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 June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
There might be some confounding factor like the fact that the US has gun homicide rates ten to forty times higher than those countries to begin with.
Still, I feel like the police in the US have more of a warzone mentality even before you consider the guns. It's them against the public, and it shouldn't be.
I mean it's like a one-size-fits-all problem, right? The US has some serious crime and gang problems, and I'd want tough guys and SWAT teams and undercovers. But I also want them to be smart enough not to do shit like tackle college students and send the SWAT team into the house of a guy with a prescription and murder people. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I what I really want is for them to be more judicious. Not that the militarization is bad per se, but it being misdirected is.
Even then, the duty of the police extends to the people they're arresting. Not so with the military. The military have an enemy, the police do not. The police are not empowered to dispense justice and should not be.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
There might be some confounding factor like the fact that the US has gun homicide rates ten to forty times higher than those countries to begin with.
Still, I feel like the police in the US have more of a warzone mentality even before you consider the guns. It's them against the public, and it shouldn't be.
I mean it's like a one-size-fits-all problem, right? The US has some serious crime and gang problems, and I'd want tough guys and SWAT teams and undercovers. But I also want them to be smart enough not to do shit like tackle college students and send the SWAT team into the house of a guy with a prescription and murder people. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I what I really want is for them to be more judicious. Not that the militarization is bad per se, but it being misdirected is.
Having toys makes you want to use them.
But yes what you describe is very much part of the problem.
Police in America is are also more likely to pull a gun because the odds of your potential suspect having a gun is significantly higher in America then in Europe. Its not about the police not shooting the criminal if they do get assaulted, its that the chance of the police officer being in danger is much higher. It doesn't even matter if the suspect has a gun or not, the perception is there which leads to police officers more likely to pull the trigger.
Police shoot less in Europe because they don't feel in danger as much.
In announcing Tuesday that he had raised less for veterans groups than he had originally claimed, Donald Trump teed off on the the assembled political press, expresssed anger over the scrutiny, and at one point referred to a reporter as a "sleaze."
"What I don’t want is when I raise millions of dollars, have people say this sleazy guy right over here from ABC, he's a sleaze in my book — you're a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well," said Trump.
uring the Trump Tower press conference, Trump announced that he raised $5.6 million for veterans groups, down from the $6 million he originally said that he raised for veterans group at the January fundraiser he held in lieu of attending a Fox News debate. But since his initial claim, it's been unclear just how much Trump raised, how much he personally donated to veterans groups, and which groups received donations as a result of the fundraiser. Trump on Tuesday characterized the number as "almost $6 million."
Throughout the press conference, Trump railed against the press for looking into the details of his fundraiser.
"The press should be ashamed of themselves," he said, telling reporters, "You make me look very bad."
Trump said that he wanted the donations to veterans groups to be "private" and that he didn't want "credit" for the money he raised, and said he was forced to reveal details about the fundraiser because of the press. He also said that it took time for him to send donations to veterans groups because he had to vet the groups.
"The press is so dishonest and so unfair," he lamented.
After Trump complained that the press was "questioning" him over his fundraiser, reporters pressed Trump on his tendency to spew hate at journalists.
On June 01 2016 03:22 Jaaaaasper wrote: Between the Mayor of LA and Governor Brown, Hillary has picked up some serious California Uber Allies.
One could perhaps argue that her ability to quickly and effectively bring necessary people together is an important part of being president. I am left wondering if important endorsements like these would be as easily won by Sanders.
Do police in Europe tend to patrol singlely, in pairs, or in larger groups? I know one factor that affects things some, is that the more people you have in a group, the easier it is to use less force because you have a numbers advantage. (though ofc hostile weapons are still very dangerous). A fair number of places have officers patrolling alone, which helps you have much more area coverage, but means they don't have backup there automatically.
Also in Europe police rarely uses their weapons for will enforcement. A burglar running won't be gunned down here, usually. You ignored a police check with your car? They may chase you but certainly you won't get shot, unless you did way more than that. You didn't get on the floor or bended over your car in 5 seconds after you were told to do so, you still survive. Then again, how after are you told that in Europe? May be a contributing factor as well.
In Germany every shot fired causes an investigation. Compare this to "not even every person shot is filed". And if you look at all the cases of people shot by police forces here in the past year, it is really almost exclusively very direct attacks on police officers or bystanders. I don't even wanna imagine, if American police would have to deal with what happens here on May 1st or at certain soccer matches.
In announcing Tuesday that he had raised less for veterans groups than he had originally claimed, Donald Trump teed off on the the assembled political press, expresssed anger over the scrutiny, and at one point referred to a reporter as a "sleaze."
"What I don’t want is when I raise millions of dollars, have people say this sleazy guy right over here from ABC, he's a sleaze in my book — you're a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well," said Trump.
uring the Trump Tower press conference, Trump announced that he raised $5.6 million for veterans groups, down from the $6 million he originally said that he raised for veterans group at the January fundraiser he held in lieu of attending a Fox News debate. But since his initial claim, it's been unclear just how much Trump raised, how much he personally donated to veterans groups, and which groups received donations as a result of the fundraiser. Trump on Tuesday characterized the number as "almost $6 million."
Throughout the press conference, Trump railed against the press for looking into the details of his fundraiser.
"The press should be ashamed of themselves," he said, telling reporters, "You make me look very bad."
Trump said that he wanted the donations to veterans groups to be "private" and that he didn't want "credit" for the money he raised, and said he was forced to reveal details about the fundraiser because of the press. He also said that it took time for him to send donations to veterans groups because he had to vet the groups.
"The press is so dishonest and so unfair," he lamented.
After Trump complained that the press was "questioning" him over his fundraiser, reporters pressed Trump on his tendency to spew hate at journalists.
Wait, are you guys actually surprised that Brown and Garcetti endorsed Clinton? Lol. As boring news as can be. Although I'm surprised Brown is still mildly coherent.
Satellite radio company SiriusXM has suspended Glenn Beck's syndicated show this week and is "evaluating" the program's place over comments made last week by one of Beck's guests.
...
Beck's slot was filled on the Patriot channel by David Webb on Tuesday. His slot on his own network's SiriusXM channel "The Blaze" was filled by Doc Thompson and Skip LaCombe.
On June 01 2016 03:30 zlefin wrote: Do police in Europe tend to patrol singlely, in pairs, or in larger groups? I know one factor that affects things some, is that the more people you have in a group, the easier it is to use less force because you have a numbers advantage. (though ofc hostile weapons are still very dangerous). A fair number of places have officers patrolling alone, which helps you have much more area coverage, but means they don't have backup there automatically.
In pairs or alone. Well except for riot police for such happenings like May 1st, soccer matches, demonstrations. Then usually "Hundertschaften" (hundreds) are deployed, which are basically groups of 100 policeman specially trained for crowd control.
Trumps attack on the media looking into his claims of donations would be funny if he wasn’t running for president. That is their only job, to look into things and report on them. If he doesn’t want them looking into things, he should just stop running because they won’t stop. Next thing he will be pissed because they are digging into his tax returns and how much he is worth.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
There might be some confounding factor like the fact that the US has gun homicide rates ten to forty times higher than those countries to begin with.
Still, I feel like the police in the US have more of a warzone mentality even before you consider the guns. It's them against the public, and it shouldn't be.
I mean it's like a one-size-fits-all problem, right? The US has some serious crime and gang problems, and I'd want tough guys and SWAT teams and undercovers. But I also want them to be smart enough not to do shit like tackle college students and send the SWAT team into the house of a guy with a prescription and murder people. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I what I really want is for them to be more judicious. Not that the militarization is bad per se, but it being misdirected is.
Even then, the duty of the police extends to the people they're arresting. Not so with the military. The military have an enemy, the police do not. The police are not empowered to dispense justice and should not be.
Where do active shooters and hostage situations fall into this? My thing is I don't believe courts should be able to use the death penalty because it inevitably leads to dead innocent people. But in the real world, when someone isn't in air conditioned custody having been fingerprinted and arraigned and given counsel, it seems like there's an urgency where there's people you have no choice but to shoot.
On June 01 2016 03:30 zlefin wrote: Do police in Europe tend to patrol singlely, in pairs, or in larger groups? I know one factor that affects things some, is that the more people you have in a group, the easier it is to use less force because you have a numbers advantage. (though ofc hostile weapons are still very dangerous). A fair number of places have officers patrolling alone, which helps you have much more area coverage, but means they don't have backup there automatically.
alone only under 'normal' conditions, aka not expecting trouble. We have a police shortage just like everywhere else so there have been more solo patrols in the last 2 decades but when possible they still use pairs.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
There might be some confounding factor like the fact that the US has gun homicide rates ten to forty times higher than those countries to begin with.
Still, I feel like the police in the US have more of a warzone mentality even before you consider the guns. It's them against the public, and it shouldn't be.
I mean it's like a one-size-fits-all problem, right? The US has some serious crime and gang problems, and I'd want tough guys and SWAT teams and undercovers. But I also want them to be smart enough not to do shit like tackle college students and send the SWAT team into the house of a guy with a prescription and murder people. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I what I really want is for them to be more judicious. Not that the militarization is bad per se, but it being misdirected is.
Even then, the duty of the police extends to the people they're arresting. Not so with the military. The military have an enemy, the police do not. The police are not empowered to dispense justice and should not be.
Where do active shooters and hostage situations fall into this? My thing is I don't believe courts should be able to use the death penalty because it inevitably leads to dead innocent people. But in the real world, when someone isn't in air conditioned custody having been fingerprinted and arraigned and given counsel, it seems like there's an urgency where there's people you have no choice but to shoot.
If you pull a gun on a cop they are allowed to shoot you, and hostage situations are normally dealt with by specifically trained (swat) teams.
The main difference is that pulling a gun is a complete last resort measure which is simply not the case in the US.
On June 01 2016 00:24 Mohdoo wrote: I don't think this is a remotely normal circumstance, though. If it was a simple matter of using a private server, checkmate. She'd be in prison right now. I have not seen anything demonstrating why she, and only she, should be thrown in prison.
My recollection of the criminal statute is that we're dealing with a negligence standard. Whenever negligence is involved, what we're really asking is whether someone exercised "reasonable care," which can be a really complicated inquiry. Does the fact that Hillary used a private email server constitute breach of the duty of reasonable care? Maybe not. Does the answer change if the private email server that Hillary used was not properly fortified against cyberattacks? Almost certainly, yes. I'm also curious as to whether Hillary passed along classified information to unauthorized third parties with her private email server.
Beyond security issues, the other big issue lurking out there is whether Hillary used her private email server to skirt FOIA laws and other federal record keeping requirements.
Do you think there will be a need to distinguish Clinton from other SoC's? Or do you think they might even just go after everyone who did this for the sake of getting her? I really get the feeling that the golden ticket right now is to find some way to say Clinton uniquely did bad things. Do you agree?
You keep saying this...? Who else had a private off-site email server?
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
There might be some confounding factor like the fact that the US has gun homicide rates ten to forty times higher than those countries to begin with.
Still, I feel like the police in the US have more of a warzone mentality even before you consider the guns. It's them against the public, and it shouldn't be.
I mean it's like a one-size-fits-all problem, right? The US has some serious crime and gang problems, and I'd want tough guys and SWAT teams and undercovers. But I also want them to be smart enough not to do shit like tackle college students and send the SWAT team into the house of a guy with a prescription and murder people. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I what I really want is for them to be more judicious. Not that the militarization is bad per se, but it being misdirected is.
Even then, the duty of the police extends to the people they're arresting. Not so with the military. The military have an enemy, the police do not. The police are not empowered to dispense justice and should not be.
Where do active shooters and hostage situations fall into this? My thing is I don't believe courts should be able to use the death penalty because it inevitably leads to dead innocent people. But in the real world, when someone isn't in air conditioned custody having been fingerprinted and arraigned and given counsel, it seems like there's an urgency where there's people you have no choice but to shoot.
When the police are forced to kill someone to end an active danger to innocents then they should be empowered to do so but doing so is not justice and should not be considered such. Those situations are failures, not successes. It may be the least bad outcome of many bad possibilities but it is never a good outcome, the state took the life of a citizen without affording him the rights and protections normally given to all citizens.
Satellite radio company SiriusXM has suspended Glenn Beck's syndicated show this week and is "evaluating" the program's place over comments made last week by one of Beck's guests.
...
Beck's slot was filled on the Patriot channel by David Webb on Tuesday. His slot on his own network's SiriusXM channel "The Blaze" was filled by Doc Thompson and Skip LaCombe.
Should have been Jim Webb imo.
Beck has really gone off the rails. He's incredibly talented and used to be very entertaining. Then he developed this messiah complex back when he had his FNC show, and it all went downhill to crazy town.
EPT
