|
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 24 2021 03:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 03:29 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 06:29 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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? To some of your more recent examples I'm not sure because you posted the initial stories which don't say what happened unlike the first one. But if it was the case that they were killed for property than I agree it is too frequent and we also need to do better. Not nearly as frequent as the US, but not infinitesimal either. It is sad that it becomes more frequent as more and more guns make there way across our border. Happy to have that discussion in the Canadian politics thread if you would like? Sure. Lot of jurisdictions, not completely knowledgeable on how training and recruitment is performed in each. I would not continue to use the language of that post as it was suppose to hyperbolize the extent and specifics. But Canada does seem to get a pass for some of their police issues and could probably use a good amount of reflection on changing tactics like the US does. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2021 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote: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. No, numbers matter. Which is why I brought up Canada. It stands quite a bit above our European counterparts in regards to police killings. Less than the US, but by no means a beacon of police restraint. Nearly 3x more than France, 20x more than the UK. On April 23 2021 06:59 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. You do see my problem with counting shootings as a response to property crime, when the cause of the shooting is in no way related to the property crime right? It feels like whenever I try to address this, there is no confirmation that the point is actually getting across. Yes, the police are there originally for a non-violent crime. What actually caused the shooting that occurs should matter though. Unless the remedy is not enforcing the law moving forward. We do need a change to both the justice system and police training. But as long as the public at large take police interactions from a ticketed situation into a knife/gun fight, these will continue albeit at a smaller rate. Externally maybe, but that is because we are small in population and so on so people just don't talk about us. There is a lot of talk up here about police reform, there are problems here, I would never say we are perfect or even that close. We have similar problems that you have, just less. Partly because we are so influenced by US culture, partly because so many of your guns make it over our boarders. The biggest difference is people like me are the vast majority, we don't want more guns, we don't think our police should kill people, we don't think people should kill people (we are pretty darn open to fist fighting though, especially if done on ice! That to us is just a good time and should be celebrated with beers after!) US police culture, gun culture or gang culture affects it? I don't see those as legitimate reasonings, unless you have some evidence to suggest it directly played a part in any given killing. Nor have I seen any data to suggest US guns are a cause for any % of the police killings in CA. Not sure why wanting more guns plays a part either. And the rest is pretty much universal in any country, besides the 'on ice' portion of course. I'm really not interested in going down this path with you, because you have shown when it does not go your way you become obstinate. If you do not see or understand how violence creates more violence and how guns and possible guns greatly increase the danger and perceived danger (for cops and otherwise). He had a gun, I thought he had a gun, he was reaching for a gun, and so on are very common reasons for a police shooting. On top of that the training is based on likely and worst case, which when you have a ton of guns out there means. And also, come on man. I'm sure even a mountain of data (which exists, but then you would say, but not in the US, because of course the US has not removed the guns) would not change you mind. I've already put in way more effort than you. So how about you try to prove what you are suggesting instead, you go find some data that supports your point and we will go through it.
Not sure why you bounce from somewhat engaging in conversation to outright hostile to it. Canada has the fifth highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with over 12.7 million guns in the country. There is no reason to set the argument in a way that contributes police killings in Canada to guns coming over from the US. Culture, even less so.
I have not seen you provide any data, links, or corresponding reasoning whatsoever. So to say you have provided so much is odd to me. I've given links to specific cases, and their initiating circumstances. Purposefully. Because the actual cause of any given police killing has consistently been ignored to equate it for whatever the initial call they responded to was.
Much like Ender referenced someone being killed by police in the US for carrying a gun when he looked for recent stories, without actually sharing the story of what happened. I went through recent cases with that description. Was he talking about this one in Portland where according to the story a man was pointing a gun at people in a park, police attempted two non-lethal rounds and eventually a lethal one? Early, so more information before we can form an opinion, but surely the circumstances could make that one reasonable.
Or was it this one from Colorado where the call for a man with a gun ended with the man shooting at police and them firing back, killing him? Reasonable? The one in Lompac doesn't have much information so could be that one. Maybe this one in Chicago where a man was waving a gun around a Jimmy Johns? Will have to see when more information comes.
That's a lot of shootings in the US for calls of a man with a gun. A lot of varying reasons. Trying to crate them into some overarching narrative without actually even finding out what happened in any given one is counter productive, if the conversation were actually about improving policing. It does not seem to be about that. Pretending the circumstances don't matter seems to be the prerogative. I'll probably keep ruining the fun though.
|
On April 23 2021 22:12 EnDeR_ wrote:
Had some time to kill and googled all of them. A depressing proportion of these are not white, and the number of routine traffic stop killings is off the charts, I didn't realise it was this bad!!
Ma'Khia Bryant - home disturbance
Larry Jenkins - unclear, but home disturbance?
Robert Douglas Delgado - unclear, but possession of a weapon?
Marcelo Garcia - mental health crisis
Jacob Wood - home disturbance
Peyton Ham - 911 call for looking suspicious (you cannot make this shit up)
Tyler R. Green - domestic call
Silas Lambert - unclear but seems like a domestic call
Gabriel Casso - unclear but seems to have gotten in the cross-fire of police shooting other suspects.
Samuel Yeager - 911 'man with a gun' call
Natzeryt Viertel - domestic call
James Iler - well-being check
Steven Ross Glass - throwing rocks at somebody's door.
Alex Garcia - traffic stop
Sammie Barbosa - traffic stop
Pier Alexander Shelton - traffic violation
Daunte Wright - traffic stop
James Alexander - traffic stop
Lindani Myeni - burglary
DeShund Tanner - carjacking
Devin Wyteagle Kuykendall - car theft
Roy K. Jackel - car theft
Iremamber Sykap - car theft
DeShawn Tatum - car theft
Jeffrey W. Appelt - trespassing in a hotel
Anthony Thompson - domestic abuse
Joshua Mitchell - sexual abuse
Douglas C. Barton - threatening a judge [one of the few white guys in this list, unsurprisingly considering the crime]
Jose Arenas - armed robbery
Juan Carlos Estrada - kidnapping and assault
Noah Green - rammed a car into police officers (jesus, this is nuts)
It does look like things have changed since the 80's, a minority of these are related to property crime, but it does seem that police tend to kill people in cars or around cars a lot, especially if they're black.
I thought we went over this. The genesis of the interactions =/= the reason they got shot. So you are just rehashing the "shot for jaywalking" idea that I thought we all agreed was false and disingenuous. Now I feel bad that you spend time looking through all these cases. I could have told you from the get-go that shooting someone trying to kill you who happened to steal something earlier in the day is not the same as being "shot for stealing."
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 16:20 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
This argument necessarily concludes with the idea that police should be required to let a victim be harmed (possibly killed) before they act with deadly force to stop a perpetrator, which you said you did not agree with about a page ago.
There was no wiggle room in that video. If the cop waits for any more time to let the incident develop then it is extremely likely that the attacker would've stabbed the victim. She was in the motion to stab her when she was shot. This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator. Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. 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.
I think your views are extreme even in Europe. I doubt the European public is anymore willing to take a stabbing to spare the life of a stabber than the American public. Also, I'm not say you personally attacked me. That was in reference to Kwark saying he would let a 13 year old kill him before considering shooting back and that the reason I wouldn't is because I lack character. But even then I don't really feel personally attacked because that idea is a lot more laughable than insulting.
|
|
|
On April 24 2021 04:38 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 03:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 24 2021 03:29 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 06:29 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 05:27 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:01 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
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? To some of your more recent examples I'm not sure because you posted the initial stories which don't say what happened unlike the first one. But if it was the case that they were killed for property than I agree it is too frequent and we also need to do better. Not nearly as frequent as the US, but not infinitesimal either. It is sad that it becomes more frequent as more and more guns make there way across our border. Happy to have that discussion in the Canadian politics thread if you would like? Sure. Lot of jurisdictions, not completely knowledgeable on how training and recruitment is performed in each. I would not continue to use the language of that post as it was suppose to hyperbolize the extent and specifics. But Canada does seem to get a pass for some of their police issues and could probably use a good amount of reflection on changing tactics like the US does. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2021 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote: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. No, numbers matter. Which is why I brought up Canada. It stands quite a bit above our European counterparts in regards to police killings. Less than the US, but by no means a beacon of police restraint. Nearly 3x more than France, 20x more than the UK. On April 23 2021 06:59 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. You do see my problem with counting shootings as a response to property crime, when the cause of the shooting is in no way related to the property crime right? It feels like whenever I try to address this, there is no confirmation that the point is actually getting across. Yes, the police are there originally for a non-violent crime. What actually caused the shooting that occurs should matter though. Unless the remedy is not enforcing the law moving forward. We do need a change to both the justice system and police training. But as long as the public at large take police interactions from a ticketed situation into a knife/gun fight, these will continue albeit at a smaller rate. Externally maybe, but that is because we are small in population and so on so people just don't talk about us. There is a lot of talk up here about police reform, there are problems here, I would never say we are perfect or even that close. We have similar problems that you have, just less. Partly because we are so influenced by US culture, partly because so many of your guns make it over our boarders. The biggest difference is people like me are the vast majority, we don't want more guns, we don't think our police should kill people, we don't think people should kill people (we are pretty darn open to fist fighting though, especially if done on ice! That to us is just a good time and should be celebrated with beers after!) US police culture, gun culture or gang culture affects it? I don't see those as legitimate reasonings, unless you have some evidence to suggest it directly played a part in any given killing. Nor have I seen any data to suggest US guns are a cause for any % of the police killings in CA. Not sure why wanting more guns plays a part either. And the rest is pretty much universal in any country, besides the 'on ice' portion of course. I'm really not interested in going down this path with you, because you have shown when it does not go your way you become obstinate. If you do not see or understand how violence creates more violence and how guns and possible guns greatly increase the danger and perceived danger (for cops and otherwise). He had a gun, I thought he had a gun, he was reaching for a gun, and so on are very common reasons for a police shooting. On top of that the training is based on likely and worst case, which when you have a ton of guns out there means. And also, come on man. I'm sure even a mountain of data (which exists, but then you would say, but not in the US, because of course the US has not removed the guns) would not change you mind. I've already put in way more effort than you. So how about you try to prove what you are suggesting instead, you go find some data that supports your point and we will go through it. Not sure why you bounce from somewhat engaging in conversation to outright hostile to it. Canada has the fifth highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with over 12.7 million guns in the country. There is no reason to set the argument in a way that contributes police killings in Canada to guns coming over from the US. Culture, even less so. I have not seen you provide any data, links, or corresponding reasoning whatsoever. So to say you have provided so much is odd to me. I've given links to specific cases, and their initiating circumstances. Purposefully. Because the actual cause of any given police killing has consistently been ignored to equate it for whatever the initial call they responded to was. Much like Ender referenced someone being killed by police in the US for carrying a gun when he looked for recent stories, without actually sharing the story of what happened. I went through recent cases with that description. Was he talking about this one in Portland where according to the story a man was pointing a gun at people in a park, police attempted two non-lethal rounds and eventually a lethal one? Early, so more information before we can form an opinion, but surely the circumstances could make that one reasonable. Or was it this one from Colorado where the call for a man with a gun ended with the man shooting at police and them firing back, killing him? Reasonable? The one in Lompac doesn't have much information so could be that one. Maybe this one in Chicago where a man was waving a gun around a Jimmy Johns? Will have to see when more information comes. That's a lot of shootings in the US for calls of a man with a gun. A lot of varying reasons. Trying to crate them into some overarching narrative without actually even finding out what happened in any given one is counter productive, if the conversation were actually about improving policing. It does not seem to be about that. Pretending the circumstances don't matter seems to be the prerogative. I'll probably keep ruining the fun though.
Wait, if the purpose of the conversation is to improve policing, why are we quibbling about the use of the phrase 'very frequently'?
|
On April 24 2021 06:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 16:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator.
Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. 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. I think your views are extreme even in Europe. I doubt the European public is anymore willing to take a stabbing to spare the life of a stabber than the American public. Also, I'm not say you personally attacked me. That was in reference to Kwark saying he would let a 13 year old kill him before considering shooting back and that the reason I wouldn't is because I lack character. But even then I don't really feel personally attacked because that idea is a lot more laughable than insulting.
I think you would find Spanish and Portuguese views on policing quite astounding. Just bear in mind that our parents lived through dictatorships where police abuses of power were very common.
|
Jimmi come on, that poll is nonsense. Obviously if those are the two options, you can consider letting her get stabbed, but you're missing "the random bystander dies due to being stabbed in front of a cop who did nothing", which is worse, or even "multiple bystanders get stabbed and the cop eventually has to shoot the perpetrator anyway", which is farcical. A knife is still an extremely dangerous weapon and there's no way to carefully select option A by being passive at the time she is lunging with it.
If you want to challenge a policing principle as widely accepted as use of force to protect bystanders, we shouldn't be talking about the US at all. Looking at the US for cases like this is watching a bronze-league replay to decide if the build is viable. There are so many other things wrong that the endgame you're trying to critique shouldn't have even happened.
This conversation has been the whole thread for more than a week. It was interesting for a couple of days. Now it is just the last few people with nothing better to do going in circles. Can we please move on or spin it off or something.
|
LOL at that poll. Cmon Jim you can be more reasonable then that pal. Also if I missed where KwarK said he'd let a kid shoot at him before shooting back but if he indeed said that it seems to me that might be someone says on the inter-webs and doesn't actually carry out IRL. just MO.
|
|
|
On April 24 2021 04:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 04:38 dp wrote:On April 24 2021 03:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 24 2021 03:29 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 06:29 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 05:27 dp wrote:
[quote]
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? To some of your more recent examples I'm not sure because you posted the initial stories which don't say what happened unlike the first one. But if it was the case that they were killed for property than I agree it is too frequent and we also need to do better. Not nearly as frequent as the US, but not infinitesimal either. It is sad that it becomes more frequent as more and more guns make there way across our border. Happy to have that discussion in the Canadian politics thread if you would like? Sure. Lot of jurisdictions, not completely knowledgeable on how training and recruitment is performed in each. I would not continue to use the language of that post as it was suppose to hyperbolize the extent and specifics. But Canada does seem to get a pass for some of their police issues and could probably use a good amount of reflection on changing tactics like the US does. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2021 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote: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. No, numbers matter. Which is why I brought up Canada. It stands quite a bit above our European counterparts in regards to police killings. Less than the US, but by no means a beacon of police restraint. Nearly 3x more than France, 20x more than the UK. On April 23 2021 06:59 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. You do see my problem with counting shootings as a response to property crime, when the cause of the shooting is in no way related to the property crime right? It feels like whenever I try to address this, there is no confirmation that the point is actually getting across. Yes, the police are there originally for a non-violent crime. What actually caused the shooting that occurs should matter though. Unless the remedy is not enforcing the law moving forward. We do need a change to both the justice system and police training. But as long as the public at large take police interactions from a ticketed situation into a knife/gun fight, these will continue albeit at a smaller rate. Externally maybe, but that is because we are small in population and so on so people just don't talk about us. There is a lot of talk up here about police reform, there are problems here, I would never say we are perfect or even that close. We have similar problems that you have, just less. Partly because we are so influenced by US culture, partly because so many of your guns make it over our boarders. The biggest difference is people like me are the vast majority, we don't want more guns, we don't think our police should kill people, we don't think people should kill people (we are pretty darn open to fist fighting though, especially if done on ice! That to us is just a good time and should be celebrated with beers after!) US police culture, gun culture or gang culture affects it? I don't see those as legitimate reasonings, unless you have some evidence to suggest it directly played a part in any given killing. Nor have I seen any data to suggest US guns are a cause for any % of the police killings in CA. Not sure why wanting more guns plays a part either. And the rest is pretty much universal in any country, besides the 'on ice' portion of course. I'm really not interested in going down this path with you, because you have shown when it does not go your way you become obstinate. If you do not see or understand how violence creates more violence and how guns and possible guns greatly increase the danger and perceived danger (for cops and otherwise). He had a gun, I thought he had a gun, he was reaching for a gun, and so on are very common reasons for a police shooting. On top of that the training is based on likely and worst case, which when you have a ton of guns out there means. And also, come on man. I'm sure even a mountain of data (which exists, but then you would say, but not in the US, because of course the US has not removed the guns) would not change you mind. I've already put in way more effort than you. So how about you try to prove what you are suggesting instead, you go find some data that supports your point and we will go through it. Not sure why you bounce from somewhat engaging in conversation to outright hostile to it. Canada has the fifth highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with over 12.7 million guns in the country. There is no reason to set the argument in a way that contributes police killings in Canada to guns coming over from the US. Culture, even less so. I have not seen you provide any data, links, or corresponding reasoning whatsoever. So to say you have provided so much is odd to me. I've given links to specific cases, and their initiating circumstances. Purposefully. Because the actual cause of any given police killing has consistently been ignored to equate it for whatever the initial call they responded to was. Much like Ender referenced someone being killed by police in the US for carrying a gun when he looked for recent stories, without actually sharing the story of what happened. I went through recent cases with that description. Was he talking about this one in Portland where according to the story a man was pointing a gun at people in a park, police attempted two non-lethal rounds and eventually a lethal one? Early, so more information before we can form an opinion, but surely the circumstances could make that one reasonable. Or was it this one from Colorado where the call for a man with a gun ended with the man shooting at police and them firing back, killing him? Reasonable? The one in Lompac doesn't have much information so could be that one. Maybe this one in Chicago where a man was waving a gun around a Jimmy Johns? Will have to see when more information comes. That's a lot of shootings in the US for calls of a man with a gun. A lot of varying reasons. Trying to crate them into some overarching narrative without actually even finding out what happened in any given one is counter productive, if the conversation were actually about improving policing. It does not seem to be about that. Pretending the circumstances don't matter seems to be the prerogative. I'll probably keep ruining the fun though. I don't bounce, you became hostile with your terrible analogy, I soldiered through it but became tired. Yes we are 5th, and yet 4x smaller than the US per capita. Any person not being disingenuous would notice that this is a drastic difference. LOL at you saying 5th as if that meant we were close. And your next sentence is not even related to the data you provided and you act as if it proves something, when the actual information in the link proves the opposite if anything. I'm also sure you know how data works and you want to look at the big stuff and then parse it down. But the way you do it is try to disprove the big stuff by select individual events. Like with most low post count people who know much of the history of the thread and only participate in the pol threads it is hard to take serious because as the disingenuous style becomes all too familiar. If you want to see the data go to the thread I suggested and check it out, read through, but you probably already have.
My 'silly analogy' matched the one you defended exactly. 20x police killings rate as the UK, over 40x that of Japan. Since that was your basis for what I should have known Kwark was referring to, surely Canada can be painted with the same brush, no?
As for the rest, Canada is 5th in guns per capita, 34.7 firearms per 100 people according to that study. 12.7 million overall. A far cry from the US's 120.5 per 100 people, but I am sure you can understand that the level of firearm ownership and availability is in no way hindered in Canada to require US guns to cause police concerns. You make a silly claim, I refute it, data and link. See how fun? The rest did not require data to refute because 'US culture' is neither explained by you or reflected in anything that could be used to describe causes. "Canadian culture is why US police kill too many suspects." I imagine you also wouldn't feel the need to prove that wrong, as it's a silly comment to begin with.
As for parsing down bigger data, in what world is that problem? It was already parsed in the example I referenced in this thread. Calls for someone with a gun, in the last month. I listed every incident that matched that description. Just because something is columned in a specific way by someone that made a database does not mean the facts of the actual case match. Describing the end result by the dispatch call reasoning leaves a ton to be desired in understanding what happened. So I gave more details. Seemed having a gun was less an issue than pointing a gun at people.
On April 24 2021 06:19 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 04:38 dp wrote:On April 24 2021 03:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 24 2021 03:29 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 06:29 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 05:27 dp wrote:
[quote]
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? To some of your more recent examples I'm not sure because you posted the initial stories which don't say what happened unlike the first one. But if it was the case that they were killed for property than I agree it is too frequent and we also need to do better. Not nearly as frequent as the US, but not infinitesimal either. It is sad that it becomes more frequent as more and more guns make there way across our border. Happy to have that discussion in the Canadian politics thread if you would like? Sure. Lot of jurisdictions, not completely knowledgeable on how training and recruitment is performed in each. I would not continue to use the language of that post as it was suppose to hyperbolize the extent and specifics. But Canada does seem to get a pass for some of their police issues and could probably use a good amount of reflection on changing tactics like the US does. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2021 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote: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. No, numbers matter. Which is why I brought up Canada. It stands quite a bit above our European counterparts in regards to police killings. Less than the US, but by no means a beacon of police restraint. Nearly 3x more than France, 20x more than the UK. On April 23 2021 06:59 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. You do see my problem with counting shootings as a response to property crime, when the cause of the shooting is in no way related to the property crime right? It feels like whenever I try to address this, there is no confirmation that the point is actually getting across. Yes, the police are there originally for a non-violent crime. What actually caused the shooting that occurs should matter though. Unless the remedy is not enforcing the law moving forward. We do need a change to both the justice system and police training. But as long as the public at large take police interactions from a ticketed situation into a knife/gun fight, these will continue albeit at a smaller rate. Externally maybe, but that is because we are small in population and so on so people just don't talk about us. There is a lot of talk up here about police reform, there are problems here, I would never say we are perfect or even that close. We have similar problems that you have, just less. Partly because we are so influenced by US culture, partly because so many of your guns make it over our boarders. The biggest difference is people like me are the vast majority, we don't want more guns, we don't think our police should kill people, we don't think people should kill people (we are pretty darn open to fist fighting though, especially if done on ice! That to us is just a good time and should be celebrated with beers after!) US police culture, gun culture or gang culture affects it? I don't see those as legitimate reasonings, unless you have some evidence to suggest it directly played a part in any given killing. Nor have I seen any data to suggest US guns are a cause for any % of the police killings in CA. Not sure why wanting more guns plays a part either. And the rest is pretty much universal in any country, besides the 'on ice' portion of course. I'm really not interested in going down this path with you, because you have shown when it does not go your way you become obstinate. If you do not see or understand how violence creates more violence and how guns and possible guns greatly increase the danger and perceived danger (for cops and otherwise). He had a gun, I thought he had a gun, he was reaching for a gun, and so on are very common reasons for a police shooting. On top of that the training is based on likely and worst case, which when you have a ton of guns out there means. And also, come on man. I'm sure even a mountain of data (which exists, but then you would say, but not in the US, because of course the US has not removed the guns) would not change you mind. I've already put in way more effort than you. So how about you try to prove what you are suggesting instead, you go find some data that supports your point and we will go through it. Not sure why you bounce from somewhat engaging in conversation to outright hostile to it. Canada has the fifth highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with over 12.7 million guns in the country. There is no reason to set the argument in a way that contributes police killings in Canada to guns coming over from the US. Culture, even less so. I have not seen you provide any data, links, or corresponding reasoning whatsoever. So to say you have provided so much is odd to me. I've given links to specific cases, and their initiating circumstances. Purposefully. Because the actual cause of any given police killing has consistently been ignored to equate it for whatever the initial call they responded to was. Much like Ender referenced someone being killed by police in the US for carrying a gun when he looked for recent stories, without actually sharing the story of what happened. I went through recent cases with that description. Was he talking about this one in Portland where according to the story a man was pointing a gun at people in a park, police attempted two non-lethal rounds and eventually a lethal one? Early, so more information before we can form an opinion, but surely the circumstances could make that one reasonable. Or was it this one from Colorado where the call for a man with a gun ended with the man shooting at police and them firing back, killing him? Reasonable? The one in Lompac doesn't have much information so could be that one. Maybe this one in Chicago where a man was waving a gun around a Jimmy Johns? Will have to see when more information comes. That's a lot of shootings in the US for calls of a man with a gun. A lot of varying reasons. Trying to crate them into some overarching narrative without actually even finding out what happened in any given one is counter productive, if the conversation were actually about improving policing. It does not seem to be about that. Pretending the circumstances don't matter seems to be the prerogative. I'll probably keep ruining the fun though. Wait, if the purpose of the conversation is to improve policing, why are we quibbling about the use of the phrase 'very frequently'?
Because improvements are built on a foundation. If you believe police are regularly gunning down people just stealing things, there is no where to go with it. Your beliefs are not real, so your solutions are going to be flawed. Quick thought experiment that I am sure people will agree with wholeheartedly as well.
Police are very frequently murdered when responding to non-violent calls.
Accurate? Feel like this being constantly taught to law enforcement has a positive affect? Should they be building police tactics based on that?
On April 24 2021 06:27 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2021 16:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote: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:
[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. 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. I think your views are extreme even in Europe. I doubt the European public is anymore willing to take a stabbing to spare the life of a stabber than the American public. Also, I'm not say you personally attacked me. That was in reference to Kwark saying he would let a 13 year old kill him before considering shooting back and that the reason I wouldn't is because I lack character. But even then I don't really feel personally attacked because that idea is a lot more laughable than insulting. I think you would find Spanish and Portuguese views on policing quite astounding. Just bear in mind that our parents lived through dictatorships where police abuses of power were very common.
I am constantly astounded when driving in Portugal how I can drive for hours without seeing a police car, then run into 15 minutes of traffic on the highway just to reach the reason for it and it is a police car with someone pulled over on the opposite side of the highway. Rubbernecking an accident would make sense to me but there seems to be a large aversion to interactions with police. Spain like that too?
|
|
|
I don't care who initially suggested the premise. It is a stupid premise and you turned it into a stupid poll. The decision is not a neat a b c, it's an incredibly complicated risk assessment matrix that's changing constantly. It's absurd to turn it into a multiple choice question and you will obviously get absurd answers when you do.
The fact that it has a single digit number of votes in the middle of American primetime is indicative of the level of interest in the groundhog conversation, I think.
|
Norway28706 Posts
'Not killing people' and 'protect people from dangerous people' are two ideals that might sometimes be in conflict. I definitely think that if one person attacks the other person and the attacker is about to kill the other one, killing the attacker is better than letting the attacker succeed in the murder attempt.
I also think that if we know that the attacker's attack would only result in one superficial injury that causes no long term damage beyond some slight psychological scarring (which would prolly still be present from almost getting stabbed and watching the attacker get shot, anyway) on the defending part and then the attacker calms down or is subdued in a non-lethal manner then not killing the attacker is preferable.
Then - if we know the outcome beforehand - at some point between 'stabber causes flesh wound' and 'stabber kills victim', 'kill the stabber' becomes the preferable option. I don't know at what point that happens, but I would also say 'kill the stabber' is preferable to 'stabber paralyzes victim'.
Does anyone really disagree at this point? I have the impression, not really, although I'm sure Ender and BJ find themselves on different parts of the flesh wound to paralyze/kill scale.
Then, we have to factor in that we don't really know the outcome beforehand. This is where it becomes a bit more dicey, because then we need to choose where we gamble: Do we lower the risk of killing the attacker but increase the chance of the attacker wounding someone, or do we lower the risk of the attacker wounding someone but increase the chance of killing the attacker? This isn't really a trivial question and I wish it could be framed without being judgmental about it, because while I myself am happy to live in a society leaning more towards the former, I don't have any problems recognizing that the latter is also a viable position.
Note that this is just an attempt at clarifying the principles shaping different points of view - it doesn't factor in that the end position might be altered through police forces tending towards a) racism b) incompetence c) authoritarianism. I do think it makes a lot of sense that the more people consider those three characteristics accurate descriptions of the police, the more they will lean towards the police should exert less direct power side in terms of 'real politics', even if there's little disagreement in terms of where on the flesh wound to paralysis scale people find themselves belonging.
(Consequently it might be that we're having a concealed debate about to what degree is American police racist/incompetent/authoritarian, and maybe even 'is authoritarian a bad attribute for police?'.)
|
|
|
Extreme here is very different to extreme in society in general. The longer the same conversation goes on between the the same people, the further from the average the people still reading are.
This is the exact issue that all the GH conversations caused in the past, except it's someone else now.
I agree with drone and have no further interest in this unless something changes.
|
|
|
On April 24 2021 08:05 JimmiC wrote:
No it did not and we already went through why. Then when you adjusted it I agreed that those were issues because for some reason you are under the impression I think the US is bad and Canada is perfect and one be offended if some one pointed out we are not, but it was a epic fail on your part.
I am under the impression you think the phrasing used in regards to the US police killings is not accurate for Canadian police killings. I laid out the statistical similarities that you said were important to proving that point. You still dismiss them as if I am saying you believe 'Canada is perfect'. It's a weird strawman, but you do you. Or you could just say, yes, that sentence also applies to Canada based on the criteria you applied to the US. That would at least be consistent.
On April 24 2021 08:05 JimmiC wrote:Your data does not prove what you think it does it is saying nothing related. First it does not mention the type of firearm, and the type that makes it over the boarder is hand guns and assault rifles, both of which are WAY WAY harder to get because of the heavy regulation. I really can't tell if you just don't understand how data relates to arguments or if this is the worst straw man I've ever read.
So your contention is that police killings in Canada are materially increased due to illegal US guns coming into the country? I understand data pretty clearly. Canada does not even have a database of origin of guns used in crimes, they are still working to create it as of 2020. For guns confiscated at the border coming into Canada, from 2019-2020 there were only 753 confiscated. Allowing the possibility of many times that passing through unfound, you think that puts a dent in the 12.7 million already available in the country? Enough to sway police killings?
You just move the goalposts into these weird contusions to make a point that really isn't proving what you hope. Again, I can back up my arguments with more than gut feelings.
On April 24 2021 08:05 JimmiC wrote:The other stuff is not as quite bad strawmans, I said Canadian culture is heavily influenced by American culture and this is why your gun culture matters to me and us. If you wanted to say that US culture is heavily influenced my Canadian culture, I would first laugh and think that the 4x above would be way to small. But there is more hockey in the US now, which has to be a little bit us!
Ah so it's gun culture that you are referring to being the problem influence. Would take a bit to see trends over time through polling, and the influence I would assume would have more to do with current events on Canadian soil, such as mass shootings and the like, than US influence. But I don't think there is much point doing the research, because you will dismiss the info and somehow say I keep strawmanning your argument by dismissing it with facts.
|
Northern Ireland26028 Posts
On April 24 2021 06:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2021 16:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote: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:
[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. 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. I think your views are extreme even in Europe. I doubt the European public is anymore willing to take a stabbing to spare the life of a stabber than the American public. Also, I'm not say you personally attacked me. That was in reference to Kwark saying he would let a 13 year old kill him before considering shooting back and that the reason I wouldn't is because I lack character. But even then I don't really feel personally attacked because that idea is a lot more laughable than insulting. I think your wrong, I don't think it is extreme to hope two people live one hurt than 1 person live unhurt. Also, Kwark said he would let the 13 year old possibly shoot at him and take the risk of dying. Given what we all know about hand gun accuracy, what most of us know about psychology, police body armor and so on, Kwark might die, but it is not all that likely. I mean in the situation where this discussion started the kid did one of the most likely things and put down the gun. For someone who often gets all worked up about being "misrepresented" you continue to blatantly misrepresent people. Please try to be better, or stop playing the victim when you are repeatedly committing the crime. Poll: 2 16 year old girls, one with a knife. Which outcome would you prefer?One girl with a non life threatening stab wound, but both girls alive. (13) 81% The girl without the knife unharmed, the other girl dead. (3) 19% 16 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ One girl with a non life threatening stab wound, but both girls alive.
☐ The girl without the knife unharmed, the other girl dead.
It’s not exactly a fair question, ideally everyone will choose that. It’s an ideal outcome, a hypothetical where all externalities are controlled
If you can guarantee the person lunging for the other person, knife in hand can be stopped with a non-lethal method then of course you do that. It’s not even a question worth posing.
Based on what the supposed effectiveness of tasers is, factoring in adrenaline, I’m not sure that does it. The officers were too far away to jump in between the two physically.
Circumstantially I’m unclear what caused someone who sought police intervention to alleviate a threat to their person to charge someone with a knife when said intervention arrived.
|
On April 24 2021 08:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:
'Not killing people' and 'protect people from dangerous people' are two ideals that might sometimes be in conflict. I definitely think that if one person attacks the other person and the attacker is about to kill the other one, killing the attacker is better than letting the attacker succeed in the murder attempt.
I also think that if we know that the attacker's attack would only result in one superficial injury that causes no long term damage beyond some slight psychological scarring (which would prolly still be present from almost getting stabbed and watching the attacker get shot, anyway) on the defending part and then the attacker calms down or is subdued in a non-lethal manner then not killing the attacker is preferable.
Then - if we know the outcome beforehand - at some point between 'stabber causes flesh wound' and 'stabber kills victim', 'kill the stabber' becomes the preferable option. I don't know at what point that happens, but I would also say 'kill the stabber' is preferable to 'stabber paralyzes victim'.
Does anyone really disagree at this point? I have the impression, not really, although I'm sure Ender and BJ find themselves on different parts of the flesh wound to paralyze/kill scale.
That's probably the sum of it, more or less. I'd still be suspicious of anyone really being on the other end of the spectrum of a superficial wound. Sure it's easy to talk the talk but when it's time to let that cold steel enter your flesh I doubt many people are willing to walk the walk. I know I wouldn't, and I wouldn't ask a random member of the public to do something I wouldn't do because I think that's hypocritical and kind of a dick move. Although maybe EndeR really would take a stab to the torso to save the life of some person trying to stab him. I guess that's kind of respectable, although batshit crazy, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
