|
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 05:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 04:44 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:Why would you assume that Kwark was saying frequently as a percentage of arrests and not frequently in comparison to other places where he believes police to a better job? Again if you want to be the word police you can't be so willynilly yourself. You need to have the sense to not just read one sentence and treat it as if it was not part of a larger comment and more than that a conversation. Other countries have similar numbers of interactions and yet far less of these incidents that is simply factual. That it makes up a small % of total interactions is ridiculous because it should make up far fewer. So I need to guess the meaning of his words in relation to a point he was not making, has not specified and was not in discussion at the time, because otherwise I am being the word police? I have yet to see Kwark clarify anything in the way you are attributing his intention. He has not even clarified what he means exactly in the specific words he used. Is it in regards to initial reason for the police encounter? Or literal as in police show up and shoot robbers fleeing with TV's in the back. On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:The frequency is far to high and could be lowered, that is the point. And it is in every like country, the US is exceptionally bad. The standard should not be whether or not you are more or less likely to be shot and killed by the police or a criminal. You should have no fear of being killed by the police, because the amount of people killed by the police should actually be infinitesimal like it is in other countries, and the instances should be where it is clear that it was the only option, and if it was not only options there should be consequences. This is not in the realm of the same discussion. You understand that right? I can literally agree with everything you wrote and disagree with what Kwark said. It would be like if everyone was discussing the shooting of Jason Peterson in Canada and I chimed in "Very frequently the police in Canada use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone". You would obviously get my meaning and realize I mean in regards to other country's shootings by police rate, and frequent would be subjective in that way, and deprive property would mean any instance where someone is killed by police for any reason? And you would agree with me completely, no need for clarification, specifics, or relation to the topic at hand. So anyway, why are Canadian police so quick to shoot people in the back for stealing TV's all the time? Your last analogy/example whatever it is so wholly misses the mark, its impossible to discuss.
Why? The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions in Canada is greater than by stolen TVs. The police in Canada are constantly very frequently doing it. Pointing it out and discussing it seems reasonable.
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 05:27 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:01 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 04:44 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:Why would you assume that Kwark was saying frequently as a percentage of arrests and not frequently in comparison to other places where he believes police to a better job? Again if you want to be the word police you can't be so willynilly yourself. You need to have the sense to not just read one sentence and treat it as if it was not part of a larger comment and more than that a conversation. Other countries have similar numbers of interactions and yet far less of these incidents that is simply factual. That it makes up a small % of total interactions is ridiculous because it should make up far fewer. So I need to guess the meaning of his words in relation to a point he was not making, has not specified and was not in discussion at the time, because otherwise I am being the word police? I have yet to see Kwark clarify anything in the way you are attributing his intention. He has not even clarified what he means exactly in the specific words he used. Is it in regards to initial reason for the police encounter? Or literal as in police show up and shoot robbers fleeing with TV's in the back. On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:The frequency is far to high and could be lowered, that is the point. And it is in every like country, the US is exceptionally bad. The standard should not be whether or not you are more or less likely to be shot and killed by the police or a criminal. You should have no fear of being killed by the police, because the amount of people killed by the police should actually be infinitesimal like it is in other countries, and the instances should be where it is clear that it was the only option, and if it was not only options there should be consequences. This is not in the realm of the same discussion. You understand that right? I can literally agree with everything you wrote and disagree with what Kwark said. It would be like if everyone was discussing the shooting of Jason Peterson in Canada and I chimed in "Very frequently the police in Canada use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone". You would obviously get my meaning and realize I mean in regards to other country's shootings by police rate, and frequent would be subjective in that way, and deprive property would mean any instance where someone is killed by police for any reason? And you would agree with me completely, no need for clarification, specifics, or relation to the topic at hand. So anyway, why are Canadian police so quick to shoot people in the back for stealing TV's all the time? Your last analogy/example whatever it is so wholly misses the mark, its impossible to discuss. Why? The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions in Canada is greater than by stolen TVs. The police in Canada are constantly very frequently doing it. Pointing it out and discussing it seems reasonable. Well in that case the police call was about a man with a shotgun, holding someone hostage, who claimed he wanted to die by the police. And then the police waited until after the man fired his shotgun to shoot him. So given that this is one of the few examples where deadly force was very likely the police officers only choice was to fire, I'd just present the facts of the situation and likely few would disagree. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/cannon-plaza-police-shooting-1.5963568But I mean it gets back to the way you argue, when it is not going how you like, you distract.
No no, remember I am not discussing that. I am talking about the very frequent times people are shot dead for depriving property in Canada by police. Like this one, or this one, or this one, or this. And don't get me started on the outright war on people suffering mental breakdowns Canadian cops do. It's also open season out there on indigenous people. Am i doing this right?
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified.
There's a couple things here.
1.The cop isn't legally obligated to "protect".
“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
www.nytimes.com
2. Shooting toward both the alleged attacker and the person he was supposedly protecting increases the probability they both would suffer life threatening injuries because cops miss a LOT.
The cop was wrong for taking that shot and it doesn't mean I value one girls life over the other. It means that statistically speaking the cop taking the shot put everyone in greater danger and killed someone unnecessarily (maybe it could have become necessary, but it wasn't when the cop shot).
I agree with your perspective here and find Stratos's position wrong to be clear.
|
On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 05:27 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:01 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 04:44 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:Why would you assume that Kwark was saying frequently as a percentage of arrests and not frequently in comparison to other places where he believes police to a better job? Again if you want to be the word police you can't be so willynilly yourself. You need to have the sense to not just read one sentence and treat it as if it was not part of a larger comment and more than that a conversation. Other countries have similar numbers of interactions and yet far less of these incidents that is simply factual. That it makes up a small % of total interactions is ridiculous because it should make up far fewer. So I need to guess the meaning of his words in relation to a point he was not making, has not specified and was not in discussion at the time, because otherwise I am being the word police? I have yet to see Kwark clarify anything in the way you are attributing his intention. He has not even clarified what he means exactly in the specific words he used. Is it in regards to initial reason for the police encounter? Or literal as in police show up and shoot robbers fleeing with TV's in the back. On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:The frequency is far to high and could be lowered, that is the point. And it is in every like country, the US is exceptionally bad. The standard should not be whether or not you are more or less likely to be shot and killed by the police or a criminal. You should have no fear of being killed by the police, because the amount of people killed by the police should actually be infinitesimal like it is in other countries, and the instances should be where it is clear that it was the only option, and if it was not only options there should be consequences. This is not in the realm of the same discussion. You understand that right? I can literally agree with everything you wrote and disagree with what Kwark said. It would be like if everyone was discussing the shooting of Jason Peterson in Canada and I chimed in "Very frequently the police in Canada use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone". You would obviously get my meaning and realize I mean in regards to other country's shootings by police rate, and frequent would be subjective in that way, and deprive property would mean any instance where someone is killed by police for any reason? And you would agree with me completely, no need for clarification, specifics, or relation to the topic at hand. So anyway, why are Canadian police so quick to shoot people in the back for stealing TV's all the time? Your last analogy/example whatever it is so wholly misses the mark, its impossible to discuss. Why? The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions in Canada is greater than by stolen TVs. The police in Canada are constantly very frequently doing it. Pointing it out and discussing it seems reasonable. Well in that case the police call was about a man with a shotgun, holding someone hostage, who claimed he wanted to die by the police. And then the police waited until after the man fired his shotgun to shoot him. So given that this is one of the few examples where deadly force was very likely the police officers only choice was to fire, I'd just present the facts of the situation and likely few would disagree. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/cannon-plaza-police-shooting-1.5963568But I mean it gets back to the way you argue, when it is not going how you like, you distract. No no, remember I am not discussing that. I am talking about the very frequent times people are shot dead for depriving property in Canada by police. Like this one, or this one, or this one, or this. And don't get me started on the outright war on people suffering mental breakdowns Canadian cops do. It's also open season out there on indigenous people. Am i doing this right?
ok you gotta be shitting me. in one of your stories there is a man shot for being a suspect in an armed robbery, super tragic and police obviously made a mistake. wrong place, wrong time and maybe he even looked too... "shaped by the streets" or whatever.
but here is the kicker... he performed as a rapper. and his nickname/alias?
Online, friends are expressing their shock and sadness at his death, saying Clause was a talented rapper — he performed in rap battles under the name D Tha Suspect — and a father to four children.
life is way stranger than fiction. and unimaginably cruel sometimes.
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/01/01/ttc_robbery_suspect_fatally_shot_by_police_was_aspiring_rapper.html
|
On April 23 2021 04:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:59 Stratos_speAr wrote: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:
[quote]
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. They actually do because of how the brain develops. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989000/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396566/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445337/
They don't have less personal responsibility than prior generations.
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.
They aren't "missing pieces". The only thing that needs to be improved is law enforcement skill, training, and accountability.
Arguments citing "personal responsibility" or "behaving/not antagonizing police" are similar to trying to blame teenage girls for dressing a certain way and arousing teenage boys. It takes away all responsibility from the party that should have it and blames victims for the transgressors bad behavior.
|
On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 05:27 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:01 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 04:44 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:Why would you assume that Kwark was saying frequently as a percentage of arrests and not frequently in comparison to other places where he believes police to a better job? Again if you want to be the word police you can't be so willynilly yourself. You need to have the sense to not just read one sentence and treat it as if it was not part of a larger comment and more than that a conversation. Other countries have similar numbers of interactions and yet far less of these incidents that is simply factual. That it makes up a small % of total interactions is ridiculous because it should make up far fewer. So I need to guess the meaning of his words in relation to a point he was not making, has not specified and was not in discussion at the time, because otherwise I am being the word police? I have yet to see Kwark clarify anything in the way you are attributing his intention. He has not even clarified what he means exactly in the specific words he used. Is it in regards to initial reason for the police encounter? Or literal as in police show up and shoot robbers fleeing with TV's in the back. On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:The frequency is far to high and could be lowered, that is the point. And it is in every like country, the US is exceptionally bad. The standard should not be whether or not you are more or less likely to be shot and killed by the police or a criminal. You should have no fear of being killed by the police, because the amount of people killed by the police should actually be infinitesimal like it is in other countries, and the instances should be where it is clear that it was the only option, and if it was not only options there should be consequences. This is not in the realm of the same discussion. You understand that right? I can literally agree with everything you wrote and disagree with what Kwark said. It would be like if everyone was discussing the shooting of Jason Peterson in Canada and I chimed in "Very frequently the police in Canada use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone". You would obviously get my meaning and realize I mean in regards to other country's shootings by police rate, and frequent would be subjective in that way, and deprive property would mean any instance where someone is killed by police for any reason? And you would agree with me completely, no need for clarification, specifics, or relation to the topic at hand. So anyway, why are Canadian police so quick to shoot people in the back for stealing TV's all the time? Your last analogy/example whatever it is so wholly misses the mark, its impossible to discuss. Why? The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions in Canada is greater than by stolen TVs. The police in Canada are constantly very frequently doing it. Pointing it out and discussing it seems reasonable. Well in that case the police call was about a man with a shotgun, holding someone hostage, who claimed he wanted to die by the police. And then the police waited until after the man fired his shotgun to shoot him. So given that this is one of the few examples where deadly force was very likely the police officers only choice was to fire, I'd just present the facts of the situation and likely few would disagree. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/cannon-plaza-police-shooting-1.5963568But I mean it gets back to the way you argue, when it is not going how you like, you distract. No no, remember I am not discussing that. I am talking about the very frequent times people are shot dead for depriving property in Canada by police. Like this one, or this one, or this one, or this. And don't get me started on the outright war on people suffering mental breakdowns Canadian cops do. It's also open season out there on indigenous people. Am i doing this right? no your not doing right in the slightest.
It worked for Kwark because US cops are generally considered to be crap and they shoot way to many people so everyone just goes "yeah that checks out".
Canada does not have that reputation.
Its the same with why the shooting of the girl lead to so much discussion. Its not that this specific case was so horribly bad and unequivocally wrong, but because so many people die needlessly to cops its reasonably safe to start from the position that the cop was wrong and work from there.
Reputation matters in how people perceive someone's actions.
|
I'd like to weigh in on the semantic argument we are having on the use of the word frequently in Kwark's post like 10 pages ago.
Let's whip out the dictionary definition:
Frequently adv. : at frequent or short intervals.
It's hard to find statistics because police shootings that do not lead to death are not recorded (holy shit!). But let's pull a number out of our ass, say one in 3 police shootings end up with someone dead (police officers are only 33% accurate in their shooting so let's just use that for the purpose of this discussion).
There are about 1000 recorded deaths by cop in the US per year according to the wapo www.washingtonpost.com
The percentage of convicted felons over property is about 1/6th felonvoting.procon.org
So, for the sake of this argument, let's say that there were 3k shootings in a year and 1/6th of those happened to suspects commuting property crime, which leaves us with about 500 every year.
That's about twice a day. You could certainly describe that as "frequently".
I would argue that something that happens weekly (so one order of magnitude less frequently than what I assumed above) would still be described as frequently according to the dictionary definition so I'd say Kwark was justified in his use of the word frequently.
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified.
At no point did I even imply the bolded part. You are either putting words in my mouth to strengthen your argument or confusing me with someone else.
As to the italicized part, it's not meting out punishment; it's stopping a deadly crime from occurring and attempting to save a life. As I stated before, your position requires you to admit that you value the life of the attacker more than the victim in the posited scenario, so you need to justify that.
|
On April 23 2021 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ 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: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. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified. There's a couple things here. 1.The cop isn't legally obligated to "protect". Show nested quote + “Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.” www.nytimes.com2. Shooting toward both the alleged attacker and the person he was supposedly protecting increases the probability they both would suffer life threatening injuries because cops miss a LOT. The cop was wrong for taking that shot and it doesn't mean I value one girls life over the other. It means that statistically speaking the cop taking the shot put everyone in greater danger and killed someone unnecessarily (maybe it could have become necessary, but it wasn't when the cop shot). I agree with your perspective here and find Stratos's position wrong to be clear.
That's just adding insult to injury, but yes, I fully agree. It should not be in the police's remit to use deadly force to protect someone else as a general rule with very few exceptions.
I do not have a problem, in principle, with police using deadly force if they are under attack themselves, so long as non-lethal avenues have been tried and were ineffective or it is unreasonable, for instance if someone starts shooting at the police.
|
On April 23 2021 07:10 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ 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:On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified. There's a couple things here. 1.The cop isn't legally obligated to "protect". “Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.” www.nytimes.com2. Shooting toward both the alleged attacker and the person he was supposedly protecting increases the probability they both would suffer life threatening injuries because cops miss a LOT. The cop was wrong for taking that shot and it doesn't mean I value one girls life over the other. It means that statistically speaking the cop taking the shot put everyone in greater danger and killed someone unnecessarily (maybe it could have become necessary, but it wasn't when the cop shot). I agree with your perspective here and find Stratos's position wrong to be clear. That's just adding insult to injury, but yes, I fully agree. It should not be in the police's remit to use deadly force to protect someone else as a general rule with very few exceptions. I do not have a problem, in principle, with police using deadly force if they are under attack themselves, so long as non-lethal avenues have been tried and were ineffective or it is unreasonable, for instance if someone starts shooting at the police.
Breonna Taylor's family can assure you they mess that up too.
I'm for the abolition of police, but I agree (with someone else that suggested) that they have demonstrated they shouldn't be armed with guns at minimum.
|
On April 23 2021 07:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ 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: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. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified. At no point did I even imply the bolded part. You are either putting words in my mouth to strengthen your argument or confusing me with someone else. As to the italicized part, it's not meting out punishment; it's stopping a deadly crime from occurring and attempting to save a life. As I stated before, your position requires you to admit that you value the life of the attacker more than the victim in the posited scenario, so you need to justify that.
I should have quoted the post I was responding to, my apologies.
You are framing this as a binary choice when it is anything but. There are multiple endings to this particular scenario:
1 the cop shoots, misses and kills the wrong girl.
2. The cop shoots and kills the right girl.
3. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl with the knife stops mid-attack because she didn't really mean to attack the other girl or got cold feet or whatever.
4. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl stabs the other girl non-lethally, realises what she just did and drops the knife.
5. The cop doesn't shoot, the girl stabs and the other girl dies from her wounds.
I have no idea what is the probability of any of these happening, but it is nonzero for all of them. In your opinion, what % threshold would 1+3+4 be in order for you to find unacceptable that the cop fired on the girl?
|
On April 23 2021 07:34 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 07:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ 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:On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified. At no point did I even imply the bolded part. You are either putting words in my mouth to strengthen your argument or confusing me with someone else. As to the italicized part, it's not meting out punishment; it's stopping a deadly crime from occurring and attempting to save a life. As I stated before, your position requires you to admit that you value the life of the attacker more than the victim in the posited scenario, so you need to justify that. I should have quoted the post I was responding to, my apologies. You are framing this as a binary choice when it is anything but. There are multiple endings to this particular scenario: 1 the cop shoots, misses and kills the wrong girl. 2. The cop shoots and kills the right girl. 3. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl with the knife stops mid-attack because she didn't really mean to attack the other girl or got cold feet or whatever. 4. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl stabs the other girl non-lethally, realises what she just did and drops the knife. 5. The cop doesn't shoot, the girl stabs and the other girl dies from her wounds. I have no idea what is the probability of any of these happening, but it is nonzero for all of them. In your opinion, what % threshold would 1+3+4 be in order for you to find unacceptable that the cop fired on the girl?
I'm curious, if the only possible outcomes were option #2 and option #4 and you got to pick, which would you choose?
|
On April 23 2021 07:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 07:34 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 07:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ 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:On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
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. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified. At no point did I even imply the bolded part. You are either putting words in my mouth to strengthen your argument or confusing me with someone else. As to the italicized part, it's not meting out punishment; it's stopping a deadly crime from occurring and attempting to save a life. As I stated before, your position requires you to admit that you value the life of the attacker more than the victim in the posited scenario, so you need to justify that. I should have quoted the post I was responding to, my apologies. You are framing this as a binary choice when it is anything but. There are multiple endings to this particular scenario: 1 the cop shoots, misses and kills the wrong girl. 2. The cop shoots and kills the right girl. 3. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl with the knife stops mid-attack because she didn't really mean to attack the other girl or got cold feet or whatever. 4. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl stabs the other girl non-lethally, realises what she just did and drops the knife. 5. The cop doesn't shoot, the girl stabs and the other girl dies from her wounds. I have no idea what is the probability of any of these happening, but it is nonzero for all of them. In your opinion, what % threshold would 1+3+4 be in order for you to find unacceptable that the cop fired on the girl? I'm curious, if the only possible outcomes were option #2 and option #4 and you got to pick, which would you choose?
4: the one where no one dies.
|
On April 23 2021 07:34 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 07:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ 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:On April 22 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified. At no point did I even imply the bolded part. You are either putting words in my mouth to strengthen your argument or confusing me with someone else. As to the italicized part, it's not meting out punishment; it's stopping a deadly crime from occurring and attempting to save a life. As I stated before, your position requires you to admit that you value the life of the attacker more than the victim in the posited scenario, so you need to justify that. I should have quoted the post I was responding to, my apologies. You are framing this as a binary choice when it is anything but. There are multiple endings to this particular scenario: 1 the cop shoots, misses and kills the wrong girl. 2. The cop shoots and kills the right girl. 3. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl with the knife stops mid-attack because she didn't really mean to attack the other girl or got cold feet or whatever. 4. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl stabs the other girl non-lethally, realises what she just did and drops the knife. 5. The cop doesn't shoot, the girl stabs and the other girl dies from her wounds. I have no idea what is the probability of any of these happening, but it is nonzero for all of them. In your opinion, what % threshold would 1+3+4 be in order for you to find unacceptable that the cop fired on the girl?
If the probability of (1) is sufficiently high, then the cop shouldn't be shooting because he shouldn't be the cop. We all agree that both hiring and training standards should be higher so that this isn't an issue.
I don't think (3) and (4) are relevant at all. If you have a deadly weapon and demonstrate both intent and physical action to kill someone (as I've said, this is currently occurring intent/action, not suspected) I don't think that the possibility of failing to kill someone should factor into the ability for either a cop or a victim to use deadly force to protect themselves/others. This would require either 1) mind-reading abilities or 2) precognition. If an individual loads a handgun, flips the safety off, points it in the direction of an innocent person, and then moves to pull the trigger, the perpetrator's skill (or lack thereof) in aiming and successfully killing the victim shouldn't factor into the moral justification of the state in defending said victim; the perpetrator forfeits their immediate right to life during the process of attempting to take away another person's life without legal justification.
Your argument is so extreme that it essentially says that we shouldn't use deadly force to stop a mass shooter or terrorist who is actively trying to mow down people in public because law enforcement shouldn't be using deadly force. It even questions the state's ability to have an armed military to defend against an enemy army because hey, the state shouldn't be using deadly force. Hell, your argument undermines what is literally the entire philosophical basis for most societies for hundreds of years, namely that the state's first duty is to protect the life of its individuals against enemies and criminals.
You vaguely reference some "extreme examples" where you vaguely imply that you might be OK with a police officer using deadly force, but somehow a person actively attempting to attack someone with a deadly weapon doesn't count. What crosses your threshold into an "extreme example"? Having a handgun instead of a firearm? That person could definitely miss. What about a fully automatic weapon in a crowded mall? That weapon could jam or the person could be so unfamiliar with it that they can't control it or aim it well, resulting in no serious injuries. You don't know what the particulars of that individual, so there are nearly infinite possibilities.
|
If the probability of (1) is sufficiently high, then the cop shouldn't be shooting because he shouldn't be the cop. We all agree that both hiring and training standards should be higher so that this isn't an issue.
Since they aren't higher you'd agree that they shouldn't be shooting then?
|
On April 23 2021 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +If the probability of (1) is sufficiently high, then the cop shouldn't be shooting because he shouldn't be the cop. We all agree that both hiring and training standards should be higher so that this isn't an issue. Since they aren't higher you'd agree that they shouldn't be shooting then?
These particular cops shouldn't be shooting.
We should be raising the standard of police training, not sitting back and letting people kill each other because we don't trust cops.
That's the same argument used by conservatives when they say, "The government can't regulate well, so they shouldn't at all and they should just leave it to us." No, our government has proven to be incompetent, but it is demonstrably possible to properly structure government institutions to function and achieve the desired goal. It's the same thing with police training and use-of-force standards.
This is another interesting thing about EndeR's argument; European police are held up as a standard, yet they still have lethal force as an option in extreme scenarios. It shouldn't be completely eliminated because it is sometimes necessary, even if it is a very rare occurrence.
I also just stumbled upon this article in the Atlantic and think it's incredibly relevant. In particular, I wanted to emphasize this passage:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/04/daunte-wright-and-crisis-american-police-training/618649/
American police training resembles military training—“polish your boots, do push-ups, speak when you’re spoken to,” Brooks told me. In an article for The Atlantic last year, she described practicing drills and standing at attention when senior officers entered the room. “I don’t think I’ve been yelled at as much since high-school gym class more than three decades ago,” she wrote. Reformers worry that this type of training teaches recruits that the world runs on strict power hierarchies, and that anything short of perfect compliance should be met with force and anger.
As someone who is in the military, I fucking hate the fact that first responders (mostly police, but also fire, and to a small extent EMS) co-opt military culture so much. It's absolutely infuriating. There are very specific reasons that the military does almost everything that it does. Military culture absolutely does not belong in any civilian profession. It is a colossal waste of time and it also breeds extremely harmful mindsets when you're working in the civilian world.
|
On April 23 2021 08:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:If the probability of (1) is sufficiently high, then the cop shouldn't be shooting because he shouldn't be the cop. We all agree that both hiring and training standards should be higher so that this isn't an issue. Since they aren't higher you'd agree that they shouldn't be shooting then? These particular cops shouldn't be shooting. We should be raising the standard of police training, not sitting back and letting people kill each other because we don't trust cops. That's the same argument used by conservatives when they say, "The government can't regulate well, so they shouldn't at all and they should just leave it to us." No, our government has proven to be incompetent, but it is demonstrably possible to properly structure government institutions to function and achieve the desired goal. It's the same thing with police training and use-of-force standards. This is another interesting thing about EndeR's argument; European police are held up as a standard, yet they still have lethal force as an option in extreme scenarios. It shouldn't be completely eliminated because it is sometimes necessary, even if it is a very rare occurrence.
I'm worried about the police in the US and it seems we agree they shouldn't be shooting. I'd say take away their guns until/unless they at least meet whatever standards you're arguing for. Which it seems you should agree with, lest you'd be advocating cops that don't meet your standards continue shooting people anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
