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.
I wonder what the Chicago police are trained to do in that situation. Shooting the kid doesn't seem like a good idea, but you can't let him walk around and menace the public like he apparently was doing before the shooting.
One would think that would be cited as justification, not that "i felt my life and that of fellow officers was totally threatened so i thought i better unload a whole fucking clip in someone already down".
Tasers tho. Or getting riot gear and a dozen officers and surrounding him and beating him down if needed. Or a police dog. Sure he may stab the dog but you can bill his family for the cost of a new one. Police dogs are good at knocking people to the ground and taking hands out of action.
I feel like there should be a mandatory "you are about to transfer millions of dollars from the police force to lawyers, do you want to proceed?" alarms on guns. These tragedies cost the police force a fortune and that alone is indefensibly wasteful, even if you think shooting black kids is okay.
They paid out $5 million the day after the FBI announced they were investigating.
As an example of an alternative version of force escalation:
Are people defending the cop not just shooting the guy but shooting him on the ground or just spouting random talking points about police shootings?
On November 25 2015 09:13 m4ini wrote: See my edit.
It's just something that immediately springs to mind: "why didn't they use tasers, hell, pepperspray would've done?". According to a lawyer, the last "puff" on the body was 16 seconds after he hit the ground. That's a cop literally pulling the trigger as fast as he can until the gun is empty, on a person that was hit with the first bullet already.
That's pure intention in my book. He wanted that person dead. Doesn't even matter if black or not.
Devils advocate here a hollow point 9mm won't kill you unless it's a perfect head or heart shot. A jumpy cop will miss 9 times out of 10 unless he's a vet. More then likely it'll be a jaw or rib shot that will kill them regardless but over an extended period of time where he dies in agony until shock sets in. It's as much of a mercy as a protection against methhead and worse.
On November 25 2015 09:13 m4ini wrote: See my edit.
It's just something that immediately springs to mind: "why didn't they use tasers, hell, pepperspray would've done?". According to a lawyer, the last "puff" on the body was 16 seconds after he hit the ground. That's a cop literally pulling the trigger as fast as he can until the gun is empty, on a person that was hit with the first bullet already.
That's pure intention in my book. He wanted that person dead. Doesn't even matter if black or not.
Devils advocate here a hollow point 9mm won't kill you unless it's a perfect head or heart shot. A jumpy cop will miss 9 times out of 10 unless he's a vet. More then likely it'll be a jaw or rib shot that will kill them regardless but over an extended period of time where he dies in agony until shock sets in. It's as much of a mercy as a protection against methhead and worse.
You might have a point if the attacker was standing. As soon as you start putting shots into a downed man your no longer defending anything and are committing murder.
On November 25 2015 09:13 m4ini wrote: See my edit.
It's just something that immediately springs to mind: "why didn't they use tasers, hell, pepperspray would've done?". According to a lawyer, the last "puff" on the body was 16 seconds after he hit the ground. That's a cop literally pulling the trigger as fast as he can until the gun is empty, on a person that was hit with the first bullet already.
That's pure intention in my book. He wanted that person dead. Doesn't even matter if black or not.
Devils advocate here a hollow point 9mm won't kill you unless it's a perfect head or heart shot. A jumpy cop will miss 9 times out of 10 unless he's a vet. More then likely it'll be a jaw or rib shot that will kill them regardless but over an extended period of time where he dies in agony until shock sets in. It's as much of a mercy as a protection against methhead and worse.
such mercy
Not even gonna answer him, not sure if he's trying to be some form of funny or actually means what he's saying.
Just so much: if a cop needs 16 bullets at not even 20 feet range to make sure he hit you, you might wanna consider firing him. Or if they miss 9 out of 10 shells. In a heated situation, that cop will kill more bystanders than culprits.
As soon as you start putting shots into a downed man your no longer defending anything and are committing murder.
On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote: I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive.
Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith".
The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem.
This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation.
The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so.
I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though.
The point that Kwark is trying to make is that the issues facing the Catholic Church back its most violent era are the same ones Islam faces now. You are correct that Islam is connected to the issue, but no more than Christianity was an issue back in its most violent era.
They might be similar, but they are not the same, historical circumstances are obviously different in the sense of the most obvious truism ever. Moreover, historic analogies have to be a bit more precise than this sort of thing if you wan't them to be useful. What is similar, what is different, that is the question. And certainly the set of beliefs of either religion, which are different, albeit similar in some ways, change something to the way the conflict unfolds. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but the point is that a peaceful Midde East implies that the religious aspirations of most muslims in the area are satisfied, and I don't think copy pasting our long searched solutions (hoping they are not temporary) over there will work. A political solution will have to include something about religion.
On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote: I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive.
Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith".
The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem.
This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation.
The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so.
I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though.
The point that Kwark is trying to make is that the issues facing the Catholic Church back its most violent era are the same ones Islam faces now. You are correct that Islam is connected to the issue, but no more than Christianity was an issue back in its most violent era.
They might be similar, but they are not the same, historical circumstances are obviously different in the sense of the most obvious truism ever. Moreover, historic analogies have to be a bit more precise than this sort of thing if you wan't them to be useful. What is similar, what is different, that is the question. And certainly the set of beliefs of either religion, which are different, albeit similar in some ways, change something to the way the conflict unfolds. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but the point is that a peaceful Midde East implies that the religious aspirations of most muslims in the area are satisfied, and I don't think copy pasting our long searched solutions (hoping they are not temporary) over there will work. A political solution will have to include something about religion.
Yes, but its isn't one that we, as non-Muslims, can prescribe to them. Any attempts to do that will end in abject failure. Reform and change cant happen during war, under repressive dictatorships and in impoverished nations.
I can certainly agree with you here. That being said, we will be implied, in a way or another, because we probably don't want them to give themselve any system, or we can let IS do whatever they want, and also because jihadism is in great part built against the western world. They want to fight us, and so we will have to fight them. How can we surmount that contradiction, what are our goals and objectives (and they can't only be negative), what strategy, those questions are among the difficult ones I believe we are refusing to face.
Geez.... are you trying to fill the word requirement by jam in as many high school rhetoric as possible? There are constructive arguments and there are argument for argument's sake, and it's pretty obvious which are which.
Sorry if my broken English gave you that impression, but I'm convinced I'm making a valid and important point. I believe saying jihadism has nothing to do with Islam is both false and counterproductive, though not in the way most of the "right" thinks about it (they are often as naive if not more than the "left", just in another way). That is all.
On November 25 2015 09:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is why becoming a cop should not take a couple of months but at least two years. Should be like earning a degree.
Falling to the ground after being shot doesn't mean anything. If you want cops to be able to judge the exact moment the person they're shooting at dies and to judge real time where their shots have landed then go ahead and say that. Don't dance behind emotional logic that's bullshit in the realworld.
I wonder what the Chicago police are trained to do in that situation. Shooting the kid doesn't seem like a good idea, but you can't let him walk around and menace the public like he apparently was doing before the shooting.
One would think that would be cited as justification, not that "i felt my life and that of fellow officers was totally threatened so i thought i better unload a whole fucking clip in someone already down".
Tasers tho. Or getting riot gear and a dozen officers and surrounding him and beating him down if needed. Or a police dog. Sure he may stab the dog but you can bill his family for the cost of a new one. Police dogs are good at knocking people to the ground and taking hands out of action.
I feel like there should be a mandatory "you are about to transfer millions of dollars from the police force to lawyers, do you want to proceed?" alarms on guns. These tragedies cost the police force a fortune and that alone is indefensibly wasteful, even if you think shooting black kids is okay.
They paid out $5 million the day after the FBI announced they were investigating.
As an example of an alternative version of force escalation:
Are people defending the cop not just shooting the guy but shooting him on the ground or just spouting random talking points about police shootings?
So can people give me the case for why, if this has taken place in the US, the police would not be justified in shooting this guy down? Or rather, not shooting him would be preferable.
Charging at the cop with a knife looks like you want suicide by cop.
On November 25 2015 09:37 Sermokala wrote: Falling to the ground after being shot doesn't mean anything. If you want cops to be able to judge the exact moment the person they're shooting at dies and to judge real time where their shots have landed then go ahead and say that. Don't dance behind emotional logic that's bullshit in the realworld.
Why bother talking in the abstract at all. There is a real situation right in front of us. Are you suggesting in this case the officer had a reason other than murder to keep firing at this man while he was on the ground?
On November 25 2015 09:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is why becoming a cop should not take a couple of months but at least two years. Should be like earning a degree. Deescalation training etc.
There is a degree in law enforcement that lasts 2 years and is a requirement in a lot of departments. Requiring in nationwide would be a good step going forward.
On November 25 2015 09:37 Sermokala wrote: Falling to the ground after being shot doesn't mean anything. If you want cops to be able to judge the exact moment the person they're shooting at dies and to judge real time where their shots have landed then go ahead and say that. Don't dance behind emotional logic that's bullshit in the realworld.
Why bother talking in the abstract at all. There is a real situation right in front of us. Are you suggesting in this case the officer had a reason other than murder to keep firing at this man while he was on the ground?
Its not just this situation but every situation like it for cops to react to. For consistency you need them to follow policy instead of instincts . Cops are trained to shoot to kill and without some magical way for them to know when the person they are killing is dead they have to keep shooting.
Do you have a suggestion for another policy to train cops for this situation. Stop shooting when they hit the ground?
On November 25 2015 09:37 Sermokala wrote: Falling to the ground after being shot doesn't mean anything. If you want cops to be able to judge the exact moment the person they're shooting at dies and to judge real time where their shots have landed then go ahead and say that. Don't dance behind emotional logic that's bullshit in the realworld.
Why bother talking in the abstract at all. There is a real situation right in front of us. Are you suggesting in this case the officer had a reason other than murder to keep firing at this man while he was on the ground?
Its not just this situation but every situation like it for cops to react to. For consistency you need them to follow policy instead of instincts . Cops are trained to shoot to kill and without some magical way for them to know when the person they are killing is dead they have to keep shooting.
Do you have a suggestion for another policy to train cops for this situation. Stop shooting when they hit the ground?
So what you're saying (it's bs btw) is, that cops in the US are trained executioners. Correct?
Btw, as a former soldier who actually was trained to shoot to kill and understands what that means, you don't even know what it means. Small hint: it has nothing to do with making sure that a person on the ground is as dead as possible. It just doesn't. It means that you're not trying to disable someone, but shoot with the intent to kill. That does NOT mean, that you go to injured people and shoot them in the head to make sure they're dead.
EPT
