Atlanta-area police shoot dead unarmed, naked African-American man

[Malintent]

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the guy gets the officer's gun.

The problem with your approach is sometimes non-dangerous civilians gets killed.

Who is the non-dangerous civilian that got shot by a police officer that you are making reference to, and how often does that happen? How often do completely-dangerous civilians get shot by police, such that future untold harm has been prevented?

At what percentage, in your estimation, would we need to look at this as a problem?

 

[laughing dog]

The problem with your approach is sometimes non-dangerous civilians gets killed.

Who is the non-dangerous civilian that got shot by a police officer that you are making reference to, and how often does that happen? How often do completely-dangerous civilians get shot by police, such that future untold harm has been prevented?

Tamir Rice comes immediately to mind. Then there is David Kassick and Raymond Martinez (both cases referenced in this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/) And once is too often.

At what percentage, in your estimation, would we need to look at this as a problem?

Any positive percentage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the guy gets the officer's gun.

good

Next time you need help are you going to call a thug or 911?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, hard to believe that if you think you've been put in an "us vs them" situation you prefer the "us" over the "them".

What's your rap sheet like?

- - - Updated - - -

Who is the non-dangerous civilian that got shot by a police officer that you are making reference to, and how often does that happen? How often do completely-dangerous civilians get shot by police, such that future untold harm has been prevented?

Tamir Rice comes immediately to mind. Then there is David Kassick and Raymond Martinez (both cases referenced in this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/) And once is too often.

At what percentage, in your estimation, would we need to look at this as a problem?

Any positive percentage.

When a snap decision must be made there is not going to be perfection. Thus a one-is-too-many standard is impossible to meet.

 

[laughing dog]

When a snap decision must be made there is not going to be perfection. Thus a one-is-too-many standard is impossible to meet.

It doesn't mean the answer is to stop trying to reduce the number of needless deaths at the hands of the police. One method is to stop giving them virtual carte blanche when it comes to shooting deaths of unarmed civilians. According to you, when a civilian makes the wrong snap decision, it justifies the snap decision of the police to shoot and kill that victim. Well, I think that when the police make the wrong snap decision and it results in the death of unarmed civilian, I think the police need to face consequences that are appropriate for the specific situation.

 

[Malintent]

Who is the non-dangerous civilian that got shot by a police officer that you are making reference to, and how often does that happen? How often do completely-dangerous civilians get shot by police, such that future untold harm has been prevented?

Tamir Rice comes immediately to mind. Then there is David Kassick and Raymond Martinez (both cases referenced in this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/) And once is too often.

At what percentage, in your estimation, would we need to look at this as a problem?

Any positive percentage.

So then I take it you also feel that no one should ever go to prison, since 1 in <any number> of people being wrongfully accused is unacceptable... and that vaccines should be outlawed.. because even one child dying from some highly unusual circumstance that is vaguely related to the injection is 'just too many' for the benefit of ensuring the preservation of so many other lives. correct?

Since you didn't call this particular 'totally innocent.. he did not do anything' person out, then I take it you agree that the headline / OP was just a marketing campaign for anti-cop / anti-white sentiment too?

 

[Malintent]

When a snap decision must be made there is not going to be perfection. Thus a one-is-too-many standard is impossible to meet.

It doesn't mean the answer is to stop trying to reduce the number of needless deaths at the hands of the police. One method is to stop giving them virtual carte blanche when it comes to shooting deaths of unarmed civilians. According to you, when a civilian makes the wrong snap decision, it justifies the snap decision of the police to shoot and kill that victim. Well, I think that when the police make the wrong snap decision and it results in the death of unarmed civilian, I think the police need to face consequences that are appropriate for the specific situation.

strawman. No one has 'carte blanche'. Every round fired has pages of documents to support the purpose and justification.
a civilian can fire off a legal firearm without justification, as long as it was not an illegal act. Cops must provide justification for simply reaching for their firearm. Carte blanche my ass. it is this kind of 'selling the news with radical headlines' that you are promoting that is the problem.

 

[ksen]

Every round fired has pages of documents to support the purpose and justification.

How the fuck many pages does it take to write out, "I was scared for my life"?

 

[laughing dog]

It doesn't mean the answer is to stop trying to reduce the number of needless deaths at the hands of the police. One method is to stop giving them virtual carte blanche when it comes to shooting deaths of unarmed civilians. According to you, when a civilian makes the wrong snap decision, it justifies the snap decision of the police to shoot and kill that victim. Well, I think that when the police make the wrong snap decision and it results in the death of unarmed civilian, I think the police need to face consequences that are appropriate for the specific situation.

strawman. No one has 'carte blanche'. Every round fired has pages of documents to support the purpose and justification.
a civilian can fire off a legal firearm without justification, as long as it was not an illegal act. Cops must provide justification for simply reaching for their firearm. Carte blanche my ass. it is this kind of 'selling the news with radical headlines' that you are promoting that is the problem.

As far as I can tell, this entire rant is based on your inability to parse the phrase "virtual carte blanche".

 

[laughing dog]

Tamir Rice comes immediately to mind. Then there is David Kassick and Raymond Martinez (both cases referenced in this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/) And once is too often.

At what percentage, in your estimation, would we need to look at this as a problem?

Any positive percentage.

So then I take it you also feel that no one should ever go to prison, since 1 in <any number> of people being wrongfully accused is unacceptable... and that vaccines should be outlawed.. because even one child dying from some highly unusual circumstance that is vaguely related to the injection is 'just too many' for the benefit of ensuring the preservation of so many other lives. correct?

Nope. One could draw the rather disquieting conclusions from your inapt and inept analogies that
1) you don't think it is problem that unarmed civilians who pose no real danger to anyone are shot and killed the police, and
2) nothing should be done to reduce the number of these types of deaths.

Since you didn't call this particular 'totally innocent.. he did not do anything' person out, then I take it you agree that the headline / OP was just a marketing campaign for anti-cop / anti-white sentiment too?

I apologize I have no idea what any of this jibber-jabber means.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When a snap decision must be made there is not going to be perfection. Thus a one-is-too-many standard is impossible to meet.

It doesn't mean the answer is to stop trying to reduce the number of needless deaths at the hands of the police. One method is to stop giving them virtual carte blanche when it comes to shooting deaths of unarmed civilians. According to you, when a civilian makes the wrong snap decision, it justifies the snap decision of the police to shoot and kill that victim. Well, I think that when the police make the wrong snap decision and it results in the death of unarmed civilian, I think the police need to face consequences that are appropriate for the specific situation.

One should not aim for zero errors. One should aim for a minimum of bad outcomes in both directions (shooting when they shouldn't, not shooting when they should.) When you say "one is too many" you are inherently attempting to reach a non-optimal solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Every round fired has pages of documents to support the purpose and justification.

How the fuck many pages does it take to write out, "I was scared for my life"?

You need to show why you were scared, simply asserting it is not enough.

 

[laughing dog]

It doesn't mean the answer is to stop trying to reduce the number of needless deaths at the hands of the police. One method is to stop giving them virtual carte blanche when it comes to shooting deaths of unarmed civilians. According to you, when a civilian makes the wrong snap decision, it justifies the snap decision of the police to shoot and kill that victim. Well, I think that when the police make the wrong snap decision and it results in the death of unarmed civilian, I think the police need to face consequences that are appropriate for the specific situation.

One should not aim for zero errors. One should aim for a minimum of bad outcomes in both directions (shooting when they shouldn't, not shooting when they should.)

Why? Police are expected and paid take such risks - civilians are not.

When you say "one is too many" you are inherently attempting to reach a non-optimal solution.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nope. One could draw the rather disquieting conclusions from your inapt and inept analogies that
1) you don't think it is problem that unarmed civilians who pose no real danger to anyone are shot and killed the police, and
2) nothing should be done to reduce the number of these types of deaths.

All his cases are the same class of problem: An optimization where you must balance false positives and false negatives. Note that attempting to solve such a problem by focusing only on one class of error is always wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. One could draw the rather disquieting conclusions from your inapt and inept analogies that
1) you don't think it is problem that unarmed civilians who pose no real danger to anyone are shot and killed the police, and
2) nothing should be done to reduce the number of these types of deaths.

All his cases are the same class of problem: An optimization where you must balance false positives and false negatives. Note that attempting to solve such a problem by focusing only on one class of error is always wrong.

Logically that is false. If the damage or costs of one type of error greatly outweigh the costs or damages of the other type, it makes sense to focus on the error with the vastly larger costs/damages.

 

[Toni]

It doesn't mean the answer is to stop trying to reduce the number of needless deaths at the hands of the police. One method is to stop giving them virtual carte blanche when it comes to shooting deaths of unarmed civilians. According to you, when a civilian makes the wrong snap decision, it justifies the snap decision of the police to shoot and kill that victim. Well, I think that when the police make the wrong snap decision and it results in the death of unarmed civilian, I think the police need to face consequences that are appropriate for the specific situation.

One should not aim for zero errors. One should aim for a minimum of bad outcomes in both directions (shooting when they shouldn't, not shooting when they should.) When you say "one is too many" you are inherently attempting to reach a non-optimal solution.

You are absolutely wrong. Not just incorrect, but wrong. When stakes are highest, so is the absolute need for the absolute highest level of professionalism, and integrity and accuracy, with a goal of zero errors. Even if the goal is not 100% obtainable, it still must be the goal. Because the stakes are so high. Note: when someone is killed 'accidentally' or in any manner which is avoidable or not completely justifiably, with no tortured justifications, there is a grave loss not just in loss of life of that one person killed but a grave loss to the public in their ability to trust and rely upon the police and law enforcement and the legal justice system. Every single death caused by police action or negligence erodes the confidence and integrity of law enforcement, to the detriment of every citizen and society as a whole.

This is about the medical industry, but it pertains to law enforcement as well:

http://qsen.org/faculty-resources/videos/chasing-zero-winning-the-war-on-healthcare-harm/

 

[Malintent]

Tamir Rice comes immediately to mind. Then there is David Kassick and Raymond Martinez (both cases referenced in this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/) And once is too often.

At what percentage, in your estimation, would we need to look at this as a problem?

Any positive percentage.

So then I take it you also feel that no one should ever go to prison, since 1 in <any number> of people being wrongfully accused is unacceptable... and that vaccines should be outlawed.. because even one child dying from some highly unusual circumstance that is vaguely related to the injection is 'just too many' for the benefit of ensuring the preservation of so many other lives. correct?

Nope. One could draw the rather disquieting conclusions from your inapt and inept analogies that
1) you don't think it is problem that unarmed civilians who pose no real danger to anyone are shot and killed the police, and
2) nothing should be done to reduce the number of these types of deaths.

Since you didn't call this particular 'totally innocent.. he did not do anything' person out, then I take it you agree that the headline / OP was just a marketing campaign for anti-cop / anti-white sentiment too?

I apologize I have no idea what any of this jibber-jabber means.

I bolded your error for you. That is the strawman you have constructed.

As for what is being done to reduce error... training programs are always being reevaluated.. the answer is not to call cops racist murderers.. that does not help reduce error, it increases it by making those that would riot, and those that blindly follow headlines ("HE DINDU NUFFIN!!!) without a clue as to the details, become a greater danger to themselves by acting like primitive, tribal, animals that, in my opinion, deserve to be shot.

 

[Malintent]

One should not aim for zero errors. One should aim for a minimum of bad outcomes in both directions (shooting when they shouldn't, not shooting when they should.) When you say "one is too many" you are inherently attempting to reach a non-optimal solution.

You are absolutely wrong. Not just incorrect, but wrong. When stakes are highest, so is the absolute need for the absolute highest level of professionalism, and integrity and accuracy, with a goal of zero errors. Even if the goal is not 100% obtainable, it still must be the goal. Because the stakes are so high. Note: when someone is killed 'accidentally' or in any manner which is avoidable or not completely justifiably, with no tortured justifications, there is a grave loss not just in loss of life of that one person killed but a grave loss to the public in their ability to trust and rely upon the police and law enforcement and the legal justice system. Every single death caused by police action or negligence erodes the confidence and integrity of law enforcement, to the detriment of every citizen and society as a whole.

This is about the medical industry, but it pertains to law enforcement as well:

http://qsen.org/faculty-resources/videos/chasing-zero-winning-the-war-on-healthcare-harm/

I agree with your sentiment.. the goal should indeed be zero error. This, of course, like any other human process, is impossible... but is definitely a good goal.

Where I disagree, is that it is not the act of a mistake being made by a cop that is causing the issue of lack of confidence, etc.. It is the media taking a situation where a raving lunatic was threatening the lives of many people, had a history of violence and drug use, and got himself shot for assaulting a cop, and issue a headline (which is as far as the vast majority of people read) that says, "innocent black man minding his own business, saving kittens from trees, gunned down by evil white cops trying to steal his money for drugs" - click HERE to read more about it and click on all of our ads too!

that is the real problem.

 

[laughing dog]

I bolded your error for you. That is the strawman you have constructed.

I made no error. Tamir Rice was no danger to anyone. Neither were the other two victims.

As for what is being done to reduce error... training programs are always being reevaluated.. the answer is not to call cops racist murderers.. that does not help reduce error, it increases it by making those that would riot, and those that blindly follow headlines ("HE DINDU NUFFIN!!!) without a clue as to the details, become a greater danger to themselves by acting like primitive, tribal, animals that, in my opinion, deserve to be shot.

I have no idea what prompted these straw men.

 

[Toni]

You are absolutely wrong. Not just incorrect, but wrong. When stakes are highest, so is the absolute need for the absolute highest level of professionalism, and integrity and accuracy, with a goal of zero errors. Even if the goal is not 100% obtainable, it still must be the goal. Because the stakes are so high. Note: when someone is killed 'accidentally' or in any manner which is avoidable or not completely justifiably, with no tortured justifications, there is a grave loss not just in loss of life of that one person killed but a grave loss to the public in their ability to trust and rely upon the police and law enforcement and the legal justice system. Every single death caused by police action or negligence erodes the confidence and integrity of law enforcement, to the detriment of every citizen and society as a whole.

This is about the medical industry, but it pertains to law enforcement as well:

http://qsen.org/faculty-resources/videos/chasing-zero-winning-the-war-on-healthcare-harm/

I agree with your sentiment.. the goal should indeed be zero error. This, of course, like any other human process, is impossible... but is definitely a good goal.

Where I disagree, is that it is not the act of a mistake being made by a cop that is causing the issue of lack of confidence, etc.. It is the media taking a situation where a raving lunatic was threatening the lives of many people, had a history of violence and drug use, and got himself shot for assaulting a cop, and issue a headline (which is as far as the vast majority of people read) that says, "innocent black man minding his own business, saving kittens from trees, gunned down by evil white cops trying to steal his money for drugs" - click HERE to read more about it and click on all of our ads too!

that is the real problem.

It would indeed be a real problem if that were the case. In this instance (OP case), there was a sadly mentally ill person and people called to try to get him help not because they were afraid of mass deaths at the hands of a naked guy who was clearly unarmed.

 

[ksen]

I made no error. Tamir Rice was no danger to anyone. Neither were the other two victims.

As for what is being done to reduce error... training programs are always being reevaluated.. the answer is not to call cops racist murderers.. that does not help reduce error, it increases it by making those that would riot, and those that blindly follow headlines ("HE DINDU NUFFIN!!!) without a clue as to the details, become a greater danger to themselves by acting like primitive, tribal, animals that, in my opinion, deserve to be shot.

I have no idea what prompted these straw men.

I do.