The beating of Tawon Boyd

[another1]

Thousands of legal drugs cause paranoia. Marijuana is illegal in most of my country so I'm paranoid just trying to buy some. Marijuana doesn't cause abnormal paranoia unless you have bad brains already. Most people feel the opposite from marijuana.

By the way, the people in the study were INJECTED. How does that relate in any way? Inject me with something and I'll be paranoid because something was just injected into my body. Where do people get the nerve to do these studies and publish such obvious lies?

 

[Malintent]

There are other drugs which cause such strange effects. Angel Dust is still sometimes around. However it's not certain whether it was drugs. No doubt a full inquiry will be carried out.

No doubt. But the girlfriend says they were drinking and smoking marijuana and marijuana definitely can cause paranoia in some people.

.. and alcohol is the leading cause of domestic violence...
Marijuana is the leading cause for the munchies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, the cops didn't have 5. The point is that it takes 5 and they only had 3.

So, according to you, the police mishandled the situation from the start.

The police don't always have the luxury of being able to have the right number of people to control someone.

 

[laughing dog]

So, according to you, the police mishandled the situation from the start.

The police don't always have the luxury of being able to have the right number of people to control someone.

That does not rebut that by your own standard, the police mishandled the situation from the start.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A lot of EMS responders have been spit on, kicked in the face and worse. Imagine the reaction were they to adopt a policy of shooting anyone who makes them "feel threatened"...

But EMS has the option of simply retreating if the situation is too hazardous.

 

[laughing dog]

A lot of EMS responders have been spit on, kicked in the face and worse. Imagine the reaction were they to adopt a policy of shooting anyone who makes them "feel threatened"...

But EMS has the option of simply retreating if the situation is too hazardous.

So do the police.

 

[Malintent]

But EMS has the option of simply retreating if the situation is too hazardous.

So do the police.

No they do not. They have the responsibility to protect citizens.. all of them, not just themselves and the suspect's.
In fact, in NY, if you call an Ambulance, a cop will show up several minutes before the ambulance gets there to "secure the scene"... to filter out false alarms and, primarily, to ensure it is safe for EMS to arrive without being in danger.

EMS certainly does have the option, and right, to wait until the scene is secure before performing any services... the cops ARE the ones securing the scene and have a job to do, as dangerous and dynamic as it is.

 

[laughing dog]

So do the police.

No they do not. They have the responsibility to protect citizens.. all of them, not just themselves and the suspect's.

For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No they do not. They have the responsibility to protect citizens.. all of them, not just themselves and the suspect's.

For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Sometimes retreat means putting civilians in danger. That's especially true in suicide-by-cop cases--don't give them the death they want and they'll try to force the cop's hand.

Retreat can also turn it into a hostage situation.

 

[laughing dog]

For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Sometimes retreat means putting civilians in danger.

And sometimes retreat does not. Of course, sometimes not retreating means putting civilians in danger as well. Just ask Mr. Boyd. Oh, that's right, he's dead.

 

[Malintent]

No they do not. They have the responsibility to protect citizens.. all of them, not just themselves and the suspect's.

For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Yes. I did equate retreat with abandonment.

re·treat /rəˈtrēt/

1. (of an army) withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat.

Perhaps a better term you could have used was "take cover".

 

[laughing dog]

For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Yes. I did equate retreat with abandonment.

re·treat /rəˈtrēt/

1. (of an army) withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat.

Interestingly, you did not even bother to look at the other common meanings such as "movement away from a place or situation especially because it is dangerous, unpleasant, etc." Notice neither one means abandonment.

Perhaps a better term you could have used was "take cover".

That will probably be a better solution than to expect people to actually understand the English language.

 

[Malintent]

to understand it, it must be used correctly... OK, you meant the cops could take cover... fine.
So you understand that EMS is not obligated to protect people if the EMS is in danger from an attacker, and that cops are obligated to protect people even if the cops are in danger. correct?

 

[ZiprHead]

I have a brother who worked as an aide in one of our local hospital's emergency centers for a few years while attending college. He often had to deal with violent patients. Number one rule was "You NEVER thump the patient". The rule wasn't a problem. Too bad cops don't work that way.

 

[laughing dog]

to understand it, it must be used correctly... OK, you meant the cops could take cover... fine.

No. Backing off is a form of retreat and it does not require taking cover.

So you understand that EMS is not obligated to protect people if the EMS is in danger from an attacker, and that cops are obligated to protect people even if the cops are in danger. correct?

No, the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone. The SCOTUS made that ruling in 2005.

 

[Malintent]

No. Backing off is a form of retreat and it does not require taking cover.

So you understand that EMS is not obligated to protect people if the EMS is in danger from an attacker, and that cops are obligated to protect people even if the cops are in danger. correct?

No, the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone. The SCOTUS made that ruling in 2005.

Interesting.. do you have any source for that ruling? I agree that it may be that in some cases they are not "necessarily obligated" to protect someone, situationally... I would like to learn what you are referring to, though, if you can provide more information.

 

[laughing dog]

No. Backing off is a form of retreat and it does not require taking cover.
No, the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone. The SCOTUS made that ruling in 2005.

Interesting.. do you have any source for that ruling? I agree that it may be that in some cases they are not "necessarily obligated" to protect someone, situationally... I would like to learn what you are referring to, though, if you can provide more information.

From the NY times - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Here is the wikipedia entry  Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales. This link - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html - has a summary and contains links to the SCOTUS opinion, the concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. Backing off is a form of retreat and it does not require taking cover.
No, the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone. The SCOTUS made that ruling in 2005.

Interesting.. do you have any source for that ruling? I agree that it may be that in some cases they are not "necessarily obligated" to protect someone, situationally... I would like to learn what you are referring to, though, if you can provide more information.

They are not obligated to protect--there is no liability from failing to do so.

That does not mean that they are not expected to do so to the best of their reasonable ability, though.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Yes. I did equate retreat with abandonment.

re·treat /rəˈtrēt/

1. (of an army) withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat.

Perhaps a better term you could have used was "take cover".

No, "retreat" is the right word here. As in "take ten steps back and wait for the guy to calm the fuck down."

As it stands already, "No surrender, no retreat!" is not even a particularly smart tactic in a war zone; you have to assume your enemy is capable of rational thought processes in order to achieve your objective, and just randomly throwing more and more power into a situation you no longer control will not achieve your aims. So you make a tactical retreat: you regroup, take stock of your options, and either try again with the same tactic or try something else that might work better.

This is basic problem solving: something you're doing is making the problem worse, so stop doing that thing, back up, and try something else.

The assumption in these cases is that PEOPLE -- their presence in the situation -- are the problem. The police response in such cases is to remove that person from the situation, either by arresting this person and shoving him in the police car, or by killing or immobilizing this person so he no longer poses a problem. For some officers, this is literally the ONLY way they know how to solve problems: simply eliminate the person who causes the problem and let the courts sort it out.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is basic problem solving: something you're doing is making the problem worse, so stop doing that thing, back up, and try something else.

Holy shit, dude. If you were working on the Trump campaign, your ass would be so fired right now.