Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 5:39 AM
25 online now:
(25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(4)
Message 62 of 277 (835255)
06-20-2018 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 9:50 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Instead, the problem was that Hyroglyphx, under a previous account as nemesis_juggernaut, was spewing homophobic bullshit all over the board.

Guilty as charged.

And all the admins, when it was pointed out, sided with the bigot. When berberry made it very clear just how despicable this was, you chalked it up to "political correctness," that he had a "thin skin," and suspended him not for anything he had done but because you were certain he would "regret" posts he hadn't made...oh, and calling him a woman in the process.

While my posts back then were clearly homophobic, it didn't violate any forum rule. As I recall, I was pretty measured whereas you, Dan, and Berberry were out for my blood and spewing your own invective.

Kind of amazing to see you holding on to a grudge for so long towards Modulous, who himself is gay, and clearly wasn't "siding with the bigot [me]" for ideological reasons.

He did his job, and he did it well. Mod has always been able to set aside personal differences to remain objective and fair when it comes to the rules of the board.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 9:50 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 63 of 277 (835301)
06-21-2018 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-31-2018 9:45 AM


I think many times the police are placed in untenable situations having to make rapid fire decisions based on incomplete information, but just the same, it is wrong that there are people in our midst whose mission is to serve and protect but who have the right to shoot us with impunity.

Being a cop is tougher than it has ever been in the history of law enforcement. No respects you and you are held to an almost impossible standard - a standard that most people simply don't understand. But... that's what it's going to take to gain the trust of the public. Many agencies were very dirty not all that long ago. Things are changing though and it is important that people recognize it.

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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 9:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 06-21-2018 9:51 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 06-21-2018 11:49 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 69 of 277 (835334)
06-21-2018 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
06-21-2018 9:51 AM


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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 06-21-2018 9:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 06-21-2018 5:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 71 of 277 (835336)
06-21-2018 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
06-21-2018 11:49 AM


That seems contradictory. How can people hold police to a standard that they, the people, don't understand?

It's always best to quote someone else when they can explain it better than you can.

quote:
"Don't credit me with the mongrel prose: it has many parents-at least 420,000 of them: Policemen.

A Policeman is a composite of what all men are, mingling of a saint and sinner, dust and deity.

Gulled statistics wave the fan over the stinkers, underscore instances of dishonesty and brutality because they are "new". What they really mean is that they are exceptional, unusual, not commonplace.

Buried under the frost is the fact: Less than one-half of one percent of policemen misfit the uniform. That's a better average than you'd find among clergy!

What is a policeman made of? He, of all men, is once the most needed and the most unwanted. He's a strangely nameless creature who is "sir" to his face and "pig" to his back

He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won.

But...If the policeman is neat, he's conceited; if he's careless, he's a bum. If he's pleasant, he's flirting;if not, he's a grouch.

He must make an instant decision which would require months for a lawyer to make.

But...If he hurries, he's careless; if he's deliberate, he's lazy. He must be first to an accident and infallible with his diagnosis. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and, above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp. Or expect to be sued.

The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesn't hurt.He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without being "brutal". If you hit him, he's a coward. If he hits you, he's a bully.

A policeman must know everything-and not tell. He must know where all the sin is and not partake.

A policeman must, from a single strand of hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon and the criminal- and tell you where the criminal is hiding.

But...If he catches the criminal, he's lucky; if he doesn't, he's a dunce. If he gets promoted, he has political pull; if he doesn't, he's a dullard. The policeman must chase a bum lead to a dead-end, stake out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it happen-but refused to remember.

The policeman must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy and a gentleman.

And, of course, he'd have to be genius....For he will have to feed a family on a policeman's salary." - Paul Harvey


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 66 by ringo, posted 06-21-2018 11:49 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 06-21-2018 5:45 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 72 of 277 (835337)
06-21-2018 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by caffeine
06-21-2018 12:59 PM


Re: Police Murder 17-Year-Old
In at least some jurisdictions in the US, running away from the police in and of itself is considered a legitimate legal justification for shooting someone. This I don't understand.

The only legal way to shoot someone who is running away from you is that this person has presented an imminent threat to self or others. The only exceptions may be that this person has already gone on some kind of killing spree and still has the means to continue on.

The legal standard is objective reasonableness.

  1. Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer
    1. Officer with same or similar training and experience
    2. Facing similar circumstances
    3. Act the same way or use similar judgment
  2. Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied
    1. No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later
    2. No hindsight evaluation
  3. Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation
  4. Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time

You can't shoot someone in the back without some very compelling articulable reason that passes an objectively reasonable standard

Edited by Admin, : Fix horrible list formatting.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by caffeine, posted 06-21-2018 12:59 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 73 of 277 (835338)
06-21-2018 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
06-21-2018 5:34 PM


The way such things are handled in other countries is that the police are not routinely armed, but can get arms for a particular situation. Perhaps Percy is advocating a similar system for the US.

Perhaps so, but that's an entirely different argument. Presumably Percy would want these changes today, if he could, whereas it would not allow for a massive de-arming of everyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 06-21-2018 5:34 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 75 of 277 (835342)
06-21-2018 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
06-21-2018 5:45 PM


So it isn' t really a matter of the public not understanding the standard. They're just hypocritical about it.

Or they just don't understand the complexities involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 06-21-2018 5:45 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 77 of 277 (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

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 80 of 277 (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: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 81 of 277 (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

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 85 of 277 (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: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 86 of 277 (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: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 87 of 277 (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

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 91 of 277 (836051)
07-09-2018 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Percy
06-29-2018 8:19 AM


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?

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.

No, just a solution to a very specific problem -- solving a dilemma where deadly force is the last or only viable option. Guns don't make good bottle openers. Guns and carpentry don't mix. Guns don't do well for putting out fires. But guns do make for an adequate form of defense.

Police are just people, and guns are just too dangerous to give to people.

Your position infantilizes people and reduces everyone armed to knuckle-dragging troglodytes. Cars are responsible for infinitely higher mortality rate, but that doesn't seem to stop you from driving them.

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.

Most states rightfully have statutes that place the onus and responsibility of the gun on the owner, but there are practical methods to keep a gun secured and still readily accessible within seconds... some gun safes are operated by biometrics such as fingerprints, others a pin pad.

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.

What, like 3% of all police-involved shootings? You keep alluding that I'm being extreme but you're acting as if the overwhelming officer-involved shootings are unjustified when they clearly are not. Perhaps your understanding of what legally constitutes homicide versus justifiable homicide is terribly skewed. Based on your bizarre and irrational fear of guns, I would wager that it is.

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.

And there is a statistical propensity for people falling down stairs... or ovens catching homes on fire... or people crashing their cars. Again, it's weighing the utility of something versus the liability of it.

Take away their guns and all these problems melt away.

Uh, no, take guns away and you're left defenseless in a deadly force encounter in a profession where lots of people want you dead.

I'm just reading the news.

Ah, well, that explains a lot actually.

I don't think we should arm minorities either.

Why not? They might need protection from cops

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.

You already concede that specialized units should be afforded the opportunity to carry weapons so what really is the difference if training means fuck all to you? Should the military be disarmed too? When, in your estimation, is a gun a necessary evil? I understand you don't like guns, I understand you think they cause more problems than they solve, but surely there must be instances in your mind that they be a necessity.

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.

So then what should get them up to standard?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 06-29-2018 8:19 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 07-09-2018 9:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 07-09-2018 2:43 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5792
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 92 of 277 (836052)
07-09-2018 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
06-29-2018 11:48 AM


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.

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. There's no question that if guns were never invented that homicide by guns would never exist. The problem that seems to be glibly overlooked though is the fact that guns DO exist. In light of that, I'm all ears for how an unarmed subject can effectively deal with a person armed with gun. Until that time, and short of the univention of the gun, we're just gonna have to deal with reality as it is... not as we want it to be.

As to your well-phrased analysis of when "defending" becomes "attacking," that goes for anything really. You can substitute gun with fist, pepper spray, baton, or anything else designed for protection that can also be used to attack. Of course, that's also why we have laws that delineate between justified and unjustified.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 06-29-2018 11:48 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 07-09-2018 11:42 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019