|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Police Shootings | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Phat writes: The only problem as I see it is that Rank and file citizenry, even in small rural jurisdictions, do have guns. Guns are a uniquely American problem, and disarming law enforcement won't make the problem go away. Because the thread is about police shootings I haven't previously commented about civilians, but I don't believe most civilians should have guns, either. Someone recently criticized me as bizarrely and irrationally fearful of guns, but quite obviously anyone who isn't afraid of guns is behaving bizarrely and irrationally. Usually pointing a gun at someone compels instant compliance. The potential for guns to cause injury and death was great enough to compel Jews to march to trenches and strip naked before being mowed down by guns. Guns are extremely dangerous and most people should not have them. Including the police. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It isn't the people who are bad but the situations they are placed in. Giving them guns only makes things worse. Giving literal "average Joes" guns but not actual vetted people makes things worse. If we were talking about the UK, maybe there would be argument (I actually still disagree), but the US is so inundated with guns that it would be reckless.
The growing ubiquity of video reveals that on any given day it could be almost any given cop. It other words, it's a solid majority, not some "extreme minority." For every video, there are 10 more to rebut it. I'm sure if I looked I could find an entire compilation that creates the appearance that being a police officer is akin to trench warfare. But I don't want to do that because it's entirely anecdotal and you probably wouldn't care either way.
Police misbehavior is just what happens when you give normal people power and guns and put them in an environment that encourages paranoia. So without the guns everything is going to just sort of work itself out? What do believe will happen? I believe that if your plan was implemented there would instantly be a whole lot less officers, creating the pretense for mass civil unrest nationwide in the wake of the vacuum.
The word "bias" doesn't even appear in any of my posts. What I will say is that you have a habit of responding to your feelings about what was said instead of to what was actually said. My apologies, I should have said "slant."
quote: But not we're arguing semantics...
As I stated in the very first paragraph of the message, "I'm writing not about police shootings but about why police are able to get away with shootings." Part of the problem is your belief that police "get away with shootings." Is it entirely possible that you don't understand what constitutes a good/bad shoot?
Okay, if you want to be that way about it then why don't you just admit it: you love guns. It has nothing to do with self-defense or policing, you just love guns. Are we getting anywhere now? Guns are a necessary evil, Percy. The next weapon is on the verge of being created. The real point that people who detest guns often overlook is that homicide existed before and will exist after guns. The real issue is why we as a species thinks violence can meaningly solve anything other than stopping a violent and determined person. The age old crux, if you ask me..."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Bystanders can be harmed by police bullets as well as criminal bullets. So, what, that invalidates the necessity of protecting people? You know, there's a whole lot more people who want an armed police force that don't want an armed police force.
That's the whole topic: the police don't seem to be very good at deciding when it's "necessary". Opines Ringo...
Don't try to divert the topic. The problem here is that cops often see civilians as expendable. So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society. Crime increase by 500% overnight. If, as you are suggesting, the actual problem is police officers then it stands to reason that a police force is unnecessary in your estimation. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hyroglyphx writes: It isn't the people who are bad but the situations they are placed in. Giving them guns only makes things worse.
Giving literal "average Joes" guns but not actual vetted people makes things worse. If we were talking about the UK, maybe there would be argument (I actually still disagree), but the US is so inundated with guns that it would be reckless. You're responding to your own slant on what I said. Nowhere was it suggested that we just instantly disarm police. How we get from where we are (rank and file police have guns) to where we want to be (rank and file police do not have guns) has got to be worked out, but that we'd be safer with an unarmed police force is undeniable. Or are you one of those "You can't get there from here" guys?
The growing ubiquity of video reveals that on any given day it could be almost any given cop. It other words, it's a solid majority, not some "extreme minority." For every video, there are 10 more to rebut it. How do you rebut a video showing a cop shooting an innocent victim in cold blood?
Police misbehavior is just what happens when you give normal people power and guns and put them in an environment that encourages paranoia. So without the guns everything is going to just sort of work itself out? What do believe will happen? I believe that if your plan was implemented... There's your slant again. Where did I ever provide a plan for getting from guns to no guns? If you know so much about my "plan" then tell me a few things about it.
...there would instantly be a whole lot less officers, creating the pretense for mass civil unrest nationwide in the wake of the vacuum. Obviously if most police shouldn't have guns then even fewer (percentage-wise) civilians should have guns, either.
My apologies, I should have said "slant."
quote: But not we're arguing semantics... This isn't semantics. You're confusing two different concepts. You put your own slant on what people say (you just did it again to Ringo in Message 108) then reply to that. That's not bias, that's purposefully mischaracterizing what people say.
As I stated in the very first paragraph of the message, "I'm writing not about police shootings but about why police are able to get away with shootings." Part of the problem is your belief that police "get away with shootings." Is it entirely possible that you don't understand what constitutes a good/bad shoot? If police aren't getting away with shootings (i.e., the vast majority of police shootings are deemed justified, or in your lingo, a "good shoot"), then what would you call it?
Okay, if you want to be that way about it then why don't you just admit it: you love guns. It has nothing to do with self-defense or policing, you just love guns. Are we getting anywhere now? Guns are a necessary evil, Percy. Guns are evil and unnecessary. The experience of other countries make this very clear.
The next weapon is on the verge of being created. Huh?
The real issue is why we as a species thinks violence can meaningly solve anything other than stopping a violent and determined person. The age old crux, if you ask me... Ah, you mean the only way to stop a "bad guy" with a gun is a "good guy" with a gun. That's the fallacy of the century. Here's an example of reality from ‘There were three shooters’: Two Oklahoma citizens killed an active shooter, and it's not as simple as it sounds:
quote: Got that? Two "good guys" grabbed their guns to face off against the "bad guy".
quote: Got that? The police arrived, had no idea who were "good guys" or "bad guys", and handcuffed them all and put them on the ground, the assailant bleeding out and dying.
quote: Got that? Armed civilians inserting themselves into these situations complicate matters for police. These civilians are not only in danger from the "bad guys" but also from police. And there's another danger. Armed civilians are a danger to each other:
quote: Got that? Armed civilians could have no idea whether other armed civilians are "good guys" or "bad guys". Guns kill over 30,000 people a year in the US. Police shootings are only a small percentage of that total (only a third of a percent of the population are police), but as video evidence accumulates we have proof that armed police are as much a part of the problem as armed civilians. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Obviously if most police shouldn't have guns then even fewer (percentage-wise) civilians should have guns, either. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Nyroglyphx writes: Bystanders can be harmed by police bullets as well as criminal bullets.
So, what, that invalidates the necessity of protecting people? You know, there's a whole lot more people who want an armed police force that don't want an armed police force. I don't have specific poll numbers, but The case for disarming America’s police force begs to differ while highlighting the difficult issues:
quote: That's already a long quote so I'll stop there, read the article if you want to see more of what it has to say. But the point is that there's strong evidence that disarming the police would not result in the calamities you keep insisting on.
That's the whole topic: the police don't seem to be very good at deciding when it's "necessary". Opines Ringo... It isn't opinion but fact. There are scores and scores of examples of police making bad decisions in life-and-death situations. And often they were life-and-death situations only because the police had guns.
Don't try to divert the topic. The problem here is that cops often see civilians as expendable. So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society. There you go with your own slant. Where did Ringo suggest getting rid of the police? Nowhere, right? So why are you responding as if he had?
If, as you are suggesting, the actual problem is police officers then it stands to reason that a police force is unnecessary in your estimation. Ringo didn't say the problem is police officers, but police officers are just people, not superior beings with super senses and super insight. Giving people the power to kill and then placing them in circumstances that encourage paranoia and an us-versus-them mentality is a recipe for disaster. Now with all the video out there the number of "good shoots" is in a strong downward trend. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
jar writes: Percy writes:
Why? Obviously if most police shouldn't have guns then even fewer (percentage-wise) civilians should have guns, either. Why isn't it obvious? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but no, it is not obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Why isn't it obvious?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Hyroglyphx writes:
Well, yes. Killing people is not a good way of protecting them. So, what, that invalidates the necessity of protecting people? Do you kill one person to protect two? Do you kill eighty-one people to protect eighty-two? How much time does a police officer have to do the math?
Hyroglyphx writes:
There's a lot of people who want to drink and smoke and gamble. Counting noses is not the best method of setting policy.
You know, there's a whole lot more people who want an armed police force that don't want an armed police force. Hyroglyphx writes:
Nobody is suggesting that. You're just weakening your argument by going off the deep end of absurdity.
So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society. Hyroglyphix writes:
I can play the unfounded speculation game too: Everybody gets a cookie.
Crime increase by 500% overnight. Hyroglyphx writes:
I'm not suggesting that "the" problem is police officers. I'm suggesting that police officers are part of the problem.
If, as you are suggesting, the actual problem is police officers... Hyroglyphx writes:
Well, no, that doesn't stand to reason at all. By that logic, problems in education could be solved by eliminating schools. ...then it stands to reason that a police force is unnecessary in your estimation. In my estimation, a gun-happy police force is unnecessary. The British police are an example.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Percy writes: But what would have happened had there been no body cam footage. The police officer likely would have made up whatever story he needed to justify the arrest (remember, they're expert at that), and nurse Wubbels would have been charged instead of released. Exactly. I think it is very helpful to have an adversarial judicial system, but sometimes it swings too far in one direction. In the case of the police, they know that in 99% of cases they can say whatever they want and it will be taken as the truth. It has led to systemic abuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Hyroglyphx writes: So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society. Crime increase by 500% overnight. If, as you are suggesting, the actual problem is police officers then it stands to reason that a police force is unnecessary in your estimation.
The bobbies in the UK don't have guns and their crime rate is lower than in the US. I highly, highly doubt that any criminal even considers armed police vs. unarmed police as a consideration in their criminal activities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes: So then get rid of a police force altogether and see how well that works out for society. Heh, this reminds me of a quote by William Burroughs:
quote: Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Well, yes. Killing people is not a good way of protecting them. Do you kill one person to protect two? Do you kill eighty-one people to protect eighty-two? How much time does a police officer have to do the math? As I said, sometimes it is necessary to take the life of a violent felon in order to save an innocent hostage. Are you really going to argue that point?
There's a lot of people who want to drink and smoke and gamble. Counting noses is not the best method of setting policy. My point being, who are you to decide for them?
Nobody is suggesting that. You're just weakening your argument by going off the deep end of absurdity. That was your central point! You made the suggestion that the police are so quick to be heavy-handed in light of numerous instances that we ought to disarm them. If the real issue is shitty cops then whether they're armed or not seems like a secondary issue to the real problem, no?
I can play the unfounded speculation game too: Everybody gets a cookie. It's intuitive. Just as it would be intuitive to you that disarming police would result in less shooting by cops. You don't have any actual evidence to support that which has never been tested; you're basing it off of common sense. And before you say that it has been tested in Britain, again, their streets aren't littered with firearms whereas if you got your way, everybody EXCEPT the police would armed. Brilliant plan.
Well, no, that doesn't stand to reason at all. By that logic, problems in education could be solved by eliminating schools. In my estimation, a gun-happy police force is unnecessary. The British police are an example. The British also aren't inundated by firearms at present, so you are comparing apples to oranges. In place of guns, they have an issue with knife-violence. In any case, if a standing army was making incorrect force decisions in combat, would your solution be to disarm the military or would your solution be to increase training and increase punitive measures against those who violate the rules of engagement? Common sense and good judgment dictates... "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
The bobbies in the UK don't have guns and their crime rate is lower than in the US. Uh, yeah, thanks for inadvertently making my point for me. We're talking about the UNITED STATES... so in light of the violent crime rate in the US, it necessitates an armed police force. Gun control is almost as strict in Australia as it is in England, and their police force is armed. Actually, scratch that, Britain is almost the sole exception on the planet that doesn't have an armed police force. So you’re already operating way outside the norm, except you want to disarm cops in the most heavily armed citizenry on planet earth.
I highly, highly doubt that any criminal even considers armed police vs. unarmed police as a consideration in their criminal activities. You think violent crime wouldn't increase exponentially the DAY that policy was instituted when no unarmed police force could meaningfully oppose an armed citizenry? You don't think some people would take advantage of that? Not only would violent crime increase, so would vigilantism since cops are basically now consigned to be report takers. If you did a ride-along for one day in major metropolitan area of the US it might open your eyes to some of the complexities that you are neglecting to account for. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024