Police Shootings

Typical dishonest presentation. Police don’t need a firearm to do any portion of their job.... except to protect themselves and others. But, hey, you already know that which is why you have to resort to framing issues dishonestly

Jacob Blake is being held on PROBABLE CAUSE; his guilt or innocence has yet to be determined.

Was it nice to fight the police while defending a victim -- a victim who is a minor -- a minor victim who is female -- a minor victim who is a black female?

I knew you’d make that mistake and blow your position right out of the water. You pay lip service to innocence until proven guilty, then go on to describe the complainant as a victim. Let me guess - you’re a fan of perp walks as well.

I knew you’d make that mistake and blow your position right out of the water. You pay lip service to innocence until proven guilty, then go on to describe the complainant as a victim. Let me guess - you’re a fan of perp walks as well.

This is how the justice system works in your country, my country, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, hell, just about everywhere in the world. How can a person stand trial for an alleged crime if they are on the lam?

Do you understand the concept that being held on probable cause does NOT constitute guilt or innocence?

He had a warrant for his arrest, he fought the police and it was his own actions that got him shot after failing to do the very things that would have prevented him from being shot. Sounds to me like Jacob Blake is the author of his own problems. You really want to argue the point??? No, of course not, because facts get in the way of your activist mentality.

For however much you insinuate my belief in his guilt are you therefore insisting the same for his innocence? For however much you insinuate my lack of objectivity do you level the same to yourself in the inverse?

He had a warrant for his arrest. Fact. He fought the police. Fact. Did he sexually assault a minor? Perhaps so, perhaps not. But then this is how the law works, doesn't it? He's going to go before his accuser.

Hyroglyphx writes: Police don’t need a firearm to do any portion of their job...

That's what I said. They don't need guns to check on wellness - but since they've got them, might as well use them, eh?

Sending police with guns to check on wellness is like sending an arsonist to check for fires.

That's what I said. They don't need guns to check on wellness - but since they've got them, might as well use them, eh?

As I said, a dishonest presentation and an oversimplification of reality. The police carry weapons because, gee golly gosh, people fight and try to kill them an awful lot. They have them on them as a just in case... but your just in case is apparently just die. Crazy people sometimes act crazy.... I know, that is itself a crazy concept lost on you. Its so impressive how you hand waive away the actions of the people who get shot by the police and place all the blame on an inanimate object.

Sending police with guns to check on wellness is like sending an arsonist to check for fires.

No, actually sending police without guns is more like sending firefighters to an inferno without water hoses.

Hyroglyphx writes: Crazy people sometimes act crazy....

Medical personnel deal with mental health issues all the time - without guns.

Medical personnel deal with mental health issues all the time - without guns.

Tu Quoque, Ringo... Police deal with mental health issues all the time - with guns.

So what exactly are you looking for?

1. When police interact on mental health issues that they disarm.
2. That police not interact with mental health calls at all but still remained armed.
3. That police ought not be armed whatsoever but can still interact on mental health calls.
4. That police ought not to be armed whatsoever and also cannot interact on mental health calls.

An explanation as to your rationale would be helpful for whichever number you choose

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add

Hyroglyphyx writes: So what exactly are you looking for? 1. When police interact on mental health issues that they disarm. 2. That police not interact with mental health calls at all but still remained armed. 3. That police ought not be armed whatsoever but can still interact on mental health calls. 4. That police ought not to be armed whatsoever and also cannot interact on mental health calls.

That police don't "check" on "wellness" by shooting the patient.

It reminds me of Swiss Family Robinson, when the boys are out exploring:

"What's that?" BLAM! "Oh, it's some kind of gull."
"What's that?" BLAM! "Oh, it's some kind of rabbit."

Granted, it is easier to examine the patient when he's dead.

If somebody is sent to "check" on "wellness", they should certainly NOT be armed. Those checks should be done by qualified mental health professionals, not by qualified shooters.

Why didn't answer my question? Would you choose 1,2,3, or 4? One of those four will match your exact preference. A reason for the rationale would also be helpful.

That police don't "check" on "wellness" by shooting the patient.

Your argument is a total fallacy and a dishonest framing of the situation. That's like saying police shoot people over a traffic violations. Nope. The traffic stop or a check welfare is what initially brought them into contact with one another but it is the other person's actions that dictate how its going to go. Anything less is the insinuation that people don't possess the right to self-defense.

Its also worth mentioning that calls for service involving welfare checks are not only consigned to people experiencing mental health crises. It can also be, "I live out of town and I haven't been able to get a hold of my elderly father for 3 days. He lives alone and has health conditions. Can you check to see if he is alright?" If you want to give that job to firefighters or EMS, so be it. Guarantee the police are more than happy to give that up. They have more than enough calls to deal with while hose draggers are playing Xbox at the fire station.

As to suicidal persons, its very often that no one wants to make contact with them because of the potential for violence and they aren't equipped to handle it. Its easier to train police to handle mental crises in the interim to ensure the scene is safe rather than it is to train social workers how to disarm people with knives with their bare hands. I can tell you right now that if any weapon is involved whatsoever, no mental health counselor, psychologist, psychiatrist, or EMS personnel are willing to go into that situation.

Makes me think of that really cheesy movie, Armageddon, where they trained oil rig drillers to become astronauts... Uh, wouldn't it be about a thousand times easier to teach astronauts how to drill?

If somebody is sent to "check" on "wellness", they should certainly NOT be armed. Those checks should be done by qualified mental health professionals, not by qualified shooters.

Did you know that in most states ONLY police officers are legally allowed to place people on an Emergency Detention order? Not even psychiatrists can. They can only hold them longer once they are at a facility but they can't go out nor do they possess the legal authority to make that determination. So who is gonna do it, Ringo? You'd have to change legislature and you'd have to force people not willing to go, to go.

Look, while there a certainly rinky-dink, bumble-fuck towns that have officers who know very little about mental health, you'd probably be surprised at how well trained Mental Health Officers in large departments are at recognizing a multitude of personality disorders, intellectual disabilities, mood disorders, thought disorders, etc who know a lot about psychiatric medication and their contraindications with other medicines.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Officer Hit By Bullet During 'Ambush' Actually Shot Himself

Some people.

Hyroglyphx writes: Why didn't answer my question? Would you choose 1,2,3, or 4?

The answer was 5.

Hyroglyphx writes: The traffic stop or a check welfare is what initially brought them into contact with one another but it is the other person's actions that dictate how its going to go.

Nonsense. If the police didn't bring a gun to either situation, the outcome would be different. Having the capability to shoot people is a major cause of shooting people.

Hyroglyphx writes: It's not a "bad apple" problem but a systemic problem. Millions and millions and millions of police interactions annually. There's actually never been less police corruption than now because of the amount of oversight and the advent of the cellphone. That might be the biggest irony of it all.

It's systemic racism and brutality, not corruption. It's handing someone a hammer and asking him to perform surgery.

A much higher percentage of blacks get police attention or arrested. How much of that bump do you think represents racism? I'm asking specific to Chauvin.

You're as ignorant of statistics as ever. That's like asking if a specific individual's cancer was caused by air pollution. I think explaining this to you is as hopeless a cause as it's ever been, but trying again anyway, the presence of racism increases the likelihood of racist acts. It doesn't tell you which acts were motivated by racism.

My point is, Chauvin may have been motivated by race and maybe he wasn't.

Everyone already knows this. See my previous paragraph.

I think it really detracts from the point to inject speculation into it. What we know is that Chauvin did something odious and he should pay for it.

What I said was:

quote:

---

It's not a "bad apple" problem but a systemic problem.

---

And:

quote:

---

A much higher percentage of blacks get police attention or arrested. How much of that bump do you think represents racism?

---

Nowhere did I "speculate" about Chauvin's racial attitudes. That's not a point I've made. You're off in the category of, "This invalid point is so easy to rebut that I shall inject it into the discussion myself."

This is just typical racist white grievance crap. Is it?

Yes, it is. The fallacy of your argument would be clear to you if you understood statistics.

Or is it the truth? You think CNN gives a flying fuck about George Floyd? George Floyd is ratings on steroids. CNN has all the impetus in the world to paint everything in divisive terms... Pure rage bait... and they've got you hook, line and sinker.

So you think that if it weren't for CNN nobody would have ever heard of George Floyd? You think police misconduct isn't news?

Your mere mention of ANTIFA ("BLM are also rejecting ANTIFA") gives away exactly where you're coming from. Trumpublicans just march out the ANTIFA bogeyman whenever they want to falsely tar some one or some group. It's a fact that you're not willing to accept. Little white suburban kids who have been pumped full of Marxist ideology for years are using BLM as a platform. They speak on behalf of black people when not asked to, they control the conversation when not asked to, and use it to sow as much discord as possible.

Do you really believe the crap you're spewing?

Do you have any actual evidence of this? Calling your account into question are articles like Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests and False stories about "paid protesters" spike — again — in effort to delegitimize Black Lives Matter protests. Since you believe that media coverage is the only metric for knowing what's happening in the world,...

You have a habit of putting your words in other people's mouths, but highly respected news media who have built their reputations over generations is the most reliable way to learn what's going on in the world. If you're not getting your information from news media outlets then where are you getting it? Facebook? Twitter?

...probably because you're so geographically disconnected from it,...

You do realize, I hope, that you're equally "geographically disconnected."

...here you go: Antifa and anarchists have hijacked Floyd protests but left won't admit it What's Antifa and its role in Black Lives Matter protests? Officials see extremist groups, disinformation in protests Black Organizers Enraged by White Agitators ‘Here to F*ck Shit Up’ Antifa, Other Far-Left Groups Exploit Protests for ‘Revolution’ George Floyd protests across US hijacked by white provocateurs to start riots

How do these support your position that Antifa is playing any meaningful role, or rebut the fact that they're just a marginal group getting a lot of press because Trump keeps accusing them of being behind recent unrest associated with protests? You cited an oped piece, an article from the state-run news outlet of Turkey, a news article enumerating what's being investigated, a news article that contradicts your position, another news article that requires registration to read, and an article from the British tabloid The Mirror.

Not only that but there wasn't a single respected source among them, such as The BBC, The New Yorker, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, etc.

Bottom line: There is no actual evidence of widespread Antifa-caused unrest. They're a fringe group with little power or influence who no one here supports anyway. You're just buying Trump propaganda hook, line and sinker. I guess we know your "news source" now.

--Percy

Hyroglyphx writes: Most agencies though have enormous incentive to root out shitty officers. Shitty officers erode public trust and they're horribly expensive in the form of lawsuits.

You're still on your "bad apple" kick. The problem isn't bad apples. The problem is systemic. The problem is an environment that encourages the dehumanization of people not like the white majority.

You also have to understand the resentment that all police officers have for Derek Chauvin.

Except that "all police officers" do not resent Derek Chauvin. And BLM is getting increasing pushback from the paler portions of our citizenry.

--Percy

PaulK writes: Defunding the police might not be the right idea, but it looks like something drastic is needed to deal with the ongoing corruption.

In case some don't know what "defunding the police" means, it isn't intended to be taken literally. It refers to taking the funding police are given to handle non-police activities, such as mental health interventions, lost children, wellness checks, etc., and giving it to agencies better trained and equipped to deal with them.

It doesn't matter how much training you provide the police. No one can master all the disparate responsibilities many policemen are routinely handed.

--Percy

Nonsense. If the police didn't bring a gun to either situation, the outcome would be different. Having the capability to shoot people is a major cause of shooting people.

So the other alternative is have either the officer die or the offender be clubbed to death or stabbed to death by the officer’s own knife. Deadly Force is still Deadly Force regardless of the method