Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2018 8:39 PM
194 online now:
LamarkNewAge, xongsmith (2 members, 192 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,847 Year: 13,670/29,783 Month: 1,116/1,576 Week: 57/271 Day: 57/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 17663
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 76 of 155 (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 acknowledged this reply

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

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 77 of 155 (835651)
06-27-2018 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
06-22-2018 8:34 AM


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 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. There would be no one to police any city if you disarmed police officers in America. It's already outrageously dangerous just by the nature of the job. Adding an additional stressor of everyone being armed, except you, would end catastrophically. 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. I think you are very naive about how things work in reality.

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. You're also rather conveniently discounting the obviously lopsided statistic of cops that weren't murdered because they were armed.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : edit to add italics


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 06-22-2018 8:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 06-27-2018 8:57 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 06-27-2018 12:11 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17663
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 78 of 155 (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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15144
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 79 of 155 (835663)
06-27-2018 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
06-27-2018 2:27 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:

It's already outrageously dangerous just by the nature of the job.


I get tired of hearing that. As far as I can tell, policing isn't even in the top ten most dangerous jobs in the US. For example, logging, fishing and farming are more dangerous.

The parnoid attitude that police officers tend to have contributes a lot to unnecessary shootings.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2018 12:54 AM ringo has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 80 of 155 (835682)
06-28-2018 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
06-27-2018 8:57 AM


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.

Well, that may or may not be, but the prevalence of guns in the US is separate debate. 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.

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?

I'm saying if you disarmed cops tomorrow 1. there would be mass people quitting, and 2. crime would skyrocket.

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).

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.....

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. That's like saying 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.

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.

I'm referring to the countless times they've been used appropriately. Surely, without even looking in to it, it surely heavily outweighs it.

Guns are the true danger. Get rid of the guns and murders go way down.

That may be, but in light of their existence, wouldn't it be more prudent to deal with reality?

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.

And empowering rank-and-file policers by giving them guns in what makes a justified police shooting possible.... We could all agree that lawnmower accidents are the result of lawnmowers and accidents in tandem with one another... that's basically your argument in a nutshell while glossing over 1. the utility of lawnmowers and 2. the use of lawnmowers that don't result in accidents is exceedingly higher than those that do.

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.

I've never shot anyone... ever. Never had to. And know the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable time to use them.

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)

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.

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.

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.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 06-27-2018 8:57 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 06-28-2018 7:06 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 81 of 155 (835686)
06-28-2018 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ringo
06-27-2018 12:11 PM


I get tired of hearing that. As far as I can tell, policing isn't even in the top ten most dangerous jobs in the US. For example, logging, fishing and farming are more dangerous. The parnoid attitude that police officers tend to have contributes a lot to unnecessary shootings.

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.

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.

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.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 06-27-2018 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 06-28-2018 7:32 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 06-28-2018 11:46 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17663
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 82 of 155 (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 responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17663
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 83 of 155 (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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15144
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 84 of 155 (835701)
06-28-2018 11:46 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.


Imagine cutting down a ten-ton tree that can kill you in an instant if you make the smallest miscalculation. imagine what kind of effects that has on one's psychology. On your day off can you even take a nap under the shady tree in your back yard without thinking about it?

Hyroglyphx writes:

I'm not saying being a police officer is more dangerous than being a deep-sea fisherman off the coast of Alaska...


But that is what police officers seem to think. Worse, they seem to think that carrying guns will solve their problems.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2018 12:55 AM ringo has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 85 of 155 (835712)
06-29-2018 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
06-28-2018 7:06 AM


Sooooo.....Every second of every day millions of guns across the nation are not discharged. That's your argument that guns are safe?

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.

Is "dealing with reality" a euphemism for "we need more guns"?

This topic is dealing with specifics, namely, do police need guns. Answer: Yes.

But you can't say you never will. I can.

That's true, I might be placed in that situation and will respond appropriately. You may not; kill or be killed. Whatever you choose is your choice. The discussion as you lead it was the assumption that police departments are littered with homicidal maniacs. While I would admit that some really bad people slip through the cracks, it is certainly the exception, not the rule.

All gun owners think they could never commit an unnecessary murder until they commit an unnecessary murder.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mayhem? You're brushing with awfully broad strokes here based on your own preconceived notions. Imagine if you substituted your character assassination for "cop" with "minority." How do you think that would go? You're vilifying an entire profession based on a few turds. Every job has people that slip through the cracks. 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.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 06-28-2018 7:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 06-29-2018 8:19 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 86 of 155 (835714)
06-29-2018 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
06-28-2018 7:32 AM


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.

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.

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.

There are some people who should not be cops... they just don't possess the kind of temperament necessary. But that doesn't invalidate the entire profession or their need to take reasonable measures. A handgun is very reasonable in the United States. If we were at the stage where the UK or Australia is, we could have a vigorous debate. But this is the US and that change in geography and laws matter.

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.

So now that you've invalidated the entire profession, what do you suggest in its place?


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 06-28-2018 7:32 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 06-29-2018 8:15 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 87 of 155 (835715)
06-29-2018 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
06-28-2018 11:46 AM


Imagine cutting down a ten-ton tree that can kill you in an instant if you make the smallest miscalculation. imagine what kind of effects that has on one's psychology. On your day off can you even take a nap under the shady tree in your back yard without thinking about it?

I actually laughed... that was pretty good.

But that is what police officers seem to think. Worse, they seem to think that carrying guns will solve their problems.

No, they just know that not carrying guns isn't going to make it better. Crime, after all, is a sociological problem above all.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 06-28-2018 11:46 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 06-29-2018 11:48 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17663
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 88 of 155 (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 yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17663
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 89 of 155 (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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15144
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 90 of 155 (835729)
06-29-2018 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2018 12:55 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:

Crime, after all, is a sociological problem above all.


And the police have the same problems as the society they inhabit. When civilians have bad attitudes toward guns, so do the police.

Your society believes it can protect itself with guns. Your police believe they can protect themselves with guns. Your bad guys believe they can protect themselves with guns. But there often comes a point when "protecting yourself" becomes attacking somebody else. The police don't seem to be any better at making that distinction than the average citizen.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2018 12:55 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2018 2:16 AM ringo has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018