Nah, this would never happen.......it has.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

*********

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

England last night is a pretty decent example. Mentally unstable man with a knife, killed one and wounded others.

British police used a tazer to apprehend him. I have no doubt in the US this man would have been shot.

Not all cops here have tasers. But they all do have guns.

Even then, people have died after being tased.

People have died from positional asphyxiation after being handcuffed. I guess with your logic that means we are better off shooting people than handcuffing them.

That is going WAY overboard and you know that.

One does not give liscense to another.

Yu might as well say that people have died so no one should live.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

That is going WAY overboard and you know that.

Interesting you would say that about a comment, which is clearly meant to take stupid reasoning and taking it to an extreme.

Did you not recognize the stupid reasoning in the post I reacted to? Kallend summed it up rather succinctly. Do you agree with the reasoning?

[billvon 2,400]

>One does not give liscense to another.

Exactly.

>Yu might as well say that people have died so no one should live.

Or you might as well say "people who are tased have died, so no one should be tased when they can be shot instead."

[wmw999 2,121]

It's not easy to do the right thing sometimes. If someone you love did something that grievously hurt someone, it's best if they turn themselves in. Beating that, what do you think is the right thing?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Bolas 5]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

No. I'm saying that until the threat is mitigated, it's still a potential threat to the public, the officers involved, and the threat source themselves in that priority order.

For deaf people, they know there may be a difficulty so should be very passive with their hands clearly open, visible, and empty while saying they are deaf.

As for autistic and other mental illnesses that's tougher. Perhaps they can be "trained" similarly to the deaf people? If not, perhaps should not be out in public alone.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

turtlespeed

***************The strong support of the blue line is a very large part of the problem yet you choose to not only ignore that, you support it.

You're part of the problem!

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault?

Thus illustrating the bullshit indoctrination that helps create the problem in the first place.
I'm just curious. People say things, and may have the best noble intentions, but when the shit gets real, and a family member fucks up, who here would not protect their close family member to the best of their ability?

Are you talking legal or illegal protective steps?

It's not about me.

BUT - it would depend on your POV. There is a grey area there. If, for instance, a loved one - say . . . Wife or Sister . . . was in jeopardy because of something severe injuries she didn't mean to do, but nonetheless caused. The brother/husband has information that would absolutely convict her - does he volunteer that info? Does he deny the information knowing that it would be detrimental to her?

Agreed. The grey area can be what's right vs. what's legal.

Not volunteering information is perfectly legal but if subpenoed to testify have to answer questions truthfully.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jakee 1,254]

turtlespeed

*********The strong support of the blue line is a very large part of the problem yet you choose to not only ignore that, you support it.

You're part of the problem!

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault?

Thus illustrating the bullshit indoctrination that helps create the problem in the first place.
I'm just curious. People say things, and may have the best noble intentions, but when the shit gets real, and a family member fucks up, who here would not protect their close family member to the best of their ability?

A) It's irrelevant. Co-workers are not family. There is no reason for cops to be taught to think of their fellow officers as brothers and sisters.

B) Me. If my sister murdered someone I wouldn't lie or destroy evidence to protect her from the law. But then, I also know that the case wouldn't be investigated by my other family members, and that if it was discovered that I destroyed evidence it wouldn't be swept under the rug and I would also be in a lot of trouble.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Bolas

***

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

No. I'm saying that until the threat is mitigated, it's still a potential threat to the public, the officers involved, and the threat source themselves in that priority order.

For deaf people, they know there may be a difficulty so should be very passive with their hands clearly open, visible, and empty while saying they are deaf.

As for autistic and other mental illnesses that's tougher. Perhaps they can be "trained" similarly to the deaf people? If not, perhaps should not be out in public alone.

I have literally never in my life talked to a person so deeply in love with the idea of a police state.

If it was satire, it would be brilliant.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

For deaf people, they know there may be a difficulty so should be very passive with their hands clearly open, visible, and empty while saying they are deaf.

Often the police are not approaching people from the front, making eye contact and ensuring they have a person's attention before issuing "orders". Generally the "orders" are shouted from behind or from some distance, and are unexpected. Perhaps you are suggesting deaf people should wear a flashing neon sign that says "deaf"? Maybe people should be legally barred from listening to music too, as that may interfere with them hearing, immediately understanding, and instantaneously responding to someone shouting "orders" out of the blue? As far as the autistic are concerned, should they also wear a sign? Maybe be kept on a leash? Obviously that would be better than being subject to extermination for failure to instantaneously comply with "orders".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[normiss 622]

Speaking of cause and effect.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

For deaf people, they know there may be a difficulty so should be very passive with their hands clearly open, visible, and empty while saying they are deaf.

It would be kind of annoying for all the deaf people in the US to walk around with their hands in the air all day saying "I'm deaf!" constantly. Imagine sitting next to one on an airplane.

[Bolas 5]

jakee

******

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

No. I'm saying that until the threat is mitigated, it's still a potential threat to the public, the officers involved, and the threat source themselves in that priority order.

For deaf people, they know there may be a difficulty so should be very passive with their hands clearly open, visible, and empty while saying they are deaf.

As for autistic and other mental illnesses that's tougher. Perhaps they can be "trained" similarly to the deaf people? If not, perhaps should not be out in public alone.

I have literally never in my life talked to a person so deeply in love with the idea of a police state.

If it was satire, it would be brilliant.

Not in love with a police state, but understand how hard a job they have. They must make split second life and death decisions in determining threats.

The truth isn't known until after the fact.

If/when they make the wrong decisions they or others can die.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

For deaf people, they know there may be a difficulty so should be very passive with their hands clearly open, visible, and empty while saying they are deaf.

Often the police are not approaching people from the front, making eye contact and ensuring they have a person's attention before issuing "orders". Generally the "orders" are shouted from behind or from some distance, and are unexpected. Perhaps you are suggesting deaf people should wear a flashing neon sign that says "deaf"? Maybe people should be legally barred from listening to music too, as that may interfere with them hearing, immediately understanding, and instantaneously responding to someone shouting "orders" out of the blue? As far as the autistic are concerned, should they also wear a sign? Maybe be kept on a leash? Obviously that would be better than being subject to extermination for failure to instantaneously comply with "orders".

Don

Flip that script. A LEO has no way of knowing why a person isn't complying. If they wait for eye contact or reaching out to grab the person to get their attention and can't see their hands, they're potentially risking the safety of others and themselves if that person decides to attack: armed or unarmed.

It all comes down to threat assessment and perceived risk.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Bolas,

Quote

If/when they make the wrong decisions they or others can die.

It does seem as though it is the 'others' that are doing most of the dieing.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,254]

Bolas

Not in love with a police state, but understand how hard a job they have.

You have previously asserted that citizens should always comply with illegal orders from the police because otherwise they could get shot. You apparently believe that the right to challenge the overreach of government authority should be subordinate to the fear of government authority.

If that's not the description of a police state then what the hell is?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Bolas,

Quote

If/when they make the wrong decisions they or others can die.

It does seem as though it is the 'others' that are doing most of the dieing.

Jerry Baumchen

As said up thread that until the threat is mitigated, it's still a potential threat to the public, the officers involved, and the threat source themselves in that priority order.

An ideal situation for all is the threat is mitigated without incident.

The "others" also are doing most of the resisting and/or attacking.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,400]

>It does seem as though it is the 'others' that are doing most of the dieing.

83 US police died in the line of duty in 2015 from all causes (including heart attacks.) 41 of those were shot. This is down 14% from 2014.

990 people were shot and killed by police in 2015. 836 of those were armed, leaving 154 people shot who were not armed. Of those, 34 had a toy gun or something else that looked like a weapon, and 93 had no visible/claimed weapons at all. (The balance were not reported.) Most of the 93 were black.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

A LEO has no way of knowing why a person isn't complying. If they wait for eye contact or reaching out to grab the person to get their attention and can't see their hands, they're potentially risking the safety of others and themselves if that person decides to attack: armed or unarmed.

Right, and you still can't assume that they're going to attack only because they didn't do what you told them, and use that assumption as a justification for shooting them.

Yes, being a policeman is a tough job. No, they shouldn't be allowed to make that job easier by shooting first and attempting to find out what was happening second.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

jakee

Quote

A LEO has no way of knowing why a person isn't complying. If they wait for eye contact or reaching out to grab the person to get their attention and can't see their hands, they're potentially risking the safety of others and themselves if that person decides to attack: armed or unarmed.

Right, and you still can't assume that they're going to attack only because they didn't do what you told them, and use that assumption as a justification for shooting them.

Yes, being a policeman is a tough job. No, they shouldn't be allowed to make that job easier by shooting first and attempting to find out what was happening second.

Who said anything about shooting first?

If someone is being noncompliant for whatever reason, an escalation of force is required. In the case of the deaf or autistic, they might be forcibly restrained. The size of the officer and the potential threat may also be factors in force escalation choices. If the potential threat continues to resist additional force escalation may be required.

Of course all this assumes there's no other information about the threat available which is often the case. Even then, the information usually increases the threat level such as criminal record or warrants.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 1,623]

Funny how police in other western democracies manage to avoid shooting unarmed people with such regularity.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

I think the cop was in the wrong:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/05/i-lost-it-i-just-snapped-indiana-police-officer-shot-fellow-cop-in-fit-of-jealousy/?utm_term=.627847c5be42

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skycop 0]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/crime/cincinnati-officer-shoots-suspect-downtown

Quote

Spring, in a joint statement with Black Lives Matter Cincinnati, faulted police -- as well as a lack of adequate mental health resources -- for Porter's death.

"We contend the police-orchestrated escalation led to an avoidable killing," the statement said.

This is what happens when politicians and the media give groups like this traction.
Had they concentrated on mental health and treatment (or the lack thereof) they would have made an actual point.

"Police-orchestrated escalation" a new term to be picked up and repeated. Although the truth is the guy jumped into the police vehicle and tried to stab an officer numerous times, after robbing a store and holding a knife to a security guards throat.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

Quote

Yes, being a policeman is a tough job. No, they shouldn't be allowed to make that job easier by shooting first and attempting to find out what was happening second.

It's funny, I know a lot of policemen, only a very few have ever fired their weapons at anyone. But almost to a person (including me) they have situations where they could have justifiably shot someone, but didn't.
You won't read that in the news.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

It's funny, I know a lot of policemen, only a very few have ever fired their weapons at anyone. But almost to a person (including me) they have situations where they could have justifiably shot someone, but didn't.
You won't read that in the news.

Of course.

And I am sure you have been in positions where a suspicious-looking person has considered firing at you because they thought you were a threat to them - but decided not to. You likely won't read about those cases, either.

[skycop 0]

Quote

And I am sure you have been in positions where a suspicious-looking person has considered firing at you because they thought you were a threat to them - but decided not to.

Really?

Normally you bring up well thought out logical things, now you sound like the rest of them.
Given the recent environment, that isn't remotely funny.
If you are serious, then you are just being an arse.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"