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 July 11 2016 05:20 Cowboy24 wrote: I don't care about America vs. Other country arguments.
He was struggling and had freed his right arm, which was descending toward his pocket where the illegal gun was. If he had managed to pull the gun, he could have very easily shot and killed both officers.
If they hadn't shot him, they would have been murdered, and it would have been incompetence on their part to allow a criminal attempting to retrieve a gun to do so.
They just tasered him moments ago, and shot him six times.
You don't think there was a reasonable resolution to that scenario that does not end up with someone dead?
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.
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.
This is akin to victim-blaming logic.
The cops did not turn someone into a man resisting arrest, he chose to resist arrest because that's the type of person he was and it was his decision to behave that way. It isn't the cops job to use logic to convince a criminal to stop acting like a criminal.
Again you're saying the cops attacked him. Where is this coming from? Cops just don't go around attacking people. Why are you assuming two cops came up and just started attacking this man with criminal record.
No reasonable cop is going to think adjusting your arm constitutes 'resisting arrest'. If you struggle to the point where the cops have to force you to the ground, you've probably fucked up long before it got to that point and done something you weren't supposed to be doing.
In Alton's case the cop's screwed up when he went for the hero tackle. That after he made that mistake he may have been justified in some "shoot if you think (reasonably or not) that your life is in danger" is a separate issue. The cops should have never put themselves or Alton in the situation in the first place.
Regardless one aspect which no one ever addresses is that almost without fail, there are always false police reports around these events that are only acceptably contradicted by video unknown to the police at the time of the event. Pretending like it all gets sorted out fine is a disservice to reality. The police have been found to routinely lie, destroy/obstruct evidence, etc... It's not just the killings they get away with, but the coverups, even when they fail.
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.
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.
Plenty of them. You can work in a profession where you deal with known violent individuals on a daily basis and be under much stricter scrutiny. From mental health workers to troops in a war zone. The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not.
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.
Regardless one aspect which no one ever addresses is that almost without fail, there are always false police reports around these events that are only acceptably contradicted by video unknown to the police at the time of the event. Pretending like it all gets sorted out fine is a disservice to reality. The police have been found to routinely lie, destroy/obstruct evidence, etc... It's not just the killings they get away with, but the coverups, even when they fail.
This is an accountability issue. They need to be kept accountable. Ensuring officers are equipped with bodycams while on duty is a step towards holding them accountable for their actions.
Regardless one aspect which no one ever addresses is that almost without fail, there are always false police reports around these events that are only acceptably contradicted by video unknown to the police at the time of the event. Pretending like it all gets sorted out fine is a disservice to reality. The police have been found to routinely lie, destroy/obstruct evidence, etc... It's not just the killings they get away with, but the coverups, even when they fail.
This is an accountability issue. They need to be kept accountable. Ensuring officers are equipped with bodycams while on duty is a step towards holding them accountable for their actions.
So long as they don't "fall off" like they did with Alton, it's a small step in the right direction. No surprise who's stopping it from having been done a decade ago either.
I mean I have civil liberty concerns (like post-incident justification), privacy, etc... But it's the closest thing to progress on the table at the moment.
Regardless one aspect which no one ever addresses is that almost without fail, there are always false police reports around these events that are only acceptably contradicted by video unknown to the police at the time of the event. Pretending like it all gets sorted out fine is a disservice to reality. The police have been found to routinely lie, destroy/obstruct evidence, etc... It's not just the killings they get away with, but the coverups, even when they fail.
This is an accountability issue. They need to be kept accountable. Ensuring officers are equipped with bodycams while on duty is a step towards holding them accountable for their actions.
So long as they don't "fall off" like they did with Alton, it's a small step in the right direction. No surprise who's stopping it from having been done a decade ago either.
I would consider them 'falling off' a failure in being held accountable. Properly securing one's bodycam to one's uniform ought to be a non-issue.
If a police officer pulls out a gun and offers a choice between immediate and total compliance and death then even though I don't think the suspect should try option C and get themselves shot I don't think we should ignore that the reason there was no option C is due to the escalation of the police officer. The punishment for being an idiot in the US is not death and police are not juries. Suspects are citizens due protection too.
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.
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.
The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not.
You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt.
Regardless one aspect which no one ever addresses is that almost without fail, there are always false police reports around these events that are only acceptably contradicted by video unknown to the police at the time of the event. Pretending like it all gets sorted out fine is a disservice to reality. The police have been found to routinely lie, destroy/obstruct evidence, etc... It's not just the killings they get away with, but the coverups, even when they fail.
This is an accountability issue. They need to be kept accountable. Ensuring officers are equipped with bodycams while on duty is a step towards holding them accountable for their actions.
So long as they don't "fall off" like they did with Alton, it's a small step in the right direction. No surprise who's stopping it from having been done a decade ago either.
I would consider them 'falling off' a failure in being held accountable. Properly securing one's bodycam to one's uniform ought to be a non-issue.
Yet it's something people were saying for decades before and nothing got done. Still not being held accountable for the dash cams that fail to be turned on, function, repaired (often intentionally destroyed/obstructed by the officers), etc...
If these issues were being dealt with when they were being pointed out we wouldn't even be here. Which is why it's absurd to be looking at the protesters as holding responsibility. They are only out there because they were being ignored for decades/centuries.
It's not on the protesters to show how the police, police in racist ways, it's on the police (and those skeptical) to show us when it is they stopped at this point.
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.
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.
The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not.
You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt.
When there's a dead person, and another person holding the gun that shot them the usual procedure is to arrest the person with the gun, doesn't really matter the circumstances. Even if the guy broke into your house wearing a hoodie that says "I'm here to kill you" the guy with the gun is going down to the station for questioning. We don't even do the "ask them what happened" part until they've had 24+ hours and spoken with a lawyer about what the best excuse is, meanwhile they have exclusive access to any evidence that could poke holes in said story.
Eventually we end up in a situation where so many people are so guilty of so many things no one can get in trouble or it would undermine the whole institution, or at least that's what they convince each other of so as to justify the type of corruption that won't even let officers who shoot people get the basic workplace treatment someone would get if they crashed a forklift into a pallet of pillows.
I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun.
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.
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.
The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not.
You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt.
Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse.
On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote: I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun.
The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared.
On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote: I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun.
They violated practically everything they are supposed to be trained to do anyway. It's part of the problem. Police have distorted the conversation so badly that people don't even pay attention to the dozens of mistakes they make leading up to some fatal moment.
What's truly heinous is that they've managed to get people to get more upset about traffic than they are about the failure to meet even basic levels of accountability by the police (people who are getting paid to do what is being asked).
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.
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.
The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not.
You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt.
Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse.
On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote: I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun.
The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared.
Not really, the officer is the accused in this scenario. He should be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other accused.
People need to realize that being "trained in martial arts" is not going to turn you into a super-man. An adult man is very difficult to subdue without using overwhelming force. The kind of force (choke-holds, hitting with batons, etc.) that you would all decry and forbid them.
If you don't believe me, go find some college wrestlers and try to have 2 of them prevent you from moving at all. They are trained in ground-control and it would still be difficult for them to take down a grown man, and then completely incapacitate him to where he cannot reach into his pocket and draw a gun.
Also, the idea that they shouldn't have arrested him at all because then he might resist and they might have to kill him is absurd, think about it:
1) Guy is breaking the law. 2) Cops try to arrest him. 3) He threatens violence if they arrest him. 4) They can no longer arrest him because then he will become violent. 5) No one is ever arrested because all it takes to stop an arrest is threaten violence.
That is silly, and of course that will never be the standard in this country. Arguing for it is arguing for fantasy-land solutions to real problems.
Alton Sterling chose his path. This is all on his head. For Castile, we will have to wait and see what the investigation turns up.
edit: The existence of guns scares liberals all the time. Not that the person is using them, but that people have them. I don't understand this total hypocrisy where we are supposed to think guns are this HORRIBLE thing that must be removed from the general populace, but cops shouldn't react to their presence.
Do you realize how quickly Sterling could have killed those cops, if he had been allowed to draw that gun? Instantly. The moment the gun is drawn, it is too late. Those cops are already dead.
On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote: I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun.
I was wondering this myself. I know very little about martial arts, but I was intrigued by this video that popped up and wondered about how good it might be. I like the idea in theory as it looks like it would open up more options rather needing to move to deadly force right away. But I am highly ignorant about the sort of combat required for police.
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.
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.
The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not.
You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt.
Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse.
On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote: I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun.
The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared.
Not really, the officer is the accused in this scenario. He should be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other accused.
People need to realize that being "trained in martial arts" is not going to turn you into a super-man. An adult man is very difficult to subdue without using overwhelming force. The kind of force (choke-holds, hitting with batons, etc.) that you would all decry and forbid them.
If you don't believe me, go find some college wrestlers and try to have 2 of them prevent you from moving at all. They are trained in ground-control and it would still be difficult for them to take down a grown man, and then completely incapacitate him to where he cannot reach into his pocket and draw a gun.
Also, the idea that they shouldn't have arrested him at all because then he might resist and they might have to kill him is absurd, think about it:
1) Guy is breaking the law. 2) Cops try to arrest him. 3) He threatens violence if they arrest him. 4) They can no longer arrest him because then he will become violent. 5) No one is ever arrested because all it takes to stop an arrest is threaten violence.
That is silly, and of course that will never be the standard in this country. Arguing for it is arguing for fantasy-land solutions to real problems.
Alton Sterling chose his path. This is all on his head. For Castile, we will have to wait and see what the investigation turns up.
edit: The existence of guns scares liberals all the time. Not that the person is using them, but that people have them. I don't understand this total hypocrisy where we are supposed to think guns are this HORRIBLE thing that must be removed from the general populace, but cops shouldn't react to their presence.
Do you realize how quickly Sterling could have killed those cops, if he had been allowed to draw that gun? Instantly. The moment the gun is drawn, it is too late. Those cops are already dead.
No ones saying he shouldn't be arrested, they just shouldn't have been utterly incompetent in performing the arrest.
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.
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.
The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not.
You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt.
Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse.
On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote: I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun.
The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared.
Not really, the officer is the accused in this scenario. He should be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other accused.
People need to realize that being "trained in martial arts" is not going to turn you into a super-man. An adult man is very difficult to subdue without using overwhelming force. The kind of force (choke-holds, hitting with batons, etc.) that you would all decry and forbid them.
If you don't believe me, go find some college wrestlers and try to have 2 of them prevent you from moving at all. They are trained in ground-control and it would still be difficult for them to take down a grown man, and then completely incapacitate him to where he cannot reach into his pocket and draw a gun.
Also, the idea that they shouldn't have arrested him at all because then he might resist and they might have to kill him is absurd, think about it:
1) Guy is breaking the law. 2) Cops try to arrest him. 3) He threatens violence if they arrest him. 4) They can no longer arrest him because then he will become violent. 5) No one is ever arrested because all it takes to stop an arrest is threaten violence.
That is silly, and of course that will never be the standard in this country. Arguing for it is arguing for fantasy-land solutions to real problems.
Alton Sterling chose his path. This is all on his head. For Castile, we will have to wait and see what the investigation turns up.
edit: The existence of guns scares liberals all the time. Not that the person is using them, but that people have them. I don't understand this total hypocrisy where we are supposed to think guns are this HORRIBLE thing that must be removed from the general populace, but cops shouldn't react to their presence.
Do you realize how quickly Sterling could have killed those cops, if he had been allowed to draw that gun? Instantly. The moment the gun is drawn, it is too late. Those cops are already dead.
Okay so in your numbered scenario you seem to be arguing that by point 4 literally the only two possible outcomes after he refuses to go peacefully are an execution or that he goes free. This is not true in other countries and in many of them a police officer who couldn't think of any third way out of that scenario would be viewed as extremely incompetent. Why is it that American police officers are so incompetent in your opinion?
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.
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.
The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not.
You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt.
Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse.
On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote: I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun.
The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared.
Not really, the officer is the accused in this scenario. He should be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other accused.
People need to realize that being "trained in martial arts" is not going to turn you into a super-man. An adult man is very difficult to subdue without using overwhelming force. The kind of force (choke-holds, hitting with batons, etc.) that you would all decry and forbid them.
If you don't believe me, go find some college wrestlers and try to have 2 of them prevent you from moving at all. They are trained in ground-control and it would still be difficult for them to take down a grown man, and then completely incapacitate him to where he cannot reach into his pocket and draw a gun.
Also, the idea that they shouldn't have arrested him at all because then he might resist and they might have to kill him is absurd, think about it:
1) Guy is breaking the law. 2) Cops try to arrest him. 3) He threatens violence if they arrest him. 4) They can no longer arrest him because then he will become violent. 5) No one is ever arrested because all it takes to stop an arrest is threaten violence.
That is silly, and of course that will never be the standard in this country. Arguing for it is arguing for fantasy-land solutions to real problems.
Alton Sterling chose his path. This is all on his head. For Castile, we will have to wait and see what the investigation turns up.
edit: The existence of guns scares liberals all the time. Not that the person is using them, but that people have them. I don't understand this total hypocrisy where we are supposed to think guns are this HORRIBLE thing that must be removed from the general populace, but cops shouldn't react to their presence.
Do you realize how quickly Sterling could have killed those cops, if he had been allowed to draw that gun? Instantly. The moment the gun is drawn, it is too late. Those cops are already dead.
Okay so in your numbered scenario you seem to be arguing that by point 4 literally the only two possible outcomes after he refuses to go peacefully are an execution or that he goes free. This is not true in other countries and in many of them a police officer who couldn't think of any third way out of that scenario would be viewed as extremely incompetent. Why is it that American police officers are so incompetent in your opinion?
It was not an execution, so please do not refer it as such.
What is this option C you keep referring to? They back off and try to convince him to go peacefully? If he's going to resist arrest why would he suddenly decide to not resist because they asked nicely? That is silly.
I am not going to discuss America vs. Other countries because there are way too many factors and it is irrelevant anyway. We are not discussing general scenarios in which we can make up all the parameters. We are discussing a very specific scenario in which the parameters are known.
The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers.
edit: Basically, everyone here keeps saying: "They acted incompetently" but then they don't provide the "competent" scenario, besides saying he shouldn't have been arrested at all, which is not reasonable.
The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers.
You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited.
It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights.
The competent scenario is realizing upon arrival they couldn't safely secure the suspect and de-escalate/remain calm while they wait for backup. One problem is that too many cops have hero complexes that end up putting them in situations where people get killed.
Instead there's a longstanding pattern of trying to "resolve" it before back up arrives and it constantly puts people at risk unnecessarily.
The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers.
You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited.
It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights.
Resisting arrest is a crime.
When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal.
EPT
