Idiocracy

[Bates]

I'm not sure the defense of the Altanta guy is warranted, he fell asleep at the wheel while driving drunk. He would be getting arrested here in Canada no matter what Colour he was. And when he hit a Police man and took his taser and tried to use it on him I'm fairly confident his chance at getting shot would be pretty high.  He created and escalated the situation.

So arrest him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and even abuse of an officer or whatever that would be called. None of those things are death sentences.

When an Officer answered an attack with deadly force i don't see the same case as the Floyd case. You hit an Officer and then shoot a taser at him you have greatly increased the chance that you will be shot. They are not going to allow you to escape when you have shown that action. The chance you return with more firepower won't be happening.

Part of the problem is the threshold for use of deadly force.  It is far too low, particularly the US.  I don't get to shoot (or throw punches back) patients who throw punches and my nurses and myself.

You can't compare your occupation to that of a US Police Officer. This has been decades in the brewing with the increase in guns, Officer assaults, and Officers shooting people.  I would however be fairly confudent you are permitted to defend yourself with as much force as needed if you are assaulted.

 

[Bender]

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1265701885303980032

I mean Jesus Christ, Toronto police were able to de-escalate Alek Minassian. And last I checked Dylan Roof wasn't killed during his arrest. Like come on. There was a good tweet on twitter where someone said people are confusing the powers of the police with Judge Dredd.

 

[Bender]

B) the cops shouldn't shoot anyone who isn't directly threatening to seriously injure or kill someone else.

And I think we need to be very specific here. Think of all the cases where the police "justified" shooting someone where they "thought" they had a gun on them or they were "scared" because someone wasn't doing as told. Neither of those are reasons to kill someone. Is it asking a lot of law enforcement to put aside their fears and be 100% sure of a weapon before firing? Yes. But we ask a lot of Doctors and Airline Pilots and Truck Drivers in terms of doing their jobs safely and responsibly.

I mean good lord, look at Doctors Without Borders. They risk getting blown up at random just for providing care due to being situated in huge conflict zones.

 

[Bullfrog]

B) the cops shouldn't shoot anyone who isn't directly threatening to seriously injure or kill someone else.

And I think we need to be very specific here. Think of all the cases where the police "justified" shooting someone where they "thought" they had a gun on them or they were "scared" because someone wasn't doing as told. Neither of those are reasons to kill someone. Is it asking a lot of law enforcement to put aside their fears and be 100% sure of a weapon before firing? Yes. But we ask a lot of Doctors and Airline Pilots and Truck Drivers in terms of doing their jobs safely and responsibly.

A bit of a side topic, but I'm unsure why police even have live rounds loaded while on routine patrols.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

You hit an Officer and then shoot a taser at him you have greatly increased the chance that you will be shot. They are not going to allow you to escape when you have shown that action. The chance you return with more firepower won't be happening. 

Ok so let me ask you a question, should the police have killed those white men in the videos that were posted recently in response to your original remarks? One of them shows a man literally swiping a knife inches away from a police officer. The other shows a white person chasing an officer and then attacking a civilian. Did the police screw up there by not murdering those individuals? Should they have been fired for potentially allowing those men to do further harm?

 

[Bender]

I'm not sure the defense of the Altanta guy is warranted, he fell asleep at the wheel while driving drunk. He would be getting arrested here in Canada no matter what Colour he was. And when he hit a Police man and took his taser and tried to use it on him I'm fairly confident his chance at getting shot would be pretty high.  He created and escalated the situation.

So arrest him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and even abuse of an officer or whatever that would be called. None of those things are death sentences.

When an Officer answered an attack with deadly force i don't see the same case as the Floyd case. You hit an Officer and then shoot a taser at him you have greatly increased the chance that you will be shot. They are not going to allow you to escape when you have shown that action. The chance you return with more firepower won't be happening.

Part of the problem is the threshold for use of deadly force.  It is far too low, particularly the US.  I don't get to shoot (or throw punches back) patients who throw punches and my nurses and myself.

You can't compare your occupation to that of a US Police Officer. This has been decades in the brewing with the increase in guns, Officer assaults, and Officers shooting people.  I would however be fairly confudent you are permitted to defend yourself with as much force as needed if you are assaulted.

What a bizarre take to have. You wouldn't be able to compare any profession in which people can engage in use of force. One of the main reasons people don't go around assaulting and shooting each other is a stable rule of law that applies to everyone, which we are starting to see, many officers are to some degree above due to qualified immunity and police unions. And I'm going to go out on a limb here, but if most cops were as well trained and educated in their own field as LK and his colleagues/staff are you'd have far less excessive use of force issues.

And I mean honestly, in many cases the police aren't using correct judgment in determining risk here. You don't see this happen all over the world. You don't see this happen in most developed Western democracies. The justification of excessive use of force because the argument "I thought I used the right force as required" when you clearly did not is therefore ludicrous. If you can't take a look at what's happening to peaceful protesters getting teargassed and shot in the head with rubber bullets and think that isn't excessive then I don't know what to say.

And if you're going to go down the road of the woe is me police officer how much funding do police get every year at the expense of literally every other social service to prevent crime from occurring in the first place?

We are such idiotic creatures that we can't assess the benefits of doing things upstream but we can allocate billions for problems that arise downstream. Coronavirus is just another example of that, and climate change will probably be next.

 

[Bates]

You hit an Officer and then shoot a taser at him you have greatly increased the chance that you will be shot. They are not going to allow you to escape when you have shown that action. The chance you return with more firepower won't be happening. 

Ok so let me ask you a question, should the police have killed those white men in the videos that were posted recently in response to your original remarks? One of them shows a man literally swiping a knife inches away from a police officer. The other shows a white person chasing an officer and then attacking a civilian. Did the police screw up there by not murdering those individuals? Should they have been fired for potentially allowing those men to do further harm?

I dont think they "should" kill anyone but they are human and also form opinions based on situations that they have experienced.  It is not a simple one sided situation.  However I don't think they woukd have been wrong if they did shoot those other individuals either.  This Atlanta situation just does not fit the mold for Police abuse or Racist actions.

 

[Bates]

I'm not sure the defense of the Altanta guy is warranted, he fell asleep at the wheel while driving drunk. He would be getting arrested here in Canada no matter what Colour he was. And when he hit a Police man and took his taser and tried to use it on him I'm fairly confident his chance at getting shot would be pretty high.  He created and escalated the situation.

So arrest him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and even abuse of an officer or whatever that would be called. None of those things are death sentences.

When an Officer answered an attack with deadly force i don't see the same case as the Floyd case. You hit an Officer and then shoot a taser at him you have greatly increased the chance that you will be shot. They are not going to allow you to escape when you have shown that action. The chance you return with more firepower won't be happening.

Part of the problem is the threshold for use of deadly force.  It is far too low, particularly the US.  I don't get to shoot (or throw punches back) patients who throw punches and my nurses and myself.

You can't compare your occupation to that of a US Police Officer. This has been decades in the brewing with the increase in guns, Officer assaults, and Officers shooting people.  I would however be fairly confudent you are permitted to defend yourself with as much force as needed if you are assaulted.

What a bizarre take to have. You wouldn't be able to compare any profession in which people can engage in use of force. One of the main reasons people don't go around assaulting and shooting each other is a stable rule of law that applies to everyone, which we are starting to see, many officers are to some degree above due to qualified immunity and police unions. And I'm going to go out on a limb here, but if most cops were as well trained and educated in their own field as LK and his colleagues/staff are you'd have far less excessive use of force issues.

And I mean honestly, in many cases the police aren't using correct judgment in determining risk here. You don't see this happen all over the world. You don't see this happen in most developed Western democracies. The justification of excessive use of force because the argument "I thought I used the right force as required" when you clearly did not is therefore ludicrous. If you can't take a look at what's happening to peaceful protesters getting teargassed and shot in the head with rubber bullets and think that isn't excessive then I don't know what to say.

And if you're going to go down the road of the woe is me police officer how much funding do police get every year at the expense of literally every other social service to prevent crime from occurring in the first place?

We are such idiotic creatures that we can't assess the benefits of doing things upstream but we can allocate billions for problems that arise downstream. Coronavirus is just another example of that, and climate change will probably be next.

A lot of claims questioned there that I did not make??

 

[bustaheims]

I'm not sure the defense of the Altanta guy is warranted, he fell asleep at the wheel while driving drunk. He would be getting arrested here in Canada no matter what Colour he was. And when he hit a Police man and took his taser and tried to use it on him I'm fairly confident his chance at getting shot would be pretty high.  He created and escalated the situation.

So arrest him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and even abuse of an officer or whatever that would be called. None of those things are death sentences.

When an Officer answered an attack with deadly force i don't see the same case as the Floyd case. You hit an Officer and then shoot a taser at him you have greatly increased the chance that you will be shot. They are not going to allow you to escape when you have shown that action. The chance you return with more firepower won't be happening.

And that's exactly the problem. Dude wasn't a threat to their lives. They should not have been a threat to his.

 

[Kin]

The police aren't allowed to summarily execute someone if they think they might come back later and pose an immediate threat at some point in the future. That's not the way it works, it's why the officer has already been fired. Anything else here is academic.

Personally, I'm glad we don't give cops that power.

 

[Bates]

I'm not sure the defense of the Altanta guy is warranted, he fell asleep at the wheel while driving drunk. He would be getting arrested here in Canada no matter what Colour he was. And when he hit a Police man and took his taser and tried to use it on him I'm fairly confident his chance at getting shot would be pretty high.  He created and escalated the situation.

So arrest him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and even abuse of an officer or whatever that would be called. None of those things are death sentences.

When an Officer answered an attack with deadly force i don't see the same case as the Floyd case. You hit an Officer and then shoot a taser at him you have greatly increased the chance that you will be shot. They are not going to allow you to escape when you have shown that action. The chance you return with more firepower won't be happening.

And that's exactly the problem. Dude wasn't a threat to their lives. They should not have been a threat to his.

Just the week before 2 Atlanta Officers were fired for using possible deadly force when they used their tasers on suspects. I don't know how the dept can tgen claim a guy shooting a taser at a Cop isn't doing the same?

 

[bustaheims]

Just the week before 2 Atlanta Officers were fired for using possible deadly force when they used their tasers on suspects. I don't know how the dept can tgen claim a guy shooting a taser at a Cop isn't doing the same?

Because police need to held to higher level of scrutiny that the general public.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I dont think they "should" kill anyone but they are human and also form opinions based on situations that they have experienced.  It is not a simple one sided situation.  However I don't think they woukd have been wrong if they did shoot those other individuals either. 

This SHOULD be a simple one sided situation. This isn't like police officers having different standards when it comes to pulling people over for speeding.

I think an officer should only resort to deadly force when it literally comes down to the suspects life or someone else's (and generally speaking I'm pretty sure this is how most officers are trained). You're saying that deadly force CAN be used in any situation where an individual is displaying extremely aggressive (but not necessarily deadly) behaviour... but that the officer can either use deadly force (like they did in the Brooks situation) or they can choose to de-escalate without deadly force (like they did in the other examples provided). That choice is left up to the officer and his own opinions. You really don't see how messed up that is?

This Atlanta situation just does not fit the mold for Police abuse or Racist actions.

What hasn't been mentioned here is that the officer who murdered Brooks was fired, so it would seem like even his own PD thinks his actions make him unfit to be a police officer.

 

[Bates]

Just the week before 2 Atlanta Officers were fired for using possible deadly force when they used their tasers on suspects. I don't know how the dept can tgen claim a guy shooting a taser at a Cop isn't doing the same?

Because police need to held to higher level of scrutiny that the general public.

Not in regards to the definition of deadly force they don't.  If a taser is deadly force it is only logical that someone shooting one at an Officer can expect the possibility of deadly force coming back at them.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Just the week before 2 Atlanta Officers were fired for using possible deadly force when they used their tasers on suspects. I don't know how the dept can tgen claim a guy shooting a taser at a Cop isn't doing the same?

Because police need to held to higher level of scrutiny that the general public.

Not in regards to the definition of deadly force they don't.  If a taser is deadly force it is only logical that someone shooting one at an Officer can expect the possibility of deadly force coming back at them.

Where does it say that they were fired for using "deadly force"? All the news reports of that situation I see say they were fired for using "excessive force". That's a very important distinction.

 

[Bates]

I dont think they "should" kill anyone but they are human and also form opinions based on situations that they have experienced.  It is not a simple one sided situation.  However I don't think they woukd have been wrong if they did shoot those other individuals either. 

This SHOULD be a simple one sided situation. This isn't like police officers having different standards when it comes to pulling people over for speeding.

I think an officer should only resort to deadly force when it literally comes down to the suspects life or someone else's (and generally speaking I'm pretty sure this is how most officers are trained). You're saying that deadly force CAN be used in any situation where an individual is displaying extremely aggressive (but not necessarily deadly) behaviour... but that the officer can either use deadly force (like they did in the Brooks situation) or they can choose to de-escalate without deadly force (like they did in the other examples provided). That choice is left up to the officer and his own opinions. You really don't see how messed up that is?

This Atlanta situation just does not fit the mold for Police abuse or Racist actions.

What hasn't been mentioned here is that the officer who murdered Brooks was fired, so it would seem like even his own PD thinks his actions make him unfit to be a police officer.

The firing of the Officer means very little, that is as much about present climate as actual case.  In regards to the rest, of course it about perspective and level of the Officer, humans aren't robots and will experience each situation different.

 

[Bender]

I'm not sure the defense of the Altanta guy is warranted, he fell asleep at the wheel while driving drunk. He would be getting arrested here in Canada no matter what Colour he was. And when he hit a Police man and took his taser and tried to use it on him I'm fairly confident his chance at getting shot would be pretty high.  He created and escalated the situation.

So arrest him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and even abuse of an officer or whatever that would be called. None of those things are death sentences.

When an Officer answered an attack with deadly force i don't see the same case as the Floyd case. You hit an Officer and then shoot a taser at him you have greatly increased the chance that you will be shot. They are not going to allow you to escape when you have shown that action. The chance you return with more firepower won't be happening.

Part of the problem is the threshold for use of deadly force.  It is far too low, particularly the US.  I don't get to shoot (or throw punches back) patients who throw punches and my nurses and myself.

You can't compare your occupation to that of a US Police Officer. This has been decades in the brewing with the increase in guns, Officer assaults, and Officers shooting people.  I would however be fairly confudent you are permitted to defend yourself with as much force as needed if you are assaulted.

What a bizarre take to have. You wouldn't be able to compare any profession in which people can engage in use of force. One of the main reasons people don't go around assaulting and shooting each other is a stable rule of law that applies to everyone, which we are starting to see, many officers are to some degree above due to qualified immunity and police unions. And I'm going to go out on a limb here, but if most cops were as well trained and educated in their own field as LK and his colleagues/staff are you'd have far less excessive use of force issues.

And I mean honestly, in many cases the police aren't using correct judgment in determining risk here. You don't see this happen all over the world. You don't see this happen in most developed Western democracies. The justification of excessive use of force because the argument "I thought I used the right force as required" when you clearly did not is therefore ludicrous. If you can't take a look at what's happening to peaceful protesters getting teargassed and shot in the head with rubber bullets and think that isn't excessive then I don't know what to say.

And if you're going to go down the road of the woe is me police officer how much funding do police get every year at the expense of literally every other social service to prevent crime from occurring in the first place?

We are such idiotic creatures that we can't assess the benefits of doing things upstream but we can allocate billions for problems that arise downstream. Coronavirus is just another example of that, and climate change will probably be next.

A lot of claims questioned there that I did not make??

Some are extrapolations for sure, but sidestepped everything else.

 

[Bender]

I dont think they "should" kill anyone but they are human and also form opinions based on situations that they have experienced.  It is not a simple one sided situation.  However I don't think they woukd have been wrong if they did shoot those other individuals either. 

This SHOULD be a simple one sided situation. This isn't like police officers having different standards when it comes to pulling people over for speeding.

I think an officer should only resort to deadly force when it literally comes down to the suspects life or someone else's (and generally speaking I'm pretty sure this is how most officers are trained). You're saying that deadly force CAN be used in any situation where an individual is displaying extremely aggressive (but not necessarily deadly) behaviour... but that the officer can either use deadly force (like they did in the Brooks situation) or they can choose to de-escalate without deadly force (like they did in the other examples provided). That choice is left up to the officer and his own opinions. You really don't see how messed up that is?

This Atlanta situation just does not fit the mold for Police abuse or Racist actions.

What hasn't been mentioned here is that the officer who murdered Brooks was fired, so it would seem like even his own PD thinks his actions make him unfit to be a police officer.

The firing of the Officer means very little, that is as much about present climate as actual case.  In regards to the rest, of course it about perspective and level of the Officer, humans aren't robots and will experience each situation different.

If you are trained to be a predator you view everyone as prey.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

In regards to the rest, of course it about perspective and level of the Officer, humans aren't robots and will experience each situation different.

Agreed. Some humans have racial biases that will effect their decision making. Which is why it's insane that when confronted by the exact same level of (non-deadly) danger you think it's completely reasonable for a police officer to have option of choosing between murdering someone and not murdering someone. And to have that choice be decided by their own "perspective".

 

[Bates]

In regards to the rest, of course it about perspective and level of the Officer, humans aren't robots and will experience each situation different.

Agreed. Some humans have racial biases that will effect their decision making. Which is why it's insane that when confronted by the exact same level of (non-deadly) danger you think it's completely reasonable for a police officer to have option of choosing between murdering someone and not murdering someone. And to have that choice be decided by their own "perspective".

I dont think I wrote that?? I think I wrote more along the lines of both cases could end with a shooting but one Officer might choose to take more of a risk to themselves over another. That does not mean the Officer who returns force is wrong or Racist.