Now #BLMers are rioting in Minneapolis after black murderer kills himself

[Jarhyn]

You're still assuming there isn't a threat. Your take-it-slow approach will fail badly if the threat is real.

If there is a threat, and if the threat is imminent, then they have to act quickly.

But before they act, they need to understand what the threat is and where it's coming from so they have some idea what to do about it. Otherwise they'll just be flailing about blindly and innocents could be hurt or killed, including themselves.

You can't just skip the part about assessing the situation and expect them to choose the correct course of action. Not unless you think the correct course of action is always 'shoot first and ask questions later'.

The 'if there IS a threat' approach LP is suggesting would mean that police would never be able to capture any suspect ever. Any suspect they see they would shoot on sight assuming the 'threat' to be real... and yet in the real world we see time and again how people who are actual threats are captured without taking a shot, how mass shooters are taken into custody unharmed.

Jeezz... In LP's imaginary world the biggest threat to everyone would be the police.

I really think that the police should be expected to assume first risk.

With great power comes great responsibility; To whom much is given, much is expected. We give these people the power to end our lives. I don't think it's unwarranted here to expect that in exchange for that power, they assume first risk. I would expect a cop to assume the risk that it is a bad guy in the knowledge that it could be a not-bad-guy who is perfectly within their rights to be open carrying a firearm for no particular reason.

Just the possibility of this means that they don't have a real right to fire until they have been fired upon, and they have a responsibility to approach the situation with care. They were, after all, protected by the car surrounding them.

It's like some people just have some sort of neurosis that prevents them from saying "a cop did bad".

 

[Derec]

I really think that the police should be expected to assume first risk.

They already assume a reasonable level of risk. You want them to assume unreasonable level of risk too.

With great power comes great responsibility; To whom much is given, much is expected.

Police are neither a superhero bitten by a radioactive spider nor a godman who brought the world into existence by speaking.

We give these people the power to end our lives. I don't think it's unwarranted here to expect that in exchange for that power, they assume first risk. I would expect a cop to assume the risk that it is a bad guy in the knowledge that it could be a not-bad-guy who is perfectly within their rights to be open carrying a firearm for no particular reason.

Running from police while brandishing a firearm, for example, is not allowed under "open carry" in no state.

Just the possibility of this means that they don't have a real right to fire until they have been fired upon, and they have a responsibility to approach the situation with care. They were, after all, protected by the car surrounding them.

And bullets cannot go through sheet metal? In any case, requiring that police must wait until they are fired upon is insane. I am sure some activists and keyboard warriors support that, but I doubt even left-wing politicians like AOC would be crazy enough to suggest it.

It's like some people just have some sort of neurosis that prevents them from saying "a cop did bad".

In the Tamir Rice case, the cops did bad. So did TR.
Doesn't mean they should have waited until they were fired upon.
Note that just because the kid was 12 (disregarding for the moment his adult-like dimensions), 12 year olds have been known to commit crime with real guns.
An example from my fair city:
11-year-old, 12-year-old arrested, accused of armed robbery on Beltline

Police have arrested an 11-year-old boy and a 12-year-old boy and accused them of robbing a woman at gunpoint while she was walking on the Beltline on Easter Sunday. The woman told Atlanta police that a group of children came up to her while she was walking on the trail around 8 p.m. in southwest Atlanta. She said they asked to use her cellphone, and when she said no, they followed her and one of them showed her a gun on his waistband. [...] The 11-year-old and 12-year-old were arrested Monday and taken to the Metro Regional Youth Detention Center, charged with armed robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and possession of a handgun by a person under the age of 18. Police said the 12-year-old had the weapon.

If one of them had pointed the gun at the officers instead of letting them arrest him peacefully, police would be 100% in shooting him, regardless of age.

And another one:
MARTA: Four juveniles arrested for armed robbery, 12-year-old had gun during arrest

—Four juvenile suspects were arrested by MARTA police in connection to an alleged armed robbery aboard a MARTA train.
According to a press release from MARTA, four juveniles allegedly robbed and assaulted a 13-year-old onboard a MARTA train near the Candler Park MARTA Station. The incident happened on May 2.
On May 13, MARTA officers patrolling the Five Points MARTA station detained four juveniles reportedly matching the suspects' descriptions from the May 2nd robbery.
The detained juveniles ages were 12, 15, 15, and 17, police wrote.
In addition, police wrote two of the suspects, including the twelve-year old, were carrying firearms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still assuming there isn't a threat. Your take-it-slow approach will fail badly if the threat is real.

If there is a threat, and if the threat is imminent, then they have to act quickly.

But before they act, they need to understand what the threat is and where it's coming from so they have some idea what to do about it. Otherwise they'll just be flailing about blindly and innocents could be hurt or killed, including themselves.

You can't just skip the part about assessing the situation and expect them to choose the correct course of action. Not unless you think the correct course of action is always 'shoot first and ask questions later'.

You have a time-stopping machine? Because when you take too long to evaluate the situation it goes very badly if there is an actual threat.

This is the sort of behavior that meant the cops stood around at Columbine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With great power comes great responsibility; To whom much is given, much is expected. We give these people the power to end our lives. I don't think it's unwarranted here to expect that in exchange for that power, they assume first risk. I would expect a cop to assume the risk that it is a bad guy in the knowledge that it could be a not-bad-guy who is perfectly within their rights to be open carrying a firearm for no particular reason.

Open carry doesn't mean you can ignore the police telling you to stop. It certainly doesn't mean you can flee the police with a gun in your hand!

Just the possibility of this means that they don't have a real right to fire until they have been fired upon, and they have a responsibility to approach the situation with care. They were, after all, protected by the car surrounding them.

A few parts of cars are actually cover but for the most part they are just concealment. A bullet is going to go right through 90% of a car. If the cop can see the bad guy the bad guy can figure out where the cop is and shoot right through. And if the bad guy has a gun in hand the cops have no hope of stopping him if he tries that--a decent shooter can bring a gun up and fire faster than someone can recognize what they are doing and stop them.

It's like some people just have some sort of neurosis that prevents them from saying "a cop did bad".

It's like some people just have some sort of neurosis that if a cop pulled the trigger he must have done bad.

 

[atrib]

The same thing I said to laughing dog--your approach works fine if it really is a kid playing with a toy. It doesn't work so well if it's an actual bad guy.

The same thing that has been said to you numerous times - the police should be able to ascertain (not immediately guess) whether the civilian is actually armed and threatening before opening fire. For some unfathomable reason, you prize the life of a trained professional who is paid to take these risks more than the life of an amateur who may be doing nothing wrong.

You're still assuming there isn't a threat. Your take-it-slow approach will fail badly if the threat is real.

Your assertion that the police should operate on the principle that every single suspect involved in an encounter is a threat, and that the encounter should begin by taking the suspect's life without any investigation, is patently absurd. In fact, it is so absurd that I would suspect you of being a troll if I were not familiar with your posting history on this subject.

 

[Trausti]

Yeah, I thought it was a pretty cute picture. I never imagined anyone would be seriously upset about it.

I thought it was cute, too. And a nice way of pointing out that All Lives can't Matter unless Black Lives Matter.

Say it with me Trausti: Black Lives Matter.

Say it with me: Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. Babies Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. If you can’t say all lives matter without adding a qualifier, you are the problem.

 

[Arctish]

You're still assuming there isn't a threat. Your take-it-slow approach will fail badly if the threat is real.

If there is a threat, and if the threat is imminent, then they have to act quickly.

But before they act, they need to understand what the threat is and where it's coming from so they have some idea what to do about it. Otherwise they'll just be flailing about blindly and innocents could be hurt or killed, including themselves.

You can't just skip the part about assessing the situation and expect them to choose the correct course of action. Not unless you think the correct course of action is always 'shoot first and ask questions later'.

You have a time-stopping machine? Because when you take too long to evaluate the situation it goes very badly if there is an actual threat.

This is the sort of behavior that meant the cops stood around at Columbine.

Either your response is an Excluded Middle fallacy, or you yourself are such a slow thinker you believe everyone has to become virtually immobile for minutes at a time while they evaluate a situation.

If a person is such a slow thinker they cannot process information quickly enough to follow standard police procedures for evaluating threats, or form a plan of action to deal with a potential threat other than 'shoot first and ask questions later', then they should not be police officers.

 

[Arctish]

Yeah, I thought it was a pretty cute picture. I never imagined anyone would be seriously upset about it.

I thought it was cute, too. And a nice way of pointing out that All Lives can't Matter unless Black Lives Matter.

Say it with me Trausti: Black Lives Matter.

Say it with me: Black Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter, and it's good to hear you say so.

If anyone questions your acceptance of that basic principle or your willingness to publicly acknowledge it, you can point to ^this^ post of yours.

Say it with me: Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. Babies Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. If you can’t say all lives matter without adding a qualifier, you are the problem.

Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. Babies Lives Matter. Latino Lives Matter, Jewish Lives Matter, Palestinian Lives Matter, Dalit Lives Matter, LGBTQ Lives Matter.

The Lives of People the World Over Matter.

All Lives Matter. Any other qualifier is only there when the lives of members of a specific group have been, or are currently being, devalued.

Uighur Lives Matter. The Lives of People Applying for Refugee Status at the USA's Southern Border Matter.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The 'if there IS a threat' approach LP is suggesting would mean that police would never be able to capture any suspect ever. Any suspect they see they would shoot on sight assuming the 'threat' to be real... and yet in the real world we see time and again how people who are actual threats are captured without taking a shot, how mass shooters are taken into custody unharmed.

Jeezz... In LP's imaginary world the biggest threat to everyone would be the police.

I really think that the police should be expected to assume first risk.

With great power comes great responsibility; To whom much is given, much is expected. We give these people the power to end our lives. I don't think it's unwarranted here to expect that in exchange for that power, they assume first risk. I would expect a cop to assume the risk that it is a bad guy in the knowledge that it could be a not-bad-guy who is perfectly within their rights to be open carrying a firearm for no particular reason.

Just the possibility of this means that they don't have a real right to fire until they have been fired upon, and they have a responsibility to approach the situation with care. They were, after all, protected by the car surrounding them.

It's like some people just have some sort of neurosis that prevents them from saying "a cop did bad".

I don't agree with first risk. The problem here is that often civilians (and children) are at risk when the cops are called. It isn't reasonable to expect a cop to wait until a civilian is shot before responding. Having said that, cops do not receive adequate training in assessing risk and possibly defusing a dangerous situation.

 

[Jarhyn]

The 'if there IS a threat' approach LP is suggesting would mean that police would never be able to capture any suspect ever. Any suspect they see they would shoot on sight assuming the 'threat' to be real... and yet in the real world we see time and again how people who are actual threats are captured without taking a shot, how mass shooters are taken into custody unharmed.

Jeezz... In LP's imaginary world the biggest threat to everyone would be the police.

I really think that the police should be expected to assume first risk.

With great power comes great responsibility; To whom much is given, much is expected. We give these people the power to end our lives. I don't think it's unwarranted here to expect that in exchange for that power, they assume first risk. I would expect a cop to assume the risk that it is a bad guy in the knowledge that it could be a not-bad-guy who is perfectly within their rights to be open carrying a firearm for no particular reason.

Just the possibility of this means that they don't have a real right to fire until they have been fired upon, and they have a responsibility to approach the situation with care. They were, after all, protected by the car surrounding them.

It's like some people just have some sort of neurosis that prevents them from saying "a cop did bad".

I don't agree with first risk. The problem here is that often civilians (and children) are at risk when the cops are called. It isn't reasonable to expect a cop to wait until a civilian is shot before responding. Having said that, cops do not receive adequate training in assessing risk and possibly defusing a dangerous situation.

Innocent until.proven guilty is the foundation of our justice system. Someone is not guilty of commiting a crime until they have actually committed it.

This is, within the context of our current justice system, a requirement to assume first risk, and allow someone to actually be a criminal before treating them as a criminal.

I will note there is a particular situation on which some actor asks to be assessed as if they are a risk, and they ought be taken on good faith on that matter (but treated with respect and gentleness as per their good faith).

 

[laughing dog]

The same thing I said to laughing dog--your approach works fine if it really is a kid playing with a toy. It doesn't work so well if it's an actual bad guy.

The same thing that has been said to you numerous times - the police should be able to ascertain (not immediately guess) whether the civilian is actually armed and threatening before opening fire. For some unfathomable reason, you prize the life of a trained professional who is paid to take these risks more than the life of an amateur who may be doing nothing wrong.

You're still assuming there isn't a threat.

No, I am not. I am saying they should proceed as if there is no threat until they ascertain there is an actual threat.

Your take-it-slow approach will fail badly if the threat is real.

Utter nonsense. Your approach of "shoot first and the ascertain" is morally depraved and is an example of why our social compact is broken.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have a time-stopping machine? Because when you take too long to evaluate the situation it goes very badly if there is an actual threat.

This is the sort of behavior that meant the cops stood around at Columbine.

Either your response is an Excluded Middle fallacy, or you yourself are such a slow thinker you believe everyone has to become virtually immobile for minutes at a time while they evaluate a situation.

If a person is such a slow thinker they cannot process information quickly enough to follow standard police procedures for evaluating threats, or form a plan of action to deal with a potential threat other than 'shoot first and ask questions later', then they should not be police officers.

You're assuming a middle exists. The cops didn't go in at Columbine for the exact reason you're asking for.

 

[Arctish]

You have a time-stopping machine? Because when you take too long to evaluate the situation it goes very badly if there is an actual threat.

This is the sort of behavior that meant the cops stood around at Columbine.

Either your response is an Excluded Middle fallacy, or you yourself are such a slow thinker you believe everyone has to become virtually immobile for minutes at a time while they evaluate a situation.

If a person is such a slow thinker they cannot process information quickly enough to follow standard police procedures for evaluating threats, or form a plan of action to deal with a potential threat other than 'shoot first and ask questions later', then they should not be police officers.

You're assuming a middle exists. The cops didn't go in at Columbine for the exact reason you're asking for.

Do you want more dead cops?

Because going into a situation like the mass murder at Columbine High School, in which the presence of at least one active shooter had been confirmed by multiple witnesses, without first assessing the situation and having a plan to deal with said shooter(s), is how you get more dead cops. And possibly more dead students, too.

Not only that, failing to assess a situation in which you don't have an active shooter and aren't really sure you might have one soon, where the alleged potential shooter might be an innocent civilian minding his own business, is how you get unwarranted use of lethal force and dead kids.

Police departments across the country have established procedures for a reason, you know. They didn't just make them up for shits and giggles. And those established police procedures don't just call for officers to assess the situation when they get a call like the one about Tamir Rice, they absolutely require it. Which is why, when the Deputy Chief and the PA President were making excuses for Garmbeck and Loehmann they said the cops had followed those procedures, assessed the situation, correctly identified the suspect, etc.

 

[Trausti]

Say it with me: Black Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter, and it's good to hear you say so.

If anyone questions your acceptance of that basic principle or your willingness to publicly acknowledge it, you can point to ^this^ post of yours.

Say it with me: Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. Babies Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. If you can’t say all lives matter without adding a qualifier, you are the problem.

Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. Babies Lives Matter. Latino Lives Matter, Jewish Lives Matter, Palestinian Lives Matter, Dalit Lives Matter, LGBTQ Lives Matter.

The Lives of People the World Over Matter.

All Lives Matter. Any other qualifier is only there when the lives of members of a specific group have been, or are currently being, devalued.

Uighur Lives Matter. The Lives of People Applying for Refugee Status at the USA's Southern Border Matter.

I believe that black lives matter. But I reject BLM. It's a Marxist organization. If BLM really cared about black lives, there would be a focus on the recent black homicide spike. But you don't hear about that. You're not supposed to mention that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're assuming a middle exists. The cops didn't go in at Columbine for the exact reason you're asking for.

Do you want more dead cops?

Because going into a situation like the mass murder at Columbine High School, in which the presence of at least one active shooter had been confirmed by multiple witnesses, without first assessing the situation and having a plan to deal with said shooter(s), is how you get more dead cops. And possibly more dead students, too.

Not only that, failing to assess a situation in which you don't have an active shooter and aren't really sure you might have one soon, where the alleged potential shooter might be an innocent civilian minding his own business, is how you get unwarranted use of lethal force and dead kids.

Police departments across the country have established procedures for a reason, you know. They didn't just make them up for shits and giggles. And those established police procedures don't just call for officers to assess the situation when they get a call like the one about Tamir Rice, they absolutely require it. Which is why, when the Deputy Chief and the PA President were making excuses for Garmbeck and Loehmann they said the cops had followed those procedures, assessed the situation, correctly identified the suspect, etc.

You apparently want more dead kids.

Note that the police have realized the old rules don't work, now the policy is to go in rather than waiting around while people die.

 

[Arctish]

You're assuming a middle exists. The cops didn't go in at Columbine for the exact reason you're asking for.

Do you want more dead cops?

Because going into a situation like the mass murder at Columbine High School, in which the presence of at least one active shooter had been confirmed by multiple witnesses, without first assessing the situation and having a plan to deal with said shooter(s), is how you get more dead cops. And possibly more dead students, too.

Not only that, failing to assess a situation in which you don't have an active shooter and aren't really sure you might have one soon, where the alleged potential shooter might be an innocent civilian minding his own business, is how you get unwarranted use of lethal force and dead kids.

Police departments across the country have established procedures for a reason, you know. They didn't just make them up for shits and giggles. And those established police procedures don't just call for officers to assess the situation when they get a call like the one about Tamir Rice, they absolutely require it. Which is why, when the Deputy Chief and the PA President were making excuses for Garmbeck and Loehmann they said the cops had followed those procedures, assessed the situation, correctly identified the suspect, etc.

You apparently want more dead kids.

Note that the police have realized the old rules don't work, now the policy is to go in rather than waiting around while people die.

I note that you are bullshitting.

But in the interests of giving you a chance to support your assertion, please support your assertion. I am particularly interested in the implication that police departments are no longer training their officers to assess a situation before going in guns ablazing. Was that change in policy before or after the Deputy Chief and President of the Patrolman's Association said Garmbeck and Loehmann took a moment to assess the situation before approaching Rice? Were they throwing those two cops under the bus when they gave an untrue version of events, or trying to cover for them?

 

[laughing dog]

Black Lives Matter, and it's good to hear you say so.

If anyone questions your acceptance of that basic principle or your willingness to publicly acknowledge it, you can point to ^this^ post of yours.



Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. Babies Lives Matter. Latino Lives Matter, Jewish Lives Matter, Palestinian Lives Matter, Dalit Lives Matter, LGBTQ Lives Matter.

The Lives of People the World Over Matter.

All Lives Matter. Any other qualifier is only there when the lives of members of a specific group have been, or are currently being, devalued.

Uighur Lives Matter. The Lives of People Applying for Refugee Status at the USA's Southern Border Matter.

I believe that black lives matter. But I reject BLM. It's a Marxist organization. If BLM really cared about black lives, there would be a focus on the recent black homicide spike. But you don't hear about that. You're not supposed to mention that.

Working to reduce state sanctioned brutality against black people is a worthy cause in and of itself unless, of course, you are in favor of needless brutality against black people. If you really cared about black lives, you would not use such stupid reasoning to move the goal posts.

 

[Toni]

Black Lives Matter, and it's good to hear you say so.

If anyone questions your acceptance of that basic principle or your willingness to publicly acknowledge it, you can point to ^this^ post of yours.



Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. Babies Lives Matter. Latino Lives Matter, Jewish Lives Matter, Palestinian Lives Matter, Dalit Lives Matter, LGBTQ Lives Matter.

The Lives of People the World Over Matter.

All Lives Matter. Any other qualifier is only there when the lives of members of a specific group have been, or are currently being, devalued.

Uighur Lives Matter. The Lives of People Applying for Refugee Status at the USA's Southern Border Matter.

I believe that black lives matter. But I reject BLM. It's a Marxist organization. If BLM really cared about black lives, there would be a focus on the recent black homicide spike. But you don't hear about that. You're not supposed to mention that.

That's nonsense. BLM exists because there is an enormous appearance that at the hands of police and a great number of the non-black public, the lives of black people don't matter enough to NOT kill unarmed black people for things like playing in a park, selling loose cigarettes, jogging in the 'wrong' neighborhood, sleeping in your own bed, etc.

There has been a significant uptick in all sorts of domestic violence among white people, black people, brown people: all people during this time of economic uncertainty during the pandemic.

 

[Derec]

That's nonsense. BLM exists because there is an enormous appearance that at the hands of police and a great number of the non-black public, the lives of black people don't matter

A false appearance, fueled by media (like CNN) and some politicians.

enough to NOT kill unarmed black people

First of all, "unarmed" does not mean "not a threat". An unarmed perp attacking a police officer with their bare hands can overpower the cop and take his or her gun. Therefore, a physical attack on a police officer must be treated like a deadly threat.

for things like playing in a park,

If you mean Tamir Rice, he WAS armed with a realistic firearm replica.

selling loose cigarettes,

He was restrained because he resisted arrest. Note that the choke hold would not have been deadly had Garner not been an ill man already.

jogging in the 'wrong' neighborhood,

That guy was not even shot by police but by civilians. 90% of black people who are killed are killed by other black people but I guess they don't matter. Also, twice as many white people are murdered by black people than vice versa, but media is not endlessly harping on those cases. So I guess white lives don't matter either.

sleeping in your own bed, etc.

A tragedy for sure, but had Breonna Taylor not had dated a drug dealer, police would not have been seeking him at her place. "Bad boys" may be exciting and attractive, but they can be dangerous.

May I offer some more cases that #BLM has championed.

... for things like robbing a convenience store and then attacking a police officer (#BLM OG Michael Brown)
... robbing people with realistic replica firearm (Tyre King, Quanice Hayes, Darius Smith)
... stabbing a man and then refusing to drop the knife (Mario Woods)

and so on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You apparently want more dead kids.

Note that the police have realized the old rules don't work, now the policy is to go in rather than waiting around while people die.

I note that you are bullshitting.

But in the interests of giving you a chance to support your assertion, please support your assertion. I am particularly interested in the implication that police departments are no longer training their officers to assess a situation before going in guns ablazing. Was that change in policy before or after the Deputy Chief and President of the Patrolman's Association said Garmbeck and Loehmann took a moment to assess the situation before approaching Rice? Were they throwing those two cops under the bus when they gave an untrue version of events, or trying to cover for them?

I was specifically addressing active shooter situations. The idea now is go in promptly if it's an active shooter--delay is worse than the likely mistakes.