Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2018 2:30 AM
193 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (5 members, 188 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,098 Year: 11,921/29,783 Month: 943/1,642 Week: 51/306 Day: 6/45 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 106 of 130 (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 yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 107 of 130 (836363)
07-15-2018 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
07-14-2018 8:47 AM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
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.

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. I'm sure if I looked I could find an entire compilation that creates the appearance that being a police officer is akin to trench warfare. But I don't want to do that because it's entirely anecdotal and you probably wouldn't care either way.

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 would instantly be a whole lot less officers, creating the pretense for mass civil unrest nationwide in the wake of the vacuum.

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.

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...

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?

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. The next weapon is on the verge of being created. The real point that people who detest guns often overlook is that homicide existed before and will exist after guns. 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...


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 07-14-2018 8:47 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 9:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 108 of 130 (836364)
07-15-2018 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ringo
07-14-2018 12:11 PM


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.

That's the whole topic: the police don't seem to be very good at deciding when it's "necessary".

Opines Ringo...

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. Crime increase by 500% overnight. 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.

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 105 by ringo, posted 07-14-2018 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 07-16-2018 12:02 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 118 by 1.61803, posted 07-19-2018 4:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 109 of 130 (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 yet responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30717
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 110 of 130 (836386)
07-16-2018 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
07-16-2018 9:13 AM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
Percy writes:

Obviously if most police shouldn't have guns then even fewer (percentage-wise) civilians should have guns, either.

Why?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 9:13 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 9:38 AM jar has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 111 of 130 (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 streets—both 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 yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 112 of 130 (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 responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30717
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 113 of 130 (836390)
07-16-2018 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
07-16-2018 9:38 AM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
Sorry but no, it is not obvious.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 9:38 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 10:55 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 114 of 130 (836392)
07-16-2018 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
07-16-2018 10:14 AM


Re: The police *are* out to get you
Why isn't it obvious?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 07-16-2018 10:14 AM jar has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14920
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 115 of 130 (836395)
07-16-2018 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2018 9:15 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:

So, what, that invalidates the necessity of protecting people?


Well, yes. Killing people is not a good way of protecting them.

Do you kill one person to protect two? Do you kill eighty-one people to protect eighty-two? How much time does a police officer have to do the math?

Hyroglyphx writes:

You know, there's a whole lot more people who want an armed police force that don't want an armed police force.


There's a lot of people who want to drink and smoke and gamble. Counting noses is not the best method of setting policy.

Hyroglyphx writes:

So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society.


Nobody is suggesting that. You're just weakening your argument by going off the deep end of absurdity.

Hyroglyphix writes:

Crime increase by 500% overnight.


I can play the unfounded speculation game too: Everybody gets a cookie.

Hyroglyphx writes:

If, as you are suggesting, the actual problem is police officers...


I'm not suggesting that "the" problem is police officers. I'm suggesting that police officers are part of the problem.

Hyroglyphx writes:

...then it stands to reason that a police force is unnecessary in your estimation.


Well, no, that doesn't stand to reason at all. By that logic, problems in education could be solved by eliminating schools.

In my estimation, a gun-happy police force is unnecessary. The British police are an example.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2018 9:15 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2018 11:15 PM ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 116 of 130 (836412)
07-16-2018 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
07-11-2018 3:33 PM


Re: Another Example of Police Abuse
Percy writes:

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.

Exactly.

I think it is very helpful to have an adversarial judicial system, but sometimes it swings too far in one direction. In the case of the police, they know that in 99% of cases they can say whatever they want and it will be taken as the truth. It has led to systemic abuse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 07-11-2018 3:33 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 117 of 130 (836414)
07-16-2018 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2018 9:15 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:

So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society. Crime increase by 500% overnight. 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.

The bobbies in the UK don't have guns and their crime rate is lower than in the US. I highly, highly doubt that any criminal even considers armed police vs. unarmed police as a consideration in their criminal activities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2018 9:15 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-23-2018 12:46 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2763
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 118 of 130 (836585)
07-19-2018 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2018 9:15 PM


a functioning police state
Hyroglyphx writes:

So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society.

Heh, this reminds me of a quote by William Burroughs:

quote:
A functioning police state needs no police.
~William S. Burroughs

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

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

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 119 of 130 (836827)
07-22-2018 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by ringo
07-16-2018 12:02 PM


Well, yes. Killing people is not a good way of protecting them.
Do you kill one person to protect two? Do you kill eighty-one people to protect eighty-two? How much time does a police officer have to do the math?

As I said, sometimes it is necessary to take the life of a violent felon in order to save an innocent hostage. Are you really going to argue that point?

There's a lot of people who want to drink and smoke and gamble. Counting noses is not the best method of setting policy.

My point being, who are you to decide for them?

Nobody is suggesting that. You're just weakening your argument by going off the deep end of absurdity.

That was your central point! You made the suggestion that the police are so quick to be heavy-handed in light of numerous instances that we ought to disarm them. If the real issue is shitty cops then whether they're armed or not seems like a secondary issue to the real problem, no?

I can play the unfounded speculation game too: Everybody gets a cookie.

It's intuitive. Just as it would be intuitive to you that disarming police would result in less shooting by cops. You don't have any actual evidence to support that which has never been tested; you're basing it off of common sense. And before you say that it has been tested in Britain, again, their streets aren't littered with firearms whereas if you got your way, everybody EXCEPT the police would armed. Brilliant plan.

Well, no, that doesn't stand to reason at all. By that logic, problems in education could be solved by eliminating schools.
In my estimation, a gun-happy police force is unnecessary. The British police are an example.

The British also aren't inundated by firearms at present, so you are comparing apples to oranges. In place of guns, they have an issue with knife-violence.

In any case, if a standing army was making incorrect force decisions in combat, would your solution be to disarm the military or would your solution be to increase training and increase punitive measures against those who violate the rules of engagement?

Common sense and good judgment dictates...


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 07-16-2018 12:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 07-23-2018 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 120 of 130 (836829)
07-23-2018 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
07-16-2018 2:38 PM


The bobbies in the UK don't have guns and their crime rate is lower than in the US.

Uh, yeah, thanks for inadvertently making my point for me. We're talking about the UNITED STATES... so in light of the violent crime rate in the US, it necessitates an armed police force. Gun control is almost as strict in Australia as it is in England, and their police force is armed. Actually, scratch that, Britain is almost the sole exception on the planet that doesn't have an armed police force. So you’re already operating way outside the norm, except you want to disarm cops in the most heavily armed citizenry on planet earth.

I highly, highly doubt that any criminal even considers armed police vs. unarmed police as a consideration in their criminal activities.

You think violent crime wouldn't increase exponentially the DAY that policy was instituted when no unarmed police force could meaningfully oppose an armed citizenry? You don't think some people would take advantage of that? Not only would violent crime increase, so would vigilantism since cops are basically now consigned to be report takers. If you did a ride-along for one day in major metropolitan area of the US it might open your eyes to some of the complexities that you are neglecting to account for.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 2:38 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018