|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 14 2021 01:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 00:58 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 00:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's almost like the Obama's can't like a person and not like his political leanings at the same time. I’m not convinced by this because Bush can’t be separated by his policies. Bush isn’t someone who supported shitty policies, he’s someone who enacted them. That’s a whole different thing. It’s like the difference between some internet edgelord saying that marital rape should be allowed and a rapist. Personally I don’t think you should be friends with either but let’s not conflate someone who thinks that torturing suspected terrorists for information is justifiable and the guy signing the orders to tear out people’s fingernails. They’re not the same. If there is a hell there’s a special room waiting for Dubya. If no hell exists then a just God would be working on building one for him. Rehabilitating Dubya is Trump's most impressive achievement.
Obama making the decision to "look forward" and not hold anyone accountable domestically (or offer them to the ICC) for the unabashed torture under the Bush administration was one of the first and most critical steps to Bush's rehabilitation imo.
Before Obama even took office, he announced his belief that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards” on torture. That set the standard for Obama’s tenure, as all avenues of accountability for Bush-era torture were curtailed.
A Justice Department inquiry into interrogators who broke even the “acceptable torture” guidelines ended with no charges. Civil lawsuits from former detainees were blocked when the Obama-era Justice Department invoked the state secrets doctrine. An internal Justice Department review of the torture memo’s authors concluded they had not committed professional misconduct when they worked backwards to justify the Bush administration’s use of torture in defiance of laws against it. Even a proposal for a South African-style “truth and reconciliation” commission was rejected. All avenues for any form of accountability for torture—criminal, civil, even professional—were blocked by Obama-era officials. Even an episode in which the CIA spied on Senate staff in an effort to stonewall an inquiry that ultimately found CIA torture ineffective, and then lied about having done so, ended with little more than an apology.
www.theatlantic.com
|
In other news. The officer who killed Daunte Wright and the City Manager have both resigned amid protests and calls for justice.
Kim Potter, the Brooklyn Center, Minn., police officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright, has resigned. Potter had served 26 years on the force before the fatal encounter Sunday where officials said she mistakenly fired her handgun instead of her Taser.
Police Chief Tim Gannon, who yesterday released the body camera footage and characterized the shooting as an "accidental discharge," has also stepped down.
"We're hoping that we're turning over a new leaf now," Elliott said.
Potter, who had previously served as president of the local police union and whose duties included training other officers, had initially been placed on administrative leave, but pressure had grown from community members to fire her. Critics had raised questions of how someone responsible for police training could have mistaken a Taser for a handgun.
Elliott said that he had not asked for her resignation, though yesterday he did express support for her firing.
Source
More investigation is being done to see what the repercussions should be, but don't expect much from this incident. Nor for anything to happen with the chauvin trial going on.
|
On April 14 2021 03:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:In other news. The officer who killed Daunte Wright and the City Manager have both resigned amid protests and calls for justice. Show nested quote +Kim Potter, the Brooklyn Center, Minn., police officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright, has resigned. Potter had served 26 years on the force before the fatal encounter Sunday where officials said she mistakenly fired her handgun instead of her Taser.
Police Chief Tim Gannon, who yesterday released the body camera footage and characterized the shooting as an "accidental discharge," has also stepped down.
"We're hoping that we're turning over a new leaf now," Elliott said.
Potter, who had previously served as president of the local police union and whose duties included training other officers, had initially been placed on administrative leave, but pressure had grown from community members to fire her. Critics had raised questions of how someone responsible for police training could have mistaken a Taser for a handgun.
Elliott said that he had not asked for her resignation, though yesterday he did express support for her firing. SourceMore investigation is being done to see what the repercussions should be, but don't expect much from this incident. Nor for anything to happen with the chauvin trial going on.
I wonder if there will be more street activity tonight in light of the resignations. Last night got pretty heated in a couple of different cities (I doubt it dies down any time soon.)
|
Northern Ireland26359 Posts
On April 14 2021 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 01:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 00:58 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 00:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's almost like the Obama's can't like a person and not like his political leanings at the same time. I’m not convinced by this because Bush can’t be separated by his policies. Bush isn’t someone who supported shitty policies, he’s someone who enacted them. That’s a whole different thing. It’s like the difference between some internet edgelord saying that marital rape should be allowed and a rapist. Personally I don’t think you should be friends with either but let’s not conflate someone who thinks that torturing suspected terrorists for information is justifiable and the guy signing the orders to tear out people’s fingernails. They’re not the same. If there is a hell there’s a special room waiting for Dubya. If no hell exists then a just God would be working on building one for him. Rehabilitating Dubya is Trump's most impressive achievement. Obama making the decision to "look forward" and not hold anyone accountable domestically (or offer them to the ICC) for the unabashed torture under the Bush administration was one of the first and most critical steps to Bush's rehabilitation imo. Show nested quote +Before Obama even took office, he announced his belief that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards” on torture. That set the standard for Obama’s tenure, as all avenues of accountability for Bush-era torture were curtailed.
A Justice Department inquiry into interrogators who broke even the “acceptable torture” guidelines ended with no charges. Civil lawsuits from former detainees were blocked when the Obama-era Justice Department invoked the state secrets doctrine. An internal Justice Department review of the torture memo’s authors concluded they had not committed professional misconduct when they worked backwards to justify the Bush administration’s use of torture in defiance of laws against it. Even a proposal for a South African-style “truth and reconciliation” commission was rejected. All avenues for any form of accountability for torture—criminal, civil, even professional—were blocked by Obama-era officials. Even an episode in which the CIA spied on Senate staff in an effort to stonewall an inquiry that ultimately found CIA torture ineffective, and then lied about having done so, ended with little more than an apology. www.theatlantic.com
It’s almost like the US aren’t the good guys or something.
|
United States43676 Posts
Been a while since I had any military training but accidental discharge isn’t a thing, it’s negligent discharge. A properly managed weapon cannot accidentally discharge, any unintended discharge must necessarily be preceded by negligence and therefore is a negligent discharge. They know this, they’re hoping you don’t when they say it’s an accidental discharge.
|
On April 14 2021 04:13 KwarK wrote:
Been a while since I had any military training but accidental discharge isn’t a thing, it’s negligent discharge. A properly managed weapon cannot accidentally discharge, any unintended discharge must necessarily be preceded by negligence and therefore is a negligent discharge. They know this, they’re hoping you don’t when they say it’s an accidental discharge.
You're mostly right, and this specific instance is negligent, not accidental. It happens though (extremely uncommonly); even without breaking any firearms safety protocols and having properly a properly maintained weapon, it's possible.
|
Someone said it above, when you point a gun at a target you're prepared to destroy it. Even more so when you move a finger on the trigger. I can't think of any way to describe an incident where a police officer pulls a gun and fires it at a target as an accident. Negligence or some sort of endangerment, a mistake maybe, but never an accident. It could be an accident if the police officer was grappling with a person and the gun went off there or a similar situation.
In the wider context of US politics this case doesn't seem to lead into anything meaningful, once again. This will be dealt as an individual tragedy, a bug, rather than a feature of the existing system.
Correct me if I am wrong, as from the outside it seems that there is nowhere near enough momentum towards completely changing the approach to policing in the US. Defund the police in some ways is going that way, but even there I've understood it as more like demilitarize the police (the fact that this is a reasonable demand is absurd in its own right) and reallocate tasks to healthcare and social care rather than actually changing the entire approach to policing towards something like the British "policing by consent".
|
Prison and police abolition has been an ongoing project of the left but Democrats have been stuck on more training, funding, and 'reform'. Republicans, ever eager to compromise, settle on more funding for police so they can afford the 'trainings' and 'reforms' of which I'm sure she saw plenty in 26 years as a cop.
|
Norway28761 Posts
In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway.
![[image loading]](https://scontent.fosl3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/172785179_10157575945540443_6333503086682945292_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=P4OuuN7cMNUAX9QmUWu&_nc_ht=scontent.fosl3-2.fna&oh=861f2ff7b2c509e09bb11418f20d2c5e&oe=60999EF6)
I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction.
|
fully agreed @kwark &oukka
a lawyer with half a brain should be able to point that out for the defense. when you point the fucking "thing" at a human being while doing your "job", animus, intent is there. game over for accidental _whatever_ they want to conjure up.
(freak) accident was that this incredibly incompetent person was somehow able to be allowed to go on patrol. just reading while typing - is this correct? 26 fucking years? she has been on the job 26 years, and this is what experience gets you?
even if she was a pencil pusher most of the time... aren't there mandatory refresh trainings?
is there a new model of Taser that is able to imitate a handgun? what the hell is going on...
|
|
|
On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year.
That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it.
|
On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. There is no way around it but better training to, where possible, not put yourself into positions where you have to make that split second 'shoot or die' choice would probably go a long way.
|
On April 14 2021 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. There is no way around it but better training to, where possible, not put yourself into positions where you have to make that split second 'shoot or die' choice would probably go a long way.
Worth pointing out neither of the cops that killed George Floyd or Daunte Wright thought the person they killed even had a gun, let alone that they were going to shoot them.
|
United States43676 Posts
On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it.
If we accept that Americans have the right to bear arms without that activity requiring any specific plan to use them in the immediate future then police must accept that the presence of a firearm does not imply any specific threat. It’s absurd that we have a doublethink where guns are a constitutionally protected legal right but law enforcement can execute you for possessing one.
If the right to bear arms is as important as people think it is then the price of that right must be paid in the blood of dead cops, not law abiding citizens. Police should applaud the patriotism of citizens who answer their doors to with gun in hand and only raise their own guns (everyone is holding a gun in all encounters now) if a gun is raised towards them.
That the legal exercise of such an important constitutional right is routinely used to justify the execution of citizens by the state is absurdly perverse. It would be like if people were being shot for voting.
|
On April 14 2021 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. There is no way around it but better training to, where possible, not put yourself into positions where you have to make that split second 'shoot or die' choice would probably go a long way. Worth pointing out neither of the cops that killed George Floyd or Daunte Wright thought the person they killed even had a gun, let alone that they were going to shoot them. Its almost as if we were talking about generic situations in the US and not specific cases.
Note how you don't see either name in the quote chain.
|
On April 14 2021 06:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. If we accept that Americans have the right to bear arms without that activity requiring any specific plan to use them in the immediate future then police must accept that the presence of a firearm does not imply any specific threat. It’s absurd that we have a doublethink where guns are a constitutionally protected legal right but law enforcement can execute you for possessing one. If the right to bear arms is as important as people think it is then the price of that right must be paid in the blood of dead cops, not law abiding citizens. Police should applaud the patriotism of citizens who answer their doors to with gun in hand and only raise their own guns (everyone is holding a gun in all encounters now) if a gun is raised towards them. That the legal exercise of such an important constitutional right is routinely used to justify the execution of citizens by the state is absurdly perverse. It would be like if people were being shot for voting.
Well I mean, the whole firearm thing is absurd. There is no reason for people to be able to carry a tool whose sole function is to turn their fellow citizens into a steak tartare.
If you consider that it's fine for people to potentially kill each other, then you gotta pay the consequences. It looks like Republicans are totally fine with it. One person ending up killing another person is in many cases a reasonable outcome for those people. Feel threatened? Find someone trespassing on your property? Just murder the bad guy.
|
On April 14 2021 06:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 06:06 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. If we accept that Americans have the right to bear arms without that activity requiring any specific plan to use them in the immediate future then police must accept that the presence of a firearm does not imply any specific threat. It’s absurd that we have a doublethink where guns are a constitutionally protected legal right but law enforcement can execute you for possessing one. If the right to bear arms is as important as people think it is then the price of that right must be paid in the blood of dead cops, not law abiding citizens. Police should applaud the patriotism of citizens who answer their doors to with gun in hand and only raise their own guns (everyone is holding a gun in all encounters now) if a gun is raised towards them. That the legal exercise of such an important constitutional right is routinely used to justify the execution of citizens by the state is absurdly perverse. It would be like if people were being shot for voting. Well I mean, the whole firearm thing is absurd. There is no reason for people to be able to carry a tool whose sole function is to turn their fellow citizens into a steak tartare. If you consider that it's fine for people to potentially kill each other, then you gotta pay the consequences. It looks like Republicans are totally fine with it. One person ending up killing another person is in many cases a reasonable outcome for those people. Feel threatened? Find someone trespassing on your property? Just murder the bad guy. That is entirely dependant on the skin colour of those involved.
|
On April 14 2021 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2021 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. There is no way around it but better training to, where possible, not put yourself into positions where you have to make that split second 'shoot or die' choice would probably go a long way. Worth pointing out neither of the cops that killed George Floyd or Daunte Wright thought the person they killed even had a gun, let alone that they were going to shoot them. Its almost as if we were talking about generic situations in the US and not specific cases. Note how you don't see either name in the quote chain.
Still think it's worth noting that the generic situations you are talking about are distinct from the killings by police that have provoked the current protests. Elijah McClain is another example that whatever component gun prevalence has or doesn't have on other times police kill people it's not applicable to the specific topical killings.
|
United States43676 Posts
On April 14 2021 06:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 06:06 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. If we accept that Americans have the right to bear arms without that activity requiring any specific plan to use them in the immediate future then police must accept that the presence of a firearm does not imply any specific threat. It’s absurd that we have a doublethink where guns are a constitutionally protected legal right but law enforcement can execute you for possessing one. If the right to bear arms is as important as people think it is then the price of that right must be paid in the blood of dead cops, not law abiding citizens. Police should applaud the patriotism of citizens who answer their doors to with gun in hand and only raise their own guns (everyone is holding a gun in all encounters now) if a gun is raised towards them. That the legal exercise of such an important constitutional right is routinely used to justify the execution of citizens by the state is absurdly perverse. It would be like if people were being shot for voting. Well I mean, the whole firearm thing is absurd. There is no reason for people to be able to carry a tool whose sole function is to turn their fellow citizens into a steak tartare. If you consider that it's fine for people to potentially kill each other, then you gotta pay the consequences. It looks like Republicans are totally fine with it. One person ending up killing another person is in many cases a reasonable outcome for those people. Feel threatened? Find someone trespassing on your property? Just murder the bad guy.
But they’re fine with it in the boot licking “the state should be allowed to murder you” way. That’s silly.
If you have a right to a gun then you have a right to equal treatment by the state as a gun owner. Every time a police officer behaves differently around a gun owner they are discriminating against citizens exercising a constitutional right. When the police shoot legal gun owners due to fearing for their lives it is a far greater violation than anything George III did to the colonists.
It is not the responsibility of citizens to voluntarily give up their rights to protect the state from potential harm the state fears it may suffer if those rights were ever to be exercised. It is the responsibility of the state to make concessions and sacrifices to protect those sacrosanct rights. Every time a police officer shoots out of fear of being shot there should be a constitutional crisis. Every time a police officer gets killed because they failed to shoot first we should celebrate the American commitment to liberty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
