Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 76 of 670 (835368)
06-22-2018 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
06-21-2018 5:34 PM


NoNukes writes:
Perhaps Percy is advocating a similar system for the US.
I don't know why Hyroglyphx said what he did since in my very next message I said, "Only officers in special units should have guns."
Speaking of police shootings, in a sort of "man bites dog" kind of way here's another police shooting: 2 Deputies in Kansas Are Fatally Shot While Transporting Inmates. They were overpowered and shot with one of their own guns. If they had no guns no one would have been murdered.
Might the inmate have escaped? Perhaps. Presumably he was in cuffs, the officers would have tried to restrain him, and this happened at a jail - other officers would have been available to assist. Even if the inmate had escaped, seems a better outcome.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 06-21-2018 5:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-27-2018 2:27 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 78 of 670 (835660)
06-27-2018 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
06-27-2018 2:27 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:
I don't know why Hyroglyphx said what he did since in my very next message I said, "Only officers in special units should have guns."
Well, because I was responding to the post that I did view.
But not responding to what it said. You responded to what it didn't say, which was plenty since it was only a single sentence specifically focused on responding to your claim of daily assassinations. You reached a conclusion about my position on a matter on which I did not comment. The full dialog:
Hyroglyphx writes:
Percy writes:
Hyroglyphx writes:
Percy writes:
Maybe knowing that they'll be held personally accountable will force both top-down and bottom-up change to the way police are trained. Taking their guns away would also go a long way toward preventing deaths and confrontations.
There's no way to be a cop without a gun... at least in the U.S., because it is so inundated with firearms. There would be daily assassinations. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Hyroglyphx writes:
There would be daily assassinations.
The murder of law enforcement officers would decrease, and the profile or character of those murders would change as officers became less likely to place themselves in confrontational situations.
How would you propose officers dealing with an active shooter situation without the use of law enforcement being armed? Because currently we have a situation where guns are legal in the US, guns being prevalent in the US, and a penchant for people using them. By eliminating police using guns you have a situation where it is functionally impossible to stop the threat. And as we have seen, in times past, they don't stop until someone stops them.
But I never even hinted at such situations. The topic is the police shootings that keep making the news where rank-and-file police officers not under any threat shoot people.
But even swat teams screw up. Perhaps you heard about the recent case where gamers got into an online argument, and one swatted the other. A swat team showed up at the door, and the person who answered was shot dead (2 gamers plead not guilty in Kansas 'swatting' death).
Back to your message:
But to your point about special units... I think you have a very unrealistic view of the way things work in most large cities in America, possibly because you don't live in one.
I think you have a very unrealistic view of the dangers inherent in a culture of guns that is only encouraged by a fully armed police force.
There would be no one to police any city if you disarmed police officers in America.
As has been pointed out, other parts of the world have no trouble policing their cities with unarmed police officers.
It's already outrageously dangerous just by the nature of the job.
That's because they're are too many guns out there, not too few.
Adding an additional stressor of everyone being armed, except you, would end catastrophically.
So you believe the only reason "bad guys" (Trump's term) aren't gunning down police officers is because the police officers are carrying holstered guns. Why isn't it just as easy as it's ever been to walk up behind a police officer on the street, pull a gun, and shoot him?
And in terms of time to activate said special unit in a time of a crisis, it would be a bloodbath. Crime would increase tenfold overnight.
Yeah, scaremongering, that'll work.
I think you are very naive about how things work in reality.
I think gun owners are very naive about how guns make them less safe, not more. Maybe you heard about the FBI agent who discharged his weapon on the dance floor (Dancing FBI agent who accidentally shot someone is arrested). Or maybe you heard about the child who discharged a weapon he found under a sofa cushion at IKEA (A child found a loaded handgun in a couch at Ikea and fired it, Indiana police say).
If they had no guns no one would have been murdered.
Ridiculous. Because as we all know, corrections officers who are unarmed have never been murdered. Also as we already know, murder only happens when guns are involved.
Dishonest. Obviously from context I was saying that had the officers had no guns that they couldn't have been murdered by one of their own guns.
You're also rather conveniently discounting the obviously lopsided statistic of cops that weren't murdered because they were armed.
There's a statistic for that? I'd love to see that, because I've never seen a statistic for things that didn't happen.
Guns are the true danger. Get rid of the guns and murders go way down.
But this thread is about police shootings, so getting back to the topic, obviously empowering rank-and-file police officers by giving them guns is what makes unjustified police shootings possible. Issue too many hammers and everything looks like a nail. Give too many police officers guns and they'll see guns as the solution to too many problems. Teenager running away and you're unlikely to run him down? Just shoot him. Problem solved. (Unarmed black teen shot, killed by police as he was running away in Pittsburgh)
Disarming police forces is highly unlikely, so hopefully as it more and more often happens that police lying dissolves in the face of video evidence, police will realize that guns are not problem solvers but problem makers. Discharging your weapon all by itself already results in desk duty and an investigation in many jurisdictions, and if that discharge results in injury or death then it only gets worse for the officer. Acquittals of police officers involved in shootings are gradually beginning to decline. Police should think of getting rid of their weapons as a work environment quality improvement.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-27-2018 2:27 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2018 12:46 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 82 of 670 (835696)
06-28-2018 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
06-28-2018 12:46 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:
But in light of the reality, it's only sensical to have an armed police force to adequately be able to stand up to an armed society.
Mostly they seem to stand up to unarmed society.
I'm saying if you disarmed cops tomorrow...
Do you really think that's how such a change would be implemented, immediately, suddenly and completely?
For every outlier scenario you could find, there's thousands upon thousands of instances where that didn't happen given similar circumstances in similar conditions. Sooooo.....
Sooooo.....Every second of every day millions of guns across the nation are not discharged. That's your argument that guns are safe?
Dishonest. Obviously from context I was saying that had the officers had no guns that they couldn't have been murdered by one of their own guns.
Yeah, and that's an absurd argument.
Actually it's what is known as a fact. Try some.
That's like saying...
Here it comes, the flawed analogy.
...if you didn't buy a toaster, there would have been no way for little Timmy to have been electrocuted by it, therefore 1. you're a piece of shit for buying the toaster and, 2. all toasters should be outlawed as a consequence of it.
I suggest you try again.
I'm referring to the countless times they've been used appropriately. Surely, without even looking in to it, it surely heavily outweighs it.
Ah, the myth of the appropriate gun use.
That may be, but in light of their existence, wouldn't it be more prudent to deal with reality?
Is "dealing with reality" a euphemism for "we need more guns"?
And empowering rank-and-file policers by giving them guns in what makes a justified police shooting possible....
The utility of guns is not justified police shootings. That's not utility but tragedy.
I've never shot anyone... ever.
But you can't say you never will. I can.
And I know the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable time to use them.
All gun owners think they could never commit an unnecessary murder until they commit an unnecessary murder.
Bad officers using bad tactics need to pay society for their egregious lapse in judgment just as anyone else would. I would agree with you all day long if your argument was geared towards protectionism against bad cops... but your solution though is one that advocates throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Ah, that's cute, guns are your baby. And an officer committing murder is a bad officer instead of just another statistic showing what happens when you hand out guns willy nilly. Arm a million people, which is what we've done with police officers, and it is statistically guaranteed that a certain number will go off each day, some while pointed at people.
Discharging your weapon all by itself already results in desk duty and an investigation in many jurisdictions, and if that discharge results in injury or death then it only gets worse for the officer.
As it should! No one wants a dangerous, rogue cop with them less than a good cop who knows the law, knows departmental policy, and actually has common sense and sound judgment.
If rogue cops are so common that simply discharging your weapon automatically places you under suspicion of being one, maybe handing out guns to this population isn't such a good idea.
Acquittals of police officers involved in shootings are gradually beginning to decline. Police should think of getting rid of their weapons as a work environment quality improvement.
Because there has never been this high of transparency before thanks to technology. That's a good thing.
Well, it's a good thing and a bad thing, depending upon where you're coming from. Technology is revealing that our police for all their training and good intentions have a long history of mayhem that continues to this day.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2018 12:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2018 12:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 83 of 670 (835697)
06-28-2018 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
06-28-2018 12:54 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:
Imagine showing up to every nasty little thing that happens in your city and what kind of effects that has on one's psychology. One, you're exposed to such a higher degree of what-ifs because you know, better than Joe Citizen ever could, the hidden dangers that Joe just really cannot fathom. We're not faulting Joe for his ignorance in that instance, but we might take exception to Joe insisting we're being "paranoid" for taking reasonable precautions.
This is a good point. The job itself brings forward feelings of paranoia and endangerment that cause "taking reasonable precautions" to mean firing 18 bullets at someone, then as they lie prone and motionless on the ground with their life ebbing away (dangerous cell phone by their side) shouting at them for 20 minutes to give some sign that they're no longer a threat.
Then you have the simple law of averages, that intentionally showing up where danger presents itself obviously increases one's risk by orders of magnitude. That's just common sense.
Another good point. The more extreme example is the injured psychological state of many returning veterans from overseas theaters of war. If just doing the job of police officer damages one psychologically while simultaneously fostering an unhealthy group us/them mentality then maybe guns aren't appropriate tools for them.
I'm not saying being a police officer is more dangerous than being a deep-sea fisherman off the coast of Alaska... I'm just recognizing that its still dangerous and giving you reasons why being alert, if nothing else, is a natural response.
Yet another good point. Yes, the job of policeman is dangerous. Living under the constant threat of danger has its effects on people. Who becomes a police officer is a self-selected group. Basically anyone who passes a test and makes it through the police academy (drop out rates vary, flunk out rates are very low) becomes a police officer. They do psychological evaluations, but since psychology has failed miserably at detecting who will commit murder or suicide it's next to useless. Besides, there are webpages out there like How to pass your police pre-employment psych screening without going nuts. Nice title.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2018 12:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2018 12:53 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 88 of 670 (835719)
06-29-2018 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2018 12:53 AM


Stile writes:
Percy, we're discussing whether or not it is reasonable to keep an armed police force. We're not trying to figure out if it is justifiable to shoot 18 bullets at someone; especially since every scenario is different.
Of course "we're not trying to figure out if it is justifiable to shoot 18 bullets at someone," especially when that person is unarmed. There's nothing to figure out because the answer is an unequivocal: "No, it is not justifiable."
Incidents like this are how we know that our armed police forces are preying upon the communities they're entrusted to preserve and protect. They don't need a gun to direct traffic or watch a worksite or drive by houses whose occupants are on vacation or act as school monitor or hand out traffic tickets or respond to domestic disputes or tell people to turn the music down or bust up an underage drinking party or respond to drunk and disorderly or respond to a traffic accident. But all these situations and more are inherently unpredictable, and the police have a gun.
Here's a nice article from a New Hampshire town that gives you just the right flavor of what happens when you give people guns, even police (Man injured in officer-involved shooting in Nashua). The officers were responding to a man threatening suicide:
quote:
NASHUA, N.H. A man shot by police Tuesday night in Nashua is recovering at a hospital, investigators said Wednesday.
Officials said Justin Contreras, 29, of Nashua, was shot and wounded when an officer discharged his firearm. Contreras' specific condition wasn't known, but he was believed to be stable at a hospital, officials said.
Investigators said police were called to 106 Ledge St. about 10 p.m. on a report of a suicidal man.
"Several officers responded, and it looks like one discharged his weapon," said Senior Assistant Attorney General Peter Hinckley.
A woman who lives nearby, who asked that she be identified only as Sandy, said she heard three shots, followed by a massive police response.
"Then, they took the guy out," she said. "He was screaming in the back of the ambulance."
Authorities said no officers were injured.
Contreras' family and friends said they have many questions about what happened.
"You go in to do a wellness check on someone, and you end up shooting him?" said a friend who asked to be identified as Kevin. "I can't even believe that can happen."
Investigators with the State Police Major Crime Unit left the scene of the shooting Wednesday morning.
"They've finished processing the scene, but there's still many interviews to be conducted of potential witnesses and also those involved in the incident, so the investigation still is in its very early stages," Hinckley said.
One of the officers involved in the incident has been placed on indefinite paid administrative leave, another is on paid leave for one day and the third is on regular duty, officials said.
Obviously the officer on indefinite paid administrative leave is the one who fired his weapon. The one on paid leave for one day is a mystery - he gets a one day paid vacation for being present at the shooting? And the officer still on duty probably wasn't present in the room where the gun was discharged. There's no mention of the suicidal man being armed - if he had been armed it would have been mentioned high up in the article, even in the headline.
Now reimagine the situation with unarmed police officers. Completely different outcome. They could talk to the man, from the next room if they felt there was a threat. They could call in a negotiation specialist. And whatever the outcome, no one would be shot and no one would be on administrative leave.
There are some people who should not be cops... they just don't possess the kind of temperament necessary.
You're just still completely not getting it. I'm not saying the police ranks are filled with bad apples. That's what you keep saying.
I'm saying the police shouldn't be armed because they're just normal people and will lash out with whatever means are available when they feel scared or threatened. Give people guns and they're more likely to insert themselves into unpredictable and/or dangerous situations.
But that doesn't invalidate the entire profession...
Of course not.
...or their need to take reasonable measures.
The concern isn't over when they take reasonable measures. It's when you give them guns and they take unreasonable measures that we're concerned about.
A handgun is very reasonable in the United States.
Statements like this show just how warped thinking has become in this country.
If we were at the stage where the UK or Australia is, we could have a vigorous debate.
Debate away, but the facts say guns make you less safe, not more.
But this is the US and that change in geography and laws matter.
Well, sure, because in this country there's an irrational gun nut culture that loves and cherishes guns.
So now that you've invalidated the entire profession, what do you suggest in its place?
Well, I do have a suggestion, but it's one I've made before and it's not about arming the police. It's about your tendency to rebut opinions you make up, presumably because they're much easier to rebut than the one's I've actually expressed.
Rank and file police in most jurisdictions shouldn't have guns. That's my position. Rebut that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2018 12:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 89 of 670 (835720)
06-29-2018 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2018 12:45 AM


Stile writes:
My point is as long as they exist, there is an equal incentive to also own one to level out the playing field. You don't go into a sword fight with chop sticks and you don't go into a gun fight with a sword.
Most people, including police, should not be going into a gun fight.
The discussion as you lead it was the assumption that police departments are littered with homicidal maniacs.
This is a position you keep raising, not me. If you're going to associate me with extreme and absurd positions that I've never expressed then I will do the same. You've assuming that guns are the solution to every problem. There, are we getting anywhere?
While I would admit that some really bad people slip through the cracks, it is certainly the exception, not the rule.
This is your position, not mine. Police are just people, and guns are just too dangerous to give to people.
And I could say that non-gun owners assume murder over legitimate self-defense far too often. We're really dealing with preferences this far into the minutia.
The odds of a situation needing a gun for self defense and where the gun is actually available to you (if you're at home then the gun and the ammunition are in separate lock boxes, right?) are far lower than that gun being used against you, family or friends.
I wouldn't call an extensive background checks, psychological screening, polygraphs and thousands of required mandatory hours of training in the law and tactics "willy nilly." You make it sound like Deputy Dog just shows up and they give him some bullets and a gun.
It's Deputy Dawg. Look at the result: senseless police shootings followed by lying and coverups, whose extent we're only just discovering over the last decade with increasing availability of video.
And about your "thousands of mandatory hours of training in the law and tactics," here's a couple facts pulled off the web:
quote:
The length of time required to complete academy training averaged 21 weeks, or 840 hours, as of 2003, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Memphis Police Department Academy usually takes 22 weeks, or 880 hours, to complete.Feb 26, 2018
...
If you want to be a licensed cosmetologist, you'll need more than that: 1,600 hours. Florida's minimum training requirement for officers is 770 hours, but the training required to be an interior designer is much longer.
Arm a million people, which is what we've done with police officers, and it is statistically guaranteed that a certain number will go off each day, some while pointed at people.
Yeah, and? So long as it's a million justified times... you sound mad that we don't live in a Nerf world. Bad crap is going to happen. Not sure what to tell you. Police are simultaneously the most needed and most unwanted people on the planet.
I don't know if they're the most needed people on the planet, but we do need police. It's just that arming the police makes things worse, not better.
It's standard to protocol to put cops on leave after a critical incident for a lot of reasons. 1. it's incredibly stressful and there's no need to add more stress when they need to get their mind right before serving the public again. 2. in the event it was a bad shoot, you've already pulled their commission. 3. they need time to consult with legal council just as anyone else involved in a shooting would.
Take away their guns and all these problems melt away.
Mayhem? You're brushing with awfully broad strokes here based on your own preconceived notions.
I'm just reading the news.
Imagine if you substituted your character assassination for "cop" with "minority." How do you think that would go?
I don't think we should arm minorities either.
You're vilifying an entire profession based on a few turds.
This is not the argument I'm making, just the one you find easier to rebut.
Police are people just like you and me, and your average person should not be carrying a deadly weapon. Eight or nine hundred hours of training doesn't change that.
Every job has people that slip through the cracks.
Again, this is your argument, not mine. I'm not the one talking about rogue cops. I'm the one saying cops are good guys who are woefully unprepared for the variety of confrontations they face. Adding a gun to the mix only makes things worse.
I understand that this a public trust position and their is decidedly a much higher expectation... and that is reasonable. But I wouldn't want you to make a decision on someone a priori without examining the actual content of their character. After all, that's what makes racism so distasteful and unfair.
Again, your argument, not mine. I'm saying police shouldn't have guns because they too often just make bad situations worse.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2018 12:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2018 1:50 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 95 of 670 (836085)
07-09-2018 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Hyroglyphx
07-09-2018 1:50 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:
Most people, including police, should not be going into a gun fight.
So in the Las Vegas massacre, the police should have sat idly by?
As NoNukes noted in Message 93, I think I addressed this already. Your messages mostly just reply to your own slant on what I said while ignoring what I actually said. I don't think you need me in this conversation.
Quoting myself from an earlier message, "Rank and file police in most jurisdictions shouldn't have guns. That's my position. Rebut that."
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2018 1:50 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2018 6:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 96 of 670 (836159)
07-11-2018 3:03 PM


The police *are* out to get you
I'm writing not about police shootings but about why police are able to get away with shootings. First, here's a video of a police stop of a railroad employee. There's no audio for the first 30 seconds:
And here are some quotes from the opinion piece An Arkansas man complained about police abuse. Then town officials ruined his life.. They explain why police know they can usually get away with behavior like this:
quote:
I was alerted to this particular story by a former police officer who now advocates criminal-justice reform...I asked him: In his experience, how common is this sort of thing? His response:
This is very common in policing. Looking back on my career, I realize just how often I acted similarly and didn’t even realize it. It was subconscious. I was trained and subtly incentivized to do so. You intentionally create conflict and manufacture noncompliance in order to build your stop into an arrest situation. Because that’s what generations of law enforcers who have been steeped in a fear-based, comply or else, us-vs.-them mind-set do. They arrest people. Arrests are a primary measure of productivity and gives the appearance your department has solved a problem.
Most aggressive cops have honed this to an art. They are savvy, know exactly how to weaponize numerous petty laws, ordinances, use-of-force policy and procedure against citizens.

Got that? Some cops become expert at manufacturing noncompliance, or whatever else they need to justify their actions.
Read the opinion piece for the whole story, but summarizing briefly, when the poor railroad worker went to the police station to complain he was charged with two misdemeanors. The police lied to the public about what was on the video, local prosecutors ignored what was on the video, and charges were pressed. The poor railroad worker was eventually acquitted, but the police hid the video from public view for months and months. A persistent local reporter brought it to light.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2018 3:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2018 6:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 97 of 670 (836162)
07-11-2018 3:33 PM


Another Example of Police Abuse
This happened last year, so everyone probably still remembers when nurse Alex Wubbels refused a policeman's orders to draw blood from an unconscious victim of a car crash. The policeman assaulted, handcuffed and arrested nurse Wubbels, here's the video, it's shocking:
What most people don't know is the aftermath, and it's good news. Nurse Wubbels was released without charge. The arresting officer was fired and his supervisor was demoted two ranks. Nurse Wubbels settled with Salt Lake City for $500,000, which she's using to promote making body-cam footage publicly available.
But what would have happened had there been no body cam footage. The police officer likely would have made up whatever story he needed to justify the arrest (remember, they're expert at that), and nurse Wubbels would have been charged instead of released.
It's just more evidence that too many police are yahoos who abuse their power and who certainly shouldn't have guns.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 2:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 102 of 670 (836295)
07-14-2018 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2018 6:29 PM


Hyroglyphyx writes:
"Rank and file police in most jurisdictions shouldn't have guns. That's my position. Rebut that."
I did.
You didn't.
And then when I provide compelling reasons why you are misinformed, you disengage.
I didn't disengage. You responded to positions you made up for me rather than to what I actually said, so I decided not to respond, not to disengage. You hadn't engaged anything I said, so how could I disengage.
Lets put that to the test in an extraordinarily violent place like Chicago or Detroit.
Quoting myself again but adding some emphasis, "Rank and file police in *most jurisdictions* shouldn't have guns. That's my position. Rebut that."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2018 6:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Phat, posted 07-14-2018 9:31 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 103 of 670 (836296)
07-14-2018 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2018 6:40 PM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
Hyroglyphyx writes:
Look, I'm just as disgusted as you are in the instances like this douchebag you showcased, but your solution is extreme.
The point is not that some police are "douchebags". The point is that police are just average Joes trying to do the best they can under circumstances that encourage feelings of paranoia and an us-vs-them mentality. It isn't the people who are bad but the situations they are placed in. Giving them guns only makes things worse.
Some cops become expert at manufacturing noncompliance, or whatever else they need to justify their actions.
I agree, some do -- in an extreme minority.
The growing ubiquity of video reveals that on any given day it could be almost any given cop. It other words, it's a solid majority, not some "extreme minority."
The very reason why body cameras were invented was for accountability. It keeps good cops from false accusations and indicts the shit head one's that need to either be fired or prosecuted.
You're just restating your position and ignoring mine. It isn't a case of a few bad apples. The police are just the general population, they're just us, who've been through a training program and taken an oath. Police misbehavior is just what happens when you give normal people power and guns and put them in an environment that encourages paranoia.
So, you said that I'm being biased...
The word "bias" doesn't even appear in any of my posts. What I will say is that you have a habit of responding to your feelings about what was said instead of to what was actually said.
...and that you don't think cops are necessarily bad (just need to be disarmed) but it is very obvious in the manner of this discussion that you have a beef, in general, with the police.
I think I've been pretty clear that I believe giving normal people a cocktail of power, guns and paranoia is a bad idea.
This video has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
As I stated in the very first paragraph of the message, "I'm writing not about police shootings but about why police are able to get away with shootings."
So what's all this about bias then?
I don't know anything about "what's all this about bias?", I never used the word bias. How come you have to make things up to reply about?
That door swings in both directions, friend.
Okay, if you want to be that way about it then why don't you just admit it: you love guns. It has nothing to do with self-defense or policing, you just love guns. Are we getting anywhere now?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2018 6:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2018 9:08 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 106 of 670 (836362)
07-15-2018 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Phat
07-14-2018 9:31 AM


Re: Proposed Solution
Phat writes:
The only problem as I see it is that Rank and file citizenry, even in small rural jurisdictions, do have guns. Guns are a uniquely American problem, and disarming law enforcement won't make the problem go away.
Because the thread is about police shootings I haven't previously commented about civilians, but I don't believe most civilians should have guns, either.
Someone recently criticized me as bizarrely and irrationally fearful of guns, but quite obviously anyone who isn't afraid of guns is behaving bizarrely and irrationally. Usually pointing a gun at someone compels instant compliance. The potential for guns to cause injury and death was great enough to compel Jews to march to trenches and strip naked before being mowed down by guns. Guns are extremely dangerous and most people should not have them. Including the police.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Phat, posted 07-14-2018 9:31 AM Phat has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 109 of 670 (836385)
07-16-2018 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2018 9:08 PM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
Hyroglyphx writes:
It isn't the people who are bad but the situations they are placed in. Giving them guns only makes things worse.
Giving literal "average Joes" guns but not actual vetted people makes things worse. If we were talking about the UK, maybe there would be argument (I actually still disagree), but the US is so inundated with guns that it would be reckless.
You're responding to your own slant on what I said. Nowhere was it suggested that we just instantly disarm police. How we get from where we are (rank and file police have guns) to where we want to be (rank and file police do not have guns) has got to be worked out, but that we'd be safer with an unarmed police force is undeniable. Or are you one of those "You can't get there from here" guys?
The growing ubiquity of video reveals that on any given day it could be almost any given cop. It other words, it's a solid majority, not some "extreme minority."
For every video, there are 10 more to rebut it.
How do you rebut a video showing a cop shooting an innocent victim in cold blood?
Police misbehavior is just what happens when you give normal people power and guns and put them in an environment that encourages paranoia.
So without the guns everything is going to just sort of work itself out? What do believe will happen? I believe that if your plan was implemented...
There's your slant again. Where did I ever provide a plan for getting from guns to no guns? If you know so much about my "plan" then tell me a few things about it.
...there would instantly be a whole lot less officers, creating the pretense for mass civil unrest nationwide in the wake of the vacuum.
Obviously if most police shouldn't have guns then even fewer (percentage-wise) civilians should have guns, either.
My apologies, I should have said "slant."
quote:
Your messages mostly just reply to your own slant on what I said while ignoring what I actually said.
But not we're arguing semantics...
This isn't semantics. You're confusing two different concepts. You put your own slant on what people say (you just did it again to Ringo in Message 108) then reply to that. That's not bias, that's purposefully mischaracterizing what people say.
As I stated in the very first paragraph of the message, "I'm writing not about police shootings but about why police are able to get away with shootings."
Part of the problem is your belief that police "get away with shootings." Is it entirely possible that you don't understand what constitutes a good/bad shoot?
If police aren't getting away with shootings (i.e., the vast majority of police shootings are deemed justified, or in your lingo, a "good shoot"), then what would you call it?
Okay, if you want to be that way about it then why don't you just admit it: you love guns. It has nothing to do with self-defense or policing, you just love guns. Are we getting anywhere now?
Guns are a necessary evil, Percy.
Guns are evil and unnecessary. The experience of other countries make this very clear.
The next weapon is on the verge of being created.
Huh?
The real issue is why we as a species thinks violence can meaningly solve anything other than stopping a violent and determined person. The age old crux, if you ask me...
Ah, you mean the only way to stop a "bad guy" with a gun is a "good guy" with a gun. That's the fallacy of the century. Here's an example of reality from ‘There were three shooters’: Two Oklahoma citizens killed an active shooter, and it's not as simple as it sounds:
quote:
Juan Carlos Nazario was sitting on a lakeside bench waiting to play soccer when he heard the staccato popping of gunshots outside Louie’s On the Lake, a popular waterfront grill and pub. He ran to his car to get his gun and moved toward the sounds.
Bryan Whittle was driving with his wife...when he saw a commotion outside Louie’s...He barreled into the parking lot to offer help. There was an active shooter just yards away, and wounded victims were holed up in the restaurant’s bathroom. Whittle, too, grabbed his gun.
Got that? Two "good guys" grabbed their guns to face off against the "bad guy".
quote:
There was an exchange of gunfire. The gunman was hit several times and fell. As Nazario and Whittle converged over the man to restrain him, police arrived. Unsure who was who, officers handcuffed all of the men and put them on the ground as the shooter bled out into the grass and died.
Got that? The police arrived, had no idea who were "good guys" or "bad guys", and handcuffed them all and put them on the ground, the assailant bleeding out and dying.
quote:
But police also noted that armed citizens can complicate volatile situations. The first of 57 uniformed police officers arrived just a minute after the initial 911 calls and found a complex scene with multiple armed people and no clear sense of what had happened or who was responsible.
Got that? Armed civilians inserting themselves into these situations complicate matters for police. These civilians are not only in danger from the "bad guys" but also from police.
And there's another danger. Armed civilians are a danger to each other:
quote:
In the weeks since the shooting, [Nazario] has replayed in his head different endings to the incident. What if instead of retreating to the grassy bank, the gunman had followed his initial shots through the broken glass door into the restaurant? And what if Whittle had followed the gunman inside?
Bryan would have entered the front, Nazario said. I would have entered the back.
There they would have been, two good guys with guns, face to face.
He could have thought I was the shooter, Nazario said. Or vice versa. And if Nazario had asked and Whittle refused to drop his weapon, Nazario said, I would have had to take action.
Got that? Armed civilians could have no idea whether other armed civilians are "good guys" or "bad guys".
Guns kill over 30,000 people a year in the US. Police shootings are only a small percentage of that total (only a third of a percent of the population are police), but as video evidence accumulates we have proof that armed police are as much a part of the problem as armed civilians.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2018 9:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 07-16-2018 9:17 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 111 of 670 (836388)
07-16-2018 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2018 9:15 PM


Nyroglyphx writes:
Bystanders can be harmed by police bullets as well as criminal bullets.
So, what, that invalidates the necessity of protecting people? You know, there's a whole lot more people who want an armed police force that don't want an armed police force.
I don't have specific poll numbers, but The case for disarming America’s police force begs to differ while highlighting the difficult issues:
quote:
There’s a broad consensus in the US today that local police forces need to be demilitarized.
...
The idea of taking guns away from police is likely to receive a highly skeptical response, even from people concerned about the problem of excessive force. In a nation with so many millions of guns on it streetsboth legally and illegally—asking police officers to give up their own weapons presents a logistical and practical quandary.
There is simply too much violence being committed by criminals with firearms to even consider an unarmed police force in the United States, Louis Hayes, a working police officer who also trains fellow officers as part of the Chicago-based Virtus Group, tells Quartz. I doubt there is a community, a city, a local government, or a police union in the entire nation that would seriously consider disarming its protectors.
Yet there is some evidence that disarming the police might be less dangerous that it sounds. According to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of the 27 law enforcement officers murdered in 2013 in the line of duty, only 6 were able to fire their weapons at assailants. Another two were killed after their firearms were stolen and used against them. (Note: several dozen other officers died while on duty during this time, the majority from car accidents.) In many cases, it seems arming officers isn’t a black and white issue of officer safety. Especially since the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report reports that 461 people were shot and killed by police in 2013.
That's already a long quote so I'll stop there, read the article if you want to see more of what it has to say. But the point is that there's strong evidence that disarming the police would not result in the calamities you keep insisting on.
That's the whole topic: the police don't seem to be very good at deciding when it's "necessary".
Opines Ringo...
It isn't opinion but fact. There are scores and scores of examples of police making bad decisions in life-and-death situations. And often they were life-and-death situations only because the police had guns.
Don't try to divert the topic. The problem here is that cops often see civilians as expendable.
So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society.
There you go with your own slant. Where did Ringo suggest getting rid of the police? Nowhere, right? So why are you responding as if he had?
If, as you are suggesting, the actual problem is police officers then it stands to reason that a police force is unnecessary in your estimation.
Ringo didn't say the problem is police officers, but police officers are just people, not superior beings with super senses and super insight. Giving people the power to kill and then placing them in circumstances that encourage paranoia and an us-versus-them mentality is a recipe for disaster. Now with all the video out there the number of "good shoots" is in a strong downward trend.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2018 9:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 112 of 670 (836389)
07-16-2018 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
07-16-2018 9:17 AM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
jar writes:
Percy writes:
Obviously if most police shouldn't have guns then even fewer (percentage-wise) civilians should have guns, either.
Why?
Why isn't it obvious?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 07-16-2018 9:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 07-16-2018 10:14 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024