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

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with all the call-for-backup answers is that they mean the criminals can just engage in violence and then leave with very little risk of getting caught.

Think back to the Indian Wars. Were the Indians really such rapists? No--they learned that when fleeing it was advantageous to stop and rape a woman. The troops would stop and aid her, letting them get away. You're trying to set up the same sort of situation.

Seriously, are you alright? Even for you, comparing calling for a back up to Native American raping women to slow down troops is really fucking unreal.

Both are the same situation: Setting up a situation in which a bad act by the bad guy will make the law back off.

 

[laughing dog]

Seriously, are you alright? Even for you, comparing calling for a back up to Native American raping women to slow down troops is really fucking unreal.

Both are the same situation: Setting up a situation in which a bad act by the bad guy will make the law back off.

Except they are not. "Backing off" is not the same as "letting go scot free".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Both are the same situation: Setting up a situation in which a bad act by the bad guy will make the law back off.

Except they are not. "Backing off" is not the same as "letting go scot free".

Except in reality it is. Next time the police find him he will do the same thing and get away again.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This is again your fallacious assumption that there's some sort of time limit to how long a confrontation with police can last before the suspect transforms into a warewolf and goes on a vicious killing spree all over town, as if "follow the suspect but do not engage" is somehow impossible to do.

The problem with all the call-for-backup answers is that they mean the criminals can just engage in violence and then leave with very little risk of getting caught.

Exactly as I said: there's NO reason to believe the criminal will cause a wave of destruction of mayhem in the 5 minutes it takes to wait for backup to arrive. If you're not dealing with an active shooter or a suicide bomber or a warewolf in the middle of a transformation, there really ISN'T any need for immediate haste. In fact, in the event a suspect has a hostage or is in danger of becoming violent, postponing the confrontation and letting his adrenaline wear off is actually the better play.

Think back to the Indian Wars. Were the Indians really such rapists? No--they learned that when fleeing it was advantageous to stop and rape a woman.

Or so racist white settlers repeatedly claimed in order to justify perpetual aggression in the Indian Wars.

Amusingly, you now find yourself in the very appropriate position of justifying the massacres of the Indian Wars based on the same kind of self-serving lies history has already proven false.

Seriously, are you alright? Even for you, comparing calling for a back up to Native American raping women to slow down troops is really fucking unreal.

Both are the same situation

This is true. They're both fictional scenarios with no basis in reality and are entirely derived from fear.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except they are not. "Backing off" is not the same as "letting go scot free".

Except in reality it is.

No it absolutely isn't. You follow the suspect and keep him in sight and report his position at all times so backup knows where to join you. Again, that's not hard; if he runs, run after him. If he's in a car, follow him from a distance. If he gets tired, walk and keep your distance.

What's he gonna do, drop a smoke bomb and vanish like a ninja?

 

[laughing dog]

Except they are not. "Backing off" is not the same as "letting go scot free".

Except in reality it is. Next time the police find him he will do the same thing and get away again.

No, because calling for back up does not require the police officer to sit down, close his or her eyes, and count to 1000 before calling "ready or not, here I come".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with all the call-for-backup answers is that they mean the criminals can just engage in violence and then leave with very little risk of getting caught.

Exactly as I said: there's NO reason to believe the criminal will cause a wave of destruction of mayhem in the 5 minutes it takes to wait for backup to arrive. If you're not dealing with an active shooter or a suicide bomber or a warewolf in the middle of a transformation, there really ISN'T any need for immediate haste. In fact, in the event a suspect has a hostage or is in danger of becoming violent, postponing the confrontation and letting his adrenaline wear off is actually the better play.

You're moving the goalposts. I'm saying he will escape to do more dirty deeds in the future.

Think back to the Indian Wars. Were the Indians really such rapists? No--they learned that when fleeing it was advantageous to stop and rape a woman.

Or so racist white settlers repeatedly claimed in order to justify perpetual aggression in the Indian Wars.

Amusingly, you now find yourself in the very appropriate position of justifying the massacres of the Indian Wars based on the same kind of self-serving lies history has already proven false.

Huh? I'm not justifying massacres, I'm explaining how good intentions can lead to bad results.

Seriously, are you alright? Even for you, comparing calling for a back up to Native American raping women to slow down troops is really fucking unreal.

Both are the same situation

This is true. They're both fictional scenarios with no basis in reality and are entirely derived from fear.

You might not like reality but that doesn't make it fiction.

- - - Updated - - -

Except in reality it is.

No it absolutely isn't. You follow the suspect and keep him in sight and report his position at all times so backup knows where to join you. Again, that's not hard; if he runs, run after him. If he's in a car, follow him from a distance. If he gets tired, walk and keep your distance.

What's he gonna do, drop a smoke bomb and vanish like a ninja?

Backing off and always keeping him in sight aren't mutually compatible in an urban environment.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Exactly as I said: there's NO reason to believe the criminal will cause a wave of destruction of mayhem in the 5 minutes it takes to wait for backup to arrive. If you're not dealing with an active shooter or a suicide bomber or a warewolf in the middle of a transformation, there really ISN'T any need for immediate haste. In fact, in the event a suspect has a hostage or is in danger of becoming violent, postponing the confrontation and letting his adrenaline wear off is actually the better play.

You're moving the goalposts. I'm saying he will escape to do more dirty deeds in the future.

1) No, you were saying (directly or by implication) that a criminal fleeing the police is likely to stop and rape a woman -- or some other heinous crime -- so his pursuers will have to stop chasing him to comfort her, just like the Indian Warriors of old. So that is YOUR goalpost you're aiming for

2) "Will escape" is an idiotic assumption. Pursuing officers are in almost EVERY case perfectly capable of maintaining pursuit without engaging. If the suspect is on foot you can simply follow him, either in a car or on foot yourself (or both, ideally, if you have more than one officer in the pursuit) and using the lights and sirens and other officers to keep bystanders out of harm's way (containment). If the suspect is in a vehicle, 90% of the time you can get a police or news helicopter to follow from the air, or you can follow him in an unmarked car from a discrete distance. Some cities, however, have strict guidelines that prohibit active pursuit in a vehicle precisely because those pursuits cause a lot more damage than the suspect alone is likely to cause if he is allowed to escape arrest for the few hours it'll take to wait for him to let his guard down (and then they just arrest him AT HOME).

3) Innocent until proven guilty. You can't even legally assert he did a "dirty deed" in the first place without subjecting him to due process, so why the hell should we assume he WILL in the future?

Huh? I'm not justifying massacres, I'm explaining how good intentions can lead to bad results.

No, you're actually explaining how lies and propaganda can lead to war crimes.

You might not like reality but that doesn't make it fiction.

You might not like indians or black people, but that doesn't make them rapists.

Backing off and always keeping him in sight aren't mutually compatible in an urban environment.

Clearly you've never tried it. But that makes sense, because you speak most authoritatively on subjects the less you know about them.