Switch Theme:

Diamond Reynolds gets $800,000 Settlement  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Tornado Alley

 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
The fact that even with a video that clearly showed a murder a jury couldn't find guilty that cop is significant.


We have posters in this very thread who are absolutely convinced that a cop cannot under any circumstance commit murder, and anyone who is killed by a cop had it coming. Only takes 1 of these people in the jury for a mistrial, right?


Ive read all these threads and never once have I gotten that impression. Most of the posters agree and there are few who don't. Castille can objectively be argued because the video does not show Castille. It only show the LEO giving commands multiple times. That objectively leads to an inference that he only after saying don't reach several times felt the need to respond with deadly force. This is not me defending but showing how objectively someone can come to that conclusion based on what is seen. I could also use different parts of the video to argue why the LEO is a murderer, although the video offers less in that regard, it can be done. So because someone manages to see one POV that disagrees with you does not mean they do not believe LEOs can not commit murder.

There are many on the OT forums, and I have stated something similar before, who will see any shooting by a LEO a murder due to bias.

For example I can not with no reasonable doubt say that Castile was murdered based on evidence. I can however say this donkey cave is a murderer. So just because someone can extract data from a situation that does not fit a narrative does not make said person malicious.


10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Blackie wrote:
Well when thos cops kill someone and go to trial the words "sorry, I didn't mean to do it" never come out of their mouths, they just keep saying that what they did was the result of the training, correct actions due to circumstances, not mistakes. The whole discussion not guilty of crimial charges but responsible crashes when you notice who in fact pays the settlements. Not the cops, they don't pay a single cent, which means they're considered not responsible and totally innocent, even in civil courts.


Blackie, you're being so obtuse here that I'm starting to believe it must be on purpose. My post wasn't about apologising, which is barely relevant to the legal process, and that should have been obvious to you if you read my post in its entirety. Just like my previous post had nothing to do with a jail sentence, but you decided to pretend it was.

Now I'll explain one more time, written just for you;

Criminal liability requires that a person deliberately caused harm, or they were very negligent or reckless, and it is up to the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil liability doesn't require a deliberate or reckless act, a simple accident will suffice, and this only needs to be shown on a balance of probabilities. This means that often a bad shoot will not meet the criminal standard, but will meet the civil standard, which means the officer doesn't do jail time, but their employer will have to make reparations, which means ultimately that money comes from the taxpayer. You can get all bothered about that if you want, but it is what it is. It is the product of having a criminal standard that requires we only jail people we've proven guilty, and a civil standard that looks to the place the cost on the party who is most responsible for harm.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 sebster wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Well when thos cops kill someone and go to trial the words "sorry, I didn't mean to do it" never come out of their mouths, they just keep saying that what they did was the result of the training, correct actions due to circumstances, not mistakes. The whole discussion not guilty of crimial charges but responsible crashes when you notice who in fact pays the settlements. Not the cops, they don't pay a single cent, which means they're considered not responsible and totally innocent, even in civil courts.


Blackie, you're being so obtuse here that I'm starting to believe it must be on purpose. My post wasn't about apologising, which is barely relevant to the legal process, and that should have been obvious to you if you read my post in its entirety. Just like my previous post had nothing to do with a jail sentence, but you decided to pretend it was.

Now I'll explain one more time, written just for you;

Criminal liability requires that a person deliberately caused harm, or they were very negligent or reckless, and it is up to the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil liability doesn't require a deliberate or reckless act, a simple accident will suffice, and this only needs to be shown on a balance of probabilities. This means that often a bad shoot will not meet the criminal standard, but will meet the civil standard, which means the officer doesn't do jail time, but their employer will have to make reparations, which means ultimately that money comes from the taxpayer. You can get all bothered about that if you want, but it is what it is. It is the product of having a criminal standard that requires we only jail people we've proven guilty, and a civil standard that looks to the place the cost on the party who is most responsible for harm.


I understand that, I'm not saying that the law doesn't allow those settlements. I'm saying that it's unfair that murderers can walk free and taxpayers have to pay lots of money for their crimes. IMHO all those killer cops deserved 25 to life in prison an to pay compensation with their money, just like any other criminals. In my country when a cop gets a conviction, civil or penal it doesn't matter, it's on him to pay compensation, usually by selling his house when the amount of money he has to pay is very high. The department can even sue him and get compensation from him. What I see in the USA is that the law allows those murders, in Italy actions such those ones are never justified by a training or a protocol so it's never up to their employers to pay compensation.

It's something that should be changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:

Criminal liability requires that a person deliberately caused harm, or they were very negligent or reckless, and it is up to the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil liability doesn't require a deliberate or reckless act, a simple accident will suffice, and this only needs to be shown on a balance of probabilities.


What you consider a mistake or an accident, in any civilized country (but one) would be considered reckless or negligent beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what you probably don't understand.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 08:26:59


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Blackie wrote:
What you consider a mistake or an accident, in any civilized country (but one) would be considered reckless or negligent beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what you probably don't understand.


At no point did I ever comment on whether this particular shooting was merited. All I did was answer the question about why there could be not guilty verdict, but a civil settlement, a thing that appeared to be causing a great deal of confusion to several posters, particularly you.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

You said it was a mistake, an accident. It wasn't. It was a legalized murder. That's why is see a lot of hypocrisy in those civil settlements.

If fact what really happens with these settlements is that people who aren't responsible (the department and the taxpayers) pay the entire amount of money, while the murderer walks free AND he doesn't even have to pay a compensation.

Which is absurd. In my country someone may escape jail and found not guilty of any crimes but if a deadly accident was his responsability HE/SHE has to pay, not the community. Everytime cops go to trials here they end up financially broken, even if they escape jail. But usually they got convicted. Putting a cop to a trial means that there are strong evidence to support the prosecution.

 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Typically the police officer also loses their job and career.... but I am starting to understand your point.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 Blackie wrote:


Which is absurd. In my country someone may escape jail and found not guilty of any crimes but if a deadly accident was his responsability HE/SHE has to pay, not the community.


I can understand this argument. If dirty cops get hit in their own pension plans, and know that it could happen, would they be less likely to go full agro when the event doesn't call for it?

As Easy E says, they still can and do lose their jobs AND have no chance of getting a similar job again (I think). Start a new career at 45 years old, fether.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

There was also a study a little while back that showed that most cops are also quietly re-hired a few months later.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Blackie wrote:
You said it was a mistake, an accident.


No, I didn't. I made no comment on the case at all. I explained that something can be ruled an accident or similar, which would prevent criminal charges, but still leave a person (or their employer) responsible in civil court. I was explaining the law to people who were ignorant of the law.

You will find me saying not one damn thing about whether I personally believe it was an accident at all. You have simply assumed that I have an opinion on that, because that is what you do - read what you want to, rather than what people are actually saying.

Which is absurd. In my country someone may escape jail and found not guilty of any crimes but if a deadly accident was his responsability HE/SHE has to pay, not the community.


I'm 99% certain this is untrue, but honestly really can't be bothered arguing it with you. The idea that a country anywhere could operate where the employer isn't responsble for the actions of their employees is very silly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/15 03:41:58


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
There was also a study a little while back that showed that most cops are also quietly re-hired a few months later.


Yes, I knew it. Those murderers don't lose anything, they just change job, but usually end up even in a better position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:


I'm 99% certain this is untrue, but honestly really can't be bothered arguing it with you. The idea that a country anywhere could operate where the employer isn't responsble for the actions of their employees is very silly.


OK, IMHO it's the opposite. The idea of an employer being responsible of the reckless behaviour of their employees is absurd, the employer should be responsible only if he hired someone without the requirements or if the trained him badly. The employer should be responsible only if the reckless/criminal employee's behaviour reflects the company policy. I don't think police trainings teach cops to shoot at unarmed citizens. If they do, then you're right, there's the employer responsability as well. But if they don't those cops they should be alone responsible for their actions, they're grown men and women, not children.

We now have two cops that reached headline news because allegedely they raped two drunk american girls while being on duty, they say it was consensual sex. No way the department will be responsible for their actions, it doesn't matter if they end up guilty or not. The department will certainly sue them in a civil court because they disgraced the corp.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:

I was explaining the law to people who were ignorant of the law.


There's no need to, I can read. I was only contesting it because IMHO it's totally unfair and laws about that matter should be changed.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/12/15 08:13:59


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Blackie wrote:
OK, IMHO it's the opposite. The idea of an employer being responsible of the reckless behaviour of their employees is absurd, the employer should be responsible only if he hired someone without the requirements or if the trained him badly. The employer should be responsible only if the reckless/criminal employee's behaviour reflects the company policy.


I understand how an immediate thought of fairness might lead to that conclusion, but think about it for a minute. Think about the captain of an oil tanker misjudging an approach and clipping a reef, spilling all the content in to the bay. Totally the captain's fault, there was nothing wrong with the equipment, policies or training from the company. The captain just made the wrong call.

But thing is, there's a clean up bill, lets say $200 million. The captain sells his house and his car, and hands of over his retirement savings. That only leaves the victims out of pocket $199.5 million.

Get it now? What you're talking about is a society where a company's employee, acting on request of the employee, can screw up and leave the victim out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all he can get from the employee is the guy's 2001 Fiesta and the CD his grandmother left him. Meanwhile the guy's billion employer skips away with nothing to pay.

So instead we have a simple principle. A company employs a person and gives them instructions, then that company is responsible if the person screws up doing that job and causes harm to someone.

I don't think police trainings teach cops to shoot at unarmed citizens.


What? Of course there's no training for shooting unarmed civilians. Don't be silly.

What there is is training for identifying a threat, dealing with people who may or may not be a threat. That's a split second call that can get screwed up. Too often screwed up, judging by the number of bad shoots we're seeing reported in the US these days.

But if they don't those cops they should be alone responsible for their actions, they're grown men and women, not children.


They are responsible, if a court determines they acted recklessly, or negligently, then they will be convicted. But in most cases courts aren't finding them negligent or reckless. That's a problem IMO, too many courts appear to give too much benefit of the doubt to the officer. But that's not the issue you're complaining about.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/15 08:54:25


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 sebster wrote:

I understand how an immediate thought of fairness might lead to that conclusion, but think about it for a minute. Think about the captain of an oil tanker misjudging an approach and clipping a reef, spilling all the content in to the bay. Totally the captain's fault, there was nothing wrong with the equipment, policies or training from the company. The captain just made the wrong call.

But thing is, there's a clean up bill, lets say $200 million. The captain sells his house and his car, and hands of over his retirement savings. That only leaves the victims out of pocket $199.5 million.

Get it now? What you're talking about is a society where a company's employee, acting on request of the employee, can screw up and leave the victim out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all he can get from the employee is the guy's 2001 Fiesta and the CD his grandmother left him. Meanwhile the guy's billion employer skips away with nothing to pay.

So instead we have a simple principle. A company employs a person and gives them instructions, then that company is responsible if the person screws up doing that job and causes harm to someone.


I simply disagree with that priciple, the company should pay only if the employee's actions were mistakes during his job. Speaking about you example we had a ship captain here, Francesco Schettino, that caused the death of dozen some years ago thanks to a wrong decision, he got jailed and the company had to pay millions in compensation. But the captain just miscalculated distances during standard procedures. He didn't sank the boat on purpose.

When a cop shoots dead a civilian he does something that is not part of the training. Shooting someone is a deliberate act with the intention to kill or cause serious harm, it cannot be considered an accident or a mistake, cops shot people on purpose. The US law allows this interpretation but it's something unfair.

This is an accident:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/30/kate-steinle-jose-ines-garcia-zarate-trump-immigration

 sebster wrote:


That's a split second call that can get screwed up. Too often screwed up, judging by the number of bad shoots we're seeing reported in the US these days.



That's not even true in most of the cases. Those cops pointed their guns for several seconds, if not minutes, and then decided to shoot. Consider the case of Daniel Shaver, that was not a split second decision, quite the opposite. I don't think good people would be involved in those kinds of shootings, killer cops are always bullys or drunkards, the split second call is only a justification, with people like them it's only a matter of time before they get involved in these kind of situations.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/15 11:18:20


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

While listening to the radio I heard some statistics. In 2016 the police in the US fatally shot 235 (approximately, can't quite remember) Black men. All but 17 were armed. Of the remaining 17, 9 had started physical violence against the officer.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Since when does someone being armed in and of itself justify shooting them in the US? What happened to the 2nd amendment?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





The second amendment is totally sacred and unquestionable until it makes a cop nervous. Pretty sure that's in a footnote somewhere.
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 cuda1179 wrote:
While listening to the radio I heard some statistics. In 2016 the police in the US fatally shot 235 (approximately, can't quite remember) Black men. All but 17 were armed. Of the remaining 17, 9 had started physical violence against the officer.


That sounds like a pretty good point of some kind when you omit that of the "armed" section, 13 were "armed" with toys, and 13 were "unknown" in addition to the 17 unarmed. So maybe it was 17 unarmed, but maybe it was nearly triple that number.

There really aren't any super great statistics since there is no mandatory reporting.






 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 Ouze wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
While listening to the radio I heard some statistics. In 2016 the police in the US fatally shot 235 (approximately, can't quite remember) Black men. All but 17 were armed. Of the remaining 17, 9 had started physical violence against the officer.


That sounds like a pretty good point of some kind when you omit that of the "armed" section, 13 were "armed" with toys, and 13 were "unknown" in addition to the 17 unarmed. So maybe it was 17 unarmed, but maybe it was nearly triple that number.

There really aren't any super great statistics since there is no mandatory reporting.







Yes, some were armed with "toys", however a number of those " toy" guns were realistic replicas, and on at least two occassions that I know about they were real enough that the deceased used them to commit armed robbery and later pointed them at police. In these instances, even if not a real weapon a police shooting is justified.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/16 20:28:43


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




cuda1179 wrote:While listening to the radio I heard some statistics. In 2016 the police in the US fatally shot 235 (approximately, can't quite remember) Black men. All but 17 were armed. Of the remaining 17, 9 had started physical violence against the officer.
Whose statistics?

This shows slightly different numbers: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

253 black/male: of those 187 were armed (their selection allows for "anything"), and of those 183 were shot by the police.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

Well, that's 2015?
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, that's 2015?
No, that's just when the initial post was made (it's how their CMS names the URL), you can click around below to get a specific year and so on from the database.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/17 22:28:51


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Blackie wrote:

I simply disagree with that priciple, the company should pay only if the employee's actions were mistakes during his job. Speaking about you example we had a ship captain here, Francesco Schettino, that caused the death of dozen some years ago thanks to a wrong decision, he got jailed and the company had to pay millions in compensation. But the captain just miscalculated distances during standard procedures. He didn't sank the boat on purpose.

When a cop shoots dead a civilian he does something that is not part of the training. Shooting someone is a deliberate act with the intention to kill or cause serious harm, it cannot be considered an accident or a mistake, cops shot people on purpose. The US law allows this interpretation but it's something unfair.


You're completely ignoring that at the point of pulling the trigger, the cop is making a judgement call on whether deadly force is necessary to prevent the suspect using deadly force. It is a decision to shoot, whether it is a good decision is a judgement call made in a second, often with incomplete information. Just as the ship captain makes a decision about what path through the water his ship will to take, the officer makes a judgement call about whether to use deadly violence. Both can get it wrong at times, but being mistaken isn't automatically criminal.

That's not even true in most of the cases. Those cops pointed their guns for several seconds, if not minutes, and then decided to shoot.


What? You're being ridiculous. For your argument to make sense, then the cop would arrive on the scene, draw his gun on the suspect and immediately know absolutely everything there is to know about the suspect, his armament, his willingness to violence and his mental stability. All instantly known. Then the officer sits there, gun pointed, just pondering that information, maybe discussing it with other officers, before eventually deciding after a few minutes that they're going to shoot. That's stupid in every possible way.

What actually happens is the officer draws his gun, then while the gun is drawn he starts trying to figure out what's going on. He gets a lot of small, partial clues, verbal and body cues indicating that suspect's mental state, and physical clues as to whether he might be armed. But even if the officer comes to believe the suspect is armed and is probably going to try and use the gun, the officer still doesn't shoot. It is only when the officer sees the suspect actually going for the weapon that he will fire. And seeing that suspect's movement and reacting by deciding to fire is a judgement made in less than a second.

There is a real problem with police shootings in the US. It is a complex problem but one that needs to be discussed. But that conversation is made much harder, and is much less likely to go anywhere as long as people like you post absolute nonsense about police taking minutes to decide to shoot someone, or complaining that the absence of a criminal conviction against an officer means his department should have no civil liability for a bad shoot. So please stop.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/18 02:36:34


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Tornado Alley

 sebster wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

I simply disagree with that priciple, the company should pay only if the employee's actions were mistakes during his job. Speaking about you example we had a ship captain here, Francesco Schettino, that caused the death of dozen some years ago thanks to a wrong decision, he got jailed and the company had to pay millions in compensation. But the captain just miscalculated distances during standard procedures. He didn't sank the boat on purpose.

When a cop shoots dead a civilian he does something that is not part of the training. Shooting someone is a deliberate act with the intention to kill or cause serious harm, it cannot be considered an accident or a mistake, cops shot people on purpose. The US law allows this interpretation but it's something unfair.


You're completely ignoring that at the point of pulling the trigger, the cop is making a judgement call on whether deadly force is necessary to prevent the suspect using deadly force. It is a decision to shoot, whether it is a good decision is a judgement call made in a second, often with incomplete information. Just as the ship captain makes a decision about what path through the water his ship will to take, the officer makes a judgement call about whether to use deadly violence. Both can get it wrong at times, but being mistaken isn't automatically criminal.

That's not even true in most of the cases. Those cops pointed their guns for several seconds, if not minutes, and then decided to shoot.


What? You're being ridiculous. For your argument to make sense, then the cop would arrive on the scene, draw his gun on the suspect and immediately know absolutely everything there is to know about the suspect, his armament, his willingness to violence and his mental stability. All instantly known. Then the officer sits there, gun pointed, just pondering that information, maybe discussing it with other officers, before eventually deciding after a few minutes that they're going to shoot. That's stupid in every possible way.

What actually happens is the officer draws his gun, then while the gun is drawn he starts trying to figure out what's going on. He gets a lot of small, partial clues, verbal and body cues indicating that suspect's mental state, and physical clues as to whether he might be armed. But even if the officer comes to believe the suspect is armed and is probably going to try and use the gun, the officer still doesn't shoot. It is only when the officer sees the suspect actually going for the weapon that he will fire. And seeing that suspect's movement and reacting by deciding to fire is a judgement made in less than a second.

There is a real problem with police shootings in the US. It is a complex problem but one that needs to be discussed. But that conversation is made much harder, and is much less likely to go anywhere as long as people like you post absolute nonsense about police taking minutes to decide to shoot someone, or complaining that the absence of a criminal conviction against an officer means his department should have no civil liability for a bad shoot. So please stop.


I agree with the guy with the funny accent. to quote Luke Skywalker" It's funny, everything in your sentence is wrong" Im pretty sure thats close enough to what he said anyway.

10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

That's an Aussie talking with an Italian. You're gonna have to be more specific.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Tornado Alley

 feeder wrote:
That's an Aussie talking with an Italian. You're gonna have to be more specific.


Fair enough. The Aussie. Sebster rarely says anything I can hop wholly on board with, I just wanted to mark this occasion.

10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 sebster wrote:


And seeing that suspect's movement and reacting by deciding to fire is a judgement made in less than a second.



That's the origin of the problem. American cops shoot without thinking most of the times. In any other civilized country cops don't shoot if they see some strange move, they shoot only when they are 100% sure of the threat, not when they think they could be possibly in danger. IMHO if the scenario wasn't a real situation of danger the cop that shot down an unarmed civilian is nothing different than a murderer. And in fact I don't even think that's something that could happen to any american cop, but only to those ones who are nothing different than the Las Vegas shooter or any other american frustrated guy that at some point of his life decides to shoot dead someone. Good people and responsible cops don't get involved in those "accidents", only bullys, violent thugs, depressed guys (or with other mental issues) and heavy drinkers that also wear an uniform for a living, those bad apples are just a fraction of the entire corp.

Terms like "bad shoot" don't even exist in Europe, it's something created in the US to give a more misleading and reassuring name to murders or manslaughters.

Again it's certainly better having a few cops killed for not being jumping the typical american way and hundred of lives saved than the opposite. You shoot toward someone only if you are 100% sure of the threat, cops should never take split second decisions about using deadly force, that's what should be changed. But the american culture has roots in far west, "shoot first, ask later", "a sudden or clumsy move means reaching the holster", etc... It's time to understand that we're almost in 2018, and the USA are not like Tombstone anymore.

Those unpunished killings made by officers also fuel hate towards the police and make things like ambushes towards the cops (which don't exist in any civilized country) something real in the US.

The settlements are the ultimate joke since the community admits there was something wrong but no one even tries to change things while the cop doesn't get to pay in any possible way, no compensation from his pocket and usually also ending with a better job.

 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Tornado Alley

 Blackie wrote:
 sebster wrote:


And seeing that suspect's movement and reacting by deciding to fire is a judgement made in less than a second.



That's the origin of the problem. American cops shoot without thinking most of the times. In any other civilized country cops don't shoot if they see some strange move, they shoot only when they are 100% sure of the threat, not when they think they could be possibly in danger. IMHO if the scenario wasn't a real situation of danger the cop that shot down an unarmed civilian is nothing different than a murderer. And in fact I don't even think that's something that could happen to any american cop, but only to those ones who are nothing different than the Las Vegas shooter or any other american frustrated guy that at some point of his life decides to shoot dead someone. Good people and responsible cops don't get involved in those "accidents", only bullys, violent thugs, depressed guys (or with other mental issues) and heavy drinkers that also wear an uniform for a living, those bad apples are just a fraction of the entire corp.

Terms like "bad shoot" don't even exist in Europe, it's something created in the US to give a more misleading and reassuring name to murders or manslaughters.

Again it's certainly better having a few cops killed for not being jumping the typical american way and hundred of lives saved than the opposite. You shoot toward someone only if you are 100% sure of the threat, cops should never take split second decisions about using deadly force, that's what should be changed. But the american culture has roots in far west, "shoot first, ask later", "a sudden or clumsy move means reaching the holster", etc... It's time to understand that we're almost in 2018, and the USA are not like Tombstone anymore.

Those unpunished killings made by officers also fuel hate towards the police and make things like ambushes towards the cops (which don't exist in any civilized country) something real in the US.

The settlements are the ultimate joke since the community admits there was something wrong but no one even tries to change things while the cop doesn't get to pay in any possible way, no compensation from his pocket and usually also ending with a better job.


I take slight exception with your assertion that only bullies and gak cops get involved in those kinds of shootings. What many seem to always over look because it is convenient, and what I think Blackie may have been trying to say, although I could be wrong, is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change. Once again I can speak from experience. I am not justifying murder. I am not even close to thinking that the cops are always right because that would be intellectually dishonest. But what I am getting at is after you have been shot at, really known you were probably going to die, your brain changes. The problem is that this form of anxiety disorder, or even adjustment disorder are not well recognized within many forces. So after you have witnessed another person try to murder you or your partner, it can lead to a premature decision making. Once again I do not excuse this, I think it shows a lack of training and discipline. I am merely pointing out your assessment only happens in the very small minority of the time, and actual fear for ones life, from experience of being around people who want to kill you, does happen. In hind sight it is easy to tear a scenario apart but that does nothign to alleviate a guilt a good man will now have over a premature, or bad decision based on experience.

10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 redleger wrote:
is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.
So what do you think happens to civilians who every few weeks get to see a new video of cops killing people without apparent reason (besides technicalities and panic) and then get away with it due to the "I feared for my life" excuse? What if civilians start preemptively shooting at cops (in panicked or scared situations) because now they are fearing for their lives instead of trusting that the police only wants to help them? Will there be a point when—due to the ubiquity of those videos in the media—judges and juries will allow a similar "defence" for civilians? And how do you solve that type of problem if the police (the ones who are supposed to be the professions here) is the one who started this escalation of excessive responses?
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 redleger wrote:


I take slight exception with your assertion that only bullies and gak cops get involved in those kinds of shootings. What many seem to always over look because it is convenient, and what I think Blackie may have been trying to say, although I could be wrong, is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.


What I'm trying to saying, and what I really think about this matter is that the majority of these bad shoots were not the consequence of split second decisions in which cops made made a bad judgement, but they just overreact to normal moves that shouldn't be perceived as suspicious or dangerous at all. The split second decision is just the excuse, they cannot argue in any other way to defend their actions.

I'm sure that making all those bad shoots criminal hundreds of lives could be spared without putting cops' lives at risk. Maybe 1 out of 1000 scenarios would involved a cop's death for not being jumpy, but I don't think cops' deaths would rise significantly if they were forced to shoot only if someone shot before them or a criminal is pointing a gun (for real and not because they felt an itch) towards someone.

Happy trigger cops are just murderers, a job doesn't define a man. Manners maketh man. And cops can be the worst people on Earth or the best ones. If they shoot someone that wasn't a real threat to anyone they should go to jail like any other citizen, simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote:
 redleger wrote:
is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.
So what do you think happens to civilians who every few weeks get to see a new video of cops killing people without apparent reason (besides technicalities and panic) and then get away with it due to the "I feared for my life" excuse? What if civilians start preemptively shooting at cops (in panicked or scared situations) because now they are fearing for their lives instead of trusting that the police only wants to help them? Will there be a point when—due to the ubiquity of those videos in the media—judges and juries will allow a similar "defence" for civilians? And how do you solve that type of problem if the police (the ones who are supposed to be the professions here) is the one who started this escalation of excessive responses?


Exactly, imagine a scared black kid that shoots dead a cop only because he was thinking that the cop would kill him. Since he knows cops kill for no reason and usually without consequences. It's probably going to become a common scenario if things don't change.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/22 07:54:47


 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Tornado Alley

 Blackie wrote:
 redleger wrote:


I take slight exception with your assertion that only bullies and gak cops get involved in those kinds of shootings. What many seem to always over look because it is convenient, and what I think Blackie may have been trying to say, although I could be wrong, is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.


What I'm trying to saying, and what I really think about this matter is that the majority of these bad shoots were not the consequence of split second decisions in which cops made made a bad judgement, but they just overreact to normal moves that shouldn't be perceived as suspicious or dangerous at all. The split second decision is just the excuse, they cannot argue in any other way to defend their actions.

I'm sure that making all those bad shoots criminal hundreds of lives could be spared without putting cops' lives at risk. Maybe 1 out of 1000 scenarios would involved a cop's death for not being jumpy, but I don't think cops' deaths would rise significantly if they were forced to shoot only if someone shot before them or a criminal is pointing a gun (for real and not because they felt an itch) towards someone.

Happy trigger cops are just murderers, a job doesn't define a man. Manners maketh man. And cops can be the worst people on Earth or the best ones. If they shoot someone that wasn't a real threat to anyone they should go to jail like any other citizen, simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote:
 redleger wrote:
is that after a certain number of encounters with people who hate you and would gladly kill you, and attempt to kill you, your mindset tends to change.
So what do you think happens to civilians who every few weeks get to see a new video of cops killing people without apparent reason (besides technicalities and panic) and then get away with it due to the "I feared for my life" excuse? What if civilians start preemptively shooting at cops (in panicked or scared situations) because now they are fearing for their lives instead of trusting that the police only wants to help them? Will there be a point when—due to the ubiquity of those videos in the media—judges and juries will allow a similar "defence" for civilians? And how do you solve that type of problem if the police (the ones who are supposed to be the professions here) is the one who started this escalation of excessive responses?


Exactly, imagine a scared black kid that shoots dead a cop only because he was thinking that the cop would kill him. Since he knows cops kill for no reason and usually without consequences. It's probably going to become a common scenario if things don't change.


I think yall think I am defending bad shoots, I am not. I said I did not excuse bad shoots, just understand how they happen in some cases. Once again, not excusing them. The Mesa, AZ shoot is one in which I do not believe any defense was reasonable, I assert it was a flat out execution. Understanding how these things happen, and not just calling all cops bullies, which is an intellectually dishonest statement, is how we really create change. I agree with many of your points, but if a black kid shoots a cop over perception, they are wrong, just as the LEO who does the same thing is wrong. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior. You mention manners, and that is the tenant of manners. In the case of this shoot, that the post is based on, I watched it several times. I can not in good concious side with the wife for numerous reason, from her initial lies she was caught in, to the fact the cop, despite assertions to the contrary showed no visible signs of nervousness up to the point he begins saying do not reach several times and then opens fire. If his intention was to murder this guy, he would not have rotated to the front of the vehicle before shooting, he would have calmly pulled out his pistol and fired. I have seen close up shoot outs, and I can tell you nothing in this video screams murder happy cop. Does the wife deserve a pay out, sure. The child in the car was put in serious harm, there was trauma, and hopefully counseling and a college education paid for with this money or other useful spending of this money can help them move on. Unfortunately money does not help you forget. I got lots of money now and I remember ever horrible thing I have seen. But I have outlets now that help, and this payment hopefully can help with the road forward.

10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 redleger wrote:

Understanding how these things happen, and not just calling all cops bullies, which is an intellectually dishonest statement, is how we really create change.


Not all of them, only the ones who shoot down unarmed people or use violence for no real reason, like that cop that arrested a nurse because she refused to let him take blood from an unconscious guy. They are only a tiny part of the police force, I believe. These things happen because in the USA a lot of people with problems, no matter if they are violent, bullys or just frustrated, end up shooting someone. Those bad shoots are nothing different, just those type of americans, that gunned down other guys because of their internal problems. Their job only lets them usually walk free. None of those bad shoots are accidents, they're a consequence of the fact that violent people have guns and once they snap they unleash their problems on other people. For people such those, it's only a matter of time, especially if they know that they will probably end up in a better spot after the shooting.

 redleger wrote:

I agree with many of your points, but if a black kid shoots a cop over perception, they are wrong, just as the LEO who does the same thing is wrong. You can not give a pass to bad behavior because someone else uses bad behavior.


Of course, it's 100% wrong and something that should be avoided. But IMHO with this trend it's what will happen in America.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/23 10:35:03


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: