Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Specialka]

Once again, if they are free to do it, then there is no reason to shoot him for doing it.

His rights didn't cause that, their decision to deprive him of his rights caused it.

Theory is nice, practice is better. You are free to do a lot of things, but you should not put them in practice. Same here, do not present yourself with a gun in hand in front of a police officer

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43876772

I mean, cops elsewhere in the world have figured out how to respond to high-stress situations with armed, or potentially armed, suspects without shooting them in the back.

Again, this largely seems to be a uniquely American problem with American police that's often perpetuated by the fact that these cops that murder people never see any consequences for their actions.

Because weirdly, cops in the US are oddly trigger-happy for a developed nation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ers_by_country

It is a bit of everything. It is not only because they never face consequences or nearly never.

[Machismo]

Theory is nice, practice is better. You are free to do a lot of things, but you should not put them in practice. Same here, do not present yourself with a gun in hand in front of a police officer

So, you've decided to blame the victim.

That's like blaming someone for being shot, because they yelled at a jaywalker.

You are the dude blaming the girl and her short skirt, for being raped.

[Specialka]

So, you've decided to blame the victim.

That's like blaming someone for being shot, because they yelled at a jaywalker.

You are the dude blaming the girl and her short skirt, for being raped.

Because I am practical. Obviously, I would prefer if the girl could wear what she wants in a ghetto. But obviously, she can't in practice.

[Machismo]

Because I am practical. Obviously, I would prefer if the girl could wear what she wants in a ghetto. But obviously, she can't in practice.

So, a good place to start would be to stop blaming the victim.

[Edge-]

Theory is nice, practice is better. You are free to do a lot of things, but you should not put them in practice. Same here, do not present yourself with a gun in hand in front of a police officer

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ow/5445779002/

Police knocked on the apartment door and yelled "Phoenix police!" one time, according to body-camera videos from two officers who responded that night. The two officers stood on either side of the doorway.

According to the videos, Whitaker opened the door, shirtless, with a gun in his hand and a flashlight shining in his face. He stepped out of the apartment toward one officer.

"If my brother knew police were knocking on his door, there's no way he would have went to the door with a gun," Baeza said then.

They announced themselves once, which Whitaker likely didn't hear, and were banging on the door. A light was immediately shine din his eyes, which is disorienting, and he was murdered by a panicked officer who gave him no chance to finish complying with their orders, which he was doing.

Him answering the door with his gun is not an excuse for police to murder him.

It is a bit of everything. It is not only because they never face consequences or nearly never.

Oh hell fucking yes it is. That's why problem cops hop around departments so often. That's why cops aren't afraid to stand in "solidarity" when one of their own is investigated for almost murdering an elderly man by pushing him to the ground and cracking his skull, while the rest of the officers walk by a man bleeding from his head.

You think that the absolute lack of consequences for police haven't encouraged this kind of behavior?

[Endus]

He was identified as a threat because he had a gun in his hand.

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed, this cannot be considered true in the USA; citizens are legally entitled to arm themselves, and officers need to respond to that protected freedom accordingly.

Whether you disagree with the 2nd Amendment is an entirely different issue; we're discussing how things actually are. An "is" argument, not an "ought" argument.

[Specialka]

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed, this cannot be considered true in the USA; citizens are legally entitled to arm themselves, and officers need to respond to that protected freedom accordingly.

Whether you disagree with the 2nd Amendment is an entirely different issue; we're discussing how things actually are. An "is" argument, not an "ought" argument.

Well, even in the press article linked earlier, the brother or sister of the killed guy said exactly that. If he knew it was the Police, he would have never opened the door with a gun in hand. You can say it is the law or whatever. In practice, you are killed for that behavior. Good for you I guess ?

[Thee ANCOM]

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed, this cannot be considered true in the USA; citizens are legally entitled to arm themselves, and officers need to respond to that protected freedom accordingly.

Whether you disagree with the 2nd Amendment is an entirely different issue; we're discussing how things actually are. An "is" argument, not an "ought" argument.

the existence of the 2nd ammendment should to any logically consistant person invalidate the need for police and a professional standing army.

[Edge-]

In practice, you are killed for that behavior.

And the fact that cops aren't prosecuted for murdering people exercising their Second Amendment right in their own home is kinda like, the whole point of this thread? Systemic police reform, with a focus on institutional racism? (the racism bit not being at play here though)

[Endus]

Well, even in the press article linked earlier, the brother or sister of the killed guy said exactly that. If he knew it was the Police, he would have never opened the door with a gun in hand. You can say it is the law or whatever. In practice, you are killed for that behavior. Good for you I guess ?

"The police are so murderously violent that I'm afraid to exert my rights in their presence" is an argument that underscores how jackbootedly thuggish American police are, and how violently hostile to citizens' rights and freedoms their presence and conduct is.

Yes, American police are a major threat to the American people. That's the point.

- - - Updated - - -

the existence of the 2nd ammendment should to any logically consistant person invalidate the need for police and a professional standing army.

I mean, there was a time when I was far more left-libertarian in my thinking, bordering on rational anarchism. In that framework, yeah; I can take responsibility for protecting my own interests, and bind together with others collectively in pursuit of our shared interests.

I don't think that's practical, given human nature.

We're getting back to an "ought" argument, where I'd point out the many issues with the 2nd Amendment, but the point here is that not even the American legal system really stands up for that freedom. If it did, no police shooting of an armed suspect would ever be treated as anything but murder, not unless that suspect had actually fired the weapon at someone or was in that moment aiming it at police or innocents.

[Thee ANCOM]

I mean, there was a time when I was far more left-libertarian in my thinking, bordering on rational anarchism. In that framework, yeah; I can take responsibility for protecting my own interests, and bind together with others collectively in pursuit of our shared interests.

I don't think that's practical, given human nature.

We're getting back to an "ought" argument, where I'd point out the many issues with the 2nd Amendment, but the point here is that not even the American legal system really stands up for that freedom. If it did, no police shooting of an armed suspect would ever be treated as anything but murder, not unless that suspect had actually fired the weapon at someone or was in that moment aiming it at police or innocents.

right, I'm coming at it from the other guys point of view which I agree that is still impractical but is as I said is logically consistant.

[Zython]

And look where those rights led him.

You can't expect everyone to act rationally when they see someone walking in front of them with a gun in their hand.

Then we’re left with two options.

1. Get rid of guns.

2. Get rid of cops.

[kail]

And look where those rights led him.

You can't expect everyone to act rationally when they see someone walking in front of them with a gun in their hand.

Not everyone, no. Law enforcement? Absolutely.

[Zython]

Well, even in the press article linked earlier, the brother or sister of the killed guy said exactly that. If he knew it was the Police, he would have never opened the door with a gun in hand. You can say it is the law or whatever. In practice, you are killed for that behavior. Good for you I guess ?

Then we should be able to kill cops? After all, they have guns.

[Felya]

You can't expect everyone to act rationally when they see someone walking in front of them with a gun in their hand.

Gun control thread is that a way... apparently a gun is as threatening as toaster or you are a crazy liberal trying to take people’s guns away.

[Kokolums]

the existence of the 2nd amendment should to any logically consistant person invalidate the need for police and a professional standing army.

Article I of the US Constitution instructs the Congress to provide for the common defense and govern military forces and militias. Article II states that the President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces and state militias. The 2nd amendment says nothing about changing this arrangement.

[Elegiac]

Article I of the US Constitution instructs the Congress to provide for the common defense and govern military forces and militias. Article II states that the President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces and state militias. The 2nd amendment says nothing about changing this arrangement.

Mmm....not quite.

There is a reason it is an Amendment in reference to those, and that is because it was intended to empower the states to be able to levy militias in cases where the federal government was unable to provide assistance.

Unable, or unwilling, because...wait for it...certain elements within the nascent American government were worried that an abolitionist Congress and Commander-in-Chief would refuse to help put down a revolt of "other persons" as defined by the Constitution of the United States...

Kinda funny how fuckin' every major political issue in the United States can be sourced to the nonsense surrounding the compromises made for the existence of slavery. The Senate, the Second Amendment, the Electoral College, the 'exceptions' in the Thirteenth Amendment. I'm really quite hesitant to draw a line between the compromises for slavery and the compromises for white supremacy because it's such a continuous and cancerous presence in this country's history. Like yikes.

[Easo]

https://www.police1.com/use-of-force...sv5zP5OCCcKZt/

But do they do that, really? It is an interview after all, not official guidelines. AFAIK as far as I am aware in Europe cops in general do shoot for the center of the mass, everything else is an exception.

Thanks for the source, though.

[Endus]

But do they do that, really? It is an interview after all, not official guidelines. AFAIK as far as I am aware in Europe cops in general do shoot for the center of the mass, everything else is an exception.

Thanks for the source, though.

Honestly, I question the validity of the account. It seems to me to be astonishingly stupid to use lethal force to stop a non-lethal threat, by trying to direct that force to be less lethal. Why issue batons to police officers, when we can issue them swords? If the suspect's not a threat, they can just smack them with the flat of the blade, instead, right?

We don't do that because it's fucking stupid. Just as stupid as trying to shoot someone in an extremity to disable, rather than using something like a taser or beanbag rounds or whatever, which are designed for such use.

[LilSaihah]

But do they do that, really? It is an interview after all, not official guidelines. AFAIK as far as I am aware in Europe cops in general do shoot for the center of the mass, everything else is an exception.

Thanks for the source, though.

NGL it smacks of creative writing.