionally shooting for a limb, and just happened to hit. Also, I'm trying to find an isolated video of a shooting that was included in a compilation of police shootings. It was an extremely obese man outside what looked like a Home Depot at night attacking someone with a knife. An officer attempted to beat him with the baton but failed to disarm or subdue him, so immediately returned to pointing a gun at him and screaming to drop the knife. When the man began slowly walking toward the store, the officer stepped in front of him and began shooting. He would pause after firing several rounds, see that the attacker had not fallen, then began firing again. This continued multiple times until nearly his entire magazine was fired into him. He didn't make any further demands to surrender between shootings. It didn't seem like he had any intention of letting the perpetrator surrender after being shot, and his goal was to fire until the target actually collapsed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It seems a little unreasonable to assume that the guy getting shot after repeated warnings to stop stabbing people didn't understand the message of being shot multiple times and that another warning to stop being a lunatic would have helped. No attempt was made to find out after the first volley of shots except a single "DROP IT!" with a pause of less than a second after before continuing to shoot. It seems like the officer was dedicated to shooting until the target was on the ground, whether or not a less damaging amount of gunfire would have stopped him. For the record, the guy being shot wasn't continuing to advance on anyone with the blade during the shooting and spent most of it stumbling away from the bullets. This is the compilation featuring the video, beginning at 1:12. There's also some justifiable shoots in there (two made a fast draw of a gun and aimed it at officers immediately before being shot), but the first one has the bizarre attempt by the police to demand that the man currently bleeding to death on the ground show them his hands and then handcuffing him without beginning medical treatment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEysZObe4Y chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, the guy had literally just pulled a gun and tried to kill them, then fallen to the ground still holding it, so I can see why they might want to make sure they had him under control before setting him up with an IV. The officer on the radio calls for EMS as part of his "shots fired" call, and at 1:03, maybe 30 seconds after the gunfire, you can hear him direct one of the other officers to "get the EMS bag" and the two of them hustle out of frame right before the cut, so I don't know why you think the suspect didn't get prompt medical attention. I missed that quote. My mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
“This shooting is not justified, but also not criminal." Nice to see that police, yet again, have greater leeway in illegal murdering than civilians. Normally if I were to shoot someone unjustifiably, I would be in a prison cell.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You'd be wrong, accidental shootings are not a criminal offense If I pulled a gun on a drunk guy who just rolled his car and fingerfucked the trigger so I accidentally shot him in the neck, did I do something illegal?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
So exactly what is the justification for a negligent discharge like that not being criminal? It's not exactly "My gun just went off while cleaning it!" He willingly drew and aimed his gun at someone, and he pulled the trigger by accident and shot him in the neck. The only reason a man died that night is because he knowingly engaged in actions that put someone's life at risk. I'm not saying the guy needs a first degree murder charge and 10 years in jail. I just can't imagine how this kind of action doesn't even apply for manslaughter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Regardless of the department definition of "active shooter", the fact remains that there was a man currently in the process of shooting a person and officers made no effort to save the victim's life (or prevent him from attacking other people) out of an attempt to avoid having to treat a fellow officer like a civilian would have been treated. The defense of "How can you expect them to shoot their friend?!" only ends up making it look worse when it's spouted by the same people who defended the shooting of unarmed people who merely looked like they were drawing a gun. The message that defense sends is that police simultaneously have such love for their co-workers that they can't be expected to harm them even when they're murdering people and should have so little care for civilian life that they can kill them immediately if they even look like they might be threatening without having to pause to confirm the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I seriously don't get your point here. Recently, it was argued that the SFPD shouldn't have shot a guy with a knife (who had already stabbed one person) because he tried to walk away. Yet now you're arguing that the police should have killed this guy dead before he could hurt his wife again. The police shouldn't have shot these other people, but since they did, they should also have to shoot this cop as a matter of fairness? I think they should have started shooting him as soon as he opened fire on his wife again, as he was now actually in the process of killing someone and needed to be immediately stopped.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I 100% agree that there needs to be better oversight of police officers from sources that are independent from the department itself, ubiquitous body cameras are a good start, and South Carolina's SLED unit seems to be doing a lot of good work with conducting this oversight at the state level. If these two things were in place across the board I think that would at least be a very very good start. "It's harder to shoot a friend than a stranger" isn't a bad argument. The problem is that it's come from people who previously argued that it's also okay to shoot someone unarmed because it's too risky for the officer to take even a literal second to judge the situation and actually figure out if they're a threat. Tamir Rice is one thing, but there was a previous incident brought up where the victim simply had his hand pulling up his shirt by his waistband in a motion. He never actually had a gun and wasn't pulling one out, but it was judged okay because it looked a bit like a threatening motion. Making both arguments simultaneously requires them to believe in a huge disconnect in how much officers care for other people's lives: they need to love their brethren enough to be unable to harm them even when they're in the middle of violent murder, but also need to have so little love for the life of civilians that they can kill them under ambiguous circumstances. The only consistency is that it consistently values the life of a police officer more than the life of a civilian.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I've said this before, but to reiterate, I absolutely agree the correct course of action would have been to shoot that cop, preferable before he shot his wife a second time, but at least afterwards so they could get her timely medical treatment. My argument isn't that shooting is correct in one situation and not in another, my argument is that the gently caress up those officer's made by not shooting him was understandable based on the situation they were put in. At the very least, I think the officers involved are deserving of a civil suit for their actions. It's quite probable that their 1+ hour negotiation and scrapbooking to force a surrender (screw semantic arguments, that's what I'm calling it) had a direct impact on the victim's chances of survival by delaying medical care for a long period of time. Plus some level of administrative punishment, though I can't reliably say what they would deserve.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
twodot posted:(bold added) This seems like an ongoing problem in this thread. Is this even true? And even assuming it's true, why should I care? Like maybe you proved some random unspecified poster is a hypocrite, but you haven't demonstrated their current position is bad or wrong, or maybe they changed their mind and just didn't bother to include the fact they changed their mind, and you haven't demonstrated anything. The fact that you aren't naming names never mind actually demonstrating they are doing the thing you say they are doing is enough for me to suspect you've conflated anyone who has disagreed with you into the same person. Especially considering the person you are responding to is explicitly not doing the thing you are talking about. I can actually call people out if you really want me to and I really care about your individual approval, but it requires going back to the previous thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 01:04
|
|