| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
For all of the excessive force arguments, I think you will be hard pressed to find people who agree that officers should avoid lethal force for those who are trying to kill them. The problem arises if the officer only thinks someone's trying to kill them. But i guess a country that still clings to the death penalty wouldn't really be able to grasp that concept. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:36 killa_robot wrote: That's not remotely true. Like, at all. Not even a bit. Yea most use of force policies allow for the use of lethal force in situations where your life is in immediate danger to preserve the right of self-defense. We only have eye-witness testimonies but if he was in fact reaching for his firearm, then he's presenting an immediate threat to others lives and the use of any means necessary, including lethal force, to stop him from killing others is authorized. On July 11 2016 05:40 Gorsameth wrote: The rest of the world manages to make deadly force a measure of completely last resort. Sadly the US, mostly through incompetent training, has not yet caught on. In both recent cases the police had plenty of other options available to them, outside of the US both men would be alive today. There's a lot of 'if x then he'd still be alive today' scenarios you could posit I don't know what your point is. Deadly force is the last resort here as well, but an immediate threat to your own life or that of others is precisely when that line is to be crossed. The problem is applying it in real life scenarios which is not an easy thing, which goes back to your concerns with proper training. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:25 Cowboy24 wrote: Of course I do. Alton Sterling should not have had an illegal gun, should not have resisted arrest, should not have attempted to retrieve a deadly weapon from his pocket during a violent struggle. "Reasonable" resolutions require both parties to be reasonable people. Sterling was not reasonable. It is absurd to suggest the cops should be restrained with a man who is actively attempting to murder them. The cops should not have escalated the situation to a physical confrontation to begin with. Cops should be held to a higher standard of skill and professionalism, not a lower one. The assertion that cops aren't paid enough? That's a good one. Check your facts on that one; police officers in the united states are solidly middle class and enjoy good pay, good benefits, and strong legal protections against any accusation of misbehavior. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:40 Gorsameth wrote: The rest of the world manages to make deadly force a measure of completely last resort. Sadly the US, mostly through incompetent training, has not yet caught on. In both recent cases the police had plenty of other options available to them, outside of the US both men would be alive today. The rest of the world doesn't have the same gun culture the US does, and the places that do face very similar issues. Not to mention all the years of racism that is so deep seeded on both sides that neither side is willing to trust the other. I mean, I get that you want it to be that way, but to say "the rest of the world can do it therefore so can we" is just ignoring all the reasons why it is the way it is. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:43 Bigtony wrote: The cops should not have escalated the situation to a physical confrontation to begin with. Cops should be held to a higher standard of skill and professionalism, not a lower one. You're saying the cops escalated it to a physical confrontation? Where is your evidence for this? If the man is breaking the law then the cops have every right to restrain and arrest him. That isn't 'escalating the situation to physical confrontation'. That's just them doing their job. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:45 killa_robot wrote: The rest of the world doesn't have the same gun culture the US does, and the places that do face very similar issues. Not to mention all the years of racism that is so deep seeded on both sides that neither side is willing to trust the other. I mean, I get that you want it to be that way, but to say "the rest of the world can do it therefore so can we" is just ignoring all the reasons why it is the way it is. Absolutely gun culture and racism are huge parts of the problem. So is the garbage training police receive, their apparent lack of ability to deescalate anything, and the fact that much of the public are completely blind thinking that no problems actually exist. People that apologize for the police and the system 100% of the time. People can only scream "FIX IT" so much. So when does something actually get fixed? Why does every single police officer not have a dozen body cams at this point let alone 1 (that doesn't "fall off")? We can't fix gun culture but we can sure as hell fix the other things and we don't. "We live in a country where trained cops are allowed to panic and act on impulse and untrained citizens are expected to remain calm and follow directions while a gun is pointed in their face." | ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:40 Gorsameth wrote: The rest of the world manages to make deadly force a measure of completely last resort. Sadly the US, mostly through incompetent training, has not yet caught on. In both recent cases the police had plenty of other options available to them, outside of the US both men would be alive today. If Alton Sterling had not reached for a gun, he would still be alive. He is solely responsible for his own death. On July 11 2016 05:43 Bigtony wrote: The cops should not have escalated the situation to a physical confrontation to begin with. Cops should be held to a higher standard of skill and professionalism, not a lower one. The assertion that cops aren't paid enough? That's a good one. Check your facts on that one; police officers in the united states are solidly middle class and enjoy good pay, good benefits, and strong legal protections against any accusation of misbehavior. If you want crisis-negotiation experts who are also qualified to police officers you: 1) Won't have enough cops (crisis-negotiation requires a lot of expensive training and a specific type of person. Most people are not qualified for crisis negotiation, no matter how much training they receive.) 2) Will have to pay them much more, as you will have raised the job-requirements to that of a highly-trained professional. Think six-figure numbers. edit: I would be fine with body-cams, more training, etc. but that requires more funding. And you can't expect the behavior before you provide the funding/training. You have to give the funding/training first, then expect people to act on it. You cannot expect people to act on training/funding they have not received. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
It seems to me like EVERYONE here agrees cops SHOULD HAVE body-cams. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22478 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:45 killa_robot wrote: The rest of the world doesn't have the same gun culture the US does, and the places that do face very similar issues. Not to mention all the years of racism that is so deep seeded on both sides that neither side is willing to trust the other. I mean, I get that you want it to be that way, but to say "the rest of the world can do it therefore so can we" is just ignoring all the reasons why it is the way it is. That is the problem with American Exceptionalism (the bad kind). Instead of saying "It wont work here because of X" you should be asking "How can we make it work here" and the first step in that is to have properly trainer police officers who are capable of dealing with situations without requiring the use of deadly force. US cops have a lot more situations in which they will be forced to kill a suspect. I don't deny that but in almost all these cases that make the news over outrage (if not all of them) its easy to identify the step where the officer decides to resort to deadly force (by drawing his weapon, before he even fires it) where he had plenty of other options available. A man who is on the ground with 2 officers trying to subdue him (and he was tasered?) should never be able to get in a position where he can reach for a pocket, pull out a gun and threaten someone with it. If he can that is a failure of the officers in question to properly use the training they should have had (but probably don't). | ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Has anyone here actually argued AGAINST body-cams on cops? It seems to me like EVERYONE here agrees cops SHOULD HAVE body-cams. I like them because they can protect the cops. I don't like them because they will allow every Tom, Dick, and Sally to second guess the cop from behind a computer screen, after hours of calm deliberation; never thinking about the fact that they are second-guessing a dude who was facing down an armed criminal, under extreme stress, in a very fast-paced situation. It's the same thing with allowing the press into combat situations. Sure, you might catch some people doing something they shouldn't be doing, but you will also run the risk of paralyzing your military/cops because they are constantly second-guessing themselves. On a cost-benefit analysis, I think the risk of some cops/military getting away with atrocities is less than the risk of hamstringing cops and military because they are afraid of being judged unfairly (which happens very, very often). So, I would normally say "no" to body-cams, but I think the public desire for them is strong enough to outweigh the obvious and very real problems with an over-analyzed, sensationalist, arm-chair judge society. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Has anyone here actually argued AGAINST body-cams on cops? It seems to me like EVERYONE here agrees cops SHOULD HAVE body-cams. Some police departments and Unions have pushed back against being required to use body cameras, just like they did when the dash camera was introduced. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:59 Cowboy24 wrote: I like them because they can protect the cops. I don't like them because they will allow every Tom, Dick, and Sally to second guess the cop from behind a computer screen, after hours of calm deliberation; never thinking about the fact that they are second-guessing a dude who was facing down an armed criminal, under extreme stress, in a very fast-paced situation. It's the same thing with allowing the press into combat situations. Sure, you might catch some people doing something they shouldn't be doing, but you will also run the risk of paralyzing your military/cops because they are constantly second-guessing themselves. On a cost-benefit analysis, I think the risk of some cops/military getting away with atrocities is less than the risk of hamstringing cops and military because they are afraid of being judged unfairly (which happens very, very often). So, I would normally say "no" to body-cams, but I think the public desire for them is strong enough to outweigh the obvious and very real problems with an over-analyzed, sensationalist, arm-chair judge society. I didn't really consider that disadvantage. I still consider the pros to outweigh the cons on this significantly. Especially because every single time a black man is shot by cops, the public outroar is that cops are assassinating innocent blacks on a regular basis. Keeping them accountable is a big step towards improving public trust. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
I don't like them because they will allow every Tom, Dick, and Sally to second guess the cop from behind a computer screen, after hours of calm deliberation; never thinking about the fact that they are second-guessing a dude who was facing down an armed criminal, under extreme stress, in a very fast-paced situation. This isn't really exclusive to cops as is though. Plenty of other professions are already subject to rigorous, after-the-fact scrutiny of time-sensitive life-or-death decisions they made under pressure. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Has anyone here actually argued AGAINST body-cams on cops? It seems to me like EVERYONE here agrees cops SHOULD HAVE body-cams. I don't recall anyone on TL being against them, though maybe some people are. I know there are lunatics out there who are against them. No reasonable person can be against them. At this point its completely absurd every cop in America doesn't have one. "They cost money". Know what else costs money? All that military equipment, lawsuits, dead people, terrible police that can't be held accountable without something like video evidence. All that crap costs money but no one bats an eye. When a cop assaults or kills someone the taxpayers have to fork out millions to the person/family. That money could have bought a hell of a lot of cameras! There's really no excuse at this point. Guess I was wrong, some people here do think police are beyond reproach. | ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:54 Gorsameth wrote: A man who is on the ground with 2 officers trying to subdue him (and he was tasered?) should never be able to get in a position where he can reach for a pocket, pull out a gun and threaten someone with it. If he can that is a failure of the officers in question to properly use the training they should have had (but probably don't). This is exactly what I am talking about with the "second-guessing". You have not provided any reasonable scenario in which cops are supposed to prevent Sterling from doing what he is doing, but you feel as though something could have been done differently. You bring up irrelevant things like "on the ground" and "tasered". A person on the ground is just as capable of producing and firing a weapon. A person who has been tasered is sometimes not incapacitated in any way, and due to adrenaline, may actually have become more dangerous. Trying to subdue a grown man with 6 people can be difficult, with 2 it becomes close to impossible (find two friends and try to have them subdue you to where you cannot move at all. They will probably not be able to do so.) Basically, the feelings of non-trained, non-experts who are a million miles away from the situation is being put forward as reasonable discussion concerning the problems police and suspects face. It adds nothing but static to the conversation and creates anger and distrust on both sides, and that leads to exactly the type of violence the uninformed sensationalist decries. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:59 Cowboy24 wrote: I like them because they can protect the cops. I don't like them because they will allow every Tom, Dick, and Sally to second guess the cop from behind a computer screen, after hours of calm deliberation; never thinking about the fact that they are second-guessing a dude who was facing down an armed criminal, under extreme stress, in a very fast-paced situation. It's the same thing with allowing the press into combat situations. Sure, you might catch some people doing something they shouldn't be doing, but you will also run the risk of paralyzing your military/cops because they are constantly second-guessing themselves. On a cost-benefit analysis, I think the risk of some cops/military getting away with atrocities is less than the risk of hamstringing cops and military because they are afraid of being judged unfairly (which happens very, very often). So, I would normally say "no" to body-cams, but I think the public desire for them is strong enough to outweigh the obvious and very real problems with an over-analyzed, sensationalist, arm-chair judge society. Wait, why would you allow body-cams to be available to anyone? That seems like a terrible idea. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States601 Posts
On July 11 2016 05:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote: You're saying the cops escalated it to a physical confrontation? Where is your evidence for this? If the man is breaking the law then the cops have every right to restrain and arrest him. That isn't 'escalating the situation to physical confrontation'. That's just them doing their job. The cops escalated the situtation when they took a man that was being uncooperative and not responding to verbal commands and turned him into a man resisting arrest. Instead of keeping a distance and trying to use logic to get the man to see that there wasn't a positive way out of the situation for him if he didn't cooperate, they responded with force, because cops in the US are tought that the buck stops with them and all commands must be obeyed. It happens with EDPs more often than it should and it happens with people like Alton Sterling. Side note: When two men attack you, even if they are cops its got to be damn hard not to try and defend yourself as well. Not excusing his actions - but i would be surprised if many of the resisting arrest claims are really just a guy trying to move his arm into a position where it doesn't feel like its going to break. EDIT: There's more ways to do your job than make people into a combatant | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
It's just as likely that Police out there are overly reluctant to fire in situations where they should have because of fear of backlash. With a bodycam, a properly trained Officer will know that they can safely fire their weapon in situations that call for it out of necessity without fear of being persecuted because there will be video evidence to support that the actual need for firing their weapon was present. Bodycams just seem like a no-brainer at this point. Good cops should want them because it will protect them from being falsely persecuted. Law-abiding citizens should want them to keep the cops accountable for their actions. It's a mutually beneficial solution for all parties. | ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
On July 11 2016 06:03 TheYango wrote: This isn't really exclusive to cops as is though. Plenty of other professions are already subject to rigorous, after-the-fact scrutiny of time-sensitive life-or-death decisions they made under pressure. True, but how many of those professionals are dealing with other people? Another problem with these discussions. They act as though the cops are the only actors in the situation and everyone else is just a prop with no say or responsibility. I work in a manufacturing job where we process steel. I am often second-guessed by my bosses, and rightly so, because one mistake can injure or kill a person. However, the only actors in these scenarios would be me. If the steel-beams I'm moving could randomly jump off my forklift and start attacking my coworkers, it would not be fair to judge me the same way as a person who isn't dealing with an actor who makes choices. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Issues like abortion and same-sex marriage are not at the top of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's list of priorities, the former intelligence official and registered Democrat who is reportedly being vetted as Donald Trump's running mate said Sunday. "What people do in their private lives, these are not big issues that our country is dealing with that will cause our country to collapse," Flynn told ABC's Martha Raddatz on "This Week." "I'm more concerned that our country could collapse because we are not dealing with education issues, immigration issues." Flynn, who did not confirm reports that he is being vetted for the position, remarked that he is "honored" to just be in the discussion. "For a kid from a little town in the smallest state in the union, Rhode Island, it's a pretty, pretty big deal, and I take it very seriously. If people are serious about it, you know, I have to be serious about it," Flynn said, noting that although he grew up as a Democrat in a Democratic family, the current incarnation of the party is "not at all" the one from his youth. Asked his stance on non-military issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, Flynn suggested that he is not particularly concerned about either. On abortion, he said, "I think it's a — I think for women — and these are difficult issues, but I think women have to be able to choose what they — you know, sort of the right of choice, but I think that that's a difficult legal decision that — and I think that women are so important in that decision-making process." "They are the ones that have to make the decision, because they're the ones that are going to decide to bring up that child or not," Flynn said. Flynn's remark drew condemnation from at least one national anti-abortion group. “General Flynn has disqualified himself from consideration as Vice President. His pro-abortion position is unacceptable and would undermine the pro-life policy commitments that Mr. Trump has made throughout the campaign," Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List said in a statement. At the other end of the spectrum, Planned Parenthood was equally dubious. “Women in America are not fooled — Donald Trump doesn’t understand or care about women’s health or lives," said Dawn Laguens, an executive vice president with the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Source | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
Bonyth vs Ret
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
