|
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 |
United States41661 Posts
On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 05:41 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 00:25 KwarK wrote:
I’m also broadly speaking fine with disproportionate force if there is a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm or death. If someone is coming at you with their fists and you can reasonably believe that after overpowering you they mean to kill you (abusive former partner who has made such threats for example) and what you have to hand is a flamethrower then I’m good with the usage of that. The idea that we have some sort of tier list of weapons and that the defender must restrict themselves to something within the attacking tier +3 is absurd to me.
The clear exception to that, for me, are the police. The police enter most confrontations on a voluntary basis (they can choose to press the issue or not at their discretion) and have an entire suite of tools that somehow includes tanks and drone missile strikes. If they find themselves using wildly disproportionate deadly force then they have likely made a mistake. As public servants their use of force should be far, far more strictly policed than the rest of us. This bullshit where they insert themselves into a situation, panic, and shoot randoms is nuts. I’m not sure I understand your point about police entering most confrontations on a voluntary basis. I would say the vast vast majority of confrontations that result in deadly force are from the police simply doing their job to protect the public. I would hope that the police have some duty to confront these threats and it’s not done on a voluntary basis. As has been pointed out, police largely choose whether to insert themselves into a situation. They have no obligation to insert themselves into situations. The case in which it was ruled there was no legal duty to protect there were some wonen being raped in a home invasion while another was hiding. The hiding women called the cops. When they showed up she called out to them, revealing herself. The cops asked the home invaders if they were raping anyone but the home invaders cleverly said “no” which fooled the cops. The home invaders then abducted all the occupants. The women felt the police had failed them in that situation but the courts found that there is no duty to protect and therefore no failure to perform that duty. They’re also generally a proactive rather than reactive organization. They’re not an occupying force facing a hostile population, they’re not dealing with ambushes or IEDs or snipers. The police hold the initiative. They get to choose what to respond to a call with. How much to bring to a raid. What kind of raid to do. If there’s a fleeing car with a baby in it they get to choose whether to engage in a high speed chase in which they attempt to deliberately crash that car or whether to monitor it and show up after it stops. They get to choose whether they knock on a door and speak like reasonable people or whether they show up at 2am demanding compliance while shouting different orders. They get to choose whether to bring a bulldozer and tear down someone’s house because a fugitive won’t leave or whether just waiting a bit is better. The police basically lack every excuse available to the rest of us. The rest of us are typically acted upon and have to react as best we can without the benefit of training, equipment, preparation, and a militarized gang at our back. There’s not much room for choice in a purely reactionary scenario. The police have to explain their choices, why they felt the need to make a stop at the pet store and execute every puppy etc. There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat. If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next." I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing. Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be. The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker
That said there was actually another one just two weeks ago.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642
Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them.
I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that.
|
On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 05:41 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 00:25 KwarK wrote:
I’m also broadly speaking fine with disproportionate force if there is a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm or death. If someone is coming at you with their fists and you can reasonably believe that after overpowering you they mean to kill you (abusive former partner who has made such threats for example) and what you have to hand is a flamethrower then I’m good with the usage of that. The idea that we have some sort of tier list of weapons and that the defender must restrict themselves to something within the attacking tier +3 is absurd to me.
The clear exception to that, for me, are the police. The police enter most confrontations on a voluntary basis (they can choose to press the issue or not at their discretion) and have an entire suite of tools that somehow includes tanks and drone missile strikes. If they find themselves using wildly disproportionate deadly force then they have likely made a mistake. As public servants their use of force should be far, far more strictly policed than the rest of us. This bullshit where they insert themselves into a situation, panic, and shoot randoms is nuts. I’m not sure I understand your point about police entering most confrontations on a voluntary basis. I would say the vast vast majority of confrontations that result in deadly force are from the police simply doing their job to protect the public. I would hope that the police have some duty to confront these threats and it’s not done on a voluntary basis. As has been pointed out, police largely choose whether to insert themselves into a situation. They have no obligation to insert themselves into situations. The case in which it was ruled there was no legal duty to protect there were some wonen being raped in a home invasion while another was hiding. The hiding women called the cops. When they showed up she called out to them, revealing herself. The cops asked the home invaders if they were raping anyone but the home invaders cleverly said “no” which fooled the cops. The home invaders then abducted all the occupants. The women felt the police had failed them in that situation but the courts found that there is no duty to protect and therefore no failure to perform that duty. They’re also generally a proactive rather than reactive organization. They’re not an occupying force facing a hostile population, they’re not dealing with ambushes or IEDs or snipers. The police hold the initiative. They get to choose what to respond to a call with. How much to bring to a raid. What kind of raid to do. If there’s a fleeing car with a baby in it they get to choose whether to engage in a high speed chase in which they attempt to deliberately crash that car or whether to monitor it and show up after it stops. They get to choose whether they knock on a door and speak like reasonable people or whether they show up at 2am demanding compliance while shouting different orders. They get to choose whether to bring a bulldozer and tear down someone’s house because a fugitive won’t leave or whether just waiting a bit is better. The police basically lack every excuse available to the rest of us. The rest of us are typically acted upon and have to react as best we can without the benefit of training, equipment, preparation, and a militarized gang at our back. There’s not much room for choice in a purely reactionary scenario. The police have to explain their choices, why they felt the need to make a stop at the pet store and execute every puppy etc. There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat. If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next." I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing. Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be. The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that.
So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details?
I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them.
|
United States41661 Posts
On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver
Also during the Chris Dorner manhunt police were on the lookout for a 34 year old African American man in a dark gray 2005 Nissan Titan.
A squad of officers opened fire on a light blue Toyota Tacoma and shot its two occupants, Emma Hernandez (71) and her daughter, Margie Carranza (47), leaving 102 bullet holes.
25 minutes later officers ambushed David Perdue, a white man driving a black Honda ridgeline to the beach to surf. They intentionally crashed a cruiser into his car then riddled it with bullets.
They literally are allowed to do this.
|
The officer that killed Daniel Shaver was criminally prosecuted. Strange definition of being "allowed to execute members of the public" if a jury gets to determine whether you should go to prison for it.
|
United States41661 Posts
On May 20 2024 12:51 BlackJack wrote:
The officer that killed Daniel Shaver was criminally prosecuted. Strange definition of being "allowed to execute members of the public" if a jury gets to determine whether you should go to prison for it.
He was rehired into a made up police position so that he could be given a $2500/month taxpayer funded medical retirement from the force. Dominos won’t give me that if I spit in a pizza.
|
On May 20 2024 13:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 12:51 BlackJack wrote:
The officer that killed Daniel Shaver was criminally prosecuted. Strange definition of being "allowed to execute members of the public" if a jury gets to determine whether you should go to prison for it. He was rehired into a made up police position so that he could be given a $2500/month taxpayer funded medical retirement from the force. Dominos won’t give me that if I spit in a pizza.
You're preaching to the choir on that one. Like I said, there are legitimate points to be made here and they are better made without embellishment or hyperbole.
Here's what I said about the Daniel Shaver case a year ago on this forum
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.
|
United States41661 Posts
On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 05:41 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 00:25 KwarK wrote:
I’m also broadly speaking fine with disproportionate force if there is a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm or death. If someone is coming at you with their fists and you can reasonably believe that after overpowering you they mean to kill you (abusive former partner who has made such threats for example) and what you have to hand is a flamethrower then I’m good with the usage of that. The idea that we have some sort of tier list of weapons and that the defender must restrict themselves to something within the attacking tier +3 is absurd to me.
The clear exception to that, for me, are the police. The police enter most confrontations on a voluntary basis (they can choose to press the issue or not at their discretion) and have an entire suite of tools that somehow includes tanks and drone missile strikes. If they find themselves using wildly disproportionate deadly force then they have likely made a mistake. As public servants their use of force should be far, far more strictly policed than the rest of us. This bullshit where they insert themselves into a situation, panic, and shoot randoms is nuts. I’m not sure I understand your point about police entering most confrontations on a voluntary basis. I would say the vast vast majority of confrontations that result in deadly force are from the police simply doing their job to protect the public. I would hope that the police have some duty to confront these threats and it’s not done on a voluntary basis. As has been pointed out, police largely choose whether to insert themselves into a situation. They have no obligation to insert themselves into situations. The case in which it was ruled there was no legal duty to protect there were some wonen being raped in a home invasion while another was hiding. The hiding women called the cops. When they showed up she called out to them, revealing herself. The cops asked the home invaders if they were raping anyone but the home invaders cleverly said “no” which fooled the cops. The home invaders then abducted all the occupants. The women felt the police had failed them in that situation but the courts found that there is no duty to protect and therefore no failure to perform that duty. They’re also generally a proactive rather than reactive organization. They’re not an occupying force facing a hostile population, they’re not dealing with ambushes or IEDs or snipers. The police hold the initiative. They get to choose what to respond to a call with. How much to bring to a raid. What kind of raid to do. If there’s a fleeing car with a baby in it they get to choose whether to engage in a high speed chase in which they attempt to deliberately crash that car or whether to monitor it and show up after it stops. They get to choose whether they knock on a door and speak like reasonable people or whether they show up at 2am demanding compliance while shouting different orders. They get to choose whether to bring a bulldozer and tear down someone’s house because a fugitive won’t leave or whether just waiting a bit is better. The police basically lack every excuse available to the rest of us. The rest of us are typically acted upon and have to react as best we can without the benefit of training, equipment, preparation, and a militarized gang at our back. There’s not much room for choice in a purely reactionary scenario. The police have to explain their choices, why they felt the need to make a stop at the pet store and execute every puppy etc. There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat. If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next." I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing. Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be. The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them.
Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage.
https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/
It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire.
I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life.
|
On some lighter, less-violent, more-karma-related notes...
Criminally-indicted Rudy Giuliani made a smug social media post bragging about how he's been able to successfully hide from the prosecutor... and that post was used to track him down.
I'm loving Joe Biden's occasional sass: "Hey Donald, let's have a few debates. I hear you're free on Wednesdays." (Trump's criminal indictment trials are usually on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays.)
Deadbeat Don has been a notoriously absent and terrible father as his children grew up, and he made a recent comment that backfired marvelously: Trump's youngest son, Barron, graduated high school a few days ago... but a few weeks earlier, Donald tried to avoid attending (and supporting his youngest son) by insisting that a judge was refusing to let him go to his son's graduation. The judge responded to Trump's lie, made it clear that Trump was absolutely allowed to attend Barron's graduation, and then Donald got stuck supporting his son for the day lol. Nothing like other people forcing you to be a good parent...
|
On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 05:41 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 00:25 KwarK wrote:
I’m also broadly speaking fine with disproportionate force if there is a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm or death. If someone is coming at you with their fists and you can reasonably believe that after overpowering you they mean to kill you (abusive former partner who has made such threats for example) and what you have to hand is a flamethrower then I’m good with the usage of that. The idea that we have some sort of tier list of weapons and that the defender must restrict themselves to something within the attacking tier +3 is absurd to me.
The clear exception to that, for me, are the police. The police enter most confrontations on a voluntary basis (they can choose to press the issue or not at their discretion) and have an entire suite of tools that somehow includes tanks and drone missile strikes. If they find themselves using wildly disproportionate deadly force then they have likely made a mistake. As public servants their use of force should be far, far more strictly policed than the rest of us. This bullshit where they insert themselves into a situation, panic, and shoot randoms is nuts. I’m not sure I understand your point about police entering most confrontations on a voluntary basis. I would say the vast vast majority of confrontations that result in deadly force are from the police simply doing their job to protect the public. I would hope that the police have some duty to confront these threats and it’s not done on a voluntary basis. As has been pointed out, police largely choose whether to insert themselves into a situation. They have no obligation to insert themselves into situations. The case in which it was ruled there was no legal duty to protect there were some wonen being raped in a home invasion while another was hiding. The hiding women called the cops. When they showed up she called out to them, revealing herself. The cops asked the home invaders if they were raping anyone but the home invaders cleverly said “no” which fooled the cops. The home invaders then abducted all the occupants. The women felt the police had failed them in that situation but the courts found that there is no duty to protect and therefore no failure to perform that duty. They’re also generally a proactive rather than reactive organization. They’re not an occupying force facing a hostile population, they’re not dealing with ambushes or IEDs or snipers. The police hold the initiative. They get to choose what to respond to a call with. How much to bring to a raid. What kind of raid to do. If there’s a fleeing car with a baby in it they get to choose whether to engage in a high speed chase in which they attempt to deliberately crash that car or whether to monitor it and show up after it stops. They get to choose whether they knock on a door and speak like reasonable people or whether they show up at 2am demanding compliance while shouting different orders. They get to choose whether to bring a bulldozer and tear down someone’s house because a fugitive won’t leave or whether just waiting a bit is better. The police basically lack every excuse available to the rest of us. The rest of us are typically acted upon and have to react as best we can without the benefit of training, equipment, preparation, and a militarized gang at our back. There’s not much room for choice in a purely reactionary scenario. The police have to explain their choices, why they felt the need to make a stop at the pet store and execute every puppy etc. There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat. If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next." I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing. Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be. The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life.
We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it.
It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier.
|
United States41661 Posts
On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 05:41 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 00:25 KwarK wrote:
I’m also broadly speaking fine with disproportionate force if there is a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm or death. If someone is coming at you with their fists and you can reasonably believe that after overpowering you they mean to kill you (abusive former partner who has made such threats for example) and what you have to hand is a flamethrower then I’m good with the usage of that. The idea that we have some sort of tier list of weapons and that the defender must restrict themselves to something within the attacking tier +3 is absurd to me.
The clear exception to that, for me, are the police. The police enter most confrontations on a voluntary basis (they can choose to press the issue or not at their discretion) and have an entire suite of tools that somehow includes tanks and drone missile strikes. If they find themselves using wildly disproportionate deadly force then they have likely made a mistake. As public servants their use of force should be far, far more strictly policed than the rest of us. This bullshit where they insert themselves into a situation, panic, and shoot randoms is nuts. I’m not sure I understand your point about police entering most confrontations on a voluntary basis. I would say the vast vast majority of confrontations that result in deadly force are from the police simply doing their job to protect the public. I would hope that the police have some duty to confront these threats and it’s not done on a voluntary basis. As has been pointed out, police largely choose whether to insert themselves into a situation. They have no obligation to insert themselves into situations. The case in which it was ruled there was no legal duty to protect there were some wonen being raped in a home invasion while another was hiding. The hiding women called the cops. When they showed up she called out to them, revealing herself. The cops asked the home invaders if they were raping anyone but the home invaders cleverly said “no” which fooled the cops. The home invaders then abducted all the occupants. The women felt the police had failed them in that situation but the courts found that there is no duty to protect and therefore no failure to perform that duty. They’re also generally a proactive rather than reactive organization. They’re not an occupying force facing a hostile population, they’re not dealing with ambushes or IEDs or snipers. The police hold the initiative. They get to choose what to respond to a call with. How much to bring to a raid. What kind of raid to do. If there’s a fleeing car with a baby in it they get to choose whether to engage in a high speed chase in which they attempt to deliberately crash that car or whether to monitor it and show up after it stops. They get to choose whether they knock on a door and speak like reasonable people or whether they show up at 2am demanding compliance while shouting different orders. They get to choose whether to bring a bulldozer and tear down someone’s house because a fugitive won’t leave or whether just waiting a bit is better. The police basically lack every excuse available to the rest of us. The rest of us are typically acted upon and have to react as best we can without the benefit of training, equipment, preparation, and a militarized gang at our back. There’s not much room for choice in a purely reactionary scenario. The police have to explain their choices, why they felt the need to make a stop at the pet store and execute every puppy etc. There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat. If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next." I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing. Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be. The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier.
You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand.
Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn.
But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you?
|
On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 05:41 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I’m not sure I understand your point about police entering most confrontations on a voluntary basis. I would say the vast vast majority of confrontations that result in deadly force are from the police simply doing their job to protect the public. I would hope that the police have some duty to confront these threats and it’s not done on a voluntary basis. As has been pointed out, police largely choose whether to insert themselves into a situation. They have no obligation to insert themselves into situations. The case in which it was ruled there was no legal duty to protect there were some wonen being raped in a home invasion while another was hiding. The hiding women called the cops. When they showed up she called out to them, revealing herself. The cops asked the home invaders if they were raping anyone but the home invaders cleverly said “no” which fooled the cops. The home invaders then abducted all the occupants. The women felt the police had failed them in that situation but the courts found that there is no duty to protect and therefore no failure to perform that duty. They’re also generally a proactive rather than reactive organization. They’re not an occupying force facing a hostile population, they’re not dealing with ambushes or IEDs or snipers. The police hold the initiative. They get to choose what to respond to a call with. How much to bring to a raid. What kind of raid to do. If there’s a fleeing car with a baby in it they get to choose whether to engage in a high speed chase in which they attempt to deliberately crash that car or whether to monitor it and show up after it stops. They get to choose whether they knock on a door and speak like reasonable people or whether they show up at 2am demanding compliance while shouting different orders. They get to choose whether to bring a bulldozer and tear down someone’s house because a fugitive won’t leave or whether just waiting a bit is better. The police basically lack every excuse available to the rest of us. The rest of us are typically acted upon and have to react as best we can without the benefit of training, equipment, preparation, and a militarized gang at our back. There’s not much room for choice in a purely reactionary scenario. The police have to explain their choices, why they felt the need to make a stop at the pet store and execute every puppy etc. There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat. If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next." I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing. Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be. The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you?
I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker:
When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for.
A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand."
The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted.
|
United States41661 Posts
On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 05:41 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
As has been pointed out, police largely choose whether to insert themselves into a situation. They have no obligation to insert themselves into situations. The case in which it was ruled there was no legal duty to protect there were some wonen being raped in a home invasion while another was hiding. The hiding women called the cops. When they showed up she called out to them, revealing herself. The cops asked the home invaders if they were raping anyone but the home invaders cleverly said “no” which fooled the cops. The home invaders then abducted all the occupants. The women felt the police had failed them in that situation but the courts found that there is no duty to protect and therefore no failure to perform that duty.
They’re also generally a proactive rather than reactive organization. They’re not an occupying force facing a hostile population, they’re not dealing with ambushes or IEDs or snipers.
The police hold the initiative. They get to choose what to respond to a call with. How much to bring to a raid. What kind of raid to do. If there’s a fleeing car with a baby in it they get to choose whether to engage in a high speed chase in which they attempt to deliberately crash that car or whether to monitor it and show up after it stops. They get to choose whether they knock on a door and speak like reasonable people or whether they show up at 2am demanding compliance while shouting different orders. They get to choose whether to bring a bulldozer and tear down someone’s house because a fugitive won’t leave or whether just waiting a bit is better.
The police basically lack every excuse available to the rest of us. The rest of us are typically acted upon and have to react as best we can without the benefit of training, equipment, preparation, and a militarized gang at our back. There’s not much room for choice in a purely reactionary scenario. The police have to explain their choices, why they felt the need to make a stop at the pet store and execute every puppy etc. There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat. If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next." I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing. Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be. The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted.
But not convicted.
|
On May 21 2024 05:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat.
If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next."
I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing. Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be. The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted. But not convicted.
In retrospect they probably feel silly assembling a jury and going to court to determine the culpability of someone that, in your summation, was "allowed" do what he did in the first place.
|
United States41661 Posts
On May 21 2024 05:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 05:36 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be.
The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted. But not convicted. In retrospect they probably feel silly assembling a jury and going to court to determine the culpability of someone that, in your summation, was "allowed" do what he did in the first place.
Probably, but it’s apparently necessary to appease the people. We must go through this song and dance. They do something so heinous that people get all upset and so we do this performative bullshit before reinstating them with backpay (not a specific reference to the shooter of Castile). But it keeps on happening and nobody gets punished and nothing gets changed, if that’s not allowing it to continue then pick a better word.
|
On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them.
On May 21 2024 05:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 05:36 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be.
The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard. Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food. Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted. But not convicted. In retrospect they probably feel silly assembling a jury and going to court to determine the culpability of someone that, in your summation, was "allowed" do what he did in the first place.
Glad we have arrived at the conclusion that police in the US are indeed allowed to execute people for complying with them.
|
On May 21 2024 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 05:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:36 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 11:24 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food.
Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_WhitakerThat said there was actually another one just two weeks ago. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/us-airman-roger-fortson-killed-deputy-home-honored/story?id=110334642Too soon for that officer to be reinstated with back pay yet though. It’ll be a year before that officer gets their formal apology from the city for investigating them. I contend that a pizza delivery guy who spits in your food is still a more competent employee than a police officer who executes members of the public. If they could switch jobs I would support that. So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted. But not convicted. In retrospect they probably feel silly assembling a jury and going to court to determine the culpability of someone that, in your summation, was "allowed" do what he did in the first place. Glad we have arrived at the conclusion that police in the US are indeed allowed to execute people for complying with them.
I'm glad we arrived at that conclusion that being "allowed" to do something is where you are criminally prosecuted for doing it and risk going to prison. I guess we're all "allowed" to shoot people. Another instance of Kwark subverting the English language to make his argument.
|
On May 21 2024 06:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. On May 21 2024 05:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:36 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details? I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted. But not convicted. In retrospect they probably feel silly assembling a jury and going to court to determine the culpability of someone that, in your summation, was "allowed" do what he did in the first place. Glad we have arrived at the conclusion that police in the US are indeed allowed to execute people for complying with them. I'm glad we arrived at that conclusion that being "allowed" to do something is where you are criminally prosecuted for doing it and risk going to prison. I guess we're all "allowed" to shoot people. Another instance of Kwark subverting the English language to make his argument. But he wasn't convicted. If he was acquitted he was allowed to do what he did no?
And please, get technical about how an acquittal isn't an approval of his actions, the end result is still the same. US police get away with executing civilians.
|
On May 21 2024 06:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 06:14 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. On May 21 2024 05:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:36 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
So it appears in both examples you gave they were holding their gun in their hand and it was not holstered like you originally said. If the police are so overt in their murder of innocent civilians isn't it odd that you still feel compelled to embellish or make up details?
I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted. But not convicted. In retrospect they probably feel silly assembling a jury and going to court to determine the culpability of someone that, in your summation, was "allowed" do what he did in the first place. Glad we have arrived at the conclusion that police in the US are indeed allowed to execute people for complying with them. I'm glad we arrived at that conclusion that being "allowed" to do something is where you are criminally prosecuted for doing it and risk going to prison. I guess we're all "allowed" to shoot people. Another instance of Kwark subverting the English language to make his argument. But he wasn't convicted. If he was acquitted he was allowed to do what he did no? And please, get technical about how an acquittal isn't an approval of his actions, the end result is still the same. US police get away with executing civilians.
The officer that shot and killed Walter Scott for not complying is in the middle of a 20 year prison sentence. If police are allowed to do this when why is he in prison for it? He is one of probably hundreds convicted of something he is supposedly "allowed" to do.
Finding some cases where the cop was acquitted and trying to extrapolate it is as "police are allowed to execute people for not complying" is disingenuous at best. Execution is obviously also not the right word to describe an anxious cop that shot somebody because they were scared. This should go double for Kwark because I've seen him lecture other people that "words have meanings" and it's important to use the correct words but that's suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to him.
|
On May 21 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 06:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 21 2024 06:14 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. On May 21 2024 05:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:36 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:[quote] Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted. But not convicted. In retrospect they probably feel silly assembling a jury and going to court to determine the culpability of someone that, in your summation, was "allowed" do what he did in the first place. Glad we have arrived at the conclusion that police in the US are indeed allowed to execute people for complying with them. I'm glad we arrived at that conclusion that being "allowed" to do something is where you are criminally prosecuted for doing it and risk going to prison. I guess we're all "allowed" to shoot people. Another instance of Kwark subverting the English language to make his argument. But he wasn't convicted. If he was acquitted he was allowed to do what he did no? And please, get technical about how an acquittal isn't an approval of his actions, the end result is still the same. US police get away with executing civilians. The officer that shot and killed Walter Scott for not complying is in the middle of a 20 year prison sentence. If police are allowed to do this when why is he in prison for it? He is one of probably hundreds convicted of something he is supposedly "allowed" to do. Finding some cases where the cop was acquitted and trying to extrapolate it is as "police are allowed to execute people for not complying" is disingenuous at best. Execution is obviously also not the right word to describe an anxious cop that shot somebody because they were scared. This should go double for Kwark because I've seen him lecture other people that "words have meanings" and it's important to use the correct words but that's suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to him. One getting through is to many, and in the US its a lot more then one.
|
On May 21 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 06:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 21 2024 06:14 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2024 12:36 BlackJack wrote:
I don't think police are infallible and I think there are issues with their militarization and their inability to hold each other accountable. But it's lost in the fog when you make ridiculous hyperbolic posts, such as implying that the police are allowed to execute people for not complying with them. On May 21 2024 05:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:36 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:31 BlackJack wrote:On May 21 2024 05:13 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2024 05:03 BlackJack wrote:On May 20 2024 13:48 KwarK wrote:[quote] Btw the Whitaker one you can watch the bodycam footage. https://www.heraldnews.com/embed/video/5462912002/It doesn't show a great deal but the official narrative is that he dropped the gun before being shot twice in the back. It all happened extremely quickly though, the first officer yells "hands hands hands" as Whitaker falls to his knees raising his free hand and dropping his gun while the second officer opens fire. I don't think it's ridiculously hyperbolic to use that as an example. It wasn't holstered, it wasn't held at all. He followed the command of "hands" while surrendering. It didn't save his life. We've both seen the video. It is pretty obvious he was surrendering. When someone flings open a door with a gun in their hand and advances toward them, the 1.5 second decision they have to make might not be made as well as you or I watching the replay back from the safety of our homes. We both agree that, in hindsight, they probably wish they could take this one back. Or at least that's my opinion. You might think the police enjoy killing people if they can get away with it. It's just fundamentally inaccurate to frame this as police shooting someone with a holstered gun (a detail you completely made up) or police shooting an unarmed person because he might have dropped the gun 0.1 seconds earlier. You’re doing this weird thing where you’re acting like I’m describing that video as containing a holstered gun, even though I’m not using those words and am in fact using different words. The holstered gun was a separate thing I was describing. I didn’t have a video of one of those to hand. Philando Castile had a gun in the car and reported it proactively in an attempt to defuse any conflict resulting from it if that helps at all. Not held, not drawn. But the holstered comment wasn’t a reference to any specific event and so demanding that I provide the specific event isn’t getting anywhere and really isn’t any kind of gotcha. I gave the examples of police shootings that I had to hand and did not present them as anything other than what they are. You keep harping on this one point as if it’s intrinsic to what I was saying when it’s not even involved at this point. If I’m not arguing holstered in those examples then why are you? I asked you if you were citing a specific example of officers shooting someone with a holstered firearm and you replied with the link the Ryan Whitaker: When I ask for the example of someone with a holstered firearm getting shot and you reply simply with a hyperlink it implies that that's the example I was asking for. A more clear response would be "no, I don't have that specific example but here is another case where police shoot someone answering the door with a gun in their hand." The cop that shot Philando Castile was also criminally prosecuted. But not convicted. In retrospect they probably feel silly assembling a jury and going to court to determine the culpability of someone that, in your summation, was "allowed" do what he did in the first place. Glad we have arrived at the conclusion that police in the US are indeed allowed to execute people for complying with them. I'm glad we arrived at that conclusion that being "allowed" to do something is where you are criminally prosecuted for doing it and risk going to prison. I guess we're all "allowed" to shoot people. Another instance of Kwark subverting the English language to make his argument. But he wasn't convicted. If he was acquitted he was allowed to do what he did no? And please, get technical about how an acquittal isn't an approval of his actions, the end result is still the same. US police get away with executing civilians. The officer that shot and killed Walter Scott for not complying is in the middle of a 20 year prison sentence. If police are allowed to do this when why is he in prison for it? He is one of probably hundreds convicted of something he is supposedly "allowed" to do. Finding some cases where the cop was acquitted and trying to extrapolate it is as "police are allowed to execute people for not complying" is disingenuous at best. Execution is obviously also not the right word to describe an anxious cop that shot somebody because they were scared. This should go double for Kwark because I've seen him lecture other people that "words have meanings" and it's important to use the correct words but that's suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to him.
I agree that 'execute' is the wrong word. If you change 'execute people' to 'intentionally kill civilians' it's technically more correct given the examples, but certainly not much better.
In either case I do think 'allowed' is the correct word, though. It is not true that they are unanimously allowed without fear of reprisal, but it is true that they have been allowed to intentionally kill civilians in the past, and we can expect they will be allowed in the future. Every time? Not likely, but we're not dealing with a binary application of the word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
