EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3189
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 25 2021 01:56 Starlightsun wrote: I don't expect police to grapple with an MMA fighter but is disarming a 16 year old girl with a knife really that unreasonable? It's disingenuous to continually frame this as a "child" or a "16 year-old girl". A normal 16-year-old is sufficiently physically developed that they are similar to/the same as an adult when talking about physical threat posed. Not only this, that particular 16-year-old was notably larger than your average person. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11718 Posts
On April 25 2021 04:32 JimmiC wrote: It is not, it is completely accurate. She is a 16 year old girl, and that makes her a child. Most 16 year old girls are also through puberty. It would be disingenuous to call her something that she is not. And no one would question this if this were about some grown man having sex with her. Yet when the same grown man shoots her dead, she is suddenly no longer a girl, but a grown woman. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5823 Posts
On April 24 2021 22:50 EnDeR_ wrote: Hmm, I was trying to assess the frequency of police shootings arising from property crime, and my prediction was wrong. Most shootings started as either a traffic stop or a domestic disturbance. Certainly, the shootings were for the most part a result of an unnecessary escalation of what should have been a routine amicable chat, and several posters maintain that we should not take into account how the encounter started but rather what the behaviour of the suspect was during the encounter (I disagree, but understand the position). Indeed, nobody took the position that cops shouldn't carry out traffic stops or that these were examples of police brutality. I'll ask the same thing I asked dp: 1. Do you think police should be reformed? 2. What needs reforming? 3. What would be your ideal outcome? 4. What do you think should be the police's job remit? remit -> limit? I find the phrase "unnecessary escalation" to be, if unintentionally, a weasel phrase here as it overlooks the agency of the person doing the escalating and that that can quite often be the suspect. I don't think it's regrettable in general that someone would die after shooting at a police officer (or any human) without extenuating circumstances, or that the number of such deaths would be by itself a metric that the government need to spend money pretending to solve, while simultaneously making the public less safe or causing other unintended consequences (for example, homicide in Portland is up over a thousand percent). I did see recently but I can't remember where to pull it back up, a drunk driver who went on a high-speed chase and then crashed and brandished his gun to try to commit suicide by cop I believe? and the police went well out of their way to take him in. The shock should not be that X number of people died in traffic stops. The realization should be, why is the country so poorly set up on this point and so seeded with violent criminals that stopping someone for expired plates would lead to them shooting a cop. I've seen also the one where a cop pulled a guy for speeding in a pickup and the guy was having a Vietnam flashback and killed the cop with an M14 or something. I don't think any person or institution is perfect. Now, ignoring for a second that "the police" don't exist in a way that you could reform "them," I don't think they should be reformed. And the reason they couldn't be is that the police are not a single national organization the way that a branch of the armed forces is. Bad entire departments or jurisdictions are not limited only to ones that allegedly brutalize minorities. There are flatly corrupt individuals and police departments, there are police-DA relationships that railroad the innocent and otherwise incarcerate people at an industrial level (Ask the sitting VP), there are jurisdictions that protect and release antifa rioters, there are jurisdictions that deliberately ignore federal drug or immigration law, and these all result in suffering or have an adverse effect on public safety. If you had nonpartisan federal oversight of police, it would seem to me necessary to guarantee that police do their given job and not only that they merely don't exceed their authority. In other words, making police (or anything) work better is not a one-sided problem. Furthermore, could one expect the federal government to carry out such a responsibility in a competent manner? I doubt it. If you look at federal law enforcement, the FBI is in part a political weapon, the CIA is extrajudicial, the NSA is an unconstitutional surveillance arm, parts of DHS are either hamstrung or wasting money or trampling rights. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On April 25 2021 01:56 Starlightsun wrote: I don't expect police to grapple with an MMA fighter but is disarming a 16 year old girl with a knife really that unreasonable? my martial arts teacher said there are 3 rules to disarming somone holding a knife: 1) you'll get cut 2) you'll get cut 3) you'll get cut while I don't suspec he had much of experience with disarming people and that regarding this particular incident with multiple policemen being on site, I still think it holds true that there's a high chance that one will get hurt in the process. The USA does not seem to ask of their policemen to go though such dangers as it's apparently OK still to just shoot during periods of perceived danger. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
That looked absolutely like an attempt to murder someone, and the policeman was absolutely right to shoot her. Their literal job is to protect us. If he stood there and just let her stab someone in front of her he should be fired. 100% on the victim, this time. The body cam footage is completely unambiguous. It's unfortunate that she died, but the very least you're looking at is a girl going up on assault with a deadly weapon charges. If he hadn't shot and she'd gutted the girl she was very definitely trying to gut, he'd be getting (rightly) pilloried for negligence. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23580 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 25 2021 04:32 JimmiC wrote: It is not, it is completely accurate. She is a 16 year old girl, and that makes her a child. Most 16 year old girls are also through puberty. It would be disingenuous to call her something that she is not. It's deliberately deceptive and an obvious attempt to elicit an emotional response when highlighting her age brings literally nothing to the discussion concerning what she was physically doing. Highlighting the fact that she is still a kid means absolutely nothing in the context of discussing the physical threat that she posed because, as I said, she, as are most 16-year-olds, was physically developed enough to pose the same physical threat as an adult. Her age is relevant when talking about her mental status/maturity, legal status concerning her age, etc. but framing her as a child in this discussion is the same deceptive crap that we call conservatives out for. It's shallow and we should do better. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24752 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 25 2021 09:07 JimmiC wrote: Her maturity age and so is important because even a big 16 year old is not nearly as strong as a big 26 year old, don't be silly. On top of that how she will act as a 16 year old matters and is not some hardened killer. It is a child who died, that is just the facts, if it brings up certain emotions it should because she is. As to the disarming, people are talking about shooting Her with a taser, some did mention tackling, but he could have ran up and used his stick slammed into her knee, he'll her head and would have very little risk to him and she would not be dead. You're the only one being silly here. You're twisting yourself into knots trying to trivialize the physical capabilities of a 16-year-old in order to justify your overly emotional interpretation of events. Your comparison of a "big 16 year-old" to a "big 26-year-old" is so nonsensical that I'm done even trying. We've already beat this horse to death when talking about the feasibility of responses to a girl that was clearly attempting to stab someone with a knife. I'll just take your attempt at convoluted armchair quarterbacking as evidence that you distinctly lack any experience in situations concerning physical altercations and attempted subdual of grown human beings and move on from this discussion. You can find my opinions in the posts over the last five or so days. Good Lord, baton her in the back of the knee and hit her in the head? It's like you think this is a movie or something. And no one would question this if this were about some grown man having sex with her. Yet when the same grown man shoots her dead, she is suddenly no longer a girl, but a grown woman. Comparing the victim of statutory rape to the perpetrator of multiple serious felonies? Do better. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8688 Posts
On April 25 2021 10:32 JimmiC wrote: It is nice that the jokes get a second life! Also, in actually surprising news oldest president ever is the most popular president with young people! https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/biden-boasts-record-approval-rating-among-young-americans-poll-says/ar-BB1g0qxZ?li=AAggNb9 yah. gramps unexpectedly kicking ass which makes it all the better. and like a real grandfather he is handing out cash as well! // @ stratos_spear. I am not putting myself in the position arguing one way or the other - shooting her good vs bad given the situation as imho it is too gray and I did not even watch the damn video - but I never ever read warning shot. that kinda also tends to get people's attention. just my early morning random addition. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7951 Posts
On April 25 2021 03:37 LegalLord wrote: Better late than never to do the right thing, I suppose. Regardless of what political calculus did or didn't go into that decision. Yeah. It’s hard to understand from the outside but it’s a huge deal there with very big diplomatic repercussions. Armenians have basically built their whole national narrative around the genocide, while Turkey’s nationalism all relies on saying that it definitely didn’t happen and that they did nothing wrong. It’s an open wound that has far reaching implications. It’s not that hard to see why previous POTUS didn’t want to get involved there. It feels that Biden is cleaning up the excesses of decades of realpolitics. Again, the fact that Erdogan is not a reliable partner anymore whatsoever and is going full Putin probably make it a more realistic move than it was 10 years ago. An interesting development nonetheless. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7951 Posts
On April 25 2021 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm one of the people that would much rather take my chances defending myself/anything other than give US police justification to shoot my direction and kill me by trying to 'protect' me. Yeah the last thing I would want if I was in such a situation is the cops going full Dirty Harry and transforming the situation into a shooting stand. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2777 Posts
On April 25 2021 05:24 oBlade wrote: remit -> limit? I find the phrase "unnecessary escalation" to be, if unintentionally, a weasel phrase here as it overlooks the agency of the person doing the escalating and that that can quite often be the suspect. I don't think it's regrettable in general that someone would die after shooting at a police officer (or any human) without extenuating circumstances, or that the number of such deaths would be by itself a metric that the government need to spend money pretending to solve, while simultaneously making the public less safe or causing other unintended consequences (for example, homicide in Portland is up over a thousand percent). I did see recently but I can't remember where to pull it back up, a drunk driver who went on a high-speed chase and then crashed and brandished his gun to try to commit suicide by cop I believe? and the police went well out of their way to take him in. The shock should not be that X number of people died in traffic stops. The realization should be, why is the country so poorly set up on this point and so seeded with violent criminals that stopping someone for expired plates would lead to them shooting a cop. I've seen also the one where a cop pulled a guy for speeding in a pickup and the guy was having a Vietnam flashback and killed the cop with an M14 or something. I don't think any person or institution is perfect. Now, ignoring for a second that "the police" don't exist in a way that you could reform "them," I don't think they should be reformed. And the reason they couldn't be is that the police are not a single national organization the way that a branch of the armed forces is. Bad entire departments or jurisdictions are not limited only to ones that allegedly brutalize minorities. There are flatly corrupt individuals and police departments, there are police-DA relationships that railroad the innocent and otherwise incarcerate people at an industrial level (Ask the sitting VP), there are jurisdictions that protect and release antifa rioters, there are jurisdictions that deliberately ignore federal drug or immigration law, and these all result in suffering or have an adverse effect on public safety. If you had nonpartisan federal oversight of police, it would seem to me necessary to guarantee that police do their given job and not only that they merely don't exceed their authority. In other words, making police (or anything) work better is not a one-sided problem. Furthermore, could one expect the federal government to carry out such a responsibility in a competent manner? I doubt it. If you look at federal law enforcement, the FBI is in part a political weapon, the CIA is extrajudicial, the NSA is an unconstitutional surveillance arm, parts of DHS are either hamstrung or wasting money or trampling rights. No, I actually did mean 'remit', I didn't realise it was a British expression. It just means what should be the tasks or areas of activity for a given job. For instance, do you think police should be responding to 'well-being checks'? That was how one of the encounters on the list started. On your first point I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I do think that any killing by a government agency is regrettable and we should do everything we can to reduce the number of incidents where this happens. I do understand that this sometimes cannot be avoided and I'm not going to quibble with your point, i.e. if someone starts shooting at the police, the police should definitely be shooting back. Currently, police are trained to escalate any potentially threatening situation, i.e. police are taught to never back off and never give up and if they identify a threat, they're trained to eliminate it as effectively and as safely as possible. Do you think this approach is appropriate for all police officers and for all types of encounters? I certainly think it's appropriate if law enforcement is responding to a violent crime situation, like an armed robbery, but should this also be the approach in a routine traffic stop? The shock should not be that X number of people died in traffic stops. The realization should be, why is the country so poorly set up on this point and so seeded with violent criminals that stopping someone for expired plates would lead to them shooting a cop. I've seen also the one where a cop pulled a guy for speeding in a pickup and the guy was having a Vietnam flashback and killed the cop with an M14 or something. When you say this, you are making the assumption that all traffic stops that lead to police shootings involve violent criminals. I think you know that this is not actually the case, there are dozens of examples of regular people ending up in a police shooting after a routine traffic stop. In addition, how many encounters do you think resemble the example of Lt. Nazario? Do you think this is a 'bad apples' situation, or do you think this is a widespread problem? I don't think any person or institution is perfect. Now, ignoring for a second that "the police" don't exist in a way that you could reform "them," I don't think they should be reformed. And the reason they couldn't be is that the police are not a single national organization the way that a branch of the armed forces is. I don't understand this point. Police can't be reformed because they're not a single organisation? Could you please elaborate? Bad entire departments or jurisdictions are not limited only to ones that allegedly brutalize minorities. There are flatly corrupt individuals and police departments, there are police-DA relationships that railroad the innocent and otherwise incarcerate people at an industrial level (Ask the sitting VP), there are jurisdictions that protect and release antifa rioters, there are jurisdictions that deliberately ignore federal drug or immigration law, and these all result in suffering or have an adverse effect on public safety. I think we both agree that there is a culture of bad practice across many branches of law enforcement. Would you agree that this should provide motivation for widespread reform? If you had nonpartisan federal oversight of police, it would seem to me necessary to guarantee that police do their given job and not only that they merely don't exceed their authority. In other words, making police (or anything) work better is not a one-sided problem. Fair enough, police should be given the training and tools to effectively carry out their job while simultaneously not exceeding their authority. I don't think this is controversial. Furthermore, could one expect the federal government to carry out such a responsibility in a competent manner? I doubt it. If you look at federal law enforcement, the FBI is in part a political weapon, the CIA is extrajudicial, the NSA is an unconstitutional surveillance arm, parts of DHS are either hamstrung or wasting money or trampling rights. Policing needs to be carried out at all levels, i.e. you need local and state law enforcement, but you also need a police agency that can act at the federal level or you'd end up with silly situations where a criminal moves to a different state and are therefore able to escape the consequences of their actions. What would be the ideal solution in your opinion? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
