2020 Elections

[marshwiggle]

I would never in a million years take a job that put my life at risk where a split-second hesitation could get me killed, OR if I don't hesitate, I could be facing murder charges.

It's a no-win situation for cops.

Then it's good you didn't become a cop.  For those who choose to become a cop they  are fully aware that they could be put in dangerous situations and chose to be there.  They should also realize that it is their job to protect the public and only use appropriate levels of force.  Again, other countries have much lower death rates in police custody, so something seems to be rotten in the police force.  I suspect it is the training and general mentality.  I also wonder if the line of work attracts some of the wrong people....

This is the same as joining the military.  You could be in dangerous situations, but if you were to shoot unarmed civilians because you were spooked there are consequences.

If i understand Marshwiggle's thought process, we take the type of people who want to be policemen as they are to some degree. To use the vernacular, it takes a big set of balls. We have no reason to expect they can all fit a certain personality type that we might prefer. There are a lot of them!

That's exactly right. In fact, anyone who would be remotely interested in being a cop would have to be more comfortable with confrontations, including physical ones, than most of us are. The same goes for the military.  We expect them to be that way when we need them.

I don't disagree. I think my issues are mostly related to Kron3007's last sentence. I think the military does a much fairer and better job in the situations described than we do with police departments, PARTICULARLY when it comes to non-white citizens. And, that is why I think black Americans fear the police.

Those two situations (police and military) are totally different, with different priorities, rules of engagement, etc. They can't meaningfully be compared in this way.

[Kron3007]

Well, they are different but in both cases there are rules and expectations that need to be followed.  In both cases, you should not kill innocent people.  In both cases, they should be held to account if the kill the wrong person.

If it is the case that people who become cops have a certain mindset that makes them prone to this type of thing, that is all the more reason to ensure they receive adequate training in deescalation etc.

Again, the death rate in police captivity in the US is higher than many other countries.  In all cases, they would be attracting the same type of people, they all experience belligerent citizens, and they all do the same job.  So, there is obviously something that the US is or isn't doing that leads to this.  It is crazy to just accept that this happens...

[jimbogumbo]

Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

[kaysixteen]

I have thought for years that one of the main problems with American policing is the militaristic, nigh-onto Marine-style training given most of them, and the corresponding 'sir, yes sir'- style discipline and institutional organization most PDs use.

[marshwiggle]

Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

• A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
• Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
• If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

[Kron3007]

Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

• A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
• Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
• If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are some challenging situations that could lead to these events where the police were acting within reason, which is why they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  The problem is that many police shootings do not seem to be investigated very well

However, there are plenty of examples where police are shooting people in the back as they run, often many times.  There are also a lot of examples where people are killed while in custody, after the heated event is over. 

[jimbogumbo]

Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

• A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
• Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
• If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

Sure to your 2nd and 3rd. As to the first, I think some form of discipline, firing or even prosecution is warranted. I'm sorry, but a hand in a pocket is no reason to be shot.

[marshwiggle]

Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

• A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
• Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
• If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are some challenging situations that could lead to these events where the police were acting within reason, which is why they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  The problem is that many police shootings do not seem to be investigated very well

But they're not evaluated on a case by case basis in the media. Cops are guilty until proven innocent, and if the cop is white and the shooting victim is black, then there's no "until provent innocent"; it's just GUILTY. And it must be racially motivated as well. No facts about the case need to be known, and in a jury acquits the cop in a trial, it's just evidence of an unjust system. End of story.

However, there are plenty of examples where police are shooting people in the back as they run, often many times. 

If someone grabbed a Taser from the police and was running away with it, if he was running toward one of my grandchildren with the Taser I'd hope the police would use whatever means necessary to stop him. (If he just didn't want police to use the Taser on him, he could have simply thrown it as far as he could. Hanging on to it suggests he might use it on someone other than the police, since he's running from them.)

There are also a lot of examples where people are killed while in custody, after the heated event is over.

There are even a lot of situations "in custody" where crazy things can happen.

There is no situation where it's possible to make a call based on just a one sentence description. And amping up the public to a pitch of moral outrage is irresponsible and dangerous.

[mahagonny]

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are some challenging situations that could lead to these events where the police were acting within reason, which is why they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  The problem is that many police shootings do not seem to be investigated very well

But they're not evaluated on a case by case basis in the media. Cops are guilty until proven innocent, and if the cop is white and the shooting victim is black, then there's no "until provent innocent"; it's just GUILTY. And it must be racially motivated as well. No facts about the case need to be known, and in a jury acquits the cop in a trial, it's just evidence of an unjust system. End of story.

[/quote]

They can even be evaluated on a case by case basis in the media but one-sidedly. If you posit that Breonna Taylor's premature death was not the result of racist cops, what will people say about you?

[jimbogumbo]

Biden on funding for science research: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/10/26/biden-would-increase-science-funding

[Kron3007]

Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

• A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
• Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
• If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are some challenging situations that could lead to these events where the police were acting within reason, which is why they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  The problem is that many police shootings do not seem to be investigated very well

But they're not evaluated on a case by case basis in the media. Cops are guilty until proven innocent, and if the cop is white and the shooting victim is black, then there's no "until provent innocent"; it's just GUILTY. And it must be racially motivated as well. No facts about the case need to be known, and in a jury acquits the cop in a trial, it's just evidence of an unjust system. End of story.

However, there are plenty of examples where police are shooting people in the back as they run, often many times. 

If someone grabbed a Taser from the police and was running away with it, if he was running toward one of my grandchildren with the Taser I'd hope the police would use whatever means necessary to stop him. (If he just didn't want police to use the Taser on him, he could have simply thrown it as far as he could. Hanging on to it suggests he might use it on someone other than the police, since he's running from them.)

There are also a lot of examples where people are killed while in custody, after the heated event is over.

There are even a lot of situations "in custody" where crazy things can happen.

There is no situation where it's possible to make a call based on just a one sentence description. And amping up the public to a pitch of moral outrage is irresponsible and dangerous.

I dont think this is the case at all.  There are many police shootings (most I would think) where there is no major outrage or further investigation so I dont think the media finds police guilty until proven innocent.  The judgement and outrage really only started since there is camera footage almost everywhere and many of these incidents are quite obviously not in line with what police should be doing, validating what many people in some communities have been saying for many years.  It is not just the footage of police shootings either.  There are plenty of videos showing the general approach American police take, which is often excessively aggressive and confrontational.     

Personally, I dont think someone running away from you with a taser is enough reason to shoot at them in the back.  In fact, the risk of shooting toward them is probably greater than letting them escape anyway.  The only time shooting someone should be acceptable is if the cops life, or someone else's, is in immediate danger. 

[mahagonny]

I dont think this is the case at all.  There are many police shootings (most I would think) where there is no major outrage or further investigation so I dont think the media finds police guilty until proven innocent. 

This depends a lot on the race of the suspect. Stories about white people getting shot by police are not going to get Al Sharpton on the evening news. You can cover it without editorializing.

Personally, I dont think someone running away from you with a taser is enough reason to shoot at them in the back.  In fact, the risk of shooting toward them is probably greater than letting them escape anyway.  The only time shooting someone should be acceptable is if the cops life, or someone else's, is in immediate danger. 

Agree with this.

[mahagonny]

Another variation of 'You Ain't Black.' The theory is Trump's toxic masculinity attracts certain black men. What ever happened to the theory that we don't vote for the candidate we love 100%; we vote for the one who's more acceptable than the alternative? And why is this not a right?
https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-trump-mans-man-why-100009749.html

Whereas, the thought process of voting for Trump in spite of his flaws is easily explained, so Jack Nicklaus says: https://twitter.com/jacknicklaus/status/1321631802004541440

[marshwiggle]

Another variation of 'You Ain't Black.' The theory is Trump's toxic masculinity attracts certain black men. What ever happened to the theory that we don't vote for the candidate we love 100%; we vote for the one who's more acceptable than the alternative? And why is this not a right?
https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-trump-mans-man-why-100009749.html

I'm guessing it's an issue of confirmation bias. If you and I both like something about candidate A more than candidate B, but dislike something about candidate A more than candidate B, then whether we vote the same way or not depends on the relative weights we attach to the two different factors. So, if you vote the "other" way than me, it calls into question my weighting of the two factors. That's much harder to face than telling myself you voted for the other one for some nefarious reason.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

On another note, I swear we must have received over 100 individual pieces of mail advertising for a political candidate in the past two weeks. I stopped counting around 65.