|
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 |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 22 2021 23:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 22:33 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2021 21:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 22 2021 21:04 farvacola wrote:
Tucker represents the very worst this country has to offer and the sooner he loses relevance the better. I doubt that'll happen anytime soon though. I've said it before and I'll say it again: He's exactly the kind of famous, popular, fast-talking, slimy, right-wing, succeeded-in-appealing-to-both-Trump-supporters-and-non-Trump-conservatives, populist asshole who could win a Republican presidential primary and potentially become president. Only if they can’t find someone worse to nominate. Ted Cruz is a massive piece of shit but he couldn’t win the shitfest that was the Republican primary. Carlson is also a piece of shit which makes him qualified to be their candidate but they may find someone worse. Carlson is also a general piece of shit who occasionally comes out with takes even I as a left wing extremist by US standards agrees with.
Carlson definitely does, on occasion, give really good takes on things in a way that no one else would because it's too far outside of the acceptable political mainstream. That's absolutely worth acknowledging.
Of course the other 90% of the time he's more like in the previously linked YT video, i.e. straight-up awful.
|
On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. 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.
Except that this is exactly what happened with the incident in question.
The cop didn't shoot because of a "feeling". He shot because someone was actively attempting to stab and kill someone else.
|
On April 22 2021 23:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. 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. Except that this is exactly what happened with the incident in question. The cop didn't shoot because of a "feeling". He shot because someone was actively attempting to stab and kill someone else.
I'd wait for all of the evidence to come to light. If he can make a split decision in the 10 seconds he was supposedly there to shoot someone, then he could have taken 5 to do something else that may have resulted in her still being alive. Also, this officer was only on the job for less than 2 years. So he's a relative rookie with basically no training in this. He acted on impulse rather than years and years of training.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 00:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 23:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. 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. Except that this is exactly what happened with the incident in question. The cop didn't shoot because of a "feeling". He shot because someone was actively attempting to stab and kill someone else. I'd wait for all of the evidence to come to light. If he can make a split decision in the 10 seconds he was supposedly there to shoot someone, then he could have taken 5 to do something else that may have resulted in her still being alive. Also, this officer was only on the job for less than 2 years. So he's a relative rookie with basically no training in this. He acted on impulse rather than years and years of training.
I'm sure the armchair quarterbacking will come soon enough, but my point is that people in this thread were being really disingenuous with how they were framing this particular incident.
The cop didn't have all kinds of time and a bunch of other cops around the perpetrator to try alternative options. He showed up as the first officer on scene and had a fully grown human being push someone down and then attempt to stab someone else.
I've been just as vocal as pretty much everyone else here in my criticisms of the police, but we should be criticizing them based on the individual events and what they do, not just assuming that they were in the wrong by virtue of being a cop.
|
On April 22 2021 23:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. 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. Except that this is exactly what happened with the incident in question. The cop didn't shoot because of a "feeling". He shot because someone was actively attempting to stab and kill someone else.
I don't mean to be obtuse but nobody did any stabbing, the suspect was executed before any stabbing occurred hence they were executed on the suspicion (you'd probably argue justified suspicion) that she was about to get stabby. I argue that it is immoral to give police the power of execution on situations like this.
|
On April 23 2021 00:23 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 23:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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. 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. Except that this is exactly what happened with the incident in question. The cop didn't shoot because of a "feeling". He shot because someone was actively attempting to stab and kill someone else. I don't mean to be obtuse but nobody did any stabbing, the suspect was executed before any stabbing occurred hence they were executed on the suspicion (you'd probably argue justified suspicion) that she was about to get stabby. I argue that it is immoral to give police the power of execution on situations like this.
This argument necessarily concludes with the idea that police should be required to let a victim be harmed (possibly killed) before they act with deadly force to stop a perpetrator, which you said you did not agree with about a page ago.
There was no wiggle room in that video. If the cop waits for any more time to let the incident develop then it is extremely likely that the attacker would've stabbed the victim. She was in the motion to stab her when she was shot.
|
I think it would help a lot of deadly force were not the first resort.
And, as others, i question how the cop ended up in that situation. I am pretty sure that in most cases, the situation where the use of deadly force may indeed have been unavoidable was itself very avoidable through a different approach by the police. The standard approach of US police seems to be to rush in with a gun in hand, then escalating the situation as quickly as possible through shouting and generally being as threatening as possible.
|
On April 23 2021 00:30 Simberto wrote:
I think it would help a lot of deadly force were not the first resort.
And, as others, i question how the cop ended up in that situation. I am pretty sure that in most cases, the situation where the use of deadly force may indeed have been unavoidable was itself very avoidable through a different approach by the police. The standard approach of US police seems to be to rush in with a gun in hand, then escalating the situation as quickly as possible through shouting and generally being as threatening as possible.
I think this is true 99% of the time.
The problem is that I think that this case was actually in that 1%. It seems to me like people here are working from the conclusion that the police are ALWAYS wrong and working backwards to try to justify that conclusion.
Maybe once in a long while a cop isn't wrong?
|
United States42691 Posts
On April 23 2021 00:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 00:30 Simberto wrote:
I think it would help a lot of deadly force were not the first resort.
And, as others, i question how the cop ended up in that situation. I am pretty sure that in most cases, the situation where the use of deadly force may indeed have been unavoidable was itself very avoidable through a different approach by the police. The standard approach of US police seems to be to rush in with a gun in hand, then escalating the situation as quickly as possible through shouting and generally being as threatening as possible. I think this is true 99% of the time. The problem is that I think that this case was actually in that 1%. It seems to me like people here are working from the conclusion that the police are ALWAYS wrong and working backwards to try to justify that conclusion. Maybe once in a long while a cop isn't wrong?
I don’t think people assume cops are always wrong. There are a lot of cops and most of them manage to make it through an average day without shooting any beloved family pets or whatever. There are enough of them that if they only engaged in misconduct society would break down overnight. The cases that become newsworthy are generally ones in which there is some kind of controversy because that’s how the news works. That controversy doesn’t represent the population, it’s selection bias. Similarly the people on tl who routinely call out lack of training or excessive force on tl are responding to the unrepresentative minority of incidents.
If every time someone posted a story about a pit bull killing a child I said the pit bull should be euthanized you would be wrong to conclude that I hate all dogs. Same with police.
|
How some of you are disturbed at how the officer in question handled the situation is a curious thing. As far as I am concerned, he saved the girl who was about to be stabbed.
I’m not even a fan of police in general; I think by and large they act way too much in the service of evil and wickedness by enforcing evil laws - but in this case, disturbing tragic frustrating as the death of the girl was, letting her stab the other girl would have been a worse outcome and so someone intervening was for the better.
|
On April 23 2021 00:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 00:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:30 Simberto wrote:
I think it would help a lot of deadly force were not the first resort.
And, as others, i question how the cop ended up in that situation. I am pretty sure that in most cases, the situation where the use of deadly force may indeed have been unavoidable was itself very avoidable through a different approach by the police. The standard approach of US police seems to be to rush in with a gun in hand, then escalating the situation as quickly as possible through shouting and generally being as threatening as possible. I think this is true 99% of the time. The problem is that I think that this case was actually in that 1%. It seems to me like people here are working from the conclusion that the police are ALWAYS wrong and working backwards to try to justify that conclusion. Maybe once in a long while a cop isn't wrong? I don’t think people assume cops are always wrong. There are a lot of cops and most of them manage to make it through an average day without shooting any beloved family pets or whatever. There are enough of them that if they only engaged in misconduct society would break down overnight. The cases that become newsworthy are generally ones in which there is some kind of controversy because that’s how the news works. That controversy doesn’t represent the population, it’s selection bias. Similarly the people on tl who routinely call out lack of training or excessive force on tl are responding to the unrepresentative minority of incidents. If every time someone posted a story about a pit bull killing a child I said the pit bull should be euthanized you would be wrong to conclude that I hate all dogs. Same with police.
Even if it's incorrect to assume that you hate all dogs, it's worth critiquing the fact that you advocate for euthanizing pit bulls every time one of those incidents come up since pit bulls aren't actually particularly violent and suffer from incorrect stereotypes and stigmas around the breed.
Not a very good analogy for these purposes, but the point is this:
While it's true that it's incorrect to assume that you (and others) hate all cops, it is also true that you (and others) may still have a clear bias that needs to be evaluated. Not every officer-involved shooting is a clear case of the cop being wrong. Once in a long while they may have acted correctly and each case deserves to be evaluated on its own merits.
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 00:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 00:53 Amumoman wrote:
How some of you are disturbed at how the officer in question handled the situation is a curious thing. As far as I am concerned, he saved the girl who was about to be stabbed.
I’m not even a fan of police in general; I think by and large they act way too much in the service of evil and wickedness by enforcing evil laws - but in this case, disturbing tragic frustrating as the death of the girl was, letting her stab the other girl would have been a worse outcome and so someone intervening was for the better. How do you know she will stab the girl? She shoved the other one, the act of stabbing another human is actually really hard for most. It takes a lot more than it does to even shoot someone because of how up close and personal it is and shooting another human is hard for most which is the reason for many of the training changes in the military post WW1.
Explain how it is "actually really hard" to stab someone.
It actually really isn't. Making it easier-than-normal to harm someone is part of the concept of a weapon. This is also why a loaded firearm in the hands of even the most clueless of individuals is seen as very dangerous; it's so easy to hurt/kill someone with these weapons that you always have to take precautions for the worst-case scenario.
The girl was physically attempting to stab someone. The video shows this plain as day. She was in the middle of swinging a knife (also clearly visible) at another girl that was recoiling on the hood of the car in an attempt to protect herself. At what point before the girl was actually stabbed would you say that it is acceptable to conclude that she was in the midst of trying to stab the victim?
|
|
|
On April 22 2021 23:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 23:20 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 10:38 JimmiC wrote:On April 22 2021 10:13 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 09:46 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It's hard to know how literal you are, but your exact I don't need to search more then 1 has been brought up today and we both know there is more. 1 is already more than you said and many more times than other countries, like I said. I feel like you are still discussing something different here. So again, here is the statement. 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. There have been no examples given yet that come close to matching this. Again, if they are so frequent, people would inundate me with nonstop examples to prove my ignorance. StasisField shared a site with a breakdown of stats on police killings, with the corresponding database to reference. No one has put in any effort to bring up all these 'frequent' examples. So accept fantasy as fact if you like. Examples were given.
On April 22 2021 23:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I think he's focusing only on the "very frequently" and the literal sentence rather than being able to think in a more wide ranging area of discussion. dp isn't interested in the numbers StatisField brought up, nor your example KwarK because it doesn't fit the literal sentence structure you gave. By forcing you to give multiple (read hundreds) within a say, 5 year time period, he can skirt the truth that people are being murdered by cops. Your example was the most recent and high profile one and that still doesn't fit his literal definition of the sentence. dp will just look for something that doesn't fit his narrative within the example (she wasn't acting in her "official capacity" invalidates your example, according to him).
Amber Guyger was rightfully convicted of homicide. You for some reason want me to deviate from what you said to include any police shooting that isn't initiated by a violent crime, instead of what you actually said. If that is your intention with subpar wording, then we are simply not talking about that same thing. This is more of an extension on the 'shot for jaywalking' discussion.
This is not a bad faith argument. When I ask for examples, it actually requires examination of cases vs looking at a database of numbers with set description that often ignore or lack content. I actually downloaded and searched through the database provided, checked through by initial cause as theft and couldn't find any relevant examples. The closest that seemed over the top was a man that was tasered and died as a result that was allegedly opening packages to steal things at a store, and when approached became confrontational and resisted arrest.
Things like that are tragic and I am not sure the best course of action on how to avoid them. Ignore all petty crime? Hard to give summons if a suspect won't provide identification so no arrests but stern talking to will suffice? That sounds condescending but for some change to happen there does seem to be a need for the public at large to cooperate.
On April 23 2021 00:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 23:20 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 10:38 JimmiC wrote:On April 22 2021 10:13 dp wrote:On April 22 2021 09:46 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It's hard to know how literal you are, but your exact I don't need to search more then 1 has been brought up today and we both know there is more. 1 is already more than you said and many more times than other countries, like I said. I feel like you are still discussing something different here. So again, here is the statement. 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. There have been no examples given yet that come close to matching this. Again, if they are so frequent, people would inundate me with nonstop examples to prove my ignorance. StasisField shared a site with a breakdown of stats on police killings, with the corresponding database to reference. No one has put in any effort to bring up all these 'frequent' examples. So accept fantasy as fact if you like. Examples were given, there has been a lot of posts and maybe you did not read them. "Frequently" is not an absolute term it means regularly/often. When it comes to this type of thing even annually would be more frequent than anywhere else and not acceptable and the US is above annually. Again if you want to be the word police you should follow you own advice because when you do not it looks like you are trying to distract from the actual argument, which usually means you disagree but have no good reason too. Infinitesimal means there are quantities that are closer to zero than any standard real number, but are not zero. To get there you would need to average 1 for like every 20 years. Maybe you could get away with 1 every three years. And we already know the US is away above both. Also, if you do not like this style of arguing ones posts, don't employ it yourself.
There were over 10 million people ARRESTED in 2019 alone, not the mention the x? amount of interactions that year that didn't lead to arrest between police and the public. 'Frequently' might not be an absolute term, but to throw it around in regards to police killing people for stealing stuff as more accurate than infinitesimal IS NOT REALITY. Do the math. This has nothing to do with police reform, or ignoring the human cost when police kill people. It is the difference between living in the real world and one imagined to fit some narrative. It is not at all necessary when it comes to reforming police or discussing changes in tactics. Nor accountability for excessive force or unreasonable deadly responses to a non-zero threat that has become common.
I feel no need to concede this. Both can be true. Things can be made better without exaggerating the frequency until people literally think police are more likely to kill them than criminals.
|
On April 23 2021 01:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:59 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 00:53 Amumoman wrote:
How some of you are disturbed at how the officer in question handled the situation is a curious thing. As far as I am concerned, he saved the girl who was about to be stabbed.
I’m not even a fan of police in general; I think by and large they act way too much in the service of evil and wickedness by enforcing evil laws - but in this case, disturbing tragic frustrating as the death of the girl was, letting her stab the other girl would have been a worse outcome and so someone intervening was for the better. How do you know she will stab the girl? She shoved the other one, the act of stabbing another human is actually really hard for most. It takes a lot more than it does to even shoot someone because of how up close and personal it is and shooting another human is hard for most which is the reason for many of the training changes in the military post WW1. Explain how it is "actually really hard" to stab someone. It actually really isn't. The girl was physically attempting to do so. The video shows this plain as day. She was in the middle of swinging a knife at another girl that was recoiling on the hood of the car. At what point before the girl was actually stabbed would you say that it is acceptable to conclude that she was in the midst of trying to stab the victim? I thought this was common knowledge that if you are not a psychopath (which is really rare) that killing someone else is both really hard to do, and then very damaging if it is done. Hell they even put all those scenes in movies where bad asses walk right up to the gun or sword saying "your not going to kill me" or whatever else. https://time.com/3816212/brain-murder-morality/https://www.americanheritage.com/secret-soldiers-who-didnt-shootA book if you want to get in more detail. https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0316040932/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=gs2&linkId=9f772caf2328655f4b41cfe6f8e9d103&creativeASIN=0316040932&tag=slate0d-20&creative=9325&camp=1789And then depending on whether or not you believe Marshal there is the "Men against Fire" book. Here is a little article the gets into the study and then the people who don't believe him and why. https://www.thewrap.com/black-mirror-fact-check-men-against-fire/
So you're talking about the psychological effects, which is all fine and dandy, but you are also implying that a police officer should be able to read someone's mind.
Not even talking about the psychological implications and the idea of how easy or hard it is for one to stab another in any particular incident, the physical activity was actively happening and this is the only evidence that you can work off of in a scenario like this. That it was happening is irrefutably clear from the video. Do you dispute this? Because it seems to me that the many here are really, really reaching for a way to minimize what the attacker was doing and make the police officer culpable. What is not being acknowledged is that this necessarily implies that the correct course of action would have been for the officer to allow the girl to attack the victim before stopping her, which, from what we can physically see, had a very significant chance in resulting in the victim's serious harm or death.
In other words, this implies that the correct moral action would be to potentially let the victim die so that the attacker could be subdued and their life preserved at the expense of the victim's.
|
Norway28667 Posts
On April 23 2021 00:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 00:46 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 00:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:30 Simberto wrote:
I think it would help a lot of deadly force were not the first resort.
And, as others, i question how the cop ended up in that situation. I am pretty sure that in most cases, the situation where the use of deadly force may indeed have been unavoidable was itself very avoidable through a different approach by the police. The standard approach of US police seems to be to rush in with a gun in hand, then escalating the situation as quickly as possible through shouting and generally being as threatening as possible. I think this is true 99% of the time. The problem is that I think that this case was actually in that 1%. It seems to me like people here are working from the conclusion that the police are ALWAYS wrong and working backwards to try to justify that conclusion. Maybe once in a long while a cop isn't wrong? I don’t think people assume cops are always wrong. There are a lot of cops and most of them manage to make it through an average day without shooting any beloved family pets or whatever. There are enough of them that if they only engaged in misconduct society would break down overnight. The cases that become newsworthy are generally ones in which there is some kind of controversy because that’s how the news works. That controversy doesn’t represent the population, it’s selection bias. Similarly the people on tl who routinely call out lack of training or excessive force on tl are responding to the unrepresentative minority of incidents. If every time someone posted a story about a pit bull killing a child I said the pit bull should be euthanized you would be wrong to conclude that I hate all dogs. Same with police. Even if it's incorrect to assume that you hate all dogs, it's worth critiquing the fact that you advocate for euthanizing pit bulls every time one of those incidents come up since pit bulls aren't actually particularly violent and suffer from incorrect stereotypes and stigmas around the breed. Not a very good analogy for these purposes, but the point is this: While it's true that it's incorrect to assume that you (and others) hate all cops, it is also true that you (and others) may still have a clear bias that needs to be evaluated. Not every officer-involved shooting is a clear case of the cop being wrong. Once in a long while they may have acted correctly and each case deserves to be evaluated on its own merits.
Not to deviate from the discussion but I can picture this becoming a sideplot of sorts and I'm trying to sort that out; I'm a huge dog lover and I think dogs are euthanized too easily but cmon, if a dog kills a child then its life is forfeit. Kwark didn't say bites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
