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

[Crazy Eddie]

He only needs a hostage if they're chasing him on foot through a crowded area they do not really control, with guns drawn, in a conflict that is not being properly defused.

He needs a hostage if he wants to escape.

He doesn't need to escape if they're not chasing him.
He doesn't have access to a hostage if they have him properly isolated.

If they're don't have him properly isolated AND they're still chasing him, then something has gone terribly wrong.

You can't back off and yet retain control of the situation.

Of course you can. Police do it all the time. Give the suspect some distance to cool down but don't actually give him an escape route (or give him an escape route that has been deliberately cleared of civilians in order to box him in at a better location). This is most commonly done in police chases, and has become standard procedure after several high speed police chases in major cities resulted in horrific traffic accidents.

And the reasoning AGAINST those new policies was exactly the same as yours: "You can't back off and yet retain control of the situation." Police discovered pretty quickly that this wasn't actually the case; following a suspect from a discrete distance (by helicopter or by unmarked cars) lead to far more arrests and far fewer accidents.

Hang tight and wait for backup often lets the bad guy escape.

Even if this wasn't bullshit (which it is) so what? Bad guy escapes... oh NOES!!! Now we have to track him down and arrest him LATER! How embarrassing!

If you won't look the situation how can you even make a judgment?

No judgement is neccesary, I'm asking for a statement of fact. How many people did Michael Brown kill?

Nobody intended to kill Eric Garner. Sometimes when you get into a fight bad things happen. Too bad.

That doesn't answer my question.

I didn't respond to all of them--there were some that they should not have shot.

I'm ASKING you about all of them. How many of these people were proven murderers? How many lives did they take? How can you even BEGIN to claim that shooting them saved lives they would have taken later?

And next time the cops find him he punches one and leaves.

The next time the cops find him they're serving an arrest warrant and are therefore PREPARED to deal with potential resistance. Unless they send Lone Ranger Darren Wilson by himself to do the job... in which case, yeah, Michael punches his lights out and walks away.

And failing to make an arrest two times in a row isn't going to cost Darren Wilson his life. Incompetent cops will be incompetent, but that doesn't give them an excuse to kill people.

 

[RavenSky]

Ah, the righwing's mythical infinite number of deaths caused by the failure of the police to kill unarmed or harmless civilians.

Is it even possible for you to write an on-topic reply?

His reply to you was very on-topic. Is it even possible for you to ever back up the bullshit that you write with anything approaching a sourced fact?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's your assertion, not mine. I don't consider one act of violence to make a thug.

Bullshit.

You referred to the Jamar Clark protestors as "thugs" for shoving the provocateurs who later opened fire on them; this was a SINGLE incident, ONE ACT, and you did not even extend that label to include the shooters.

It was one act we saw. I called them thugs because their behavior made it clear they considered that violence to be normal actions--otherwise they would have cared about admitting it on camera.

 

[ksen]

Hey loren, does your ass hurt after pulling so much shit from it?

 

[laughing dog]

It was one act we saw. I called them thugs because their behavior made it clear they considered that violence to be normal actions--otherwise they would have cared about admitting it on camera.

We also saw the one act of the perps who carried weapons to a protest and antagonized the protesters - clearly the acts of people who consider violence to be normal actions, but you refused to call them thugs. You also said that Tamir Rice learned thuggish behavior from his mom because she was a drug dealer, even though he did not engage in any violence, and even though you know nothing about his mother. So, your explanation is truly unconvincing since it does not fit the facts.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Bullshit.

You referred to the Jamar Clark protestors as "thugs" for shoving the provocateurs who later opened fire on them; this was a SINGLE incident, ONE ACT, and you did not even extend that label to include the shooters.

It was one act we saw. I called them thugs because their behavior made it clear they considered that violence to be normal actions--otherwise they would have cared about admitting it on camera.

Bullshit. You've just shifted the definition from "More than one act of violence" to "one act of violence without appropriate remorse." And even then, you didn't extend that definition to include the SHOOTERS, who also admitted their actions not only on camera but TO THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THEM.

You apply the definition of "thug" selectively and rarely -- if ever -- apply it to whites. Your justification is bullshit and your worldview is inherently bigoted. Moving on...

 

[Malintent]

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/

You utterly missed the point here.

The reality is that you have competing objectives (don't shoot innocents, stop suspects from shooting cops or bystanders). If you go for 100% error free in either direction you'll end up with more dead innocents. The two errors must be balanced.

This is reality, not a liberal pipe dream where a perfect solution exists.

Not only is this not some fantasy (balancing two things where extremes are undesirable in either), but an established field of statistical mathematics. The function is called "calculating the crossover error". Many human interface systems are configured using these techniques to minimize error and maximize performance... it's like basic calculus.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He needs a hostage if he wants to escape.

He doesn't need to escape if they're not chasing him.
He doesn't have access to a hostage if they have him properly isolated.

Isolated with what, big concrete walls beamed in by transporter?

Backing off inherently means not isolating--perhaps there's nobody else in their circle but the perp can move--either expanding the circle or negating the backing off.

If they're don't have him properly isolated AND they're still chasing him, then something has gone terribly wrong.

What's gone terribly wrong is your perception of what can happen. Backing off doesn't mean the guy is just going to sit there!

You can't back off and yet retain control of the situation.

Of course you can. Police do it all the time. Give the suspect some distance to cool down but don't actually give him an escape route (or give him an escape route that has been deliberately cleared of civilians in order to box him in at a better location). This is most commonly done in police chases, and has become standard procedure after several high speed police chases in major cities resulted in horrific traffic accidents.

And the reasoning AGAINST those new policies was exactly the same as yours: "You can't back off and yet retain control of the situation." Police discovered pretty quickly that this wasn't actually the case; following a suspect from a discrete distance (by helicopter or by unmarked cars) lead to far more arrests and far fewer accidents.

You catch the little fish that way. The big fish escape.

Hang tight and wait for backup often lets the bad guy escape.

Even if this wasn't bullshit (which it is) so what? Bad guy escapes... oh NOES!!! Now we have to track him down and arrest him LATER! How embarrassing!

You've already shown you can't arrest him if he takes an aggressive approach.

And failing to make an arrest two times in a row isn't going to cost Darren Wilson his life. Incompetent cops will be incompetent, but that doesn't give them an excuse to kill people.

With a police force that is basically ineffective against thugs you'll see a lot more dead people.

- - - Updated - - -

It was one act we saw. I called them thugs because their behavior made it clear they considered that violence to be normal actions--otherwise they would have cared about admitting it on camera.

Bullshit. You've just shifted the definition from "More than one act of violence" to "one act of violence without appropriate remorse." And even then, you didn't extend that definition to include the SHOOTERS, who also admitted their actions not only on camera but TO THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THEM.

You apply the definition of "thug" selectively and rarely -- if ever -- apply it to whites. Your justification is bullshit and your worldview is inherently bigoted. Moving on...

It's not a matter of remorse, but willingness to admit to doing it. Your average person on the street isn't going to freely admit to a felony on camera.

 

[ksen]

Loren has convinced me, the police should just shoot everybody.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

He doesn't need to escape if they're not chasing him.
He doesn't have access to a hostage if they have him properly isolated.

Isolated with what, big concrete walls beamed in by transporter?

Isolated by a perimeter, which police officers are required to establish and control in any confrontation.

Backing off inherently means not isolating

No, backing off means giving the suspect some space and not forcibly interacting with him by barking orders or demanding (immediate) compliance. It does NOT mean that all the police officers hide into their cars, shut their eyes and count to 100 by five. It just means they spend a few minutes not screaming at him to surrender and/or trying to tackle him to the ground. Talk him down, let his adrenaline dissipate without triggering his natural fight-or-flight response. Give him time to figure out on his own that
a) They're not going to let me escape and
b) They're not going to kill me

He'll probably calm the fuck down and let himself be taken in.

You catch the little fish that way. The big fish escape.

Bullshit. Gangsters do not drive spy cars and terrorists do not have cloaking devices.

You've already shown you can't arrest him if he takes an aggressive approach.

Of course you can. The trick is to arrest him in a situation where YOU control the circumstances. 90% of the time, an officer resorts to lethal force as a means to gain control of a situation he never controlled in the first place. In a pre-planned raid with lots of backup, this ceases to be a problem.

It's not a matter of remorse, but willingness to admit to doing it.

The shooters admitted it TO THE POLICE. You still don't consider them thugs.

Your average person on the street isn't going to freely admit to a felony on camera.

Even in the south, "Niggers shoving white people" is not a felony, Loren.

 

[Frikki]

Bullshit.

You referred to the Jamar Clark protestors as "thugs" for shoving the provocateurs who later opened fire on them; this was a SINGLE incident, ONE ACT, and you did not even extend that label to include the shooters.

It was one act we saw. I called them thugs because their behavior made it clear they considered that violence to be normal actions--otherwise they would have cared about admitting it on camera.

You call them thugs be cause you are afraid to call them niggers.

 

[ksen]

It was one act we saw. I called them thugs because their behavior made it clear they considered that violence to be normal actions--otherwise they would have cared about admitting it on camera.

You call them thugs be cause you are afraid to call them niggers.

Is he?

 

[Frikki]

You call them thugs be cause you are afraid to call them niggers.

Is he?

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

 

[Derec]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

 

[ksen]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

No no, of course it doesn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is he?

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

Thugs can be of any color.

In America they're mostly--but not all--black.

In Mexico they're mostly Hispanic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

Quibble: Casually violent criminal.

An assassin-for-hire would certainly classify as a violent criminal but it's not likely they're going to engage in casual violence and thus I would not call them a thug.

A thug is a person who is liable to hurt you because you upset him.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

 

[Malintent]

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

'Thug' means 'criminal that uses physical harm as a means to profit'. Race is not involved. In fact, if anything, 'Thug' is historically more of a term for a white criminal than a black one... a black one was generally just called a niggah (or more accurately, some other niggah's 'Dog').

My response to the notion that if you use a term more for one group of people than another is, "If the shoe fits..."

 

[Toni]

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

'Thug' means 'criminal that uses physical harm as a means to profit'. Race is not involved. In fact, if anything, 'Thug' is historically more of a term for a white criminal than a black one... a black one was generally just called a niggah (or more accurately, some other niggah's 'Dog').

My response to the notion that if you use a term more for one group of people than another is, "If the shoe fits..."

Originally, a Thug was a member of a group of professional criminals--robbers and assassins, who were devotees of Kali and who typically strangled their victims.

Later, it became a term to describe a ruffian or a hoodlum.

In common usage, it stands for a more traditional and offensive word to describe black people.

From the Urban Dictionary, it has a different connotation:

As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life. A thug is NOT a gangster. Look up gangster and gangsta. Not even CLOSE, my friend.

Based solely on their posting history, I would go out on a limb and say that for Loren and Derec--and others--that thug is a more socially acceptable term than the infamous N word and that they seem to associate being black, especially black and male with being a criminal. Maybe I've missed instances where they referred to white criminals as thugs.

- - - Updated - - -

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

'Thug' means 'criminal that uses physical harm as a means to profit'. Race is not involved. In fact, if anything, 'Thug' is historically more of a term for a white criminal than a black one... a black one was generally just called a niggah (or more accurately, some other niggah's 'Dog').

My response to the notion that if you use a term more for one group of people than another is, "If the shoe fits..."

And don't Derec and Loren wear it well!