Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[laughing dog]

I challenge you to read the the entire article I'm about to share from WaPo. It's not about police shooting an unarmed person. It's about a large number of police from many different parts of the country, raping, molesting and sexually abusing in other ways, children and teens. I might add some more article later about this problem but apparently there are way too many police who are criminals and many of them are never charged or get very light sentences, when prosecuted.

https://wapo.st/3Xhtg9R

I have repeatedly said the police have a big problem with such things. It's just everyone wants to focus on shootings rather than the real issues.

In what world would shooting unarmed civilians not be a real issue?

Please address the point rather than derailing.

stop making blatantly false accusations of derailing. My point was that the police killing of unarmed civilians is a real issue

Are you not aware that the "unarmed" category includes simulated weapons? There are very few where the person who was shot was truly unarmed and not trying to grab the cop's gun.

Quit derailing the discussion with red herrings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A fair number of police shootings are people with an I'm-not-going-back attitude for whom an exchange of fire is preferable to surrender.

Then perhaps the police should drop that foolish attitude, and learn to de-escalate. They are supposed to be professionals.

How in the world are police supposed to drop someone else's attitude?

And de-escalate is the current fad thing--there's rarely any possibility of it in these things.

Consider a local case that the protesters tried to make something of:

Cop notes a car on the hot sheet, calls for backup and follows. The driver realizes a cop is following and tries to run for it. Oops, he doesn't know the terrain and corners himself when the road suddenly ends because the bridge hasn't been built yet. The cop blocks the road and continues to wait for backup. The driver gets out and points a "gun" (turned out to be a realistic replica) at the cop. What's the cop supposed to deescalate??

This was before BLM but it got the same sort of treatment because it was an "unarmed" 16? year old "kid" with no rap sheet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's just everyone wants to focus on shootings rather than the real issues.

Oh holy hell!!!

There have just been multiple posts showing severe wrongs by the police. Yet you continue to focus on the shootings that are almost always not wrongs. You're focusing on the wrong thing and ignoring the very real problem.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why the dig at me? I'm agreeing with the problem you point out! What I'm objecting to is the focus on shootings rather than the actual problems such as the ones you describe.

you might want to restructure that sentence lest us believe you don’t think shootings are an actual problem.

“Shootings rather than the actual problems” is a grammatical construct that indicates shootings aren’t actual problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I challenge you to read the the entire article I'm about to share from WaPo. It's not about police shooting an unarmed person. It's about a large number of police from many different parts of the country, raping, molesting and sexually abusing in other ways, children and teens. I might add some more article later about this problem but apparently there are way too many police who are criminals and many of them are never charged or get very light sentences, when prosecuted.

https://wapo.st/3Xhtg9R

I have repeatedly said the police have a big problem with such things. It's just everyone wants to focus on shootings rather than the real issues.

In what world would shooting unarmed civilians not be a real issue?

Please address the point rather than derailing.

stop making blatantly false accusations of derailing. My point was that the police killing of unarmed civilians is a real issue

Are you not aware that the "unarmed" category includes simulated weapons? There are very few where the person who was shot was truly unarmed and not trying to grab the cop's gun.

Quit derailing the discussion with red herrings.

You are derailing because I'm specifically saying the issue is the sort of stuff she's posting about. She's pointing out the actual problem!

 

[Shadowy Man]

Sorry. I misread. It seems you were actually clear in your statement.

 

[laughing dog]

You are derailing because I'm specifically saying the issue is the sort of stuff she's posting about. She's pointing out the actual problem!

You are mistaken. Shooting unarmed civilians is a real issue. It is truly telling that you disagree.

 

[bilby]

A fair number of police shootings are people with an I'm-not-going-back attitude for whom an exchange of fire is preferable to surrender.

Then perhaps the police should drop that foolish attitude, and learn to de-escalate. They are supposed to be professionals.

How in the world are police supposed to drop someone else's attitude?

That "whoosh!" sound you just heard was the point, going waaay over your head.

And de-escalate is the current fad thing--there's rarely any possibility of it in these things.

Speaking as someone who is trained in de-escalation, and has used that training to avoid violence several times, I can confidently state: Bollocks.

Consider a local case that the protesters tried to make something of:

Cop notes a car on the hot sheet, calls for backup and follows. The driver realizes a cop is following and tries to run for it. Oops, he doesn't know the terrain and corners himself when the road suddenly ends because the bridge hasn't been built yet. The cop blocks the road and continues to wait for backup. The driver gets out and points a "gun" (turned out to be a realistic replica) at the cop. What's the cop supposed to deescalate??

Perhaps he shouldn't have had an "I'm-not-going-back attitude", or have considered an exchange of fire as preferable to retreat and containment while backup arrives.

You say he's blocked the road; Where is the suspect going to go?

Imagine, for a moment, that the cop realises ("oops!") that he has no ammunition for his own gun. He cannot shoot.

What he does next, is de-escalation.

In the absence if the possibility of deploying lethal force, cops have to actually do policing. I know American cops would rather not, as lethal violence is so much easier, and doesn't encroach do badly on valuable donut eating time; But it's very much a possibility.

This was before BLM but it got the same sort of treatment because it was an "unarmed" 16? year old "kid" with no rap sheet.

...and no actual gun.

The shooting of unarmed people is exactly the kind of thing cops are employed to prevent.

Your (or their) lack of imagination is not an acceptable excuse for killing people.

 

[Derec]

You say he's blocked the road; Where is the suspect going to go?

Anywhere he wants, once the police officer retreats.

Imagine, for a moment, that the cop realises ("oops!") that he has no ammunition for his own gun. He cannot shoot.

It would have been extremely reckless of him to not make sure his service weapon is loaded when starting his shift. He would deserve a reprimand.

In the absence if the possibility of deploying lethal force, cops have to actually do policing. I know American cops would rather not, as lethal violence is so much easier, and doesn't encroach do badly on valuable donut eating time; But it's very much a possibility.

Using lethal force is part of policing, it's not a separate thing.
And pointing a firearm, or something that realistically looks like a firearm, means that police will use lethal force against you almost everywhere, not just the US.

...and no actual gun.
The shooting of unarmed people is exactly the kind of thing cops are employed to prevent.

How do you propose a police officer distinguish a real gun from a realistic replica in real time? The perp can pull the trigger very quickly, there is no time to deliberate upon whether the gun could be fake.

Your (or their) lack of imagination is not an acceptable excuse for killing people.

It's not a lack of imagination. It's self preservation.

 

[Derec]

You are mistaken. Shooting unarmed civilians is a real issue. It is truly telling that you disagree.

People armed with replica firearms should be considered armed.
Try robbing a place with a replica gun. You will be charged with armed robbery.
For example, the law in Georgia reads:

2020 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 8 - Offenses Involving Theft
Article 2 - Robbery
§ 16-8-41. Armed Robbery; Robbery by Intimidation; Taking Controlled Substance From Pharmacy in Course of Committing Offense
a. A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon. The offense of robbery by intimidation shall be a lesser included offense in the offense of armed robbery.

 

[Derec]

In fact, millions of citizens argue that because most police interactions go well, specific issues are not significant and don't require attention. Imagine if we applied that logic elsewhere. For instance, if someone had interacted with citizens daily for 50 years without incident, would it be acceptable to overlook the one time they killed someone?

I do not think that anybody is saying that wrongdoing doesn't require attention. But the propaganda over police shootings has led to this belief among some blacks that there is an "open season on blacks" or that they face a significant risk being shot by police simply for being black. Neither is true.
Take Lebron James and other spoiled NBA millionaires as an example.
'We're just scared': LeBron James, NBA players share how past experiences led to fear of police
That's insanity. Especially given that Jacob Blake shooting was completely justified. Blake was armed, refused to drop the knife, was trying to gain control of a vehicle that did not belong to him and which had three children in it, and had a felony warrant. Police also tried to tase him. Now, why would Lebron think that what happened to Jacob Blake somehow applies to black people minding their business?

 

[Derec]

In what world would shooting unarmed civilians not be a real issue?

"Unarmed", even actually unarmed, does not necessarily mean that the perp is not a threat or that the shooting is not justified.
An attacker can take control of the police officer's weapon and use it against him or her. This has happened numerous times in the past.
Therefore, a police officer may use lethal force against a perp who physically attacks them.

 

[Derec]

True. Which is one reason why it isn't possible to use a gun for defence.

Good offense is the best defense.

Guns are offensive weapons. Only in movies can a person shoot an attacker before they are shot themselves.

Not just in movies. There have been cases where the victim was able to shoot an armed attacker.
Victim shoots, kills armed robber; second suspect found urinating in front of church, police say

Only in movies does a "Mexican Standoff" make sense - in the real world, the first person to shoot takes out his opponent, long before the opponent can retaliate. If someone is aiming a gun at you, and you are aiming yours at them, then your only viable option is to try to kill them as quickly as possible.

That's what happens in cases of successful defense with a gun. There is no time to contemplate whether the gun might be fake.

Hollywood has a lot to answer for, and the longstanding theme of hugely unrealistic depictions of guns as defensive tools is a major reason beging the insane demand that people be permitted guns for 'self defense' or 'home defense'.

I know that you want to ban use of guns for self and home defense, but there are many cases of guns used for that purpose in the real world.

The use of guns for 'defense' always entails their use to kill someone because you are scared. By the time a threat is apparent, and a killing could be justified, it is too late for a gun to help you.

Depends entirely on how you define "threat is apparent" and "justified". US laws generally define it in such a way that self and home defense is possible without the victim being brought up on charges.

Your "solution", of allowing fear as a complete justification for lethal force (as long as it's being employed by the authorities), is immoral, unethical, and downright evil.

For self defense, the question is, how would a reasonable person act. Full knowledge of the situation is not necessary, but neither can one act unreasonably. You want to restrict the right to self defense too much. For example, if three teenagers try to rob you at gunpoint, do you think a threat is apparent? Is it ok to use lethal force to defend yourself? I say, yes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I know that you want to ban use of guns for self and home defense, but there are many cases of guns used for that purpose in the real world.

I’m not for an all out ban but it seems pro-gun types are against even reasonable gun regulation. One can still have guns for self and home defense while implementing gun control policies that can make us all safer.

It’s always presented as an all or nothing argument.

 

[bilby]

I know that you want to ban use of guns for self and home defense, but there are many cases of guns used for that purpose in the real world.

I’m not for an all out ban but it seems pro-gun types are against even reasonable gun regulation. One can still have guns for self and home defense while implementing gun control policies that can make us all safer.

It’s always presented as an all or nothing argument.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I know that you want to ban use of guns for self and home defense, but there are many cases of guns used for that purpose in the real world.

I’m not for an all out ban but it seems pro-gun types are against even reasonable gun regulation. One can still have guns for self and home defense while implementing gun control policies that can make us all safer.

It’s always presented as an all or nothing argument.

View attachment 46452

The counter will most likely be the slippery slope fallacy.

“They’ve already banned machine guns so if we let them ban bump stocks it will be no time before little old ladies can’t defend themselves against home invaders looking to rape and kill them. Won’t anyone think of the little old ladies??”

 

[Derec]

I’m not for an all out ban but it seems pro-gun types are against even reasonable gun regulation.

They do, but I am not one of them.

One can still have guns for self and home defense while implementing gun control policies that can make us all safer.

I agree. However, I was directly replying to bilby, who is on record of explicitly wanting severe restrictions on firearm ownership and use. Specifically, he wants to disallow firearm use for self and home defense.

It’s always presented as an all or nothing argument.

Not by me.

 

[Derec]

“They’ve already banned machine guns so if we let them ban bump stocks it will be no time before little old ladies can’t defend themselves against home invaders looking to rape and kill them. Won’t anyone think of the little old ladies??”

Big difference between banning bump stocks (the ball is in Congress' court now!) and, à la bilby, think that firearm use for home and self defense should not be allowed. I think it is your side who is employing false dichotomies in this instance.

 

[Shadowy Man]

“They’ve already banned machine guns so if we let them ban bump stocks it will be no time before little old ladies can’t defend themselves against home invaders looking to rape and kill them. Won’t anyone think of the little old ladies??”

Big difference between banning bump stocks (the ball is in Congress' court now!) and, à la bilby, think that firearm use for home and self defense should not be allowed. I think it is your side who is employing false dichotomies in this instance.

Just as you don’t want me to associate you with one particular argument (as stated in your previous response) you should not associate Bilby’s comments with “my side”.

I can understand his opinion and empathize with his arguments but, as someone who lives in America, I am more pragmatic about what can realistically be done legislatively.

I think Congress should fix the law so conservative justices can’t pedantically weasel their way to the conclusion they want. Given that the bump stock ban was put into effect by Trump one might think it could be done but things have gotten so toxic and partisan in Congress I’m not sure they could agree on this.

 

[Derec]

Just as you don’t want me to associate you with one particular argument (as stated in your previous response) you should not associate Bilby’s comments with “my side”.

Ok.

I think Congress should fix the law so conservative justices can’t pedantically weasel their way to the conclusion they want. Given that the bump stock ban was put into effect by Trump one might think it could be done but things have gotten so toxic and partisan in Congress I’m not sure they could agree on this.

No reason not to try.