Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.