The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[Derec]

I use words because they're accurate, not strictly because they conform to the sensibilities of others.

You mean, you use words because they conform to your sensibilities, and not because they are accurate.

Facts are, cops are expendable.

I would say thugs are expendable.
Sure, cops have a job that requires them to go into danger and face certain reasonable risks. They are not expected to enter unreasonable risks or to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a suspect.

It's their willingness to die for others that makes them admirable. If they can't do that then they're thin blooded honor-less cowards unworthy of the respect their position entails. Hate to be a grumpy gus and piss off the blue-lives crowd but those who can't do, don't belong. End of story.

That is just your opinion.

 

[Derec]

You do not understand this situation. The reason the police were there is they suspected Alton Sterling had a gun on his person. They got into close physical contact, with a man who they thought had a gun. This made one of them feel so much danger, he shot Sterling in the chest, to end the threat.

Only because Sterling chose to resist with force.

The police officer crafted the circumstances which made it legal to kill a person. When we grant someone special powers, such as the the power to shoot people as a part of their job, we must also hold them to higher standards, not lower ones.

No, the suspect created the circumstances that made it legal for police to kill him. And it's not that police are held to lower standards, it's as you said - they are granted special powers, which includes initiating force against somebody like Sterling.

 

[LordKiran]

That is just your opinion.

It's actually not. Their willingness to die for you is what makes them noble and worthy of respect to begin with. Same as soldiers. Same as fire-fighters. Take that away and all you're left with is a mall security guard. Such bravery, such valor...Not!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you propose the police do their jobs when the criminal is free to shoot them if the cops try to arrest him?

Neither Mr. Sterling nor Mr. Clark nor Tamir Rice were going to shoot anyone, so why not take your advice and Apply some reason to the issue, not emotion! Applying the civilian standard would not make the work of the police officer impossible. Yes, it would make it more risky.

Once again you show your ignorance.

Tamir Rice and Mr. Sterling have nothing to do with the civilian vs police standards of using force. In this respect the standard is identical. Where they differ is a matter of clean hands--civilians must have clean hands to be permitted to use force, cops have no such requirement.

There has never been a requirement of an actual threat in using force, merely the requirement that a reasonable person would feel there was a threat. A civilian is in the clear if they treat a fake weapon as real.

It's not a liberal fantasyland where if you look hard enough there's always a perfect solution to the problem.

It does not require fantasyland thinking to insist the police show a bit more restraint before killing a suspect - just a bit of common sense and human decency.

Strangely enough, when people like you go through police use-of-force scenarios they tend to be too willing to shoot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except it would be impossible for the police to do their jobs if they were held to the civilian standard. They almost always are the ones to initiate the confrontation, it's an inherent part of their job. To remove that protection would mean anybody could kill an officer trying to arrest them with impunity.

You do not understand this situation. The reason the police were there is they suspected Alton Sterling had a gun on his person. They got into close physical contact, with a man who they thought had a gun. This made one of them feel so much danger, he shot Sterling in the chest, to end the threat.

The police officer crafted the circumstances which made it legal to kill a person. When we grant someone special powers, such as the the power to shoot people as a part of their job, we must also hold them to higher standards, not lower ones.

Who did have an illegal gun upon his person. He made a move which was mistaken for trying to draw it. (Since the cops didn't know where it was any attempt to access his clothing would look like this.)

We have a guy who was facing years in jail who decided to play fight the cops. Oops, it went badly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While there hopefully is a word that I may find appropriate to characterize the brave and noble-hearted, somehow I find "expendable" not to be the word I'd readily choose.

Easier to consider them expendable than accept that a white got away with killing a black, no matter how justified their actions.

It's the reverse of what we saw in the Jim Crow days--the black was automatically wrong in a confrontation. Now we have a bunch of SJWs who think the white is always wrong unless there is utterly clear evidence to the contrary and then they blame racism.

 

[laughing dog]

Tamir Rice and Mr. Sterling have nothing to do with the civilian vs police standards of using force. In this respect the standard is identical. Where they differ is a matter of clean hands--civilians must have clean hands to be permitted to use force, cops have no such requirement.

Once again, you show your lack of reading comprehension and reason because your response indicates that applying the civilian standard would mean the police would have to have "clean hands' (whatever that means).

Strangely enough, when people like you go through police use-of-force scenarios they tend to be too willing to shoot.

Assuming that is true (which is a big assumption given your history of confusing your imagination with reality) all that indicates is that the police use-of-force scenarios is fucked up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tamir Rice and Mr. Sterling have nothing to do with the civilian vs police standards of using force. In this respect the standard is identical. Where they differ is a matter of clean hands--civilians must have clean hands to be permitted to use force, cops have no such requirement.

Once again, you show your lack of reading comprehension and reason because your response indicates that applying the civilian standard would mean the police would have to have "clean hands' (whatever that means).

Your ignorance isn't evidence that I got it wrong. I've explained it before--civilians are not allowed to use force when they initiated the situation. Cops are, as their jobs would be basically impossible otherwise. The only other difference is civilians are only allowed to use force against an immediate threat, the cops can use force against a threat when there's no other way to prevent it but it's not immediate. (Local example: Cops arrest a guy for murder. While in the squad car he figures out who must have talked and swears to kill him. Guy makes a run for it. The cops have no idea where the guy is so they can't protect him, they shoot the fleeing murderer.)

Strangely enough, when people like you go through police use-of-force scenarios they tend to be too willing to shoot.

Assuming that is true (which is a big assumption given your history of confusing your imagination with reality) all that indicates is that the police use-of-force scenarios is fucked up.

No, it means things aren't as simple as you think.

 

[ZiprHead]

Baton Rouge Officer Is Fired in Alton Sterling Case as Police Release New Videos

 

[laughing dog]

Your ignorance isn't evidence that I got it wrong. ...

Of course, you got it wrong regardless of whether I am ignorant or not. If the civilian standard makes no difference, then you would have no reason to object to it. But here you are babbling on about how it makes no difference when, in fact, it would make a difference. In your own words "I've explained it before--civilians are not allowed to use force when they initiated the situation. Cops are,as their jobs would be basically impossible otherwise.". So you admit there is a significant difference. However, you are, as usual, wrong, in that their jobs would be basically be impossible otherwise.

No, it means things aren't as simple as you think.

I am not the one who thinks that is ok to kill people because you don't whether or not they are dangerous - you are. You are the one with the simple ideas, not me. If the police force disagrees with you - one of the police officers has been fired (see Ziprhead's post above).

 

[Underseer]

You mean, you use words because they conform to your sensibilities, and not because they are accurate.

I would say thugs are expendable.
Sure, cops have a job that requires them to go into danger and face certain reasonable risks. They are not expected to enter unreasonable risks or to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a suspect.

It's their willingness to die for others that makes them admirable. If they can't do that then they're thin blooded honor-less cowards unworthy of the respect their position entails. Hate to be a grumpy gus and piss off the blue-lives crowd but those who can't do, don't belong. End of story.

That is just your opinion.

I think you're a terrible person.

Does that mean I can kill you, or does that mean the cops should kill you?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

While there hopefully is a word that I may find appropriate to characterize the brave and noble-hearted, somehow I find "expendable" not to be the word I'd readily choose.

I use words because they're accurate, not strictly because they conform to the sensibilities of others. Facts are, cops are expendable. It's their willingness to die for others that makes them admirable. If they can't do that then they're thin blooded honor-less cowards unworthy of the respect their position entails. Hate to be a grumpy gus and piss off the blue-lives crowd but those who can't do, don't belong. End of story.

You're right on the essential part. We always hear from the Reich wing how police and soldiers are heroes. An occupation doesn't make you a hero, it's your actions. Do you actually protect and serve the public, do you put your life on the line, do you sacrifice? A thin-blooded coward who kills people unnecessarily is no hero and doesn't deserve to have the job and ought to be jailed when their cowardly actions harm others. On the opposite side of the spectrum is the recent French policeman who was willing to trade himself for a hostage. He died in the line of duty. He was a hero.

 

[blastula]

Looking at the videos, it's hard to say if he was going for his gun. He did resist arrest before that. Still, the immediate hostility and that body tackle were ridiculous. I can't see how any of it was good procedure. Lot of times in these shootings even if the officer were truly reasonably threatened when they shot, it seems they unnecessarily escalated it and put themselves in that situation. Maybe should get manslaughter for reckless negligence.

 

[fast]

Looking at the videos, it's hard to say if he was going for his gun. He did resist arrest before that. Still, the immediate hostility and that body tackle were ridiculous. I can't see how any of it was good procedure. Lot of times in these shootings even if the officer were truly reasonably threatened when they shot, it seems they unnecessarily escalated it and put themselves in that situation. Maybe should get manslaughter for reckless negligence.

Do you equate hostility with escalation? I ask because on the one hand, it makes sense. It's just that overboard (verbal) hostility can sometimes (perhaps often) squash attitudes that spawn escalation. I think (perhaps) it's a tactic (probably a taught tactic) that works with more cases than it doesn't. Whether it works less with blacks, I don't know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looking at the videos, it's hard to say if he was going for his gun. He did resist arrest before that. Still, the immediate hostility and that body tackle were ridiculous. I can't see how any of it was good procedure. Lot of times in these shootings even if the officer were truly reasonably threatened when they shot, it seems they unnecessarily escalated it and put themselves in that situation. Maybe should get manslaughter for reckless negligence.

It's pretty rare for them to have put themselves in the position other than in trying to arrest the guy in the first place.

What you are missing is that the slow approach gives the bad guy more time to plan an attack and thus makes the use of serious force more likely. Cops use the fast approach because it's more likely to have a good outcome.

There is a problem with them using it too much, though--tackling people who don't realize what's going on etc. The cop assumes the bad guy will know what's going down and sometimes they don't--and sometimes it's mistaken identity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you equate hostility with escalation? I ask because on the one hand, it makes sense. It's just that overboard (verbal) hostility can sometimes (perhaps often) squash attitudes that spawn escalation. I think (perhaps) it's a tactic (probably a taught tactic) that works with more cases than it doesn't. Whether it works less with blacks, I don't know.

Yup--the verbal hostility is about getting surrender before having to use physical hostility. They use it because it cuts down on the need for physical force.

 

[RavenSky]

Baton Rouge Officer Is Fired in Alton Sterling Case as Police Release New Videos

good.

It's something, anyway

 

[bilby]

"... maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence" - Robert Peel, founder of modern policing, as quoted by the General Instructions issued to every new police officer in the Metropolitan Police from 1829. (Bolding mine).