|
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 23 2021 03:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 03:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:58 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 02:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 00:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 23:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
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. This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator. Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. I think we agree on a lot, what we don't agree on is the ability for police to defuse situations rather than use deadly force. Where is your certainty on how difficult or near impossible it is? And why do you think so many other police are able to succeed where the US fails? (keep in mind I'm lumping in all the countries that have similar GDP's Democracies and so on so we are talking about a far larger amount of people, cops and so on). I don't think it's nearly impossible, I just don't think it's always possible. The presented situation where a person is actively attempting to kill another person with a knife is one of the few situations where I don't think it's reasonable to think that trying to defuse the situation is the preferred approach. I could (skeptically) entertain an argument for going taser first, but trying to defuse a situation like this goes to the point of effectively sacrificing the safety and/or life of the victim in an attempt to keep the attacker alive. You keep stating actively attempting to kill someone with a knife, this is not a fact so stop sating it like one. They are posturing like they may, they also just pushed someone they could have stabbed. Also, this is a young girl who has multiple people around her possibly aggressive to her. I'm not sure if the full story is out but originally it was that the girl with the knife called the police because she was dealing with multiple attackers. I'm not sure if that is the case, but what I am sure about is there is many many other options that are just as reasonable or more reasonable than "she was going to kill that other girl with her knife". You're reaching really hard to try to acquit her of wrong-doing. It doesn't matter if she was initially the victim in the altercation. Once she picks up a deadly weapon and attacks people, she becomes the attacker. She is clearly seen physically attacking multiple people. If you don't think that pushing someone against a car and then actively lunging at them while swinging a knife-bearing arm at them (which is clearly shown in the video) is attempting to stab someone then that is an irreconsilable disagreement and we have nothing further to discuss. I think you're being completely and totally unreasonable. EDIT: After finally finding the complete, unedited video, it even seems like the cop does give her time by yelling multiple times to "Get Down" after drawing his gun (probably not the most effective thing to yell, but he still gives her time). She didn't even attempt to acknowledge the cop or interact with him in any way; she went straight for attacking the two other girls in the altercation. I'm not aquiting her of wrong doing, she has committed crimes. I'm suggesting those crimes do not mean she is required to die. I think confirmation bias is affecting us both as you see her attacking multiple times (and not stabbing or killing anyone) as evidence that surely the next time she would and I see at as likely she will not. This is of course impossible to know the answer for. But to the taser which people keep saying is not completely effective on drugged up insane people. But is this girl high on meth? And can a taser really not bring down a 15 year old.girl? What is the percentage 1%?
As I said before, this isn't guesswork; her actions are clearly in an attempt to attack the girl in pink with a knife. She pushes one person down (at which point the cop repeatedly orders the group to "Get Down", giving the attacker time to comply) and then pushes the girl in pink against the car and makes a lunging motion with a knife in her hand towards the girl's head. I cannot think of any other actions that she could have done to more clearly demonstrate that she was attempting to attack someone with that knife.
Even if you want to try to argue that maybe she was just threatening the girl with the motion and wouldn't have finished it, this is again implying that police officers should be able to read minds. It also puts the victim in the position of gambling her life because we are now saying that the attacker's life is more ethically valuable.
As for the taser, I don't know the precise stats but it's not anywhere near 99% effective, even against sober individuals. There are a hundred different things that can make them less effective; anything from the type of clothing that someone is wearing to what they are touching to their mental state. I have personally seen it be completely ineffective against suspects in a dangerous situation, so I'd be hard-pressed to be convinced that the taser should be the first choice against someone brandishing a deadly weapon.
Also, I get that people want to continually highlight that she was a kid (because she was, and she was 16), but she was also fully grown; this wasn't some 8-year-old feebly brandishing a weapon. This girl was the size of a full-grown adult and was at least 50% larger than I am, and I am not a small person. She was also larger than both the cop and the girl she was attacking with the knife.
|
United States44143 Posts
On April 23 2021 03:47 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how Kwark can make a claim like "police very frequently kill people for stealing" (paraphrasing), give one example that doesn't even really fit, and everyone will come to his defense to gaslight "dp" by saying he proved his point. Even JimmiC trying to argue that once a year in a country of 330 million people qualifies as "very frequently." Another guy earlier said black people have a 5% chance of getting shot for no reason from a routine traffic stop and absolutely nobody took issue with it. You can say anything you want here and people will not only let it slide but actively defend it if they identify you as being on the same side of the argument as them. Of course that's pretty inherent in internet arguing in general.
He demanded an example so I provided one. If he’d demanded two I’d have provided two.
What about when the police shot the FedEx truck robbers a few years ago and also managed to shoot and kill two innocent people?
|
Northern Ireland27071 Posts
On April 23 2021 02:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 02:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 00:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:23 EnDeR_ wrote: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. This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator. Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another.
I think the question of ethics here would be drawn on the lines of those vested with the power of the state to employ violence it necessary being held to a higher standard in employing it than x citizen, not on the relative ‘worth’ of the lives of two citizens.
I do agree people have a degree of misplaced optimism on how easily people can be defused once the auld adrenaline kicks in. Especially at close proximity like that.
I’d be (relatively) OK if someone is 2 metres away and someone is tasked with non-lethally taking them down before they get to stabbing me. Much less so if someone is a foot or two away
|
On April 23 2021 03:45 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 03:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:58 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 02:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 00:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 23:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
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. This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator. Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. I think we agree on a lot, what we don't agree on is the ability for police to defuse situations rather than use deadly force. Where is your certainty on how difficult or near impossible it is? And why do you think so many other police are able to succeed where the US fails? (keep in mind I'm lumping in all the countries that have similar GDP's Democracies and so on so we are talking about a far larger amount of people, cops and so on). I don't think it's nearly impossible, I just don't think it's always possible. The presented situation where a person is actively attempting to kill another person with a knife is one of the few situations where I don't think it's reasonable to think that trying to defuse the situation is the preferred approach. I could (skeptically) entertain an argument for going taser first, but trying to defuse a situation like this goes to the point of effectively sacrificing the safety and/or life of the victim in an attempt to keep the attacker alive. You keep stating actively attempting to kill someone with a knife, this is not a fact so stop sating it like one. They are posturing like they may, they also just pushed someone they could have stabbed. Also, this is a young girl who has multiple people around her possibly aggressive to her. I'm not sure if the full story is out but originally it was that the girl with the knife called the police because she was dealing with multiple attackers. I'm not sure if that is the case, but what I am sure about is there is many many other options that are just as reasonable or more reasonable than "she was going to kill that other girl with her knife". You're reaching really hard to try to acquit her of wrong-doing. It doesn't matter if she was initially the victim in the altercation. Once she picks up a deadly weapon and attacks people, she becomes the attacker. She is clearly seen physically attacking multiple people. If you don't think that pushing someone against a car and then actively lunging at them while swinging a knife-bearing arm at them (which is clearly shown in the video) is attempting to stab someone then that is an irreconsilable disagreement and we have nothing further to discuss. I think you're being completely and totally unreasonable. EDIT: After finally finding the complete, unedited video, it even seems like the cop does give her time by yelling multiple times to "Get Down" after drawing his gun (probably not the most effective thing to yell, but he still gives her time). She didn't even attempt to acknowledge the cop or interact with him in any way; she went straight for attacking the two other girls in the altercation, and it seems clear that she is actively lunging to stab the girl in pink in the head/face/neck area right before she is shot. Do you know why the police in other countries kill so much fewer people? They know how to handle situations like that without anyone getting hurt. It is perfectly possible, but it does require proper training. The Utøya terrorist attacks in Norway 2011 is maybe one of the most obvious examples of a situation where shooting could be justified, but was it necessary? No, it wasn't. ABB have himself up voluntarily when the special forces approached him, and no shots were fired. Far too many US police officers are just terrible at their jobs.
This comment is completely and utterly irrelevant and if you actually read this conversation in its entirety then you would know why.
All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate)
Arguments about "personal responsibility" are lazy attempts to avoid accountability for the institutions that preserve the status quo.
I think the question of ethics here would be drawn on the lines of those vested with the power of the state to employ violence it necessary being held to a higher standard in employing it than x citizen, not on the relative ‘worth’ of the lives of two citizens.
I do agree people have a degree of misplaced optimism on how easily people can be defused once the auld adrenaline kicks in. Especially at close proximity like that.
I’d be (relatively) OK if someone is 2 metres away and someone is tasked with non-lethally taking them down before they get to stabbing me. Much less so if someone is a foot or two away
But you can't just say, "I'm going to ignore that ethical valuation because it makes me uncomfortable".
At the end of the day, if you agree that the cops should wait for the attacker to attack (and quite likely kill) the victim to avoid using lethal force, then you are saying that the ethical value of not having law enforcement use lethal force so that the attacker's life is preserved is greater than the ethical value of protecting someone from being killed by another citizen.
Furthermore, I'm assuming that most people here accept that killing in imminent self-defense is acceptable. Why would it not be acceptable for the state to do the same thing if the victim is not capable of it?
|
Norway28836 Posts
On April 23 2021 03:40 Starlightsun wrote:
I wonder if it would make sense to just not have cops carry around guns at all. If dealing with an armed, aggressive suspect then send a team trained with guns. But for the majority of interactions there's no reason for the police to be carrying a lethal weapon.
That's how it is here. Police in Norway generally is not armed. They can get weapons if they're called to confront an armed and dangerous subject, and there have been some periods with increased terror threats that have caused temporary 'most police are armed right now' periods, but as a rule, police here do not carry guns.
Iirc, during the few months of 'generic armament of police due to a perceived terror threat' there were a couple situations of them stupidly firing their guns for no reason (without killing anyone though) but no cases of them shooting someone who was about to kill someone.
This doesn't mean I think this is really transferrable to the US, though. You guys do genuinely have issues with crime that dwarfs anything we see in Norway. (As mentioned in an earlier post, Norway has had exactly 1 murder so far in 2021.)
|
On April 23 2021 03:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:44 Amumoman wrote:
All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate)
This brings absolutely nothing useful to the discussion unless you have a secret plan for universal retroactive good parenting implementation.
You dont think better parenting and people being more responsible and sensible would contribute positively to (among a thousand other positive things) better interactions between citizens and officers?
|
On April 23 2021 03:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:45 Slydie wrote:On April 23 2021 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 03:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:58 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 02:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 00:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:23 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
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. This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator. Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. I think we agree on a lot, what we don't agree on is the ability for police to defuse situations rather than use deadly force. Where is your certainty on how difficult or near impossible it is? And why do you think so many other police are able to succeed where the US fails? (keep in mind I'm lumping in all the countries that have similar GDP's Democracies and so on so we are talking about a far larger amount of people, cops and so on). I don't think it's nearly impossible, I just don't think it's always possible. The presented situation where a person is actively attempting to kill another person with a knife is one of the few situations where I don't think it's reasonable to think that trying to defuse the situation is the preferred approach. I could (skeptically) entertain an argument for going taser first, but trying to defuse a situation like this goes to the point of effectively sacrificing the safety and/or life of the victim in an attempt to keep the attacker alive. You keep stating actively attempting to kill someone with a knife, this is not a fact so stop sating it like one. They are posturing like they may, they also just pushed someone they could have stabbed. Also, this is a young girl who has multiple people around her possibly aggressive to her. I'm not sure if the full story is out but originally it was that the girl with the knife called the police because she was dealing with multiple attackers. I'm not sure if that is the case, but what I am sure about is there is many many other options that are just as reasonable or more reasonable than "she was going to kill that other girl with her knife". You're reaching really hard to try to acquit her of wrong-doing. It doesn't matter if she was initially the victim in the altercation. Once she picks up a deadly weapon and attacks people, she becomes the attacker. She is clearly seen physically attacking multiple people. If you don't think that pushing someone against a car and then actively lunging at them while swinging a knife-bearing arm at them (which is clearly shown in the video) is attempting to stab someone then that is an irreconsilable disagreement and we have nothing further to discuss. I think you're being completely and totally unreasonable. EDIT: After finally finding the complete, unedited video, it even seems like the cop does give her time by yelling multiple times to "Get Down" after drawing his gun (probably not the most effective thing to yell, but he still gives her time). She didn't even attempt to acknowledge the cop or interact with him in any way; she went straight for attacking the two other girls in the altercation, and it seems clear that she is actively lunging to stab the girl in pink in the head/face/neck area right before she is shot. Do you know why the police in other countries kill so much fewer people? They know how to handle situations like that without anyone getting hurt. It is perfectly possible, but it does require proper training. The Utøya terrorist attacks in Norway 2011 is maybe one of the most obvious examples of a situation where shooting could be justified, but was it necessary? No, it wasn't. ABB have himself up voluntarily when the special forces approached him, and no shots were fired. Far too many US police officers are just terrible at their jobs. This comment is completely and utterly irrelevant and if you actually read this conversation in its entirety then you would know why. Show nested quote +All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate) Arguments about "personal responsibility" are lazy attempts to avoid accountability for the institutions that preserve the status quo.
How so? The two are obviously not mutually exclusive
|
On April 23 2021 03:55 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:47 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:44 Amumoman wrote:
All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate)
This brings absolutely nothing useful to the discussion unless you have a secret plan for universal retroactive good parenting implementation. You dont think better parenting and people being more responsible and sensible would contribute positively to (among a thousand other positive things) better interactions between citizens and officers?
True, they could teach their children not to feel scared of black men, and to not react with excessive violence when they feel scared.
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 03:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:47 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how Kwark can make a claim like "police very frequently kill people for stealing" (paraphrasing), give one example that doesn't even really fit, and everyone will come to his defense to gaslight "dp" by saying he proved his point. Even JimmiC trying to argue that once a year in a country of 330 million people qualifies as "very frequently." Another guy earlier said black people have a 5% chance of getting shot for no reason from a routine traffic stop and absolutely nobody took issue with it. You can say anything you want here and people will not only let it slide but actively defend it if they identify you as being on the same side of the argument as them. Of course that's pretty inherent in internet arguing in general. He demanded an example so I provided one. If he’d demanded two I’d have provided two. What about when the police shot the FedEx truck robbers a few years ago and also managed to shoot and kill two innocent people?
I mean there are an ABUNDANCE of examples. I don't understand why we've all been talking about these videos where people are fighting, fleeing, pulling out guns, trying to stab someone, pulling out knives, etc. Instead of posting these videos, why not post all the videos from this year of police shooting people for stealing or routine traffic stops. Then instead of arguing about whether that girl was going to get stabbed or whether that cop was going to stabbed we could just all agree how wrong it is to shoot people for stealing.
|
Norway28836 Posts
On April 23 2021 03:55 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:47 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:44 Amumoman wrote:
All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate)
This brings absolutely nothing useful to the discussion unless you have a secret plan for universal retroactive good parenting implementation. You dont think better parenting and people being more responsible and sensible would contribute positively to (among a thousand other positive things) better interactions between citizens and officers?
I believe the point is that even if we magically made every parent in the US great tomorrow, then it'd still be between 1 and 18 years before we really saw that influence how young adults behave.
|
On April 23 2021 03:56 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 03:45 Slydie wrote:On April 23 2021 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 03:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:58 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 02:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 00:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
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. This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator. Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. I think we agree on a lot, what we don't agree on is the ability for police to defuse situations rather than use deadly force. Where is your certainty on how difficult or near impossible it is? And why do you think so many other police are able to succeed where the US fails? (keep in mind I'm lumping in all the countries that have similar GDP's Democracies and so on so we are talking about a far larger amount of people, cops and so on). I don't think it's nearly impossible, I just don't think it's always possible. The presented situation where a person is actively attempting to kill another person with a knife is one of the few situations where I don't think it's reasonable to think that trying to defuse the situation is the preferred approach. I could (skeptically) entertain an argument for going taser first, but trying to defuse a situation like this goes to the point of effectively sacrificing the safety and/or life of the victim in an attempt to keep the attacker alive. You keep stating actively attempting to kill someone with a knife, this is not a fact so stop sating it like one. They are posturing like they may, they also just pushed someone they could have stabbed. Also, this is a young girl who has multiple people around her possibly aggressive to her. I'm not sure if the full story is out but originally it was that the girl with the knife called the police because she was dealing with multiple attackers. I'm not sure if that is the case, but what I am sure about is there is many many other options that are just as reasonable or more reasonable than "she was going to kill that other girl with her knife". You're reaching really hard to try to acquit her of wrong-doing. It doesn't matter if she was initially the victim in the altercation. Once she picks up a deadly weapon and attacks people, she becomes the attacker. She is clearly seen physically attacking multiple people. If you don't think that pushing someone against a car and then actively lunging at them while swinging a knife-bearing arm at them (which is clearly shown in the video) is attempting to stab someone then that is an irreconsilable disagreement and we have nothing further to discuss. I think you're being completely and totally unreasonable. EDIT: After finally finding the complete, unedited video, it even seems like the cop does give her time by yelling multiple times to "Get Down" after drawing his gun (probably not the most effective thing to yell, but he still gives her time). She didn't even attempt to acknowledge the cop or interact with him in any way; she went straight for attacking the two other girls in the altercation, and it seems clear that she is actively lunging to stab the girl in pink in the head/face/neck area right before she is shot. Do you know why the police in other countries kill so much fewer people? They know how to handle situations like that without anyone getting hurt. It is perfectly possible, but it does require proper training. The Utøya terrorist attacks in Norway 2011 is maybe one of the most obvious examples of a situation where shooting could be justified, but was it necessary? No, it wasn't. ABB have himself up voluntarily when the special forces approached him, and no shots were fired. Far too many US police officers are just terrible at their jobs. This comment is completely and utterly irrelevant and if you actually read this conversation in its entirety then you would know why. All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate) Arguments about "personal responsibility" are lazy attempts to avoid accountability for the institutions that preserve the status quo. How so? The two are obviously not mutually exclusive
Because that is the only way it is ever used.
There is literally zero evidence that younger people are holding less "personal responsibility". That is the same kind of bullshit argument espoused by Boomers when they complain about being called out for longstanding sexism, racism, nepotism, etc.
Young people don't have less personal responsibility. They just don't put up with the bullshit built into our systemic institutions.
|
Are you lumping in running away with pulling a gun as though running away is even vaguely in the realm of "justified" lethal force as someone pulling a gun on you?
Also I don't imagine people here are actively hunting around for every police shooting, that would likely be a full time job, most of what gets posted here are the major killings that gain traction in the news like George Floyd's murder.
|
United States44143 Posts
On April 23 2021 03:57 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:50 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:47 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how Kwark can make a claim like "police very frequently kill people for stealing" (paraphrasing), give one example that doesn't even really fit, and everyone will come to his defense to gaslight "dp" by saying he proved his point. Even JimmiC trying to argue that once a year in a country of 330 million people qualifies as "very frequently." Another guy earlier said black people have a 5% chance of getting shot for no reason from a routine traffic stop and absolutely nobody took issue with it. You can say anything you want here and people will not only let it slide but actively defend it if they identify you as being on the same side of the argument as them. Of course that's pretty inherent in internet arguing in general. He demanded an example so I provided one. If he’d demanded two I’d have provided two. What about when the police shot the FedEx truck robbers a few years ago and also managed to shoot and kill two innocent people? I mean there are an ABUNDANCE of examples. I don't understand why we've all been talking about these videos where people are fighting, fleeing, pulling out guns, trying to stab someone, pulling out knives, etc. Instead of posting these videos, why not post all the videos from this year of police shooting people for stealing or routine traffic stops. Then instead of arguing about whether that girl was going to get stabbed or whether that cop was going to stabbed we could just all agree how wrong it is to shoot people for stealing.
I was never arguing about the video of the girl with a knife and kept repeating that I was arguing about hypotheticals but nobody read my posts before typing out a response to whatever argument they believed I was making.
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 03:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:55 Amumoman wrote:On April 23 2021 03:47 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:44 Amumoman wrote:
All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate)
This brings absolutely nothing useful to the discussion unless you have a secret plan for universal retroactive good parenting implementation. You dont think better parenting and people being more responsible and sensible would contribute positively to (among a thousand other positive things) better interactions between citizens and officers? I believe the point is that even if we magically made every parent in the US great tomorrow, then it'd still be between 1 and 18 years before we really saw that influence how young adults behave.
All the more reason to find a way to cultivate this as soon as possible.
|
United States44143 Posts
On April 23 2021 03:55 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:47 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:44 Amumoman wrote:
All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate)
This brings absolutely nothing useful to the discussion unless you have a secret plan for universal retroactive good parenting implementation. You dont think better parenting and people being more responsible and sensible would contribute positively to (among a thousand other positive things) better interactions between citizens and officers?
I think it would, and I also think free unicorns for everyone would be super awesome. But I don’t feel the need to interject my ideas about free unicorns for everyone into random conversations unless I actually have unicorns and am giving them away for free. Do you actually have retroactive universal good parenting for everyone or are you just here to tell everyone that it’d be cool if it was available?
|
On April 23 2021 04:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:57 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2021 03:50 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:47 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how Kwark can make a claim like "police very frequently kill people for stealing" (paraphrasing), give one example that doesn't even really fit, and everyone will come to his defense to gaslight "dp" by saying he proved his point. Even JimmiC trying to argue that once a year in a country of 330 million people qualifies as "very frequently." Another guy earlier said black people have a 5% chance of getting shot for no reason from a routine traffic stop and absolutely nobody took issue with it. You can say anything you want here and people will not only let it slide but actively defend it if they identify you as being on the same side of the argument as them. Of course that's pretty inherent in internet arguing in general. He demanded an example so I provided one. If he’d demanded two I’d have provided two. What about when the police shot the FedEx truck robbers a few years ago and also managed to shoot and kill two innocent people? I mean there are an ABUNDANCE of examples. I don't understand why we've all been talking about these videos where people are fighting, fleeing, pulling out guns, trying to stab someone, pulling out knives, etc. Instead of posting these videos, why not post all the videos from this year of police shooting people for stealing or routine traffic stops. Then instead of arguing about whether that girl was going to get stabbed or whether that cop was going to stabbed we could just all agree how wrong it is to shoot people for stealing. I was never arguing about the video of the girl with a knife and kept repeating that I was arguing about hypotheticals but nobody read my posts before typing out a response to whatever argument they believed I was making.
Ok regardless if you were arguing about the 4 videos that have been argued about here. You could still post about the abundance of people that are being murdered by police for stealing. Then nobody would be arguing.
|
On April 23 2021 03:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:56 Amumoman wrote:On April 23 2021 03:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 03:45 Slydie wrote:On April 23 2021 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 03:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:58 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 02:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:40 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator.
Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. I think we agree on a lot, what we don't agree on is the ability for police to defuse situations rather than use deadly force. Where is your certainty on how difficult or near impossible it is? And why do you think so many other police are able to succeed where the US fails? (keep in mind I'm lumping in all the countries that have similar GDP's Democracies and so on so we are talking about a far larger amount of people, cops and so on). I don't think it's nearly impossible, I just don't think it's always possible. The presented situation where a person is actively attempting to kill another person with a knife is one of the few situations where I don't think it's reasonable to think that trying to defuse the situation is the preferred approach. I could (skeptically) entertain an argument for going taser first, but trying to defuse a situation like this goes to the point of effectively sacrificing the safety and/or life of the victim in an attempt to keep the attacker alive. You keep stating actively attempting to kill someone with a knife, this is not a fact so stop sating it like one. They are posturing like they may, they also just pushed someone they could have stabbed. Also, this is a young girl who has multiple people around her possibly aggressive to her. I'm not sure if the full story is out but originally it was that the girl with the knife called the police because she was dealing with multiple attackers. I'm not sure if that is the case, but what I am sure about is there is many many other options that are just as reasonable or more reasonable than "she was going to kill that other girl with her knife". You're reaching really hard to try to acquit her of wrong-doing. It doesn't matter if she was initially the victim in the altercation. Once she picks up a deadly weapon and attacks people, she becomes the attacker. She is clearly seen physically attacking multiple people. If you don't think that pushing someone against a car and then actively lunging at them while swinging a knife-bearing arm at them (which is clearly shown in the video) is attempting to stab someone then that is an irreconsilable disagreement and we have nothing further to discuss. I think you're being completely and totally unreasonable. EDIT: After finally finding the complete, unedited video, it even seems like the cop does give her time by yelling multiple times to "Get Down" after drawing his gun (probably not the most effective thing to yell, but he still gives her time). She didn't even attempt to acknowledge the cop or interact with him in any way; she went straight for attacking the two other girls in the altercation, and it seems clear that she is actively lunging to stab the girl in pink in the head/face/neck area right before she is shot. Do you know why the police in other countries kill so much fewer people? They know how to handle situations like that without anyone getting hurt. It is perfectly possible, but it does require proper training. The Utøya terrorist attacks in Norway 2011 is maybe one of the most obvious examples of a situation where shooting could be justified, but was it necessary? No, it wasn't. ABB have himself up voluntarily when the special forces approached him, and no shots were fired. Far too many US police officers are just terrible at their jobs. This comment is completely and utterly irrelevant and if you actually read this conversation in its entirety then you would know why. All this talk about the officer in question and law enforcement in general, here’s a crazy pitch:
People could be good parents and teach their offspring how they to operate sensibly and functionally the world; this includes not escalating a silly disagreement into running around agitated with a knife about to stab or posing an imminent threat of stabbing. Crazy I know but personal responsibility needs to make a comeback
(Obviously this does not rule out figuring out a way to have law enforcement using the least ammount of force required and doing everything reasonably within their power to de-escalate) Arguments about "personal responsibility" are lazy attempts to avoid accountability for the institutions that preserve the status quo. How so? The two are obviously not mutually exclusive Because that is the only way it is ever used. There is literally zero evidence that younger people are holding less "personal responsibility". That is the same kind of bullshit argument espoused by Boomers when they complain about being called out for longstanding sexism, racism, nepotism, etc. Young people don't have less personal responsibility. They just don't put up with the bullshit built into our systemic institutions.
I beg to differ. Sensible grownups can recognize more than one factor being of importance.
This isnt a question of whether there’s been a decline in personal responsibility, sensibility, integrity or what not. This is a question of whether those (and parental responsibility, and community responsibility) are a significant missing piece to the puzzle we’re wrestling with. I believe so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
