I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
And some people resist because they're terrified they'll be killed. Because they knew people who were shot when they weren't doing anything, but the cops thought they might. So instead of the patronizing 'do what the cops tell you' talk, maybe consider what the other person's experience has been with police their whole life.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win. In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
That is utterly preposterous! Batshit crazy even.
If you fit the description of someone who commits a crime, you lose your constitutional rights??? Fucking insane.
Come on, use a little common sense. I think your comment was a stretch on what Thirty had said. No one ever said if you match a description of a someone who committed a crime police have the right to shoot you. I believe he a was talking about a known violent criminal who has known intentions of hurting and killing others. These would be pretty rare examples. Like the 2 guys who escaped from the NY prison about a year ago. They were already convicted with violent murders and was known they were killing to kill again. Or a couple of years ago when one guy declared he was going to kill any cop he sees and had a kill list that included judges and their family members. He did kill several of them, including an innocent wife or daughter of someone on his list. I forget the details, but I think he was an ex-cop. That doesn't mean anyone who looks kind of like them is going to get shot. It means when you confront that individual and he fleas, then you need to stop that threat because you know his armed and dangerous and his only intentions are to kill as many people as he can before he is killed. That is completely reasonable. They don't just go shoot someone matching his description, they get several witnesses to positively ID the person along with whatever special forces are involved. And if you don't, you are choosing to trade this scumbag's life for the dozen other people he is going to kill after. He made his choice, the innocent people he intends to kill didn't chose that.
Do you have any idea how many police abuse complaints begin with the police "questioning" someone who "matches the description" of a violent criminal? Everyone can agree on the most cut and dry cases, but the police can't be given permission to perform extra-judicial executions simply because their authority is challenged.
You may think I am stretching Thirty's words, but you may also not be as familiar with Thirty's posts on the topic, where he very regularly waives suspects' due process rights whenever they question the authority of police, even if only verbally.
No. Wrong. Wtf is with you today?
People are entitled to due process. However, this doesn't mean they get to decide how their detainment or arrest will proceed. Especially when they decide to escalate things and make it physical or even become difficult.
Mace... you may not be familiar with RG's posts on the topic, but to give you an idea where he is coming from... I kid you not... he suggested to me that in a situation where a knife wielding maniac charged two officers... they should have got in their cars and waited for the guy to chill out before shooting him. No shit.
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
There you go. Shift the focus. Don't hold police accountable for letting a dog tear into the face of a man who is complying, shift the focus to the fact that he is suspected of a crime.
Cops shot and killed a guy wielding a machete at Colorado University today. Full details have yet to be disclosed.
I'm pretty sure one of the comments below the story I was reading was a 10C member. It was in the form of a question and it read something like this: why couldn't they have just shot the machete out of his hands?
I didn't read many more of the comments, but I'm sure there would have been some suggesting the cops lock themselves in a room and try to talk to the lunatic through a door where they couldn't get hacked... maybe tell him to chill out or something. I dunno.
I do think that cops could aim for the leg more often... at least when there is some amount of space between the cop and the criminal. Yeah, if he was only a few meters away or whatever, they don't have time for that shit, but if he's farther away than that, shoot his damn leg or ass or even the stomach or something. I will always support cops doing their best, whenever possible, to avoid killing someone when they fire their guns. As far as I can tell, they are trained to shoot to kill no matter what. I think that's kind of shitty. Yes, I'm aware of the agruements for doing that. I just don't think they're very good arguments.
They are trained to "shoot to stop". Just like in concealed carry class, you are trained to stop the threat, not kill the person and not to maim the person. That being said, you are also trained to shoot for the center mass as it prevents the likelihood of a stray bullet hitting someone else, resulting in negligent homicide or manslaughter charges. Center mass is the largest target, and unfortunately carries many vital organs. That being said, there have been plenty of incidents of people bleeding out quickly from leg injuries, so that is not necessarily a "safe place" for police to aim.
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
And some people resist because they're terrified they'll be killed. Because they knew people who were shot when they weren't doing anything, but the cops thought they might. So instead of the patronizing 'do what the cops tell you' talk, maybe consider what the other person's experience has been with police their whole life.
You're going to get another geezuz right now.
People shot not even doing anything because the cops thought they might?
And how about the cop's perspective? Do you think they don't have personal experience with these things gone badly for officers that makes them guarded?
If you don't know to listen to the police when you encounter them... you haven't been taught very well. Mind you... with the recent movements... it's little wonder why people are a little more brazen at the point of contact.
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
There you go. Shift the focus. Don't hold police accountable for letting a dog tear into the face of a man who is complying, shift the focus to the fact that he is suspected of a crime.
You must have missed the part where I acknowledged that of course there are cases of police abuse?
You only hear what you want to hear, RG. You consistently fail to read and understand anything contrary to your extreme opinion. I've always said there are cases of clear cut abuse and in these cases, cops should be held accountable. The problem is that people like you think every case where an officer uses force is abuse.
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
There you go. Shift the focus. Don't hold police accountable for letting a dog tear into the face of a man who is complying, shift the focus to the fact that he is suspected of a crime.
You must have missed the part where I acknowledged that of course there are cases of police abuse?
You only hear what you want to hear, RG. You consistently fail to read and understand anything contrary to your extreme opinion. I've always said there are cases of clear cut abuse and in these cases, cops should be held accountable. The problem is that people like you think every case where an officer uses force is abuse.
I didn't miss anything and I don't think every use of force is abuse.
You say police should be held accountable but you immediately move to shift the blame. You, and those in your camp, create a culture of submission that dismisses abuse. Even in cases of clear cut abuse you can't help but shift some of the blame to the suspect.
No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away! If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it. No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
If police officer's are trained by this super duper philosohy they are risking their life, partners life, and citizens. The #1 goal of any first responder is to get home safe...period!! Judged by 12 then carried by 6. I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away! If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it. No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
If police officer's are trained by this super duper philosohy they are risking their life, partners life, and citizens. The #1 goal of any first responder is to get home safe...period!! Judged by 12 then carried by 6. I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
And some people resist because they're terrified they'll be killed. Because they knew people who were shot when they weren't doing anything, but the cops thought they might. So instead of the patronizing 'do what the cops tell you' talk, maybe consider what the other person's experience has been with police their whole life.
You're going to get another geezuz right now.
People shot not even doing anything because the cops thought they might?
And how about the cop's perspective? Do you think they don't have personal experience with these things gone badly for officers that makes them guarded?
If you don't know to listen to the police when you encounter them... you haven't been taught very well. Mind you... with the recent movements... it's little wonder why people are a little more brazen at the point of contact.
Yes, shot for reaching into their pocket to get their ID, etc. It sounds like you don't have a lot of awareness of how other groups have experienced police. There's several memoirs that are a good read. And yes, many black parents have to repeatedly practice with their kids what to say and how to react to police. It's pretty sad. Not sure about you, but as a white kid, I didn't have to do this.
It is you who holds the double standard, accountability for the suspect and none for the officer.
You must have missed where I said this:
You only hear what you want to hear, RG. You consistently fail to read and understand anything contrary to your extreme opinion. I've always said there are cases of clear cut abuse and in these cases, cops should be held accountable. The problem is that people like you think every case where an officer uses force is abuse.
It is you who holds the double standard, accountability for the suspect and none for the officer.
You must have missed where I said this:
You only hear what you want to hear, RG. You consistently fail to read and understand anything contrary to your extreme opinion. I've always said there are cases of clear cut abuse and in these cases, cops should be held accountable. The problem is that people like you think every case where an officer uses force is abuse.
It is you who holds the double standard, accountability for the suspect and none for the officer.
You must have missed where I said this:
You only hear what you want to hear, RG. You consistently fail to read and understand anything contrary to your extreme opinion. I've always said there are cases of clear cut abuse and in these cases, cops should be held accountable. The problem is that people like you think every case where an officer uses force is abuse.
Everything else you say contradicts with, distracts from, or confuses the issue with that statement.
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
And some people resist because they're terrified they'll be killed. Because they knew people who were shot when they weren't doing anything, but the cops thought they might. So instead of the patronizing 'do what the cops tell you' talk, maybe consider what the other person's experience has been with police their whole life.
You're going to get another geezuz right now.
People shot not even doing anything because the cops thought they might?
And how about the cop's perspective? Do you think they don't have personal experience with these things gone badly for officers that makes them guarded?
If you don't know to listen to the police when you encounter them... you haven't been taught very well. Mind you... with the recent movements... it's little wonder why people are a little more brazen at the point of contact.
Yes, shot for reaching into their pocket to get their ID, etc. It sounds like you don't have a lot of awareness of how other groups have experienced police. There's several memoirs that are a good read. And yes, many black parents have to repeatedly practice with their kids what to say and how to react to police. It's pretty sad. Not sure about you, but as a white kid, I didn't have to do this.
There have been cases as you describe and that is an awful situation.
I too am lucky given I was born into circumstances that promote success.
It is you who holds the double standard, accountability for the suspect and none for the officer.
You must have missed where I said this:
You only hear what you want to hear, RG. You consistently fail to read and understand anything contrary to your extreme opinion. I've always said there are cases of clear cut abuse and in these cases, cops should be held accountable. The problem is that people like you think every case where an officer uses force is abuse.
Everything else you say contradicts with, distracts from, or confuses the issue with that statement.
Yah.
You're wrong. I've been consistent the entire course of this topic.
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
And some people resist because they're terrified they'll be killed. Because they knew people who were shot when they weren't doing anything, but the cops thought they might. So instead of the patronizing 'do what the cops tell you' talk, maybe consider what the other person's experience has been with police their whole life.
You're going to get another geezuz right now.
People shot not even doing anything because the cops thought they might?
And how about the cop's perspective? Do you think they don't have personal experience with these things gone badly for officers that makes them guarded?
If you don't know to listen to the police when you encounter them... you haven't been taught very well. Mind you... with the recent movements... it's little wonder why people are a little more brazen at the point of contact.
Yes, shot for reaching into their pocket to get their ID, etc. It sounds like you don't have a lot of awareness of how other groups have experienced police. There's several memoirs that are a good read. And yes, many black parents have to repeatedly practice with their kids what to say and how to react to police. It's pretty sad. Not sure about you, but as a white kid, I didn't have to do this.
Ya, well you were probably told to respect your elders and if you are in a situation with the Police FOLLOW their Commands and don't behave like a shithead...there is No Fucking way a Black Panther will tell their Children the Second part and only the first part if the flavor is right.
No one has said give the cops the right to perform executions. No where. Maybe there are previous discussions I am unaware of that I don't agree with, but this comment seems reasonable.
I do know some complaints are a result of questioning. But come on, if the cops get a call about a burglary, and they see someone on the street that matches the description they should question him. Question him doesn't mean arrest him and beat him up, but ask him where's he's coming from, where he's going to, what his name is and so on. Completely reasonable and within the law to question him. Actually happened to me about a month ago. Was working in my front yard, police got a call for something down the street and they came and questioned me. I showed them my ID that proved I lived there, they asked me where I worked and a couple other questions and went on their way. Really wasn't a big deal at all. How differently would that have turned out if I refused to cooperate? I would only be making it more difficult for everyone. Examples of "well this person complied and was shot, so now they fear the same." Do you realize how extremely rare that is? Essentially every case that happens makes the news, out of millions and millions of stops and arrests it happens just a few times a year. More police get killed that innocent people following police orders. So yes it does happen, about one out of every million stops it does happen. But all cops are now labeled as racist pigs as a result.
I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem. Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power? Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
I'm anticipating a flurry of comments commending her for her bravery and outstanding police work (better her near death than some violent scumbag dead).
Maybe it's true, maybe she is trying to spin the situation so she doesn't look bad and gets some sympathy for failing to control the situation. Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well.
I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem. Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power? Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
Tell me when you have ever been even remotely close to the middle?
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light.
Maybe it's true, maybe she is trying to spin the situation so she doesn't look bad and gets some sympathy for failing to control the situation. Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well.
Maybe it's true, maybe she is trying to spin the situation so she doesn't look bad and gets some sympathy for failing to control the situation. Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well.
WRONG!!!! Nice try....a perfect example of the thought process of one with the incurable disease.
This horrible situation will be happening more around the country unfortunately. Any many people are smiling and feeling real good about it...
I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem. Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power? Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
Tell me when you have ever been even remotely close to the middle?
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light.
Most of the cases we discuss are pretty controversial, and I don't view such complicated matters in a binary, right or wrong, kind of way. It's always degrees and shades. I was against the officer ordering Bland out of her vehicle for sassing him, but when she violently resisted arrest, he did what he had to do. I definitely think there was at least one case that I thought was cut and dry, not abuse, but I don't remember for sure.
I am usually less concerned with the big headline shootings and more concerned with the minor abuses that occur much more frequently and create the environment for the larger ones to occur. The cops who smack people around for mouthing off and stuff like that. I honestly think you would be shocked Thirty at how much that happens if you were to consume media that chronicles those "minor" abuses.
Maybe it's true, maybe she is trying to spin the situation so she doesn't look bad and gets some sympathy for failing to control the situation. Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well.
Of course you'd want to think the worst of her.
I'm juat keeping possibilities open. I don't take people at their word simply because of the clothes they wear to work. Every profession has CYA procedures, when I worked intimately with surgeons and anesthesiologists I saw them contive CYA lies remarkably similar to this story with regularity.
No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away! If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it. No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
If police officer's are trained by this super duper philosohy they are risking their life, partners life, and citizens. The #1 goal of any first responder is to get home safe...period!! Judged by 12 then carried by 6. I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
Vastly different situation, but how about the 9/11 first responders? Was their #1 goal to get home alive or save people? Honest question
Edit: I am actually kind of disturbed by this philosophy. First responders (for the most part) work for the government to serve the people. Now I obviously completely agree that all first responders should be extremely concerned with their well being, but what if that was a solider who said something like that. What if that was a marine who said, hey, I may have broken the law and committed war crimes but all I was concerned with was getting home. That is not acceptable, so why would it be acceptable for police. You chose a profession where you may not go home at the end of the day, and I am incredibly grateful for it, but as part of your duty, you are expected to be better under pressure than an average person and put your life on the line because that is what you chose to do. As awful as that is to say, it is true.
I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem. Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power? Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
Tell me when you have ever been even remotely close to the middle?
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light.
Most of the cases we discuss are pretty controversial, and I don't view such complicated matters in a binary, right or wrong, kind of way. It's always degrees and shades. I was against the officer ordering Bland out of her vehicle for sassing him, but when she violently resisted arrest, he did what he had to do. I definitely think there was at least one case that I thought was cut and dry, not abuse, but I don't remember for sure.
I am usually less concerned with the big headline shootings and more concerned with the minor abuses that occur much more frequently and create the environment for the larger ones to occur. The cops who smack people around for mouthing off and stuff like that. I honestly think you would be shocked Thirty at how much that happens if you were to consume media that chronicles those "minor" abuses.
I'm not so obtuse that I can't imagine the minor offences you speak of presenting themselves in various situations.
I don't condone those types of behaviours, but at the same time... I don't get behind obnoxious behaviour that disrespects police, baristas, bank tellers, or people on the street. If you're lippy and you get denied service or even smacked... why would you be surprised?
Comments
People are entitled to due process. However, this doesn't mean they get to decide how their detainment or arrest will proceed. Especially when they decide to escalate things and make it physical or even become difficult.
Mace... you may not be familiar with RG's posts on the topic, but to give you an idea where he is coming from... I kid you not... he suggested to me that in a situation where a knife wielding maniac charged two officers... they should have got in their cars and waited for the guy to chill out before shooting him. No shit.
Shift the focus.
Don't hold police accountable for letting a dog tear into the face of a man who is complying, shift the focus to the fact that he is suspected of a crime.
People shot not even doing anything because the cops thought they might?
And how about the cop's perspective? Do you think they don't have personal experience with these things gone badly for officers that makes them guarded?
If you don't know to listen to the police when you encounter them... you haven't been taught very well. Mind you... with the recent movements... it's little wonder why people are a little more brazen at the point of contact.
You only hear what you want to hear, RG. You consistently fail to read and understand anything contrary to your extreme opinion. I've always said there are cases of clear cut abuse and in these cases, cops should be held accountable. The problem is that people like you think every case where an officer uses force is abuse.
You say police should be held accountable but you immediately move to shift the blame. You, and those in your camp, create a culture of submission that dismisses abuse.
Even in cases of clear cut abuse you can't help but shift some of the blame to the suspect.
I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
You only hear what you want to hear, RG. You consistently fail to read and understand anything contrary to your extreme opinion. I've always said there are cases of clear cut abuse and in these cases, cops should be held accountable. The problem is that people like you think every case where an officer uses force is abuse.
I too am lucky given I was born into circumstances that promote success.
You're wrong. I've been consistent the entire course of this topic.
Sorry, but you're out to lunch. Again.
No one has said give the cops the right to perform executions. No where. Maybe there are previous discussions I am unaware of that I don't agree with, but this comment seems reasonable.
I do know some complaints are a result of questioning. But come on, if the cops get a call about a burglary, and they see someone on the street that matches the description they should question him. Question him doesn't mean arrest him and beat him up, but ask him where's he's coming from, where he's going to, what his name is and so on. Completely reasonable and within the law to question him.
Actually happened to me about a month ago. Was working in my front yard, police got a call for something down the street and they came and questioned me. I showed them my ID that proved I lived there, they asked me where I worked and a couple other questions and went on their way. Really wasn't a big deal at all. How differently would that have turned out if I refused to cooperate? I would only be making it more difficult for everyone.
Examples of "well this person complied and was shot, so now they fear the same." Do you realize how extremely rare that is? Essentially every case that happens makes the news, out of millions and millions of stops and arrests it happens just a few times a year. More police get killed that innocent people following police orders. So yes it does happen, about one out of every million stops it does happen. But all cops are now labeled as racist pigs as a result.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem.
Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power?
Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
I'm anticipating a flurry of comments commending her for her bravery and outstanding police work (better her near death than some violent scumbag dead).
Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well.
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light.
This horrible situation will be happening more around the country unfortunately. Any many people are smiling and feeling real good about it...
It's always degrees and shades.
I was against the officer ordering Bland out of her vehicle for sassing him, but when she violently resisted arrest, he did what he had to do.
I definitely think there was at least one case that I thought was cut and dry, not abuse, but I don't remember for sure.
I am usually less concerned with the big headline shootings and more concerned with the minor abuses that occur much more frequently and create the environment for the larger ones to occur.
The cops who smack people around for mouthing off and stuff like that. I honestly think you would be shocked Thirty at how much that happens if you were to consume media that chronicles those "minor" abuses.
I don't take people at their word simply because of the clothes they wear to work.
Every profession has CYA procedures, when I worked intimately with surgeons and anesthesiologists I saw them contive CYA lies remarkably similar to this story with regularity.
Edit: I am actually kind of disturbed by this philosophy. First responders (for the most part) work for the government to serve the people. Now I obviously completely agree that all first responders should be extremely concerned with their well being, but what if that was a solider who said something like that. What if that was a marine who said, hey, I may have broken the law and committed war crimes but all I was concerned with was getting home. That is not acceptable, so why would it be acceptable for police. You chose a profession where you may not go home at the end of the day, and I am incredibly grateful for it, but as part of your duty, you are expected to be better under pressure than an average person and put your life on the line because that is what you chose to do. As awful as that is to say, it is true.
I don't condone those types of behaviours, but at the same time... I don't get behind obnoxious behaviour that disrespects police, baristas, bank tellers, or people on the street. If you're lippy and you get denied service or even smacked... why would you be surprised?