Idiocracy

[bustaheims]

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.

Absolutely, they do. In fact, I'd argue that's an area they specifically should be more heavily scrutinized, because not having enough scrutiny in the way they use force - especially deadly force - has led directly to the situation we're in now. Law enforcement should be held up to the highest scrutiny in terms of ensuring their actions are within the law. Use of force needs to commensurate to risk being faced. In fact, that's the law - you can only use self-defence if you're using an equivalent or lesser use of force or weaponry as the person(s) you're defending yourself against. If the subject doesn't have a lethal weapon - and a taser is not a lethal weapon - shooting them is using excessive force.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

I've read both statements twice and they still seem to be saying the same thing: police officers get to choose whether to kill people or not even when a non-lethal alternative is available.

Anyone, I'm done. Must be something living in a world where it's just a complete coincidence that police officers often choose to take more a risk to themselves when confronted with a white person behaving aggressively than with a black person.

 

[Kin]

I'm really not sure why you guys are allowing this conversation to be derailed by some fairly transparent goalpost moving. Whether or not a taser constitutes a deadly weapon is irrelevant. A knife absolutely can be a deadly weapon. Police aren't allowed to shoot someone in the back for holding a knife. There has to be imminent danger to someone's life. There wasn't.

The officers who were fired for improperly tasering a college student were fired not because a taser fit some abstract definition of deadly but because there are guidelines for how something like a taser is used. Likewise, there are guidelines for when and how to use deadly force. The similarity in both cases is those guidelines were breached by officers.

 

[Andy007]

The guy blew a 1.0+ on the breathalyzer, had been sleeping/dozing and was parked in a parking lot. This isn't exactly the Unibomber the police are encountering. They have to make sure he doesn't drive so obviously arresting him and letting him sober up in the drunk tank is the way to go. There is absolutely NO reason for this to end up the way it did. Resisting arrest isn't grounds for cops to become power hungry assholes. He's a little drunk, disoriented and tired; why escalate things? Why bring out the taser, particularly in close enough proximity for the guy to grab it? And once he's out of the car and running away, great, he's off the road, you have his car and you know who he is; how in the world does shooting him in the back and killing him even enter the conversation??

 

[Bates]

I'm really not sure why you guys are allowing this conversation to be derailed by some fairly transparent goalpost moving. Whether or not a taser constitutes a deadly weapon is irrelevant. A knife absolutely can be a deadly weapon. Police aren't allowed to shoot someone in the back for holding a knife. There has to be imminent danger to someone's life. There wasn't.

The officers who were fired for improperly tasering a college student were fired not because a taser fit some abstract definition of deadly but because there are guidelines for how something like a taser is used. Likewise, there are guidelines for when and how to use deadly force. The similarity in both cases is those guidelines were breached by officers.

From the Atlanta training manual:

The manual states an employee may only use deadly force when:

"1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or 

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect?s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person."

 

[Highlander]

The guy blew a 1.0+ on the breathalyzer, had been sleeping/dozing and was parked in a parking lot. This isn't exactly the Unibomber the police are encountering. They have to make sure he doesn't drive so obviously arresting him and letting him sober up in the drunk tank is the way to go. There is absolutely NO reason for this to end up the way it did. Resisting arrest isn't grounds for cops to become power hungry assholes. He's a little drunk, disoriented and tired; why escalate things? Why bring out the taser, particularly in close enough proximity for the guy to grab it? And once he's out of the car and running away, great, he's off the road, you have his car and you know who he is; how in the world does shooting him in the back and killing him even enter the conversation??

I agree, in this case they should have let the Dude run away home and impound his vehicle and visit him at his home in the AM where things could have been handled much more calmly.  Didn't need to die, that is for sure.

 

[Bender]

I'm really not sure why you guys are allowing this conversation to be derailed by some fairly transparent goalpost moving. Whether or not a taser constitutes a deadly weapon is irrelevant. A knife absolutely can be a deadly weapon. Police aren't allowed to shoot someone in the back for holding a knife. There has to be imminent danger to someone's life. There wasn't.

The officers who were fired for improperly tasering a college student were fired not because a taser fit some abstract definition of deadly but because there are guidelines for how something like a taser is used. Likewise, there are guidelines for when and how to use deadly force. The similarity in both cases is those guidelines were breached by officers.

From the Atlanta training manual:

The manual states an employee may only use deadly force when:

"1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect?s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person."

None of this refutes was Nik said.

 

[herman]

I probably should've thrown up a trigger warning in the previous post actually. And I don't feel fully right discussing studies and data on how and why these things happen, but this method is largely done privately to limit possible prevention.

Y?all feelin? this is just coincidental now? Nah man.
https://twitter.com/goldietaylor/status/1272668204758896640

 

[Kin]

"1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or

Shot in the back so, again, no immediate threat of serious bodily injury.

And the second justification doesn't apply either as the whole point of using tasers is that they're not supposed to inflict serious physical harm. They're supposed to be non-lethal, temporary restraining measures. Can't argue that the use of tasers against cops justifies deadly force and then say you can use them in the manner prescribed or you're effectively saying that using tasers against suspects is only justified under the justification for deadly force.

 

[herman]

A rundown of the systematic injustices built into the policing system (other than the racism)
https://twitter.com/galvinalmanza/status/1272254871664766976

 

[CarltonTheBear]

On this weeks episode of "did the police lie on twitter in an attempt to stroke fear and panic?" we have the New York City Detectives union claiming their officers were "intentionally poisoned" at a local Shake Shack (and putting their address so it's easy for people to go harass them):

https://twitter.com/NYCPDDEA/status/1272721892131188743

Regular viewers of this programming will know how this one ends up, but here's the reveal anyway:

https://twitter.com/NYPDDetectives/status/1272801631961260032

Looks like they had a hard time with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing I guess.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Looks like they had a hard time with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing I guess.

Yeah, I mean, the police have certainly been "innocent until proven guilty" lately.

 

[Bullfrog]

I probably should've thrown up a trigger warning in the previous post actually. And I don't feel fully right discussing studies and data on how and why these things happen, but this method is largely done privately to limit possible prevention.

Y?all feelin? this is just coincidental now? Nah man.
https://twitter.com/goldietaylor/status/1272668204758896640

All I'll say is that I'm certainly reserving judgment until more info is available.

 

[Kin]

This may be a few days behind but someone is going to need to explain to me why people care so much about statues of Christopher Columbus. Of the various things we know for certain:

1. He never set foot on the continental US.
2. Even if he did, Europeans had been to the continent before.
3. Where he did get to, he got because he was lost.
4. He did horrible things to the people he found there.

So how in the world does that constitute someone worth building a statue to? How does saying "Hey, maybe this guy was a jerk" amount to "erasing history" as opposed to learning the actual lessons from it?

 

[Kin]

Effectively every single instance of cops facing actual punishment for their actions was one where their misdeeds were recorded and broadcast.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

All I'll say is that I'm certainly reserving judgment until more info is available.

Yeah this is certainly the correct stance to take at this time. The thing is without these cases getting the public attention that they're starting to get more information would never become available. They're being ruled as suicides with no further investigations taking place despite pleas from their families to do so.

 

[L K]

This may be a few days behind but someone is going to need to explain to me why people care so much about statues of Christopher Columbus. Of the various things we know for certain:

1. He never set foot on the continental US.
2. Even if he did, Europeans had been to the continent before.
3. Where he did get to, he got because he was lost.
4. He did horrible things to the people he found there.

So how in the world does that constitute someone worth building a statue to? How does saying "Hey, maybe this guy was a jerk" amount to "erasing history" as opposed to learning the actual lessons from it?

Your posts have been somewhat somber of late.  I am suspecting you are dealing with an excess of black bile.  I am going to prescribe you 15 days of cumin, tumeric, yarrow root and senna to treat this.

 

[Kin]

This may be a few days behind but someone is going to need to explain to me why people care so much about statues of Christopher Columbus. Of the various things we know for certain:

1. He never set foot on the continental US.
2. Even if he did, Europeans had been to the continent before.
3. Where he did get to, he got because he was lost.
4. He did horrible things to the people he found there.

So how in the world does that constitute someone worth building a statue to? How does saying "Hey, maybe this guy was a jerk" amount to "erasing history" as opposed to learning the actual lessons from it?

Your posts have been somewhat somber of late.  I am suspecting you are dealing with an excess of black bile.  I am going to prescribe you 15 days of cumin, tumeric, yarrow root and senna to treat this.

Well, at least I don't need the leeches again.

 

[herman]

This may be a few days behind but someone is going to need to explain to me why people care so much about statues of Christopher Columbus. Of the various things we know for certain:

1. He never set foot on the continental US.
2. Even if he did, Europeans had been to the continent before.
3. Where he did get to, he got because he was lost.
4. He did horrible things to the people he found there.

So how in the world does that constitute someone worth building a statue to? How does saying "Hey, maybe this guy was a jerk" amount to "erasing history" as opposed to learning the actual lessons from it?

It probably doesn't need to be said, but for statue defenders, history-education is merely the straw being grasped in defense of what they feel is an attack on their value system. I've certainly learned more from statues being toppled than their entire previous existence.

https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1271836260248715265

10 years ago, if I saw Mount Rushmore: what a marvel of engineering and patience
Now, if I see Mount Rushmore: what a hideous and destructive monument to the reverence of white colonialism

 

[Bullfrog]

This may be a few days behind but someone is going to need to explain to me why people care so much about statues of Christopher Columbus. Of the various things we know for certain:

1. He never set foot on the continental US.
2. Even if he did, Europeans had been to the continent before.
3. Where he did get to, he got because he was lost.
4. He did horrible things to the people he found there.

So how in the world does that constitute someone worth building a statue to? How does saying "Hey, maybe this guy was a jerk" amount to "erasing history" as opposed to learning the actual lessons from it?

Columbus is a strange one. There isn't even a patriotic reason to revere him; he didn't defeat the British, defend Confederate or Union ideology, or even raze those pesky savages off the good land of 'Merica.