|
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 July 14 2023 16:58 Magic Powers wrote:
@ BJ
You clearly didn't watch the footage, or you don't understand what happened. The officers were in the wrong in all three cases. In all three cases the officers executed their victims.
Yeah, I watched all 3 videos. These are not executioners, these are cops making split-second mistakes because they are scared shitless to be facing people with guns in the dark of night. You're a pretty smart guy, it's a shame you have to subvert language so often to make your arguments. Here, I'll even help you by telling you where you can find actual videos of police executing people: google Walter Scott or Daniel Shaver.
|
On July 14 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2023 16:58 Magic Powers wrote:
@ BJ
You clearly didn't watch the footage, or you don't understand what happened. The officers were in the wrong in all three cases. In all three cases the officers executed their victims. Yeah, I watched all 3 videos. These are not executioners, these are cops making split-second mistakes because they are scared shitless to be facing people with guns in the dark of night. You're a pretty smart guy, it's a shame you have to subvert language so often to make your arguments. Here, I'll even help you by telling you where you can find actual videos of police executing people: google Walter Scott or Daniel Shaver.
How many split seconds did it take for them to decide not to identify themselves as police?
Can't believe you're talking about subverting language when your use of 'split second mistakes' is doing an awful lot of work in that post.
|
On July 14 2023 20:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2023 16:58 Magic Powers wrote:
@ BJ
You clearly didn't watch the footage, or you don't understand what happened. The officers were in the wrong in all three cases. In all three cases the officers executed their victims. Yeah, I watched all 3 videos. These are not executioners, these are cops making split-second mistakes because they are scared shitless to be facing people with guns in the dark of night. You're a pretty smart guy, it's a shame you have to subvert language so often to make your arguments. Here, I'll even help you by telling you where you can find actual videos of police executing people: google Walter Scott or Daniel Shaver.
These are not split-second mistakes. You're only selecting the final moment of these cases because you don't care about the context. There's a lead-up that clearly shows these cases are executions.
The two officers in the first case:
1) do not announce their presence
2) enter the woman's property
3) silently walk into the backyard
4) still do not announce their presence
5) flash their lights at the bedroom window
6) execute the woman at the first sight of her reaching for a gun
There's a reason why the officer who shot her received 11 years. It's because the totality of his actions make it undeniable that he executed her. He gave the woman absolutely no path to protect herself from harm. She acted exactly as she would be expected to act under those given circumstances, and so her death was pre-programmed. The officer should've known that, and so this is a case of an execution. He had to know that this outcome was very close to inevitable given that the person at home owns a gun.
You can't reason your way out of that.
|
I'd also like to mention that I've discussed the case of Atatiana Jefferson extensively with right-wingers back when it happened. They almost collectively agreed that the officer murdered her by designing a scenario in which an armed and ready home owner could only be expected to get shot. Only very few other outcomes could be expected.
The fact that even right-wingers judged this case so clearly years ago is the reason why I'm so adamant about it today.
|
We all know it's not a real execution unless you use a properly oiled-up 1800's guillotine, with a bucket for the head to fall into. Anything else is just pail imitation.
|
On July 14 2023 21:39 NewSunshine wrote:
We all know it's not a real execution unless you use a properly oiled-up 1800's guillotine, with a bucket for the head to fall into. Anything else is just pail imitation.
Good bucket pun
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On July 14 2023 22:06 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2023 21:39 NewSunshine wrote:
We all know it's not a real execution unless you use a properly oiled-up 1800's guillotine, with a bucket for the head to fall into. Anything else is just pail imitation. Good bucket pun
Yeah top notch work, a really cutting pun.
|
Not only the US has a society full of guns, but also they barely train their cops. US cops get around 6 months training on average, in some cases the training can be as short as 3 months. Meanwhile in civilized countries, 3 years training is the norm.
|
|
|
On July 14 2023 16:58 Magic Powers wrote:
Many American citizens protect themselves against home invaders by arming themselves with guns. Police officers are fully aware of this, so they know that they need to be careful in how they approach people in their homes. This is why I posted the footage of cases where officers acted in reckless ways, resulting in the death of three innocent citizens.
These deaths were preventable if the officers had conducted themselves properly, and if they were trained better. The reason why they acted like that is because of poor training and poor hiring practices.
Intuitively to normal people, the answer to problems with policing is more police, not defunding police. Police make mistakes when they are overworked, stressed, poorly trained, and facing too much crime per officer (also causing normal people to leave in favor of workaholic psychos). This lets law enforcement reduce crime, and also spread the workload, which both result in a lower average threat level per officer, which lets officers rest easy and make better decisions using the discretion they have as protectors of the peace.
On July 14 2023 16:58 Magic Powers wrote:
Also, again, the castle doctrine allows citizens to shoot home invaders, it doesn't matter who the invaders are. If they can't identify the invaders because it's dark, but they know that the invaders are armed because they just shot someone at the door, then that gives the home owners free reign to shoot at the invaders on their property. The woman was completely in the right. Her husband who was shot was also completely in the right. The officers were in the wrong. They were in the wrong a total of three times.
1) they entered the wrong property, 2) they shot the husband who had not opened fire, 3) after shooting the husband they stayed on the property.
The castle doctrine DOES NOT ALLOW a homeowner to open the door and draw his gun to waste people who are backing away from the outside of their porch, no. Look at the case law. I don't have a horse in the race with this specific case, but I'm at least able to understand the argument of why there is a gray area here - if you don't see the clear qualitative differences that make one an obvious conviction and the other possibly open to a civil case of liability for wrongful death - then I submit again you aren't familiar with the US system or are trying to juxtapose your understanding of European laws to US situations.
The US has the 2nd amendment and the ability to open or concealed carry in public contingently based on jurisdictions. Brandishing a gun can be easily classified/judged as assault. If someone brandishes a gun, and you fear for your life, you can shoot them, and if a prosecutor/detective don't agree with the evidence, then you or your lawyer can use a self-defense defense at trial. Whether you're a police officer or not.
Like if a private citizen goes up to a house at night, knocks on the door, says oops wrong house, backs up to leave, someone comes out and draws a gun (again I'm not arguing that his case is 100% one way or another but you at least need to understand the issue of contention) - you could credibly shoot him in self defense on his property. Because you have a right to go up to porches. I can't keep qualifying myself like this - The video is grainy and it seems to cut - let me just assume for the sake of argument he drew and brandished his gun.
Now you keep saying one is in the right and one is in the wrong. It's a tragedy that the man died in the sense that he might have lived had the officers done things differently, but you have to understand he committed assault when drawing and brandishing. Whether he could see their uniforms or not. You are inviting someone to shoot you in self-defense, whether police or citizen - the only difference being police wear bodycams whereas a citizen in the police's place would probably have had no evidence to show what happened that night.
It is possible for two parties to reasonably invoke self-defense against each other. I don't know if you just haven't thought of this yet. It's possible that nobody did anything criminal, and yet one is still dead.
Imagine they had their lights on and they had even more clearly announced themselves, and he still opened the door and took his gun out as a way of saying "hello" - Is this no longer an execution? Because he should have known 100% they were police and not to draw his gun? What if he noticed all that but thought they were fake police and feared for his life?
tl;dr: You can shoot someone who hasn't shot at you. If the man really didn't know they were police, he did nothing wrong. The police made a mistake in the sense of not having their lights on or being visible (at night) in a way where this guy. The police do not have to soul read whether he knows they are police or not once he's pulling his gun. If they DO read his mind, realize he hasn't understood the situation, and find a way to get him out of it alive, it's an extremely commendable and brave thing, but a police officer's life is not worth LESS than any random citizen's either. I don't want to live in a country where turning your lights on and shooting someone is okay, but having the lights off and shooting someone is an "execution" - that can't be what this hinges on. Nor being at the "right" house when someone pulls a gun on you. That's simply not a calculation you can expect humans to do in the moment. You can order 6 months and $1 billion in training on this for everyone, but there will always be another set of unfortunate circumstances and tiny mistakes that nobody predicted that will lead to a tragic - but not necessarily criminal - loss of life.
Neither the police nor private citizens surrender their right to life by merely stepping on someone's property. For interest as to how nuanced this can be, here's a case where you can invoke a self-defense claim when you're at your girlfriend's house with her permission, her husband comes home, gets a knife and finds you in the closet, and you grab one of his own guns:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/tx-court-of-criminal-appeals/1972550.html
On July 14 2023 16:58 Magic Powers wrote:
It's a miracle they didn't shoot the woman to death as well. And all of that was preventable if the cops had been trained better and if they had made absolutely sure that they're at the right house.
The second part doesn't seem to matter as far as I can tell because other of your examples are police being sentenced to prison for an unjustified killing of someone when they were at the right house.
On July 14 2023 16:58 Magic Powers wrote:
It can also be argued that police should never enter people's property at night to begin with. I've seen enough footage to know that these wrongful shootings happen at night almost every single time.
Note to self: Rape and murder at NIGHT when Magic Powers is chief of police.
On July 14 2023 16:58 Magic Powers wrote:
@ oBlade
You say murderers deserve death?
I could not disagree more. All people deserve to live unless we don't have any ethically reasonable means to keep them alive. Note that my view is in fact the golden medium. The radical opposite to your view would be that murderers deserve to rule the world.
Between these three views, you're on the far end of two sides. That's way too extreme for my taste, so I don't see how we can have a productive discussion. Sorry. I don't enter discussions with people who hold such radical beliefs.
My friend James says we should have a total nuclear war to obliterate Russia and China. My friend Thomas says we should have total nuclear disarmament. Luckily I, as the radical centrist, know better the truth of the golden medium - we should have a MODERATELY sized nuclear war only.
I wish you all the best with your productive discussion with someone more reasonable than me; for example, you could start a prison correspondence with the Son of Sam.
From a spiritual or ethical point of view, someone who murders others has forfeited a legitimate claim to their own life. I don't personally value the lives of criminals and put them on pedestals. That's not a political statement. You won't see me say the police deserve to appoint themselves to carry out that judgment.
Also, you have no way of knowing I don't simply believe as your own point of view allows that we simply have no ethically reasonable way to keep murderers alive, do you? That's a bit presumptuous.
|
On July 14 2023 22:36 Salazarz wrote:
Not only the US has a society full of guns, but also they barely train their cops. US cops get around 6 months training on average, in some cases the training can be as short as 3 months. Meanwhile in civilized countries, 3 years training is the norm.
That's a key point. When people ask for more funding for police, this is what they mean. They want better trained officers who take their jobs seriously.
And when people ask for more police presence, they don't mean more untrained officers knocking on people's doors or checking homeless people for drugs or interrogating youth for many hours without supervision until they give a false confession.
People want quality policing. And then relations between people and cops can improve.
|
@ oBlade
The cops opened fire and shot the husband to death. The woman opened fire on them as a consequence. She's within her right to do so until the cops identify themselves.
You're strictly wrong.
|
United States44112 Posts
On July 14 2023 13:35 cLutZ wrote:
The cop has a right to use all possible force to stop that, because one cannot count on a violent person to not use their newly procured handgun on you.
The inverse also applies. The police shoot innocent compliant people frequently enough that a reasonable person could suspect a cop of planning to illegally kill them. As such when a cop shows up brandishing a firearm and shouting about his intent to use it a reasonable person cannot count on the cop not to use it. Therefore they have a right to use all possible force to end the illegal threat to their person.
|
On July 15 2023 00:00 Magic Powers wrote:
@ oBlade
The cops opened fire and shot the husband to death. The woman opened fire on them as a consequence. She's within her right to do so until the cops identify themselves.
You're strictly wrong.
We've agreed about the woman since the previous page. When I say "he" I'm generally talking about the husband, I know German has gendered nouns but everywhere has gendered pronouns so that part should have been clear.
Let me summarize: We agree she's in the realm of self-defense as long as people she didn't know who hadn't identified clearly to her as police officers were shooting at her husband/house. Where we diverge is that you say (not verbatim but basically) that he didn't do anything, and they shot him first, meaning they "started it." My point is that the man unwittingly created a self-defense chain reaction resulting in his own death by assaulting the police when he drew his gun (I really do not care about the outcome of the case specifically, you could be right and they could be cold blooded killers, but you seem not to see where the issue is that's different in this example compared to the woman who got shot or BlackJack's examples).
I'm trying to explain drawing your gun by itself is an assault that if you're not right about what's happening, invites the other person to shoot you, whether they are the police or not. From his perspective, he may have been engaged in self-defense, charitably, reasonably, but the act of being incorrect led to a tragedy where none of the 3 parties did anything specifically illegal.
If you followed the Rittenhouse case you should be vaguely familiar that mutual self-defense exists, as Rittenhouse's defense was successful and Gaige Grosskreutz avoided prosecution probably by fearing for his life when he brandished his pistol (or you can substitute your own explanation as to how he avoided getting charged).
|
On July 15 2023 00:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2023 00:00 Magic Powers wrote:
@ oBlade
The cops opened fire and shot the husband to death. The woman opened fire on them as a consequence. She's within her right to do so until the cops identify themselves.
You're strictly wrong. We've agreed about the woman since the previous page. When I say "he" I'm generally talking about the husband, I know German has gendered nouns but everywhere has gendered pronouns so that part should have been clear. Let me summarize: We agree she's in the realm of self-defense as long as people she didn't know who hadn't identified clearly to her as police officers were shooting at her husband/house. Where we diverge is that you say (not verbatim but basically) that he didn't do anything, and they shot him first, meaning they "started it." My point is that the man unwittingly created a self-defense chain reaction resulting in his own death by assaulting the police when he drew his gun (I really do not care about the outcome of the case specifically, you could be right and they could be cold blooded killers, but you seem not to see where the issue is that's different in this example compared to the woman who got shot or BlackJack's examples). I'm trying to explain drawing your gun by itself is an assault that if you're not right about what's happening, invites the other person to shoot you, whether they are the police or not. From his perspective, he may have been engaged in self-defense, charitably, reasonably, but the act of being incorrect led to a tragedy where none of the 3 parties did anything specifically illegal. If you followed the Rittenhouse case you should be vaguely familiar that mutual self-defense exists, as Rittenhouse's defense was successful and Gaige Grosskreutz avoided prosecution probably by fearing for his life when he brandished his pistol (or you can substitute your own explanation as to how he avoided getting charged).
I'm tired of arguing with you. The man didn't raise his gun, the officers shot him to death for no reason, and they were the ones who created this dangerous situation, the man did not. That's the end of it and every judge worth their salt would agree.
|
Police should be trained to not shoot unless they absolutely have to, period. As in other countries, if the police even have guns at all, firing one should require them to fill out nearly prohibitive levels of paperwork, so they don't feel inclined to just pull it out any time they get a little uncomfortable. We have higher standards on this forum for people who are shitty about the mods than we do for people who "threaten" police. They get a pass so long as the person they shot and killed allegedly looked at them sideways. There's no standard, there's no bar, they get away with it as long as they claim they feared for their life.
|
On July 14 2023 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2023 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
There is no less persuasive argument in all of politics than "You need to do the reading ". The sheer arrogance and elitism to tell people they need to do homework before their opinions and thoughts are valid are only rivaled by what happens after you do the reading and get told "You just don't get the reading you need to do more reading".
You are not going to convince anyone you are right by simply insisting that you're right. They could start by reconciling this: Show nested quote +On July 14 2023 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 14 2023 07:57 Djabanete wrote:+ Show Spoiler +GH, most people don’t read this thread as a rational and concerted effort to solve the world’s problems (re: “you read plenty of this thread”), we read it because we need a break and it’s interesting enough and we’re screen addicted.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t bring valuable thoughts to the thread. It just means that if you want to use it as a venue to change anybody’s mind, you have to get a lot better at explaining things in your own words, a few paragraphs at a time.
You’re far more likely to make a socialist out of ChristianS by outlining an example socialist solution to a real-world problem — and then outlining more examples over the following weeks — than by assigning him outside reading. What’s more, you’re also more likely to make socialists out of the rest of us in that way than by assigning reading to ChristianS. If somebody wanted to know what was so good about calculus, you wouldn’t tell them to go read Newton. You would walk them through the solution to a worthwhile problem that couldn’t be solved without calculus. As I mentioned earlier, basically all the remotely good things Democrats have accomplished going back to the New Deal were coopted/bastardized socialist policy they had to be dragged to kicking and screaming by socialists* and basically all the parts people (that don't identify as centrist Dems/on the Right) don't like are direct results of said cooption/bastardization. I think that's pretty plainly obvious with even a rudimentary comprehension of socialism, the history, and/or the social democrat thinking that ostensibly guides the Democrat party. with their refusal to recognize socialism as the "lesser evil" framework to work within and the necessity to comport themselves as socialists to change the status quo instead?
They could start and so should you. The biggest problem in selling socialism is the image it has in america and europe that its actualy communism or is just for the academic types to look down on the poors for what they "should be" for.
Socialism is unions, its farmers coops, its farmers markets, its the things that make the material conditions for people better. If you're telling people to do homework before they can argue with you they're not going to argue with you and think less of you.
Your constant bitching about the democrats just comes off as you bitching about democracy. Accelerationism just makes things shittier in a system that desires stability and continuity over everything. Socialists dragging the democrats to do leftist things is a good thing not a bad thing.
|
On July 15 2023 00:36 NewSunshine wrote:
Police should be trained to not shoot unless they absolutely have to, period. As in other countries, if the police even have guns at all, firing one should require them to fill out nearly prohibitive levels of paperwork, so they don't feel inclined to just pull it out any time they get a little uncomfortable. We have higher standards on this forum for people who are shitty about the mods than we do for people who "threaten" police. They get a pass so long as the person they shot and killed allegedly looked at them sideways. There's no standard, there's no bar, they get away with it as long as they claim they feared for their life.
It's been almost a decade since it came to the wider public's attention that police and the FBI don't even accurately track everyone police kill... they still don't because, and I'm dead serious, police say it would be too burdensome for them to tell the FBI about everyone they kill.
The problem isn't that no one knows that cops have paltry training, little accountability, or budgets/armaments that would make many countries' entire military jealous. The problem is the US political system's inability to even do things like pass universal background checks that 90%+ of the public support.
If it's been more than a decade and we still can't get police to report everyone they kill (this is a law Democrats totally could have passed but didn't even try), how far away does that make us from something like police reporting every shot they fire...?
To demonstrate my previous point (shocked no one even tried) and try to follow Djabs advice, it is and will be socialists that drag the Democrat party kicking and screaming (it's already been ~a decade and Democrats won't even make sure they can reliably track who the police kill despite having the power to do it) into being better on this and anything else.
|
I'm not going to dig much into the police discussion anymore but I want to make it known just how shitty of a job it is right now. I personally know the level of damage it does to the human beings in the police departments and how little support or training they get to do it. The problem with the job in America is that it sprawls to cover so many different responsibilities and fails to train or prepare people do handle all those responsibilities that it ends up doing them all poorly in an attempt to do them all. The guy who hands out speeding tickets should not be handling domestic disputes, the guy who has to deal with car accidents needs a therapist to deal with cleaning up bodies. If you only see cops on your worst days you will never have a positive memory of cops. Cities pay out insane overtime to solve problems (hi drunk driving) and never consider the knock on problems that these "solutions" cause. All cops are bastards because the job makes bastards out of everyone. If cops can't have their home address on their drivers license's and don't want to live in the towns they police there are massive issues at hand that don't involve their home addresses and why they can't be on their drivers license.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
