|
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 |
The cop says to stop and show him his hands, the kid does what the cop ordered, the cop kills him.
|
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote: If anything this just proves my point. Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. But as I said it's literally a split second decision being made with hand-shaking adrenaline through his system. It's literally an impossible task but the cop failed the impossible task so off to the stockades with him. They could stop giving guns to cops who can't keep calm under pressure. A gun is a serious responsibility, especially when you are wielding it on behalf of the state.
There was literally nothing this kid could have done to not get killed, and that tells me that cops in the US are not trained to de-escalate situations, or are not following their training if they are. It points to serious fundamental issues with the policing in the US.
One of the major problems is that there appears to be very little accountability on the part of police departments as a whole, so they are free to train cops as badly as they want and the worst that happens is one of their cops takes the blame when a catastrophe happens.
If cops are in impossible situations where a bad split second decision leads to someone dying, they need to be trained better, more thoroughly, so they can learn how not to make bad split second decisions.
|
Norway28254 Posts
On April 16 2021 05:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote: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. That's also the policy in some jurisdictions in the US. Although it's typically for if there is some traffic violation like speeding or rolling through a stop sign and the perpetrator takes off. I don't think if they have a known fugitive with a warrant for their arrest that they just let them drive away. Since you replied to this discussion I am curious on what you think is the appropriate punishment for the cop lady that shot Daunte Wright. Since 2 things I know about you are that you tend to believe that imprisoning people should not be for retribution and should instead be for rehabilitation and the betterment of society. Since cop lady clearly made a mistake and did not intend to kill that guy I don't know if there is much of an argument for "rehabilitation" as her risk for committing further crimes is virtually 0% if you bar her from ever owning or working with a gun. However, you also have strong views against use of force by police. The vast majority in this thread seem to think cop lady should go to jail, I think myself and JimmiC are the only "nays" so far.
She should lose her job but no, if it was accidental (and I have no real reason to suspect otherwise) then I don't think jail is appropriate. I can sympathize with people calling for her being jailed because there are certainly black guys being sent to jail for less costly mistakes or for doing stuff that shouldnt be illegal, but I think justice is far better served through ending that practice than it is through jailing more white women.
|
I mean people do go to jail for unvoluntary manslaughter. You make a mistake with your car and roll over someone, you get in trouble. I fail to see how shooting someone in the face accidentally doesn’t qualify. “I’m sorry, wrong weapon, ooops” is not really good enough.
Also there are many reasons outside of vengeance why people go to jail, starting with deterrence and accountability. Maybe if cops got punished in cases like that, they would be a bit less trigger happy generally.
|
On April 16 2021 07:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 06:55 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2021 06:23 farvacola wrote: I happen to own a Glock 17, it's an incredibly reliable and easy to use/clean handgun that puts up with basically anything a user can throw at it, which is why they are standard issue for so many police departments. I've also handled a taser that I believe is similar to the ones issued to police as part of a courthouse safety course I took part in when I worked there. The officer charged with second degree manslaughter for killing Daunte Wright is going to have an incredibly hard time proving that she legitimately mistook her glock for a taser, they feel incredibly different in the hand, the Glock is pounds heavier, and the triggers don't feel anything remotely like one another.
She's also going to have a hard time showing that she believed that Wright was acting in a manner dangerous enough to justify use of deadly force given that she's also claiming she intended to use a less deadly method of stopping him. Even if she drops that claim and focuses solely on maintaining that he was legitimately dangerous enough to justify being shot with a gun, she was recorded saying "taser, taser, taser!" and "I shot him" with a clear air of surprise. At a minimum, its clear it was a really bad mistake, which might be enough to constitute "culpable negligence" as required for the charge. As a left leaning person and knowing all about the stats around gun ownership and personal safety, why do you choose to own one? Is it around that the risk is acceptable for pleasure that the activity gives? (I don't know how to word this better but I'm trying to get at like I know that hockey is dangerous, especially the kind I really like that involves hitting and fights and yet I do it anyway because I feel the risk is worth the reward I get in fitness and enjoyment. I mitigate that risk through training, equipment and so on but I do understand it would still be safer to not play). Or is it around perceived safety? Or is it around something to do with the 2nd amendment? Also, would you be in favor of a ban on personal ownership of handguns and assault rifles or not? I used to own a 22 rifle when I was younger and used it to shoot gophers and other pets at my uncles and grandparents farm so I'm not completely unfamiliar with guns, I grew up around a lot of rifles and was probably like 6 years old when I started shooting my first BB gun. My questions are just because almost no progressives around here own handguns and the only people who I know that own them only use them for target shooting and have them in a lock box, within a safe, separate for their ammo making them functionally useless for personal protection. Whereas it seems pretty common in the US and I struggle to wrap my head around the rationale. These are fine questions, I own two handguns and may pick up a long gun or two at some point as well. I own firearms for two primary reasons. The first is that shooting guns accurately is really fucking difficult, so difficult that the slow process of improvement can be very rewarding. I'm right on the edge of being good enough to compete with my range gun, so its very much a sporting thing that is directly tied to why I once thought my low Master's league Zerg cheese skills meant I should practice SC2 day and night :D The second is that I have very strong views about gun control and those are strengthened and come from a place of more authority when I myself have competence with firearms. For instance, I know how hard it is to be accurate with a handgun such that I can say with certainty that 99% of people who own firearms for self-defense are fooling themselves. As the stats show, the most appreciable changes in circumstance that results from firearm ownership are increased risk of accidents, increased risk of suicide, and increased risk of assailants using one's firearms against them. This would be incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent much time at ranges, people can barely hit targets 5 and 10 yards in front of them with steel frame range handguns far more accurate than polymer guns like Glocks and M&P Shields. The self-defense arguments are laughable.
If you don't mind continuing this, have your experiences with the handguns changed the way you approach gun control/rights? Or I guess more pointedly, do you see any other justification to civilian ownership of non-sporting handguns, such as the glock 17, than being prepared to shoot people with it?
I know the current interpretations of 2nd amendment don't really care for what the weapon is for, which it is another interesting deviation from gun legislation in at least many Western European countries. Back here in Finland handguns have to now be pretty exclusively tied to sport shooting, UK has them pretty much outlawed altogether afaik. In both of countries the laws were rapidly changed as reactions to school shootings where handguns were used. In general the gun laws at least attempt to differentiate based on whether the guns in question are meant for hunting or sport shooting or shooting people.
|
Norway28254 Posts
On April 16 2021 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote: I mean people do go to jail for unvoluntary manslaughter. You make a mistake with your car and roll over someone, you get in trouble. I fail to see how shooting someone in the face accidentally doesn’t qualify. “I’m sorry, wrong weapon, ooops” is not really good enough.
Also there are many reasons outside of vengeance why people go to jail, starting with deterrence and accountability. Maybe if cops got punished in cases like that, they would be a bit less trigger happy generally.
I think losing your job and permanently being unable to have a similar profession is sufficient deterrence to keep people from making mistakes that stem from 'active negligence'. In a population of 300+ million, some people are going to make absolutely mind-numbingly stupid mistakes. I don't think the penal system - especially not the american penal system - is best equipped to deal with those mistakes.
Similarly I'm inclined to think that permanently losing your driver's licence is sufficient deterrence to keep people from making mistakes that result in them driving over people. I don't see how putting someone in jail because they forgot to check their rear mirror and that resulted in them driving over a toddler is really helpful - if you make that sort of mistake, then I think that experience will, for most people, haunt them for the rest of their life in a way that makes me feel like adding to their punishment through also sending them to jail is both cruel and unnecessary. (Mistakes caused by being drunk/intoxicated/using a cellphone are worse and should be punished differently from simply 'making a mistake'. )
|
On April 16 2021 08:28 BlackJack wrote: I'll start from scratch and reiterate my argument one more time since it still may not be clear:
Humans are not infallible and are prone to errors. If you work at McDonalds it probably doesn't matter if you mess up somebody's order very much. But if you are a Doctor that pushes a wrong medication, an engineer that designs a faulty bridge, an airline pilot that makes a bad mistake, sometimes your mistakes can kill people. It's even more true for police that are constantly put in the most dangerous situations in our society and who have:
1) Far less education and training than other professions 2) Far less time to think about their decisions 3) Far more panic flowing them them when having to make their decisions
I know for a fact that I could not operate under these conditions flawlessly. If anyone here thinks they can they are probably deluding themselves. So they are essentially set up to fail since humans are not infallible and mistakes are inevitable. It's simply a matter of time when a mistake is going to be made that ends somebody's life. So the question is what to do with someone who makes a mistake in their job that ends another person's life even though it's basically predestined that such a mistake will happen? Maybe just throw them away in jail like a sacrificial lamb so everyone else can feel good that justice is served? Like a culling of the bottom 0.1% of incompetence? Maybe, it's not a completely unreasonable idea and it would probably make some people "think twice" and possibly prevent the mistake from happening again in the future. Of course it may deter a lot of good and intelligent people from wanting to be police officers if they know they will be in dangerous situations and if they fuck up they will go to prison? That's my question.
Thank you for stating this more clearly. Let's go step by step:
1. Training
- Doctors can take up to 15 years of training (depending on specialty) before they start cutting into people - Engineers require 4 years of training, but you don't design planes as your entry level job, normally you will have done a PhD, so add on 5 more years to a total of about 9 years of training. - Airline pilots usually require about 18 months training
Police officer training takes between 13 to 19 weeks (depending on agency) and typically only require a high school diploma (according to golawenforcement.com)
It's kind of crazy that we require a young doctor train for 10-15 years before they're allowed to perform surgeries, but we're cool with giving police officers guns after 3 months of training.
2. Performing flawlessly under pressure
I agree with you, someone who's had 3 months of training and watched lots of cop movies is poorly equipped to deal with life and death situations and split-second, panicky decisions. I know that making mistakes under pressure is extremely likely and I don't expect cops to perform better or worse than the general population, i.e. mistakes will happen. This is an indictment on the system that produces such outcomes, not individual cops.
The way to fix this is to do what we require doctors to do, i.e. train for a period of years (not weeks, years), do skills tests, practice on dummies; pass multiple, regulated exams and eventually go out on the streets and do their job.
3. What to do when mistakes happen? What every other profession does: investigate the incident, adjust the risk assessment, come up with a plan addressing the accident so the likelihood of it happening again is minimised, retrain the workforce so the mistake does not happen again; re-assess in a predetermined amount of time if the plan is working and implement new changes if it's not.
4. Should we sacrify cops that made mistakes so everyone can feel good? No. At an individual level, examine if the cop followed protocol and their training; if the police officer followed protocol and the mistake could not have been prevented by their training, I don't think the cop should be facing individual consequences, shit does indeed happen sometimes. If the officer committed multiple unforced errors or ignored protocol, they should be hit with the full weight of the law, like all citizens.
My conclusion: The problem is systemic, not individual. You don't fix policing in the US by jailing cops. You have to address the root of the problem.
|
On April 16 2021 16:42 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 07:15 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2021 06:55 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2021 06:23 farvacola wrote: I happen to own a Glock 17, it's an incredibly reliable and easy to use/clean handgun that puts up with basically anything a user can throw at it, which is why they are standard issue for so many police departments. I've also handled a taser that I believe is similar to the ones issued to police as part of a courthouse safety course I took part in when I worked there. The officer charged with second degree manslaughter for killing Daunte Wright is going to have an incredibly hard time proving that she legitimately mistook her glock for a taser, they feel incredibly different in the hand, the Glock is pounds heavier, and the triggers don't feel anything remotely like one another.
She's also going to have a hard time showing that she believed that Wright was acting in a manner dangerous enough to justify use of deadly force given that she's also claiming she intended to use a less deadly method of stopping him. Even if she drops that claim and focuses solely on maintaining that he was legitimately dangerous enough to justify being shot with a gun, she was recorded saying "taser, taser, taser!" and "I shot him" with a clear air of surprise. At a minimum, its clear it was a really bad mistake, which might be enough to constitute "culpable negligence" as required for the charge. As a left leaning person and knowing all about the stats around gun ownership and personal safety, why do you choose to own one? Is it around that the risk is acceptable for pleasure that the activity gives? (I don't know how to word this better but I'm trying to get at like I know that hockey is dangerous, especially the kind I really like that involves hitting and fights and yet I do it anyway because I feel the risk is worth the reward I get in fitness and enjoyment. I mitigate that risk through training, equipment and so on but I do understand it would still be safer to not play). Or is it around perceived safety? Or is it around something to do with the 2nd amendment? Also, would you be in favor of a ban on personal ownership of handguns and assault rifles or not? I used to own a 22 rifle when I was younger and used it to shoot gophers and other pets at my uncles and grandparents farm so I'm not completely unfamiliar with guns, I grew up around a lot of rifles and was probably like 6 years old when I started shooting my first BB gun. My questions are just because almost no progressives around here own handguns and the only people who I know that own them only use them for target shooting and have them in a lock box, within a safe, separate for their ammo making them functionally useless for personal protection. Whereas it seems pretty common in the US and I struggle to wrap my head around the rationale. These are fine questions, I own two handguns and may pick up a long gun or two at some point as well. I own firearms for two primary reasons. The first is that shooting guns accurately is really fucking difficult, so difficult that the slow process of improvement can be very rewarding. I'm right on the edge of being good enough to compete with my range gun, so its very much a sporting thing that is directly tied to why I once thought my low Master's league Zerg cheese skills meant I should practice SC2 day and night :D The second is that I have very strong views about gun control and those are strengthened and come from a place of more authority when I myself have competence with firearms. For instance, I know how hard it is to be accurate with a handgun such that I can say with certainty that 99% of people who own firearms for self-defense are fooling themselves. As the stats show, the most appreciable changes in circumstance that results from firearm ownership are increased risk of accidents, increased risk of suicide, and increased risk of assailants using one's firearms against them. This would be incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent much time at ranges, people can barely hit targets 5 and 10 yards in front of them with steel frame range handguns far more accurate than polymer guns like Glocks and M&P Shields. The self-defense arguments are laughable. If you don't mind continuing this, have your experiences with the handguns changed the way you approach gun control/rights? Or I guess more pointedly, do you see any other justification to civilian ownership of non-sporting handguns, such as the glock 17, than being prepared to shoot people with it? I know the current interpretations of 2nd amendment don't really care for what the weapon is for, which it is another interesting deviation from gun legislation in at least many Western European countries. Back here in Finland handguns have to now be pretty exclusively tied to sport shooting, UK has them pretty much outlawed altogether afaik. In both of countries the laws were rapidly changed as reactions to school shootings where handguns were used. In general the gun laws at least attempt to differentiate based on whether the guns in question are meant for hunting or sport shooting or shooting people. My experience as a handgun enthusiast has only strengthened my belief in a significantly stronger national gun control regime, one that implements mandatory background checks for all purchases, mandatory FFL supervision of all private sales, and perhaps measures like ownership limits on number of weapons and ammo.
As for justification of having non-sporting weapons in the first place, that's a much closer call. Take a look at the preceding conversation regarding police, for example; can it truly be said that deferring to the authority of LEOs qualifies as a good reason to take away rights to weapons like G17s? Despite there being practical issues with use of those weapons for self-defense, I don't think its possible to assert in good faith that black folks and minorities can rely on LEOs as the sole parties capable of using force.
|
Continuing the gun debate that seems to never end, 8 were killed in Indianapolis last night at a FedEx warehouse. Gunman killed himself.
A man opened fire inside a FedEx warehouse facility in Indianapolis late Thursday night, killing eight people and injuring five others. The suspect is believed to have shot himself and is among the nine dead, according to police.
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police said in a statement that eight people were pronounced dead at the scene.
Additionally, "preliminary information from evidence at the scene is that the alleged shooter has taken his own life," police said.
Five others with injuries "consistent with gunshot wounds" were transported to local hospitals for treatment and two victims were treated at the scene, the statement said.
The FedEx Ground Plainfield Center warehouse at 8951 Mirabel Road is about five miles from Indianapolis International Airport.
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Public Information Officer Genae Cook told reporters at around 1 a.m. Friday that officers responded to the warehouse shortly after 11 p.m. following reports of gun shots. As officers arrived, they came upon an active shooter, she said.
She called the situation "very heartbreaking" and said officers "went in and they did their job. And a lot of them are trying to face this because this is a site that no one should ever have to see," Cook said. Source
Thoughts and prayers right? /s
|
On April 16 2021 11:30 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On April 16 2021 09:40 plasmidghost wrote: I'm just so tired. We're enemy number one of the GOP now and I am probably going to leave the US if things get worse here. Joe Manchin already said he doesn't support the equality bill and the courts are stacked way against us. The worst part is, none of my non-trans friends are raising awareness about these laws. What state are you in? Plenty of trans-friendly communities. Portland is very accepting. plasmidghost is in Texas iirc. We (as in Texas) certainly aren't the most trans-friendly place at the moment, unfortunately. Would Austin be a progressive city? I was shocked to find out when it comes to the waste reduction initiatives and other environmental measures Austin is a North American leader. And then when you look at the all the voting patterns being so very different between the big cities and the rest makes me think that pending some of these awful laws there might be some safe havens.
Also, does state politics work like the Federal in the voter divide? And if so is the state politics close to flipping kind of like the federal or will the cities never have enough seats?
|
On April 16 2021 21:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 16:42 Oukka wrote:On April 16 2021 07:15 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2021 06:55 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2021 06:23 farvacola wrote: I happen to own a Glock 17, it's an incredibly reliable and easy to use/clean handgun that puts up with basically anything a user can throw at it, which is why they are standard issue for so many police departments. I've also handled a taser that I believe is similar to the ones issued to police as part of a courthouse safety course I took part in when I worked there. The officer charged with second degree manslaughter for killing Daunte Wright is going to have an incredibly hard time proving that she legitimately mistook her glock for a taser, they feel incredibly different in the hand, the Glock is pounds heavier, and the triggers don't feel anything remotely like one another.
She's also going to have a hard time showing that she believed that Wright was acting in a manner dangerous enough to justify use of deadly force given that she's also claiming she intended to use a less deadly method of stopping him. Even if she drops that claim and focuses solely on maintaining that he was legitimately dangerous enough to justify being shot with a gun, she was recorded saying "taser, taser, taser!" and "I shot him" with a clear air of surprise. At a minimum, its clear it was a really bad mistake, which might be enough to constitute "culpable negligence" as required for the charge. As a left leaning person and knowing all about the stats around gun ownership and personal safety, why do you choose to own one? Is it around that the risk is acceptable for pleasure that the activity gives? (I don't know how to word this better but I'm trying to get at like I know that hockey is dangerous, especially the kind I really like that involves hitting and fights and yet I do it anyway because I feel the risk is worth the reward I get in fitness and enjoyment. I mitigate that risk through training, equipment and so on but I do understand it would still be safer to not play). Or is it around perceived safety? Or is it around something to do with the 2nd amendment? Also, would you be in favor of a ban on personal ownership of handguns and assault rifles or not? I used to own a 22 rifle when I was younger and used it to shoot gophers and other pets at my uncles and grandparents farm so I'm not completely unfamiliar with guns, I grew up around a lot of rifles and was probably like 6 years old when I started shooting my first BB gun. My questions are just because almost no progressives around here own handguns and the only people who I know that own them only use them for target shooting and have them in a lock box, within a safe, separate for their ammo making them functionally useless for personal protection. Whereas it seems pretty common in the US and I struggle to wrap my head around the rationale. These are fine questions, I own two handguns and may pick up a long gun or two at some point as well. I own firearms for two primary reasons. The first is that shooting guns accurately is really fucking difficult, so difficult that the slow process of improvement can be very rewarding. I'm right on the edge of being good enough to compete with my range gun, so its very much a sporting thing that is directly tied to why I once thought my low Master's league Zerg cheese skills meant I should practice SC2 day and night :D The second is that I have very strong views about gun control and those are strengthened and come from a place of more authority when I myself have competence with firearms. For instance, I know how hard it is to be accurate with a handgun such that I can say with certainty that 99% of people who own firearms for self-defense are fooling themselves. As the stats show, the most appreciable changes in circumstance that results from firearm ownership are increased risk of accidents, increased risk of suicide, and increased risk of assailants using one's firearms against them. This would be incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent much time at ranges, people can barely hit targets 5 and 10 yards in front of them with steel frame range handguns far more accurate than polymer guns like Glocks and M&P Shields. The self-defense arguments are laughable. If you don't mind continuing this, have your experiences with the handguns changed the way you approach gun control/rights? Or I guess more pointedly, do you see any other justification to civilian ownership of non-sporting handguns, such as the glock 17, than being prepared to shoot people with it? I know the current interpretations of 2nd amendment don't really care for what the weapon is for, which it is another interesting deviation from gun legislation in at least many Western European countries. Back here in Finland handguns have to now be pretty exclusively tied to sport shooting, UK has them pretty much outlawed altogether afaik. In both of countries the laws were rapidly changed as reactions to school shootings where handguns were used. In general the gun laws at least attempt to differentiate based on whether the guns in question are meant for hunting or sport shooting or shooting people. My experience as a handgun enthusiast has only strengthened my belief in a significantly stronger national gun control regime, one that implements mandatory background checks for all purchases, mandatory FFL supervision of all private sales, and perhaps measures like ownership limits on number of weapons and ammo. As for justification of having non-sporting weapons in the first place, that's a much closer call. Take a look at the preceding conversation regarding police, for example; can it truly be said that deferring to the authority of LEOs qualifies as a good reason to take away rights to weapons like G17s? Despite there being practical issues with use of those weapons for self-defense, I don't think its possible to assert in good faith that black folks and minorities can rely on LEOs as the sole parties capable of using force.
Thanks, that was a thoughtful reply. My first instinct is to say that adding more guns to just about any part of the American population isn't going to increase welfare, safety or lessen gun violence, but as you said law enforcement isn't doing their duty either. Seems very much like a classic prisoner's dilemma/arms race where both sides have to escalate even if the socially desirable equilibrium might be to do the exact opposite.
|
On April 16 2021 23:47 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 21:43 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2021 16:42 Oukka wrote:On April 16 2021 07:15 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2021 06:55 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2021 06:23 farvacola wrote: I happen to own a Glock 17, it's an incredibly reliable and easy to use/clean handgun that puts up with basically anything a user can throw at it, which is why they are standard issue for so many police departments. I've also handled a taser that I believe is similar to the ones issued to police as part of a courthouse safety course I took part in when I worked there. The officer charged with second degree manslaughter for killing Daunte Wright is going to have an incredibly hard time proving that she legitimately mistook her glock for a taser, they feel incredibly different in the hand, the Glock is pounds heavier, and the triggers don't feel anything remotely like one another.
She's also going to have a hard time showing that she believed that Wright was acting in a manner dangerous enough to justify use of deadly force given that she's also claiming she intended to use a less deadly method of stopping him. Even if she drops that claim and focuses solely on maintaining that he was legitimately dangerous enough to justify being shot with a gun, she was recorded saying "taser, taser, taser!" and "I shot him" with a clear air of surprise. At a minimum, its clear it was a really bad mistake, which might be enough to constitute "culpable negligence" as required for the charge. As a left leaning person and knowing all about the stats around gun ownership and personal safety, why do you choose to own one? Is it around that the risk is acceptable for pleasure that the activity gives? (I don't know how to word this better but I'm trying to get at like I know that hockey is dangerous, especially the kind I really like that involves hitting and fights and yet I do it anyway because I feel the risk is worth the reward I get in fitness and enjoyment. I mitigate that risk through training, equipment and so on but I do understand it would still be safer to not play). Or is it around perceived safety? Or is it around something to do with the 2nd amendment? Also, would you be in favor of a ban on personal ownership of handguns and assault rifles or not? I used to own a 22 rifle when I was younger and used it to shoot gophers and other pets at my uncles and grandparents farm so I'm not completely unfamiliar with guns, I grew up around a lot of rifles and was probably like 6 years old when I started shooting my first BB gun. My questions are just because almost no progressives around here own handguns and the only people who I know that own them only use them for target shooting and have them in a lock box, within a safe, separate for their ammo making them functionally useless for personal protection. Whereas it seems pretty common in the US and I struggle to wrap my head around the rationale. These are fine questions, I own two handguns and may pick up a long gun or two at some point as well. I own firearms for two primary reasons. The first is that shooting guns accurately is really fucking difficult, so difficult that the slow process of improvement can be very rewarding. I'm right on the edge of being good enough to compete with my range gun, so its very much a sporting thing that is directly tied to why I once thought my low Master's league Zerg cheese skills meant I should practice SC2 day and night :D The second is that I have very strong views about gun control and those are strengthened and come from a place of more authority when I myself have competence with firearms. For instance, I know how hard it is to be accurate with a handgun such that I can say with certainty that 99% of people who own firearms for self-defense are fooling themselves. As the stats show, the most appreciable changes in circumstance that results from firearm ownership are increased risk of accidents, increased risk of suicide, and increased risk of assailants using one's firearms against them. This would be incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent much time at ranges, people can barely hit targets 5 and 10 yards in front of them with steel frame range handguns far more accurate than polymer guns like Glocks and M&P Shields. The self-defense arguments are laughable. If you don't mind continuing this, have your experiences with the handguns changed the way you approach gun control/rights? Or I guess more pointedly, do you see any other justification to civilian ownership of non-sporting handguns, such as the glock 17, than being prepared to shoot people with it? I know the current interpretations of 2nd amendment don't really care for what the weapon is for, which it is another interesting deviation from gun legislation in at least many Western European countries. Back here in Finland handguns have to now be pretty exclusively tied to sport shooting, UK has them pretty much outlawed altogether afaik. In both of countries the laws were rapidly changed as reactions to school shootings where handguns were used. In general the gun laws at least attempt to differentiate based on whether the guns in question are meant for hunting or sport shooting or shooting people. My experience as a handgun enthusiast has only strengthened my belief in a significantly stronger national gun control regime, one that implements mandatory background checks for all purchases, mandatory FFL supervision of all private sales, and perhaps measures like ownership limits on number of weapons and ammo. As for justification of having non-sporting weapons in the first place, that's a much closer call. Take a look at the preceding conversation regarding police, for example; can it truly be said that deferring to the authority of LEOs qualifies as a good reason to take away rights to weapons like G17s? Despite there being practical issues with use of those weapons for self-defense, I don't think its possible to assert in good faith that black folks and minorities can rely on LEOs as the sole parties capable of using force. Thanks, that was a thoughtful reply. My first instinct is to say that adding more guns to just about any part of the American population isn't going to increase welfare, safety or lessen gun violence, but as you said law enforcement isn't doing their duty either. Seems very much like a classic prisoner's dilemma/arms race where both sides have to escalate even if the socially desirable equilibrium might be to do the exact opposite. I'm not sure at the end. I think it is just counter intuitive. People needing guns to keep the police inline just simply does not work. The police will always have more, bigger and so on, not to mention the training, numbers and organization. And you can't ask the police to not have guns as long as so much of the population does. If you were to de-arm the population you could, and you would also take away the excuse/reason why so many die by police.
Not to mention you would deeply cut the mass shootings like the one Z2C just posted about and seem to happen multiple times a week as well as all other forms of gun violence.
There is zero logical reasons to have a populous with easy access to tools designed to kill people as easily as possible. Hunting rifles and so on, sure with regulation there are reasons why that make sense. Hand guns and assault rifles all the reasons are emotional, none are analytical.
|
United States40765 Posts
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote: If anything this just proves my point. Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. But as I said it's literally a split second decision being made with hand-shaking adrenaline through his system. It's literally an impossible task but the cop failed the impossible task so off to the stockades with him. This isn’t an example of accidentally shooting someone. The cop deliberately shot him. The argument “sure, he decided the best option was to kill a child but it was a hard situation” doesn’t work for me. I can say with absolute confidence as a father that if I were a cop I wouldn’t kill children. This isn’t an impossible task, this is an easy task. Not killing children is super easy. Lots of cops go their whole careers never killing children.
|
On April 16 2021 22:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 11:30 StasisField wrote:On April 16 2021 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On April 16 2021 09:40 plasmidghost wrote: I'm just so tired. We're enemy number one of the GOP now and I am probably going to leave the US if things get worse here. Joe Manchin already said he doesn't support the equality bill and the courts are stacked way against us. The worst part is, none of my non-trans friends are raising awareness about these laws. What state are you in? Plenty of trans-friendly communities. Portland is very accepting. plasmidghost is in Texas iirc. We (as in Texas) certainly aren't the most trans-friendly place at the moment, unfortunately. Would Austin be a progressive city? I was shocked to find out when it comes to the waste reduction initiatives and other environmental measures Austin is a North American leader. And then when you look at the all the voting patterns being so very different between the big cities and the rest makes me think that pending some of these awful laws there might be some safe havens. Also, does state politics work like the Federal in the voter divide? And if so is the state politics close to flipping kind of like the federal or will the cities never have enough seats? Austin is a very progressive city. There are other progressive pockets in Texas but Austin is the biggest and (probably) most progressive in the state.
State politics in Texas are like many other red states: the state is gerrymandered to shit, poll locations in poor neighborhoods, college towns, and predominantly minority neighborhoods are closed last second before elections without warning. Many people who aren't Republicans are highly apathetic towards voting and politics because the system is gamed as much as it legally can be to make voting difficult/impossible. Despite that, the state is trending blue and I think the state would be blue if we didn't have all of these hurdles in the way.
|
On April 16 2021 23:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 23:47 Oukka wrote:On April 16 2021 21:43 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2021 16:42 Oukka wrote:On April 16 2021 07:15 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2021 06:55 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2021 06:23 farvacola wrote: I happen to own a Glock 17, it's an incredibly reliable and easy to use/clean handgun that puts up with basically anything a user can throw at it, which is why they are standard issue for so many police departments. I've also handled a taser that I believe is similar to the ones issued to police as part of a courthouse safety course I took part in when I worked there. The officer charged with second degree manslaughter for killing Daunte Wright is going to have an incredibly hard time proving that she legitimately mistook her glock for a taser, they feel incredibly different in the hand, the Glock is pounds heavier, and the triggers don't feel anything remotely like one another.
She's also going to have a hard time showing that she believed that Wright was acting in a manner dangerous enough to justify use of deadly force given that she's also claiming she intended to use a less deadly method of stopping him. Even if she drops that claim and focuses solely on maintaining that he was legitimately dangerous enough to justify being shot with a gun, she was recorded saying "taser, taser, taser!" and "I shot him" with a clear air of surprise. At a minimum, its clear it was a really bad mistake, which might be enough to constitute "culpable negligence" as required for the charge. As a left leaning person and knowing all about the stats around gun ownership and personal safety, why do you choose to own one? Is it around that the risk is acceptable for pleasure that the activity gives? (I don't know how to word this better but I'm trying to get at like I know that hockey is dangerous, especially the kind I really like that involves hitting and fights and yet I do it anyway because I feel the risk is worth the reward I get in fitness and enjoyment. I mitigate that risk through training, equipment and so on but I do understand it would still be safer to not play). Or is it around perceived safety? Or is it around something to do with the 2nd amendment? Also, would you be in favor of a ban on personal ownership of handguns and assault rifles or not? I used to own a 22 rifle when I was younger and used it to shoot gophers and other pets at my uncles and grandparents farm so I'm not completely unfamiliar with guns, I grew up around a lot of rifles and was probably like 6 years old when I started shooting my first BB gun. My questions are just because almost no progressives around here own handguns and the only people who I know that own them only use them for target shooting and have them in a lock box, within a safe, separate for their ammo making them functionally useless for personal protection. Whereas it seems pretty common in the US and I struggle to wrap my head around the rationale. These are fine questions, I own two handguns and may pick up a long gun or two at some point as well. I own firearms for two primary reasons. The first is that shooting guns accurately is really fucking difficult, so difficult that the slow process of improvement can be very rewarding. I'm right on the edge of being good enough to compete with my range gun, so its very much a sporting thing that is directly tied to why I once thought my low Master's league Zerg cheese skills meant I should practice SC2 day and night :D The second is that I have very strong views about gun control and those are strengthened and come from a place of more authority when I myself have competence with firearms. For instance, I know how hard it is to be accurate with a handgun such that I can say with certainty that 99% of people who own firearms for self-defense are fooling themselves. As the stats show, the most appreciable changes in circumstance that results from firearm ownership are increased risk of accidents, increased risk of suicide, and increased risk of assailants using one's firearms against them. This would be incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent much time at ranges, people can barely hit targets 5 and 10 yards in front of them with steel frame range handguns far more accurate than polymer guns like Glocks and M&P Shields. The self-defense arguments are laughable. If you don't mind continuing this, have your experiences with the handguns changed the way you approach gun control/rights? Or I guess more pointedly, do you see any other justification to civilian ownership of non-sporting handguns, such as the glock 17, than being prepared to shoot people with it? I know the current interpretations of 2nd amendment don't really care for what the weapon is for, which it is another interesting deviation from gun legislation in at least many Western European countries. Back here in Finland handguns have to now be pretty exclusively tied to sport shooting, UK has them pretty much outlawed altogether afaik. In both of countries the laws were rapidly changed as reactions to school shootings where handguns were used. In general the gun laws at least attempt to differentiate based on whether the guns in question are meant for hunting or sport shooting or shooting people. My experience as a handgun enthusiast has only strengthened my belief in a significantly stronger national gun control regime, one that implements mandatory background checks for all purchases, mandatory FFL supervision of all private sales, and perhaps measures like ownership limits on number of weapons and ammo. As for justification of having non-sporting weapons in the first place, that's a much closer call. Take a look at the preceding conversation regarding police, for example; can it truly be said that deferring to the authority of LEOs qualifies as a good reason to take away rights to weapons like G17s? Despite there being practical issues with use of those weapons for self-defense, I don't think its possible to assert in good faith that black folks and minorities can rely on LEOs as the sole parties capable of using force. Thanks, that was a thoughtful reply. My first instinct is to say that adding more guns to just about any part of the American population isn't going to increase welfare, safety or lessen gun violence, but as you said law enforcement isn't doing their duty either. Seems very much like a classic prisoner's dilemma/arms race where both sides have to escalate even if the socially desirable equilibrium might be to do the exact opposite. I'm not sure at the end. I think it is just counter intuitive. People needing guns to keep the police inline just simply does not work. The police will always have more, bigger and so on, not to mention the training, numbers and organization. And you can't ask the police to not have guns as long as so much of the population does. If you were to de-arm the population you could, and you would also take away the excuse/reason why so many die by police. Not to mention you would deeply cut the mass shootings like the one Z2C just posted about and seem to happen multiple times a week as well as all other forms of gun violence. There is zero logical reasons to have a populous with easy access to tools designed to kill people as easily as possible. Hunting rifles and so on, sure with regulation there are reasons why that make sense. Hand guns and assault rifles all the reasons are emotional, none are analytical.
I agree with all of this. My point was more so that at individual level, as farvacola said, people feel the need to arm themselves if they cannot trust the authorities to do their job properly. Then law enforcement needs to be prepared to deal with more armed people. Repeat until in current state of the society, or worse.
Solution is collective de-arming, with emphasis on the collective. Without political intervention the current situation won't change for the better, as nobody is willing to give up on their guns without assurances that others around them will have less guns as well.
|
On April 17 2021 01:22 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 23:55 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2021 23:47 Oukka wrote:On April 16 2021 21:43 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2021 16:42 Oukka wrote:On April 16 2021 07:15 farvacola wrote:On April 16 2021 06:55 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2021 06:23 farvacola wrote: I happen to own a Glock 17, it's an incredibly reliable and easy to use/clean handgun that puts up with basically anything a user can throw at it, which is why they are standard issue for so many police departments. I've also handled a taser that I believe is similar to the ones issued to police as part of a courthouse safety course I took part in when I worked there. The officer charged with second degree manslaughter for killing Daunte Wright is going to have an incredibly hard time proving that she legitimately mistook her glock for a taser, they feel incredibly different in the hand, the Glock is pounds heavier, and the triggers don't feel anything remotely like one another.
She's also going to have a hard time showing that she believed that Wright was acting in a manner dangerous enough to justify use of deadly force given that she's also claiming she intended to use a less deadly method of stopping him. Even if she drops that claim and focuses solely on maintaining that he was legitimately dangerous enough to justify being shot with a gun, she was recorded saying "taser, taser, taser!" and "I shot him" with a clear air of surprise. At a minimum, its clear it was a really bad mistake, which might be enough to constitute "culpable negligence" as required for the charge. As a left leaning person and knowing all about the stats around gun ownership and personal safety, why do you choose to own one? Is it around that the risk is acceptable for pleasure that the activity gives? (I don't know how to word this better but I'm trying to get at like I know that hockey is dangerous, especially the kind I really like that involves hitting and fights and yet I do it anyway because I feel the risk is worth the reward I get in fitness and enjoyment. I mitigate that risk through training, equipment and so on but I do understand it would still be safer to not play). Or is it around perceived safety? Or is it around something to do with the 2nd amendment? Also, would you be in favor of a ban on personal ownership of handguns and assault rifles or not? I used to own a 22 rifle when I was younger and used it to shoot gophers and other pets at my uncles and grandparents farm so I'm not completely unfamiliar with guns, I grew up around a lot of rifles and was probably like 6 years old when I started shooting my first BB gun. My questions are just because almost no progressives around here own handguns and the only people who I know that own them only use them for target shooting and have them in a lock box, within a safe, separate for their ammo making them functionally useless for personal protection. Whereas it seems pretty common in the US and I struggle to wrap my head around the rationale. These are fine questions, I own two handguns and may pick up a long gun or two at some point as well. I own firearms for two primary reasons. The first is that shooting guns accurately is really fucking difficult, so difficult that the slow process of improvement can be very rewarding. I'm right on the edge of being good enough to compete with my range gun, so its very much a sporting thing that is directly tied to why I once thought my low Master's league Zerg cheese skills meant I should practice SC2 day and night :D The second is that I have very strong views about gun control and those are strengthened and come from a place of more authority when I myself have competence with firearms. For instance, I know how hard it is to be accurate with a handgun such that I can say with certainty that 99% of people who own firearms for self-defense are fooling themselves. As the stats show, the most appreciable changes in circumstance that results from firearm ownership are increased risk of accidents, increased risk of suicide, and increased risk of assailants using one's firearms against them. This would be incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent much time at ranges, people can barely hit targets 5 and 10 yards in front of them with steel frame range handguns far more accurate than polymer guns like Glocks and M&P Shields. The self-defense arguments are laughable. If you don't mind continuing this, have your experiences with the handguns changed the way you approach gun control/rights? Or I guess more pointedly, do you see any other justification to civilian ownership of non-sporting handguns, such as the glock 17, than being prepared to shoot people with it? I know the current interpretations of 2nd amendment don't really care for what the weapon is for, which it is another interesting deviation from gun legislation in at least many Western European countries. Back here in Finland handguns have to now be pretty exclusively tied to sport shooting, UK has them pretty much outlawed altogether afaik. In both of countries the laws were rapidly changed as reactions to school shootings where handguns were used. In general the gun laws at least attempt to differentiate based on whether the guns in question are meant for hunting or sport shooting or shooting people. My experience as a handgun enthusiast has only strengthened my belief in a significantly stronger national gun control regime, one that implements mandatory background checks for all purchases, mandatory FFL supervision of all private sales, and perhaps measures like ownership limits on number of weapons and ammo. As for justification of having non-sporting weapons in the first place, that's a much closer call. Take a look at the preceding conversation regarding police, for example; can it truly be said that deferring to the authority of LEOs qualifies as a good reason to take away rights to weapons like G17s? Despite there being practical issues with use of those weapons for self-defense, I don't think its possible to assert in good faith that black folks and minorities can rely on LEOs as the sole parties capable of using force. Thanks, that was a thoughtful reply. My first instinct is to say that adding more guns to just about any part of the American population isn't going to increase welfare, safety or lessen gun violence, but as you said law enforcement isn't doing their duty either. Seems very much like a classic prisoner's dilemma/arms race where both sides have to escalate even if the socially desirable equilibrium might be to do the exact opposite. I'm not sure at the end. I think it is just counter intuitive. People needing guns to keep the police inline just simply does not work. The police will always have more, bigger and so on, not to mention the training, numbers and organization. And you can't ask the police to not have guns as long as so much of the population does. If you were to de-arm the population you could, and you would also take away the excuse/reason why so many die by police. Not to mention you would deeply cut the mass shootings like the one Z2C just posted about and seem to happen multiple times a week as well as all other forms of gun violence. There is zero logical reasons to have a populous with easy access to tools designed to kill people as easily as possible. Hunting rifles and so on, sure with regulation there are reasons why that make sense. Hand guns and assault rifles all the reasons are emotional, none are analytical. I agree with all of this. My point was more so that at individual level, as farvacola said, people feel the need to arm themselves if they cannot trust the authorities to do their job properly. Then law enforcement needs to be prepared to deal with more armed people. Repeat until in current state of the society, or worse. Solution is collective de-arming, with emphasis on the collective. Without political intervention the current situation won't change for the better, as nobody is willing to give up on their guns without assurances that others around them will have less guns as well. I agree, however I think there are large pockets of people in the US that would be unwilling even with assurances others will, partly because of culture and partly because there is very little trust. Whether it is church, state, reps, dems, police, feds and whoever else, there will be a group of between 20-50% who trust and the rest who have a extreme distrust. If you had all the groups on board maybe, but even then in the current climate there would be a large group that would think those groups all agreeing was a sign of something nefarious instead collective good.
I'm also not saying the lack of trust is completely unjustified either as each of those groups have done many actions that have cost them their trust.
But perfection is the enemy of progress so I think the best course of action is pushing hard for the small steps that are popular and building from their. Bidens EA were positive and now congress needs to legislate the rules that 70% of Americans want around background checks and so on.
|
On April 17 2021 00:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote: If anything this just proves my point. Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. But as I said it's literally a split second decision being made with hand-shaking adrenaline through his system. It's literally an impossible task but the cop failed the impossible task so off to the stockades with him. This isn’t an example of accidentally shooting someone. The cop deliberately shot him. The argument “sure, he decided the best option was to kill a child but it was a hard situation” doesn’t work for me. I can say with absolute confidence as a father that if I were a cop I wouldn’t kill children. This isn’t an impossible task, this is an easy task. Not killing children is super easy. Lots of cops go their whole careers never killing children.
This is a very bad argument. "Lots of cops go their whole careers never killing children." This literally means nothing. Yes, most cops will never be in the rare and dire situation of responding to a call of gunshots and then chasing an adolescent down an alleyway before the adolescent whips out a gun and having to decide if he is whipping out the gun to shoot you or to throw it away. Comparing the behavior of people in rare and dire situations to people that are never in those situations as some kind of moral indictment is just ridiculous. It's like condemning shipwreck survivors that resorted to cannibalism because "Lots of people go their whole lives without resorting to cannibalism."
"I can say with absolute confidence as a father that if I were a cop I wouldn't kill children."
Really? Just a period at the end of that sentence, eh? So even in the hypothetical situation of instead of the kid ditching the gun he turns around and starts blasting you you would just eat those bullets instead of "killing a child." Your widow would be so proud. It's also really easy to say when you aren't a cop and know that you would never be in that situation.
|
On April 16 2021 20:35 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 08:28 BlackJack wrote: I'll start from scratch and reiterate my argument one more time since it still may not be clear:
Humans are not infallible and are prone to errors. If you work at McDonalds it probably doesn't matter if you mess up somebody's order very much. But if you are a Doctor that pushes a wrong medication, an engineer that designs a faulty bridge, an airline pilot that makes a bad mistake, sometimes your mistakes can kill people. It's even more true for police that are constantly put in the most dangerous situations in our society and who have:
1) Far less education and training than other professions 2) Far less time to think about their decisions 3) Far more panic flowing them them when having to make their decisions
I know for a fact that I could not operate under these conditions flawlessly. If anyone here thinks they can they are probably deluding themselves. So they are essentially set up to fail since humans are not infallible and mistakes are inevitable. It's simply a matter of time when a mistake is going to be made that ends somebody's life. So the question is what to do with someone who makes a mistake in their job that ends another person's life even though it's basically predestined that such a mistake will happen? Maybe just throw them away in jail like a sacrificial lamb so everyone else can feel good that justice is served? Like a culling of the bottom 0.1% of incompetence? Maybe, it's not a completely unreasonable idea and it would probably make some people "think twice" and possibly prevent the mistake from happening again in the future. Of course it may deter a lot of good and intelligent people from wanting to be police officers if they know they will be in dangerous situations and if they fuck up they will go to prison? That's my question. Thank you for stating this more clearly. Let's go step by step: 1. Training - Doctors can take up to 15 years of training (depending on specialty) before they start cutting into people - Engineers require 4 years of training, but you don't design planes as your entry level job, normally you will have done a PhD, so add on 5 more years to a total of about 9 years of training. - Airline pilots usually require about 18 months training Police officer training takes between 13 to 19 weeks (depending on agency) and typically only require a high school diploma (according to golawenforcement.com) It's kind of crazy that we require a young doctor train for 10-15 years before they're allowed to perform surgeries, but we're cool with giving police officers guns after 3 months of training. 2. Performing flawlessly under pressure I agree with you, someone who's had 3 months of training and watched lots of cop movies is poorly equipped to deal with life and death situations and split-second, panicky decisions. I know that making mistakes under pressure is extremely likely and I don't expect cops to perform better or worse than the general population, i.e. mistakes will happen. This is an indictment on the system that produces such outcomes, not individual cops. The way to fix this is to do what we require doctors to do, i.e. train for a period of years (not weeks, years), do skills tests, practice on dummies; pass multiple, regulated exams and eventually go out on the streets and do their job. 3. What to do when mistakes happen? What every other profession does: investigate the incident, adjust the risk assessment, come up with a plan addressing the accident so the likelihood of it happening again is minimised, retrain the workforce so the mistake does not happen again; re-assess in a predetermined amount of time if the plan is working and implement new changes if it's not. 4. Should we sacrify cops that made mistakes so everyone can feel good? No. At an individual level, examine if the cop followed protocol and their training; if the police officer followed protocol and the mistake could not have been prevented by their training, I don't think the cop should be facing individual consequences, shit does indeed happen sometimes. If the officer committed multiple unforced errors or ignored protocol, they should be hit with the full weight of the law, like all citizens. My conclusion: The problem is systemic, not individual. You don't fix policing in the US by jailing cops. You have to address the root of the problem.
Yes, I agree with everything you've just said
|
United States40765 Posts
On April 17 2021 05:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 00:12 KwarK wrote:On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote: If anything this just proves my point. Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. But as I said it's literally a split second decision being made with hand-shaking adrenaline through his system. It's literally an impossible task but the cop failed the impossible task so off to the stockades with him. This isn’t an example of accidentally shooting someone. The cop deliberately shot him. The argument “sure, he decided the best option was to kill a child but it was a hard situation” doesn’t work for me. I can say with absolute confidence as a father that if I were a cop I wouldn’t kill children. This isn’t an impossible task, this is an easy task. Not killing children is super easy. Lots of cops go their whole careers never killing children. This is a very bad argument. "Lots of cops go their whole careers never killing children." This literally means nothing. Yes, most cops will never be in the rare and dire situation of responding to a call of gunshots and then chasing an adolescent down an alleyway before the adolescent whips out a gun and having to decide if he is whipping out the gun to shoot you or to throw it away. Comparing the behavior of people in rare and dire situations to people that are never in those situations as some kind of moral indictment is just ridiculous. It's like condemning shipwreck survivors that resorted to cannibalism because "Lots of people go their whole lives without resorting to cannibalism." "I can say with absolute confidence as a father that if I were a cop I wouldn't kill children." Really? Just a period at the end of that sentence, eh? So even in the hypothetical situation of instead of the kid ditching the gun he turns around and starts blasting you you would just eat those bullets instead of "killing a child." Your widow would be so proud. It's also really easy to say when you aren't a cop and know that you would never be in that situation. You're acting like it's unimaginable that someone would never kill a child. It's really not, that's just a you thing. That just speaks to your lack of character, don't project that shit on me. My widow would be proud.
|
On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 05:00 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 00:12 KwarK wrote:On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote: If anything this just proves my point. Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. But as I said it's literally a split second decision being made with hand-shaking adrenaline through his system. It's literally an impossible task but the cop failed the impossible task so off to the stockades with him. This isn’t an example of accidentally shooting someone. The cop deliberately shot him. The argument “sure, he decided the best option was to kill a child but it was a hard situation” doesn’t work for me. I can say with absolute confidence as a father that if I were a cop I wouldn’t kill children. This isn’t an impossible task, this is an easy task. Not killing children is super easy. Lots of cops go their whole careers never killing children. This is a very bad argument. "Lots of cops go their whole careers never killing children." This literally means nothing. Yes, most cops will never be in the rare and dire situation of responding to a call of gunshots and then chasing an adolescent down an alleyway before the adolescent whips out a gun and having to decide if he is whipping out the gun to shoot you or to throw it away. Comparing the behavior of people in rare and dire situations to people that are never in those situations as some kind of moral indictment is just ridiculous. It's like condemning shipwreck survivors that resorted to cannibalism because "Lots of people go their whole lives without resorting to cannibalism." "I can say with absolute confidence as a father that if I were a cop I wouldn't kill children." Really? Just a period at the end of that sentence, eh? So even in the hypothetical situation of instead of the kid ditching the gun he turns around and starts blasting you you would just eat those bullets instead of "killing a child." Your widow would be so proud. It's also really easy to say when you aren't a cop and know that you would never be in that situation. You're acting like it's unimaginable that someone would never kill a child. It's really not, that's just a you thing. That just speaks to your lack of character, don't project that shit on me. My widow would be proud. He also presents a bizarre dichotomy of [shoot child | die], which even checked against the ideal role of police doesn't support what he's arguing. The police should place themselves in a position of risk so that the people they serve don't have to. They "protect and serve". That's just how it should be. If someone isn't ready to face that fact, they're not ready to be a police officer, in the same way that people who aren't ready to stand over someone with a scalpel and have direct control over their life aren't ready to be a surgeon. Instead he handwaves it as them making some difficult decision while dastardly adrenaline rages through their system, clouding their judgement and abdicating them of responsibility, ultimately. How about? If someone can't face a child without ending up making the adrenaline-charged decision to shoot and kill a child, they shouldn't have chosen a profession that might put them there. And also, maybe there's something deeply and fundamentally wrong with police training on a wider scale that this shit is so common that he feels like he has to make excuses for it.
|
|
|
|