The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[LordKiran]

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

Ideally everyone should get to go home safely at night. The reason he lead with that statement was to cut off accusations that "He hates cops." or some-such.

Too much safety leads to tyranny.

The most oppressive forms of government are those who want to make things safe for its citizens.

I'm not sure how this rhetorical statement relates to the quote "I want cops to get home safely at night." unless you're arguing that this simple statement has intended authoritarian overtones.

 

[Rayschism]

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

Ideally everyone should get to go home safely at night. The reason he lead with that statement was to cut off accusations that "He hates cops." or some-such.

Too much safety leads to tyranny.

The most oppressive forms of government are those who want to make things safe for its citizens.

I'm not sure how this rhetorical statement relates to the quote "I want cops to get home safely at night." unless you're arguing that this simple statement has intended authoritarian overtones.

Wanting cops to get home safely every night is a double standard.

And too much safety is indeed entirely authoritarian.

It's kind of a soft way of how a government can become totally authoritarian and tyrannical.

In a current example, in NYC we see people being fined very heavily for manspreading and not using people's personal pronouns in order to spare them of having hurt feelings.

 

[LordKiran]

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

Ideally everyone should get to go home safely at night. The reason he lead with that statement was to cut off accusations that "He hates cops." or some-such.

Too much safety leads to tyranny.

The most oppressive forms of government are those who want to make things safe for its citizens.

I'm not sure how this rhetorical statement relates to the quote "I want cops to get home safely at night." unless you're arguing that this simple statement has intended authoritarian overtones.

Wanting cops to get home safely every night is a double standard.[1]

And too much safety is indeed entirely authoritarian.[2]

It's kind of a soft way of how a government can become totally authoritarian and tyrannical.[3]

In a current example, in NYC we see people being fined very heavily for manspreading and not using people's personal pronouns in order to spare them of having hurt feelings.[4]

Where to even start? Your rhetoric and assertions are all over the map with this post. I'm not even entirely sure what this is all in regards to. You took a single sentence from an entire post, isolated it from the context of the rest of the post and are now ascribing all sorts of motivations to that sentence that are not there.

1. Okay...with regard to what, and how?

2. I don't recall anyone here suggesting otherwise. What's your point?

3. What is? Typing "I hope people don't die on the way home?"

4. And you might have had a point were this related to anything anyone is talking about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

You arr begging the question by presupposing that they are crooks. They are people. They are you and me.

Most of them were engaged in violent actions towards the police.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is your side assumes police shootings are always wrong, when in practice they are usually justified even when the person doesn't have a gun.

Of the ones that aren't most seem to be a case of having their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't have--blame the police academies for this.

Sterling did have a gun and appeared to be going for it. Being black doesn't magically make it an unjustified shooting.

Police shootings ARE always wrong. A police shooting taking place means that we, all of us, lost.
Please see to the bigger picture.

So the police are not allowed even self defense?

I hope you like Somalia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

It's not a sporting event!

Actually, it's called "parity between citizens and cops."

This is a situation where two policemen put themselves in danger, and then reacted with deadly force.

What is to prevent you or I from being killed in a similar situation? I know that being a white man provides a huge amount of protection from being shot by a policeman, but it's ironclad guarantee. If the police are not held responsible for the outcome of situations they create, no one is safe from poor training, poor judgment, and poor results.

Just for discussion sake, imagine that I walk up to you in a parking lot, pull out a pistol, put it to your head and threaten to kill you. What is your immediate thought? What is your immediate reaction?

Now, imagine the same thing, but I am wearing a police uniform. What is your immediate reaction?

Your world would have no law enforcement.

Police that forfeit the right of self defense when they initiate the confrontation would have no way to arrest anyone who didn't want to be arrested.

This isn't a sporting event where the bad guys should be balanced against society to ensure an equal outcome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Yet another person who wants to live in Somalia.

In a civilized society the police detain and arrest people. That's reality, no society has ever been free of criminals, nor is it likely that it will ever happen in the future.

By saying there was no imminent threat so they shouldn't have acted that means no ability to detain those who do not want to be detained.

 

[bilby]

Police shootings ARE always wrong. A police shooting taking place means that we, all of us, lost.
Please see to the bigger picture.

So the police are not allowed even self defense?

I hope you like Somalia.

No, that's not the point.

The point is that the police shouldn't NEED to shoot people in self defence, and so shouldn't ACTUALLY shoot people in self defence, even though they are ALLOWED to.

Well trained police (almost) never need to. So frequent instances of it happening are an indication of a systemic failure in your society.

And by getting a policeman into a position where it is necessary for him to shoot a citizen (even a criminal), society has failed - It has failed to train its police, and it has failed to control its population without the use of deadly force. Both of which are demonstrably possible - other nations manage to do it.

 

[Juma]

You arr begging the question by presupposing that they are crooks. They are people. They are you and me.

Most of them were engaged in violent actions towards the police.

Only most of them? Why include those that didnt?
Because you want to define them to be the enemy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the police are not allowed even self defense?

I hope you like Somalia.

No, that's not the point.

The point is that the police shouldn't NEED to shoot people in self defence, and so shouldn't ACTUALLY shoot people in self defence, even though they are ALLOWED to.

Well trained police (almost) never need to. So frequent instances of it happening are an indication of a systemic failure in your society.

And by getting a policeman into a position where it is necessary for him to shoot a citizen (even a criminal), society has failed - It has failed to train its police, and it has failed to control its population without the use of deadly force. Both of which are demonstrably possible - other nations manage to do it.

There are those who would attack the police, either to escape or because they choose death over going back to jail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of them were engaged in violent actions towards the police.

Only most of them? Why include those that didnt?
Because you want to define them to be the enemy.

There are some who only appeared to be engaged in violence. For example, Tamir Rice. Pulling a gun to discard it looks the same as pulling a gun to shoot it.

 

[bilby]

No, that's not the point.

The point is that the police shouldn't NEED to shoot people in self defence, and so shouldn't ACTUALLY shoot people in self defence, even though they are ALLOWED to.

Well trained police (almost) never need to. So frequent instances of it happening are an indication of a systemic failure in your society.

And by getting a policeman into a position where it is necessary for him to shoot a citizen (even a criminal), society has failed - It has failed to train its police, and it has failed to control its population without the use of deadly force. Both of which are demonstrably possible - other nations manage to do it.

There are those who would attack the police, either to escape or because they choose death over going back to jail.

Sure. And there are those who die from getting tangled in their bed sheets.

What you need to demonstrate is that either situation is sufficiently common as to be worth addressing; And that the number of shootings by police is not MASSIVELY disproportionate to the number of times that they encounter "those who would attack the police, either to escape or because they choose death over going back to jail.".

The evidence from OECD nations other then the US indicates that such incidents cannot possibly represent the majority (or even a significant minority) of incidents in which US based officers shoot people and claim to have done so in self defence.

By what mechanism do you think that US criminals become so lethally dangerous, in comparison to their counterparts in the civilized world?

And is resigned acceptance the most appropriate response to that mechanism, or should steps be taken to remove or reduce that mechanism, so that US police are not so frequently placed in such risky situations?

 

[laughing dog]

Only most of them? Why include those that didnt?
Because you want to define them to be the enemy.

There are some who only appeared to be engaged in violence. For example, Tamir Rice. Pulling a gun to discard it looks the same as pulling a gun to shoot it.

First, it does not necessarily look the same. Second, iwhy do you continue to conflate your conjectures with fact?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are those who would attack the police, either to escape or because they choose death over going back to jail.

Sure. And there are those who die from getting tangled in their bed sheets.

What you need to demonstrate is that either situation is sufficiently common as to be worth addressing; And that the number of shootings by police is not MASSIVELY disproportionate to the number of times that they encounter "those who would attack the police, either to escape or because they choose death over going back to jail.".

The evidence from OECD nations other then the US indicates that such incidents cannot possibly represent the majority (or even a significant minority) of incidents in which US based officers shoot people and claim to have done so in self defence.

By what mechanism do you think that US criminals become so lethally dangerous, in comparison to their counterparts in the civilized world?

And is resigned acceptance the most appropriate response to that mechanism, or should steps be taken to remove or reduce that mechanism, so that US police are not so frequently placed in such risky situations?

Well over 90% of police shootings are quite clear cut. The guy who got shot was attacking the cops.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm not sure how this rhetorical statement relates to the quote "I want cops to get home safely at night." unless you're arguing that this simple statement has intended authoritarian overtones.

I think someone was going for pithy but ended up with a rather puerile non sequitur instead

 

[RavenSky]

4. And you might have had a point were this related to anything anyone is talking about.

Not really

This stupid-ass claim

In a current example, in NYC we see people being fined very heavily ...not using people's personal pronouns in order to spare them of having hurt feelings

was already debunked by me on another thread, but here s/he is again spouting it as if s/he hadn't been painstakingly given the correct information just yesterday.

I really loathe that kind of dishonest discourse.

The bit about fines "manspreading" is also pretty close to "pants on fire". It has alway been a violation to take up more than one seat on public transportation for the very simple reason that the trains and buses are often crowded. This law is not specifically directed at (assholish) men spreading their legs across two and three seats - it applies to anyone - though they did recently have a "public awareness" campaign targeting the manspreading

 

[RavenSky]

There are some who only appeared to be engaged in violence. For example, Tamir Rice. Pulling a gun to discard it looks the same as pulling a gun to shoot it.

HE DID NOT "PULL A GUN" !!!!!

You are another one who repeats the same bullshit debunked falsehoods over and over

 

[bilby]

Sure. And there are those who die from getting tangled in their bed sheets.

What you need to demonstrate is that either situation is sufficiently common as to be worth addressing; And that the number of shootings by police is not MASSIVELY disproportionate to the number of times that they encounter "those who would attack the police, either to escape or because they choose death over going back to jail.".

The evidence from OECD nations other then the US indicates that such incidents cannot possibly represent the majority (or even a significant minority) of incidents in which US based officers shoot people and claim to have done so in self defence.

By what mechanism do you think that US criminals become so lethally dangerous, in comparison to their counterparts in the civilized world?

And is resigned acceptance the most appropriate response to that mechanism, or should steps be taken to remove or reduce that mechanism, so that US police are not so frequently placed in such risky situations?

Well over 90% of police shootings are quite clear cut. The guy who got shot was attacking the cops.

I don't care.

I am talking about the overall picture; not any individual case.

It is undeniable that US police kill far more civilians than their counterparts in other OECD nations. Whether or not these civilians are engaged in a crime at the time of their shooting, it is undeniable that it was not necessary to shoot the majority of them; If it were necessary to protect police, then we would see vastly greater numbers of police killed in the line of duty in the rest of the OECD compared to the US, and we don't see that. If it were necessary to prevent crime, then we would see vastly more crime in the rest of the OECD compared to the US, and we don't see that, either.

Whether or not you can justify each individual case of a police shooting, or any particular case, the clear fact remains that it is possible to have police shoot fewer civilians than they currently do in the US, without a massive increase in the harm to police, or to the wider community.

By what mechanism do you think that US criminals become so lethally dangerous, in comparison to their counterparts in the civilized world?

And is resigned acceptance the most appropriate response to that mechanism, or should steps be taken to remove or reduce that mechanism, so that US police are not so frequently placed in such risky situations?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well over 90% of police shootings are quite clear cut. The guy who got shot was attacking the cops.

I don't care.

I am talking about the overall picture; not any individual case.

It is undeniable that US police kill far more civilians than their counterparts in other OECD nations. Whether or not these civilians are engaged in a crime at the time of their shooting, it is undeniable that it was not necessary to shoot the majority of them; If it were necessary to protect police, then we would see vastly greater numbers of police killed in the line of duty in the rest of the OECD compared to the US, and we don't see that. If it were necessary to prevent crime, then we would see vastly more crime in the rest of the OECD compared to the US, and we don't see that, either.

Whether or not you can justify each individual case of a police shooting, or any particular case, the clear fact remains that it is possible to have police shoot fewer civilians than they currently do in the US, without a massive increase in the harm to police, or to the wider community.

By what mechanism do you think that US criminals become so lethally dangerous, in comparison to their counterparts in the civilized world?

And is resigned acceptance the most appropriate response to that mechanism, or should steps be taken to remove or reduce that mechanism, so that US police are not so frequently placed in such risky situations?

1) Our criminals have more access to guns.

2) Our punishments are harsher, people are more likely to take a chance on a shootout rather than go to jail, or simply try it as a means of suicide.

3) There's far too much criminal coddling in Europe.

 

[bilby]

I don't care.

I am talking about the overall picture; not any individual case.

It is undeniable that US police kill far more civilians than their counterparts in other OECD nations. Whether or not these civilians are engaged in a crime at the time of their shooting, it is undeniable that it was not necessary to shoot the majority of them; If it were necessary to protect police, then we would see vastly greater numbers of police killed in the line of duty in the rest of the OECD compared to the US, and we don't see that. If it were necessary to prevent crime, then we would see vastly more crime in the rest of the OECD compared to the US, and we don't see that, either.

Whether or not you can justify each individual case of a police shooting, or any particular case, the clear fact remains that it is possible to have police shoot fewer civilians than they currently do in the US, without a massive increase in the harm to police, or to the wider community.

By what mechanism do you think that US criminals become so lethally dangerous, in comparison to their counterparts in the civilized world?

And is resigned acceptance the most appropriate response to that mechanism, or should steps be taken to remove or reduce that mechanism, so that US police are not so frequently placed in such risky situations?

1) Our criminals have more access to guns.

Then you should do something about that

2) Our punishments are harsher, people are more likely to take a chance on a shootout rather than go to jail, or simply try it as a means of suicide.

Then you should do something about that, too.

3) There's far too much criminal coddling in Europe.

If 'too much' leads to fewer needless deaths, less danger to police, less danger to the public, and no obvious increase in crime, then what would make you describe it as 'too much'?

It would appear that what you call 'criminal coddling' is an effective policing strategy; and that your objection is based on an arbitrary and counterfactual belief that it is both necessary and desirable to be cruel to people who step out of line.

Observation always trumps theory; if 'coddling' works, then it's what you need to do, whether you like it or not.