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.
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.
Do you know the odds of being killed by a police officer in the US? Its incredibly low. All this stuff on TV is contributing to a fear of police as a whole. Im not talking specific racist department or cops here but as a whole.
Lets take a look at arrests vs death by police. Most recent data I can find is 2019.
235 black people were killed by police in 2019 and 2,667,010 arrests made Lets round up and say 1/10,000 of ARRESTS a person is killed.
370 white people killed and 7,014,550 arrests Lets round down and say 1/20,000 ARRESTS a person is killed.
These are ARRESTS not interactions with police. We know theres a shit ton more of interractions as opposed to arrests so the odds are lower than that. If you assume black people have more interactions with police than white people per capita based off of systemmic racism and the drug war/poverty the odds of a specific encouter leading to being shot and killed goes down even further.
If I told you the odds of something happening were 1/1,000,000 would you give a shit? Probably not. If I doubled your odds to 1/500,000 would care anymore? Not really. Its because percentage increases over infinitely small numbers dont mean much.
This is blown out of proportion. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits. Racist cops and people who acted incorrectly should be held accountable. Derek Chauvin should go to prison. This cop should be held accountable. But lets not stir shit up and pretend like this is bigger than it is and that black people should be fearing being killed from police significantly more than other ethnicities.
I get some people want to use these cases as a means for other police reform. If thats the case at least be honest about it rather than traumatizing a generation to think theyll be murdered by police at every routine traffic stop.
Are these stats accurate? I remember hearing that there was a lot of stonewalling from departments when people were trying to compile statistics.
On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote: [quote] 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.
Do you know the odds of being killed by a police officer in the US? Its incredibly low. All this stuff on TV is contributing to a fear of police as a whole. Im not talking specific racist department or cops here but as a whole.
Lets take a look at arrests vs death by police. Most recent data I can find is 2019.
235 black people were killed by police in 2019 and 2,667,010 arrests made Lets round up and say 1/10,000 of ARRESTS a person is killed.
370 white people killed and 7,014,550 arrests Lets round down and say 1/20,000 ARRESTS a person is killed.
These are ARRESTS not interactions with police. We know theres a shit ton more of interractions as opposed to arrests so the odds are lower than that. If you assume black people have more interactions with police than white people per capita based off of systemmic racism and the drug war/poverty the odds of a specific encouter leading to being shot and killed goes down even further.
If I told you the odds of something happening were 1/1,000,000 would you give a shit? Probably not. If I doubled your odds to 1/500,000 would care anymore? Not really. Its because percentage increases over infinitely small numbers dont mean much.
This is blown out of proportion. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits. Racist cops and people who acted incorrectly should be held accountable. Derek Chauvin should go to prison. This cop should be held accountable. But lets not stir shit up and pretend like this is bigger than it is and that black people should be fearing being killed from police significantly more than other ethnicities.
I get some people want to use these cases as a means for other police reform. If thats the case at least be honest about it rather than traumatizing a generation to think theyll be murdered by police at every routine traffic stop.
Are these stats accurate? I remember hearing that there was a lot of stonewalling from departments when people were trying to compile statistics.
There's a reason the DoJ's briefing book uses the word "estimated" throughout, police departments are under no legal obligation to report the vast majority of items relevant to these statistics.
On April 15 2021 18:21 Artisreal wrote: [quote] 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.
Do you know the odds of being killed by a police officer in the US? Its incredibly low. All this stuff on TV is contributing to a fear of police as a whole. Im not talking specific racist department or cops here but as a whole.
Lets take a look at arrests vs death by police. Most recent data I can find is 2019.
235 black people were killed by police in 2019 and 2,667,010 arrests made Lets round up and say 1/10,000 of ARRESTS a person is killed.
370 white people killed and 7,014,550 arrests Lets round down and say 1/20,000 ARRESTS a person is killed.
These are ARRESTS not interactions with police. We know theres a shit ton more of interractions as opposed to arrests so the odds are lower than that. If you assume black people have more interactions with police than white people per capita based off of systemmic racism and the drug war/poverty the odds of a specific encouter leading to being shot and killed goes down even further.
If I told you the odds of something happening were 1/1,000,000 would you give a shit? Probably not. If I doubled your odds to 1/500,000 would care anymore? Not really. Its because percentage increases over infinitely small numbers dont mean much.
This is blown out of proportion. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits. Racist cops and people who acted incorrectly should be held accountable. Derek Chauvin should go to prison. This cop should be held accountable. But lets not stir shit up and pretend like this is bigger than it is and that black people should be fearing being killed from police significantly more than other ethnicities.
I get some people want to use these cases as a means for other police reform. If thats the case at least be honest about it rather than traumatizing a generation to think theyll be murdered by police at every routine traffic stop.
Are these stats accurate? I remember hearing that there was a lot of stonewalling from departments when people were trying to compile statistics.
Ive heard that too but I think police killings are hard to hide since theres an actual death. I could be wrong though.
Killings are the only stat that's difficult to hide (along with items involving public court orders like convictions, plea agreements, and the like), it's stuff like arrests, stops, incidents of use of force, and warrants that implicate massive blind spots.
On April 15 2021 23:45 Oukka wrote: Why on earth was the police officer even pulling a taser gun is the part that I can't get over. It's already a weapon to the extent that civilians aren't even allowed such things afaik.
Maybe Daunte Wright wouldn't have died had she shot him with a taser instead, but it would have still been completely disproportionate use of force by standards of just about any other first world country police. Wright wasn't violent, wasn't threatening violence as far as I understand. Police officer can't force him out of the car without resorting to weapons? Especially if she had the other police officer right there next to her.
This might be a fundamental cultural difference that will never really change but even use of non-lethal weapons in that situation looks very bizarre from here. In the countries I've lived police may use tasers if someone fights them, or doesn't drop a knife or similar weapon despite multiple commands. They don't shoot people sitting in cars with tasers.
I mean that aside what’s the worst that happens if he runs off?
The same fight or flight response that absolutely will see police making mistakes will be just as present in the civilian population, who generally don’t have experience in such situations nor any kind of training and may do silly things.
You have his car already, he runs off, calms down a bit perhaps and you can peacefully apprehend him no?
Sure if it’s a dangerous violent criminal there’s a public safety aspect in apprehending them at the scene. In other instances it’s not like it’s your only shot to arrest someone either
Oh the joys of American law. Here's the Wikipedia entry on fleeing from police and the use of deadly force:
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3] Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit."[4]
You can imagine how sweeping "probable cause to believe the suspect is a significant threat" is.
Also I don't think that using a taser is considered deadly force in most American legal jurisdictions.
Thanks, this is interesting! If the whole concept of use of possibly lethal force on suspects resisting arrest relies on a case like this, would it be possible to challenge it in courts under some variety of proportionality argument? Or even argue, using cases such as the Wright one as example, that there should be stricter criteria on use of force?
Does such a concept as proportionality of punishement or law enforcement even exist in the US legislation? *Lights the resident-lawyers-of-the-forum beacon*
On April 16 2021 00:33 farvacola wrote: Killings are the only stat that's difficult to hide (along with items involving public court orders like convictions, plea agreements, and the like), it's stuff like arrests, stops, incidents of use of force, and warrants that implicate massive blind spots.
Right. See the recent traffic stop of the black lieutenant in military fatigues for an example of something that would not be noticed by stats and is treatment that black people have been alleging for almost a century now by the police.
The guy drove to a well light gas station because he was afraid of the cops, and based on the encounter that was reasonable. In fact, they even told him he should be afraid.
It's the type of thing that was literally unbelievable to white people before body cams and digital records.
48 years ago, Richard Pryor was telling jokes about that exact situation, and would do so for basically his entire career.
Now, we know that the Cleveland police literally used a Chris Rock video as their anti-brutality training (ok, so it was only part, but it was probably the best part - the other parts included a slide that said "protecting and serving the shit out of you" along with a clipart image of a cop beating an unarmed person with a baton).
Additionally, I would be astonished if our stats from before Rodney King could be trusted nationwide on the topic of cop killings. And even stats from the past two decades could be iffy in much of the South.
On April 15 2021 23:45 Oukka wrote: Why on earth was the police officer even pulling a taser gun is the part that I can't get over. It's already a weapon to the extent that civilians aren't even allowed such things afaik.
Maybe Daunte Wright wouldn't have died had she shot him with a taser instead, but it would have still been completely disproportionate use of force by standards of just about any other first world country police. Wright wasn't violent, wasn't threatening violence as far as I understand. Police officer can't force him out of the car without resorting to weapons? Especially if she had the other police officer right there next to her.
This might be a fundamental cultural difference that will never really change but even use of non-lethal weapons in that situation looks very bizarre from here. In the countries I've lived police may use tasers if someone fights them, or doesn't drop a knife or similar weapon despite multiple commands. They don't shoot people sitting in cars with tasers.
I mean that aside what’s the worst that happens if he runs off?
The same fight or flight response that absolutely will see police making mistakes will be just as present in the civilian population, who generally don’t have experience in such situations nor any kind of training and may do silly things.
You have his car already, he runs off, calms down a bit perhaps and you can peacefully apprehend him no?
Sure if it’s a dangerous violent criminal there’s a public safety aspect in apprehending them at the scene. In other instances it’s not like it’s your only shot to arrest someone either
Oh the joys of American law. Here's the Wikipedia entry on fleeing from police and the use of deadly force:
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3] Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit."[4]
You can imagine how sweeping "probable cause to believe the suspect is a significant threat" is.
Also I don't think that using a taser is considered deadly force in most American legal jurisdictions.
Thanks, this is interesting! If the whole concept of use of possibly lethal force on suspects resisting arrest relies on a case like this, would it be possible to challenge it in courts under some variety of proportionality argument? Or even argue, using cases such as the Wright one as example, that there should be stricter criteria on use of force?
Does such a concept as proportionality of punishement or law enforcement even exist in the US legislation? *Lights the resident-lawyers-of-the-forum beacon*
Actual lawyers here can probably give better insight, but my guess is going to be "no".
U.S. law (including the courts) are disgustingly friendly towards the police. I don't see any way to change the standards under which police are held accountable without laws being passed by legislatures.
On April 15 2021 23:45 Oukka wrote: Why on earth was the police officer even pulling a taser gun is the part that I can't get over. It's already a weapon to the extent that civilians aren't even allowed such things afaik.
Maybe Daunte Wright wouldn't have died had she shot him with a taser instead, but it would have still been completely disproportionate use of force by standards of just about any other first world country police. Wright wasn't violent, wasn't threatening violence as far as I understand. Police officer can't force him out of the car without resorting to weapons? Especially if she had the other police officer right there next to her.
This might be a fundamental cultural difference that will never really change but even use of non-lethal weapons in that situation looks very bizarre from here. In the countries I've lived police may use tasers if someone fights them, or doesn't drop a knife or similar weapon despite multiple commands. They don't shoot people sitting in cars with tasers.
I mean that aside what’s the worst that happens if he runs off?
The same fight or flight response that absolutely will see police making mistakes will be just as present in the civilian population, who generally don’t have experience in such situations nor any kind of training and may do silly things.
You have his car already, he runs off, calms down a bit perhaps and you can peacefully apprehend him no?
Sure if it’s a dangerous violent criminal there’s a public safety aspect in apprehending them at the scene. In other instances it’s not like it’s your only shot to arrest someone either
Oh the joys of American law. Here's the Wikipedia entry on fleeing from police and the use of deadly force:
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3] Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit."[4]
You can imagine how sweeping "probable cause to believe the suspect is a significant threat" is.
Also I don't think that using a taser is considered deadly force in most American legal jurisdictions.
Thanks, this is interesting! If the whole concept of use of possibly lethal force on suspects resisting arrest relies on a case like this, would it be possible to challenge it in courts under some variety of proportionality argument? Or even argue, using cases such as the Wright one as example, that there should be stricter criteria on use of force?
Does such a concept as proportionality of punishement or law enforcement even exist in the US legislation? *Lights the resident-lawyers-of-the-forum beacon*
Actual lawyers here can probably give better insight, but my guess is going to be "no".
U.S. law (including the courts) are disgustingly friendly towards the police. I don't see any way to change the standards under which police are held accountable without laws being passed by legislatures.
Prosecutors rely on the police. Without the police they can’t do anything at all. If they go after a policeman, the police stops working with them and they are toast. No prosecutor in his right mind can take the risk to piss his local PD, and PDs always support their “bad apples”.
It’s a circular problem. The way the whole system is designed is retarded.
On April 15 2021 23:07 EnDeR_ wrote: Sadist stated clearly that they don't think that people should be executed for resisting arrest. The argument they're pushing is 'it's your fault if you get shot for resisting arrest'.
Is this not the same as, "clearly I don't think that women should be hit by their husbands, however it is their fault if they make them mad enough to hit them?"
You really can't logically hold the position that something is not right, but that same something is reasonable if it happens.
It depends entirely what your argument is. Don’t resist arrest because you should defer to the police and behave is totally different from the rationale that you should not resist arrest because some cops are provably incapable of not killing you.
In isolation I don’t think it’s akin to victim blaming, it’s kind of a damning indictment of faith in the cops.
Despite the psychological complexities of domestic violence where it does become a de facto reality, you’re not legally compelled to oblige your partner, you have to with the police in such an interaction.
I get where you are going, and there are flaws with any analogy that is kind of their nature because you are attempting to compare to different circumstances to change the way people look at it, but invariably they are different circumstances.
You are legally compelled to do a whole host of things and yet very few of them punishable by death, in most countries none of them are and the bar is set at the risk to you or another person dying in the immediate future.
The point of my analogy was to show that if you think something is wrong, Killing someone resisting arrest or beating a women who insults their man, it really does not matter that the person resisted arrest or that the women insulted the man.
You should not resist arrest, you should not insult people, sure. But that in no way makes the next action acceptable.
On April 15 2021 23:07 EnDeR_ wrote: Sadist stated clearly that they don't think that people should be executed for resisting arrest. The argument they're pushing is 'it's your fault if you get shot for resisting arrest'.
Is this not the same as, "clearly I don't think that women should be hit by their husbands, however it is their fault if they make them mad enough to hit them?"
You really can't logically hold the position that something is not right, but that same something is reasonable if it happens.
I don't think it's a case of "it's not right for them to shoot him, but it's also reasonable".
the people saying "he would be alive if he didn't resist arrest" are correct; he almost certainly would be alive if he hadn't tried to flee. In-and-of-itself, it isn't a value statement on the actions of either party in this particular situation since the two statements ("it is wrong to shoot the victim" and "the victim would be alive if he didn't attempt to flee") aren't in any kind of dichotomous relationship.
That said, this statement is completely unnecessary and I honestly just think it is:
1) Cold-hearted. 2) Shows a clear bias towards the police and is a clear attempt to empathize and align with the police as opposed to the victim.
I think comparisons to commenting on women's clothing when they're sexually assaulted are also a bit off-base. I think it's more like if someone's house gets robbed when they leave their house unlocked; technically it's correct that if the victim had just locked their house they would have most likely been fine, but 1) it doesn't reduce the culpability of the offender and 2) that comment ("you should've locked your door") adds nothing to the conversation; it isn't relevant in the context of culpability, it doesn't help any of the parties involved in the actual incident, and its only purpose is to make the speaker feel better about their own allegiances/biases. + Show Spoiler +
To go back to this debate with BlackJack:
The fact of the matter is nurses and doctors kill more people than police through their mistakes. Whether it's many times more or just a few times more is irrelevant to my argument.
This is not a fact at all, as I have pointed out several times and for numerous reasons. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to actually establish this "fact".
Your argument is that there is a difference between the two because doctors and nurses are trying to help people and the police are trying to subdue/restrain people. In other words the police are trying to so their job which sometimes requires them to restrain/subdue/maim/kill people. So by the sheer circumstances of their job requirements they should be condemned more harshly than if anyone else is harmed accidentally by any other profession?
YES.
Yes, that is 100% what I am saying.
If you have the legal authority to use deadly force on a civilian, you should be held to an incredibly high standard when using that force.
The distinction between a police officer's job and a healthcare provider's job or an engineer's job is also not "arbitrary".
I don't disagree with what you said, but I also don't think it argues against what I said.
You can hold the opinion that resisting arrest is wrong and dangerous and that deadly force is not appropriate. You can not logically hold the opinion that resisting arrest is wrong and dangerous, that deadly force is not appropriate but if it happens it is not the police officers fault because the person resisted.
The second statement is actually saying that deadly force is appropriate if people resist arrest I just don't want to say it aloud because deadly force happened after the person resisted and you would be saying it was acceptable what the police officer did in response.
I've in other posts stated that I don't think fire and brimstone is the right call for the officer. But that is not because the person was resisting arrest that is because I think if neither person was a police officer fire and brimstone would also not be the right course of action.
Here's why I think the resisting arrest is relevant in the case of taser cop. Since you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable about engineering or aircraft you are probably familiar with the idea of redundancies or fail-safes. It's why jets don't crash if one engine/mechanism fails or elevators don't slam to the ground if one thing breaks down. There are back-ups built into the system that in the event of some failure the back-up kicks in and it's not a catastrophic loss. It's why nurses scan meds with a barcode scanner before giving them to patients. There are checks, double-checks, and triple-checks built in constantly because everyone understands that humans are prone to errors. Now obviously policing is one profession that doesn't get that luxury because decisions have to be made in real time and sometime in split seconds. The one failsafe in the case of Daunte Wright is that the taser or gun would have never been drawn if he didn't resist arrest and fight with the cops. Multiple things had to go wrong for him to die, and that doesn't mean it's his "fault" for resisting arrest. Everyone wants to see the world as black and white and assign blame 100% somewhere. Not sure why having a nuanced view is so frowned upon or even bringing up multiple variables somehow means "So you're saying if you resist arrest you deserve to be MURDERED like a dog in the street?" However I have come to understand that you are not even allowed to mention this because this is "victim blaming" which is a big no-no.
Funny thing about victim blaming though. Since I moved to the Bay Area which is basically the car break-in capital of the US, maybe even the world, every single parking lot has signs like "REMOVE ALL VALUABLES FROM SIGHT" etc. I've had my car broken into twice and the response I get was "did you leave anything out that a thief could see?" Literally nobody ever has any issue with these signs or statements that put the "onus" on the victims to prevent themselves from being victimized. Again, just another arbitrary application of an idea that has little logical congruency. Now cue all the people in this thread that struggle with logic to spam me with "this is a terrible comparison! How dare you compare a car Break-in with Crime XYZ! This is totally different!"
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator.
On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator.
Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him?
I mean it's pretty obvious that the USA has a police problem. Germany has roughly 1/4th of the population of the USA and had 14 people shot by the police total in 2019, 21 being the highest number within the last 30 years. England with roughly 1/5th had 3. By first world countries the USA has by far the most people killed by law enforcement officers. If we ignore Malta's 1 and Luxemourg's 1 which have based on their low population an inflated rate the USA's rate is 3x that the highest other one in Canada, 9x that of France and >10x that of every other first world nation. The USA is surrounded by nations like Iran, Angola and Columbia when it comes to police brutality.
So I get why especially the overly affected black communities demand that people get held responsible. And while this is probably overblown the police is also quite obviously in dire need of reforms.
On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator.
Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him?
I rest my case. Kill him now so he's not a threat later. I've said my piece. Good day.
On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator.
Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him?
In another country that is likely what would have happened yes.
Our police doesn't shoot you, nor taser you, just because you decided to run away unless you are considered dangerous.
Your average citizen doesn't do well as a wanted fugitive. Real life isn't the movies.
On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator.
Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him?
yeah.they still have car and possessions, possible ID and who knows what else. ez choice to be honest. if you find out he is actually dangerous, or the car stolen or whatever, you cry wolf and call the cavalry.
that "he might be Houdini" is... a weird call to be honest lol?
On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator.
Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him?
In your view, what's wrong with apprehending him later?
On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator.
Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him?
In Norway, police basically don't do car chases, because the potential for collateral damage almost always outweighs the potential for damage caused by the driver escaping. Rather they get the car descriptions + driver description if possible, find the car in question, use dogs to locate where the driver ran off to. (I mean, if people try to drive away from cops it's almost always a stolen car, and they do end up parking it somewhere).
Same logic applies to situations like these. De-escalation tactics do involve sometimes temporarily letting someone go.
On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator.
Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him?
In your view, what's wrong with apprehending him later?
If you let a fleeing suspect flee then aren't they just going to flee everytime and never be caught? The warrant they were trying to arrest him on was literally for fleeing police (and an unlicensed firearm). So he already fled the first time they tried to arrest him, this encounter was the 2nd time they tried to arrest him and the argument is just let him go and try on the 3rd time or the 4th time, or the 5th time? Isn't that just evidence for my point that he can just flee everytime if you're going to let him get away?
The whole "you have his information, license plate, description etc. you can just catch him the next time." This entire encounter was "the next time."
EPT
