|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 20 2014 10:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Not long ago, the top executive at a large American drug company said that her company would be planting its corporate flag in the Netherlands, because the U.S. tax code is just so darn unfair.
Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, told a New York Times columnist that her bid to acquire a smaller Dutch company and move ownership abroad through a controversial tactic known as an inversion was forced by Congress, which has refused to lower corporate tax rates and make U.S. businesses "more competitive."
As a patriot, she resisted until it was clear she had no other choice, she said.
“You know what makes me want to cry?" she said. "I think whoever the next Facebook is, why would you ever start that company here in the United States?”
But a new paper by a leading critic of inversions strongly refutes this narrative, arguing that instead of disadvantaged left-behinds struggling to compete against foreign competitors with lower tax bills, large American companies are gaming international and domestic tax rules better than anyone else.
"U.S.-based multinationals that are pursuing inversion transactions have been quick to wrap themselves in a mantle of simple virtue, forced to take the unpalatable step of inverting into Irish, U.K. or Swiss public companies because their love goes unrequited by a country that cruelly saddles them with both the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and a uniquely punitive worldwide tax base," writes Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, and a former chief of staff for Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. This argument, he writes, "is almost entirely fact-free." (The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin was first to write about Kleinbard's new paper, in his Tuesday column for the New York Times).
Large American companies are so clever at scoping out loopholes and finding ways to shift earnings to low-tax jurisdictions that most never pay anything close to the top 35 percent U.S. corporate rate that the complain about so loudly, Kleinbard writes. Source
Meanwhile they made 180 million profit in the last quarter.
I say taxes don't seem to be hurting them very much in the first place.
|
On August 20 2014 10:10 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 10:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Not long ago, the top executive at a large American drug company said that her company would be planting its corporate flag in the Netherlands, because the U.S. tax code is just so darn unfair.
Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, told a New York Times columnist that her bid to acquire a smaller Dutch company and move ownership abroad through a controversial tactic known as an inversion was forced by Congress, which has refused to lower corporate tax rates and make U.S. businesses "more competitive."
As a patriot, she resisted until it was clear she had no other choice, she said.
“You know what makes me want to cry?" she said. "I think whoever the next Facebook is, why would you ever start that company here in the United States?”
But a new paper by a leading critic of inversions strongly refutes this narrative, arguing that instead of disadvantaged left-behinds struggling to compete against foreign competitors with lower tax bills, large American companies are gaming international and domestic tax rules better than anyone else.
"U.S.-based multinationals that are pursuing inversion transactions have been quick to wrap themselves in a mantle of simple virtue, forced to take the unpalatable step of inverting into Irish, U.K. or Swiss public companies because their love goes unrequited by a country that cruelly saddles them with both the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and a uniquely punitive worldwide tax base," writes Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, and a former chief of staff for Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. This argument, he writes, "is almost entirely fact-free." (The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin was first to write about Kleinbard's new paper, in his Tuesday column for the New York Times).
Large American companies are so clever at scoping out loopholes and finding ways to shift earnings to low-tax jurisdictions that most never pay anything close to the top 35 percent U.S. corporate rate that the complain about so loudly, Kleinbard writes. Source That's a good point. If your company is adept enough to pull off an inversion, how in the world is your company paying the full 35% corporate tax?
You generally don't pay the "full" rate. Same is true for all income taxes, really.
On August 20 2014 10:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 10:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Not long ago, the top executive at a large American drug company said that her company would be planting its corporate flag in the Netherlands, because the U.S. tax code is just so darn unfair.
Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, told a New York Times columnist that her bid to acquire a smaller Dutch company and move ownership abroad through a controversial tactic known as an inversion was forced by Congress, which has refused to lower corporate tax rates and make U.S. businesses "more competitive."
As a patriot, she resisted until it was clear she had no other choice, she said.
“You know what makes me want to cry?" she said. "I think whoever the next Facebook is, why would you ever start that company here in the United States?”
But a new paper by a leading critic of inversions strongly refutes this narrative, arguing that instead of disadvantaged left-behinds struggling to compete against foreign competitors with lower tax bills, large American companies are gaming international and domestic tax rules better than anyone else.
"U.S.-based multinationals that are pursuing inversion transactions have been quick to wrap themselves in a mantle of simple virtue, forced to take the unpalatable step of inverting into Irish, U.K. or Swiss public companies because their love goes unrequited by a country that cruelly saddles them with both the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and a uniquely punitive worldwide tax base," writes Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, and a former chief of staff for Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. This argument, he writes, "is almost entirely fact-free." (The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin was first to write about Kleinbard's new paper, in his Tuesday column for the New York Times).
Large American companies are so clever at scoping out loopholes and finding ways to shift earnings to low-tax jurisdictions that most never pay anything close to the top 35 percent U.S. corporate rate that the complain about so loudly, Kleinbard writes. Source Meanwhile they made 180 million profit in the last quarter. I say taxes don't seem to be hurting them very much in the first place.
What do you mean? The taxes in question are income taxes. Income taxes are a fraction of your income. As such they can't reduce your income to zero.
|
On August 20 2014 07:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear. We have societal problems with certain populations here that you don't have in Europe.
But some of these problems can be fixed. Why not put an end to the horrible legal situation that minorities face.?(http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities)
[...]"These statistics underline why critics decry the war on drugs as racist. Although black people are much more likely to be sent to jail for drug possession, they're not more likely to use drugs. A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch found black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs. In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people."[...]
|
On August 20 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear. We have societal problems with certain populations here that you don't have in Europe. But some of these problems can be fixed. Why not put an end to the horrible legal situation that minorities face.?(http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities) Show nested quote +
[...]"These statistics underline why critics decry the war on drugs as racist. Although black people are much more likely to be sent to jail for drug possession, they're not more likely to use drugs. A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch found black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs. In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people."[...]
Decriminalizing drugs isn't going to magically solve the problems that I'm talking about. Sure, it will certainly help, and it should certainly be done, but the real issues run far deeper.
|
On August 20 2014 10:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:On August 20 2014 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear. We have societal problems with certain populations here that you don't have in Europe. But some of these problems can be fixed. Why not put an end to the horrible legal situation that minorities face.?(http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities)
[...]"These statistics underline why critics decry the war on drugs as racist. Although black people are much more likely to be sent to jail for drug possession, they're not more likely to use drugs. A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch found black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs. In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people."[...]
Decriminalizing drugs isn't going to magically solve the problems that I'm talking about. Sure, it will certainly help, and it should certainly be done, but the real issues run far deeper.
My point was not about drug decriminalization(although I'm all for it), but if you put people in front of a court, at least treat them all equally. 3.6 as many convictions although drug use doesn't differ very much and 13% longer sentences for black people isn't some statistical anomaly.
Given the amount of discrimination these numbers indicate it's no wonder people are throwing bricks and threatening the police. If they're using their power to oppress a part of the population the term 'police' doesn't apply any more. I always thought the US was all about having the right to fight oppressive governments. Practically that right only seems to be reserved for white people.
|
On August 20 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear. We have societal problems with certain populations here that you don't have in Europe. But some of these problems can be fixed. Why not put an end to the horrible legal situation that minorities face.?(http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities) Show nested quote +
[...]"These statistics underline why critics decry the war on drugs as racist. Although black people are much more likely to be sent to jail for drug possession, they're not more likely to use drugs. A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch found black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs. In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people."[...]
It's a complicated issue. It isn't so simple as racists cops get hired and do racist things so if we just get rid of the racists...
Most of the discrimination is due to complex societal interactions. For example, blacks grow up urban areas which tend to have higher crime. More crime, more police, more arrests. More blacks grow up without fathers, don't learn how to act around police and that makes them more likely to be arrested - regardless of the situation's merits.
This shit's complicated. If it was just a matter of passing a swanky new law, the issue would have ended a few decades ago.
Just look at the MO traffic stops data. Yes, blacks are disproportionately stopped. But so are whites. And blacks are stopped more often on city streets and tend to be younger (crime is more of a young person's sport). Even a well-intentioned police department will have a hard time separating all the variables and figuring out what to do next.
|
I didn't want to imply that solving this issue is easy, but I think it would be great if the topic would at least get the attention it deserves. I feel like racism today in the US isn't treated as a deep systematic issue but as something that just pops up from time to time until it goes away again.
Given these numbers above I think it would be a really great idea to put racism on the number one spot of domestic policy issues.
Also getting rid of these draconian drug laws and punishing police officers that call black people animals instead of just ignoring it would probably also help a lot.
|
How can both blacks and whites be disproportionately stopped? Are you saying that there's a sizable proportion of non-whites who are stopped disproportionately little?
|
On August 20 2014 10:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:On August 20 2014 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear. We have societal problems with certain populations here that you don't have in Europe. But some of these problems can be fixed. Why not put an end to the horrible legal situation that minorities face.?(http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities)
[...]"These statistics underline why critics decry the war on drugs as racist. Although black people are much more likely to be sent to jail for drug possession, they're not more likely to use drugs. A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch found black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs. In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people."[...]
It's a complicated issue. It isn't so simple as racists cops get hired and do racist things so if we just get rid of the racists... Most of the discrimination is due to complex societal interactions. For example, blacks grow up urban areas which tend to have higher crime. More crime, more police, more arrests. More blacks grow up without fathers, don't learn how to act around police and that makes them more likely to be arrested - regardless of the situation's merits. This shit's complicated. If it was just a matter of passing a swanky new law, the issue would have ended a few decades ago. Just look at the MO traffic stops data. Yes, blacks are disproportionately stopped. But so are whites. And blacks are stopped more often on city streets and tend to be younger (crime is more of a young person's sport). Even a well-intentioned police department will have a hard time separating all the variables and figuring out what to do next.
A 10 minute lesson on how to deal with cops for highschool freshman.
Mandatory dash cams should have been a thing 20 years ago. We're getting to the point where personal police surveillance would be a fraction of the cost of funding a patrol officer.
Also, rofl @ "Yes, blacks are disproportionately stopped. But so are whites."
No.
White people are not stopped disproportionately.
|
On August 20 2014 10:51 IgnE wrote:
How can both blacks and whites be disproportionately stopped? Are you saying that there's a sizable proportion of non-whites who are stopped disproportionately little?
Most likely to least likely stops: blacks -> whites -> hispanics -> asians -> na. americans.
On August 20 2014 10:51 Nyxisto wrote:
I didn't want to imply that solving this issue is easy, but I think it would be great if the topic would at least get the attention it deserves. I feel like racism today in the US isn't treated as a deep systematic issue but as something that just pops up from time to time until it goes away again.
Given these numbers above I think it would be a really great idea to put racism on the number one spot of domestic policy issues.
Also getting rid of these draconian drug laws and punishing police officers that call black people animals instead of just ignoring it would probably also help a lot.
It's gotten national attention and been treated as a systemic issue for as far back as I can remember.
|
It was years ago, but I remember seeing a story on the mathematics (purely) of traffic stops in urban areas.
In many places if you see 4 or more 18yr or older black males in a car after dark you (rightly or wrongly) have a 90%++ chance of somebody in the car being on probation or parole.
So you really don't need probable cause, even though a traffic cop can pull anyone over for just about anything.
Once one of the passengers admits to being on probation/parole... they've waived their consent as part of their release, and the car is getting searched.
|
On August 20 2014 11:01 RCMDVA wrote:
It was years ago, but I remember seeing a story on the mathematics (purely) of traffic stops in urban areas.
In many places if you see 4 or more 18yr or older black males in a car after dark you (rightly or wrongly) have a 90%++ chance of somebody in the car being on probation or parole.
So you really don't need probable cause, even though a traffic cop can pull anyone over for just about anything.
Once one of the passengers admits to being on probation/parole... they've waived their consent as part of their release, and the car is getting searched.
You're probably thinking of this.
Which isn't exactly the most reliable of sources.
|
On August 20 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 10:51 IgnE wrote:
How can both blacks and whites be disproportionately stopped? Are you saying that there's a sizable proportion of non-whites who are stopped disproportionately little? Most likely to least likely stops: blacks -> whites -> hispanics -> asians -> na. americans. Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 10:51 Nyxisto wrote:
I didn't want to imply that solving this issue is easy, but I think it would be great if the topic would at least get the attention it deserves. I feel like racism today in the US isn't treated as a deep systematic issue but as something that just pops up from time to time until it goes away again.
Given these numbers above I think it would be a really great idea to put racism on the number one spot of domestic policy issues.
Also getting rid of these draconian drug laws and punishing police officers that call black people animals instead of just ignoring it would probably also help a lot. It's gotten national attention and been treated as a systemic issue for as far back as I can remember.
Is that per capita? The way you are phrasing it makes it sound like the majority ethnicity gets stopped the second most . . .
|
On August 20 2014 11:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2014 10:51 IgnE wrote:
How can both blacks and whites be disproportionately stopped? Are you saying that there's a sizable proportion of non-whites who are stopped disproportionately little? Most likely to least likely stops: blacks -> whites -> hispanics -> asians -> na. americans. On August 20 2014 10:51 Nyxisto wrote:
I didn't want to imply that solving this issue is easy, but I think it would be great if the topic would at least get the attention it deserves. I feel like racism today in the US isn't treated as a deep systematic issue but as something that just pops up from time to time until it goes away again.
Given these numbers above I think it would be a really great idea to put racism on the number one spot of domestic policy issues.
Also getting rid of these draconian drug laws and punishing police officers that call black people animals instead of just ignoring it would probably also help a lot. It's gotten national attention and been treated as a systemic issue for as far back as I can remember. Is that per capita? The way you are phrasing it makes it sound like the majority ethnicity gets stopped the second most . . .
It's the proportional stop rate.
|
On August 20 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 11:26 IgnE wrote:On August 20 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2014 10:51 IgnE wrote:
How can both blacks and whites be disproportionately stopped? Are you saying that there's a sizable proportion of non-whites who are stopped disproportionately little? Most likely to least likely stops: blacks -> whites -> hispanics -> asians -> na. americans. On August 20 2014 10:51 Nyxisto wrote:
I didn't want to imply that solving this issue is easy, but I think it would be great if the topic would at least get the attention it deserves. I feel like racism today in the US isn't treated as a deep systematic issue but as something that just pops up from time to time until it goes away again.
Given these numbers above I think it would be a really great idea to put racism on the number one spot of domestic policy issues.
Also getting rid of these draconian drug laws and punishing police officers that call black people animals instead of just ignoring it would probably also help a lot. It's gotten national attention and been treated as a systemic issue for as far back as I can remember. Is that per capita? The way you are phrasing it makes it sound like the majority ethnicity gets stopped the second most . . . It's the proportional stop rate.
Percentages? Source? Someone has to be second. Is the gap between blacks and whites much larger than between whites and hispanics?
|
On August 20 2014 11:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2014 11:26 IgnE wrote:On August 20 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2014 10:51 IgnE wrote:
How can both blacks and whites be disproportionately stopped? Are you saying that there's a sizable proportion of non-whites who are stopped disproportionately little? Most likely to least likely stops: blacks -> whites -> hispanics -> asians -> na. americans. On August 20 2014 10:51 Nyxisto wrote:
I didn't want to imply that solving this issue is easy, but I think it would be great if the topic would at least get the attention it deserves. I feel like racism today in the US isn't treated as a deep systematic issue but as something that just pops up from time to time until it goes away again.
Given these numbers above I think it would be a really great idea to put racism on the number one spot of domestic policy issues.
Also getting rid of these draconian drug laws and punishing police officers that call black people animals instead of just ignoring it would probably also help a lot. It's gotten national attention and been treated as a systemic issue for as far back as I can remember. Is that per capita? The way you are phrasing it makes it sound like the majority ethnicity gets stopped the second most . . . It's the proportional stop rate. Percentages? Source? Someone has to be second. Is the gap between blacks and whites much larger than between whites and hispanics?
From the stops data posted a few pages ago:
http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/
|
On August 20 2014 07:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear. We have societal problems with certain populations here that you don't have in Europe.
I think the societal cultural problems are increasing in certain european countries - France in particular. Turks in Germany?
It is seen mostly as a problem with lack of integration caused by ghettos forming. But US has a historical dimension that Europe doesn't have. US needs to do something towards reducing the economic gap between groups, whether by further disencouraging crime in the areas or more positive rights targeted at those groups.
|
Black mothers need to encourage their children to get into business/STEM/Trades programs.
Black fathers need to be there period.
Black teens need to choose school over crack.
Black communities need to encourage excellence rather than be a lobster pit of thugs and mediocrity.
There I solved the black problem. Send me and Bill Cosby the cheque.
Police need to be part of the community, not authority over it.
People need to not antagonize their police force who are part of the community just doing their job.
Police carry a pistol, and internal inquiry every time it is discharged, inquiries are made public every quarter.
SWAT teams unfunded for populations under 1 million.
Police problem solved.
|
On August 20 2014 08:33 Maxie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:15 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Shoot to his leg? Not very easy to hit, doesn't guarantee that the danger is over and may very well kill them anyway due to blood loss. If you shoot, aim for center mass.
Finnish polices first have to shoot warning shot and next aim to legs. Bullet in both legs and you can't do anything. And everytime police fires his pistol there will be investigation was it necessary. If it wasnt police goes to court and gets punished.
Im 99% sure it's same in Sweden?
|
On August 20 2014 23:29 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 08:33 Maxie wrote:On August 20 2014 07:15 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Shoot to his leg? Not very easy to hit, doesn't guarantee that the danger is over and may very well kill them anyway due to blood loss. If you shoot, aim for center mass. Finnish polices first have to shoot warning shot and next aim to legs. Bullet in both legs and you can't do anything. And everytime police fires his pistol there will be investigation was it necessary. If it wasnt police goes to court and gets punished. Im 99% sure it's same in Sweden?
I posted the same rules pretty much applying to the Netherlands and got called an idiot for it. America just doesn't understand that there are more options then killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
