|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 16 2021 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
The cop says to stop and show him his hands, the kid does what the cop ordered, the cop kills him.
Yup, it's literally that simple, sadly. The body cam footage clearly shows that 13-year-old Adam Toledo was not holding a gun when he put his hands up in surrender to the police officer who then shot and killed him.
Unsurprisingly, Sean Hannity vaguely gaslights the situation by calling Adam a "man", rather than a barely-teenage, middle school boy... a literal child.
On April 16 2021 14:36 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 13:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2021 13:22 Stratos_speAr wrote: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:
Fun fact: Being a cop in the U.S. isn't even in the top 10 most deadly professions. I'm sure that's only because they're gunning down 13-year old children who turn around and put their hands up as requested, then lying and claiming they had guns in their hands. Otherwise they would be in way more danger. Calling these errors or accidents is sickening. I can't imagine their training didn't cover "don't shoot people immediately after you demand they surrender unless a firearm is clearly visible." Not for nothing, but he did have a gun. I watched the video, it's clearly visible and in his hand before turning around, he drops/tosses it when he faces the cop, and is shot technically unarmed. It's all rather unfortunate, but it's a bit disingenuous to frame it like that. He was unarmed for less than a second, and in that instant he was shot.
When he was shot and killed, he was not holding a weapon. Whether or not a weapon was thrown away previously or hidden somewhere, the cop clearly wasn't justified in shooting at the apparently-unarmed child in that moment. The boy's hands were up, holding nothing. The cop didn't see Adam wielding a gun when the cop shot at Adam.
|
On April 17 2021 06:38 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote: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. Wasn't there a court case that decided the police has no obligation to 'protect and serve' and are under no obligation to put themselves at risk for your safety?
|
On April 17 2021 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 06:38 NewSunshine wrote:On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote: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. Wasn't there a court case that decided the police has no obligation to 'protect and serve' and are under no obligation to put themselves at risk for your safety.
Double edit: Article on that... https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html
|
On April 17 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 14:36 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On April 16 2021 13:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2021 13:22 Stratos_speAr wrote: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:
Fun fact: Being a cop in the U.S. isn't even in the top 10 most deadly professions. I'm sure that's only because they're gunning down 13-year old children who turn around and put their hands up as requested, then lying and claiming they had guns in their hands. Otherwise they would be in way more danger. Calling these errors or accidents is sickening. I can't imagine their training didn't cover "don't shoot people immediately after you demand they surrender unless a firearm is clearly visible." Not for nothing, but he did have a gun. I watched the video, it's clearly visible and in his hand before turning around, he drops/tosses it when he faces the cop, and is shot technically unarmed. It's all rather unfortunate, but it's a bit disingenuous to frame it like that. He was unarmed for less than a second, and in that instant he was shot. When he was shot and killed, he was not holding a weapon. Whether or not a weapon was thrown away previously or hidden somewhere, the cop clearly wasn't justified in shooting at the apparently-unarmed child in that moment. The boy's hands were up, holding nothing. The cop didn't see Adam wielding a gun when the cop shot at Adam.
Correct, the cop only saw him wielding a gun before he turned around to face him. In that moment, he was indeed unarmed.
|
On April 17 2021 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 06:38 NewSunshine wrote:On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote: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. Wasn't there a court case that decided the police has no obligation to 'protect and serve' and are under no obligation to put themselves at risk for your safety.
On April 17 2021 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:On April 17 2021 06:38 NewSunshine wrote:On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote: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. Wasn't there a court case that decided the police has no obligation to 'protect and serve' and are under no obligation to put themselves at risk for your safety. Double edit: Article on that... https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html
Sadly that does not surprise me. But of course, I say this knowing how far off a lot of police forces are from the ideal, with what glimpses I've gotten into what the training, attitude and environment are like among them, and am just speaking to an ideal that I thought we aspired to, collectively. I'm trying to present the moral position, regardless of where the reality lies, especially if it's completely wrong.
|
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.
Well then we are just different and probably won't ever agree. I can't imagine myself in any situation in which someone is trying to murder me and I wouldn't fight back.
|
On April 17 2021 07:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote: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. Well then we are just different and probably won't ever agree. I can't imagine myself in any situation in which someone is trying to murder me and I wouldn't fight back.
Escape? Get to safety? Debilitate or disarm(which the officer did)? For talking of absurd false dichotomies so recently you seem determined that your only option against a child is to kill them.
|
On April 17 2021 07:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 07:19 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote: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. Well then we are just different and probably won't ever agree. I can't imagine myself in any situation in which someone is trying to murder me and I wouldn't fight back. Escape? Get to safety? Debilitate or disarm(which the officer did)? For talking of absurd false dichotomies so recently you seem determined that your only option against a child is to kill them.
I can't imagine myself in any situation in which someone is trying to murder me and I would take fighting back off the table as one of my avenues for survival.
|
|
|
If the previous debate with BJ has shown anything, he is pro killing if an officer is involved. Debating it any further is a waste of time for all involved. The cop is always in the right and the person who died did something to justify their death. I think it would be best to move along from discussing this topic with them.
|
On April 17 2021 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 07:58 NewSunshine wrote:On April 17 2021 07:19 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote: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. Well then we are just different and probably won't ever agree. I can't imagine myself in any situation in which someone is trying to murder me and I wouldn't fight back. Escape? Get to safety? Debilitate or disarm(which the officer did)? For talking of absurd false dichotomies so recently you seem determined that your only option against a child is to kill them. I can't imagine myself in any situation in which someone is trying to murder me and I would take fighting back off the table as one of my avenues for survival.
If that's how you justify it. You are correct about one thing, no one is going to be changing their minds as a result of this discussion.
|
Look, if a minor is pointing a gun at a cop, I think the cop is at least somewhat justified if he acts in self defence. Kwark's position seems pretty out there to me.
I don't think there's anything sacred about teenagers. If they are threatening violence with a firearm they are just as dangerous as an adult and they do need to be stopped in some way. The issues are further up the chain of events, like how you even arrive at a situation where a minor has a gun and things have escalated to a firefight with law enforcement.
This said, that specific kid was not pointing a gun at a cop and that was definitely not the only way to stop him. It's insane that a cop would fire at anyone complying with their directions.
|
On April 17 2021 10:26 Belisarius wrote:
Look, if a minor is pointing a gun at a cop, I think the cop is at least somewhat justified if he acts in self defence. Kwark's position seems pretty out there to me.
I don't think there's anything sacred about teenagers. If they are threatening violence with a firearm they are just as dangerous as an adult and they do need to be stopped in some way. The issues are further up the chain of events, like how you even arrive at a situation where a minor has a gun and things have escalated to a firefight with law enforcement.
This said, that specific kid was not pointing a gun at a cop and that was definitely not the only way to stop him. It is ridiculous that a cop could fire at anyone complying with their directions.
I'm in agreement with all of this. I think this is reasonable.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26793 Posts
I was typing this prior to plasmid’s post, that kind of fuelled me to ramble annoyingly even more.
Soldiers historically, even after long and protracted battle, the loss of many comrades and yadda yadda can manage restraint with surrendering foes.
In before, not always, obviously. Atrocities are also very much a thing.
Are the US military recruiting superhumans from the many corners of the nation?
This isn’t a particularly impassioned defence of military forces by any means, or a polemic against the cops that are good guys.
You want to wield power and feel a big man (or woman) over your fellow man? Well you can join the military and do that, equally you do have to sacrifice some comfort and fuck off to various parts of the globe. You’ll still get some psychos.
What’s the sacrifice you’re making as a cop to be in such scenarios, unless I suppose you have high earning potential in another field. A non-negligible increase in the risk of death I suppose, but institutionally and in the wider cultural if you want to be a tyrant on a low level what’s stopping you?
Aside from tragic outcomes my biggest takeaway from many (albeit a small slice) of observations on how American police behave is, well a profound lack of respect for suspects (they’re not suspects they’re criminals), a profound lack of restraint and at times general competence.
It may seem a small thing to point out but how often is it any interaction goes immediately into ‘get the fuck on the ground’ being screamed rather than something less aggressive? And yes I know firearms are a hazard that other countries
I’ve seen those cop reality shows from the States, and bear in mind this is the stuff that they’re HAPPY being shown and really felt uneasy in how they behave. That’s the face they’re absolutely fine in showing, never mind the shitshows that citizens have to capture.
The British equivalents are still chocabloc with ‘criminal scum’ framing but the actual interactions between cops and perps are downright civil by comparison. I’ve seen many a police interaction in my time over here, been lifted by them myself. Was at a bar that got the full firearms team out via a tip-off of some kind. I’d say 9 officers for a full exit surround of the place, MP5s in hand. Despite our reputation over here, you don’t see the firearms ones often. Basically any punter who’d unfortunately timed a smoke break couldn’t get back in until they’d got in position and raided the place. One person was extremely, extremely aggressively annoyed at this but they defused them firmly but extremely civilly, told them as much as they could about why they were, how long it might take and that was that.
I’ve never so much as heard a policeman swear over here, and I was trapped in a car with them and if my rambling on here is bad enough imagine being stuck with me for hours.
It seems to me most nations are pretty equally given their equal share of good or bad folks, but American systems as well as the cultural norms that reinforce them give undue weight to the latter.
|
On April 17 2021 11:02 plasmidghost wrote:
Four of the people killed in Indianapolis were members of my faith, Sikhi. My heart breaks. Every fucking day we have more and more people die needlessly. American gun culture gets so many people killed. We in the faith can't defend ourselves with guns. The moment the cops see a Sardar ji walking around in a turban and having a beard, they're going to immediately get "scared" and threaten harm on him. I know this for a fact since it happened to me, and I'm white. You get a Punjabi Sikh and man, woman, or non-binary, they're going to be targeted by the cops. We're doomed to die at the hands of American society, whether it's at the hands of the police or at the hands of some bigoted racist piece of shit.
That fucking sucks, sorry 
|
On April 17 2021 10:26 Belisarius wrote:
Look, if a minor is pointing a gun at a cop, I think the cop is at least somewhat justified if he acts in self defence. Kwark's position seems pretty out there to me.
I don't think there's anything sacred about teenagers. If they are threatening violence with a firearm they are just as dangerous as an adult and they do need to be stopped in some way. The issues are further up the chain of events, like how you even arrive at a situation where a minor has a gun and things have escalated to a firefight with law enforcement.
This said, that specific kid was not pointing a gun at a cop and that was definitely not the only way to stop him. It's insane that a cop would fire at anyone complying with their directions.
If you assume a police officer is in a situation where they must fire a weapon, there's still a difference between shooting to incapacitate and shooting to kill, and that's why they're supposed to be trained. I understand it's hard and not perfect science, but they don't even fucking try to do it or act like they're doing it. They're just handed a gun and told to go find the vermin and deal with them.
And yes, we've been having a protracted argument about a murderous teenager that doesn't actually exist. The kid complied with the officer prior to being shot and killed.
|
On April 17 2021 11:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 10:26 Belisarius wrote:
Look, if a minor is pointing a gun at a cop, I think the cop is at least somewhat justified if he acts in self defence. Kwark's position seems pretty out there to me.
I don't think there's anything sacred about teenagers. If they are threatening violence with a firearm they are just as dangerous as an adult and they do need to be stopped in some way. The issues are further up the chain of events, like how you even arrive at a situation where a minor has a gun and things have escalated to a firefight with law enforcement.
This said, that specific kid was not pointing a gun at a cop and that was definitely not the only way to stop him. It's insane that a cop would fire at anyone complying with their directions. If you assume a police officer is in a situation where they must fire a weapon, there's still a difference between shooting to incapacitate and shooting to kill, and that's why they're supposed to be trained. I understand it's hard and not perfect science, but they don't even fucking try to do it or act like they're doing it. They're just handed a gun and told to go find the vermin and deal with them.
This is not correct. No police force I'm aware of is trained to shoot to incapacitate. A gun is not a reliable way to non-lethally disable someone, it is exclusively a means of killing them when no other option is available.
If your intention is to incapacitate you should have a taser in your hand and not a gun. The fact that American police can't tell the difference between these two objects does suggest they are insufficiently trained, but the fact that they aim at centre mass does not.
I am as sick of this conversation as the next poster, but there are so many real problems with law enforcement in the US that inventing false ones is not necessary.
|
On April 17 2021 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 07:58 NewSunshine wrote:On April 17 2021 07:19 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 05:14 KwarK wrote: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. Well then we are just different and probably won't ever agree. I can't imagine myself in any situation in which someone is trying to murder me and I wouldn't fight back. Escape? Get to safety? Debilitate or disarm(which the officer did)? For talking of absurd false dichotomies so recently you seem determined that your only option against a child is to kill them. I can't imagine myself in any situation in which someone is trying to murder me and I would take fighting back off the table as one of my avenues for survival.
So you're saying that if a cop points a weapon at you, you should shoot the cop because they could be trying to murder you? The child should kill the cop because the cop was trying to kill him? If you feel the cop was justified to shoot because he felt the child is trying to kill the cop, then would the child be justified in shooting the cop because he felt the cop was trying to kill him?
Also, you seem to think that children are bloodthirsty murderers who would jump on any chance to kill people and that de-escalation is completely off the table.
|
On April 17 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
The cop says to stop and show him his hands, the kid does what the cop ordered, the cop kills him. Yup, it's literally that simple, sadly. The body cam footage clearly shows that 13-year-old Adam Toledo was not holding a gun when he put his hands up in surrender to the police officer who then shot and killed him. Unsurprisingly, Sean Hannity vaguely gaslights the situation by calling Adam a "man", rather than a barely-teenage, middle school boy... a literal child. Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 14:36 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On April 16 2021 13:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2021 13:22 Stratos_speAr wrote: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:
Fun fact: Being a cop in the U.S. isn't even in the top 10 most deadly professions. I'm sure that's only because they're gunning down 13-year old children who turn around and put their hands up as requested, then lying and claiming they had guns in their hands. Otherwise they would be in way more danger. Calling these errors or accidents is sickening. I can't imagine their training didn't cover "don't shoot people immediately after you demand they surrender unless a firearm is clearly visible." Not for nothing, but he did have a gun. I watched the video, it's clearly visible and in his hand before turning around, he drops/tosses it when he faces the cop, and is shot technically unarmed. It's all rather unfortunate, but it's a bit disingenuous to frame it like that. He was unarmed for less than a second, and in that instant he was shot. When he was shot and killed, he was not holding a weapon. Whether or not a weapon was thrown away previously or hidden somewhere, the cop clearly wasn't justified in shooting at the apparently-unarmed child in that moment. The boy's hands were up, holding nothing. The cop didn't see Adam wielding a gun when the cop shot at Adam.
How quickly should a cop be able to update his priors based on visual evidence at night? Based on people doing frame by frame breakdowns of the kid turning around the officer had between .3 and .8 seconds of evidence that he was unarmed, after some minutes of evidence he was armed (plus the call he was responding to that said many shots had been fired seemingly at random).
I'm not saying he should get off for sure, but I do think we are on the edge of demanding superhuman reactions in this case, which makes me uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
