50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Source
UPDATED: A teacher has died and four have been injured after a knife attack at a school in Trollhättan, western Sweden. A student has told The Local he feared he would be "murdered".
Teacher dead and four injured in school attack
Two boys, 11 and 15, among those being treated for serious stab wounds
Attacker seriously injured
Student tells The Local his teacher was stabbed
"If I had not run, I would have been murdered," student tells The Local
PM Stefan Löfven: 'A dark day for Sweden
The attack took place on Thursday morning at the school, around 75km from Gothenburg after a man wearing a mask walked into the school building.
Police spokesman Stefan Gustafsson told Swedish media that the attacker was in his twenties and used “several knife-like objects.”
A hospital in Trollhättan has confirmed that a teacher died in the incident. Two boys, 11 and 15, and a male teacher are being treated for serious stab wounds at Trollhättan hospital. The attacker is also injured.
"The suspect has been shot and is being treated at NÄL (the regional hospital). He is seriously injured and is being operated on," said hospital spokesperson Niklas Claesson.
The scene outside the school shortly after the attacks. Photo: Mikael Svantesson.
A teenage student at the school told The Local of the moment he realised what was happening:
“I was in a classroom with my class when one of my classmates’ sisters called her to warn her that there was a murderer at the school. So we locked the door to the classroom, but our teacher was still outside in the corridor.”
“We wanted to warn him, so a few of us went outside and then I saw the murderer, he was wearing a mask and had a sword. Our teacher got stabbed.
“The murderer started chasing me, I ran into another classroom. If I had not run, I would have been murdered. I’m feeling really scared. Everyone’s scared here.”
Stefan Benhage, a photographer for local newspaper TTELA told his publication that there is "complete chaos" at the school and described pupils sobbing at the scene.
A large number of police cars and ambulances are in the area. One ambulance crashed into the school wall as it arrived at the scene.
An ambulance crashed into the school wall as it arrived at the scene. Photo: Mikael Svantesson.
Around 400 pupils are understood to be taught at the school, aged between six and fifteen.
Trollhättan is an industrial town in west Sweden, located around 75km north of Gothenburg, the nation's second largest city.
Ribana Boskovic, 20 years old, lives two minutes from the school, which her sister attends. She told The Local she could see ten police cars outside the school:
"There are a lot of people outside the school. A lot of people are crying because they’re so worried. It’s very chaotic; parents are running around to find their children."
She said her sister enjoyed studying at the school:
"My mum is feeling really bad at the moment, even though my sister is safe I’m very stressed and worried. I can’t understand why it happened here."
Local authorities have sent a crisis group the scene to look after students and staff:
“The group is composed of seven municipal employees, whose job it is to provide comfort and support during the emergency situation,” Per Ivarsson, internal communications manager at Trollhättan’s local council.
Prime minister: A dark day for Sweden
Prime minister Stefan Löfven will visit Trollhättan on Thursday afternoon to meet those affected.
"This is a dark day for Sweden. I am thinking of the victims and their families, pupils and staff, and the whole affected community. Words cannot describe what they are going through right at the moment. We feel for them, and we will make sure that they get all the support they need," he said in a statement issued by his office on Thursday afternoon.
– Det här är en svart dag för Sverige. Jag tänker på offren och deras familjer, elever och personal, och hela det drabbade samhället. Inga ord kan beskriva vad de går igenom just nu. Vi känner med dem, och vi ska se till att de får allt stöd de behöver, säger statsminister Stefan Löfven.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sad. A prayer for the victims and their families.
Lets try to keep the politics out of it ok?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The description of what happened to the teacher is really upsetting, thank god the kid got away.
I'm sure we'll find out more about this as time goes on, and whatever we learn will be distressing.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I wonder if the suspect knew the teacher and had some (deranged) reason to attack her
12313
Post by: Ouze
My bet; 3/4th of the first page, locked by the third.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
The teacher was a dude. And from what I can see, this was a rampage attack rather than one targeted at any specific people in the school, so I don't think there was any particular reason for attacking that specific teacher. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ouze wrote: My bet; 3/4th of the first page, locked by the third.
It could've been worse. Imagine if he had a gun, he could've killed a lot more than he did. (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((:
18698
Post by: kronk
Horrible story.
89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
Apparently another person died of the injuries on the way to hospital and there's still another critical.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Who took him out? The article says he was shot.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Police shot him, apparently.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Yeah. Good on the boys in blue.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Have to say though, the article scared the living daylights out of me at first, as I study in Trollhättan (not at an elemantary school, obviously).
221
Post by: Frazzled
Does Trollhatten mean anything language wise. I see the name and think "Troll Heads"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good deal.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:Have to say though, the article scared the living daylights out of me at first, as I study in Trollhättan (not at an elemantary school, obviously).
I live in Gothenburg so it's not awfully far for me either.
Trollhättan means 'the troll hut', i think?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Prayers for the families.
Glad the police were able to get there in time to prevent more casualties.
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
Absolutely horrifying. I am glad they caught the attacker, and may be able to get some kind of answers for the families of those hurt and killed.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
I hope the attacker survives and is put to court, and given a fair trial.
Let the jerk think it out in jail. For 50 years.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
This is clearly not the work of a sane person. I wonder if he is capable of regret and guilt.
18698
Post by: kronk
Stay safe!
98523
Post by: LethalShade
 Ashiraya wrote:This is clearly not the work of a sane person. I wonder if he is capable of regret and guilt.
You would be surprised by what an at least superficially sane person could do.
Hope he'll get a lifetime in prison or psychiatric hospital to think about it.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Two kids we know very well go to that school. We're about to board a plane to Sweden right now. Stay strong, Sweden.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
This sounds horrible, especially to the students and staff involved. Thoughts go to them.
A sword as well? Horrible for all involved.
49806
Post by: yellowfever
Good job to dakkadakka for keeping thus on topic for almost a whole page. Ashiraya tried but that was ignored. I'm impressed.
Goodluck to the families.
84919
Post by: Gwaihirsbrother
The Guardian reports the attacker is dead. Two shots fired one hit him apparently causing a fatal wound.
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
Damn. I always hope that they can get some sense out of the attack for the survivors and families.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
feth it. I don't understand why anyone would ever want to attack a school.
Things like this scare me. Luckily nothing like this has happened in the Netherlands so far.
I hope those guys who were wounded are going to be okay.
I wonder why he did it though, pity he is dead.
Does anyone know if it is a school with a lot of ethnic minorities or one with primarily Swedish kids? Could his motives be far-right?
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
A shame he died. I wanted to know why he did it, and so did many others.
yellowfever wrote:Good job to dakkadakka for keeping thus on topic for almost a whole page. Ashiraya tried but that was ignored. I'm impressed.
Goodluck to the families.
Easy there, mate. 'Twas just a joke.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Per one article noted above, it appears the mask is a Star Wars mask.
514
Post by: Orlanth
 Frazzled wrote:Sad. A prayer for the victims and their families.
Lets try to keep the politics out of it ok?
The politics is already in it. Within the first half hour Swedish politicians and press are blaming far-right radicalisation.
We dont even know the perpetrators name yet.
221
Post by: Frazzled
They can be political. We don't have to be.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Police is saying the culprit had linked neo-nazi sites on his Facebook page. The school is apparently in the bottom 10 in the country, and the neighbourhood (Kronogården), where the residents are primarily immigrants, is infamous for its higher-than-average criminality.
As for the name Trollhättan, while it literally means "the troll bonnet/cap", it's a corruption of the dialectal "Trôleta", which means (or meant, it's archaic) "to pull upwards, to drag", (c.f. English "trawl"), referring to the fact that ships had to be beached and towed past the Trollhättan rapids when journeying along the Göta river to and from lake Vänern in the old days.
 Orlanth wrote: Frazzled wrote:Sad. A prayer for the victims and their families.
Lets try to keep the politics out of it ok?
The politics is already in it. Within the first half hour Swedish politicians and press are blaming far-right radicalisation.
We dont even know the perpetrators name yet.
What are you reading that blamed anything so quickly? Neither of the "big three" newspapers (DN, Aftonbladet, Expressen) we're blaming it on anyone for at least four hours, and AFAIK they only started reporting on the far-right angle once the perpetrator's linking of neo-nazi propaganda on Facebook became known.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Politics in it already. Lots of people we talked to blaming far right with some locals we talked saying they barely if ever knew him. Quiet guy of some sort. Some said that a far-right connection is likely as the far-right is rising again after the huge immigrant influx Sweden has to bear right now. Most locals still shocked despite knowing it being a bottom tier school.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Terrible event. I am enjoying all the names though.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Iron_Captain wrote:
Does anyone know if it is a school with a lot of ethnic minorities or one with primarily Swedish kids? Could his motives be far-right?
That was my first thought. I watched interviews with the students, lotta brown kids. Not sure on the ethnicity of the teacher, but look at foolio's stupid nazi hat.
I'll kick a kid off a 10 speed bike it it WASN'T racial.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
4402
Post by: CptJake
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
Just out of curiosity, does it make it better that the perp suffered a couple of hours before he died rather than dying at the scene?
I'm not sure I understand the difference. It would seem the cop(s) shot to kill. Not sure how them doing their jobs/following their training equates to 'summary execution'. For goodness sake, they were confronting some dude who was armed and had already killed someone and attempted to kill others.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
Yes, better to let a maniac on a killing spree wander off instead of immediately taking him out and thus potentially saving innocent lives.
42342
Post by: Smacks
 CptJake wrote:I'm not sure I understand the difference. It would seem the cop(s) shot to kill. Not sure how them doing their jobs/following their training equates to 'summary execution'. For goodness sake, they were confronting some dude who was armed and had already killed someone and attempted to kill others.
I think "shoot to kill" means something slightly different here. I.e. "aim for centre of mass, and bring the person down", as opposed to the US police interpretation: "aim to empty your clip into someone already on the floor".
123
Post by: Alpharius
 Smacks wrote: CptJake wrote:I'm not sure I understand the difference. It would seem the cop(s) shot to kill. Not sure how them doing their jobs/following their training equates to 'summary execution'. For goodness sake, they were confronting some dude who was armed and had already killed someone and attempted to kill others.
I think "shoot to kill" means something slightly different here. I.e. "aim for centre of mass, and bring the person down", as opposed to the US police interpretation: "aim to empty your clip into someone already on the floor".
Police are trained to aim for 'center mass' here in the USA too - to say otherwise is rather unfair and certainly unnecessary.
10920
Post by: Goliath
 Sigvatr wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
Yes, better to let a maniac on a killing spree wander off instead of immediately taking him out and thus potentially saving innocent lives.
Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down. Rather than capturing them, and then instead of arresting him to be put on trial the cop just puts a bullet in their head, which I believe is what PW was suggesting.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Terrible news. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims.
42342
Post by: Smacks
 Alpharius wrote:Police are trained to aim for 'center mass' here in the USA too - to say otherwise is rather unfair and certainly unnecessary.
I was thinking specifically about the shooting of Ernesto Duenez (who was unarmed). Officer James Moody fired 13 shots at him point blank. In fairness 8 of those did hit centre mass, so I'm not really taking issue with that part. It's the sheer volume of bullets and the 4 shots that him him when he was already on the floor that I was commenting on. There is shooting to kill, and then there's shooting to kill.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
 Goliath wrote:
Rather than capturing them, and then instead of arresting him to be put on trial the cop just puts a bullet in their head, which I believe is what PW was suggesting.
^ Yep.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Yes, I think we all understood that you were in favor of extralegal executions at police discretion.
I'd expand about why that's a problem, but what are you supposed to say to that kind of person? I mean really.
37231
Post by: d-usa
But when Obama's jackbooted thugs do it we complain about socialism.
But seriously, can we stop calling for extrajudicial summary executions and gloating about the death of anybody and just be happy there were not more victims and keep their families in thought?
42342
Post by: Smacks
Wouldn't that imply that we should be unhappy when there are more victims? For example, those "other" spree killings... Why? Talking about politics is why half of us hang out here. Even if we don't talk about it right now. I'm definitely bringing it up next gun debate anyway, so there's no escape! 
57811
Post by: Jehan-reznor
Hope we find out the reasoning, was it a right wing agenda, or did he go crazy on shrooms thinking he was fighting dark jedi's
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Honestly, I hope we NEVER know the perpetrators name. Let the fether rot in anonymity, especially when numerous experts on these sorts of things say that publishing names and "kill counts" and such only fuel future events.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
 Peter Wiggin wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
Leave him in a cell for the rest of his life, denying him an early and relatively painless death ?
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
 LethalShade wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
Leave him in a cell for the rest of his life, denying him an early and relatively painless death ?
Exactly this.
67730
Post by: stanman
Peter Wiggin wrote:
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
Obviously you're supposed to spray him with glitter and happy feelings until he decides to put down the sword and surrender to the power of love.
Cops did exactly what they are supposed to, stop more kids from getting stabbed, and the crazy sword swinging guy got exactly what he deserves.
81303
Post by: Stormwall
Heard about this almost after it happened, seems American FB groups are already using this to fuel the gun debate. Even though most people cannot seem to tell the difference between Switzerland and Sweden on FB anyways.
It irks me as it does everything but remember the victims.
Also, I have a selfish (as it kinda applies to me, my bad,) semi on-topic-but-barely-so type of question. I wonder if attacks like this and the massive influx of refugees will negatively affect the embassy process for normal immigrants?
98523
Post by: LethalShade
I don't live in Sweden so I can't tell, but it will probably be the case, imo.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, I hope we NEVER know the perpetrators name. Let the fether rot in anonymity, especially when numerous experts on these sorts of things say that publishing names and "kill counts" and such only fuel future events.
Too late, it's out.
 Jehan-reznor wrote:Hope we find out the reasoning, was it a right wing agenda, or did he go crazy on shrooms thinking he was fighting dark jedi's
Police has said that they've got enough material that they're investigating it as a hate crime.
As for the people that cannot see the difference between shooting to stop someone from killing people and killing someone out of a perverted sense of "justice", you scare me.
10920
Post by: Goliath
 stanman wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
Obviously you're supposed to spray him with glitter and happy feelings until he decides to put down the sword and surrender to the power of love.
Cops did exactly what they are supposed to, stop more kids from getting stabbed, and the crazy sword swinging guy got exactly what he deserves.
Because of course there is no point that lies in between "Let him go so we don't hurt his feelings" and "Captured and disabled, so we put a bullet between his eyes".
There's absolutely no leeway whatsoever.
In fact, should we even try to capture people alive? Just evacuate the students and burn the school to the ground after sealing the exits; that way you know he's going to die, and it's excruciatingly painful. And that's what justice is all about. Automatically Appended Next Post: AlmightyWalrus wrote:As for the people that cannot see the difference between shooting to stop someone from killing people and killing someone out of a perverted sense of "justice", you scare me.
Ah, but don't you know? Trials and the legal process are for people who are, to quote Chongara;  SOFT ON CRIME
It's all about the extrajudicial killings and summary executions.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Goliath wrote: Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.
Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about something on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus endanger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come. Execution refers to taking it alive and then killing it. That's another matter.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
Sigvatr wrote: Goliath wrote: Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.
Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about someone on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus danger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.
You're right. A bullet in the legs or the shoulder can be as lethal as a chest shot anyway.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
LethalShade wrote: Sigvatr wrote: Goliath wrote: Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.
Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about someone on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus danger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.
You're right. A bullet in the legs or the shoulder can be as lethal as a chest shot anyway.
Even a shot in the legs can be deadly if you get (un)lucky enough, hit a critical spot, target bleeds out.
10920
Post by: Goliath
Sigvatr wrote: Goliath wrote: Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.
Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about something on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus endanger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.
Execution refers to taking it alive and then killing it. That's another matter.
And I'm referring to the latter, not the former. The latter is what Wiggin is referring to. I've been on this forum long enough to know about common gun misconceptions and all that gak.
By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive, you don't then just shoot them in the forehead because "they're a terrorist and they deserved it". That's what we have trials for.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
And a trial followed by a life sentence would be way more punitive than an execution.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Goliath wrote:
By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive,
It seems like that is what happened here, and that is a good thing. Having said that, I (and I suspect others) don't mind he died at all. Long expensive trials and prison sentences work, but can be hard on victims and families of victims as they have to relive the event each time there is an appeal or parole hearing. This guy dying when he did due to his wounds is not a bad thing.
10920
Post by: Goliath
CptJake wrote: Goliath wrote:
By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive,
It seems like that is what happened here, and that is a good thing.
Indeed.
Having said that, I (and I suspect others) don't mind he died at all. Long expensive trials and prison sentences work, but can be hard on victims and families of victims as they have to relive the event each time there is an appeal or parole hearing. This guy dying when he did due to his wounds is not a bad thing.
I can also understand this point of view.
67730
Post by: stanman
Goliath wrote: stanman wrote:
Obviously you're supposed to spray him with glitter and happy feelings until he decides to put down the sword and surrender to the power of love.
Cops did exactly what they are supposed to, stop more kids from getting stabbed, and the crazy sword swinging guy got exactly what he deserves.
Because of course there is no point that lies in between "Let him go so we don't hurt his feelings" and "Captured and disabled, so we put a bullet between his eyes".
There's absolutely no leeway whatsoever.
In fact, should we even try to capture people alive? Just evacuate the students and burn the school to the ground after sealing the exits; that way you know he's going to die, and it's excruciatingly painful. And that's what justice is all about.
You're being absurd. There is plenty of leeway in how they deal with situations like this, however I have no sympathy for the swordsman attacker meeting his demise as he clearly had no reguard for anyone (himself included). Had he the sense to end his attack and surrender to the police he should have been taken alive, however he did not and chose to attack the police as well.
I believe that people should be treated with the level of respect and civility in which they approach others with. However when somebody intentionally crosses the line to actively harm and murder others they have shown that they have no respect, compassion, or mercy for others then they deserve none for themself. If they are killed to prevent them from murdering others in cold blood then I say good because they didn't show any compassion to their victims. He chose his end by not only killing people but further escalating by attacking police.
Nowhere did I suggest that he should be executed for the sake of it. What I am saying is that I have no sympathy for him dying as the results of a violent undertaking that he himself chose to pursue. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Smacks wrote: Alpharius wrote:Police are trained to aim for 'center mass' here in the USA too - to say otherwise is rather unfair and certainly unnecessary.
I was thinking specifically about the shooting of Ernesto Duenez (who was unarmed). Officer James Moody fired 13 shots at him point blank. In fairness 8 of those did hit centre mass, so I'm not really taking issue with that part. It's the sheer volume of bullets and the 4 shots that him him when he was already on the floor that I was commenting on. There is shooting to kill, and then there's shooting to kill.
Mmm now the politics start. Have you ever shot a firearm? Ever seen one? A PoPo shooting a crappy Glock can empty the mag in about three seconds. With the adrenalin dump of a shootout and the delayed reaction from the physical transference of nervous impulse from brain to finger to "stop firing" three seconds can be nothing.
10920
Post by: Goliath
stanman wrote:Nowhere did I suggest that he should be executed for the sake of it. What I am saying is that I have no sympathy for him dying as the results of a violent undertaking that he himself chose to pursue. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Then you need to read the posts you're agreeing with, because that was what Peter Wiggin was suggesting in the comment you replied to. You personally didn't suggest it, you just went "Yeah, that's a pretty good idea" to someone who did suggest it.
98099
Post by: Lithlandis Stormcrow
The police did what they had to do - stopped the attacker. Two shots were fired, and one hit
That he died was just happenstance.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
When you are trained in the use of a firearm you are taught to continue firing center mass until the threat is eliminated. Whether than takes 3 shots or 15, you keep firing until the threat is eliminated. Whether the threat dies or not, you keep firing until the threat is eliminated.
Some folks have an arbitrary round count in their mind that, when exceeded, they think it's "too many" shots fired. Number of shots fired is largely irrelevent. You fire as many times as required to eliminate the threat.
Threats can also persist when on the ground, and if the threat remains, you continue to fire until the threat is eliminated.
Once that threat is eliminated, you cease fire. Whether a death is involved or not, once the threat is eliminated, you cease fire.
If there are wounded that require medical attention, you render it and request assistance.
I'm not passing judgement on any particular case, just trying to give a little insight into firearm training.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
I'll quote it again for convenience.
Peter Wiggin wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
Goliath wrote:
Rather than capturing them, and then instead of arresting him to be put on trial the cop just puts a bullet in their head, which I believe is what PW was suggesting.
^ Yep.
This isn't about keep shooting at the threat until it's neutralized, it's about outright executing it.
I'm not saying that Swedish cops did that, they did their job well, I'm just saying that summary execution was what Peter advocated.
67730
Post by: stanman
Goliath wrote: stanman wrote:Nowhere did I suggest that he should be executed for the sake of it. What I am saying is that I have no sympathy for him dying as the results of a violent undertaking that he himself chose to pursue. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Then you need to read the posts you're agreeing with, because that was what Peter Wiggin was suggesting in the comment you replied to. You personally didn't suggest it, you just went "Yeah, that's a pretty good idea" to someone who did suggest it.
I don't see any part of my reply that says I agree with that. I replied specifically to the part I quoted, nothing else from earlier. So please show me where you think I agreed or said yeah that's a pretty good idea as I did neither
10920
Post by: Goliath
Peter Wiggin wrote: Goliath wrote:Rather than capturing them, and then instead of arresting him to be put on trial the cop just puts a bullet in their head, which I believe is what PW was suggesting.
^ Yep.
Here you can see PW clarifying that he is in fact advocating the summary execution of a captive. Peter Wiggin wrote: You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children. What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
So, the action that PW can't think of any alternatives to is the summary execution, as has previously been established and confirmed by him. stanman wrote:
Obviously you're supposed to spray him with glitter and happy feelings until he decides to put down the sword and surrender to the power of love.
Sarcastic comments to the contrary are generally taken as an agreement with the original statement. You making this comment implies an agreement with, or at the very least approval of, the previous statement (which again, is advocating the summary execution of prisoners). So no, you didn't outright say "I support summary executions of prisoners", you just made comments that, to any normal person, imply an agreement with statements that were advocating as such. And you can't really go for the whole "But I didn't know that he was advocating that!"; the guy clarified what he meant in the same comment you quoted.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Goliath wrote: Sigvatr wrote: Goliath wrote: Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.
Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about something on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus endanger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.
Execution refers to taking it alive and then killing it. That's another matter.
And I'm referring to the latter, not the former. The latter is what Wiggin is referring to. I've been on this forum long enough to know about common gun misconceptions and all that gak.
By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive, you don't then just shoot them in the forehead because "they're a terrorist and they deserved it". That's what we have trials for.
Got you, thanks for the clarification!
Why is someone then trying to derail the thread? The situation is pretty clear aka taking it out asap was the right thing to do. Any "bohoo culprits are people too!" "dilemma" can please go into its own respective thread.
42342
Post by: Smacks
 Alex C wrote:When you are trained in the use of a firearm you are taught to continue firing center mass until the threat is eliminated. Whether than takes 3 shots or 15, you keep firing until the threat is eliminated. Whether the threat dies or not, you keep firing until the threat is eliminated.
Some folks have an arbitrary round count in their mind that, when exceeded, they think it's "too many" shots fired. Number of shots fired is largely irrelevent. You fire as many times as required to eliminate the threat.
Threats can also persist when on the ground, and if the threat remains, you continue to fire until the threat is eliminated.
How do you know whether a threat is eliminated if there isn't time for feedback. In the case of Ernesto Duenez, there doesn't appear to have been any threat in the first place, he was unarmed. but the officer rattles off 12 shots so quickly, he barely had time to fall over.
You can watch the video. The officer actually shouts "drop the knife" before he starts shooting. The guy goes down after about 5 shots, and even on the gakky police video (which is further away) you can see both his hands clutching his chest -- empty. At this point I feel the knife threat has been sufficiently eliminated. There is no way he would be able to get back up off the floor, with 5~7 bullets in him, cover 10 feet and stab the officer before the next shot. There was at least time to assess the situation.
But the officer doesn't pause, he continues firing 7 more times while the guy is on the ground. Then there is a brief pause for half a second. And then he fires one more time for good measure.
BS that guy wasn't executed.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Sigvatr wrote: Goliath wrote: Sigvatr wrote: Goliath wrote: Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.
Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about something on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus endanger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.
Execution refers to taking it alive and then killing it. That's another matter.
And I'm referring to the latter, not the former. The latter is what Wiggin is referring to. I've been on this forum long enough to know about common gun misconceptions and all that gak.
By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive, you don't then just shoot them in the forehead because "they're a terrorist and they deserved it". That's what we have trials for.
Got you, thanks for the clarification!
Why is someone then trying to derail the thread? The situation is pretty clear aka taking it out asap was the right thing to do. Any "bohoo culprits are people too!" "dilemma" can please go into its own respective thread.
Culprits are people too, and that has every right to be in this thread as well. If someone would want to defend the guy it would belong in this thread as well IMO.
Talking about other police involved shootings is probably off-topic though.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Smacks, please tell us what your magical round discharge allowance number is.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Smacks wrote:How do you know whether a threat is eliminated if there isn't time for feedback. In the case of Ernesto Duenez, there doesn't appear to have been any threat in the first place, he was unarmed. but the officer rattles off 12 shots so quickly, he barely had time to fall over.
You can watch the video. The officer actually shouts "drop the knife" before he starts shooting. The guy goes down after about 5 shots, and even on the gakky police video (which is further away) you can see both his hands clutching his chest -- empty. At this point I feel the knife threat has been sufficiently eliminated. There is no way he would be able to get back up off the floor, with 5~7 bullets in him, cover 10 feet and stab the officer before the next shot. There was at least time to assess the situation.
But the officer doesn't pause, he continues firing 7 more times while the guy is on the ground. Then there is a brief pause for half a second. And then he fires one more time for good measure.
BS that guy wasn't executed.
As I said in the part that you didn't quote, I'm not passing judgement on any particular case, just trying to give a little insight into firearm training.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Peter Wiggin wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
Paralyse them, so they can no longer move or speak, but still remain fully conscious. Make sure to keep them alive in some completely dark room. Now they are imprisoned within their own minds for the rest of their lives.
That is the most cruel, horrific punishment I can think of anyways. Execution really is not much of a punishment. You can't punish someone who is dead.
I still think it is a pity the attacker died. I think it is important to learn someone's reasons and motives for such horrible things. Maybe the knowledge could even be used to prevent similar things in the future. After that, maybe we could donate them for scientific experiments. Even their kind of monster could benefit mankind that way.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Alex C wrote:As I said in the part that you didn't quote, I'm not passing judgement on any particular case, just trying to give a little insight into firearm training.
And to be fair to US cops, they work in quite a different society than ours do. Even small-time crooks often have a gun and while rare police do get killed on the job, often before they pulled their weapon or even noticed there was a threat. They're trained to not take chances if something looks dangerous.
We have few armed criminals and even fewer that would deliberately attack police. Our cops can usually afford to evaluate a situation longer before deciding what to do, and even when there's a clear threat they will restrain themself a bit more. A knifeswinger that's not in a position to immediately attack someone can expect a leg shot for example. Bad luck that the attacker later died, but I'd call two shots quite restrained when confronting a lunatic wielding bloody knives.
42342
Post by: Smacks
 cincydooley wrote:Smacks, please tell us what your magical round discharge allowance number is.
Oh here we go... So because I say that 8 rounds per second is overkill, suddenly you can waltz in with your usual condescending "magical discharge allowance" straw-man. Here, I've made it into a flow chart so it is easy for you to understand the difference between the two processes. One is a measured response, the other is trigger happy.  Spetulhu wrote:And to be fair to US cops, they work in quite a different society than ours do. Even small-time crooks often have a gun.
And who's fault is that?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
King George's, what with his unreasonable Taxation Without Representation nonsense
42144
Post by: cincydooley
So two rounds. Got it.
And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.
Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.
91292
Post by: DarkLink
Spetulhu wrote: Alex C wrote:As I said in the part that you didn't quote, I'm not passing judgement on any particular case, just trying to give a little insight into firearm training.
And to be fair to US cops, they work in quite a different society than ours do. Even small-time crooks often have a gun and while rare police do get killed on the job, often before they pulled their weapon or even noticed there was a threat. They're trained to not take chances if something looks dangerous.
We have few armed criminals and even fewer that would deliberately attack police. Our cops can usually afford to evaluate a situation longer before deciding what to do, and even when there's a clear threat they will restrain themself a bit more. A knifeswinger that's not in a position to immediately attack someone can expect a leg shot for example. Bad luck that the attacker later died, but I'd call two shots quite restrained when confronting a lunatic wielding bloody knives.
There are a couple of videos now floating around where anti police protest leaders are invited by police to try out a few use-of-force scenarios. They go through some scenarios where they confront a suspicious guy who's looking into car windows like he's going to try to break in, or similar. After being "killed" several times and/or shooting into the fake perp multiple times, they pretty much realize, 'hey, maybe this isn't as easy and clear cut as I thought'.
42342
Post by: Smacks
cincydooley wrote:So two rounds. Got it.
And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.
I knew you were going to say that, so I started amending the flow chart to appropriately. One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks, two shots makes certain of it. Reassessing the situation would only take fractions of a second, and is prefectly possible if you're not busy hammering on your pistol like it's a machine gun.
 DarkLink wrote:There are a couple of videos now floating around where anti police protest leaders are invited by police to try out a few use-of-force scenarios. They go through some scenarios where they confront a suspicious guy who's looking into car windows like he's going to try to break in, or similar. After being "killed" several times and/or shooting into the fake perp multiple times, they pretty much realize, 'hey, maybe this isn't as easy and clear cut as I thought'.
I've seen that. It was fairly stupid. In the first exercise, getting shot is almost impossible to avoid. In the second exercise the presence of the gun causes the situation to escalate, since the cop is forced into a situation where he has to use it or lose it. A buddy and a two nightsticks would have worked much better. And in the third exercise the cop wins without using his gun so meh.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Two makes certain of it? Are you serious? There are multiple recent instances where that simply isn't true.
It also requires that the two rounds you do discharge actually hit center mass. The adrenaline dump in those situations can cause a multitude of issues that make accuracy go down significantly.
Maybe you're just a better shot or can mitigate those effects better than the rest of us, Smacks (I'm assuming you must be.)
Because your presumptions are pretty out there.
Additionally, your "is there a threat" is the assessment. I assume you know this, as it's the correct shape. Your left flow assumes they have time after every two rounds they're allowed to shoot to reassess the situation. Which unto itself is foolish.
42342
Post by: Smacks
cincydooley wrote:So two rounds. Got it.
And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.
Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.
Seems like a petty point to pick me up on, but okay. I'll remember not to use the terms interchangeably in future.
Additionally, you wrote they instead of then. Not that I want to nitpick or anything...
221
Post by: Frazzled
cincydooley wrote:So two rounds. Got it.
And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.
Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.
He's British. Those would be Enfields. 
42342
Post by: Smacks
cincydooley wrote:Two makes certain of it? Are you serious? There are multiple recent instances where that simply isn't true.
Hence why it might be appropriate to fire two more shots.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
The thread's going exactly where it has gone for at least 2 times already. Smacks throws his word out, gets debunked by people who actually know something about the matter at hand and can back their word up with actual experience. Always the same. Get your free +1s here.
Long story short: depending on the situation, firing 3-5 shots at the very least is perfectly reasonable in order to stop a suspect.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
cincydooley wrote:
Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.
It's also missing a "reload" section.
Smacks wrote:One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Smacks wrote: cincydooley wrote:So two rounds. Got it.
And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.
Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.
Seems like a petty point to pick me up on, but okay. I'll remember not to use the terms interchangeably in future.
Additionally, you wrote they instead of then. Not that I want to nitpick or anything...
Nitpick a typo all you want. There are pretty fundamental differences between a typo and using the wrong nomenclature all together.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Ouze wrote:
My bet; 3/4th of the first page, locked by the third.
Well, we are on page three and it's the same stupid gun thread it always becomes.
Can we make this prediction come true?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
 d-usa wrote: Ouze wrote:
My bet; 3/4th of the first page, locked by the third.
Well, we are on page three and it's the same stupid gun thread it always becomes.
Can we make this prediction come true?
It's endorsed by the moderation team, so why not join the fun for a few pages? 
18698
Post by: kronk
If we're done with "How many shots does it take to get to the center of a madman?" debate and torture porn, can we get back to the sword guy. Any more information on him being a right-wing nut job going after the poor/immigrants?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Sigvatr wrote: d-usa wrote: Ouze wrote:
My bet; 3/4th of the first page, locked by the third.
Well, we are on page three and it's the same stupid gun thread it always becomes.
Can we make this prediction come true?
It's endorsed by the moderation team, so why not join the fun for a few pages?
You made it jump to page 4! 
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Sigvatr wrote:The thread's going exactly where it has gone for at least 2 times already. Smacks throws his word out, gets debunked by people who actually know something about the matter at hand and can back their word up with actual experience. Always the same. Get your free +1s here.
Long story short: depending on the situation, firing 3-5 shots at the very least is perfectly reasonable in order to stop a suspect.
I don't know, looking at the situation to determine how many shots are appropriate to fire (or rather, when it is appropriate to stop firing) looks like something fairly sensible to me.
221
Post by: Frazzled
EDIT: as Kronk is right, back to the nutjob.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 kronk wrote:can we get back to the shooter.
Any more information on him being a right-wing nut job going after the poor/immigrants?
Shooter was a policeman, so I hope not...
Do you mean the nutjob with the sword?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Before it gets locked, I do have a question for our Swede brethren/sisters...
Why does your royal naming convention make no sense?? I just saw his name was King "Carl" (I forgot the actual name here) XVI Gustav? Most other places you'd see the number come after all the other name stuff....
Also, can you guys start guarding schools with Vikings? Seriously, I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to attack a school protected by Vikings.
18698
Post by: kronk
Alex C wrote: kronk wrote:can we get back to the shooter.
Any more information on him being a right-wing nut job going after the poor/immigrants?
Shooter was a policeman, so I hope not...
Do you mean the nutjob with the sword?
Sorry. Sword dude. Will fix that.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
cincydooley wrote:Two makes certain of it? Are you serious? There are multiple recent instances where that simply isn't true.
It also requires that the two rounds you do discharge actually hit center mass. The adrenaline dump in those situations can cause a multitude of issues that make accuracy go down significantly.
Doesn't rapidly firing until you are out of bullets also decrease accuracy versus measured shooting? I think of the numerous incidents where bystanders were hit along with the suspect and wonder if controlled firing versus "firing until dry" would be the better course of action for law enforcement.
But that gets into training, and keeping a cool head under pressure which seems to be lacking in a lot of the officers who make the headlines.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Before it gets locked, I do have a question for our Swede brethren/sisters...
Why does your royal naming convention make no sense?? I just saw his name was King "Carl" (I forgot the actual name here) XVI Gustav? Most other places you'd see the number come after all the other name stuff...
Because it sounds cool.
Also, can you guys start guarding schools with Vikings? Seriously, I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to attack a school protected by Vikings.
Vikings don't grow on trees, man. We need them for the reenactments.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
There really isn't much to discuss right now on the matter. Motivation was most likely motivated by racism, guy was just a maniac and it was killed by a police officer who I'd like to personally thank given we get the chance to meet him tomorrow. It's a tragedy for Sweden and it, once more, sadly shows that there is no way to stop such an event beforehand and even without guns, it's possible to pull something like this off.
Back to derailing the thread!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
LethalShade wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
Leave him in a cell for the rest of his life, denying him an early and relatively painless death ?
It is my personal opinion that society should not shoulder the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and lawyering for someone that would commit terrorist acts. Others may feel differently.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Alex C wrote:Smacks wrote:One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks
It was enough to stop Tamir Rice.
Care to let me shoot you one time, we can test out how well you do?
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Sigvatr wrote:The thread's going exactly where it has gone for at least 2 times already. Smacks throws his word out, gets debunked by people who actually know something about the matter at hand and can back their word up with actual experience. Always the same. Get your free +1s here.
Long story short: depending on the situation, firing 3-5 shots at the very least is perfectly reasonable in order to stop a suspect.
You know... You could just ignore him if you think he is wrong. There is no need to turn everything into a discussion about whether police violence in the US is justified or not. It is just recycling exactly the same arguments over and over again, so why even bother responding?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Peter Wiggin wrote:
It is my personal opinion that society should not shoulder the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and lawyering for someone that would commit terrorist acts. Others may feel differently.
Fully agree. It's the weird image mankind has where somehow, a human is worth more than anything else just because he's a human. Which makes zero sense whatsoever.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Iron_Captain wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.
You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.
What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.
Paralyse them, so they can no longer move or speak, but still remain fully conscious. Make sure to keep them alive in some completely dark room. Now they are imprisoned within their own minds for the rest of their lives.
That is the most cruel, horrific punishment I can think of anyways. Execution really is not much of a punishment.
Thats fethed up. I'm not into torture, and I don't care about punishment. I feel that anyone who would walk into a school, play creepy music loudly, and then stab teachers & students to death should be removed from the face of the planet with zero fanfare. I feel they should be incinerated and the ashes scattered to the wind. No memory of their name, no grave for other extremists to visit.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Sigvatr wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
It is my personal opinion that society should not shoulder the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and lawyering for someone that would commit terrorist acts. Others may feel differently.
Fully agree. It's the weird image mankind has where somehow, a human is worth more than anything else just because he's a human. Which makes zero sense whatsoever.
I actually do think a human is worth more than anything that is not a human, because she is a human.
Legal processes should be observed, summary executions should not be a thing. Or rather, our votes decide whether it should be a thing, and thus far our votes have given a plain no.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Smacks wrote: Alex C wrote:Smacks wrote:One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks
It was enough to stop Tamir Rice.
Care to let me shoot you one time, we can test out how well you do?
I'm not a criminal pumped up with adrenaline and/or narcotics who is intent on murdering someone (despite what the left claims about gun owners).
It's amazing what the human body will ignore under such circumstances.
Anyway this is just ending up like many other threads, it's pointless to talk to you and I have better ways to spend my time, good day sir.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ashiraya wrote: Sigvatr wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
It is my personal opinion that society should not shoulder the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and lawyering for someone that would commit terrorist acts. Others may feel differently.
Fully agree. It's the weird image mankind has where somehow, a human is worth more than anything else just because he's a human. Which makes zero sense whatsoever.
I actually do think a human is worth more than anything that is not a human, because she is a human.
I'm curious.
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
No other animal displays our ability of complex thought either.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
I didn't meant to say that your opinion is worth less than others. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My point is just that it's a fully emotional point of view that makes no sense. Two different but valid views.
In the topic at hand, forcing innocents to pay for the life of someone who clearly broke society's rules by e.g. murdering innocents is nonsense. If people were really interested in paying for them, there should be a kickstarter-esque system where people can subscribe to a prisoner or prisoners in general and if there are enough subscribers, i.e. people who actively support the system, they get prison. If there aren't enough people willing to pay for mercy, you're SOL. That would be a fair system as you can 100% accurately measure people's will to maintain the subjects' lives.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter.
Holy gak, otters are hard core! That is some honey badger level of "FETH YOU" right there. Eye-humping a corpse for intimidation purposes is just... yeesh!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ashiraya wrote:No other animal displays our ability of complex thought either.
Disagree completely.
Animals most assuredly think, love, feel, and hurt. If you are talking about our use of technology I'd posit that the ability of humans to impact the world universally results in misery not only for other species, but for our own. The vanity of anthropocentric morality is part of the crowd-mentality though. <shrug>
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.
Damn... 
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.
I actually feel like you are pointing out that humans are no better or worse than other animals with this comment. Which is the same standpoint I am arguing, though I'm more jaded.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
 DarkTraveler777 wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter.
Holy gak, otters are hard core! That is some honey badger level of "FETH YOU" right there. Eye-humping a corpse for intimidation purposes is just... yeesh!
I just imagined an otter humping an eye-socket, angrily looking at the camera man and flipping the bird. Made me giggle. Then realized otters don't have fingers. Sad again.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Sigvatr wrote: DarkTraveler777 wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter.
Holy gak, otters are hard core! That is some honey badger level of "FETH YOU" right there. Eye-humping a corpse for intimidation purposes is just... yeesh!
I just imagined an otter humping an eye-socket, angrily looking at the camera man and flipping the bird. Made me giggle. Then realized otters don't have fingers. Sad again.
Don't worry, it'll probably just flip you the actual bird it just murdered and skullfethed 5 minutes beforehand.
91292
Post by: DarkLink
Peter Wiggin wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.
I actually feel like you are pointing out that humans are no better or worse than other animals with this comment. Which is the same standpoint I am arguing, though I'm more jaded.
That's very much not what you said. You explicitly stated that humans do terrible things and that animals do not.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Peter Wiggin wrote: Ashiraya wrote:No other animal displays our ability of complex thought either.
Disagree completely. Animals most assuredly think, love, feel, and hurt. If you are talking about our use of technology I'd posit that the ability of humans to impact the world universally results in misery not only for other species, but for our own. The vanity of anthropocentric morality is part of the crowd-mentality though. <shrug>
Generally, no, I have yet to see any evidence that animals are able to think or theorise on levels beyond the immediate. Don't get me wrong, I like animals, but I have not seen any indication of them being as intelligent as we are. On the other hand, if they are craftier than I thought, it would explain many posts I have seen here on Dakka... Sigvatr wrote:I didn't meant to say that your opinion is worth less than others. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My point is just that it's a fully emotional point of view that makes no sense. Two different but valid views. In the topic at hand, forcing innocents to pay for the life of someone who clearly broke society's rules by e.g. murdering innocents is nonsense. If people were really interested in paying for them, there should be a kickstarter-esque system where people can subscribe to a prisoner or prisoners in general and if there are enough subscribers, i.e. people who actively support the system, they get prison. If there aren't enough people willing to pay for mercy, you're SOL. That would be a fair system as you can 100% accurately measure people's will to maintain the subjects' lives.
Or better yet, support the political party favouring summary execution, or create one that favours it if none exists, to do this democratically. I'd argue that your position seems based on the idea of revenge, and just as if not more emotional.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Ashiraya wrote: Or better yet, support the political party favouring summary execution, or create one that favours it if none exists, to do this democratically.
That's the problem. You force people to pay for something that they disagree with on a fundamental basis - which is wrong on ohsomany levels. People don't care for votes, people care for money.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
DarkLink wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.
You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.
I actually feel like you are pointing out that humans are no better or worse than other animals with this comment. Which is the same standpoint I am arguing, though I'm more jaded.
That's very much not what you said. You explicitly stated that humans do terrible things and that animals do not.
Hmm, my words are not always the best. My intent was to be clear that it is a matter of scale.
Example: We all know Chimpanzee's engage in tribal warfare. Chimpanzee's do not purposefully destroy the food supply of rival tribes in an effort to cause mass scale starvation to elicit social control.
62229
Post by: Minx
Sigvatr wrote:That's the problem. You force people to pay for something that they disagree with on a fundamental basis - which is wrong on ohsomany levels. People don't care for votes, people care for money.
If money is all they care about then don't imprison him. Don't even bother to stop him as that would only involve extra expenditure. What's the worth of the victims anyway, eh?
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Sigvatr wrote: Ashiraya wrote:
Or better yet, support the political party favouring summary execution, or create one that favours it if none exists, to do this democratically.
That's the problem. You force people to pay for something that they disagree with on a fundamental basis - which is wrong on ohsomany levels. People don't care for votes, people care for money.
In a cynical capitalist nightmare state, maybe.
But our high taxes and extensive welfare system should tell you that we are not interested in social Darwinism.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ashiraya wrote:
Or better yet, support the political party favouring summary execution, or create one that favours it if none exists, to do this democratically.
Totally unnecessary. Simply codify the circumstances under which the apparatus of the state responsible for the application of violence can legally kill a terrorist. Create a social norm whereby we understand that the police have a legal right to remove the life of an individual presenting a clear violent intent against the citizens around them.
Like when they have a knife in their hand and are murdering children. Thats a very good time. Actually, its pretty much what happened in this case. Right?
98523
Post by: LethalShade
Human beings aren't better nor worse than animals, we ARE animals.
34390
Post by: whembly
Man... this thread is going there there...
But, lemme throw this out there...
Discuss the idea of incarceration as a means to keep the convict out of society, rather than a form a punishment.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Ashiraya wrote:
But our high taxes and extensive welfare system should tell you that we are not interested in social Darwinism.
As someone with his main home in Germany, I laugh at your "high taxes"!
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Seems your state is not interested in it either, then. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Totally unnecessary. Simply codify the circumstances under which the apparatus of the state responsible for the application of violence can legally kill a terrorist. Create a social norm whereby we understand that the police have a legal right to remove the life of an individual presenting a clear violent intent against the citizens around them.
Like when they have a knife in their hand and are murdering children. Thats a very good time. Actually, its pretty much what happened in this case. Right?
And they opened fire, as they should.
Which stopped him. So they did exactly what they should have done.
No need to keep firing after he is disabled.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
No state is interested in it because it's easier to appeal to the emotional part of people than the rational part of humans. People /love/ to get the dumb treatment and highly prefer to do stuff that feels rather than what is actually good.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Agreed.
But we make a habit out of gaking where we sleep. Metaphorically and macro scale. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ashiraya wrote:Seems your state is not interested in it either, then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Totally unnecessary. Simply codify the circumstances under which the apparatus of the state responsible for the application of violence can legally kill a terrorist. Create a social norm whereby we understand that the police have a legal right to remove the life of an individual presenting a clear violent intent against the citizens around them.
Like when they have a knife in their hand and are murdering children. Thats a very good time. Actually, its pretty much what happened in this case. Right?
And they opened fire, as they should.
Which stopped him. So they did exactly what they should have done.
No need to keep firing after he is disabled.
A bullet to the skull is a lot cheaper to the taxpayers than taking that fool to the emergency room was, but in the end the guy is dead so whatever.
Hopefully the authorities will incinerate his body, throw the ashes down a toilet, and never put his name into print.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Sigvatr wrote: No state is interested in it because it's easier to appeal to the emotional part of people than the rational part of humans. People /love/ to get the dumb treatment and highly prefer to do stuff that feels rather than what is actually good.
I am extremely happy that pretty much everyone in my country disagrees with your assessment. Everyone accused of a crime should be taken through the appropriate legal process if such a thing is at all feasible to do. And in this case, it was, up until he died.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Ashiraya wrote: I am extremely happy that pretty much everyone in my country disagrees with your assessment.
So you suddenly became a spokesperson for the entirety of Sweden. I'm not debating politics. Politics and objective thinking are mutually exclusive. That isn't up for debate.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
No, I just observe the results of our votes.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
Sigvatr wrote:
No state is interested in it because it's easier to appeal to the emotional part of people than the rational part of humans. People /love/ to get the dumb treatment and highly prefer to do stuff that feels rather than what is actually good.
So you're interested in social Darwinism ?
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Hopefully the authorities will incinerate his body, throw the ashes down a toilet, and never put his name into print.
We can only hope.
Don't flush them though, the next person to use the toilet gets the honor of gaking on his remains.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Sigvatr wrote:
I'm not debating politics. Politics and objective thinking are mutually exclusive. That isn't up for debate.
There is nothing at all about your argument that is objective.
You think it is isn't worth it to keep such criminals alive. But your opinion is not some kind of single truth.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Alex C wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Hopefully the authorities will incinerate his body, throw the ashes down a toilet, and never put his name into print.
We can only hope.
Don't flush them though, the next person to use the toilet gets the honor of gaking on his remains.
Oh see now you are tempting me to be malicious and vengeful. Or maybe its that basic human animal thing of establishing dominance by defecating on your opponent.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Peter Wiggin wrote: Alex C wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Hopefully the authorities will incinerate his body, throw the ashes down a toilet, and never put his name into print.
We can only hope.
Don't flush them though, the next person to use the toilet gets the honor of gaking on his remains.
Oh see now you are tempting me to be malicious and vengeful. Or maybe its that basic human animal thing of establishing dominance by defecating on your opponent.
Or skullfething them, in the case of Otters.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ashiraya wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
I'm not debating politics. Politics and objective thinking are mutually exclusive. That isn't up for debate.
There is nothing at all about your argument that is objective.
You think it is isn't worth it to keep such criminals alive.
I am from America, where we have been running an enormous social experiment centered around "keeping such criminals alive." Most of our society will tell you that warehousing violent, maladaptive, completely irredeemable criminals is an astronomical cost to society, is vulnerable to the worst type of profiteering from the private sector, and really serves to addtionally harden the "worst of the worst" who then go on to commit additional atrocities upon release.
It isn't that its "worth more" to keep violet criminals alive, its that the cost of commiting that behavior on a large scale is absolutely enormous. Thats in terms of property damage, taxpayer burden, and most important the cost to social stability.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 whembly wrote:Man... this thread is going there there...
But, lemme throw this out there...
Discuss the idea of incarceration as a means to keep the convict out of society, rather than a form a punishment.
Would this shift the focus to only releasing a criminal f they are no longer a danger to society, with more availability of mental health services, drug treatments, addiction treatment, etc.?
42342
Post by: Smacks
Sigvatr wrote:No state is interested in it because it's easier to appeal to the emotional part of people than the rational part of humans. People /love/ to get the dumb treatment and highly prefer to do stuff that feels rather than what is actually good.
Yeah, right wing is always so objective and rational. LIke, I never see Fox news appeal to people sense of fear over things like crime and immigration... And lets not get onto terrorism... There could be a terrorist hiding under your bed right now.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
Peter Wiggin wrote: Ashiraya wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
I'm not debating politics. Politics and objective thinking are mutually exclusive. That isn't up for debate.
There is nothing at all about your argument that is objective.
You think it is isn't worth it to keep such criminals alive.
I am from America, where we have been running an enormous social experiment centered around "keeping such criminals alive." Most of our society will tell you that warehousing violent, maladaptive, completely irredeemable criminals is an astronomical cost to society, is vulnerable to the worst type of profiteering from the private sector, and really serves to addtionally harden the "worst of the worst" who then go on to commit additional atrocities upon release.
It isn't that its "worth more" to keep violet criminals alive, its that the cost of commiting that behavior on a large scale is absolutely enormous. Thats in terms of property damage, taxpayer burden, and most important the cost to social stability.
So what ? Give police officers the right to kill any violent criminal ?
34390
Post by: whembly
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: whembly wrote:Man... this thread is going there there...
But, lemme throw this out there...
Discuss the idea of incarceration as a means to keep the convict out of society, rather than a form a punishment.
Would this shift the focus to only releasing a criminal f they are no longer a danger to society, with more availability of mental health services, drug treatments, addiction treatment, etc.?
To estrapulate that further... focus more on re-habilitation (while keeping convicts out of society ) rather than focusing the punishment.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Peter Wiggin wrote:I am from America, where we have been running an enormous social experiment centered around "keeping such criminals alive." Most of our society will tell you that warehousing violent, maladaptive, completely irredeemable criminals is an astronomical cost to society, is vulnerable to the worst type of profiteering from the private sector, and really serves to addtionally harden the "worst of the worst" who then go on to commit additional atrocities upon release.
It isn't that its "worth more" to keep violet criminals alive, its that the cost of commiting that behavior on a large scale is absolutely enormous. Thats in terms of property damage, taxpayer burden, and most important the cost to social stability.
And I am from Sweden, where we imprison criminals and try to rehabilitate them into functioning members of society, and I'd say it works pretty okay.
What is true in your country may not be true in ours.
Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: whembly wrote:Man... this thread is going there there...
But, lemme throw this out there...
Discuss the idea of incarceration as a means to keep the convict out of society, rather than a form a punishment.
Would this shift the focus to only releasing a criminal f they are no longer a danger to society, with more availability of mental health services, drug treatments, addiction treatment, etc.?
To estrapulate that further... focus more on re-habilitation (while keeping convicts out of society ) rather than focusing the punishment.
Damn straight.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
LethalShade wrote:
So what ? Give police officers the right to kill any violent criminal ?
Generally speaking, yes. That is what I support.
Problem is that cops are human, they feth up, and the wrong people end up dead. Then someone gets sued, the leftists start protesting to try and stir gak up, the media goes nuts, and all of a sudden people give a damn about human life. Which really does make me laugh, given the state of violence around the globe.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ashiraya wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:I am from America, where we have been running an enormous social experiment centered around "keeping such criminals alive." Most of our society will tell you that warehousing violent, maladaptive, completely irredeemable criminals is an astronomical cost to society, is vulnerable to the worst type of profiteering from the private sector, and really serves to addtionally harden the "worst of the worst" who then go on to commit additional atrocities upon release.
It isn't that its "worth more" to keep violet criminals alive, its that the cost of commiting that behavior on a large scale is absolutely enormous. Thats in terms of property damage, taxpayer burden, and most important the cost to social stability.
And I am from Sweden, where we imprison criminals and try to rehabilitate them into functioning members of society, and I'd say it works pretty okay.
What is true in your country may not be true in ours.
What has historically "worked" for your nation "worked" because of the structure of your society. That structure is changing, and intentionally so. Globalization will bring you all of the lovey social ills that America suffers from. Trust me on that.
This guy is just another Ander's Breivik, though with a lot less (insane) planning and a sword instead of guns/bombs.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
Cops aren't reliable enough, you can't give them the right to judge the "value" of a criminal. They shoot whenever threatened, and it is enough.
Don't make a single person judge, jury and executioner.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
whembly wrote:
To estrapulate that further... focus more on re-habilitation (while keeping convicts out of society ) rather than focusing the punishment.
This has my vote. It would release a lot of non-violent offenders, reduce the prison population, prevent crime, and act as a meaningful deterrent.
This would also necessitate ending the war on drugs and moving away from the for-profit prisons.
34390
Post by: whembly
Dreadclaw69 wrote: whembly wrote:
To estrapulate that further... focus more on re-habilitation (while keeping convicts out of society ) rather than focusing the punishment.
This has my vote. It would release a lot of non-violent offenders, reduce the prison population, prevent crime, and act as a meaningful deterrent.
This would also necessitate ending the war on drugs and moving away from the for-profit prisons.
This 1000%.
Do we need to find Frazzled and start up the Weiner party? (T-bone in every doggie bowl!)
OP: Sorry for derailing this thread a bit. Anytime something like this happens, I can only hope we can learn from it and move on.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
LethalShade wrote:Cops aren't reliable enough, you can't give them the right to judge the "value" of a criminal. They shoot whenever threatened, and it is enough.
I did a lot of thinking about this, esp during the period of time when I lived in Oakland. Sadly, there were many chances to savor the multiplicity of violences that we humans do while I lived there.
But I digress. Cops pull a trigger any time they feel "threatened"....absolutely right and therein lies a problem. The element of fear is serious, and should be removed as much as possible from any state agent who has the right of lethal force. I'm not entirely sure how to do that, but it doesn't change the fact that there are a good many people who really do not belong in civilized society. There is also the insane issue where people seem to think "baiting" or "resisting" cops is legal or acceptable.
So then you get a well meaning citizen who decides to provoke a cop, the cop gets emotional, shoots them, and there's a catastrophe etc.
Meanwhile, James Holmes was intelligent enough to know he could murder dozens of people and that if he sat down and looked "harmless" he wouldn't be shot. <sigh>
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Ashiraya wrote:
You think it is isn't worth it to keep such criminals alive. But your opinion is not some kind of single truth.
Where did I make that claim?
The objective part is that people like to lose themselves in emotional reasoning rather than objective reasoning. That's a long established fact. Treating every human as having an innate worth despite him being destructive to its own kind is irrational and purely emotionally motivated. Politics are almost fully emotionally motivated. It's either one dude wanting to be powerful or a big group of people wanting to feel better. That's all there is to it. There's no "better" or "worse", even if you might try looking for it.
When it comes to the truth, I guarantee you that if people had to directly and individually pay for stuff like mass murderers, you'd see a sudden and vast drop in people supporting said idea. Tells a lot about what people want
98523
Post by: LethalShade
I'd say guns availability to nearly anyone is the first major problem to solve. But almost everyone will jump on me quoting your second amendment.
This, and lobbies will prevent any meaningful law on the matter.
Edit :
People resisting cops occurs almost everywhere, I think. Baiting occurs here too, but much less, as most people aren't armed enough to deal with cops. We have a lot of violence issues, but fewer casualties. Shootings aren't unheard of, but they're rare and almost always involve drug trafficking networks.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Sigvatr wrote:The objective part is that people like to lose themselves in emotional reasoning rather than objective reasoning. That's a long established fact. Treating every human as having an innate worth despite him being destructive to its own kind is irrational and purely emotionally motivated. Politics are almost fully emotionally motivated. It's either one dude wanting to be powerful or a big group of people wanting to feel better. That's all there is to it. There's no "better" or "worse", even if you might try looking for it.
I think the problem is that if you take someone like Anders Breivik, who I think most people would agree, deserves to die, and then you say "okay, that guy gets a bullet in the head". It makes some sense, but it also sets a precedent for the next case, which might not be so clear cut. That's why it is important to protect people's rights, even in the face of terrible crimes. Certainly the gun crowd will have to agree with that.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
LethalShade wrote:
People resisting cops occurs almost everywhere, I think. Baiting occurs here too, but much less, as most people aren't armed enough to deal with cops. We have a lot of violence issues, but fewer casualties. Shootings aren't unheard of, but they're rare and almost always involve drug trafficking networks.
I think we're hella off topic, but y'know....
Americans take cop baiting/resisting to insane levels. Something I learned firsthand living in Oakland. People these days don't seem to understand that when you talk to cops you need to be respectful, you should provide the paperwork they request, and if you don't have anything to worry about then you'll be fine. You have to treat cops the same way you would treat a dangerous animal in the wild. Turn and run, provoke them, or even move in a fast/jerky manner....yeah bad gak will happen. Those things are all interpreted by police as guilty or dangerous behavior and prompts them to act accordingly....even if they aren't conscious of it. And yes, if you decide to try and fight a cop, you run a damn good risk of getting shot.
Just like if you decide to pick a fight with someone IRL there's a good risk they might kill you.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Peter Wiggin wrote:You have to treat cops the same way you would treat a dangerous animal in the wild.
While true, this is a problem and one law enforcement officers should be concerned with. If the populace sees law enforcement as wild animals that need to be approached with caution then we've lost as a society.
Cops shouldn't need to be treated with kid gloves by civilians in order to ensure those civilians aren't brutalized or killed.
Acceptance of this current state of affairs only allows the situation to worsen.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
LethalShade wrote:I'd say guns availability to nearly anyone is the first major problem to solve. But almost everyone will jump on me quoting your first amendment.
I'd say you should learn, oh, anything about that ability ("nearly anyone" can't get them legally) in the United States, starting with the proper amendment.
I think a big step, in instances like this, is to not, in any way, shape, or form, publicize the assailant. The U.S. Oregon and Virginia incidents give us tangible proof that people are influenced by the notoriety gained from these killings. The media need not publicize the name or photos of the perpetrators. Let them die alone in their anonymity.
221
Post by: Frazzled
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:You have to treat cops the same way you would treat a dangerous animal in the wild.
While true, this is a problem and one law enforcement officers should be concerned with. If the populace sees law enforcement as wild animals that need to be approached with caution then we've lost as a society.
Cops shouldn't need to be treated with kid gloves by civilians in order to ensure those civilians aren't brutalized or killed.
Acceptance of this current state of affairs only allows the situation to worsen.
Both of you can in fact be correct. This is one reason I'm all for body cams.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Frazzled wrote: DarkTraveler777 wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:You have to treat cops the same way you would treat a dangerous animal in the wild.
While true, this is a problem and one law enforcement officers should be concerned with. If the populace sees law enforcement as wild animals that need to be approached with caution then we've lost as a society. Cops shouldn't need to be treated with kid gloves by civilians in order to ensure those civilians aren't brutalized or killed. Acceptance of this current state of affairs only allows the situation to worsen.
Both of you can in fact be correct. This is one reason I'm all for body cams.
Oh I wasn't intending to point out something factually wrong with Wiggins' statement, just that the acceptance of the "wild animal" nature of cops is problematic for our society.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
I think we should respect and trust our police because they are necessary, they take risks for our good, not to mention that their job is often thankless.
On the other hand, they wield a lot of power over the common person, and just like anyone else who does they should be subject to scrutiny.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Ashiraya wrote:I think we should respect and trust our police because they are necessary, they take risks for our good, not to mention that their job is often thankless.
Honestly, that is a crappy reason to trust and respect someone or even a group/class of people. Trust and respect are earned. At times, a person's position may make the default assumption that you can trust/should respect, but until you interact with them your assumption is just that. You end up interacting with some power hungry Rambo wanna-be douchebag and regardless of his/her position, you will not trust nor respect them. If there are enough published/publicized instances of poor behavior or corruption within a law enforcement agency you will find the public's default position shift from trust and respect to mistrust and no respect, or even fear.
But respecting and trusting someone because they are necessary? Sorry, that does not work for me.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
CptJake wrote: Ashiraya wrote:I think we should respect and trust our police because they are necessary, they take risks for our good, not to mention that their job is often thankless.
Honestly, that is a crappy reason to trust and respect someone or even a group/class of people. Trust and respect are earned. At times, a person's position may make the default assumption that you can trust/should respect, but until you interact with them your assumption is just that. You end up interacting with some power hungry Rambo wanna-be douchebag and regardless of his/her position, you will not trust nor respect them. If there are enough published/publicized instances of poor behavior or corruption within a law enforcement agency you will find the public's default position shift from trust and respect to mistrust and no respect, or even fear.
But respecting and trusting someone because they are necessary? Sorry, that does not work for me.
I respect them because they have taken a dangerous job for our safety.
Is that not worthy of respect?
I trust them because it's their job to be trustworthy, and the fact that they still have it means that they have lived up to it so far.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
You don't have to respect an individual in order to follow the decorum (since "respect" is a loaded term) due to the institution itself.
Laws and law enforcement exist for a reason. They're a necessary component of any society since social deviance is also a component of any society. I've literally seen people say "I do not consent" thinking its going to prevent a cop from searching them or performing their job duties. Thats the extreme end of the attitude I'm critiquing.
Of course we've all known total douche-bag's that grew up and became cops. Same as we've all known decent cops that believe performing their job is good for society writ large.
There is a STRONG push in America to demonize the entire institution of law enforcement, which is pretty terrifying when you think about it.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Peter Wiggin wrote:There is a STRONG push in America to demonize the entire institution of law enforcement, which is pretty terrifying when you think about it.
I don't agree with that. I think there is a growing backlash to repeated abuses of power by law enforcement. With the availability of personal cameras the public myth of the "honest police officer" is being challenged by repeated examples of abuse of power, corruption, and murder of civilians. Coupled with the relative lack of consequences for rogue police (compared to a civilian who committed similar crimes) I think public suspicion of police has increased. At least among the demographics that bought into that myth (me and all the other white-middle class folks who don't often have a lot of runs-ins with police).
Aside from some brash, "feth the Police" types (read: young and immature) I don't think the majority of the public wants to demonize law enforcement. In my opinion the public wants law enforcement to live up to the ideals of the institution. The public wants to believe that police are fair, honest, and have law and order in mind. Instead we are seeing that cops are flawed, poorly trained, and some that are just as dirty as the criminals they are paid to protect the public from. Those dirty cops have the power to infringe on the public's rights and safety with frightening little repercussion. At least criminals get dealt with in a somewhat predictable fashion with our criminal justice system. If a cop commits a crime against Joe Public, even with evidence poor Joe might not get much legal justice.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
cincydooley wrote:
I think a big step, in instances like this, is to not, in any way, shape, or form, publicize the assailant. The U.S. Oregon and Virginia incidents give us tangible proof that people are influenced by the notoriety gained from these killings. The media need not publicize the name or photos of the perpetrators. Let them die alone in their anonymity.
The sad thing is, we're still on a ratings system, and no matter how many psychologists/psychiatrists go on air and provide their expertise to bluntly say, "Let them die anonymous".... These sorts of events are "good news" for ratings driven news networks.... So, that means they are gonna keep doing this stuff because it provides them with income.
81303
Post by: Stormwall
Alex C wrote:cincydooley wrote:
Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.
It's also missing a "reload" section.
Smacks wrote:One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks
Oh my god did he really say that? One shot... Haha, that's rich.
I go to bed and this goes from two pages to six, just wow. Still, no answer concerning this and I asked around most of the day.
 Stormwall wrote:
Also, I have a selfish (as it kinda applies to me, my bad,) semi on-topic-but-barely-so type of question. I wonder if attacks like this and the massive influx of refugees will negatively affect the embassy process for normal immigrants?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: cincydooley wrote:
I think a big step, in instances like this, is to not, in any way, shape, or form, publicize the assailant. The U.S. Oregon and Virginia incidents give us tangible proof that people are influenced by the notoriety gained from these killings. The media need not publicize the name or photos of the perpetrators. Let them die alone in their anonymity.
The sad thing is, we're still on a ratings system, and no matter how many psychologists/psychiatrists go on air and provide their expertise to bluntly say, "Let them die anonymous".... These sorts of events are "good news" for ratings driven news networks.... So, that means they are gonna keep doing this stuff because it provides them with income.
It's why we have so many copy cat shootings, most of the people who do this wants you to know who they are or, why they did it.
|
|
