|
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 08:41 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 07:55 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:46 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote: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:
[quote]
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
[quote]
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 So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through. I'm not KwarK. It'd be best if you checked who you're replying to. EDIT: Also, you get to decide what does and doesn't mean something now? You can just handwave away evidence because you feel like it doesn't mean anything? Wow, that's something! EDIT 2: If you had clicked the link, you'd see how it breaks down "violent" and "non-violent". It's literally the first thing on the screen. On April 22 2021 07:47 brian wrote:
can you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion? to me it means cops killed people without reason. seems pertinent to the discussion.
I'll explain what I mean. Why the police responds somewhere doesn't mean anything in regards to what happens when they arrive. They can be called out for a noise complaint. In the course of them being there if they are then engaged in a gun fight, it is no longer 'a non-violent incident' but their initial reasoning for being there remains the same. So, ya, it means squat to me. Fair enough. Here's a tid bit you might care about though: out of those 1,127 police killings in 2020, 105 of them involved a suspect who had a gun but was not threatening anyone with the weapon at the time the suspect was killed. That's 105 people who, according to what the police themselves was reported, was not threatening someone at the time they were shot and killed. This doesn't include people who are unarmed, carrying a knife or other weapon with no intention to harm, etc. That's about 1 in 11 people shot and killed by the police who were not a threat and didn't need to be shot and, again, that's without including other data categories. I personally think that ratio is too high. https://policeviolencereport.org/
I am sure there are a number of problematic incidents in there, but have you actually looked through their database to determine how they qualify people for their determinations? Broad numbers give an idea, but looking through, if I am reading Alleged Threat Level (Source: WaPo) as the correct column for this, the 'other' reference has examples that I would not describe the same as they do. Or at least I think they are not at all what they are imagined to be by people that just look at the bulk numbers.
Maybe that is why I have a problem with some descriptions that get thrown around. Like with that vid that BlackJack just posted(already regretting watching that), people will literally die on the hill that 'the man was shot for jay walking'. Not saying here, but that is where some of this has gotten. That situation is a classic example of police taking no risk to themselves at the cost of others. Seemed like a suicide by cop but backing away and continuing to try to deescalate is what should have happened. Easy for me to say without being there, but they put themselves into this job. It would be like electrical line workers refusing to work after a storm where risks are higher. That's part of the job.
|
On April 22 2021 09:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 08:16 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:55 farvacola wrote:On April 22 2021 07:49 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:42 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote: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:
[quote]
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
[quote]
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. So your argument is that a nonzero number of people being gunned down for property theft/damage is acceptable until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it becomes unacceptable? My argument is literally spelled out exactly in my post. Too often people throw out random nonsense and it is just accepted as if it is reality. Words have meaning. They also have influence on people and how they react to the world. When you spread what charitably can be said is hyperbole, and what I would categorize as make believe, it should be called out. It's becoming so that as long as they target of this is acceptable, it is fine to do so. I think that will become a problem the longer it continues. As someone who mere posts ago used the phrase "literally means nothing" like a hill giant swinging a club after being hit in the face with a color spray, it'd probably be best to not play pretend at being strict with semantics. I explained what I meant after but it feels like this needs addressing as well. What was said is not some small semantical error. It is outright incorrect. The amount of cases that would even approach the description is so infinitesimal, that describing it in such a way is not a word use error but an argument against reality. That does not mean stuff like this hasn't happened, in some form that would make the description relevant. I don't see anyone else pushing back against these broad statements though. Um infinitesimal means really small. When you look at these kind of shootings you have WAY more per capita then countries with similar (yet lower) GDP. The absolute number is not infinitesimal it is a multiple digit full number. The comparative number is even larger. If you want to try to take a stand on people using words exactly correctly, without exaggeration, you might want to at least "be the change" in the same hour you are on your soap box.
I am going to assume you did not read the sentence Kwark said that I took issue with, because you broadened it to police shootings as if that is at all what was said. Feel free to look back, and if it is 'WAY more' and a 'multiple full digit number', in regards to what I am actually calling out, you can go ahead and give some examples. More likely you will continue the strawman or ignore me moving forward.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26339 Posts
On April 22 2021 10:09 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 08:41 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:55 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:46 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:11 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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 So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through. I'm not KwarK. It'd be best if you checked who you're replying to. EDIT: Also, you get to decide what does and doesn't mean something now? You can just handwave away evidence because you feel like it doesn't mean anything? Wow, that's something! EDIT 2: If you had clicked the link, you'd see how it breaks down "violent" and "non-violent". It's literally the first thing on the screen. On April 22 2021 07:47 brian wrote:
can you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion? to me it means cops killed people without reason. seems pertinent to the discussion.
I'll explain what I mean. Why the police responds somewhere doesn't mean anything in regards to what happens when they arrive. They can be called out for a noise complaint. In the course of them being there if they are then engaged in a gun fight, it is no longer 'a non-violent incident' but their initial reasoning for being there remains the same. So, ya, it means squat to me. Fair enough. Here's a tid bit you might care about though: out of those 1,127 police killings in 2020, 105 of them involved a suspect who had a gun but was not threatening anyone with the weapon at the time the suspect was killed. That's 105 people who, according to what the police themselves was reported, was not threatening someone at the time they were shot and killed. This doesn't include people who are unarmed, carrying a knife or other weapon with no intention to harm, etc. That's about 1 in 11 people shot and killed by the police who were not a threat and didn't need to be shot and, again, that's without including other data categories. I personally think that ratio is too high. https://policeviolencereport.org/ I am sure there are a number of problematic incidents in there, but have you actually looked through their database to determine how they qualify people for their determinations? Broad numbers give an idea, but looking through, if I am reading Alleged Threat Level (Source: WaPo) as the correct column for this, the 'other' reference has examples that I would not describe the same as they do. Or at least I think they are not at all what they are imagined to be by people that just look at the bulk numbers. Maybe that is why I have a problem with some descriptions that get thrown around. Like with that vid that BlackJack just posted(already regretting watching that), people will literally die on the hill that 'the man was shot for jay walking'. Not saying here, but that is where some of this has gotten. That situation is a classic example of police taking no risk to themselves at the cost of others. Seemed like a suicide by cop but backing away and continuing to try to deescalate is what should have happened. Easy for me to say without being there, but they put themselves into this job. It would be like electrical line workers refusing to work after a storm where risks are higher. That's part of the job.
People will also say some pretty fucking heinous shit, if one were to read the comments on said incident. Racism and vomit-inducing bootlicking aplenty there. As much as I despise gross and increasingly deliberately provocative/clickbaity framings like ‘this grandma was shot for rocking in her porch chair’ or whatever when the reality was she pulled a hand grenade.
I did some Googling of said incident, apparently the guy had long term struggles with mental health, and at the time of his death was in a state of ‘mental health crisis’, according to his mother anyway.
Also the officer who shot him once also shot an unarmed person, to no particular censure. I’m unsure on the specifics of that instance, merely the quote from either the lawyer or the civil rights activist who was talking about this case that he was unfit then, and he’s shown it again.
He was, basically shot for jaywalking. The officer says that’s why he’s being interfered with, not ‘you’ve been wandering around with a knife’. Then the officer failed to de-escalate what he’d started, spectacularly.
And let’s be fucking real for a minute, how can you have a land of the free when jaywalking is a crime that police will actually pursue you for? When I was a kid and before I had the internet regularly, I heard the word crop up in American media, I genuinely thought it was some cool rebellious sport or youth activity like skateboarding or breakdancing. I once also thought my star sign of Libra was a giant fucking cool cat, but I think I got confused with Ligers.
It didn’t seem like suicide by cop to me, he’d have bum-rushed him. Ill-advised posturing perhaps sure, but if he was having mental health problems then. I’ve lived amongst the severely mentally ill and been one myself and they aren’t always sensible, or particularly comprehensible. They can be violent absolutely but often they’re just desperate and completely, completely fucked. I mean pre-hospitalisation I was hallucinating, mostly audially, sweating like crazy all the time. Any noise caused me physical discomfort so I generally had earphones in pumping white noise like, 24/7. I was also pretty damn irrational, while not being violent my existence was rather intolerable. I’m not sure I’d have fared well if I’d been collared for jaywalking by this fellow.
|
Welp I'm sorry but I just think it's just a lot more sustainable for the majority of citizens if the law sides with the overly involved cop than the dumb-dumb who got mad, pulled out a knife, yelled 'don't touch me', and began approaching the cop from a close distance.
Hope you guys get the society you want! I mean if you think cops are dangerous, you're about to get your world rocked!
|
United States43665 Posts
On April 22 2021 12:37 puppykiller wrote:
Welp I'm sorry but I just think it's just a lot more sustainable for the majority of citizens if the law sides with the overly involved cop than the dumb-dumb who got mad, pulled out a knife, yelled 'don't touch me', and began approaching the cop from a close distance.
Hope you guys get the society you want! I mean if you think cops are dangerous, you're about to get your world rocked!
The society we want can be seen in basically any other first world country where the police don’t routinely execute citizens. You’re acting like we’re imagining a utopia but in reality it would be Mad Max when every other country manages it.
|
I'm not gonna give those doubling-down on their own nonsense the time of day.
Good luck with your several-thousand page filibuster!
|
On April 22 2021 11:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 10:09 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 08:41 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:55 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:46 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:
[quote]
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 So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through. I'm not KwarK. It'd be best if you checked who you're replying to. EDIT: Also, you get to decide what does and doesn't mean something now? You can just handwave away evidence because you feel like it doesn't mean anything? Wow, that's something! EDIT 2: If you had clicked the link, you'd see how it breaks down "violent" and "non-violent". It's literally the first thing on the screen. On April 22 2021 07:47 brian wrote:
can you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion? to me it means cops killed people without reason. seems pertinent to the discussion.
I'll explain what I mean. Why the police responds somewhere doesn't mean anything in regards to what happens when they arrive. They can be called out for a noise complaint. In the course of them being there if they are then engaged in a gun fight, it is no longer 'a non-violent incident' but their initial reasoning for being there remains the same. So, ya, it means squat to me. Fair enough. Here's a tid bit you might care about though: out of those 1,127 police killings in 2020, 105 of them involved a suspect who had a gun but was not threatening anyone with the weapon at the time the suspect was killed. That's 105 people who, according to what the police themselves was reported, was not threatening someone at the time they were shot and killed. This doesn't include people who are unarmed, carrying a knife or other weapon with no intention to harm, etc. That's about 1 in 11 people shot and killed by the police who were not a threat and didn't need to be shot and, again, that's without including other data categories. I personally think that ratio is too high. https://policeviolencereport.org/ I am sure there are a number of problematic incidents in there, but have you actually looked through their database to determine how they qualify people for their determinations? Broad numbers give an idea, but looking through, if I am reading Alleged Threat Level (Source: WaPo) as the correct column for this, the 'other' reference has examples that I would not describe the same as they do. Or at least I think they are not at all what they are imagined to be by people that just look at the bulk numbers. Maybe that is why I have a problem with some descriptions that get thrown around. Like with that vid that BlackJack just posted(already regretting watching that), people will literally die on the hill that 'the man was shot for jay walking'. Not saying here, but that is where some of this has gotten. That situation is a classic example of police taking no risk to themselves at the cost of others. Seemed like a suicide by cop but backing away and continuing to try to deescalate is what should have happened. Easy for me to say without being there, but they put themselves into this job. It would be like electrical line workers refusing to work after a storm where risks are higher. That's part of the job. People will also say some pretty fucking heinous shit, if one were to read the comments on said incident. Racism and vomit-inducing bootlicking aplenty there. As much as I despise gross and increasingly deliberately provocative/clickbaity framings like ‘this grandma was shot for rocking in her porch chair’ or whatever when the reality was she pulled a hand grenade. I did some Googling of said incident, apparently the guy had long term struggles with mental health, and at the time of his death was in a state of ‘mental health crisis’, according to his mother anyway. Also the officer who shot him once also shot an unarmed person, to no particular censure. I’m unsure on the specifics of that instance, merely the quote from either the lawyer or the civil rights activist who was talking about this case that he was unfit then, and he’s shown it again. He was, basically shot for jaywalking. The officer says that’s why he’s being interfered with, not ‘you’ve been wandering around with a knife’. Then the officer failed to de-escalate what he’d started, spectacularly. And let’s be fucking real for a minute, how can you have a land of the free when jaywalking is a crime that police will actually pursue you for? When I was a kid and before I had the internet regularly, I heard the word crop up in American media, I genuinely thought it was some cool rebellious sport or youth activity like skateboarding or breakdancing. I once also thought my star sign of Libra was a giant fucking cool cat, but I think I got confused with Ligers. It didn’t seem like suicide by cop to me, he’d have bum-rushed him. Ill-advised posturing perhaps sure, but if he was having mental health problems then. I’ve lived amongst the severely mentally ill and been one myself and they aren’t always sensible, or particularly comprehensible. They can be violent absolutely but often they’re just desperate and completely, completely fucked. I mean pre-hospitalisation I was hallucinating, mostly audially, sweating like crazy all the time. Any noise caused me physical discomfort so I generally had earphones in pumping white noise like, 24/7. I was also pretty damn irrational, while not being violent my existence was rather intolerable. I’m not sure I’d have fared well if I’d been collared for jaywalking by this fellow.
that is the initial crux yeah. from there the whole - insane - downward spiral begins just way too often. jaywalking? potential to get shot.
traffic stop? potential to get shot (again). I am not facetious here.
the risk of me personally in the location I live getting shot while being pulled over are close to nonexistent even if I only cooperate on a level so minimum... that she/he might write me a ticket for having an attitude or whatever and legitimize it by working so hard to find a violation like my first aid box is way past its expiration date - yes don't ask me how or why but that is a thing. we need one in the car, which kinda makes sense - but they also can spoil and should be replaced after like a couple of years...
but that is it. well if I don't file for police harrassment. from there it could become rather expensive(compared to the ticket) and probably kafkaesque... 
fill in any perceived normal - or what should be a normal - interaction between citizen and police and because circumstances are like they are (guns/training of cops/socioeconomic factors like an insane wealth disparity/melting pot USA/a history of slavery& bad/racist policing)... the likelihood for bullets being exchanged rather than words is just wayyyy too high. and especially POCs need more people to understand that.
hell I dare you to look at reddit. If I got a € for every male/female Karen I saw the last year alone getting shoved down on the ground for simply not expecting the cop countering his/her attitude with the "full force of the law"... I might be able to add a higher sum than most people would expect for a post corona vacation  )
and granny grenade made my morning. tip of the hat to ya ^^
@puppykiller. but ya did. you simply replying clearly says otherwise.
freedom of speech. respect it and don't hate. am I doing this rite?
|
I don't know why we can't agree police could have handled that better without resorting to absurd statements like "he was basically shot for jaywalking."
|
on the other hand nope. would have to read up on it and time does not allow for that right now.
sry for the confusion.
|
On April 22 2021 13:44 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 13:41 BlackJack wrote:
I don't know why we can't agree police could have handled that better without resorting to absurd statements like "he was basically shot for jaywalking." are those two statements so far apart? " he basically was shot for jaywalking, I guess police could have handled that better". it is hyperbolic sure - he was shot for jaywalking - but is it actually wrong?
Seems more that he was approached for jaywalking and throwing things at cars; he was shot for pulling out a knife and responding aggressively. What prompted the interaction isn't exactly what caused that ending.
|
On April 22 2021 13:51 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 13:44 Doublemint wrote:On April 22 2021 13:41 BlackJack wrote:
I don't know why we can't agree police could have handled that better without resorting to absurd statements like "he was basically shot for jaywalking." are those two statements so far apart? " he basically was shot for jaywalking, I guess police could have handled that better". it is hyperbolic sure - he was shot for jaywalking - but is it actually wrong? Seems more that he was approached for jaywalking and throwing things at cars; he was shot for pulling out a knife and responding aggressively. What prompted the interaction isn't exactly what caused that ending.
yup. again sry for the confusion.
|
On April 22 2021 13:57 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 13:51 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On April 22 2021 13:44 Doublemint wrote:On April 22 2021 13:41 BlackJack wrote:
I don't know why we can't agree police could have handled that better without resorting to absurd statements like "he was basically shot for jaywalking." are those two statements so far apart? " he basically was shot for jaywalking, I guess police could have handled that better". it is hyperbolic sure - he was shot for jaywalking - but is it actually wrong? Seems more that he was approached for jaywalking and throwing things at cars; he was shot for pulling out a knife and responding aggressively. What prompted the interaction isn't exactly what caused that ending. yup. again sry for the confusion.
All good ^^
On April 22 2021 11:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 10:09 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 08:41 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:55 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:46 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:
[quote]
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 So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through. I'm not KwarK. It'd be best if you checked who you're replying to. EDIT: Also, you get to decide what does and doesn't mean something now? You can just handwave away evidence because you feel like it doesn't mean anything? Wow, that's something! EDIT 2: If you had clicked the link, you'd see how it breaks down "violent" and "non-violent". It's literally the first thing on the screen. On April 22 2021 07:47 brian wrote:
can you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion? to me it means cops killed people without reason. seems pertinent to the discussion.
I'll explain what I mean. Why the police responds somewhere doesn't mean anything in regards to what happens when they arrive. They can be called out for a noise complaint. In the course of them being there if they are then engaged in a gun fight, it is no longer 'a non-violent incident' but their initial reasoning for being there remains the same. So, ya, it means squat to me. Fair enough. Here's a tid bit you might care about though: out of those 1,127 police killings in 2020, 105 of them involved a suspect who had a gun but was not threatening anyone with the weapon at the time the suspect was killed. That's 105 people who, according to what the police themselves was reported, was not threatening someone at the time they were shot and killed. This doesn't include people who are unarmed, carrying a knife or other weapon with no intention to harm, etc. That's about 1 in 11 people shot and killed by the police who were not a threat and didn't need to be shot and, again, that's without including other data categories. I personally think that ratio is too high. https://policeviolencereport.org/ I am sure there are a number of problematic incidents in there, but have you actually looked through their database to determine how they qualify people for their determinations? Broad numbers give an idea, but looking through, if I am reading Alleged Threat Level (Source: WaPo) as the correct column for this, the 'other' reference has examples that I would not describe the same as they do. Or at least I think they are not at all what they are imagined to be by people that just look at the bulk numbers. Maybe that is why I have a problem with some descriptions that get thrown around. Like with that vid that BlackJack just posted(already regretting watching that), people will literally die on the hill that 'the man was shot for jay walking'. Not saying here, but that is where some of this has gotten. That situation is a classic example of police taking no risk to themselves at the cost of others. Seemed like a suicide by cop but backing away and continuing to try to deescalate is what should have happened. Easy for me to say without being there, but they put themselves into this job. It would be like electrical line workers refusing to work after a storm where risks are higher. That's part of the job. It didn’t seem like suicide by cop to me, he’d have bum-rushed him.
Turns out holding a knife in front of a cop and saying "kill me" works just as well, though.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 22 2021 11:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 10:09 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 08:41 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:55 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:46 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:45 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:39 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:33 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 07:31 StasisField wrote:On April 22 2021 07:25 dp wrote:
[quote]
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 So no examples to share? As you said, should be an abundance from what you believe, so it probably would have taken less time than to pull up a unrelated link. "Responding to a non-violent incident" literally means nothing, if you think this stuff through. I'm not KwarK. It'd be best if you checked who you're replying to. EDIT: Also, you get to decide what does and doesn't mean something now? You can just handwave away evidence because you feel like it doesn't mean anything? Wow, that's something! EDIT 2: If you had clicked the link, you'd see how it breaks down "violent" and "non-violent". It's literally the first thing on the screen. On April 22 2021 07:47 brian wrote:
can you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion? to me it means cops killed people without reason. seems pertinent to the discussion.
I'll explain what I mean. Why the police responds somewhere doesn't mean anything in regards to what happens when they arrive. They can be called out for a noise complaint. In the course of them being there if they are then engaged in a gun fight, it is no longer 'a non-violent incident' but their initial reasoning for being there remains the same. So, ya, it means squat to me. Fair enough. Here's a tid bit you might care about though: out of those 1,127 police killings in 2020, 105 of them involved a suspect who had a gun but was not threatening anyone with the weapon at the time the suspect was killed. That's 105 people who, according to what the police themselves was reported, was not threatening someone at the time they were shot and killed. This doesn't include people who are unarmed, carrying a knife or other weapon with no intention to harm, etc. That's about 1 in 11 people shot and killed by the police who were not a threat and didn't need to be shot and, again, that's without including other data categories. I personally think that ratio is too high. https://policeviolencereport.org/ I am sure there are a number of problematic incidents in there, but have you actually looked through their database to determine how they qualify people for their determinations? Broad numbers give an idea, but looking through, if I am reading Alleged Threat Level (Source: WaPo) as the correct column for this, the 'other' reference has examples that I would not describe the same as they do. Or at least I think they are not at all what they are imagined to be by people that just look at the bulk numbers. Maybe that is why I have a problem with some descriptions that get thrown around. Like with that vid that BlackJack just posted(already regretting watching that), people will literally die on the hill that 'the man was shot for jay walking'. Not saying here, but that is where some of this has gotten. That situation is a classic example of police taking no risk to themselves at the cost of others. Seemed like a suicide by cop but backing away and continuing to try to deescalate is what should have happened. Easy for me to say without being there, but they put themselves into this job. It would be like electrical line workers refusing to work after a storm where risks are higher. That's part of the job. I once also thought my star sign of Libra was a giant fucking cool cat, but I think I got confused with Ligers. I actually thought the exact same thing about being a Libra. Weird.
|
I'm confused here. Yeah, the cop responded awfully (too) quick with lethal force, but are we ignoring the fact that this could've also been prevented by simply not being an asshole and maybe not threatening an officer with a deadly weapon?
In regards to "in other countries that doesn't happen"..
+ Show Spoiler +
That's what german police does if you go at them with a knife. Note that he also tried pepper spraying the guy, which for insane people, drugged people or incredibly angry people has roughly the same effect as a taser. None.
|
On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
As someone who mere posts ago used the phrase "literally means nothing" like a hill giant swinging a club after being hit in the face with a color spray, it'd probably be best to not play pretend at being strict with semantics.
Quote of the day right here. I think this argument has traveled really far down the rabbit hole. I'm pretty sure that basically everyone here agrees that U.S. policing is incredibly broken and it would probably be safe to say that we are all, to some degree, on the left on this issue. It seems like we've pushed each other to the extremes for the sake of an unreasonable argument rather than actually dealing with reality at this point. Show nested quote +Yes, this is the core of the issue. I do not think preventative killings are morally defensible and certainly not when the execution is performed by a poorly trained individual that belongs to a group of people famous for being poor at making consistent judgements. By endorsing this argument you are necessarily saying that in the situation of Person A actively attacking and trying to kill Person B, Person A's life is automatically more ethically valuable. If Person A is already committing multiple crimes by actively stabbing and killing someone, why is the most ethically correct decision to stand by and wait until they're done to arrest them, or to grossly endanger the lives of law enforcement officers by trying to physically restrain them? You need to defend that stance before we can continue.
I'll bite.
I do not think that cops should just stand by and let crimes happen and then arrest the person committing the crime. They should do everything in their power to de-escalate the situation and calm everything down so the crime doesn't happen in the first place. To clarify further, we are talking about interactions where no crime has happened but people are being aggressive, not a terrorist incident.
In this context, I think giving an individual the power to terminate someone's life based on their feelings of perceived threat to be immoral. No one should be in the position of making the judgement of 'person's A life is more valuable than person B'. Yes, I accept that this means that occasionally it will get out of hand and someone might end up getting stabbed. We have a process for people that do these things.
To your final point, if someone is in the middle of a stabbing, they would no longer be shot on a suspicion, they're actively committing a crime. The situation is markedly different. At this point the situation has escalated and I agree that law enforcement should be allowed to respond with a proportional response.
|
watch bigotted TuckerBot crash and burn in a - shortened - interview, as a former police officer does not react the way he wants him to on the verdict of Chauvin and the actions that led to it. and what it means in a broader context for policing in the US.
+ Show Spoiler +
something shifted in this country of yours, and some people don't like it one bit.
remarkable.
// from a strictly media perspective - the police officer seemed to have left the "bubble" mid interview which people like Tucker work so hard to build and sustain, and he can't have that. snark and desperate bile followed and the officer booted off the air mid sentence. juicy stuff.
|
On April 22 2021 17:04 Doublemint wrote:watch bigotted TuckerBot crash and burn in a - shortened - interview, as a former police officer does not react the way he wants him to on the verdict of Chauvin and the actions that led to it. and what it means in a broader context for policing in the US. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ayHFwKjOE something shifted in this country of yours, and some people don't like it one bit. remarkable. // from a strictly media perspective - the police officer seemed to have left the "bubble" mid interview which people like Tucker work so hard to build and sustain, and he can't have that. snark and desperate bile followed and the officer booted off the air mid sentence. juicy stuff.
That was so nice to see. I love the way the sheriff presented his position, and how the way the idiot reacted made it excessively clear that he not only lost this debate hard, but also doesn't even want to make a rational argument whatsoever.
I am kind of confused that they don't screen their interview targets better to prevent this from happening. Whoever brought this guy on the show probably got fired over this.
This was very satisfying to watch.
|
On April 22 2021 14:44 m4ini wrote:I'm confused here. Yeah, the cop responded awfully (too) quick with lethal force, but are we ignoring the fact that this could've also been prevented by simply not being an asshole and maybe not threatening an officer with a deadly weapon? In regards to "in other countries that doesn't happen".. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VphvbTd4csU That's what german police does if you go at them with a knife. Note that he also tried pepper spraying the guy, which for insane people, drugged people or incredibly angry people has roughly the same effect as a taser. None. Having not watched the video (I have little interest in watching people get shot) I hope you understand there is a massive difference between trying non-lethal methods like pepper spray before having to turn to lethal force to protect themselves, and simply moving directly to lethal force.
|
On April 22 2021 14:44 m4ini wrote:I'm confused here. Yeah, the cop responded awfully (too) quick with lethal force, but are we ignoring the fact that this could've also been prevented by simply not being an asshole and maybe not threatening an officer with a deadly weapon? In regards to "in other countries that doesn't happen".. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VphvbTd4csU That's what german police does if you go at them with a knife. Note that he also tried pepper spraying the guy, which for insane people, drugged people or incredibly angry people has roughly the same effect as a taser. None.
It appears to be an attempt at suicide by cop. The guy is even shouting "shoot me" or "kill me" or something like that. But even then, how cowardly do you have to be to just blast a guy with a 3" inch blade that takes 2 baby steps towards you when you can probably very easily retreat and attempt to de-escalate the situation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
