|
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. |
United States42024 Posts
Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do.
I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge.
On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police
On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system?
|
United States42024 Posts
On June 17 2017 11:31 Sermokala wrote:
I'm saying acept that the system is shitty and make the system better.
You didn't say this at all. You said that the innocent citizen population should be educated on how better to avoid being executed without cause. That ignores the entire system which is the problem (the shitty police executing people) and demands that minorities regulate their own civil liberties at threat of government sanctioned execution.
That is nothing to do with making the system better. That is victim blaming. It's no different from telling women to stay home if they don't want to be raped.
example:
On June 17 2017 09:48 Sermokala wrote:
There are steps that we can do to reduce events like this happening. In school education on interacting with police officers... A Mothers against drunk driving like campaign would be necessary. Simply blaming the people involved isn't going to get anywhere.
|
On June 17 2017 11:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 17 2017 11:07 Sermokala wrote:
I'm arguing that the system is what people should focus on and you're the one whos arguing for little more then punishing the people within that system. Cutting the grass isn't going to stop the grass from growing in my lawn. If that's what you're arguing, it sure doesn't seem like it. Kwark insists the system is the problem, and that people should stand up to the broken system. I've only seen you argue what the public should do in a broken system, so as not to incur its wrath. One of you two is doing what you say you're doing, but it's not the person you think it is. No we're both doing what we're saying we're doing. We both insist that the system is broken But kwark belives we should stand up to the people of the system and making victims of the people who work with the system while I'm saying acept that the system is shitty and make the system better. The same people who would forgive people who turn to crime and the drug trade would rather punish police who are in a flawed system for following what the system tells them.
no, you're not. you're saying to make the system worse; rather than try to hold it accountable and improve it.
if you're outnumbered here; that's partly because what you're arguing doesn't hold up to scrutiny much at all. (also the liberal bias of the boards).
you should really consider that your personal bias is preventing you from seeing the situation clearly; cuz the points have been articulated quite well that show the flaws in your approach.
it's not making someone a victim to hold them accountable for their actions.
|
On June 17 2017 11:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 17 2017 11:07 Sermokala wrote:
I'm arguing that the system is what people should focus on and you're the one whos arguing for little more then punishing the people within that system. Cutting the grass isn't going to stop the grass from growing in my lawn. If that's what you're arguing, it sure doesn't seem like it. Kwark insists the system is the problem, and that people should stand up to the broken system. I've only seen you argue what the public should do in a broken system, so as not to incur its wrath. One of you two is doing what you say you're doing, but it's not the person you think it is. No we're both doing what we're saying we're doing. We both insist that the system is broken But kwark belives we should stand up to the people of the system and making victims of the people who work with the system while I'm saying acept that the system is shitty and make the system better. The same people who would forgive people who turn to crime and the drug trade would rather punish police who are in a flawed system for following what the system tells them.
Making victims = holding officers to reasonable standards as enforcers of the law? Asking that they not pull a gun on someone doing something totally normal in the event of a traffic stop? Protecting the public comes first, and exercising restraint with a lethal weapon is part of that. Making excuses and abdicating officers of their individual agency is why the system is broken like it is.
|
On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system?
Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see.
People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything.
You aren't lobbying to fix the shitty system by punishing the cops your lobbying to punish the cops. You complain about show trials yet want a show trial. Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere.
|
United States42024 Posts
I'm still absolutely amazed that he made the argument that the police officer was held responsible because he was forced to endure a show trial and that he must be innocent because the show trial found him innocent and that anyone who thinks there is a problem with that is opposed to the concept of justice. This was all after he said that the prosecutor threw the case.
|
United States42024 Posts
On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:
cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people
was it the violent video games wot dun it?
|
On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything. You aren't lobbying to fix the shitty system by punishing the cops your lobbying to punish the cops. You complain about show trials yet want a show trial. Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere.
I expect him to not shoot. Ok maybe the officer points his gun at the guy's head and says don't move, or just yells freeze and pulls his gun; but the officer clearly didn't need to actually shoot. that was excessive.
the cops ARE the root cause of cops killing people. you're the one who's blithely ignoring the obvious reality.
it's very possible for the cops to kill people far less frequently, they simply choose not to do so.
you are LITERALLY SAYING you cannot fix a CORRUPT system by punishing those who are corrupt. That is what you are claiming.
you are LITERALLY advocating for not punishing people who commit murder.
|
On June 17 2017 11:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:31 Sermokala wrote:
I'm saying acept that the system is shitty and make the system better. You didn't say this at all. You said that the innocent citizen population should be educated on how better to avoid being executed without cause. That ignores the entire system which is the problem (the shitty police executing people) and demands that minorities regulate their own civil liberties at threat of government sanctioned execution. That is nothing to do with making the system better. That is victim blaming. It's no different from telling women to stay home if they don't want to be raped. example: Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 09:48 Sermokala wrote:
There are steps that we can do to reduce events like this happening. In school education on interacting with police officers... A Mothers against drunk driving like campaign would be necessary. Simply blaming the people involved isn't going to get anywhere.
My first post was about how the prosecutor did a bad job because the system is bad and tells them to do it. I said that people should be executed because Thats what people call "an actual suggestion to make things better instead of cheerleading hate" that everyone else was doing in the thread. Advocating for change is now ignoring the entire system? So instead of actualy trying to make anything better in the world we should just complain and ask for people to be punished? Thats worse then victim blaming thats just creating more victims.
Telling women that don't worry about people getting raped we got the rapist in prision now is just telling them that someone else is going to get raped so that you can punish the guy who raped them.
On June 17 2017 11:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:31 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 17 2017 11:07 Sermokala wrote:
I'm arguing that the system is what people should focus on and you're the one whos arguing for little more then punishing the people within that system. Cutting the grass isn't going to stop the grass from growing in my lawn. If that's what you're arguing, it sure doesn't seem like it. Kwark insists the system is the problem, and that people should stand up to the broken system. I've only seen you argue what the public should do in a broken system, so as not to incur its wrath. One of you two is doing what you say you're doing, but it's not the person you think it is. No we're both doing what we're saying we're doing. We both insist that the system is broken But kwark belives we should stand up to the people of the system and making victims of the people who work with the system while I'm saying acept that the system is shitty and make the system better. The same people who would forgive people who turn to crime and the drug trade would rather punish police who are in a flawed system for following what the system tells them. no, you're not. you're saying to make the system worse; rather than try to hold it accountable and improve it. if you're outnumbered here; that's partly because what you're arguing doesn't hold up to scrutiny much at all. (also the liberal bias of the boards). you should really consider that your personal bias is preventing you from seeing the situation clearly; cuz the points have been articulated quite well that show the flaws in your approach. it's not making someone a victim to hold them accountable for their actions.
How am I saying to make the system worse? You can't hold a broken toy acountable for not working correctly beacuse its broken.
On June 17 2017 11:47 Plansix wrote:
There is no burden on the officer. I, as a citizen, must submit to the agent of the state and do nothing that could be inferred as disobeying or risk death. There is no legal recourse, that agents of the states word and reasoning is beyond reproach. There rights are superior to mine.
I mean your right its not like there was an investigation or a trial or anything at all that we're arguing about now.
|
There is no burden on the officer. I, as a citizen, must submit to the agent of the state and do nothing that could be inferred as disobeying or risk death. There is no legal recourse, that agents of the states word and reasoning is beyond reproach. There rights are superior to mine.
|
It's kinda funny.
Sermokala (and btw, neither does anyone else defending police shootings with these circumstances) doesn't have an actual argument. Someone points out that no other civilised country has those trigger happy cops: "well in those countries criminals don't have easy access to guns".
That's correct. But that doesn't mean it's an argument or justification in any way, shape or form. First, the guy carried legally. He ANNOUNCED that he's carrying legally. Sermokala argues that it was a mistake to announce it, and then reach for the wallet. Lets not forget that we literally have seen videos here where cops hysterically pull their guns to shoot at someone with their hands in the air because they THOUGHT they saw a gun in a car (petrol station), so what it boils down to, is that the guy was a dead man walking the second he got pulled over.
Now, in regards to cops in different countries: that's only half correct at best. No, cops don't have to worry as much about being shot (although that certainly does happen). That doesn't mean your cops need to be more trigger happy, that's a retarded conclusion to make. They need to be specifically equipped and trained to deal with those situations in the same manner other countries do it.
That's fucking starting by not escalating the situation at the slightest chance they get. And yes, that becomes very obvious: most cops in the US are not interested in de-escalating a situation. There's no excuse for a cop that escalates a situation: he's supposed to be the one disarming it. Of course, that and the fact that a inherently crooked/flawed justice system has more interest in not losing favours with the police rather than bringing them to justice.
Not to mention, most cops actually don't want to change that. See discussions about body cams, people getting told that they go to jail if they film them, etc. I think the video of that female lawyer that got "arrested for resisting arrest (she wasn't)" sums the US police up rather well. Fuck laws if they don't suit you.
|
On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see.
What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters.
"People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything."
We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation.
"Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere."
What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops?
|
United States42024 Posts
On June 17 2017 11:45 Sermokala wrote:
Telling women that don't worry about people getting raped we got the rapist in prision now is just telling them that someone else is going to get raped so that you can punish the guy who raped them.
Any other approach tells women that if they don't want to be raped then they should voluntarily abdicate their rights within society. It strips their rights away by telling them that the protection of the law is contingent upon them not acting in the same ways a man would. That's the problem with victim blaming. It places the duty of self censorship of action upon the potential victim rather than the perpetrator and it should be called out whenever and wherever it surfaces its ugly head.
Furthermore the lesson "don't walk home alone if you don't want to be raped" is essentially "let some other girl be the one who gets raped tonight".
The responsibility for committing an action has to be placed on the individual who chose to commit that action. Basic personal responsibility shit. You pull a trigger, you get held to account. And a prosecutor throwing the case doesn't count as being held to account, before you repeat your argument that he was.
|
United States42024 Posts
On June 17 2017 11:48 m4ini wrote:
I think the video of that female lawyer that got "arrested for resisting arrest (she wasn't)" sums the US police up rather well. Fuck laws if they don't suit you.
I like that video.
"I'm gonna arrest you"
"What for?"
"Resisting arrest"
"Please do"
*places hands behind back to make the cuffs go on more easily*
|
sermo ->
try this,
start from the premise: what the officer did was wrong, and should be punished.
Now see that he was not punished.
part of your problem is your COMKPLETELY ignoring our point that the officer should be punished; and holding it to be an incontrovertible fact that what the officer did is proper, despite their being ample room for the contrary viewpoint (especially considering there are numerous countries in the world where the officer would be convicted for what he did).
and I say you're advocating making the system worse because you are. holding people accountable is a basic function of society. you are advocating NOT holding people accountable. you are giving an officer free reign to kill anyone for a pathetically low standard of evidence; which it should be noted, if any regular citizen did, they would be convicted of murder.
ask yourself this: if it were a regular citizen doing the shooting, and not a cop, would he have been convicted of murder? and should he have been convicted of murder?
|
On June 17 2017 11:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:48 m4ini wrote:
I think the video of that female lawyer that got "arrested for resisting arrest (she wasn't)" sums the US police up rather well. Fuck laws if they don't suit you. I like that video. "I'm gonna arrest you" "What for?" "Resisting arrest" "Please do" *places hands behind back to make the cuffs go on more easily*
It's mind boggling, honestly. And it shows the mindset of cops, that guy isn't a single case.
|
On June 17 2017 11:45 Sermokala wrote:
How am I saying to make the system worse? You can't hold a broken toy acountable for not working correctly beacuse its broken.
Am I in some parallel universe where cops are no longer humans capable of agency and responsibility?
|
ask yourself this: if it were a regular citizen doing the shooting, and not a cop, would he have been convicted of murder? and should he have been convicted of murder?
Which actually is an interesting philosophical question. It's WAY more likely to be shot BY a cop than being shot AS a cop (around what, 10 times more likely?).
So by Sermokalas standard, the claim of "fear for my life", "self defense", "2nd Amendment" etc should hold up pretty well.
edit: btw of course it doesn't
|
On June 17 2017 11:43 KwarK wrote:
I'm still absolutely amazed that he made the argument that the police officer was held responsible because he was forced to endure a show trial and that he must be innocent because the show trial found him innocent and that anyone who thinks there is a problem with that is opposed to the concept of justice. This was all after he said that the prosecutor threw the case.
Your the one that called it a show trial not me. I just said that the procecutor was modivated to do a poor job not violate the law.
On June 17 2017 11:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything. You aren't lobbying to fix the shitty system by punishing the cops your lobbying to punish the cops. You complain about show trials yet want a show trial. Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere. I expect him to not shoot. Ok maybe the officer points his gun at the guy's head and says don't move, or just yells freeze and pulls his gun; but the officer clearly didn't need to actually shoot. that was excessive. the cops ARE the root cause of cops killing people. you're the one who's blithely ignoring the obvious reality. it's very possible for the cops to kill people far less frequently, they simply choose not to do so. you are LITERALLY SAYING you cannot fix a CORRUPT system by punishing those who are corrupt. That is what you are claiming. you are LITERALLY advocating for not punishing people who commit murder.
I'm LITERALY saying you cannot fix a broken system by pushing the result of that broken system. I'm advocating punishing people for committing murder when its actualy committing murder. The law has a definition of murder and juries do as well.
You're putting the only pressure on fixing the system at the feet of the people who are the result of the system. The cops are the employee of the government who follows systems of that government. they get off of crimes beacuse they follow that system. If you want them to not get off then change the system. If you arbitrarily want people to be punished regardless of the law then you don't want justice.
What you are describing isn't the system. expecting the system to be fixed and holding people acountable for a fixed system when the system is broken doesn't make any sense at all.
|
The system is broken precisely because it does not punish officers that do this very thing, they are not separate in this case. If you start punishing them, you're holding them accountable for their actions, and they start to think twice before they pull the trigger, because they know their boss will give a shit. Basic incentive design, basic accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
