|
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 June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: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.
The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger.
|
On June 01 2016 03:34 Introvert wrote:
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.
Edit: what a great post 2000 lol.
I mean if even Govenor Moonbeam, who was basically Bernie with more principles, won't endorse Sanders, that coffin is more nails than coffin.
|
The US state department has issued a travel alert for Europe, cautioning Americans that the influx of summer tourists and a series of high-profile events “will present greater targets for terrorists planning attacks in public locations”.
“We are alerting US citizens to the risk of potential terrorist attacks throughout Europe, targeting major events, tourist sites, restaurants, commercial centers and transportation,” department officials wrote.
The alert came just hours after the French president, François Hollande, said that terrorism remained the biggest threat to the Uefa Euro 2016 football championship, which is scheduled in June and July.
Announcing the alert, the state department said: “Euro Cup stadiums, fan zones, and unaffiliated entertainment venues broadcasting the tournaments in France and across Europe represent potential targets for terrorists, as do other large-scale sporting events and public gathering places throughout Europe.”
The alert noted that France has extended its state of emergency through 26 July to cover the championship and the Tour de France.
The State Department also mentioned the Catholic church’s World Youth Day, which begins 26 July in Krakow, which it said is expected to draw 2.5 million visitors.
The travel alert follows terrorist attacks in November in Paris and in March in Brussels, which killed 130 and 32 people respectively. The US previously issued a global travel alert following the attacks in Paris, and issued a travel alert for Europe specially after the attacks in Brussels. In March, the State Department encouraged citizens to “exercise vigilance when in public places or using mass transportation”.
Unlike travel warnings, travel alerts are issued for a defined period of time around short-term events, according to the state department’s website. Travel warnings are issued when the state department wants “you to consider very carefully whether you should go to a country at all”.
The travel alert for Europe is scheduled to expire on 31 August.
Source
|
On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger.
Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience.
In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police.
|
At this point, is there even any hope that the "state of emergency" will ever end in France? There is always another convenient thing to be covered ...
The probability of dying from a terrorist attack is still laughable compared to almost every other possible cause of death. If an American goes to Europe, driving to the airport is probably more dangerous ... So this "alert" is just another facet of this nonsense.
|
On June 01 2016 04:03 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 03:34 Introvert wrote:
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.
Edit: what a great post 2000 lol. I mean if even Govenor Moonbeam, who was basically Bernie with more principles, won't endorse Sanders, that coffin is more nails than coffin.
Didn't Gov Brown pretty much openly support Hillary from the very beginning, endorsement or no? I definitely remember him singing her praise in a big way in an interview before Iowa.
|
On June 01 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger. Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience. In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police.
Police are not supposed to us lethal force unless they feel their life is threatened. The main issue is that the system is willing to accept almost anything as being life threatening. We put special faith in police officers judgment, while also offering them special protections and expect the police departments police their own.
I have no problem with lethal force, but I have a problem with the very slight amount of accountability the police have for using it and resistance to reporting on it when they do.
|
United States43582 Posts
On June 01 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger. Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience. In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police.
While I acknowledge that people can and do die as a result of shoves, punches, kicks and so forth I really cannot accept that the result of all that training in deescalation, appropriate use of force, teamwork, coordination and so forth that the police do is the immediate escalation to lethal force. In the UK police seem to find it easy enough to disengage and call for backup because although they are aware that their word ought to be enough to obtain compliance they would also rather not push the point until they have to take a life over it.
|
United States43582 Posts
On June 01 2016 04:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger. Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience. In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police. Police are not supposed to us lethal force unless they feel their life is threatened. The main issue is that the system is willing to accept almost anything as being life threatening. We put special faith in police officers judgment, while also offering them special protections and expect the police departments police their own. I have no problem with lethal force, but I have a problem with the very slight amount of accountability the police have for using it and resistance to reporting on it when they do.
And even then they have a responsibility to do all that they can to avoid a situation getting to that point. Resistance must not always be overwhelmed by the immediate escalation of force. Prudent deescalation while resolving the problem should be in the toolbox. There was a recent case in my city where there was a PTSD vet living in the mountains who had a big knife and was acting erratically. One police officer had been talking to him for an hour or so on friendly terms about how they were going to get him down, what fast food they should pick up for him on the way to the station and so forth and was devastated when the rest showed up, pointed their guns at him, saw the knife and shot. The shooting was deemed justified in the context of the knife but the officer who had previously been talking with him quit over it.
|
On June 01 2016 04:25 opisska wrote:
At this point, is there even any hope that the "state of emergency" will ever end in France? There is always another convenient thing to be covered ...
The probability of dying from a terrorist attack is still laughable compared to almost every other possible cause of death. If an American goes to Europe, driving to the airport is probably more dangerous ... So this "alert" is just another facet of this nonsense.
There's been 10 terrorist attacks since 2014. I think with these figures it's hardly nonsense.
Deaths: 163
Injured: 407
That's over half a thousand people subject to extreme violence that should not have happened in the first place.
During Ramadan terrorist organizations have called for extra attacks. Currently with the migrant crisis people have a lot to be worried about. Perhaps because of the recent actions of what France did below they may have saved a lot more lives as well.
Authorities said Wednesday the prayer room in L'Arbresle had been used by extremists suspected of having contacts with others in Syria.
- Huge rise in gun seizures -
Cazeneuve told parliament that there had been 2,235 searches leading to 263 arrests since the three-month state of emergency began.
"In 15 days we have seized a third of the weapons of war we would normally recover in a year," he said.
Of the 334 firearms seized, 145 were rifles and 34 assault weapons.
Cazeneuve said 330 people who had been under surveillance by the security services for links to radical Islam have been put under house arrest.
Since May 2012, France has expelled 65 imams and preachers, 34 of them this year.
Source
France of all countries has good reason to be in a state of emergency. That's a lot of weapons, a lot of preachers, and what the article didn't mention that other articles had mentioned that there was "jihadist" propaganda. Another two months of a state of emergency seems very fair considering the events coming up and the insistence of jihad during Ramadan.
It's especially disconcerting when the NATO commander says something like this.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/refugees-isis-nato-commander-terrorists
|
In these hostile situations with the police, every second counts because of the unknown factor. You are unaware of the person's attitudes, mental state, do they possess deadly weapons and are they willing to use them?
What if we live in a society where police use more descretion and it gets them killed? Those few seconds to reasses the suspect can be dangerous. Are we really going to say that the criminal's life is more important than the cop's life?
|
On June 01 2016 04:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger. Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience. In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police. While I acknowledge that people can and do die as a result of shoves, punches, kicks and so forth I really cannot accept that the result of all that training in deescalation, appropriate use of force, teamwork, coordination and so forth that the police do is the immediate escalation to lethal force. In the UK police seem to find it easy enough to disengage and call for backup because although they are aware that their word ought to be enough to obtain compliance they would also rather not push the point until they have to take a life over it.
I am always reminded of the video of a cop responding to a call of a teenager waving around a gun.
He pulls of his car right next to the kid and steps out of his car on the kids side.
2 seconds later the kid is dead as his hand moved towards the toy gun in his belt.
There are so many steps where the officer could have taken a more safe and defensive approach that would have prevented a situation where he is cornered against an armed suspect.
It always comes to my mind as proof against how bad the deescalation training of US police appears to be.
|
On June 01 2016 04:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:35 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger. Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience. In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police. Police are not supposed to us lethal force unless they feel their life is threatened. The main issue is that the system is willing to accept almost anything as being life threatening. We put special faith in police officers judgment, while also offering them special protections and expect the police departments police their own. I have no problem with lethal force, but I have a problem with the very slight amount of accountability the police have for using it and resistance to reporting on it when they do. And even then they have a responsibility to do all that they can to avoid a situation getting to that point. Resistance must not always be overwhelmed by the immediate escalation of force. Prudent deescalation while resolving the problem should be in the toolbox. There was a recent case in my city where there was a PTSD vet living in the mountains who had a big knife and was acting erratically. One police officer had been talking to him for an hour or so on friendly terms about how they were going to get him down, what fast food they should pick up for him on the way to the station and so forth and was devastated when the rest showed up, pointed their guns at him, saw the knife and shot. The shooting was deemed justified in the context of the knife but the officer who had previously been talking with him quit over it.
This is exactly the problem. And in my opinion the officers who shot him and showed up guns drawn should be charged with homicide, because it was not the only option. But they won’t be and this is why I don’t give police the benefit of the doubt. The system does that for them in spades, so I don’t feel the need at all.
On June 01 2016 04:43 SolaR- wrote:
In these hostile situations with the police, every second counts because of the unknown factor. You are unaware of the person's attitudes, mental state, do they possess deadly weapons and are they willing to use them?
What if we live in a society where police use more descretion and it gets them killed? Those few seconds to reasses the suspect can be dangerous. Are we really going to say that the criminal's life is more important than the cop's life?
In most of these situations, that was not the case. If a cop shoots a kid with a toy gun, there were likely 19 things they could have done to avoid it. The state should not kill people unless forced. In a lot of cases, our soldiers have greater liability in war zones that police do responding to two kids who “might” have guns.
|
On June 01 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger. Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience. In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police.
if someone dies in the operation room, would you ask the doctor that performed the operation wether there might have been a problem with his operation though?
|
United States43582 Posts
On June 01 2016 04:43 SolaR- wrote:
In these hostile situations with the police, every second counts because of the unknown factor. You are unaware of the person's attitudes, mental state, do they possess deadly weapons and are they willing to use them?
What if we live in a society where police use more descretion and it gets them killed? Those few seconds to reasses the suspect can be dangerous. Are we really going to say that the criminal's life is more important than the cop's life?
Yes. The alleged criminal is a citizen, the cop is sworn to protect citizens. Cops should absolutely accept small risks to their safety, for example when they tell someone to produce an ID and the person reaches towards a pocket, to protect the public.
If they're not willing to do that then they should quit. How easy their job must be if they are entitled to take absolutely no risks whatsoever and do anything they feel appropriate in the name of stopping whomever they deem criminal. This shit is why the "blue lives matter" and so forth is so absurd. The narrative automatically turns into whether you want police officers to die and how criminals deserve to die. It's such bullshit. Citizens deserve the protection and respect of the police, even as they are arrested by those same police.
|
On June 01 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: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.
I mean it might be unfortunate in an existential sense, but if someone's killing or trying to kill other humans, haven't they given up those protections? It seems like you're hamstringing the police to say they have no enemies if there are people to whom the police are an enemy.
|
On June 01 2016 04:46 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger. Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience. In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police. if someone dies in the operation room, would you ask the doctor that performed the operation wether there might have been a problem with his operation though?
Yeah, you probably should. Maybe the person really couldn't have been saved and the doctor can explain that he/she did everything they could to try. It's not sufficient in and of itself, but I'd say it's an opinion that should (and I believe it does) hold more value than that of a layman. Cops accused of malpractice should be given the same basic trust.
|
On June 01 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:46 Toadesstern wrote:On June 01 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 03:47 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
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. The bar for “last resort” has been lowered to “the cop felt threatened in some way and can justify using lethal force.” And that removes almost all civil and criminal liability. There is almost no room for the police officer to have made the wrong call, because the standard of proof is if they genuinely felt they were in danger. Perhaps that opinionated standard can be justified by virtue of the fact that police are supposed to be trained professionals who should know what "justified in using lethal force" should look like, the same way that a doctor's opinion is justified by the fact that a doctor is an expert. Though it would be a fair counterargument that not all police are well-trained and that it is possible to make a bad judgment without being malicious by virtue of poor training or inexperience. In any case, while perhaps the officer may act rashly, assaulting an officer is generally a big no-no and can very easily reasonably justify lethal force. Even fisticuffs can be fatal and US emergency workers (incl. policemen) often strongly emphasize the idea of "protect yourself before helping others" (I don't know enough about European workers to know if they do the same). Whether or not other shootings are justified, and whether or not some cases involve actions that do not quite qualify as assault, is another matter. But genuine assault -> lethal force is not a wrongdoing on the part of the police. if someone dies in the operation room, would you ask the doctor that performed the operation wether there might have been a problem with his operation though? Yeah, you probably should. Maybe the person really couldn't have been saved and the doctor can explain that he/she did everything they could to try. It's not sufficient in and of itself, but I'd say it's an opinion that should (and I believe it does) hold more value than that of a layman. Cops accused of malpractice should be given the same basic trust.
but then you agree with what was said before. That just the statement of the officer in question alone should not be all that's needed.
|
United States43582 Posts
On June 01 2016 04:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 03:16 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:28 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2016 02:23 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: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. I mean it might be unfortunate in an existential sense, but if someone's killing or trying to kill other humans, haven't they given up those protections? It seems like you're hamstringing the police to say they have no enemies if there are people to whom the police are an enemy.
Justice is dispensed through the legal structures we have built and includes a jury of your peers, a judge, legal defence and so forth. That is how we do it. If we get to decide for someone else that they have forfeited those then suddenly we're in really shitty territory. Sometimes the immediate use of force in a split second decision is necessary, I get that. But this idea in America that this is a success is absurd, a citizen was killed by the state without affording them their rights as a member of society. It should exist only as the least bad failure, something that they should try to avoid but try to avoid less than the death of innocents.
Hell, facebook is full of Americans vowing to literally murder any "faggots" who try to use public bathrooms right now because, in the opinion of those Americans, dressing in an ambiguous manner forfeits your right to be treated like a decent human being. I think it preferable that legal rights be viewed as absolutes rather than as things which can be discarded based upon your feelings towards the individual.
|
On June 01 2016 04:43 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:25 opisska wrote:
At this point, is there even any hope that the "state of emergency" will ever end in France? There is always another convenient thing to be covered ...
The probability of dying from a terrorist attack is still laughable compared to almost every other possible cause of death. If an American goes to Europe, driving to the airport is probably more dangerous ... So this "alert" is just another facet of this nonsense. There's been 10 terrorist attacks since 2014. I think with these figures it's hardly nonsense. Deaths: 163 Injured: 407 That's over half a thousand people subject to extreme violence that should not have happened in the first place. During Ramadan terrorist organizations have called for extra attacks. Currently with the migrant crisis people have a lot to be worried about. Perhaps because of the recent actions of what France did below they may have saved a lot more lives as well. Show nested quote +Authorities said Wednesday the prayer room in L'Arbresle had been used by extremists suspected of having contacts with others in Syria.
- Huge rise in gun seizures -
Cazeneuve told parliament that there had been 2,235 searches leading to 263 arrests since the three-month state of emergency began.
"In 15 days we have seized a third of the weapons of war we would normally recover in a year," he said.
Of the 334 firearms seized, 145 were rifles and 34 assault weapons.
Cazeneuve said 330 people who had been under surveillance by the security services for links to radical Islam have been put under house arrest.
Since May 2012, France has expelled 65 imams and preachers, 34 of them this year. Source France of all countries has good reason to be in a state of emergency. That's a lot of weapons, a lot of preachers, and what the article didn't mention that other articles had mentioned that there was "jihadist" propaganda. Another two months of a state of emergency seems very fair considering the events coming up and the insistence of jihad during Ramadan. It's especially disconcerting when the NATO commander says something like this. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/refugees-isis-nato-commander-terrorists
163 people dead in 2.5 years. Over which area does your statistic go? Even if that was just EU, we have half a billion people, meaning that at least 15 milion people died here from other causes during 2.5 years. The number of terrorist victims is laughably small and all the money that goes to "security" would have saved orders of magnitude more lives if put into almost anything more useful such as healthcare or road safety.
Again, I don't know what is the exact interpretation of your number, but EU seems conservative. That means that you have a 1 in 100,000 chance to die in a terrorist attack if you lived here for your whole life. There are probably hundreds of things that you would consider totally laughable to be worried about that have a larger chance to kill you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
