|
Seeing blatant abuse of power like that drives me wild .
|
On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?
"Johnathan Cuevas, 20
Died Oct. 10, 2010
Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.
The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.
Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.
— Carla Rivera" That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins.
I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all
|
On February 17 2013 02:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:Please let the government take my guns i feel safer already  User was warned for this post
So um... your solution is to return fire on the cop or something??!
|
It would be a lot easier to analyse this if somebody linked at least one reliable news source other than a very poor quality video where the number of gunshots isn't even clear.
On February 17 2013 02:38 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?
"Johnathan Cuevas, 20
Died Oct. 10, 2010
Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.
The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.
Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.
— Carla Rivera" That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins. I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all
The actual text of the OP is a copypaste from one of the grossly biased sources linked in the OP. And yes, it is very misleading. The same article praises Dorner like two sentences later as some sort of freedom fighter.
|
i'm really glad on the timing of this. while i disagreed with what dorner did, the concerns of corruption and evil raised in his manifesto are 100% legit, and this just proves that. it just goes to show the police can shoot whoever they want to, whether its little ladies or white dudes driving trucks that don't match dorner truck's make/model, or minorities trying to run away.
this thing happens quite a lot, and before the advent of cheap digital cameras being available anywhere, you always had to take the police word for it no matter what.
|
On February 17 2013 02:38 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?
"Johnathan Cuevas, 20
Died Oct. 10, 2010
Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.
The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.
Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.
— Carla Rivera" That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins. I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all
Yeah, OP is just a lazy copy / paste of the Live Leak link.
|
On February 17 2013 02:38 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?
"Johnathan Cuevas, 20
Died Oct. 10, 2010
Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.
The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.
Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.
— Carla Rivera" That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins. I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all
There is a bunch of conflicting reports, they say they found a gun but the deceased's fingerprints weren't on it.
|
|
|
On February 17 2013 02:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:38 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?
"Johnathan Cuevas, 20
Died Oct. 10, 2010
Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.
The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.
Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.
— Carla Rivera" That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins. I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all Yeah, OP is just a lazy copy / paste of the Live Leak link.
It's a matter of he says/she says right now, with different sources claiming different thing. An authoritative report will come out soon enough? Any links to the actual presence of the gun? OP needs to at least be clear on that one.
|
If you thought you were being "ambushed", why the hell would you focus all your attention on the person who's running away--the one who has the least potential to do harm in so called ambush--let alone shoot? Seems to me incompetence could also be involved.
|
Looks like Dorner's rolling over in his grave...
|
On February 17 2013 02:54 billy5000 wrote:
If you thought you were being "ambushed", why the hell would you focus all your attention on the person who's running away--the one who has the least potential to do harm in so called ambush--let alone shoot? Seems to me incompetence could also be involved.
According to the cop the guy with the gun ran after the supposed ambush failed.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-PsnQUvThWKaU1wVkRSWGlyY3c/edit
|
United States42654 Posts
On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public. I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms. But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one. But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.) EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt. I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job. Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job. As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases. A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk. Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied.
Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.
|
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public. I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms. But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one. But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.) EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt. I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job. Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job. As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases. A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk. Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied. Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.
What's reasonable though? I don't expect a firefighter to enter a building if he thinks the roof is collapsing. Unfortunately that requires me to trust the firefighter when he says that he really thought the roof was collapsing.
|
On February 17 2013 00:45 openbox1 wrote:
Cop kind of went overboard, especially with the two shots when he's down.
Not to say the cop shouldn't lose his badge or even go to prison depending on the circumstances, but before we shed too many tears for the victim, I wonder if they can release some pertinent info on him. If he's some convicted armed robber, repeat rapist, serial offender etc... well in the parlance of the old LAPD: "NHI"
Even if the man is a repeat offender of the law that doesn't mean you should just shoot the man. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty police officers should only use their weapon for self-defense there is no reason(based on the video) to just shoot and kill this man just because he was running.
|
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public. I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms. But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one. But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.) EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt. I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job. Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job. As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases. A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk. Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied. Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.
You're confused. Our only argument here is your claiming that being shot at is part of the police officer's job. I disagree. You compare it to a firemen risking his life to potentially save someone. I reply that in fact legally he has no obligation to do so, if saving another life endangers his. If this happens, then it is outside the bounds of duty, the same case with police officers. Do not romanticize it as simply "part of the job" thing. The risk is always there. Even professional chess players are at risk of earthquakes or sudden nuke attacks. What is being questioned is your claim that dying or risking death is part of the job. It is not.
|
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:
a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless
This is not even a valid counter argument. Are you even serious?
|
On February 17 2013 02:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:16 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public. You think that anyone is going to take a job where they have a strong likelihoods of being killed for $15 an hour? This weird Idealism about the police and their relationship with the public is nice but it has no grounding in reality. In a capitalist system you can have two outcomes from a shitty underpaid job which nobody wants. You can either keep the job demanding and when you run into recruitment problems you can slowly up the pay and benefits until you find the free market equilibrium in which the people feel they are being adequately rewarded for the demands of the job. or You can lower the workload and difficulty of the job until the quality of the product is so bad that it becomes something someone whose labor is only worth $15/hr will accept. You have claimed that the latter is the case and the problem is something intrinsically wrong with capitalism. This isn't the case. The problem happened when someone thought a good way to save money on the police budget was to hire morons, not to train them and give them liberty to fuck with the public without repercussions.
The city of LA can't afford to drive up wages and benefits when its tax base is so infested with gang violence and drugs. The problem isn't that they decided that $15/hr cops was the solution to their budget problem their situation made it so that they can only afford $15/hr. City governance isn't motivated by capitalism its motivated by politics and trying to judge this situation on the merits of capitalism is completely idiotic. I don't judge how good a football player is by how well he can hit a baseball.
The cruel and depressing irony is that the situation would get drastically worse if they demanded any more from their police.
|
On February 17 2013 03:24 OniGami wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public. I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms. But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one. But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.) EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt. I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job. Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job. As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases. A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk. Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied. Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless. You're confused. Our only argument here is your claiming that being shot at is part of the police officer's job. I disagree. You compare it to a firemen risking his life to potentially save someone. I reply that in fact legally he has no obligation to do so, if saving another life endangers his. If this happens, then it is outside the bounds of duty, the same case with police officers. Do not romanticize it as simply "part of the job" thing. The risk is always there. Even professional chess players are at risk of earthquakes or sudden nuke attacks. What is being questioned is your claim that dying or risking death is part of the job. It is not.
I'm pretty sure if you are a police officer in the USA getting shot at is part of the job, whether you like it or not it seems likely.
|
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public. I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms. But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one. But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.) EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt. I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job. Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job. As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases. A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk. Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied. Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.
But this breaks down incredibly once you apply it to real life. Fire fighters won't go into a building that they think will collapse around them. A doctor will know more then anyone else if they get sick and will be at the hospital to save themselves, and a policeman is going to shoot someone they think is drawing a gun on them before that gun is drawn and them and they are shot. They accept the risks of the job but you can't expect someone to not take those risks into account and try their best to minimize them.
On February 17 2013 03:28 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 03:24 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public. I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms. But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one. But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.) EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt. I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job. Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job. As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases. A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk. Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied. Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless. You're confused. Our only argument here is your claiming that being shot at is part of the police officer's job. I disagree. You compare it to a firemen risking his life to potentially save someone. I reply that in fact legally he has no obligation to do so, if saving another life endangers his. If this happens, then it is outside the bounds of duty, the same case with police officers. Do not romanticize it as simply "part of the job" thing. The risk is always there. Even professional chess players are at risk of earthquakes or sudden nuke attacks. What is being questioned is your claim that dying or risking death is part of the job. It is not. I'm pretty sure if you are a police officer in the USA getting shot at is part of the job, whether you like it or not it seems likely.
Which is why they are given guns bulletproof vests and shotguns in their cars but that has nothing to do with their choices to shoot first and ask questions later policy that gets people killed more often then they would if they didn't shoot first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
