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

[Coniferous]

Y'know, if you're failing to find cases that back up your claims, maybe it's time to realize that you don't really have an argument.

The point I’m making is, if the standard you propose is not the current standard, then those people are already being given the benefit of the doubt so you don’t hear about them. Not sure how you read it but you certainly misunderstood me.

I mean the basic example is the guy who shot Blake. He didn’t prove conclusively that deadly force was required, but there was enough doubt that they put him back on the force. So there are no examples because it’s already mostly working the way it should (in my opinion).

[Orange Joe]

The point I’m making is, if the standard you propose is not the current standard, then those people are already being given the benefit of the doubt so you don’t hear about them. Not sure how you read it but you certainly misunderstood me.

I mean the basic example is the guy who shot Blake. He didn’t prove conclusively that deadly force was required, but there was enough doubt that they put him back on the force. So there are no examples because it’s already mostly working the way it should (in my opinion).

You do understand you replied in a argument about people being supposedly wrongly accused and losing their jobs. Where specialka was saying that happens too much right?

[Coniferous]

You do understand you replied in a argument about people being supposedly wrongly accused and losing their jobs. Where specialka was saying that happens too much right?

I don't care what specialka was saying. My point holds. You can't find many examples of someone being fired on limited evidence because that's not the current standard. It's pretty basic. Not sure why everyone started going bananas like I said something outrageous. If the standard changed to what Endus wants, we would start seeing a lot more cases of people being fired on limited evidence. I like the current standard, where a guy like the guy who shot Blake was not punished at all.

Somehow it seems you are all asking for me to give examples of situations where the hypothetical not real standard that Endus wants to impose resulted in someone being wrongfully fired, which is a bizarre ask. That's not the standard in the US, so of course it's not happening here and there won't be any examples. It's like saying, "I think bazookas should be legal. Give me an example of where a bazooka is legal and it causes a problem!" and the right answer is, "duh, there aren't any... bazookas are illegal."

[Endus]

I don't care what specialka was saying. My point holds. You can't find many examples of someone being fired on limited evidence because that's not the current standard. It's pretty basic. Not sure why everyone started going bananas like I said something outrageous. If the standard changed to what Endus wants, we would start seeing a lot more cases of people being fired on limited evidence. I like the current standard, where a guy like the guy who shot Blake was not punished at all.

Seriously, I already indicated where it is the standard, and what you're saying just doesn't happen.

You're making shit up and expecting the rest of us to put your overactive imagination on the same level as actual facts.

Somehow it seems you are all asking for me to give examples of situations where the hypothetical not real standard that Endus wants to impose resulted in someone being wrongfully fired, which is a bizarre ask.

Again, I already demonstrated it's a real, active standard.

Meanwhile, you've got no evidence backing anything you're arguing. Or anything that contradicts my points.
You're just making shit up out of nothing and getting upset that nobody will believe you.

[Coniferous]

Seriously, I already indicated where it is the standard, and what you're saying just doesn't happen.

You're making shit up and expecting the rest of us to put your overactive imagination on the same level as actual facts.



Again, I already demonstrated it's a real, active standard.

Meanwhile, you've got no evidence backing anything you're arguing. Or anything that contradicts my points.
You're just making shit up out of nothing and getting upset that nobody will believe you.

What have I made up? I still think you must be misunderstanding my posts, or confusing me with someone else.

Regardless, here's the example: Jacob Blake's shooter. There wasn't sufficient evidence to completely clear him, but there was enough to plausibly argue that he was justified. I think that we if implemented the standard that you advocate for, he would be fired, and I disagree with that.

I honestly don't think there's much left to debate here - you've laid out your position, I've laid out mine, and we've agreed on where our positions would result in different outcomes and (I think we've agreed) what those outcomes would be. We prioritize things differently - you prefer to have innocent cops fired in order to prevent guilty cops from committing future violence, and I prefer that innocent cops aren't fired and am willing to risk guilty cops committing future violence. Either outcome isn't great.

[Endus]

What have I made up? I still think you must be misunderstanding my posts, or confusing me with someone else.

The idea that these standards can't work.
That there's any evidence that they don't.

You're literally making that up, out of nothing, without a single bit of evidence or reasoning to support it, and expecting us to just take it on what, faith? When the facts clearly state otherwise?

You're making it all up. You don't have any argument, here. You're just making shit up and demanding we believe you despite the facts lying against you.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless, here's the example: Jacob Blake's shooter. There wasn't sufficient evidence to completely clear him, but there was enough to plausibly argue that he was justified. I think that we if implemented the standard that you advocate for, he would be fired, and I disagree with that.

So, the same standards that let Derek Chauvin skate by 18 times on abuse of force complaints, until he finally choked a nonviolent man to death in the middle of a crowded street, on video, thinking he would get away with it.

That's the standard you're claiming "works".

Pretty sure both Floyd's death and Blake's shooting demonstrates that it doesn't. We'll see how Blake's lawsuit plays out; if he can win a civil lawsuit against Sheskey for excessive force and Sheskey wasn't fired from the force, that says everything you need to know about how the force is supporting and protecting abusive officers.

[Coniferous]

The idea that these standards can't work.
That there's any evidence that they don't.

You're literally making that up, out of nothing, without a single bit of evidence or reasoning to support it, and expecting us to just take it on what, faith? When the facts clearly state otherwise?

You're making it all up. You don't have any argument, here. You're just making shit up and demanding we believe you despite the facts lying against you.

- - - Updated - - -



So, the same standards that let Derek Chauvin skate by 18 times on abuse of force complaints, until he finally choked a nonviolent man to death in the middle of a crowded street, on video, thinking he would get away with it.

That's the standard you're claiming "works".

Pretty sure both Floyd's death and Blake's shooting demonstrates that it doesn't. We'll see how Blake's lawsuit plays out; if he can win a civil lawsuit against Sheskey for excessive force and Sheskey wasn't fired from the force, that says everything you need to know about how the force is supporting and protecting abusive officers.

I mean, earlier we agreed that your standard would be more likely to result in an innocent cop being fired than mine. That seems pretty clear because you have a higher standard. Why are you hung up on "find an example"?

[Orange Joe]

I mean, earlier we agreed that your standard would be more likely to result in an innocent cop being fired than mine. That seems pretty clear because you have a higher standard. Why are you hung up on "find an example"?

I would rather a innocent cop be fired than a innocent person be killed.


Not sure how this is even a question.

[Captain N]

The fact that we're now arguing that Blue Jobs > Black Lives is pretty telling about how ole Condor feels about folks with a higher melanin count.

[Endus]

I mean, earlier we agreed that your standard would be more likely to result in an innocent cop being fired than mine. That seems pretty clear because you have a higher standard. Why are you hung up on "find an example"?

You're the one who was arguing it was prone to abuse. You're the one who's gonna have to back that up.

No, I don't consider an employee getting fired due to possible misconduct to be "abuse". Meanwhile, you're literally arguing in favor of police abuse of force and teachers sexually assaulting students; that they should be able to get away with those actions even when called out unless the evidence rises to a legally-liable level. And never justifying that.

Yeah, I'd prefer a cop get fired if they put themselves into a bad situation due to high standards, rather than having lower standards that let cops literally beat and kill citizens and get away with it. My position here isn't the extreme or ridiculous one.

[Zinstorm]

You're the one who was arguing it was prone to abuse. You're the one who's gonna have to back that up.

No, I don't consider an employee getting fired due to possible misconduct to be "abuse". Meanwhile, you're literally arguing in favor of police abuse of force and teachers sexually assaulting students; that they should be able to get away with those actions even when called out unless the evidence rises to a legally-liable level. And never justifying that.

Yeah, I'd prefer a cop get fired if they put themselves into a bad situation due to high standards, rather than having lower standards that let cops literally beat and kill citizens and get away with it. My position here isn't the extreme or ridiculous one.

Slightly off topic but... I think part of the disconnect here is that many people feel that due to the capitalists' society we live in many people equate a loss of a job/career as equal to a loss of life as from their point of view there life is over if they lose the ability to effectively make money.... and in many cases that can cause them to lose their home/stuff/place in society.

That's why (partly I don't deny there are more motivations then just that) they fight the "injustice" of firing someone with little direct evidence they feel that shouldn't happen (and in a perfect world it shouldn't... but we don't live in that world) and they can't put together that the alternative (that abusers potently thrive) is often worse as that alternative means more harm is done to many other people as the abuser of power continues to hurt and kill others... because they view the person that has this power as more valuable then the person they could be hurting.

We need to change this mindset (and this capital system in general) that the loss of a job means that your life effectively ends. We need to encourage that people can find a new job/career if they lose their last one over a controversial situation (as if they truly were unjustly dismissed that shouldn't run into the issue in there new field) and not have them go bankrupt in the process.

At the same time however high standard jobs need to keep these high standards as the potential damage done is horrifying. We don't want teachers preying on students, or doctors ruining their patients, and we don't need cops killing civilians. I'm sure there are plenty of teachers and doctors who have lost their jobs due to unjust situations... but I'd rather that then having kids hurt and patents being experimented on without their consent. Policing needs to be brought to this same level (and with the monetary compensation to match).

[Specialka]

You do understand you replied in a argument about people being supposedly wrongly accused and losing their jobs. Where specialka was saying that happens too much right?

Where did I say that ? I said do you think it is fair to fire someone based on a single testimony without any hard evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously, I already indicated where it is the standard, and what you're saying just doesn't happen.

You're making shit up and expecting the rest of us to put your overactive imagination on the same level as actual facts.



Again, I already demonstrated it's a real, active standard.

Meanwhile, you've got no evidence backing anything you're arguing. Or anything that contradicts my points.
You're just making shit up out of nothing and getting upset that nobody will believe you.

And you demonstrated nothing. The current standard is usually to hold an investigation before firing. The exemple you have given was about someone who had SEVERAL accusations against him which is different than a single testimony out of nowhere.

[Coniferous]

You're the one who was arguing it was prone to abuse. You're the one who's gonna have to back that up.

No, I don't consider an employee getting fired due to possible misconduct to be "abuse". Meanwhile, you're literally arguing in favor of police abuse of force and teachers sexually assaulting students; that they should be able to get away with those actions even when called out unless the evidence rises to a legally-liable level. And never justifying that.

Yeah, I'd prefer a cop get fired if they put themselves into a bad situation due to high standards, rather than having lower standards that let cops literally beat and kill citizens and get away with it. My position here isn't the extreme or ridiculous one.

I'm not going to look for examples, because I don't really care what happens in Canada and it's obviously true that it's possible. We don't really have anything left to discuss, I think we understand each other's perspectives clearly. However, I do want to point out that you keep posting things in direct violation of the thread warning:

The generic "you". You can argue about a post's intent or implications, but the unprompted "You support murder/crime/violence" needs to cease. Trying to get a reaction out of someone is different from pointing out potentially harmful ideas within their post.[/COLOR]

when you say "you're literally arguing in favor of police abuse of force". We've also already had this discussion, and I told you this was false the first time - I'm not in favor of abuse of force, I'm in favor of allowing innocent cops the benefit of the doubt, and an implication of my position is that some guilty parties will get off. This doesn't mean I'm in favor of them getting off - that's like me saying to you "you're literally arguing in favor of firing innocent cops" because that's an implication of your position. It's frustrating to have my words dishonestly twisted over and over, please stop, I know you know better than this.

[Orange Joe]

Where did I say that ? I said do you think it is fair to fire someone based on a single testimony without any hard evidence.

So you are complaining about something that rarely happens? Makes sense.....

- - - Updated - - -

when you say "you're literally arguing in favor of police abuse of force". We've also already had this discussion, and I told you this was false the first time - I'm not in favor of abuse of force, I'm in favor of allowing innocent cops the benefit of the doubt, and an implication of my position is that some guilty parties will get off. This doesn't mean I'm in favor of them getting off - that's like me saying to you "you're literally arguing in favor of firing innocent cops" because that's an implication of your position. It's frustrating to have my words dishonestly twisted over and over, please stop, I know you know better than this.

Then you are literally in favor of abuse of force. Otherwise it wouldn't matter if the cop was innocent or not.

[Endus]

And you demonstrated nothing. The current standard is usually to hold an investigation before firing. The exemple you have given was about someone who had SEVERAL accusations against him which is different than a single testimony out of nowhere.

I literally never said there shouldn't be an investigation. I said you should be suspended, with pay, and kept away from the workplace and the public until that investigation concludes. And that uncertainty in that investigation's outcome should, in cases of direct harm against the public, err on the side of protecting the public.

However, I do want to point out that you keep posting things in direct violation of the thread warning:

when you say "you're literally arguing in favor of police abuse of force". We've also already had this discussion, and I told you this was false the first time - I'm not in favor of abuse of force, I'm in favor of allowing innocent cops the benefit of the doubt, and an implication of my position is that some guilty parties will get off. This doesn't mean I'm in favor of them getting off - that's like me saying to you "you're literally arguing in favor of firing innocent cops" because that's an implication of your position. It's frustrating to have my words dishonestly twisted over and over, please stop, I know you know better than this.

I'm not misrepresenting a damned thing. You came right out and said it;

We prioritize things differently - you prefer to have innocent cops fired in order to prevent guilty cops from committing future violence, and I prefer that innocent cops aren't fired and am willing to risk guilty cops committing future violence.

You explicitly stated that you would rather see police abuse of force injuring and killing innocent people, than a potentially innocent officer where there is question about said innocence that cannot be resolved in their favor and active accusation(s) against them of wrongdoing. And I'll note; the latter is what I actually said; that there is a question as to their innocence in every one of these cases that cannot be adequately resolved.

Take the case of Derek Chauvin. My position would have seen him fired after that first (of 18) abuse-of-force complaints. George Floyd wouldn't have been murdered. You, on the other hand, implicitly are arguing that Chauvin needed to get those 18 passes and continue escalating until he choked a man to death in broad daylight, because of the possibility that a cop with an abuse of force complaint and no way to clear himself of that accusation might get fired.

I'm not talking about any generic "you". I'm talking about the direct implication of your post. An implication you admitted; "an implication of my position is that some guilty parties will get off". That's what you "favored". That's what I said you favored. And yet, you're trying to argue that I'm misrepresenting your position, while directly confirming that I got it right.

And that mod warning, just so we're clear, explicitly states that talking about a post's direct implications is perfectly fine. I am pointing to the "potentially harmful ideas within [your] post", which Rozz said was legitimate. It was a warning against generic "you're a conservative, and conservatives support murder" type stuff. Not what I'm doing, here. Which is entirely about exactly what you said and the position you have admitted that you support.

The problem with your position is that you're presuming a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for administrative decisions, which is ridiculous. They aren't held to that level. That's for criminal court cases, nothing else, and in criminal courts, there is a policy of letting the guilty go free, explicitly, rather than having the innocent be punished. Ironically, for the same basic principles that back my stance, here; protecting the public interest, over the officers of the State. Administrative decisions only need to, at best, show that there's a reasonable cause for firing, and a question about whether that staff member is abusing their position to victimize innocents is, definitively, cause. This is a pretty standard practice, outside of policing. So it's real fuckin' weird that you'd want police to have an exception to this.

[Coniferous]

I literally never said there shouldn't be an investigation. I said you should be suspended, with pay, and kept away from the workplace and the public until that investigation concludes. And that uncertainty in that investigation's outcome should, in cases of direct harm against the public, err on the side of protecting the public.



I'm not misrepresenting a damned thing. You came right out and said it;



You explicitly stated that you would rather see police abuse of force injuring and killing innocent people, than a potentially innocent officer where there is question about said innocence that cannot be resolved in their favor and active accusation(s) against them of wrongdoing. And I'll note; the latter is what I actually said; that there is a question as to their innocence in every one of these cases that cannot be adequately resolved.

Take the case of Derek Chauvin. My position would have seen him fired after that first (of 18) abuse-of-force complaints. George Floyd wouldn't have been murdered. You, on the other hand, implicitly are arguing that Chauvin needed to get those 18 passes and continue escalating until he choked a man to death in broad daylight, because of the possibility that a cop with an abuse of force complaint and no way to clear himself of that accusation might get fired.

I'm not talking about any generic "you". I'm talking about the direct implication of your post. An implication you admitted; "an implication of my position is that some guilty parties will get off". That's what you "favored". That's what I said you favored. And yet, you're trying to argue that I'm misrepresenting your position, while directly confirming that I got it right.

And that mod warning, just so we're clear, explicitly states that talking about a post's direct implications is perfectly fine. I am pointing to the "potentially harmful ideas within [your] post", which Rozz said was legitimate. It was a warning against generic "you're a conservative, and conservatives support murder" type stuff. Not what I'm doing, here. Which is entirely about exactly what you said and the position you have admitted that you support.

The problem with your position is that you're presuming a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for administrative decisions, which is ridiculous. They aren't held to that level. That's for criminal court cases, nothing else, and in criminal courts, there is a policy of letting the guilty go free, explicitly, rather than having the innocent be punished. Ironically, for the same basic principles that back my stance, here; protecting the public interest, over the officers of the State. Administrative decisions only need to, at best, show that there's a reasonable cause for firing, and a question about whether that staff member is abusing their position to victimize innocents is, definitively, cause. This is a pretty standard practice, outside of policing. So it's real fuckin' weird that you'd want police to have an exception to this.

You didn't talk about it as an implication, you said I favored it. That's why it's a violation. But either way, I think we're done here.

[Endus]

You didn't talk about it as an implication, you said I favored it. That's why it's a violation. But either way, I think we're done here.

The implication was that you favored it.

And then you came out and admitted that it implied that you favored it, in the same post you claimed I was somehow misinterpreting you. That you would prefer to see violence go unchecked by guilty parties, if the cost of preventing that was the possibility of an officer in questionable circumstances being fired despite unprovable innocence.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Looks like Kyle is gonna be a billionaire in less than 3 years with all these lawsuits.

[PhaelixWW]

Looks like Kyle is gonna be a billionaire in less than 3 years with all these lawsuits.

What imaginary lawsuits are you talking about?

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Roflmao. That’s a good one.

What imaginary lawsuits are you talking about?

People were posting about it earlier. https://twitter.com/1mzer0cool/statu...477781514?s=21