|
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 |
I would start by training officers to leave space so that, when they ask someone they believe is armed to disarm, they can actually give that person space to confirm that they have. I'm absolutely not about this bullshit victim blaming loop where they didn't confirm to the officer telepathically that they disarmed sufficiently, and get shot and killed with nothing in their hands. If you're not just asking them to drop a weapon to cover your ass, you let them show you that they've dropped it before you shoot them.
On April 17 2021 12:16 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 11:47 NewSunshine wrote: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.
I guess I was talking out my ass a little bit and I apologize, not trying to misunderstand the issue. There are serious issues about how much, and sometimes how little, they get trained to do certain things, but that's not one of them.
|
On April 17 2021 12:37 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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: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.
Your point about the cop not having enough time to mentally process / update what was happening is interesting to me. If the child went from armed-and-potentially-dangerous to unarmed-and-compliant-with-his-hands-up-in-surrender, then the child became less of a threat, not more of a threat. Even if the cop didn't realize that the boy had become less of a threat, the cop still chose to shoot him, which means the cop thought that the threat level was greater than, or equal to, what the level was before the kid surrendered and turned around.
Elaborating on those two options, we have this:
Case 1 (threat level supposedly increases): The cop had time to update his perception of the situation, but incorrectly updated it - he thought that the child had become more dangerous than before, which means that now the cop felt justified in shooting the child, whereas before, the cop didn't feel justified;
or
Case 2 (threat level supposedly stays the same): The cop didn't have time to update his perception of the situation (or did, but incorrectly updated it again), which means the cop was still feeling the same threat level as before... but if the perception of the threat level didn't change, and the cop felt justified in ultimately shooting the kid, then the cop would have felt justified in shooting the kid earlier too... so why not just do that, since an equal threat level would imply that the cop feared for his life even before the kid became unarmed and surrendered?
For what it's worth, I think putting one's hands up and complying with the officer should have earned the victim more than one second of time for the officer to figure out what was happening. Also, I don't think that responding to a call about hearing gun shots necessarily implies that Adam had fired the shots and/or that Adam would have shot at a cop.
|
People often look at these things from the perspective of "what if I were venge-swapped into the officer's uniform with my gun pointed at the kid as he turns around, what would I do in that moment?"
This is a really narrow way to assess the problem and one that I find generally unhelpful. The actual question is what the hell stupid play was my teammate making that forced me to swap him out?
That officer has placed himself in a position where even if the directions he's screaming are followed, he is still killing a kid today. That is beyond unacceptable when there are so many branches on the decision tree that could be explored instead.
1. If he knows that following his instructions will get the person killed, he should give different instructions.
2. If he is aware that shouting and swearing is likely to escalate the situation he should try to defuse it instead.
3. If he knows that pursuing the kid is likely to end with him killing the kid, he should assess whether the threat to the area justifies declaring himself judge dredd in that moment.
4. If he doesnt know any of those things, despite them being entirely in his control, he should choose not to be a cop.
All of these decisions are far more consequential than the final split-second reflex to fire at a moving shape in the dark, but because that last decision is difficult he will claim to be guiltless. This is absurd, and I think everyone here knows it to be absurd.
The obvious practical issue is that cops in the US are just too used to using their guns to solve problems. When all you have is a hammer every problem is a nail. Where other police forces will step back and assess, maybe choose not to run into the alley, US cops just go balls deep and trust that they can shoot their way out without consequence if the person accepts their escalation. This is one of the ground-floor failures that has to change.
Really I think nearly everyone is on a similar page, even blackjack based on his responses to ender et al. I just don't think we need to go off on rants about how any decent human being would let a minor shoot them when that's not even close to the real problem.
|
On April 17 2021 12:46 NewSunshine wrote:
I would start by training officers to leave space so that, when they ask someone they believe is armed to disarm, they can actually give that person space to confirm that they have. I'm absolutely not about this bullshit victim blaming loop where they didn't confirm to the officer telepathically that they disarmed sufficiently, and get shot and killed with nothing in their hands. If you're not just asking them to drop a weapon to cover your ass, you let them show you that they've dropped it before you shoot them.
I am not alleging bad faith, I just have no idea what you are saying here or how it applies. The kid was armed (as far as the cop knew) and was turning around quickly. What space didn't the cop give him? The kid could have dropped the gun in view of the cop, or put his hands up for a longer period of time before turning.
On April 17 2021 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Your point about the cop not having enough time to mentally process / update what was happening is interesting to me. If the child went from armed-and-potentially-dangerous to unarmed-and-compliant-with-his-hands-up-in-surrender, then the child became less of a threat, not more of a threat. Even if the cop didn't realize that the boy had become less of a threat, the cop still chose to shoot him, which means the cop thought that the threat level was greater than, or equal to, what the level was before the kid surrendered and turned around.
No because turning around was the increase in threat level.
On April 17 2021 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Elaborating on those two options, we have this:
Case 1 (threat level supposedly increases): The cop had time to update his perception of the situation, but incorrectly updated it - he thought that the child had become more dangerous than before, which means that now the cop felt justified in shooting the child, whereas before, the cop didn't feel justified;
or
Case 2 (threat level supposedly stays the same): The cop didn't have time to update his perception of the situation (or did, but incorrectly updated it again), which means the cop was still feeling the same threat level as before... but if the perception of the threat level didn't change, and the cop felt justified in ultimately shooting the kid, then the cop would have felt justified in shooting the kid earlier too... so why not just do that, since an equal threat level would imply that the cop feared for his life even before the kid became unarmed and surrendered?
For what it's worth, I think putting one's hands up and complying with the officer should have earned the victim more than one second of time for the officer to figure out what was happening. Also, I don't think that responding to a call about hearing gun shots necessarily implies that Adam had fired the shots and/or that Adam would have shot at a cop.
Right, well you don't seem be be understanding. The perceived threat level increased when the boy turned around because his attempt to surrender was indistinguishable from an attempt to make a final stand to anyone not having frame-by-frame until basically when the shot was fired (and remember, the officer decided to pull the trigger before you hear the shot go off in the video because that is how neurons work).
Given the officer's reaction I think there is a 99.9% chance that if the kid dropped the gun so the officer had been able to see it, put his hands up and got on his knees, hes alive with at worse wrist scratches from the handcuffs.
Like I said initially, I'm uncomfortable with just letting the officer off as well, but I'm just as uncomfortable with the opposite conclusion. It is my Bayesian instinct chiming in: The officer's priors are that the kid had a gun, likely had been firing the gun, already took one or more fairly extreme actions to avoid culpability for that, and now is taking an action. What should the cop think? I don't know for sure, but "this guy is squaring up to pop me" is not out of the realm of possibility. And we should also remember, eyewitness testimony is unreliable for exactly this reason. Cops see random objects as guns because the human brain is a pattern matching machine that tells you a random cloud looks like a puppy. The cop could have mistaken a random shadow for a gun and his brain would have totally latched onto it because that is what the scenario was telling him is true.
|
It's simple. If you're a cop holding someone at gunpoint because they're armed and you're asking them to drop their weapon, they need an actual opportunity to do so. If you're going to shoot them regardless, then it doesn't matter what you ask them to do. You can't ask someone to drop a perceived weapon and shoot them at the precise moment they're supposed to do so, and regardless of whether they were compliant or not they're dead now.
|
On April 17 2021 14:33 NewSunshine wrote:
It's simple. If you're a cop holding someone at gunpoint because they're armed and you're asking them to drop their weapon, they need an actual opportunity to do so. If you're going to shoot them regardless, then it doesn't matter what you ask them to do. You can't ask someone to drop a perceived weapon and shoot them at the precise moment they're supposed to do so, and regardless of whether they were compliant or not they're dead now.
This is odd to me, because it is totally unclear that the other party is acting with any good faith to the person pulling the trigger.
To look in the other direction, I would have been totally okay with Caron Nazario smoking the two officers in his incident because they were engaging in an extrajudicial kidnapping by any reasonable standard.
|
If an officer is squared up and asks someone running to stop, turn around and drop their weapon, I feel like someone stopping and turning around should kill all their priors. Even if the person still has a gun in their hands, I'm not sure it really makes sense for the officer to pop off a shot. This wasn't "squaring up"- the speed that kid was turning, he'd need to be John Wick to hit someone during that spin. "Animal instincts" need to be squashed and erased if they result in this situation ending in a dead kid.
Hell, if the cop had shot the spinning kid and he HAD had the gun on him, I wouldn't have been surprised at a subsequent discharge purely by the kid's own reactions, putting both the cop and the neighborhood in more danger.
|
On April 17 2021 15:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If an officer is squared up and asks someone running to stop, turn around and drop their weapon, I feel like someone stopping and turning around should kill all their priors. Even if the person still has a gun in their hands, I'm not sure it really makes sense for the officer to pop off a shot. This wasn't "squaring up"- the speed that kid was turning, he'd need to be John Wick to hit someone during that spin. "Animal instincts" need to be squashed and erased if they result in this situation ending in a dead kid.
Hell, if the cop had shot the spinning kid and he HAD had a gun, I wouldn't have been surprised if there would have been a subsequent accidental discharge.
This is just appealing to the supernatural and a sort of risk assessment that people just cant make in real life (for example most people overestimate that their chance of dying of Covid is 10-100x what it actually is, and that is a slow moving problem).
And I am not disagreeing with you about the objective % of a 13 year old with a gun spinning around and shooting at you being most likely to miss. They are most likely to miss. Chicago gangs are seemingly more accurate than nationally, but young black shooters are notoriously inaccurate, and obviously more-so when tired and executing a spin maneuver. But it is still a fairly nonzero % of a 9mm bullet to your vital point.
|
That last paragraph is oddly racist, even if you didn't intend for it to be.
|
On April 17 2021 15:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That last paragraph is oddly racist, even if you didn't intend for it to be.
Its not oddly racist, unless you think being a better murderer is a good quality. Outside of that it is simply reading stats (which is what I did).
|
How the fuck can anyone justify the cop in that situation because of 'adrenaline' and 'animal instincts' and 'perceived danger' and then proceed to explain how a 13 year old kid who is being chased by a shouting cop should have been 'more careful' in how they disarm themselves and turn around to face the said cop to avoid being killed because apparently turning too quickly is too threatening to the cop? In what world does it make sense to demand more level-headedness and deliberation in a high-stress situation from a teenager than from a professional (lol) law enforcement agent?
|
Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are 'suspected of being trans'.
|
On April 17 2021 18:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are ' suspected of being trans'. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1383076029393174528
The GOP calls us pedophiles and then passes laws like this. Absolutely shameful.
|
On April 17 2021 18:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are ' suspected of being trans'. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1383076029393174528
What the fuck. I am at a complete loss here. I don't know what to say. This whole idea somehow shut my brain down. Nothing in there computes.
|
On April 17 2021 13:41 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 12:46 NewSunshine wrote:
I would start by training officers to leave space so that, when they ask someone they believe is armed to disarm, they can actually give that person space to confirm that they have. I'm absolutely not about this bullshit victim blaming loop where they didn't confirm to the officer telepathically that they disarmed sufficiently, and get shot and killed with nothing in their hands. If you're not just asking them to drop a weapon to cover your ass, you let them show you that they've dropped it before you shoot them.
I am not alleging bad faith, I just have no idea what you are saying here or how it applies. The kid was armed (as far as the cop knew) and was turning around quickly. What space didn't the cop give him? The kid could have dropped the gun in view of the cop, or put his hands up for a longer period of time before turning. Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Your point about the cop not having enough time to mentally process / update what was happening is interesting to me. If the child went from armed-and-potentially-dangerous to unarmed-and-compliant-with-his-hands-up-in-surrender, then the child became less of a threat, not more of a threat. Even if the cop didn't realize that the boy had become less of a threat, the cop still chose to shoot him, which means the cop thought that the threat level was greater than, or equal to, what the level was before the kid surrendered and turned around. No because turning around was the increase in threat level. Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Elaborating on those two options, we have this:
Case 1 (threat level supposedly increases): The cop had time to update his perception of the situation, but incorrectly updated it - he thought that the child had become more dangerous than before, which means that now the cop felt justified in shooting the child, whereas before, the cop didn't feel justified;
or
Case 2 (threat level supposedly stays the same): The cop didn't have time to update his perception of the situation (or did, but incorrectly updated it again), which means the cop was still feeling the same threat level as before... but if the perception of the threat level didn't change, and the cop felt justified in ultimately shooting the kid, then the cop would have felt justified in shooting the kid earlier too... so why not just do that, since an equal threat level would imply that the cop feared for his life even before the kid became unarmed and surrendered?
For what it's worth, I think putting one's hands up and complying with the officer should have earned the victim more than one second of time for the officer to figure out what was happening. Also, I don't think that responding to a call about hearing gun shots necessarily implies that Adam had fired the shots and/or that Adam would have shot at a cop. Right, well you don't seem be be understanding. The perceived threat level increased when the boy turned around because his attempt to surrender was indistinguishable from an attempt to make a final stand to anyone not having frame-by-frame until basically when the shot was fired (and remember, the officer decided to pull the trigger before you hear the shot go off in the video because that is how neurons work). Given the officer's reaction I think there is a 99.9% chance that if the kid dropped the gun so the officer had been able to see it, put his hands up and got on his knees, hes alive with at worse wrist scratches from the handcuffs. Like I said initially, I'm uncomfortable with just letting the officer off as well, but I'm just as uncomfortable with the opposite conclusion. It is my Bayesian instinct chiming in: The officer's priors are that the kid had a gun, likely had been firing the gun, already took one or more fairly extreme actions to avoid culpability for that, and now is taking an action. What should the cop think? I don't know for sure, but "this guy is squaring up to pop me" is not out of the realm of possibility. And we should also remember, eyewitness testimony is unreliable for exactly this reason. Cops see random objects as guns because the human brain is a pattern matching machine that tells you a random cloud looks like a puppy. The cop could have mistaken a random shadow for a gun and his brain would have totally latched onto it because that is what the scenario was telling him is true.
I definitely don't understand how compliance with a police officer's orders can lead to a threat level increasing, unless the police orders are problematic. The kid got shot for doing what he was asked, and we've seen instances where completely defenseless black people get shot for putting their hands up, for sitting down, for lying on the ground, for compliantly exiting the vehicle, for obeying inside of the vehicle, for eating, for drinking, for doing everything they're told, even when they are completely unarmed and never had a weapon on them, and just generally... for being black. I think we've beaten this topic into the ground in pretty much every other way possible, so I'll just say that I think you and I (and everyone else) all know that there was no universe where this kid ends up "alive with at worse wrist scratches from the handcuffs", especially when it wouldn't be the first time that a cop mistakes "a random shadow [or literally nothing at all] for a gun".
|
On April 17 2021 08:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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.
What is "pro killing" haha
On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:
when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake.
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:
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.
I'm going to have to redact some of the posts I made in this thread about these shootings being mistakes and wrong decisions because it is seriously contradicting my "pro killing" stance.
|
On April 17 2021 19:50 Simberto wrote:What the fuck. I am at a complete loss here. I don't know what to say. This whole idea somehow shut my brain down. Nothing in there computes.
good god. even for Florida. and even for the GOP this is another level of fucked up and reprehensible beyond words.
where are the freedom lovers, or the Libertarians when you need them? the state wanning to see if my dong is hanging? personal freedom anyone? the actual victim in the culture war going completely off the deep end.
it really makes sense that prime scum of the earth like Gaetz is from Florida.
|
On April 17 2021 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 12:37 cLutZ wrote:On April 17 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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: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. Your point about the cop not having enough time to mentally process / update what was happening is interesting to me. If the child went from armed-and-potentially-dangerous to unarmed-and-compliant-with-his-hands-up-in-surrender, then the child became less of a threat, not more of a threat. Even if the cop didn't realize that the boy had become less of a threat, the cop still chose to shoot him, which means the cop thought that the threat level was greater than, or equal to, what the level was before the kid surrendered and turned around. Elaborating on those two options, we have this: Case 1 (threat level supposedly increases): The cop had time to update his perception of the situation, but incorrectly updated it - he thought that the child had become more dangerous than before, which means that now the cop felt justified in shooting the child, whereas before, the cop didn't feel justified; or Case 2 (threat level supposedly stays the same): The cop didn't have time to update his perception of the situation (or did, but incorrectly updated it again), which means the cop was still feeling the same threat level as before... but if the perception of the threat level didn't change, and the cop felt justified in ultimately shooting the kid, then the cop would have felt justified in shooting the kid earlier too... so why not just do that, since an equal threat level would imply that the cop feared for his life even before the kid became unarmed and surrendered? For what it's worth, I think putting one's hands up and complying with the officer should have earned the victim more than one second of time for the officer to figure out what was happening. Also, I don't think that responding to a call about hearing gun shots necessarily implies that Adam had fired the shots and/or that Adam would have shot at a cop.
I think he made the decision to shoot the kid when the kid pulled out the gun and the kid was already shot by the time he realized the kid had pulled out the gun in order to ditch it. I'm not sure what you mean by "why didn't he shoot the kid earlier." It's like 1 second between pulling out the gun and when the kid is shot, when you say earlier do you mean like a tenth of a second earlier?
|
On April 17 2021 18:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are ' suspected of being trans'. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1383076029393174528
I'm trying to figure out the logic behind this.
If we start with the premise that some schools don't want trans athletes playing sports for the "wrong" sex, then there needs to be a way to confirm whether or not someone is trans, by confirming an individual's biological sex. The defining characteristic they've decided to assess, in terms of one's biological sex, is the student-in-question's genitals, which means that the school has to inspect children's genitals.
Would the schools be okay with this sexual harassment, simply because they'd assume that any non-trans kids wouldn't mind confirming their biological sex and any trans kids wouldn't go through with the inspection (because they'd get "caught")?
How does one figure out which kids are "suspicious", and which kids to not bother checking (besides the obviously subjective, discriminatory, and misguided mindset like "oh that child looks/seems "normal" to me, but this child doesn't look/seem "normal" to me"? We know this messed up language of what/who is "normal" and the "right/wrong" sex is already destructive, and I get the feeling that schools are not going to require 100% of athletes to have genital check-ups before playing sports for equality's sake.
The kids who get checked are going to be the kids who either perform well in a sport (e.g., the next Serena Williams), look/seem different, or are just being arbitrarily marginalized by other people because that's what high school and college is all about.
|
That's almost certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment, I just don't see how a "show us if you have dick" rule does not constitute an unreasonable search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
