356 people killed by police this year as of April 21, 2015

[laughing dog]

As for the second case--nothing in that article precludes him preparing to throw the knife. This one has to be undecided at present.

Throwing a knife from fifty feet?!? Really, Loren? Hell, even Bill The Butcher in Gangs of New York wasn't that good. Your fantasies aren't even up to Hollywood standards.

Your side doesn't get it. It doesn't matter if it is possible, just that someone feels it has a nonzero chance of occurring so that he can be defend himself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As an experiment I too clicked three random links in the list:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/03/27/stockton-man-who-exchanged-gunfire-with-officers-dies/

Man shot by the police after they say he "allegedly" shot at them. The story uses the word "allegedly" so I guess there's been no independent corroboration of the officers' stories.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Sunnyvale-police-shoot-liquor-store-robbery-6186999.php

Man shot to death after robbing a liquor store with a knife. The man fled to an alley and was ordered to drop the knife. The officer stated the suspect had the knife out but was stationary 50 feet away from the officer. Shots fired, suspect dead.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article14023826.html

US Marshals serving an arrest warrant found an armed man inside the house and a marshal shot him dead in "response to the subject’s actions." However we are not told what the subject's actions were that caused the marshal to shoot.

So in 3 out of 3 random clicks there is no clear justification for police killing these 3 people.

Of course they said "allegedly". This is normal legal CYA behavior of the news media and should not be taken as evidence of something shady.

As for the second case--nothing in that article precludes him preparing to throw the knife. This one has to be undecided at present.

As for the third one--in response to the subject's actions probably means he made some quick and threatening move. Without a clear indication of exactly what the guy was trying to accomplish they aren't going to say exactly what the move was. Thus, again undecided based on the current data.

I can step aside and say that 1 and 3 can certainly be legitimate, shooting a guy armed with a knife from 50 feet? Throw the knife? You do realize that the officer can dodge right? Seriously, did you watch the LA beatdown video and think... yeah, his arm did shift half an inch, they needed to continue beating him down?

 

[ronburgundy]

About 400 people are killed by surgeons every year. That number is unacceptable and shows that surgeons are reckless and "knife-happy".

This statement is as informative and valid as the OP. IF you find the OP valid but not the above statement, then that is nothing but blind ideology undermining your application of reason in a consistent manner.
The distinction between them only arises after all of those cases are categorized by the cause and context of each of the deaths, which in both domains results in the verb "killed" being misleading hyperbole for some of the instances where a death resulted from a non-reckless accident as part of the realities of normal valid procedures. For cops, it also results in evidence for lives being protected and saved by the killing of a violent criminal, analogous to surgeons whose patients die but due to the actions the surgeons took to protect a person from a serious threat.

 

[ronburgundy]

As an experiment I too clicked three random links in the list:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/03/27/stockton-man-who-exchanged-gunfire-with-officers-dies/

Man shot by the police after they say he "allegedly" shot at them. The story uses the word "allegedly" so I guess there's been no independent corroboration of the officers' stories.

I googled "Carl Lao Stockton" and the first page of links included 9 separate news stories about it, with all but 1 reporting specific details showing the cops were clearly justified, such that cops were called due to multiple 911 calls of this guy standing with a gun and a box of ammo in a crowded pedestrian area shooting at people, cars, and buildings.
Here is the first link:

[P] STOCKTON, Calif. (KCRA) —A Stockton man was hospitalized in critical condition Wednesday night after he fired a handgun at a business, a mail van, police officers and a sheriff's deputy, investigators said.

Carl Lao, 28, has prior arrests on battery charges, according to a news release from Chief Eric Jones, of the Stockton Police Department.

Just after 1:45 p.m., at Church and San Joaquin streets, Lao started firing his .25-caliber handgun, which has since been recovered, police said.

People in the area heard the shots and dialed 911.

Listen to a 911 recording, provided by police (audio file)

While officers were driving to the area, callers told 911 operators they could see the man outside, shooting the gun. The operator could hear the gunshots through the phone, police said.

Once officials arrived, one caller even told 911 he or she saw the man fire at police.

Officers confirmed to dispatchers they were being shot at, the news release says.

Police said they had no choice -- they told Lao to drop his weapon and he refused.

"Our officers have the right to protect themselves and people in the area, so that's why they fired back, and in doing so, struck him multiple times," Stockton Officer Joe Silva said.

Witnesses saw the situation the same way.

"He actually pointed the gun at me," witness Casper Copeland said. "I got to talking to him and said, 'Put the gun down.'"[/P]

Not surprisingly Ksen's link is the only link of the 9 that fails to reference any of these critical details. So what we know is that the 356 number is utterly meaningless from which zero factual nor moral implications follow. We also know that the single news stories linked for each instance are unreliable, and most likely ideologically cherry-picked to find the one with the fewest details that would explain or justify the killing so that people like ksen can misuse them for his own ideological agenda. This doesn't mean the news outlet itself is biased, just the cherry pickers. In this case, that CBS report was only issued to report that the man had died several day after the incident and after the details of the incident had already been extensively reported.

 

[laughing dog]

About 400 people are killed by surgeons every year. That number is unacceptable and shows that surgeons are reckless and "knife-happy".

This statement is as informative and valid as the OP. IF you find the OP valid but not the above statement, then that is nothing but blind ideology undermining your application of reason in a consistent manner.....

I suppose if one is unable make simple distinctions between actions to improve the health of people and actions meant to degrade the lives of people that claim appears sensible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

About 400 people are killed by surgeons every year. That number is unacceptable and shows that surgeons are reckless and "knife-happy".

Today on Ridiculously Not Even Close to Applicable Analogies, we'll be comparing death numbers from a profession that performs invasive procedures on sick people with another profession in charge of keeping the peace. What whacky conclusions can we make? Find out tonight at 10.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I can't believe none of you have even bothered to consider the number of people who die in terminal cancer wards every year. You're pissing around with statistics about cops and doctors when it's the hospice workers who are slaughtering innocents in droves.

 

[ronburgundy]

About 400 people are killed by surgeons every year. That number is unacceptable and shows that surgeons are reckless and "knife-happy".

This statement is as informative and valid as the OP. IF you find the OP valid but not the above statement, then that is nothing but blind ideology undermining your application of reason in a consistent manner.....

I suppose if one is unable make simple distinctions between actions to improve the health of people and actions meant to degrade the lives of people that claim appears sensible.

That is precisely the distinction that you, the OP, and all its supporters are unable (or unwilling) to make. The vast majority of cops actions that lead to violent exchanges are "to improve the health of people" by protecting them from ill-intentioned violent criminals who threaten that health. Thus, citing number of people cops have killed, includes all of those people plus many people killed by accidents, such as auto accidents some cops will inherently get into just like all drivers.
Almost none (and maybe zero) of the 356 people listed can be shown to have been killed by "actions meant to degrade the lives of people", and yet the OP and you respond as though that applies to all 356.

Today on Ridiculously Not Even Close to Applicable Analogies, we'll be comparing death numbers from a profession that performs invasive procedures on sick people with another profession in charge of keeping the peace. What whacky conclusions can we make? Find out tonight at 10.

Since you unsurprisingly have no clue what an analogy is or what make them valid, let me explain. The surface features you are distinguishing are irrelevant to analogies, and people who focus on them are the ones that fail to be able to identify and/or utilize the valid ones.
The validity arise for abstract-level similarities in the relations between the things, not in the things in themselves. Surgeons engage in dangerous actions to save or protect the life or health of others. Cops do the same. Surgeons actions sometimes cause the death of person's, but they were motivated by trying to preserve life against real threat. The same applies to cops. Surgeons can be reckless and do things that harm people when it was not neccessary to protect people from harm. The same applies to cops. Therefore, the fact that a person died as as consequence of a surgeons actions has zero implications for the morality or competence of the doctor. Those deaths are actually more likely to reflect reasonable efforts to save lives than anything unethical. The same applies to cops. Only the number of deaths that can be confidently categorized based upon their specific facts, as the result of reckless actions not within the bounds of their job requirements (for either surgeons or cops) have any bearing whatever on a "problem" with their competence or ethics.
IOW, it is about as valid and apt as analogies come.

 

[laughing dog]

I suppose if one is unable make simple distinctions between actions to improve the health of people and actions meant to degrade the lives of people that claim appears sensible.

That is precisely the distinction that you, the OP, and all its supporters are unable (or unwilling) to make. The vast majority of cops actions that lead to violent exchanges are "to improve the health of people" by protecting them from ill-intentioned violent criminals who threaten that health.

Shooting someone is not improving the health of anyone. Apprehending criminals is not improving the health on anyone. Surgeons are not intending harm while police do intend harm when they shoot at someone. So, your response is unconvincing.

Almost none (and maybe zero) of the 356 people listed can be shown to have been killed by "actions meant to degrade the lives of people", and yet the OP and you respond as though that applies to all 356.

First, deliberately shooting at someone in order to hurt or kill them is obviously an action meant to degrade the life of the person, so your response is ludicrous on its face. Second, your mischaracterization of the OP and my response is based on bad reasoning (see below).

You seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept that any killing by the police should be viewed as an unwanted outcome until it is shown otherwise - the underlying basis of the OP. It is not an unreasonable stance to take, even if one does not like it. It certainly does not mean nor imply that every killing by the police is unwarranted or unwanted or avoidable.

 

[ronburgundy]

That is precisely the distinction that you, the OP, and all its supporters are unable (or unwilling) to make. The vast majority of cops actions that lead to violent exchanges are "to improve the health of people" by protecting them from ill-intentioned violent criminals who threaten that health.

Shooting someone is not improving the health of anyone. Apprehending criminals is not improving the health on anyone.

Utterly and objectively false, as the individual details of the 356 already discussed proves. In the 4 random cases I looked at (including the one that ksen misrepresented), there were at least 2 of the 4 instances where the person shot was in the act of killing other people and their death saved the lives of others that would have very likely been murdered otherwise (btw, living and healthier than dying). Every time a violent criminal is shot or apprehended, the health and well being of numerous other lives are improved, just as much as the removal of a dangerous bacteria from a person's body.

Surgeons are not intending harm while police do intend harm when they shoot at someone.

Surgeons intend to kill dangerous tissue and organisms in order to preserve life that all reasonable people hold more valuable. That is what cops are doing when they shoot the violent criminals trying to kill other people. Surgeons also intend to do things they know could kill the patient themselves, but they do so because it is a tradeoff where the consequences of not doing it are worse. Cops make an analogous trade-off where they act to cause potential harm to one person in order to reduce harm to others lives who (because they aren't trying to kill someone) are more valuable than that of the criminal.

So, your response is unconvincing.

As always. It is your blind faith and refusal to reason that leaves you "unconvinced". Rational thought can't convince a person already convinced on irrational grounds.

Almost none (and maybe zero) of the 356 people listed can be shown to have been killed by "actions meant to degrade the lives of people", and yet the OP and you respond as though that applies to all 356.

First, deliberately shooting at someone in order to hurt or kill them is obviously an action meant to degrade the life of the person, so your response is ludicrous on its face.

Wow, you really drank to whole jug of koolaid. "meant to degrade" means that the motivating factor prompting the cop to shoot is a desire to insult or show contempt for the person. That doesn't even apply to many criminal murders which have more practical motives than that, and applies to very few instances of police shootings. In a justified police shooting, their motivating intent is to stop the person from completing criminal actions. If a consequence of stopping those actions is that the person's life is in some way degraded, then that is a by-product not a motivating cause as you false claim.

You seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept that any killing by the police should be viewed as an unwanted outcome until it is shown otherwise

False. Your claim presumes guilt a priori, which presumes that the majority of people killed by cops posed no threat to anyone. Which is as baseless and unreasonable as presuming that the majority of people who die due to surgery die because the surgeon acted recklessly and unethically. Sometimes both are the case, but those are a small minority, thus it is highly irrational to presume any instance is such a case unless their is evidence establishing guilt.
While all killings by anyone should be investigated, it is both irrational and unethical to view killings by cops as "unwanted" and "unacceptable" a priori and without evidence that the killing was not part of their duty to protect the lives of others against very real and pervasive violent threats from their fellow citizens. In addition, every live saved by police actions against violent criminals is successful toward that end only because cops fortunately do not consider people like you who presume them a priori to be heinous murderers unless they can prove their innocence. Many more innocent people would die at the hands of violent criminals if cops thought like you are allowed your views to impact their decision making. This is beyond any reasonable doubt. Cops do and should act to stop violent criminals by neccessary means, even in the countless situations where there would be no strong evidence to prove them innocent of heinous intent. Such situations are guaranteed to be numerous among the 356 number, and yet your "logic" would guarantee that those cops would be treated as murderers, thus guaranteeing that other cops would hesitate to stop violent criminals in the future, thus guaranteeing an increase in innocent people killed by criminals due to your irrational and unethical politics.

Evidence of innocence is like the fossil record, its rare good luck to ever find any because the basic facts of reality just don't leave demonstrable traces that are easy to find. Just like most organisms don't leave a fossil record, most justified acts of physical altercation with a criminal will not leave clear evidence for you to exonerate a cop you already presume is a murderer.

It is not an unreasonable stance to take, even if one does not like it.

It is an equally unreasonable a stance to take as the stance that 400 killings by surgeons is unwanted or unacceptable. In both cases, a small % of the killings are unethical, in most they are highly ethical, and others ethics are irrelevant because they are accidents that happen in the world, some which involve police officers.
The raw number provides zero information about how many if any unethical acts there are. Just like the differences in raw numbers between countries, precincts, or time periods provide zero information of a problem with cops. They could as easily re

It certainly does not mean nor imply that every killing by the police is unwarranted or unwanted or avoidable.

It doesn't mean that even a single killing by the police in unwarranted or avoidable. It means absolutely nothing beyond that 356 people died.
It could mean that 2,000 people we not murdered by the people these 356 people would have killed if not killed themselves. It could mean that 356 people were needlessly murdered by the cops, or it could mean anything in between. Thus, if the number were 20 or 1000, it wouldn't mean anything different as far as the issue of the "unwanted" actions of the police.

 

[ronburgundy]

102,200 people murdered or forcibly raped in the US in the last year. A huge % of them involving guns.

Too bad there was no cop there to shoot those criminals. In fact, too bad that those criminals were not shot by the cops during the previous violent crime that most of them committed.

 

[laughing dog]

Utterly and objectively false, .......

The spinning in that rant made me nauseous. It is the perfect example of "Rational thought can't convince a person already convinced on irrational grounds."

] You seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept that any killing by the police should be viewed as an unwanted outcome until it is shown otherwise

False. Your claim presumes guilt a priori.....

The claim makes no presumption of guilt. It makes the reasonable assumption that in the absence of any information, killing someone is an unwanted or undesired outcome That has nothing to do with guilt. Hence your entire rant is based on a false premise.

 

[WAB]

The spinning in that rant made me nauseous. It is the perfect example of "Rational thought can't convince a person already convinced on irrational grounds."

] You seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept that any killing by the police should be viewed as an unwanted outcome until it is shown otherwise

False. Your claim presumes guilt a priori.....

The claim makes no presumption of guilt. It makes the reasonable assumption that in the absence of any information, killing someone is an unwanted or undesired outcome That has nothing to do with guilt. Hence your entire rant is based on a false premise.

I've noticed a tendency round these parts to label an opponent's post a 'rant', even when the post is clearly not a 'rant'. I was accused of posting a 'rant' that was clearly not a 'rant', and it's really irritating. It's something that shouldn't happen on a site that prides itself on 'freethinking'* and rational, civil debate.

By all means, call a rant a rant, but the word loses all meaning when applied to posts that are not rants.

End of rant.



Definitions of rant:

noun: a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion
noun: pompous or pretentious talk or writing
verb: talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

- Rhymezone


*And I can't help noticing that 'freethinking' frequently refers to whatever kind of thinking jibes with the general consensus among posters with the largest post count and the most sparkly rep jewels. Note I said 'frequently', not 'always', not even 'usually'; just 'frequently'.

 

[bilby]

The spinning in that rant made me nauseous. It is the perfect example of "Rational thought can't convince a person already convinced on irrational grounds."

] You seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept that any killing by the police should be viewed as an unwanted outcome until it is shown otherwise

False. Your claim presumes guilt a priori.....

The claim makes no presumption of guilt. It makes the reasonable assumption that in the absence of any information, killing someone is an unwanted or undesired outcome That has nothing to do with guilt. Hence your entire rant is based on a false premise.

I've noticed a tendency round these parts to label an opponent's post a 'rant', even when the post is clearly not a 'rant'. I was accused of posting a 'rant' that was clearly not a 'rant', and it's really irritating. It's something that shouldn't happen on a site that prides itself on 'freethinking'* and rational, civil debate.

By all means, call a rant a rant, but the word loses all meaning when applied to posts that are not rants.

End of rant.



Definitions of rant:

noun: a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion
noun: pompous or pretentious talk or writing
verb: talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

- Rhymezone


*And I can't help noticing that 'freethinking' frequently refers to whatever kind of thinking jibes with the general consensus among posters with the largest post count and the most sparkly rep jewels. Note I said 'frequently', not 'always', not even 'usually'; just 'frequently'.

'freethinking' explicitly refers to thinking that is not bound by the dogma of religious belief.

As long as the kind of thinking being done is not in line with religious dogma, then it is freethinking. By definition.

 

[WAB]

Then I strongly disagree with the definition. Free thinking is using your brain to think for yourself. If you use your brain and decide that a certain religious dogma is in line with what you think and believe, then that does not magically erase the fact that you thought for yourself and happened to agree with that religious dogma.

Your last sentence is clearly wrong-headed. There are many adherents to crazy ideas that are not religious, and many of these people are ardent atheists.

Are you using the word 'religious' to refer to a belief in God or gods? Because I've seen arguments among atheists who refer to people they don't agree with as 'religionists'.

 

[WAB]

The spinning in that rant made me nauseous. It is the perfect example of "Rational thought can't convince a person already convinced on irrational grounds."

] You seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept that any killing by the police should be viewed as an unwanted outcome until it is shown otherwise

False. Your claim presumes guilt a priori.....

The claim makes no presumption of guilt. It makes the reasonable assumption that in the absence of any information, killing someone is an unwanted or undesired outcome That has nothing to do with guilt. Hence your entire rant is based on a false premise.

ronburgundy hasn't posted any rants in this thread, at least as far as I can determine from having read most of them. I suppose I might have missed some posts of his. And he seems to be thinking as rationally as can be expected from a person, even though I don't necessarily agree with a few of the things he's said. Personally, as I've stated in another thread, I think police brutality is clearly on the rise and is a problem. What's misleading about the OP is that it focuses on killings by police officers without bearing in mind that police officers are sometimes forced to kill as part of their job. We should have a thread about instances of unnecessary brutality committed by the police*: beatings and various other reprehensible acts. Many of these are caught on tape and are indisputable.

Imagine a list of killings by military personnel, marines, combat soldiers, etc.

*I see there are threads about that.

 

[WAB]

freethinker
noun free·think·er \-ˈthiŋ-kər\
: a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what other people say.
Full Definition of FREETHINKER

: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma
— free·think·ing \-kiŋ\ noun or adjective

- Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

Note the first definition. Also note, in the latter portion, that the word is 'especially', not 'exclusively'.