|
mugrim posted:Also, as nice as that San Antonio NPR article is, cops in san antonio are still shooting unarmed people on the regular and lying about the circumstances. Yeah. I live in San Antonio and can add some personal color to this line of argument. The one and only time I've ever seen the inside of a police cruiser, I ended up staying at the magistrate's office for a few hours. I'm not sure if this is how they do it everywhere but there are holding cells there. Just the usual pre-bond holding kind of place. One of the drunks in the drunk tank got pissy and started spewing cop hate, so they calmly took him out of the tank, moved him to another holding cell (in clear view of everyone else there), and then multiple cops beat the poo poo out of him. I've never had similar problems, I'm white; but San Antonio's new softer (and better) view/treatment of the homeless (we have a world-class shelter too) doesn't mean that our police don't have the same institutional issues that plague the rest of the system.
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:What you said is pretty much how it is legally, it's just really hard to prove that someone is lying rather then mistaken so in effect it's really hard to actually punish people. I have a hard time arguing with the status quo on this point given that human memory is basically utter garbage when you come down to it, and the principle that it is better to allow the guilty go free than to punish the innocent. Which is why I'm so happy that body cameras are becoming a bigger thing. It's getting to the point that when someone gets killed by a cop and there is zero footage, people are asking why. It's not too huge a jump from there to the same question being asked when police are clearly tampering with evidence. In my opinion, testimony is fallible enough that it really has no place as solid evidence in a court of law. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to have a more objective record of events when poo poo goes down in every case without going full-blown surveillance state, but fortunately it makes sense for at least public servants to be monitored when applying the force of law as an oversight measure.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:They were also serving food with rat poison and then denied the inmates medical attention. That is hard to believe. It isn't if you are familiar with the place. I don't even live in NYC but I know enough about Rikers not to be surprised by any kind of horror that comes out of it. One glance at pictures will show you the place is more run down than alcatraz, which doesn't even house prisoners anymore; and one glance at news articles about it from the last 20 years is enough to learn what its various administrations think about their responsibilities when it comes to keeping their inmates physically and mentally well. Place should have been nuked into the continental shelf years ago. Preferably with admin and the guards still inside. Vahakyla posted:Anybody who proclaims to love the constitution has no idea what it means, or how it works. It's a fever dream, an abstract concept. I enjoy linking this article. http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
I'm against training police for leg shots. There are a lot of overlapping issues that make it a terrible goddamned idea regardless of what country you are in. They've all been gone over already so I won't regurgitate them. I will say this however: shooting at someone is lethal force. A leg shot is easily lethal. Don't let movies injury mentality obfuscate those simple facts. Warning shots are even worse. The very idea breaks at least 3 of the basic rules of firearms handling. Spewing lead without an intent to kill what you are shooting is utterly idiotic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
botany posted:Oh no, warning shots are part of the official escalation of force rules too Just because it's official somewhere doesn't make it a good idea. People shoot guns into the air at weddings in certain parts of the world and every once in a while someone catches lead on its way back down. I'm not gonna wail and gnash my teeth hard enough to keep anyone awake over either of those situations, but I internalized the lesson that even pointing a gun at something you don't intend to destroy is a very bad idea long ago.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:29
|
|
you should probably also contact
|
Radbot posted:Why do European police routinely break these rules? Why does breaking these rules seem to produce better outcomes? 1. You are risking a shot that is more likely dangerous to bystanders. 2. It allows for greater obfuscation of intent. 3. In the same vein, it adds fuzziness to situations that are immediate. "Is this threat only bad enough that I should try for a 420noscope wingshot or should I really just be putting it down?" There are several other reasons I could list that have already been gone over. I don't have enough information about european police agencies and their shooting rules to make any kind of knowledgable answer to your questions. Though I might suggest their better outcomes are likely not purely or mostly a function of these specific rules but rather a reflection of lower gun violence rates and a differing character of police work when compared to the US. Those basic rules of firearm handling are not "American", or at least we do not owe them to cultural convention in any major way. Guns have the same effects regardless of where on the surface of the earth they are used. The methods to keep from accidentally blowing things apart with them are drat near universal, a natural outcropping of their abilities. For example, bullets are not only dangerous to your immediate target. They are also dangerous to things around and behind that target. So it's not a good idea to spray them senselessly, whether that's up in the air or near things you really don't want to destroy. It's likely that the european departments in question decided there were counterbalancing forces that made sometimes breaking these logical rules acceptable. I can handle that. No rule is totally absolute and there are always tradeoffs. It's not even any of my business, really. But i'm an American. That means I'm loud, opinionated, and like pretending that it's important for my voice to be heard when it comes to American policy. When I think of American cops being allowed to go for wingshots, my nature makes it inevitable that I start shouting nonononono.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So do you think Danish police procedure is wrong because they'll fire warning shots? Yes. I'm not Danish and they can do what they want. I would really hate it if a cop started spraying "warning" lead on a street I was on, though! quote:And to be clear, is it that in your mind it would be better for police to kill someone than fire a warning shot or what? A false dichotomy. I would prefer warnings before the lethal force comes out to be in a language other than gunfire. Anything a warning shot hits is not going to be deserving of lethal force unless it ricochets or something and actually hits the target that was meant to be warned. Even then it's a bad shoot, because the intention was to warn.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Radbot posted:There is no evidence that these shots are more dangerous to bystanders than shooting to center mass, considering 9mm JHP rounds possess sufficient kinetic energy to pass through the vast majority of unarmored targets. Logically, it's a given. A miss is more likely with a leg shot, and a bullet that hasn't encountered any resistence is more dangerous to its surroundings than one that has. You don't need to run a study to figure this out. I'll grant that with some discretion when it comes to keeping clear lines of fire this can be made a negligable factor, but why rely on discretion when it is often so poor? quote:What does this even mean? If a police officer is pointing a gun at you today, it means you're going to die. In my world, it might also mean that you're going to be disabled. You shoot at things you want to destroy. Firing a gun is a potentially lethal act. That is the reality behind firing a weapon at someone. If you just want to stop them, and manage to avoid killing them, great! But you shouldn't let anything get in the way of the fact that any shot has but a single purpose. Hoping for lucky leg shots that inject lead but aren't meant to kill is counter to this principle. quote:No, not at all. If you look at videos where this technique is employed, it's in situations where you've got a few seconds to think. If you've got a few seconds to think and a shoot-to-disable looks like it would work, do it. If you don't have a few seconds or don't think it woudl work, shoot to kill (per current American SOP). American cops already shoot to kill within a second of rolling up on a black kid. Do we also need them firing warning shots half a second earlier? Or deciding that because they can just try to leg 'im they can take the first lethal shot while commando rolling out of the cruiser? We need to consider not only specific outcomes (the black kid is dead regardless), but what these policies communicate when implemented procedurally. quote:Then educate yourself? Don't know what I'm supposed to say when you've got a strong opinion about something you're admitting you don't know much about. And please, elaborate on the meaningless equivocation about "differing character of police work" specifically re: why American cops "can't" shoot to disable. Don't be an rear end. My argument is against the implementation of leg shots and warning shots in American police work. I'm not uneducated on that topic. What Europe does is beyond the scope of what I am talking about. They do a lot of things differently than we do. On the whole I'd say likely better, but because of that array of differences, european cops work under different realities than american cops do. They don't detain or arrest people at nearly the rate we do, for instance. Which is why my comment on the differing character of police work is not meaningless. quote:And yet, Europeans don't follow these rules and have better outcomes. Perhaps, we should study that. Perhaps transplanting two or three of those rules into our own system as it is won't gain us the same outcomes. quote:OK, good to hear about your nature. Don't see how it's relevant to the discussion at hand. I was being glib. Chill just a little, man. We can discuss this without devolving into irritated pedantry. To bring it together and sum it up, I admit that the german numbers look good. The injury to kill ratio is superb all things considered, 1 bystander harmed is within a reasonable margin, and the 87 shots I would consider senselessly dangerous didn't apparently wreak any noteworthy havok. I question if we'd see similar results if these rules were incoporated into american police training. European police tactics are ok to me where they are, but when it comes to the changes to the status quo here I'd like to see, more reasons to shoot bullets is not on my list. Edit: phone posting typos. Nathilus fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:22
|
|