|
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 November 25 2015 09:49 Plansix wrote:
Are we like the only nation who thinks the solution to knife crime is guns?
No.
In germany last year (or was it this year?) a mentally ill person was shot because he charged a police officer with a knife, after he took a bath in a well? Might remember it not correctly.
One of eight in the whole last year.
edit: was just one round though.
edit2: forget it, i'm just dumb and mix stuff up. He actually injured a cop, and then was shot, one bullet. Also meth head.
|
On November 25 2015 09:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote: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?
Step one: Don't start with shooting,
Step two: Stop shooting when the target is no longer a threat.
Step three: Don't cover for the police when they attempt to cover up a crime.
I'm no technical writer, but I think they could throw that up on the brainstorming board.
|
Shooting in itself isn't a problem. We can argue about how well cops should be trained to shoot so that they are more accurate. But guns should be part of a cop's toolkit in a violent situation. We are a comparatively violent country after all. Other countries have different issues than us.
(I'm not referencing any particular shooting)
|
On November 25 2015 09:55 Deathstar wrote:
Shooting in itself isn't a problem. We can argue about how well cops should be trained to shoot so that they are more accurate. But guns should be part of a cop's toolkit in a violent situation. We are a comparatively violent country after all. Other countries have different issues than us.
(I'm not referencing any particular shooting)
That's not even argued. I think the UK is the only country where cops are not armed with guns, and i think that's stupid. They should be.
A gun to a cop is a tool. An important one, at that. But it only works if you know how and especially when to use that tool. Cops in other countries spend more time in courses on de-escalation alone than a US cop needs for his whole training. That tells you that there's something not quite right.
|
United States44287 Posts
On November 25 2015 09:46 Deathstar wrote:
I'm talking about the UK cop video
Because the decision about whether or not to take a human life in the UK is not purely decided by "can we get away with it?". The prime directive in the UK is "can we avoid it?" not "can we justify it afterwards?".
Sure, they could have killed him and maybe justified it as necessary. But through training and teamwork they managed to resolve the situation without killing one of the people they're paid to protect.
|
On November 25 2015 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 09:46 Sermokala wrote:On November 25 2015 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote: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? Step one: Don't start with shooting, Step two: Stop shooting when the target is no longer a threat. Step three: Don't cover for the police when they attempt to cover up a crime. I'm no technical writer, but I think they could throw that up on the brainstorming board.
That's not the point in my post. I've said that in any sensible situation he would have used a beanbag shotgun or a tazers in the worst case scenario and B that it's a year from this happening and just now he's off the force are both fundemental failings of the department.
My point was to explain why he emptied his clip was an acepted point of policy that is suppose to be the last resort of the cop not what you do 30 seconds after you get there and he's not moving to you. That it's a failure of training or policy is what should be discussed not the product of the factors that led to this disaster.
|
United States44287 Posts
On November 25 2015 09:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 09:55 Deathstar wrote:
Shooting in itself isn't a problem. We can argue about how well cops should be trained to shoot so that they are more accurate. But guns should be part of a cop's toolkit in a violent situation. We are a comparatively violent country after all. Other countries have different issues than us.
(I'm not referencing any particular shooting) That's not even argued. I think the UK is the only country where cops are not armed with guns, and i think that's stupid. They should be. A gun to a cop is a tool. An important one, at that. But it only works if you know how and especially when to use that tool. Cops in other countries spend more time in courses on de-escalation alone than a US cop needs for his whole training. That tells you that there's something not quite right.
We have armed police. Lots of them. And if the situation merits it then they'll be used. But there is a lot of value to having a police force who don't carry with them a weapon capable of ending a human life in seconds. Not only does it hugely lower the scope of error which would have saved the life of the black kid in this video but it also conveys a message. The message is important to understanding that the police do not police through the threat of death for non compliance (although they certainly have force if it is needed) but through the consent of the population. They can escalate up to lethal force if the situation merits it but the message, while conditional, is important.
|
On November 25 2015 10:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 09:59 m4ini wrote:On November 25 2015 09:55 Deathstar wrote:
Shooting in itself isn't a problem. We can argue about how well cops should be trained to shoot so that they are more accurate. But guns should be part of a cop's toolkit in a violent situation. We are a comparatively violent country after all. Other countries have different issues than us.
(I'm not referencing any particular shooting) That's not even argued. I think the UK is the only country where cops are not armed with guns, and i think that's stupid. They should be. A gun to a cop is a tool. An important one, at that. But it only works if you know how and especially when to use that tool. Cops in other countries spend more time in courses on de-escalation alone than a US cop needs for his whole training. That tells you that there's something not quite right. We have armed police. Lots of them. And if the situation merits it then they'll be used. But there is a lot of value to having a police force who don't carry with them a weapon capable of ending a human life in seconds. Not only does it hugely lower the scope of error which would have saved the life of the black kid in this video but it also conveys a message. The message is important to understanding that the police do not police through the threat of death for non compliance (although they certainly have force if it is needed) but through the consent of the population. They can escalate up to lethal force if the situation merits it but the message, while conditional, is important.
That can also be achieved by the population trusting their police that they only use their guns if needed.
As i said, last year, german cops killed eight persons. And every single officer is armed with a gun, and partially automatic weapons in their cars. And we certainly do have violent people too.
edit: partially because german cops are not allowed to draw their gun for stuff like non-compliance. They also don't run around with their hand on the gun as soon as they stop someone, which already fuels a situation that could go either way.
|
On November 25 2015 10:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2015 09:46 Sermokala wrote:On November 25 2015 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote: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? Step one: Don't start with shooting, Step two: Stop shooting when the target is no longer a threat. Step three: Don't cover for the police when they attempt to cover up a crime. I'm no technical writer, but I think they could throw that up on the brainstorming board. That's not the point in my post. I've said that in any sensible situation he would have used a beanbag shotgun or a tazers in the worst case scenario and B that it's a year from this happening and just now he's off the force are both fundemental failings of the department. My point was to explain why he emptied his clip was an acepted point of policy that is suppose to be the last resort of the cop not what you do 30 seconds after you get there and he's not moving to you. That it's a failure of training or policy is what should be discussed not the product of the factors that led to this disaster.
There has been a systemic blindness that this is even an issue. It's only since we've been getting videos (against the police's will) that people are finally believing that this is happening (has been for decades).
The problem is present from the very bottom to the very top it's just finally being recognized as the systemic problem it's always been instead of "just a few bad apples" which you'll still see people (maybe not here) arguing.
Allegedly there is video of police deleting the footage from the Burger King, and more to come out. This goes way beyond the officer and training, this situation gets at the wall between officers and justice.
|
How convenient, wierd ass noises cover the sound of the gunshots.
|
On November 25 2015 10:51 heliusx wrote:
How convenient, wierd ass noises cover the sound of the gunshots.
Yeah if it weren't for the clouds of dust from rounds hitting the pavement you can bet there would be a BS story about when he did or didn't stop shooting.
|
On November 25 2015 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 10:51 heliusx wrote:
How convenient, wierd ass noises cover the sound of the gunshots. Yeah if it weren't for the clouds of dust from rounds hitting the pavement you can bet there would be a BS story about when he did or didn't stop shooting.
Has the autopsy been released? I left my laptop at work so I can barely see the puffs.
|
But the ;problem from the other side has been a near refusal to do anything about it other then protest those very same "few bad apples" and "the system" at large. The way forward isn't a continuing of the same tactics that reinforce that wall between officers and the community but breaking it down and realizing that this very same community is the one that has and will always control and build the police department it wants.
For all the attention brought on the the issue in the past few decades what actual progress has been made when looking at this shooting in chicago. Reform is a lengthy and time consuming process and chicago is a poor city and has people that are demanding change now.
|
On November 25 2015 11:06 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2015 10:51 heliusx wrote:
How convenient, wierd ass noises cover the sound of the gunshots. Yeah if it weren't for the clouds of dust from rounds hitting the pavement you can bet there would be a BS story about when he did or didn't stop shooting. Has the autopsy been released? I left my laptop at work so I can barely see the puffs.
Yes also a result of a FOIA request
Source
|
|
|
On November 25 2015 11:09 Sermokala wrote:
But the ;problem from the other side has been a near refusal to do anything about it other then protest those very same "few bad apples" and "the system" at large. The way forward isn't a continuing of the same tactics that reinforce that wall between officers and the community but breaking it down and realizing that this very same community is the one that has and will always control and build the police department it wants.
For all the attention brought on the the issue in the past few decades what actual progress has been made when looking at this shooting in chicago. Reform is a lengthy and time consuming process and chicago is a poor city and has people that are demanding change now.
The first step in that is the Police recognizing they have been murdering people and covering it up, and many local officials have been complacent or have even participated in the cover ups.
Police need to admit they need a bottom up overhaul that will include some of them going to prison, many of them losing their job temporarily and a significant number of them being banned from being police in the future.
Politicians need to stop covering for police too.
Reform will be lengthy but police have been wholly unwilling to go beyond superficial changes while still doing things like this and until they are being regularly held accountable (without enormous public outcry) looking at the people protesting that their rights and humanity are being crapped on as if they aren't doing enough is frankly disturbing.
|
On November 25 2015 11:13 Plansix wrote:The problem with police is nation wide and not limited to violence and shootings: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/police-seizing-more-money-than-ever.htmlThere needs to be some serious reform and rethinking of how we train and over see police. The story of the "officer just trying to do his job and protect people" needs to be mirrored in reality and not some thing the movies show us.
It shocks me sometimes just how commercialized your law enforcement seems. Stories about asset seizures, red light cameras, corporate jails...
Like, I don't understand, what did people think would happen when you give a public services the ability to generate money for themselves?
|
South Korea has a pretty great gun law and control.
Despite virtually all male adult citizens having served in the military, only military personnel and key government protection agencies like those that protect the president are allowed to possess guns.
Even the police do not carry guns, only batons and flash lights. Only guns used by law enforcement are for express use by specialized units similar to SWAT teams.
South Korea has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the developed world.
http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/2011-08-02/examining-south-korea’s-shockingly-low-rates-gun-ownership-89983
|
On November 25 2015 10:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2015 09:46 Sermokala wrote:On November 25 2015 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote: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? Step one: Don't start with shooting, Step two: Stop shooting when the target is no longer a threat. Step three: Don't cover for the police when they attempt to cover up a crime. I'm no technical writer, but I think they could throw that up on the brainstorming board. That's not the point in my post. I've said that in any sensible situation he would have used a beanbag shotgun or a tazers in the worst case scenario and B that it's a year from this happening and just now he's off the force are both fundemental failings of the department. My point was to explain why he emptied his clip was an acepted point of policy that is suppose to be the last resort of the cop not what you do 30 seconds after you get there and he's not moving to you. That it's a failure of training or policy is what should be discussed not the product of the factors that led to this disaster.
If you choose to kill someone without a gun, you always empty your magazine. A live witness on the stand could convince a jury that he was no threat at the time, thus sending your ass to jail. A dead witness tells no tales. If you are just shooting to "stop the threat" and the other guy doesn't have a gun, then 1 bullet anywhere but the lower arms will do. If you are shooting to protect your job, your marriage, your way of life, your freedom, then use every last bullet and consider reloading.
|
On November 25 2015 11:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:It shocks me sometimes just how commercialized your law enforcement seems. Stories about asset seizures, red light cameras, corporate jails... Like, I don't understand, what did people think would happen when you give a public services the ability to generate money for themselves?
The free market solves all. Did you hear? I have no idea, but this wouldn't be a problem if we had a functional congress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
