|
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 22 2021 04:29 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 00:19 farvacola wrote:On April 21 2021 22:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 21 2021 20:56 farvacola wrote:
The idea that "drop the knife" was a reasonable means of preventing the woman from doing what she appeared about ready to do seems questionable, at least as of the last chance moment where the knife-wielding woman appeared ready to strike. In circumstances where there's no plausible inference of immediate threat, that's clearly the answer, but here, it's reasonable to conclude that this woman was going to stab the woman in pink and had the ability to do so contemporaneously with whatever the responding officer decided to do in that moment. The possibility that less severe measures like yelling "drop the knife" at that last chance moment would have led to the woman in pink being stabbed can't be waved away.
If one wants to maintain that deadly force should not be used even where its reasonable to conclude that the threatening person posed an immediate threat to someone within reach, that's not unreasonable, but I don't think concluding otherwise is unreasonable either. I'd like to make an argument for the bolded part: I do not trust police officers in the US to make good decisions in general when it comes to assessing threat severity, in part due to their training but mostly because of their culture. In essence, it's the same argument that BlackJack is pushing but in reverse; cops are not highly trained superhumans capable of making perfect split second decisions (in this, we are in agreement). No police department can guarantee that their officers are capable of making the right decision all the time; heck I'd doubt current police departments can guarantee flawless decision-making 50% of the time from all their officers. So since police officers are not infallible, why should they have the power to execute citizens at the slightest provocation with effectively no repercussions? I'd rather they never use deadly force unless someone else starts shooting first. Edit: I hadn't even considered GH's point that police officers are very inaccurate in their shooting. If you can't even guarantee that you'll hit the right target 50% of the time, you should not be firing your gun unless bullets are already flying. That's a fine take and I think it has merit, especially with reference to the habits and practices of police in the US in general. That said, it does run up against the competing value many place on empowering police to intervene before a perp is able to take the first step of harming someone, which is not a view that can be ruled out as a matter of conscience or priorities. The issue with that take is that police intervention tends to be incredibly inconsistent (and subject to the biases we've been discussing), with women seeking help in domestic violence situations being routinely told that there's nothing police can do unless and until some material act of violence occurs, and even then, there are all sorts of horror stories involving police turning a blind eye to horrific acts of spousal and child abuse. No matter how the close calls are parsed, the need for dramatic, systemic reform is clear. The bodycam footage released so far can be found here, it starts at around 1:05. Be warned, the footage shows a woman being gunned down. + Show Spoiler + I think we are broadly in agreement with regards to the current state of affairs -- there is an urgent need for reform and police should emphasize threat de-escalation rather than threat elimination. I think we probably disagree on the ultimate role of police, and the question of 'should individuals be empowered to carry out executions without a trial'. As a society, we have very clearly decided on how different crimes should be treated, what the consequences are and so on. Few crimes carry the death penalty, and a large number of states have no death penalty. It is, therefore, to me, immoral to allow individuals to mete out punishments that exceed what we as a society have agreed on are fair and just. I understand that there is value in harm prevention, and I do think there is space for highly trained law enforcement to mete out the death penalty in a very narrow set of circumstances. For instance, dealing with mass shooters, serial killers, and other extremely heinous criminals who if not stopped will continue to kill/harm innocent people. I would, however, argue that it is immoral to execute a suspect that has not yet committed a crime. Most disturbances should be dealt with buckets of patience, restraint and mutual respect. A bit like how police interact with the various armed militias that seem to crop up around the US.
I think the core of the philosophical difference is that some are framing it as "killing someone without a trial" when others are framing it as "killing someone to imminently protect another person's life".
In other words, there is a moral difference worth noting between killing a known serial killer randomly on the street vs. Killing that individual when he is in the midst of committing a murder.
|
On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:On April 21 2021 12:46 Husyelt wrote:On April 21 2021 12:34 plasmidghost wrote:
Just watched the bodycam footage and christ that was painful to see. I don't know if linking it here is allowed because it is extremely graphic. I will never understand why police are so quick to shoot their firearms when they have a taser perfectly capable of incapacitating someone with a melee weapon like a knife. Like, unfortunately I don't know what happened before the cop got there but I fully believe that girl should still be alive. Not going to watch if it's that graphic. But I saw someone on reddit mentioning that police officers have more leeway than soldiers in actual war zones, with the "rules of engagement." I wonder if that might be the culprit for the very high police / kill rate. The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. Kisela, a Tucson police officer, shot Hughes less than a minute after arriving, with other officers, at the scene where a woman had been reported to 911 as hacking a tree with a knife and acting erratically. When Kisela fired, Hughes was holding a large kitchen knife, had taken steps toward nearby woman (her roommate), and had refused to drop the knife after at least two commands to do so. Hughes matched the description given by the 911 caller. Her injuries were not life-threatening. All of the officers later said that they subjectively believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Hughes had a history of mental illness. Her roommate said that she did not feel endangered. Hughes sued Kisela, alleging excessive force, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, which “is not at all evident,” Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity. Although the officers were in no apparent danger, Kisela believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Kisela had mere seconds to assess the potential danger and was separated from the women by a chain-link fence. This is "far from an obvious case" in which any competent officer would have known that shooting Hughes would violate the Fourth Amendment; the most analogous Ninth Circuit precedent favors Kisela. A reasonable officer is not required to foresee judicial decisions that do not yet exist in instances where the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are far from obvious. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”.
No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do.
|
On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:On April 21 2021 12:46 Husyelt wrote:On April 21 2021 12:34 plasmidghost wrote:
Just watched the bodycam footage and christ that was painful to see. I don't know if linking it here is allowed because it is extremely graphic. I will never understand why police are so quick to shoot their firearms when they have a taser perfectly capable of incapacitating someone with a melee weapon like a knife. Like, unfortunately I don't know what happened before the cop got there but I fully believe that girl should still be alive. Not going to watch if it's that graphic. But I saw someone on reddit mentioning that police officers have more leeway than soldiers in actual war zones, with the "rules of engagement." I wonder if that might be the culprit for the very high police / kill rate. The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. Kisela, a Tucson police officer, shot Hughes less than a minute after arriving, with other officers, at the scene where a woman had been reported to 911 as hacking a tree with a knife and acting erratically. When Kisela fired, Hughes was holding a large kitchen knife, had taken steps toward nearby woman (her roommate), and had refused to drop the knife after at least two commands to do so. Hughes matched the description given by the 911 caller. Her injuries were not life-threatening. All of the officers later said that they subjectively believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Hughes had a history of mental illness. Her roommate said that she did not feel endangered. Hughes sued Kisela, alleging excessive force, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, which “is not at all evident,” Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity. Although the officers were in no apparent danger, Kisela believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Kisela had mere seconds to assess the potential danger and was separated from the women by a chain-link fence. This is "far from an obvious case" in which any competent officer would have known that shooting Hughes would violate the Fourth Amendment; the most analogous Ninth Circuit precedent favors Kisela. A reasonable officer is not required to foresee judicial decisions that do not yet exist in instances where the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are far from obvious. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do.
Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing.
|
On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:On April 21 2021 12:46 Husyelt wrote:
[quote]
Not going to watch if it's that graphic. But I saw someone on reddit mentioning that police officers have more leeway than soldiers in actual war zones, with the "rules of engagement." I wonder if that might be the culprit for the very high police / kill rate.
The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. Kisela, a Tucson police officer, shot Hughes less than a minute after arriving, with other officers, at the scene where a woman had been reported to 911 as hacking a tree with a knife and acting erratically. When Kisela fired, Hughes was holding a large kitchen knife, had taken steps toward nearby woman (her roommate), and had refused to drop the knife after at least two commands to do so. Hughes matched the description given by the 911 caller. Her injuries were not life-threatening. All of the officers later said that they subjectively believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Hughes had a history of mental illness. Her roommate said that she did not feel endangered. Hughes sued Kisela, alleging excessive force, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, which “is not at all evident,” Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity. Although the officers were in no apparent danger, Kisela believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Kisela had mere seconds to assess the potential danger and was separated from the women by a chain-link fence. This is "far from an obvious case" in which any competent officer would have known that shooting Hughes would violate the Fourth Amendment; the most analogous Ninth Circuit precedent favors Kisela. A reasonable officer is not required to foresee judicial decisions that do not yet exist in instances where the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are far from obvious. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing.
Is that your best attempt at a good faith summary of what JB argued?
If so, probably a good idea to try to read it again; this time more carefully.
|
On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:On April 21 2021 12:46 Husyelt wrote:
[quote]
Not going to watch if it's that graphic. But I saw someone on reddit mentioning that police officers have more leeway than soldiers in actual war zones, with the "rules of engagement." I wonder if that might be the culprit for the very high police / kill rate.
The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. Kisela, a Tucson police officer, shot Hughes less than a minute after arriving, with other officers, at the scene where a woman had been reported to 911 as hacking a tree with a knife and acting erratically. When Kisela fired, Hughes was holding a large kitchen knife, had taken steps toward nearby woman (her roommate), and had refused to drop the knife after at least two commands to do so. Hughes matched the description given by the 911 caller. Her injuries were not life-threatening. All of the officers later said that they subjectively believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Hughes had a history of mental illness. Her roommate said that she did not feel endangered. Hughes sued Kisela, alleging excessive force, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, which “is not at all evident,” Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity. Although the officers were in no apparent danger, Kisela believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Kisela had mere seconds to assess the potential danger and was separated from the women by a chain-link fence. This is "far from an obvious case" in which any competent officer would have known that shooting Hughes would violate the Fourth Amendment; the most analogous Ninth Circuit precedent favors Kisela. A reasonable officer is not required to foresee judicial decisions that do not yet exist in instances where the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are far from obvious. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing.
I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference.
|
On April 22 2021 05:55 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:[quote] The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. [quote] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. Is that your best attempt at a good faith summary of what JB argued? If so, probably a good idea to try to read it again; this time more carefully.
I read it carefully and I agree with ChristianS.
Crappy post, crappy argument that absolutely is boiling down to, "to think that way, your loved ones must be violent criminals!" as if to even be able to entertain the completely imaginary scenario about one of your loved ones doing something criminal is some sort of fucking character flaw lol.
America has a weird and selective approach to empathy that could use some real reevaluation.
I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference.
The point is that this person HAS FAMILY and this person is now dead, just because its difficult to imagine this situation happening to you doesn't change the fact that this is someone's actual reality. A part of their family is dead and I'm guessing they'd probably have preferred to see some leniency toward their now dead relative.
|
On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:[quote] The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. [quote] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference.
He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live.
It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon.
|
I could very easily imagine my family members being either one. I'm not naïve enough to think that people just aren't capable of some bad shit. There are exceptions and I'm not talking about them. But if it came down to it, I can picture it. Being black gives a unique perspective on the interactions with law enforcement. I'm not talking about the video because I refuse to watch a child be gunned down without a chance to comply. I'm speaking in general terms.
|
On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:
[quote]
Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife.
If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon.
Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it
On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt?
The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do.
|
United States43667 Posts
On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:[quote] The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. [quote] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference.
ChristianS summed it up correctly. You dismissed my post with a dumb ad hominem argument because you’re unfamiliar with the concept of empathy.
You: “If I imagine myself as someone with a stake on one side of this issue I would feel X”
Me: “Which is why we don’t let people with a stake in the issue decide it. If you imagined you had a stake on the other side of the issue you’d feel differently. People involved it shouldn’t get to decide.”
You: “I have no imagination and if you do then you’re a criminal”.
For the record I come from an exceptionally law abiding middle class background and basically don’t know anyone with legal problems. However I am capable of empathy. It’s that empathy that you misidentified as criminality.
|
On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do.
But we’re not dealing with terrorists, we’re dealing with, generously, suspects. The entire basis for assigning their life less value is a cop deciding he thinks they’re suspicious. In most cases even if they had been tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty we might think the death penalty would be monstrous; here the only judicial procedure they’ve had is a cop looking at them and forming a judgment about whether to shoot them.
Kwark (I think rightly) criticized the argument but there’s a peculiar honesty to the “I can picture a family member in this role but not that role “ basis for moral judgments. If you’re forming judgments about police rules of engagement, not on any universalizable moral principle, but on whatever would maximize the wellbeing of yourself and your loved ones, you’d likely be pretty happy with the status quo (at least, if you’re white). I can be relatively confident my family and I will never find ourselves harassed by the police; much harder to say confidently I’ll never be attacked by some random assailant with a knife. If every cop thinks he’s Jack Bauer + Show Spoiler + I think this is a relevant reference? I haven’t seen 24
It’d be nice if Blue Lives Matter folks would acknowledge this is the tradeoff they’re making. Sure, people are being murdered by cops without any due process, but those people aren’t me or my family! Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with.
|
United States43667 Posts
On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do.
You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another.
You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue.
|
Christians last sentence there is exactly how i read posts suggesting cops killing people for perceived threat of violence is appropriate.
“ Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with.”
perceived threat of violence is by no means an executable offense. I can happily add myself to Kwarks team there, he is definitely not the only one who would rather attempt to de escalate the situation than shoot.
and if we’re being honest, perceived threat of violence also just isn’t even the bar. There are laws, and huge fans of such laws, where i can shoot a person for trying to steal my TV from my house. American attitudes towards killing people breaking laws that are not punishable by death is gross, and pervasive. and like all things in american law enforcement, harms minorities disproportionately.
also Jack Bauer hasn’t been relevant in any references for years! right? I don’t know i didn’t watch it either.
|
always knew something was off about that Kwark guy. violent tendencies would not surprise me in the least as he has got a hammer next to his name.
murder weapon in plain sight?
|
On April 22 2021 07:11 brian wrote:
Christians last sentence there is exactly how i read posts suggesting cops killing people for perceived threat of violence is appropriate.
“ Much easier to trade freedom for security when it’s other people’s freedom you’re trading with.”
perceived threat of violence is by no means an executable offense. I can happily add myself to Kwarks team there, he is by no means the only one who would rather attempt to de escalate the situation than shoot.
I hope people are able to also see how this is an extension of the reasoning the US uses to kill countless civilians around the world as well as justify unreasonable aggression, sanctions, and subjugation.
|
On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:
[quote]
So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue.
You're the one that offered the argument "In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt?" as if the quantifiable number of injured people is more important than whether the injured parties are the aggressors. I'm relieved to learn that your argument isn't strictly which scenario has "more" injured parties and is actually whether the severity of the harm done to one party outweighs the potential harm to the other. That is much more reasonable to me.
|
On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:
[quote]
So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue.
The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'.
|
On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing.
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'.
'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb.
|
On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb.
So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious.
|
On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 06:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 06:02 BlackJack wrote:On April 22 2021 05:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb.
I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”. No, I actually can't just as easily imagine a family member of mine trying to stab someone as I can imagine them being a victim of violence. If you can then that probably explains a lot of why you have the views that you do. Borderline reportable post. Your argument here is literally “you just probably disagree because your family is criminals.” Ad hominem, useless, and embarrassing. I mean is that not literally what he just said? His argument was you can just as easily imagine a family member as the stabber so you should want some leniency towards the stabber before shooting. I said I can't just as easily imagine that. This could be the entirety of why we disagree on the topic so it seems prudent to dwell on this difference. He’s arguing both individuals are human beings and citizens with families, and neither has been convicted of anything, so assigning one’s wellbeing more value than the other by mentally humanizing one and not the other is not a responsible basis for policy-setting. The degree to which your or his or anyone else’s family resembles the people involved shouldn’t determine who gets to live. It’s actually maybe useful to highlight this reasoning, though, for anyone wondering how racial bias can enter into these judgments. If you figure (mostly white) cops are employing a similar reasoning in deciding who they do and don’t shoot, it’s not hard to see how they wind up shooting black people much more frequently. It’s harder to imagine them as being a family member of yours, no? The phenomenon is a lot more complex than that but it’s a decent place to start in understanding the phenomenon. Well then we are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I think this idea that simple math can solve this question is ridiculous As Kwark put it On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? The idea that the correct outcome is the one in which "fewer members of the public get hurt" seems ridiculous to me. If 2 terrorists are holding 1 hostage at gun point I don't value the lives of the 2 terrorists more simply because 2 > 1. I don't value their well-being equally and it's absolutely crazy to me if you or others do. You’ve brought up terrorists and it’s not clear why. I was talking about a hypothetical in which two citizens are having a dispute and one of them is perceived to be a potential threat to the other but is not currently actively killing anyone. My argument is that the potential harm avoided to one citizen may not justify the much greater actual harm done to another. You’re changing the hypothetical by making one of the citizens Bin Laden before you answer but that’s not really addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that to outweigh the harm done to the citizen executed by police you need both a high likelihood of harm avoided and that the harm avoided is substantial. If harm avoided, weighted for probability of it actually happening, is considerably less than a human life then deadly force isn’t justified. This is more so when the potential threat isn’t to human life but to property. Very frequently the police use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone. The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions is greater than by stolen TVs. Responding with “but what if the suspect was a terrorist” isn’t really addressing the issue. The bold is an exceptional statement. I assume you can back up the 'very frequently' and explain what you mean by 'deprive property'. 'deprive property' obviously means theft. The very next sentence even mentions stolen TVs. Don't play dumb. So there should be an abundance of examples of cops gunning down people running away with TV's then, correct? And since hyperbole is the only way to get points across in these kind of discussions, it becomes increasingly necessary to point out when it is obvious.
Considering 58% of police shootings took place after police responded to a nonviolent incident, yeah, I'm sure there are an abundance of examples out there.
https://www.axios.com/police-killings-2020-non-violent-incidents-dd3035a9-3182-43b9-9742-1a5f8786ca6c.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
