|
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 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 08:25 Stratos_speAr wrote: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 shooting people anyway?
Yes, but I don't think we should just take away every cop's gun, wait for an indeterminate amount of time (probably years) until the standards are met by new recruits, and then hand them back. Instead, widespread reform should be forced wherein each cop is thoroughly reviewed for their suitability for the job (weed out the chronically aggressive/angry, the incompetent, the disproportionate amount of domestic abusers and other violent individuals that are cops, etc.) and the remaining cops are continually trained to change the cultural dynamic of the force while making an aggressive push to recruit new, better people and getting them into the job to fill the (probably massive) staffing holes that are left behind.
This model has been applied to a lot of fields where standards and scopes of practice have been changed/increased (e.g. medicine). It's possible, it just takes a lot of work.
|
On April 23 2021 08:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2021 08:25 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Yes, but I don't think we should just take away every cop's gun, wait for an indeterminate amount of time (probably years) until the standards are met by new recruits, and then hand them back. Instead, widespread reform should be forced wherein each cop is thoroughly reviewed for their suitability for the job (weed out the chronically aggressive/angry, the incompetent, the disproportionate amount of domestic abusers and other violent individuals that are cops, etc.) and the remaining cops are continually trained to change the cultural dynamic of the force while making an aggressive push to recruit new, better people and getting them into the job to fill the (probably massive) staffing holes that are left behind. This model has been applied to a lot of fields where standards and scopes of practice have been changed/increased (e.g. medicine). It's possible, it just takes a lot of work.
I was wrong. You would advocate cops being allowed to continue to kill people they shouldn't with guns you think they aren't qualified to use as opposed to disarming them.
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 08:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2021 08:25 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Yes, but I don't think we should just take away every cop's gun, wait for an indeterminate amount of time (probably years) until the standards are met by new recruits, and then hand them back. Instead, widespread reform should be forced wherein each cop is thoroughly reviewed for their suitability for the job (weed out the chronically aggressive/angry, the incompetent, the disproportionate amount of domestic abusers and other violent individuals that are cops, etc.) and the remaining cops are continually trained to change the cultural dynamic of the force while making an aggressive push to recruit new, better people and getting them into the job to fill the (probably massive) staffing holes that are left behind. This model has been applied to a lot of fields where standards and scopes of practice have been changed/increased (e.g. medicine). It's possible, it just takes a lot of work. I was wrong. You would advocate cops being allowed to continue to kill people they shouldn't with guns you think they aren't qualified to use as opposed to disarming them.
The difference is that you think that every single cop isn't qualified to do their job.
I don't think it's appropriate to generalize about hundreds of thousands of people like that.
I also don't think that police should "kill people with guns they shouldn't".
I almost thought you were coming into this discussion with a modicum of reasoning for once.
Then I remembered that you were GH.
|
On April 23 2021 08:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2021 08:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2021 08:25 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Yes, but I don't think we should just take away every cop's gun, wait for an indeterminate amount of time (probably years) until the standards are met by new recruits, and then hand them back. Instead, widespread reform should be forced wherein each cop is thoroughly reviewed for their suitability for the job (weed out the chronically aggressive/angry, the incompetent, the disproportionate amount of domestic abusers and other violent individuals that are cops, etc.) and the remaining cops are continually trained to change the cultural dynamic of the force while making an aggressive push to recruit new, better people and getting them into the job to fill the (probably massive) staffing holes that are left behind. This model has been applied to a lot of fields where standards and scopes of practice have been changed/increased (e.g. medicine). It's possible, it just takes a lot of work. I was wrong. You would advocate cops being allowed to continue to kill people they shouldn't with guns you think they aren't qualified to use as opposed to disarming them. When did being qualified to carry a gun or own a gun become a thing in the US? Edit: to remove the guns from the police you also have from the populous, otherwise it will never happen.
Every area is different in regards to qualifying to own or carry a gun as a regular citizen. For instance, in NYC one must apply for a license to own one, and to carry it also must submit a "reasonable cause" application to show that your life situation would deem carrying a handgun, for instance, worthwhile or necessary.
Some states just require a simple background check for felonies, whether you have been admitted to a mental institution in the past, etc. Generally in order to carry you would also need to pass a firearms safety course and renew that qualification every couple of years.
And then there are states such as mine wherein a walmart employee will run a check for felonies, and require no training to keep a gun on hand (constitutional carry.) So long as my handgun is not stolen or belongs in an evidence room, I can carry openly or concealed anywhere that doesn't specifically say otherwise.
These vast differences in state laws make it especially difficult to limit ownership or even have a basic trust that someone with a gun on their hip can safely handle that responsibility. This is also before even entering the "gun show loophole" into the equation, in which someone can purchase privately without a federal background check.
EDIT: Just realized that I never answered your question of when this became a thing:
I don't know.
But in some places, it never has.
|
On April 23 2021 09:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2021 08:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2021 08:25 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? Yes, but I don't think we should just take away every cop's gun, wait for an indeterminate amount of time (probably years) until the standards are met by new recruits, and then hand them back. Instead, widespread reform should be forced wherein each cop is thoroughly reviewed for their suitability for the job (weed out the chronically aggressive/angry, the incompetent, the disproportionate amount of domestic abusers and other violent individuals that are cops, etc.) and the remaining cops are continually trained to change the cultural dynamic of the force while making an aggressive push to recruit new, better people and getting them into the job to fill the (probably massive) staffing holes that are left behind. This model has been applied to a lot of fields where standards and scopes of practice have been changed/increased (e.g. medicine). It's possible, it just takes a lot of work. I was wrong. You would advocate cops being allowed to continue to kill people they shouldn't with guns you think they aren't qualified to use as opposed to disarming them. The difference is that you think that every single cop isn't qualified to do their job. I don't think it's appropriate to generalize about hundreds of thousands of people like that. I also don't think that police should "kill people with guns they shouldn't". I almost thought you were coming into this discussion with a modicum of reasoning for once. Then I remembered that you were GH.
I was focused on our agreement that police aren't hired and trained to even the standard you're advocating. Also our agreement that police kill people they shouldn't as a result.
My error was thinking you'd rather disarm cops until they've been so trained/screened rather than continue allowing cops you yourself consider improperly trained/screened to continue to go on patrol with those guns and use them improperly resulting in dead civilians (which they couldn't if they were taken away).
EDIT: For clarity, this particular disagreement was whether police should or should not be allowed to carry/use guns until/unless they meet at least your standards. I say they should not be allowed to carry and use guns (at least) until then+ Show Spoiler + because cops we agree shouldn't be cops/have guns will kill/injure people they shouldn't (and wouldn't if they didn't have the gun).
|
What would be the potential downsides of officers being armed [only] with a taser and/or OC spray until they have ample qualification with both a high level of handgun marksmanship and experience with situation de-escalation? I find it a sad state of affairs when the stats show how poorly officers perform when it comes to putting rounds where they intend them to go, and when they do, it's often followed by public outcry that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I feel like if a new recruit is able to do their job with a [generally] debilitating less-than-lethal tool, they would be less likely to pull out their glock at the first sign of danger even after being allowed to carry it.
Then again, I'm not a cop.
EDIT: From what I have observed from videos, I understand that tasers are not always enough to control a suspect. I can also personally attest to the hit-and-miss effectiveness of OC spray on certain individuals. I'm aware that these are not going to be enough for some situations. Putting in a legitimate effort to attempting to defuse a potentially deadly confrontation is important here as well.
|
On April 23 2021 08:04 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 07:53 BlackJack wrote: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:
[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. 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.
I'd say your view is quite an extreme one then. I think most people would not prefer to be stabbed non-lethally to spare the life of the person stabbing them. I know I wouldn't, but as Kwark tells me, that's just a result of my lack of character so I understand you and him are morally superior to me.
|
On April 23 2021 12:00 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
What would be the potential downsides of officers being armed [only] with a taser and/or OC spray until they have ample qualification with both a high level of handgun marksmanship and experience with situation de-escalation? I find it a sad state of affairs when the stats show how poorly officers perform when it comes to putting rounds where they intend them to go, and when they do, it's often followed by public outcry that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I feel like if a new recruit is able to do their job with a [generally] debilitating less-than-lethal tool, they would be less likely to pull out their glock at the first sign of danger even after being allowed to carry it.
Then again, I'm not a cop.
EDIT: From what I have observed from videos, I understand that tasers are not always enough to control a suspect. I can also personally attest to the hit-and-miss effectiveness of OC spray on certain individuals. I'm aware that these are not going to be enough for some situations. Putting in a legitimate effort to attempting to defuse a potentially deadly confrontation is important here as well.
a lot of people here don't like and criticize the way police does their job... quite a bit of it very much justified imho even though we are also definitely WAY too far away from the "praxis" and their daily struggles. which are as real as grave shortcomings in procedure captured on tape. it is easy to criticize from the safety of a forum - pointing fingers from a safe home.
the problem is that while you disarm police - and such policies will be made public for everyone to see and hear - crime will not stop, most likely the opposite. and gun culture won't change.
so you are sending them "out there" - and problematic neighborhoods where various criminal activities flourish and no perspective for ordinary people exist are a thing - against hardened criminals protecting their "business interests." that will not work on many fronts.
to add one more point:
let's just say if you want to rebuild the "blue wall" again, where cops no matter what protect their own(generally good) even if they make such heinous mistakes civil society(ppl filming/media/politicians/watchdogs...) has to respond (not good), this is most likely one of the more effective ways how you would go about it. taking away their "sword" while leaving the rest untouched.
what I think could work however are pilot projects in neighborhoods where such policing could work. low crime and already flourishing basically. and most likely white... which is nice for them I am sure but most problems arise for different people from different social strata. so I hope ppl see the predicament.
now add to that a skilled (right wing)demagogue politician saying "but everything is fine with policing - crime is out of control though! and you communists wanna disarm and abolish the police- you are crazy and want chaos!"
sound crazy right? that is for the most part how Florida was lost for Dems imho(in nov.2020). even though Florida Dems themselves were not for that I would reckon, the idea itself made them vulnerable and provided an ez opening.
it is not a coincidence that rich EU countries with less social strife(among other factors) have lower crime and therefore can police differently. maybe we should start listening more to sociologists and less to economists - the dirty little secret nobody is kinda acknowledging: economic studies is also part of social studies... and has very similar limitations.
given the influence and the "success" to predict and solve crises that "came up" in the last 20 years alone... GFC(great financial crisis) chief among them... well let's just leave it there.
but I think most of the police got the message(and felt the wind changing) and are open now for reforms and discussions... a win in itself given the history...
better and longer training should be an achieveable goal imho. but it's a big country and implementing solutions federally seems not very effective with a lot of ppl in love with "limited government"... have to wait and see what Biden and the gang comes up with.
|
On April 23 2021 06:59 EnDeR_ wrote: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.comThe percentage of convicted felons over property is about 1/6th felonvoting.procon.orgSo, 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.
This post is full of bad assumptions to arrive at a fictional conclusion. You're really going to declare that people are shot at by police roughly twice a day for stealing stuff? Even if you believe such nonsense why would you believe that none of this being is reported or video recorded or witnessed? And if it is being reported or video taped why not post those videos/stories instead of these ones where people are trying to stab others?
Again, posts with faulty logic go completely under the radar and free of scrutiny as long as the person saying it appears to be on your "side."
|
On April 23 2021 12:00 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
What would be the potential downsides of officers being armed [only] with a taser and/or OC spray until they have ample qualification with both a high level of handgun marksmanship and experience with situation de-escalation? I find it a sad state of affairs when the stats show how poorly officers perform when it comes to putting rounds where they intend them to go, and when they do, it's often followed by public outcry that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I feel like if a new recruit is able to do their job with a [generally] debilitating less-than-lethal tool, they would be less likely to pull out their glock at the first sign of danger even after being allowed to carry it.
Then again, I'm not a cop.
EDIT: From what I have observed from videos, I understand that tasers are not always enough to control a suspect. I can also personally attest to the hit-and-miss effectiveness of OC spray on certain individuals. I'm aware that these are not going to be enough for some situations. Putting in a legitimate effort to attempting to defuse a potentially deadly confrontation is important here as well.
You seem to have answered most of your own question there. For the crowd who may be wondering the answer is hard drugs like meth pcp bath salts etc. Its a lame straw man but its not without its point.
I'd like to take the bold stance that people might not be expecting from me and say that many of the shifts and duties a police officer is sent on wouldn't require a gun. Traffic cops need training in paperwork procedure oh and the ability to operate a relatively high performance vehicle at speed safely. But 99 percent of their jobs would be fine if they just let people go and track their licence plate and picture to be run down later. Drunk drivers don't need to be responded with a dozen hollowpoint rounds.
Like I think people can agree that there is a purpose for a militarized portion of the police force at the same time of agreeing that it's a small specialized portion that doesn't need to be doing house calls or taking reports on car accidents and deaths.
Trying to reach too far and argue for patently insane sounding things like "take all guns from cops" "no cops no problems" will save no lives.
|
On April 23 2021 15:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 12:00 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
What would be the potential downsides of officers being armed [only] with a taser and/or OC spray until they have ample qualification with both a high level of handgun marksmanship and experience with situation de-escalation? I find it a sad state of affairs when the stats show how poorly officers perform when it comes to putting rounds where they intend them to go, and when they do, it's often followed by public outcry that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I feel like if a new recruit is able to do their job with a [generally] debilitating less-than-lethal tool, they would be less likely to pull out their glock at the first sign of danger even after being allowed to carry it.
Then again, I'm not a cop.
EDIT: From what I have observed from videos, I understand that tasers are not always enough to control a suspect. I can also personally attest to the hit-and-miss effectiveness of OC spray on certain individuals. I'm aware that these are not going to be enough for some situations. Putting in a legitimate effort to attempting to defuse a potentially deadly confrontation is important here as well. You seem to have answered most of your own question there. For the crowd who may be wondering the answer is hard drugs like meth pcp bath salts etc. Its a lame straw man but its not without its point. I'd like to take the bold stance that people might not be expecting from me and say that many of the shifts and duties a police officer is sent on wouldn't require a gun. Traffic cops need training in paperwork procedure oh and the ability to operate a relatively high performance vehicle at speed safely. But 99 percent of their jobs would be fine if they just let people go and track their licence plate and picture to be run down later. Drunk drivers don't need to be responded with a dozen hollowpoint rounds. Like I think people can agree that there is a purpose for a militarized portion of the police force at the same time of agreeing that it's a small specialized portion that doesn't need to be doing house calls or taking reports on car accidents and deaths. Trying to reach too far and argue for patently insane sounding things like "take all guns from cops" "no cops no problems" will save no lives.
I guess the counter to this is that when you go on a house call you never know when someone will have a gun and react unpredictably.
|
On April 23 2021 15:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 06:59 EnDeR_ wrote: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.comThe percentage of convicted felons over property is about 1/6th felonvoting.procon.orgSo, 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. This post is full of bad assumptions to arrive at a fictional conclusion. You're really going to declare that people are shot at by police roughly twice a day for stealing stuff? Even if you believe such nonsense why would you believe that none of this being is reported or video recorded or witnessed? And if it is being reported or video taped why not post those videos/stories instead of these ones where people are trying to stab others? Again, posts with faulty logic go completely under the radar and free of scrutiny as long as the person saying it appears to be on your "side."
I am more than willing to adjust the numbers if you've got better data, this is a thought experiment here. I did a quick Google search and realised that police are not required to disclose how many times their officers discharge their weapons so stats on this don't actually exist. The best we can do is put forward our best guess.
Which assumption do you think is faulty and what would you suggest is a more reasonable one and why? Please document your sources so we can arrive at a more accurate number.
|
On April 23 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 08:04 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 07:53 BlackJack wrote: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:
[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. 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. I'd say your view is quite an extreme one then. I think most people would not prefer to be stabbed non-lethally to spare the life of the person stabbing them. I know I wouldn't, but as Kwark tells me, that's just a result of my lack of character so I understand you and him are morally superior to me.
My views on policing are extreme in the US, I wouldn't argue against that. I also think that criminals should be rehabilitated, not punished, but that's also am extreme view in the US.
I haven't at any point in our discussion attacked your character, or at least I didn't perceive I was doing so. I take it from your comment that you do feel attacked, and I am sorry this is how it's coming across. To clarify, I don't think I'm morally superior, everyone has different views and I accept that. I will still argue my corner though!
I also think that there is scope in the US megathread to discuss the scope of police work in the US without getting into personal attacks.
|
On April 23 2021 08:04 Stratos_speAr 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? 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.
Thanks for taking the time to type this, let's go point by point:
1. This is a situational issue. You could be the best marksman in the world, but if the would-be victim is in front of you and the would-be perpetrator is behind them, you have a higher chance of hitting the wrong girl. There will be instances where shooting at the attacker has a higher chance of getting someone else killed and this should be taken into account when making the decision of using deadly force.
To your second point, it feels arbitrary to me that you wouldn't take into account the likelihood of the attacker to successfully carry out their attack when weighing the pros and cons of shooting someone. If someone is clearly acting erratically on drugs, brandishes a knife and waves it around while barely able to stand is a very different situation from someone in a military uniform getting into what looks like a training stance with an army knife in their hands. If you have a teenager in front of you waving around a kitchen knife you wouldn't be penalised for making the assumption that the girl hasn't been trained in close combat and is therefore unlikely to score a lethal hitnon the first try.
I do not think that people forfeit their rights to live when they commit a crime, this is the whole crux of the argument. Like you have been saying to me, you are going to need to justify that.
Would anyone in the world class a terrorist attack or a mass shooting event as anything other than an extreme situation? I wasn't specific, sure, but those two events are extreme by anyone's definition of an extreme event.
The argument about undermining the philosophical basis for civilization is a weird one. We are not talking about removing the right to military personnel of killing their enemies, and we are not talking about removing police officers the right to protect citizens, just to do it without deadly force until a crime has actually been committed.
|
On April 23 2021 03:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
One thing that is missing here is that if a cop HAS to shoot at someone threatening someone else with a knife, he should at the very least aim to shoot one bullet in a non lethal area. You can absolutely disable someone with a gun without putting four bullets in his chest. I can guarantee that someone with a bullet is the leg, in the shoulder or in the arm is not a threat, knofe or not. I don’t think this is right. They can’t shoot for shit, aiming at centre mass is the safest way to not shoot someone else.
Ok, but then what’s the benefit of shooting four bullets? Why not shoot one when there is at least a chance the victim survives, which is always, 100% cases, the best option?
|
On April 23 2021 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:33 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
One thing that is missing here is that if a cop HAS to shoot at someone threatening someone else with a knife, he should at the very least aim to shoot one bullet in a non lethal area. You can absolutely disable someone with a gun without putting four bullets in his chest. I can guarantee that someone with a bullet is the leg, in the shoulder or in the arm is not a threat, knofe or not. I don’t think this is right. They can’t shoot for shit, aiming at centre mass is the safest way to not shoot someone else. Ok, but then what’s the benefit of shooting four bullets? Why not shoot one when there is at least a chance the victim survives, which is always, 100% cases, the best option?
Police probably did some stats and found that shooting only once probably doesn't stop the threat in the majority of situations, you have to take into account poor aim and low stopping power of bullets in the first place. In a climate where threat elimination is the goal, police are likely trained to shoot their guns 4 times to stop a threat. This officer probably just followed their training.
|
On April 23 2021 17:38 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 23 2021 03:33 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
One thing that is missing here is that if a cop HAS to shoot at someone threatening someone else with a knife, he should at the very least aim to shoot one bullet in a non lethal area. You can absolutely disable someone with a gun without putting four bullets in his chest. I can guarantee that someone with a bullet is the leg, in the shoulder or in the arm is not a threat, knofe or not. I don’t think this is right. They can’t shoot for shit, aiming at centre mass is the safest way to not shoot someone else. Ok, but then what’s the benefit of shooting four bullets? Why not shoot one when there is at least a chance the victim survives, which is always, 100% cases, the best option? Police probably did some stats and found that shooting only once probably doesn't stop the threat in the majority of situations, you have to take into account poor aim and low stopping power of bullets in the first place. In a climate where threat elimination is the goal, police are likely trained to shoot their guns 4 times to stop a threat. This officer probably just followed their training.
The whole thing is insane.
My impression discussing with people from the US is that, beyond the police, lots of people find it reasonable to kill someone if they do the wrong thing or could be a threat. I have never met anyone here that thought that shooting someone who trespasses on your property is anything else than cold murder unless they directly threaten your life. Seems to be perfectly fine for lots of americans.
You can train and form the police all you want, if folks think that assasssinating the bad guy is the way to go, those killings will continue.
|
On April 23 2021 17:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 17:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 23 2021 03:33 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
One thing that is missing here is that if a cop HAS to shoot at someone threatening someone else with a knife, he should at the very least aim to shoot one bullet in a non lethal area. You can absolutely disable someone with a gun without putting four bullets in his chest. I can guarantee that someone with a bullet is the leg, in the shoulder or in the arm is not a threat, knofe or not. I don’t think this is right. They can’t shoot for shit, aiming at centre mass is the safest way to not shoot someone else. Ok, but then what’s the benefit of shooting four bullets? Why not shoot one when there is at least a chance the victim survives, which is always, 100% cases, the best option? Police probably did some stats and found that shooting only once probably doesn't stop the threat in the majority of situations, you have to take into account poor aim and low stopping power of bullets in the first place. In a climate where threat elimination is the goal, police are likely trained to shoot their guns 4 times to stop a threat. This officer probably just followed their training. The whole thing is insane. My impression discussing with people from the US is that, beyond the police, lots of people find it reasonable to kill someone if they do the wrong thing or could be a threat. I have never met anyone here that thought that shooting someone who trespasses on your property is anything else than cold murder unless they directly threaten your life. Seems to be perfectly fine for lots of americans. You can train and form the police all you want, if folks think that assasssinating the bad guy is the way to go, those killings will continue.
Anecdotally, and based on how Fox News / The Daily Wire approaches these murders where a cop is to blame, that's sadly accurate. There is an insane amount of victim blaming and absurd excuses that tend to dismiss murders with "well, the victim wasn't the most upstanding citizen", which ends up meaning a variety of things, depending on the individual... It's okay to murder people who use drugs, absent fathers, people who aren't white, etc.
|
On April 23 2021 16:12 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 15:09 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2021 06:59 EnDeR_ wrote: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.comThe percentage of convicted felons over property is about 1/6th felonvoting.procon.orgSo, 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. This post is full of bad assumptions to arrive at a fictional conclusion. You're really going to declare that people are shot at by police roughly twice a day for stealing stuff? Even if you believe such nonsense why would you believe that none of this being is reported or video recorded or witnessed? And if it is being reported or video taped why not post those videos/stories instead of these ones where people are trying to stab others? Again, posts with faulty logic go completely under the radar and free of scrutiny as long as the person saying it appears to be on your "side." I am more than willing to adjust the numbers if you've got better data, this is a thought experiment here. I did a quick Google search and realised that police are not required to disclose how many times their officers discharge their weapons so stats on this don't actually exist. The best we can do is put forward our best guess. Which assumption do you think is faulty and what would you suggest is a more reasonable one and why? Please document your sources so we can arrive at a more accurate number.
It's simple: Post all of the stories where people are being shot or shot at for stealing things! According to you it's happening twice a day and according to Kwark it happens very frequently. There are cameras EVERYWHERE these days. Even most cops wear body cameras these days. Do you really think if this was happening everyday this wouldn't be on the news instead of the stabby girl? Do you think stabby girl is the best case of police brutality to protest over if people are getting shot for stealing TVs? Why is nobody talking about all these people supposedly getting shot for stealing TVs?
I don't even really want to argue about this anymore. I don't know why you and everyone else keeps doubling down on this. If this was happening we would surely be talking about it instead of stabby girl so the sheer fact that we aren't talking about it should tell you everything you need to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
