Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/22/20 at 1:19 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Speaking of autism....
The most common trait of autism is calling for proper police training and independent oversite of what may be the single most important industry in a civilized society.
Reminds me of duck hunter with a "meat dawg"...one which "ain't really been trained but boy does it ever retrieve" and that same duck hunter screaming all day at the dog for breaking and flaring birds...and blaming it on the dog.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 1:29 pm to Whiznot
quote:
The police are victims of bad law that's not supported or respected by large segments of society. When I was a child in the 50s and early 60s the police in most cities were generally respected.
Police were as apt to violate the rights of an individual then as now. The difference was that even in big cities police knew the policed and the policed knew the police...so they saw one another as humans even when they disagreed. Now they see one another as enemy combatants because minor offenses that were dealt with in the past by simply being around now result into acceptance into the private penal industry where profits are based on the number of people incarcerated and their lives made infinitely more difficult in the process....thus ensuring they return to their "finishing school" to continue their "education".
There is abundant video evidence of cops willfully violating the law and the rights of citizens to "investigate crimes" such as looking suspicious or being in a high crime area. The number of times it happens is not shocking but the video evidence of other cops watching it happen without intervening is indicative of a massive failing on the part of police in the US to first and foremost police themselves....and given that the only independent oversight is that which the press can provide, a press driven by profit and schedule, or that which an individual can perform from afar that failing is proving to be catastrophic....
Posted on 9/22/20 at 1:34 pm to FaCubeItches
quote:
quote:
The job of a cop is much more dangerous than it used to be. The drug war and the proliferation of semi automatic weapons increased the danger.
We respectfully disagree.
- Prohibition and Gangster Era police
Neither is as dangerous as working as a construction laborer or a high voltage linemen. 99% of the work cops do could be done without a pistol...most cops work an entire career without ever needing a pistol. It is not necessary to have a pistol for two adult men, well trained, to have the information they need from a man passed out at Wendy's after 30-45 minutes of discussion when that drunk fool runs off in the night. If the idea is to protect and serve or build communities and not to make as many arrests as possible you do not need a pistol.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 1:38 pm to FooManChoo
You are amazing.
The video was released by the police. If they had video that made cops look good that video would be released.
All I need to see is video of a child who has committed no offense running away while cops fire 11 shots hitting the child multiple times.
The video was released by the police. If they had video that made cops look good that video would be released.
All I need to see is video of a child who has committed no offense running away while cops fire 11 shots hitting the child multiple times.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 1:45 pm to Gtmodawg
quote:
man passed out at Wendy's after 30-45 minutes of discussion when [................] that drunk fool runs off in the night.
You kinda sorta glossed over a teency weency little thing that should go in the brackets above.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 1:48 pm to Gtmodawg
quote:Yes.
Is it irrelevant whether or not the officers were asked to deal with an autistic person and were not properly trained in how to do so, even to the point of debating if they shouldn't call a superior officer and ask for direction, which was part of the conversation prior to interaction?
Here is why: if the officers believed he had a firearm and was a threat to use it against them during the encounter, then using lethal force was justified. Whether he was autistic or not doesn't make him less dangerous if he was believed to have a gun. In the video, he was told to show his hands after he was shot. The obvious reason is that they wanted to know if he was holding the firearm that they suspected he had. If he was, then he'd still be considered a dangerous threat since he was still alive and moving.
quote:My entire point initially was that I want to wait until more information is released. We know very little about what went down and the video that was released only shows the short foot chase and the shots fired. I read where there was suspicion that the kid was armed and the response of the officers seems to indicate that. That changes the entire nature of the discussion.
This would be seen in any industry worth its salt as either a lack of proper training for the task at hand OR a chilled environment where questions from underlings to superiors is seen as a roadblock to efficiency. Or both. What this does not indicate is these officers had the tools they needed to perform properly and that is not their fault.
This post was edited on 9/22/20 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 9/22/20 at 1:54 pm to Gtmodawg
quote:Did you consider that it may be that the officers have guns that prevent further lethal engagements? What do you think would happen to your standard police officer patrolling in a crime-ridden part of town if everyone knew they weren't armed? Do you think lethal engagements would rise, fall, or stay the same? Please explain your answer.
Neither is as dangerous as working as a construction laborer or a high voltage linemen. 99% of the work cops do could be done without a pistol...most cops work an entire career without ever needing a pistol.
quote:The "drunk fool" resisted arrest, assaulted the officers, and stole a taser before running off.
It is not necessary to have a pistol for two adult men, well trained, to have the information they need from a man passed out at Wendy's after 30-45 minutes of discussion when that drunk fool runs off in the night. If the idea is to protect and serve or build communities and not to make as many arrests as possible you do not need a pistol.
I hate to break it to you, but people don't want to be arrested. People on parole or who have warrants out for their arrest especially don't. Almost all of these high-profile cases that have caused riots and protesting in the streets this summer involved a suspect resisting arrest. If they will resist arrest when they know an officer has a gun, what do you think they'll do if they think they can "subdue" (kill or maim) an unarmed officer?
This post was edited on 9/22/20 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 9/22/20 at 1:57 pm to Gtmodawg
quote:
If the idea is to protect and serve or build communities and not to make as many arrests as possible you do not need a pistol
This is unbelievably stupid. If police are called to armed robberies or domestic disputes, which often involves a criminal who is so high that they feel no pain, are they just supposed to offer the criminals a few lollipops and ask them nicely to stop?
quote:
It is not necessary to have a pistol for two adult men, well trained, to have the information they need from a man passed out at Wendy's after 30-45 minutes of discussion when that drunk fool runs off in the night
You're conveniently leaving out the part where he was out on parole for child abuse, and also leaving out that he was so fricked up that he was able to take the officer's taser and shoot it at them.
He was a danger to society and needed to be stopped by any means necessary.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 2:00 pm to Whiznot
quote:The video was edited by the Salt Lake Tribune. It's right there at the intro to the video when you press the Play button. Whether the ~20 second clip is all that they received or not, that's the only video I've seen, and I doubt the camera suddenly got turned on in the middle of the foot chase. That tells me there is more video that hasn't been released. That's the video I want to see. I want to see the full picture (transcripts and video as well as 911 call and depositions) before jumping to conclusions, which I did after watching the George Floyd footage.
The video was released by the police. If they had video that made cops look good that video would be released.
quote:Then you don't care about truth, do you? I'm surprised you haven't learned your lesson from the Floyd or Blake videos or any number of the incidents that have been captured on film that do not tell the full story.
All I need to see is video of a child who has committed no offense running away while cops fire 11 shots hitting the child multiple times.
This post was edited on 9/22/20 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 9/22/20 at 2:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
if the officers believed he had a firearm and was a threat to use it against them during the encounter, then using lethal force was justified.
That’s where you are wrong. Subjective belief is not enough, and it creates an effective get-out-of-jail free card, because all a police has to do is say “I thought he had a gun and that he was a threat.” There has to be an objective, articulable demonstration of hostile intent and confirmation that a firearm exists.
If the belief that someone had a gun and there is a possibility it might be used against you is the standard, then it seems like we wasted a lot money and lives in Afghanistan when could have just nuked the whole country. They ALL have guns, and there is always a possibility they were going to shoot American service members. And yet we didn’t nuke them and we don’t gun down Afghans just because we get scared. You can’t protect and serve the public if you gun the public down on a hunch that turns out not to be true.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 2:30 pm to baconwaffle
quote:I didn't say that anyone can say they were afraid and that would be the end of it. There has to be a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. That's the standard for justified lethal force as self-defense.
That’s where you are wrong. Subjective belief is not enough, and it creates an effective get-out-of-jail free card, because all a police has to do is say “I thought he had a gun and that he was a threat.” There has to be an objective, articulable demonstration of hostile intent and confirmation that a firearm exists.
If the officers truly believed he was armed and dangerous (calling to him to show them his hands after he was downed seems to lend credence to that) then they are justified in using lethal force.
It's the same argument used against shooting someone with a toy gun. Hindsight bias tends to take over in those situations and people will condemn a shooting of someone with a toy after the fact, but when you're in the heat of the moment and you can't tell if something that is obviously a gun is a toy or the real deal, there can be a real fear for your life at that time, making the shooting justified. The same principle applies here.
quote:War is not the same as law enforcement, though there are elements in both that overlap, including the need to use force to preserve peace and limit the loss of more lives. I won't get in to all the ways the comparison is bad. I'll just say that it's not simply a belief that someone has a gun that allows officers to use deadly force. There needs to be a reasonable fear of a grave and imminent threat to life and limb.
If the belief that someone had a gun and there is a possibility it might be used against you is the standard, then it seems like we wasted a lot money and lives in Afghanistan when could have just nuked the whole country. They ALL have guns, and there is always a possibility they were going to shoot American service members. And yet we didn’t nuke them and we don’t gun down Afghans just because we get scared.
A law-abiding concealed carry holder doesn't have a lot of fear of getting shot by police because simply having a gun on their person isn't enough (usually) to warrant lethal force. If they provide notice that they have a gun and comply with commands of the police for disarming or acting in a way that minimizes risk to the officers, the interaction typically goes well. The issue, again, is about reasonable fear, which is why most of the high-profile shootings this summer involved people resisting arrest and not complying. There's a difference between someone with a gun who is following commands of the police and someone with a gun who is actively running or resisting.
quote:I agree with you, however that isn't typically the case. The standard isn't a "hunch". It's a reasonable fear for life and limb.
You can’t protect and serve the public if you gun the public down on a hunch that turns out not to be true.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 4:58 pm to FooManChoo
Cops can't reasonably claim that they were afraid of a child who is running away from them. Cops know that they have to yell as if they had reasonable fear. The child was unarmed.
Cops yell "stop resisting" while they are beating the crap out of someone who is just trying to ward off blows.
Cops yell "stop resisting" while they are beating the crap out of someone who is just trying to ward off blows.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 5:28 pm to Whiznot
quote:From the article you posted:
Cops can't reasonably claim that they were afraid of a child who is running away from them. Cops know that they have to yell as if they had reasonable fear. The child was unarmed.
What the footage shows is a distraught mother, unsure of how to get her son to the medical facility that would be covered by their insurance and who didn’t believe her son had a weapon but wasn’t certain.
Also:
Barton told the dispatcher that Linden has led police on a chase before and had been in “a shootout” with a police agency in Nevada. She said that her son had showed an employee of hers a fake gun the previous day, and told the officers who arrived that he might have that gun with him.
quote:According to the link you provided, the cops had reason to suspect him having a gun. It doesn’t smell of a ruse to enable the officers to get their jollies killing a kid.
Cops yell "stop resisting" while they are beating the crap out of someone who is just trying to ward off blows.
This post was edited on 9/22/20 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 9/22/20 at 5:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Did you consider that it may be that the officers have guns that prevent further lethal engagements? What do you think would happen to your standard police officer patrolling in a crime-ridden part of town if everyone knew they weren't armed? Do you think lethal engagements would rise, fall, or stay the same? Please explain your answer.
Is patrolling in a crime ridden neighborhood what police do 99% of the time? From what I have seen they spend a lot of time policing traffic, moving vagrants and mentally unstable people away from private property. Neither of these require a gun. Patrolling crime ridden neighborhoods never happens for most cops in the US. Even in urban areas the amount of time they spend patrolling crime ridden areas is a small part of what they do...and when they do there are many who do so for years and never draw their weapon. Even hard criminals know it is a bad idea to kill a cop because it will bring down the wrath of god on their head. If they think they can escape with running or fighting only they will...but if the cop is armed the thug has to be armed to continue thugging. It simply is not necessary to be armed at all times. Paramedics go into the same neighborhoods, they ain't armed. Maintenance workers, trash collectors, all sorts of people roam those neighborhoods and aren't armed....the only people who feel they have to be armed in that neighborhood is a cop because they know there only role in the neighborhood is to make arrests, something criminals are opposed to....but the cops presence, without a gun, will lower crime rates...hell a camera will. It is simply not necessary for them to be armed 99% of the time they are doing their job and it leads to as much danger as it prevents.
If stopping crime is the goal arrests are only one element. SImply being present will do as much. If a would be criminal is fleeing from the police they have stopped crime. We need to stop measuring the success of police by the number of arrests they make and place an emphasis on preventing crime in the first place. Criminals know now that cops are armed...crime is pretty high. Apparently criminals are not overly concerned with cops being armed or not. An arrest can only be made after someone has been victimized. We would be better served preventing the crime in the first place.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 6:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I hate to break it to you, but people don't want to be arrested. People on parole or who have warrants out for their arrest especially don't. Almost all of these high-profile cases that have caused riots and protesting in the streets this summer involved a suspect resisting arrest. If they will resist arrest when they know an officer has a gun, what do you think they'll do if they think they can "subdue" (kill or maim) an unarmed officer?
Many would simply run off if they did not know they would be shot if they did...knowing that they will be killed if they do they choose to attempt to kill or maim the police to escape. This is exactly why Mexican cartels are so dangerous because in Mexico there ain't no court date...police execute people on site. Drug dealers know this so they do not get arrested...they shoot it out and are willing to visit all sorts of ill shite on the families of cops if they can't kill the cop.
So heres the scenario you are describing. The cop pulls someone over for a traffic violation. Lets say a blown stop sign. The driver knows he has a warrant. The cop is armed. IN our current world the driver knows the cop is going to run him to see if he is wanted for any serious crimes. The situation is escalated in this rare set of circumstances and the driver knows it and the cop, if he is going to survive, has to treat ALL similar situations in the exact same manner or be surprised when the driver acts on his knowledge of the escalation of the situation....but the crime the cop at the moment is investigating is a traffic violation. His "running" the driver is the source of the escalation....when good old fashioned police work, asking questions, knocking on doors etc. lead to more arrests than running people at traffic violations. Just write the citation for the violation being investigated at this time. Don't run the driver. This can be done WITHOUT the cop being armed and only a true madman would run in this scenario....but that is only if the idea is to make citizens safer. If the idea is to arrest and incarcerate citizens, by all means, run 'em and shoot it with them and have cities burned and property destroyed.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 6:17 pm to VADawg
quote:
quote:
If the idea is to protect and serve or build communities and not to make as many arrests as possible you do not need a pistol
This is unbelievably stupid. If police are called to armed robberies or domestic disputes, which often involves a criminal who is so high that they feel no pain, are they just supposed to offer the criminals a few lollipops and ask them nicely to stop?
Then they should repaint their cars and tell the truth...it aint about protecting and serving or building communities etc it is about making arrests, period. Thats where we are and things are great...why change anything?
It would be far more likely IF people who live and work in crime ridden areas TRUSTED the police that they would help police more often...and the vast majority of people in these areas are not criminals than need to be arrested...they may find themselves drunk in public or blowing through a stop sign but that doesn't necessitate an arrest or even a fine and very seldom ever does result in either. It is far more plausible to expect trust to build as people see that cops are in their area to protect and serve, not simply to make arrests. That trust would do far more to protect the lives of police and reduce crime than a cop being armed during a traffic stop. Most people are not violent and will not react violently. These are the people cops interact most of the time. These people do not need to be reminded that the cop can take their freedom anytime they choose...that is a given. But taking their lives is another can of worms....any animal will strike back if they fear for their life...and cops, citizens and criminals are all animals.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 6:23 pm to VADawg
quote:
You're conveniently leaving out the part where he was out on parole for child abuse, and also leaving out that he was so fricked up that he was able to take the officer's taser and shoot it at them.
He was a danger to society and needed to be stopped by any means necessary.
So lets say he jumps in the police car and heads off at high and the police follow...at high speed...and the frickhead runs through a school bus stop killing 35 children. Any means necessary??? Come on man....surely no one believes that? Why not have armed drones and fighter jets and call in a fricking airstrike and level the area??? ANy means necessary. frick me.
After 45 minutes of discussion, having the car and the idiots driving license they knew where he was headed. Most likely directly from the scene but certainly within a few hours....
If they truly thought that he was dangerous during that 45 minutes why isn't the area CRAWLING with police??? Hell one drunk driver pissing on the side of the road usually results in 7 or 8 cars showing up. It is simply poor training and horrible policy and resulted in one person being killed, 2 policemen fighting for their careers and a city seeing property destroyed. Any means necessary....
Posted on 9/22/20 at 7:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
War is not the same as law enforcement
You’re right, but you seem to be OK with the fact that we treat literal enemies who want to kill us better than we treat our own black citizens at home. If anything, that should be reversed.
quote:
A law-abiding concealed carry holder doesn't have a lot of fear of getting shot by police because simply having a gun on their person
Philando Castille.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 9:09 pm to Gtmodawg
quote:Officers respond to calls all the time. While patrolling, they may witness a crime in progress.
Is patrolling in a crime ridden neighborhood what police do 99% of the time? From what I have seen they spend a lot of time policing traffic, moving vagrants and mentally unstable people away from private property. Neither of these require a gun.
Ever seen videos of police officers being shot at during routine traffic stops? What makes you think that firearms are not necessary for self-defense? Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
quote:Firearms are used to protect the lives of innocents, protect the lives of the officers, and to stop armed dangerous criminals who pose a threat to society if they get away. Most people will never use a seat belt to save their lives in a car crash, but those who who need them sure are thankful that they are there.
Patrolling crime ridden neighborhoods never happens for most cops in the US. Even in urban areas the amount of time they spend patrolling crime ridden areas is a small part of what they do...and when they do there are many who do so for years and never draw their weapon.
quote:Not all people think it's a bad idea to kill cops. We have an entire movement occurring right now that uses slogans about killing cops. Also, why do you think criminals are always "thinking" when they attack cops. I'd imagine that most of the time it's merely a survival instinct not to get caught and go to jail.
Even hard criminals know it is a bad idea to kill a cop because it will bring down the wrath of god on their head.
quote:Are you operating under the belief that these "thugs" are innocent and aren't deserving to pay for the crimes that they've perpetrated? It seems like you think that justice should only be done if the cops can win the arrest game not using lethal force. If the perp gets away, he earned his freedom. Is that what you're implying?
If they think they can escape with running or fighting only they will...but if the cop is armed the thug has to be armed to continue thugging.
quote:You're right, however since officers cannot possibly know when they do and don't need to be armed, they need to always be ready to stop a threat with lethal force. It's easy to look at the statistics and say that most officers don't use their firearms so therefore none of them need to. That's not reality, though. You could just as easily say that I likely won't ever need to use a firearm to protect myself or my family so therefore I shouldn't own one, but there are enough people that become victims of violent crimes to warrant me being prepared in case the unlikely occurs. As they say, I'd rather have a gun and not need one than need a gun and not have one. The police feel the same way.
It simply is not necessary to be armed at all times.
quote:Yeah, but they are usually accompanied by police.
Paramedics go into the same neighborhoods, they ain't armed.
quote:True, and yet many of them carry concealed firearms to protect themselves due to working in high-crime areas.
Maintenance workers, trash collectors, all sorts of people roam those neighborhoods and aren't armed....
quote:Uh yeah. Criminals don't want to receive justice because it usually turns out badly for them. Law enforcement are there to enforce the laws and bring criminals to justice. They are met with hostility by those who don't want to be caught and that hostility may come in the form of violent attacks. It seems you're admitting here that cops have a greater reason to expect violence than others.
the only people who feel they have to be armed in that neighborhood is a cop because they know there only role in the neighborhood is to make arrests, something criminals are opposed to....
quote:LOL what? The lack of police presence will lower crime? The lack of armed police officers will lower crime? Where's your evidence for this? Are you suggesting that the existence of armed police officers is why crime is so bad in certain cities in this country? Also, what about cameras? Why would cameras do anything if there are no armed police to arrest law-breakers caught on camera?
but the cops presence, without a gun, will lower crime rates...hell a camera will.
quote:If criminals comply, then it doesn't matter if an arresting officer is armed or not because they wouldn't need to use any sort of force (lethal or non-lethal) to assist in the apprehension and arrest of suspected criminals.
It is simply not necessary for them to be armed 99% of the time they are doing their job and it leads to as much danger as it prevents.
quote:What? No. Crimes are committed in front of officers all the time. Officers are a deterrent because they have the force to produce an arrest. If they were unarmed, there would be a lot more people fleeing and expecting to get away.
If stopping crime is the goal arrests are only one element. SImply being present will do as much.
quote:I'm curious if you're in favor of defunding the police because those people make this type of argument while not realizing that defunded police produces fewer officers to patrol and prevent crime. Even so, officers can't be everywhere at once so they prevent very little crime. They aren't there to prevent crime but to apprehend those who commit crimes to bring them to justice.
If a would be criminal is fleeing from the police they have stopped crime.
And why would someone run from a cop prior to committing a crime?
quote:Impossible. Police don't exist to prevent crime. They exist to bring law-breakers to justice after a crime has been committed. It is the consistent enforcement of the law that leads to prevention as people weigh the benefit of committing a crime against the cost of being arrested for it.
We need to stop measuring the success of police by the number of arrests they make and place an emphasis on preventing crime in the first place. Criminals know now that cops are armed...crime is pretty high. Apparently criminals are not overly concerned with cops being armed or not. An arrest can only be made after someone has been victimized. We would be better served preventing the crime in the first place.
Page 3 of 4
Latest Georgia News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News