|
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. |
We should take this particular discussion to the EU thread as it's not pertaining directly to US politics.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 01 2016 04:54 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
If they are accused of wrongly shooting someone? No, of course it's not enough to exonerate an officer from his word alone. However, their own opinion, as a trained officer, should be taken as the word of a trained professional, and treated with the same respect that a doctor's opinion should be. If the evidence shows genuine wrongdoing (e.g. evidence that the situation was not as described, perhaps that the officer shot someone who was not a threat) or if he is contradicted by other, reliable specialists (e.g. other policemen argue that that is a shitty justification for force and the situation really didn't call for that action) then that's enough to show that the officer did act wrongly. In general, though, an officer knows significantly better than most what qualifies as a dangerous situation, so by default any of those "questionably fair" cases should favor the officers rather than the assaulter.
|
On June 01 2016 05:03 SK.Testie wrote:
We should take this particular discussion to the EU thread as it's not pertaining directly to US politics.
Sure, but acknowledging that it was actually StealthBlue responsible for the offtopic 
|
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?
There is a reason Doctors have patients sign off on operations. All the discussion, discourse, conversations, etc... That happens before the operation. In police work its the opposite, where the paperwork is put together after the operation.
|
United States42692 Posts
On June 01 2016 05:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:54 Toadesstern wrote:On June 01 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If they are accused of wrongly shooting someone? No, of course it's not enough to exonerate an officer from his word alone. However, their own opinion, as a trained officer, should be taken as the word of a trained professional, and treated with the same respect that a doctor's opinion should be. If the evidence shows genuine wrongdoing (e.g. evidence that the situation was not as described, perhaps that the officer shot someone who was not a threat) or if he is contradicted by other, reliable specialists (e.g. other policemen argue that that is a shitty justification for force and the situation really didn't call for that action) then that's enough to show that the officer did act wrongly. In general, though, an officer knows significantly better than most what qualifies as a dangerous situation, so by default any of those "questionably fair" cases should favor the officers rather than the assaulter.
If doctors had a long history of closing ranks around one of their own and lying to cover for them due to an us vs them mentality and the harassment of whistleblowers then I think we'd probably not rely on them very much to tell us whether the first doctor fucked up.
In the case I linked a page ago where five police officers beat the shit out of an unarmed, surrendered suspect lying face down on the ground, all five swore that the use of force was justified. About the only time a police officer will suggest wrongdoing by another police officer is when they accidentally shoot one of their own.
This idea that we should view their testimony as more reliable and informed than our own is in no way backed up by facts. Quite the opposite, we should view them with extreme suspicion due to the difficulty that honest testimony would cause them.
|
On June 01 2016 05:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:54 Toadesstern wrote:On June 01 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If they are accused of wrongly shooting someone? No, of course it's not enough to exonerate an officer from his word alone. However, their own opinion, as a trained officer, should be taken as the word of a trained professional, and treated with the same respect that a doctor's opinion should be. If the evidence shows genuine wrongdoing (e.g. evidence that the situation was not as described, perhaps that the officer shot someone who was not a threat) or if he is contradicted by other, reliable specialists (e.g. other policemen argue that that is a shitty justification for force and the situation really didn't call for that action) then that's enough to show that the officer did act wrongly. In general, though, an officer knows significantly better than most what qualifies as a dangerous situation, so by default any of those "questionably fair" cases should favor the officers rather than the assaulter.
that'd be nice; but given the number of police departments which have been federally charged for and proven to have repeated serious rights violations, I think a sterner standard is required.
|
The easiest way to get Trump in trouble is to simply ask him provocative questions. It's clear that his ignorance on pretty much every issue is staggering. Coupled with his demagogue nature, he has time and time again shown he is willing to give absurd answers without thinking through the consequences.
Just start asking questions like:
- Do you think the media has a right to question you?
- Do you believe you are accountable to anybody?
- Should the military do anything you want them to, regardless of regulations?
- Should the government investigate media people who attack you?
- If you are President, should you be allowed to serve more than 2 terms?
Let the hilarity ensue.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 01 2016 05:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 04:54 Toadesstern wrote:On June 01 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If they are accused of wrongly shooting someone? No, of course it's not enough to exonerate an officer from his word alone. However, their own opinion, as a trained officer, should be taken as the word of a trained professional, and treated with the same respect that a doctor's opinion should be. If the evidence shows genuine wrongdoing (e.g. evidence that the situation was not as described, perhaps that the officer shot someone who was not a threat) or if he is contradicted by other, reliable specialists (e.g. other policemen argue that that is a shitty justification for force and the situation really didn't call for that action) then that's enough to show that the officer did act wrongly. In general, though, an officer knows significantly better than most what qualifies as a dangerous situation, so by default any of those "questionably fair" cases should favor the officers rather than the assaulter. that'd be nice; but given the number of police departments which have been federally charged for and proven to have repeated serious rights violations, I think a sterner standard is required.
Sure, it's fair to say that a lot of local police depts don't do a good job of having proper conduct in the matter. I'd personally support the creation of a federal police administration that governs all the state/local PDs, as much of a states rights landmine as that would be. Nevertheless, unless proven to be acting in bad faith, under the current system the police officer should have that basic trust given to him/her.
|
|
|
On June 01 2016 04:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
We have been over this before.
SCOTUS ruled in 2005 that the police are indeed not sworn to protect the public (at least not from harm). Almost any dictionary definition you can find will tell you that the function of the police is to uphold the law and maintain public order. There is nothing in there about protection of the public.
Now, you can say that you WISH the police was sworn to protect the public, or that you WANT them to be. But passing it off as fact is erroneous.
|
United States42692 Posts
On June 01 2016 05:40 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 04:47 KwarK wrote: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. We have been over this before. SCOTUS ruled in 2005 that the police are indeed not sworn to protect the public (at least not from harm). Almost any dictionary definition you can find will tell you that the function of the police is to uphold the law and maintain public order. There is nothing in there about protection of the public. Now, you can say that you WISH the police was sworn to protect the public, or that you WANT them to be. But passing it off as fact is erroneous.
I didn't realize my opinions had to conform with the SCOTUS. I thought it was implied that I was saying how things ought to be, not what they are. How they are is corrupt, often racist, certainly highly influenced by mob mentality, underpaid and yet somehow still overpaid given their service.
Oh, and stupid. They literally refuse to hire people who score too highly on entry intelligence tests. They don't like intelligence.
|
On June 01 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 05:08 zlefin wrote:On June 01 2016 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 04:54 Toadesstern wrote:On June 01 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If they are accused of wrongly shooting someone? No, of course it's not enough to exonerate an officer from his word alone. However, their own opinion, as a trained officer, should be taken as the word of a trained professional, and treated with the same respect that a doctor's opinion should be. If the evidence shows genuine wrongdoing (e.g. evidence that the situation was not as described, perhaps that the officer shot someone who was not a threat) or if he is contradicted by other, reliable specialists (e.g. other policemen argue that that is a shitty justification for force and the situation really didn't call for that action) then that's enough to show that the officer did act wrongly. In general, though, an officer knows significantly better than most what qualifies as a dangerous situation, so by default any of those "questionably fair" cases should favor the officers rather than the assaulter. that'd be nice; but given the number of police departments which have been federally charged for and proven to have repeated serious rights violations, I think a sterner standard is required. Sure, it's fair to say that a lot of local police depts don't do a good job of having proper conduct in the matter. I'd personally support the creation of a federal police administration that governs all the state/local PDs, as much of a states rights landmine as that would be. Nevertheless, unless proven to be acting in bad faith, under the current system the police officer should have that basic trust given to him/her.
No, every single incident involving shots fired should be investigated, we should certainly not trust someones word when a person has died.
And incase your wondering, yes that is normal procedure around here.
|
On June 01 2016 05:38 ticklishmusic wrote:Bernie's Rolling Stone interviewNow imagine what would happen if Hillary said some of the stuff he said lol Apologies if this has been posted already
Incredible. What a complete buffoon.
Q:You've lit a fire under a young generation of progressives – brought them out in droves to the Democratic Party's primary process. What does the party have to do to keep them there?
A: That's a good question. Unlike all your other dumb questions.
my god.
edit:
Q: What has this campaign taught you about yourself? Has it changed you?
A: [Swats at the air with disgust as if batting the words to the ground] Next question!
I don't understand this.
|
On June 01 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 05:08 zlefin wrote:On June 01 2016 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2016 04:54 Toadesstern wrote:On June 01 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If they are accused of wrongly shooting someone? No, of course it's not enough to exonerate an officer from his word alone. However, their own opinion, as a trained officer, should be taken as the word of a trained professional, and treated with the same respect that a doctor's opinion should be. If the evidence shows genuine wrongdoing (e.g. evidence that the situation was not as described, perhaps that the officer shot someone who was not a threat) or if he is contradicted by other, reliable specialists (e.g. other policemen argue that that is a shitty justification for force and the situation really didn't call for that action) then that's enough to show that the officer did act wrongly. In general, though, an officer knows significantly better than most what qualifies as a dangerous situation, so by default any of those "questionably fair" cases should favor the officers rather than the assaulter. that'd be nice; but given the number of police departments which have been federally charged for and proven to have repeated serious rights violations, I think a sterner standard is required. Sure, it's fair to say that a lot of local police depts don't do a good job of having proper conduct in the matter. I'd personally support the creation of a federal police administration that governs all the state/local PDs, as much of a states rights landmine as that would be. Nevertheless, unless proven to be acting in bad faith, under the current system the police officer should have that basic trust given to him/her. No, every single incident involving shots fired should be investigated, we should certainly not trust someones word when a person has died. And incase your wondering, yes that is normal procedure around here.
Also, this might be obvious to europeans, but sadly it is not to americans: Investigated by an independent organisation that is not involved with the people doing the shooting. Especially NOT by any part of the same police department that did the shooting.
|
Most americans are aware of that point as well; it's just hard to push institutional change. But alot of us are pushing for such a change to happen.
|
On June 01 2016 05:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 05:40 Ghostcom wrote:On June 01 2016 04:47 KwarK wrote: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. We have been over this before. SCOTUS ruled in 2005 that the police are indeed not sworn to protect the public (at least not from harm). Almost any dictionary definition you can find will tell you that the function of the police is to uphold the law and maintain public order. There is nothing in there about protection of the public. Now, you can say that you WISH the police was sworn to protect the public, or that you WANT them to be. But passing it off as fact is erroneous. I didn't realize my opinions had to conform with the SCOTUS. I thought it was implied that I was saying how things ought to be, not what they are. How they are is corrupt, often racist, certainly highly influenced by mob mentality, underpaid and yet somehow still overpaid given their service. Oh, and stupid. They literally refuse to hire people who score too highly on entry intelligence tests. They don't like intelligence.
I generally agree/like your posts Kwark, but this one is just horrible.
You are drawing conclusions for the majority from select publicized incidents. The fact is it is much harder to become a police officer nowadays and they almost expect you to have college experience, if not degrees, in order to join many departments.
To give a blanket statement that all cops are corrupt is laughable and not based in any reality. Literally every second of every day cops are interacting with the public in this country. Compared to that, the number of "bad incidents" we hear about is quite small.
Last, saying they are "overpaid given their service" is a shockingly petty and ignorant statement to come from somebody as intelligent as you. Looking at the services in society, and their value, Police are likely one of the most underpaid services in the country, not the other way around.
|
On June 01 2016 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:Incredible. What a complete buffoon. Show nested quote +
Q:You've lit a fire under a young generation of progressives – brought them out in droves to the Democratic Party's primary process. What does the party have to do to keep them there?
A: That's a good question. Unlike all your other dumb questions.
my god. edit: Show nested quote +
Q: What has this campaign taught you about yourself? Has it changed you?
A: [Swats at the air with disgust as if batting the words to the ground] Next question!
I don't understand this.
You cut off the rest of that quote where it is 100% clear he is joking and he mocks himself for being “to subtle”. I understand you don’t like the guy, but avoid misquoting him.
Edit: Are people confused that Kwark was joking around? Did we go full Poe's law?
|
On June 01 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:On June 01 2016 05:38 ticklishmusic wrote:Bernie's Rolling Stone interviewNow imagine what would happen if Hillary said some of the stuff he said lol Apologies if this has been posted already Incredible. What a complete buffoon.
Q:You've lit a fire under a young generation of progressives – brought them out in droves to the Democratic Party's primary process. What does the party have to do to keep them there?
A: That's a good question. Unlike all your other dumb questions.
my god. edit:
Q: What has this campaign taught you about yourself? Has it changed you?
A: [Swats at the air with disgust as if batting the words to the ground] Next question!
I don't understand this. You cut off the rest of that quote where it is 100% clear he is joking and he mocks himself for being “to subtle”. I understand you don’t like the guy, but avoid misquoting him.
I wasn't trying to misquote him and I think that part is dumb. First he refused to answer a lot of questions honestly. Then he pretends they were bad questions. Dodging the question, then making a big silly statement to shift gears is annoying. Not exactly the worst a politician has done, but Sanders' refusal to admit there are some things worth addressing is dumb.
|
On June 01 2016 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:On June 01 2016 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:On June 01 2016 05:38 ticklishmusic wrote:Bernie's Rolling Stone interviewNow imagine what would happen if Hillary said some of the stuff he said lol Apologies if this has been posted already Incredible. What a complete buffoon.
Q:You've lit a fire under a young generation of progressives – brought them out in droves to the Democratic Party's primary process. What does the party have to do to keep them there?
A: That's a good question. Unlike all your other dumb questions.
my god. edit:
Q: What has this campaign taught you about yourself? Has it changed you?
A: [Swats at the air with disgust as if batting the words to the ground] Next question!
I don't understand this. You cut off the rest of that quote where it is 100% clear he is joking and he mocks himself for being “to subtle”. I understand you don’t like the guy, but avoid misquoting him. I misquote him and I think that part is dumb.
Glad you agree that it is bad to edit down quotes to exactly the parts you want.
|
I'm not important enough to get interviewed 
I wonder how badly I'll do in them if I ever manage to get that far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
