|
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 15 2021 19:15 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2021 07:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
I don't get the hate on the trans community. Even if some trans athlete dominated the field, so what? It still takes a ridiculous amount of time and effort and training and it's damn impressive, female athletes are not pushovers. It isn't hate for the trans community. I think you aren't appreciating how massive the difference between genders is in certain sports. There's no real reason to have gender-specific sports if we allow trans people to compete. I think it is totally worthwhile for women to have an area they can compete in. That argument assumes that trans women are basically men with long hair and a bit of makeup, which is very far from the truth. What is it that gives men an unfair advantage over women when it comes to physical fitness? Is it testosterone production? The Olympic committee seems to think so, see the case of Caster Semenya www.nytimes.com, who naturally produced more testosterone and is now barred from participating. Note that she's not a trans athlete, just a woman whose body naturally produces more testosterone than some arbitrary number that is considered 'womanly'. In that sense, a large number of trans-athletes take and have been taking hormone treatments to stay within that boundary. What's their unfair advantage?
Its not only about current level of hormones but also about level during growth period. They change muscle, organ, bone growth and host of other things. Applying male hormones to teen woman can vastly improve their physical performace and affect growth, also have devastating effect on their body (and psyche),
You can read more here as DDR used to this heavily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany
|
On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming.
Why place the onus of change on the victims?
Take your mugging example:
how do you prevent that from happening again? Not everyone can avoid sketchy parts of town, some even live in them. Are you suggesting then that to prevent muggings, people that live there, should simply stop living there?
Or maybe, if you live in a bad neighbourhood, avoid being out at night. Okay, what happens when you're unavoidably detained (say police pick you up for questioning and they release you at night, for an extra dose of realism); do you not go home and book a hotel to stay in town? What if you can't afford it?
|
Northern Ireland26040 Posts
On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming.
There are enough examples of people absolutely playing ball and still coming out the wrong side of interactions.
Show not just compliance but outright deference to agents of their state or they might kill you is a sensible message for parents to instil in their kids, just a deeply depressing one that they have to.
|
On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming.
So when someone gets murdered by the cops it’s basically their fault because why did he resist arrest?
Wow. Talk about victim blaming.
You should be punished if you resist arrest. And a cop should be punished if he murders someone, regardless of what they were doing, including resisting arrest.
A cop should be allowed lethal force if and only if his life or the life of someone is directly, clearly and immediately threatened. Every other account should be treated like any other case of a citizen murdering an other one. I would actually argue that a cop should be punished more severely for killing someone than a random civilian since he was untrusted with public order and the exercize of the state monopoly on violence - and betrayed that oath in the worst imaginable way.
I mean it’s pretty basic really. The slogan was not “with great powers comes no responsibility at all”.
|
On April 15 2021 21:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming. So when someone gets murdered by the cops it’s basically their fault because why did he resist arrest? Wow. Talk about victim blaming. You should be punished if you resist arrest. And a cop should be punished if he murders someone, regardless of what they were doing, including resisting arrest. A cop should be allowed lethal force if and only if his life or the life of someone is directly, clearly and immediately threatened. Every other account should be treated like any other case of a citizen murdering an other one. I mean it’s pretty basic really.
Also, a cops job is not to punish people. That is what the judicial system is there for.
And sure, if you are black and living in the US, you need to learn a lot of very specific lessons to increase your chances of surviving an encounter with police. In the same way that someone living in the Canadian wilderness might need to learn a lot of lessons about dealing with wild bears.
However, the fact alone that you can compare dealing with cops with dealing with wild bears should tell you all you need to know. Maybe the state shouldn't pay large amounts of wild bears to drive around and endanger people? Or train cops in a way that makes dealing with them not the equivalent of dealing with wild bears?
The same is true for the example with the bad neighbourhood. Maybe dealing with cops should not be the equivalent of walking through a shady area at night.
|
On April 15 2021 21:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming. So when someone gets murdered by the cops it’s basically their fault because why did he resist arrest? Wow. Talk about victim blaming. You should be punished if you resist arrest. And a cop should be punished if he murders someone, regardless of what they were doing, including resisting arrest. A cop should be allowed lethal force if and only if his life or the life of someone is directly, clearly and immediately threatened. Every other account should be treated like any other case of a citizen murdering an other one. I mean it’s pretty basic really.
Its not their fault they were murdered but they increase their odds substantially by fighting with a police officer and/or anyone thats armed. Even if the cop goes to jail for murder, you are still dead. Not discouraging resisting arrest is just dumb. Its not blaming the victim its trying to help them not be a victim.
And yes I know that people have been killed when complying. Theres over 300 million people in the US you can find pretty much any situation occuring even if its low odds. That still doesnt mean you should knowingly increase your odds of being killed by fighting cops.
Im all for police reform and holding people accountable but it also helps to not put yourself in a bad situation.
Also the bolded is going to be a judgement call. You cant get away from that. Things arent black and white and you need to consider a ton of factors. Your statement doesnt magically solve these shootings.
|
On April 15 2021 20:28 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 19:15 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 15 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2021 07:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
I don't get the hate on the trans community. Even if some trans athlete dominated the field, so what? It still takes a ridiculous amount of time and effort and training and it's damn impressive, female athletes are not pushovers. It isn't hate for the trans community. I think you aren't appreciating how massive the difference between genders is in certain sports. There's no real reason to have gender-specific sports if we allow trans people to compete. I think it is totally worthwhile for women to have an area they can compete in. That argument assumes that trans women are basically men with long hair and a bit of makeup, which is very far from the truth. What is it that gives men an unfair advantage over women when it comes to physical fitness? Is it testosterone production? The Olympic committee seems to think so, see the case of Caster Semenya www.nytimes.com, who naturally produced more testosterone and is now barred from participating. Note that she's not a trans athlete, just a woman whose body naturally produces more testosterone than some arbitrary number that is considered 'womanly'. In that sense, a large number of trans-athletes take and have been taking hormone treatments to stay within that boundary. What's their unfair advantage? Its not only about current level of hormones but also about level during growth period. They change muscle, organ, bone growth and host of other things. Applying male hormones to teen woman can vastly improve their physical performace and affect growth, also have devastating effect on their body (and psyche), You can read more here as DDR used to this heavily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany
Fair enough, clearly if someone has just transitioned, claiming an unfair advantage is justifiable and I agree. Yet, these proposed laws would bar all trans women from competing, even those who have been physiologically female since puberty. I do not think that it is fair to bar them from competitions as they genuinely have not had any unfair advantages.
As farva pointed out, the issue isn't clear cut. Are we going to stop barring all female athletes that produce slightly more testosterone than usual from international competitions? Will all female athletes have to take tests to prove that they're women? It starts to sound a bit dystopian, don't you think?
|
On April 15 2021 19:29 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 16:35 KwarK wrote:On April 15 2021 16:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 13:39 NewSunshine wrote:
The comparison between police and nurses/doctors is especially odd to me. I'm putting that nicely. Nurses and doctors have a job and responsibility to place themselves in proximity to people who are at a higher risk of death than the average person when they enter the building. They are there to save lives, not end them. Police are meant to enforce law and order, respond to civil disputes, etc. There is nothing in their job description that necessitates using violence to kill people, nor do they encounter people on an hourly basis who can range from slightly to very ill. Police kill rates are only what they are for their decision to pull a gun and fire. People can and do die in close proximity to medical workers for no fault on their part, and even despite their best efforts. You literally cannot compare anything except the fact that people died. There is no conclusion to be drawn from it, except that police seem to kill an interestingly high number of people in comparison to a field where people are expected to frequently die. Which is actually pretty disturbing in its own right. If you struggle so much with the nurse/doctor analogy just change it. How about engineers. Should the Boeing engineers that designed the fatal flaw in the 737 MAX that caused them to nose-dive go to jail? Should the engineers that designed the walkways of the Hyatt Regency Kansas City go to jail when an obvious error caused them to collapse killing 114 people? You see, most people don't think engineers or doctors or nuses whose mistakes kill people deserve to go to prison. So why should taser cop whose mistake killed someone go to prison? So far pretty much everyone that has tried to justify their reasoning so far has simply went with "well you see it's completely different because doctors and nurses have the job duties of XYZ and cops have the job duties of ABC." Or just "that's a dumb comparison, doctors and cops are nothing alike." As if one profession's duties vs another's is not a completely arbitrary distinction to decide why one should go to prison for killing someone but the other shouldn't. Designing a bad plane is not comparable to shooting someone. you are not wrong. but it was actually way worse than just design failure. to emphasize my point. + Show Spoiler +here if you want to dive in deeper. https://www.thestreet.com/mishtalk/economics/boeing-737-max-major-design-flaws-not-a-software-failure Show nested quote +The 737 Max crashes stem from severe design issues and flagrant cost-cutting efforts, not software issues. it is not the best source I could find in my lunch break but it should get the point across nevertheless. they paid dearly, but as usual, the tax payer of course obliged nonetheless in the end - and thanks to covid - to make a too big to fail company whole again. just like they did with gm in 2009.
to be honest, if we're talking criminal motivation, i.e. ignoring safety concerns for profit / personal gain, what they deserve is to be prosecuted according to the respective criminal statute that apply. If there are non for, how would you call it, murder/manslaughter though proxy, maybe it's time for a criminal code update?
On April 15 2021 21:52 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 21:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming. So when someone gets murdered by the cops it’s basically their fault because why did he resist arrest? Wow. Talk about victim blaming. You should be punished if you resist arrest. And a cop should be punished if he murders someone, regardless of what they were doing, including resisting arrest. A cop should be allowed lethal force if and only if his life or the life of someone is directly, clearly and immediately threatened. Every other account should be treated like any other case of a citizen murdering an other one. I mean it’s pretty basic really. Its not their fault they were murdered but they increase their odds substantially by fighting with a police officer and/or anyone thats armed. Even if the cop goes to jail for murder, you are still dead. Not discouraging resisting arrest is just dumb. Its not blaming the victim its trying to help them not be a victim. And yes I know that people have been killed when complying. Theres over 300 million people in the US you can find pretty much any situation occuring even if its low odds. That still doesnt mean you should knowingly increase your odds of being killed by fighting cops. Im all for police reform and holding people accountable but it also helps to not put yourself in a bad situation. Also the bolded is going to be a judgement call. You cant get away from that. Things arent black and white and you need to consider a ton of factors. Your statement doesnt magically solve these shootings.
how do you still dare to include victim blaming if there are too many examples of non-resisting people getting murdered? As if that's actually something that helps you not getting choked or shot.
|
On April 15 2021 21:52 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 21:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming. So when someone gets murdered by the cops it’s basically their fault because why did he resist arrest? Wow. Talk about victim blaming. You should be punished if you resist arrest. And a cop should be punished if he murders someone, regardless of what they were doing, including resisting arrest. A cop should be allowed lethal force if and only if his life or the life of someone is directly, clearly and immediately threatened. Every other account should be treated like any other case of a citizen murdering an other one. I mean it’s pretty basic really. Its not their fault they were murdered but they increase their odds substantially by fighting with a police officer and/or anyone thats armed. Even if the cop goes to jail for murder, you are still dead. Not discouraging resisting arrest is just dumb. Its not blaming the victim its trying to help them not be a victim. And yes I know that people have been killed when complying. Theres over 300 million people in the US you can find pretty much any situation occuring even if its low odds. That still doesnt mean you should knowingly increase your odds of being killed by fighting cops. Im all for police reform and holding people accountable but it also helps to not put yourself in a bad situation.
How do you address the fact that for a large fraction of the US population, any interaction with the police is 'a bad situation'? This is where putting the onus on the victims falls apart, i.e. a black person can't stop being black to avoid police interactions.
|
On April 15 2021 20:28 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 19:15 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 15 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2021 07:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
I don't get the hate on the trans community. Even if some trans athlete dominated the field, so what? It still takes a ridiculous amount of time and effort and training and it's damn impressive, female athletes are not pushovers. It isn't hate for the trans community. I think you aren't appreciating how massive the difference between genders is in certain sports. There's no real reason to have gender-specific sports if we allow trans people to compete. I think it is totally worthwhile for women to have an area they can compete in. That argument assumes that trans women are basically men with long hair and a bit of makeup, which is very far from the truth. What is it that gives men an unfair advantage over women when it comes to physical fitness? Is it testosterone production? The Olympic committee seems to think so, see the case of Caster Semenya www.nytimes.com, who naturally produced more testosterone and is now barred from participating. Note that she's not a trans athlete, just a woman whose body naturally produces more testosterone than some arbitrary number that is considered 'womanly'. In that sense, a large number of trans-athletes take and have been taking hormone treatments to stay within that boundary. What's their unfair advantage? Its not only about current level of hormones but also about level during growth period. They change muscle, organ, bone growth and host of other things. Applying male hormones to teen woman can vastly improve their physical performace and affect growth, also have devastating effect on their body (and psyche), You can read more here as DDR used to this heavily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany
When I was reading this discussion about sex checking, my first though was "why don't they just check chromosomes?" (apparently was a thing at a point but faced its own problems), which led me to this very interesting article on the history of the testosterone rule: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5570685/
One the the main points they make is that, at least as of 2017, the science behind the testosterone rule isn't entirely figured out and without criticism (obviously, the diferential in physical prowess between top men and top women athletes exists, the question is whether testosterone is a good indicator).
|
On April 15 2021 21:57 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 21:52 Sadist wrote:On April 15 2021 21:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming. So when someone gets murdered by the cops it’s basically their fault because why did he resist arrest? Wow. Talk about victim blaming. You should be punished if you resist arrest. And a cop should be punished if he murders someone, regardless of what they were doing, including resisting arrest. A cop should be allowed lethal force if and only if his life or the life of someone is directly, clearly and immediately threatened. Every other account should be treated like any other case of a citizen murdering an other one. I mean it’s pretty basic really. Its not their fault they were murdered but they increase their odds substantially by fighting with a police officer and/or anyone thats armed. Even if the cop goes to jail for murder, you are still dead. Not discouraging resisting arrest is just dumb. Its not blaming the victim its trying to help them not be a victim. And yes I know that people have been killed when complying. Theres over 300 million people in the US you can find pretty much any situation occuring even if its low odds. That still doesnt mean you should knowingly increase your odds of being killed by fighting cops. Im all for police reform and holding people accountable but it also helps to not put yourself in a bad situation.
How do you address the fact that for a large fraction of the US population, any interaction with the police is 'a bad situation'? This is where putting the onus on the victims falls apart, i.e. a black person can't stop being black to avoid police interactions.
I think that this is overblown. I dont doubt racism or racist cops exist but I think for the majority of police encounters this isnt the reason things go bad.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26040 Posts
On April 15 2021 21:52 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 20:28 Silvanel wrote:On April 15 2021 19:15 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 15 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2021 07:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
I don't get the hate on the trans community. Even if some trans athlete dominated the field, so what? It still takes a ridiculous amount of time and effort and training and it's damn impressive, female athletes are not pushovers. It isn't hate for the trans community. I think you aren't appreciating how massive the difference between genders is in certain sports. There's no real reason to have gender-specific sports if we allow trans people to compete. I think it is totally worthwhile for women to have an area they can compete in. That argument assumes that trans women are basically men with long hair and a bit of makeup, which is very far from the truth. What is it that gives men an unfair advantage over women when it comes to physical fitness? Is it testosterone production? The Olympic committee seems to think so, see the case of Caster Semenya www.nytimes.com, who naturally produced more testosterone and is now barred from participating. Note that she's not a trans athlete, just a woman whose body naturally produces more testosterone than some arbitrary number that is considered 'womanly'. In that sense, a large number of trans-athletes take and have been taking hormone treatments to stay within that boundary. What's their unfair advantage? Its not only about current level of hormones but also about level during growth period. They change muscle, organ, bone growth and host of other things. Applying male hormones to teen woman can vastly improve their physical performace and affect growth, also have devastating effect on their body (and psyche), You can read more here as DDR used to this heavily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany Fair enough, clearly if someone has just transitioned, claiming an unfair advantage is justifiable and I agree. Yet, these proposed laws would bar all trans women from competing, even those who have been physiologically female since puberty. I do not think that it is fair to bar them from competitions as they genuinely have not had any unfair advantages. As farva pointed out, the issue isn't clear cut. Are we going to stop barring all female athletes that produce slightly more testosterone than usual from international competitions? Will all female athletes have to take tests to prove that they're women? It starts to sound a bit dystopian, don't you think?
Cross that bridge when we come to it I suppose?
I mean much opposition to an extension of trans rights is often couched in both a crude conception that ‘sex is sex’ and ‘facts not your feelings’ from a crowd who only cared about woman’s sports when this intersection with their sensibilities occurred.
Once you start trying to categorically define things with crude science understanding, the real science comes into play and then what do you do?
Case in point a Caster Semenya which has been a sad case with the privacy of the athlete trampled all over. I believe she herself wasn’t aware of her intersex status prior to the demands of various gender-related tests she had to undergo. And now she’s in limbo.
If there weren’t genuine outliers then you could perhaps regulate more fairly and non-arbitrarily, but as they do exist they make many a proposed framework look specious and arbitrary.
I mean ultimately what does top level athletics come down to, especially purely physical events, assuming similar levels of dedication etc. What god/insert other deity or non-deity gave you physiologically.
Even without doping some pro cyclists have freakishly high VO2 maxs that most people even with training will get nowhere near.
That’s seen as fair, or a gift, or talent or whatever, but if it’s someone like Semenya it’s weird and outside of the rules and she shouldn’t be able to compete.
I like sports a lot, at the elite level they’re anything but fair though, be it on some base genetic level or access to the sports and training to begin with on socio/economic grounds.
|
For those content to chalk up Daunte Wright's murder as a consequence reasonably related to acting dumb, it should be noted that he was a high school dropout that suffered from a learning disability, a profile not particularly uncommon among many of the people who end up murdered by police following otherwise routine encounters. It's convenient to rely on the language of stupidity when attempting to explain away these things, but maintaining that "stupid people" are necessarily and unchangeably more at risk of being murdered for reacting poorly to police encounters is not the reasonable harbor it's being held out to be.
|
I can't believe people are still making the tired argument of "just don't resist and you'll be fine" after Daniel Shaver was gunned down on a hotel hallway floor, while he was lying there on the ground crying might I add, by a police officer who literally had "you're fucked" engraved on the side of his gun. The police are too trigger-happy in this country. That is not the fault of the citizens and to place the blame on them is just disgusting.
|
|
|
On April 15 2021 22:36 StasisField wrote:
I can't believe people are still making the tired argument of "just don't resist and you'll be fine" after Daniel Shaver was gunned down on a hotel hallway floor, while he was lying there on the ground crying might I add, by a police officer who literally had "you're fucked" engraved on the side of his gun. The police are too trigger-happy in this country. That is not the fault of the citizens and to place the blame on them is just disgusting.
You can find any situation if you look hard enough. That situation does not absolve people from resisting arrest anymore than one cop being killed allows police to shoot everyone.
|
|
|
On April 15 2021 22:04 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 21:57 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 15 2021 21:52 Sadist wrote:On April 15 2021 21:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2021 20:23 Sadist wrote:On April 15 2021 18:29 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote:On April 15 2021 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
I feel that you guys are missing an important caveat in the doctors vs police discussion.
Though I do not agree with the validity of the comparison, this might shed more light to the absurdity of the idea.
if you need an operation, you get a briefing of the risks and stuff and can opt out at any time and resort to touching crystals if that seems less risky to you compared to what otherwise would be the undertaking - removind the appendix, fixing a bone, whatever.
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
And exactly that is the point. If you had to consent to police brutality in the same way you have to regarding risks associated with health care, no fucking body would do that. So your argument is that people can opt out of healthcare and go home and die so that makes it less bad if a nurse or doctor kills them? I'll tell you a story of one of my former coworkers that once killed a patient. The gist of the story is that a patient needed to go to the bathroom but their dialysis catheter was hooked up to something. My former coworker disconnected the patient but when he did that he also removed the port to the catheter (essentially a valve that prevents backflow of blood). After the patient was in the bathroom for a while and was nonresponsive to knocks on the door they unlocked the door and found the patient in a pool of his own blood. Dead. Of course the dialysis patient needed dialysis 3 times a week or he would die but he always had the option to go home and touch crystals and die? My former coworker was a nice guy too, family man, invited me to his fantasy football league. This happened well before I ever worked with him. I'm sure he felt terrible over the whole thing. I think it's safe to assume he didn't lose his license since he was still working in the same hospital at the same job in the same department. No my argument is that they have agency over what happens to them. They are aware of the risks that even highly trained people make mistakes. Which are laid bare plainly. If you ask me, the mistake by your coworker is grave and should be prosecuted according to law. Which is ALL PEOPLE WANT FOR COPS! That they are bound by law. I don't see any contradiction here. Well in the case of Daunte Wright which started this discussion he certainly had agency to comply with the police and go to jail peacefully and there literally would have been zero chance of him being shot. The fact that he attempted to flee, resisted arrest, and initiated a scuffle is the only reason the cop had any reason to draw either her gun or her taser. I would like to think that anyone is aware of the risk that they might be shot anytime they decide to get into a scuffle with police. I agree with this. I dont think anyone would state that resisting arrest should be a death sentence, but at the same time if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Its a horrible situation for all that are involved but we all know this is a real possibility that this kind of stuff happens if you fight with someone that is armed (police, civilian, or otherwise). Its like walking in a bad neighborhood at night and getting mugged, is it the persons fault that they got mugged? Absolutely not. But at the same time a lesson learned could be to avoid sketchy areas after dark. Thats for self interest more than victim blaming. So when someone gets murdered by the cops it’s basically their fault because why did he resist arrest? Wow. Talk about victim blaming. You should be punished if you resist arrest. And a cop should be punished if he murders someone, regardless of what they were doing, including resisting arrest. A cop should be allowed lethal force if and only if his life or the life of someone is directly, clearly and immediately threatened. Every other account should be treated like any other case of a citizen murdering an other one. I mean it’s pretty basic really. Its not their fault they were murdered but they increase their odds substantially by fighting with a police officer and/or anyone thats armed. Even if the cop goes to jail for murder, you are still dead. Not discouraging resisting arrest is just dumb. Its not blaming the victim its trying to help them not be a victim. And yes I know that people have been killed when complying. Theres over 300 million people in the US you can find pretty much any situation occuring even if its low odds. That still doesnt mean you should knowingly increase your odds of being killed by fighting cops. Im all for police reform and holding people accountable but it also helps to not put yourself in a bad situation.
How do you address the fact that for a large fraction of the US population, any interaction with the police is 'a bad situation'? This is where putting the onus on the victims falls apart, i.e. a black person can't stop being black to avoid police interactions. I think that this is overblown. I dont doubt racism or racist cops exist but I think for the majority of police encounters this isnt the reason things go bad. Any easy conclusion to make when your not a black man in America, and therefor don't experience what they do.
Its a conclusion I could also make if not for the many many interviews and talks of black men about how police interactions for them are, including well off and well educated individuals who are not just making stuff up to sound like life in the 'hood' is tough.
|
Even if you resist arrest, you do not deserve to be killed for it. Unless you resist arrest in a way where the only two ways to solve this situation are to kill you or let you kill someone else. But even then, someone in the police fucked up by letting it get to that point. And it would still not be just even in that extreme situation, as cops are not judges nor executioners.
This stuff is not normal nor reasonable. Just because the US is so fucked up that you have a good chance of getting killed when you resist arrest does not mean that this is normal, or how things should be. If you resist arrest, the cops should arrest you with minimum necessary force, and a court of law should decide whether you deserve to be punished for that. The cops should go to great lengths to not kill you. Because that is not their job. if they kill you, they failed at their jobs. Their job in that situation is to arrest you. If you are dead, you are not arrested, and instead of your possible crimes getting justice in a court of law, they stay unresolved because you got killed extrajudiciously by someone who is clearly not competent enough at their job to not kill people.
And, as others have pointed out, we have seen lots of situations where not resisting didn't save the people, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
