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

[Elegiac]

Must be real nice to have the ability to kill an innocent person as part of your job, and because you were "trying your best" you're immune from criminal prosecution.

Like, what other jobs have this kind of protections? I legit can't think of any.

The military. Gallagher only got caught because he was brazen.

It's almost as if organizations based on toxic cultures attract and encourage toxic people, lol.

[fwc577]

There should be pretty fuckin' simple math.

"Did the cops make the situation better? Or worse?"

If they killed someone in a situation where nobody had to die, the cops made it worse. And that should mean, at a minimum, someone's getting fired, and in most cases, criminally charged. Doesn't matter to me if the someone was the suspect or a bystander.

Cops show up, Bryant gets shot

Cops don't show up, girl in pink is stabbed to death.

Tell me, which situation is better or worse?

[Elegiac]

Cops show up, Bryant gets shot

You can just admit you forgot tazers exist rather than embarrassing yourself, you know.

Boot leather must be mighty tasty.

[Endus]

Cops show up, Bryant gets shot

Cops don't show up, girl in pink is stabbed to death.

Tell me, which situation is better or worse?

The situation where you didn't manufacture a deliberately dishonest and misleading false dilemma to use in place of an actually valid, defensible argument.

Those aren't the only two options.

[fwc577]

You can just admit you forgot tazers exist rather than embarrassing yourself, you know.

Boot leather must be mighty tasty.

Oh, Tasers that can fail to stop suspects. https://www.wkrn.com/news/crime-trac...otings-friday/

Tasers that can fire a single shot and potentially miss.

[KaPe]

You can just admit you forgot tazers exist rather than embarrassing yourself, you know.

Boot leather must be mighty tasty.

Tazers can be both less effective than firearms and fail to stop the target - or just as effective and kill them even though they're not supposed to.
Either way, this specific situation is far different from Floyd's case, where it was an obvious murder. In the context of that tweet mentioned earlier - it'd be much more reasonable to use that "13 year old man" (vs Rittenhouse, the "17 year old child", whichever dishonest conservative lunatic made that comparison, I don't remember) as an example of "you're next".

[fwc577]

The situation where you didn't manufacture a deliberately dishonest and misleading false dilemma to use in place of an actually valid, defensible argument.

Those aren't the only two options.

And the world isn't fucking black and white to make the decision to say a cop showing up made the situation better or worse. Right, pot calling the kettle black when it comes to deliberately dishonest and misleading choices here.

[Elegiac]

Oh, Tasers that can fail to stop suspects. https://www.wkrn.com/news/crime-trac...otings-friday/

Tasers that can fire a single shot and potentially miss.

Because firearms also have no chance of failure, right? /s

Seems that the responsible thing is to go for the less lethal option especially when missing with a tazer probably won’t kill a bystander.

This is real life, sweaty, not Call of Duty.

- - - Updated - - -

And the world isn't fucking black and white to make the decision to say a cop showing up made the situation better or worse. Right, pot calling the kettle black when it comes to deliberately dishonest and misleading choices here.

> The world isn’t black and white.
> Rolled into the thread with a shitty black and white false dichotomy.

There’s a hypocrite here but it ain’t Endus, hun.

[Endus]

Oh, Tasers that can fail to stop suspects. https://www.wkrn.com/news/crime-trac...otings-friday/

Tasers that can fire a single shot and potentially miss.

Are you under the impression that handguns never miss and always drop their target with a single shot?

And the world isn't fucking black and white to make the decision to say a cop showing up made the situation better or worse. Right, pot calling the kettle black when it comes to deliberately dishonest and misleading choices here.

You're literally the one who tried to create a black-and-white false dilemma. You're projecting and flailing here because you don't wish to acknowledge the wide range of options officers actually have.

[The Oblivion]

Because firearms also have no chance of failure, right? /s

Seems that the responsible thing is to go for the less lethal option especially when missing with a tazer probably won’t kill a bystander.

This is real life, sweaty, not Call of Duty.

the responsible thing to do is to end the threat. shooting the criminal attempting to murder someone else IS the responsible and correct action. tazing would be a lack of situational understanding and training. you should never taze in the situation that unfolded on body cam.

[Endus]

the responsible thing to do is to end the threat. shooting the criminal attempting to murder someone else IS the responsible and correct action. tazing would be a lack of situational understanding and training. you should never taze in the situation that unfolded on body cam.

Tasers also end the threat. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Literally no one has argued the officers shouldn't have intervened in that situation.

[Elegiac]

the responsible thing to do is to end the threat.

Which can be done nonlethally. Law enforcement outside of America seem to grasp this concept, so why can't you and the pigs here get it?

shooting the criminal attempting to murder someone else IS the responsible and correct action.

Again: discharging a firearm into a melee when you are only wanting to hit one of the targets is irresponsible firearm use whether it's a cop or a civilian. That's the simple fact of the matter.

Gun owners are taught to aim for the center of mass for a reason, sweetheart. I'm sorry your firearm instructor was a dumbass.

[The Oblivion]

Which can be done nonlethally. Law enforcement outside of America seem to grasp this concept, so why can't you and the pigs here get it?



Again: discharging a firearm into a melee when you are only wanting to hit one of the targets is irresponsible firearm use whether it's a cop or a civilian. That's the simple fact of the matter.

non lethal force would show a severe lack of training and not understanding the situation at hand. there was a public murder taking place, you dont taze, you put down the criminal. shooting her was the only smart option.

[Endus]

Again: discharging a firearm into a melee when you are only wanting to hit one of the targets is irresponsible firearm use whether it's a cop or a civilian. That's the simple fact of the matter.

Even aside the potential of straight-up missing the target, bullets don't automatically stop when they hit a target. They often punch through and continue on, potentially right into the victim the assailant is attacking.

[The Oblivion]

Which can be done nonlethally. Law enforcement outside of America seem to grasp this concept, so why can't you and the pigs here get it?



Again: discharging a firearm into a melee when you are only wanting to hit one of the targets is irresponsible firearm use whether it's a cop or a civilian. That's the simple fact of the matter.

Gun owners are taught to aim for the center of mass for a reason, sweetheart. I'm sorry your firearm instructor was a dumbass.

discharging a tazer while somebody is actively murdering someone is irresponsible and poor training

[fwc577]

Because firearms also have no chance of failure, right? /s

Seems that the responsible thing is to go for the less lethal option especially when missing with a tazer probably won’t kill a bystander.

This is real life, sweaty, not Call of Duty.

- - - Updated - - -



> The world isn’t black and white.
> Rolled into the thread with a shitty black and white false dichotomy.

There’s a hypocrite here but it ain’t Endus, hun.

Maybe gain some knowledge rather than trying to be insulting with the condescending name calling.

He was too close to use a taser. I bet you didn't even know that or understand how a taser works.

The effective range of a taser is 10-20 feet. She was literally standing NEXT TO HIM when she had the knife and he had to make the decision to pull the gun.

There is also the fact that tasers are usually only 60% effective.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/72992...-than-believed

The problem is too many people here are blinded by emotion and rage and are not thinking logically.

This is absolutely insanity.

We can sit here with the woulda-coulda-shoulda all day but at the end of the day, someone had a knife in close proximity and was attempting to kill someone else. The choice here is clear cut.

[Endus]

non lethal force would show a severe lack of training and not understanding the situation at hand.

Based on all the nothing you pulled out of your own butt?

there was a public murder taking place, you dont taze, you put down the criminal. shooting her was the only smart option.

Telling phrasing, using "putting her down" as if she's an animal.

Dehumanizing the victim is Step 1 in justifying an illegitimate shooting.

[Edge-]

there was a public murder taking place

Someone got murdered?

[The Oblivion]

Based on all the nothing you pulled out of your own butt?



Telling phrasing, using "putting her down" as if she's an animal.

Dehumanizing the victim is Step 1 in justifying an illegitimate shooting.

she was murdering someone, she is an animal. lmfao she is not a victim in any way shape or form. she is a criminal that needed to be put down to save life.

[Elegiac]

non lethal force would show a severe lack of training and not understanding the situation at hand.

Repeating this without demonstrating why doesn't make it any less wrong than the first time, sweaty.

there was a public murder taking place, you dont taze, you put down the criminal. shooting her was the only smart option.

Don't know how to break it to you hun but the people who determine whether or not someone is a criminal and merits punishment are not the police. We have a judicial system for a reason.