ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:50 PM   #441
Elagabalus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,467
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I'm honestly not sure or to what difference it makes in pure legalese. Part of me still wants to see it as... at least somewhat iffy but... like I said this part is getting above my head.

The "First Class Douchebaggery" charge should absolutely stand though.
I would like to see this particular Douchebaggery continue and be encouraged. Afterall, what will the swatters do if they know that they haven't been given a false address?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:53 PM   #442
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
The risk assessment has to be adequate. I can say that the officer did not perform an adequate risk assessment.

"What if this is a hoax?" should be pretty high on the list.
And if he says, "I did consider that and the strategy chosen reflected that" you have no way to refute him.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:59 PM   #443
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,898
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And if he says, "I did consider that and the strategy chosen reflected that" you have no way to refute him.
A lie can be refuted. Shooting at an unarmed man at the first opportunity is hardly a "strategy", let alone a properly thought through, professional one.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:17 PM   #444
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
A lie can be refuted. Shooting at an unarmed man at the first opportunity is hardly a "strategy", let alone a properly thought through, professional one.
That isnt refutation. That is supposition.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:22 PM   #445
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,909
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And if he says, "I did consider that and the strategy chosen reflected that" you have no way to refute him.
I said adequate. A risk assessment shouldn't just consist of cataloguing the hazards and the risks - it should contain mitigating actions either to reduce the risk of occurrence, or to reduce the severity of any of the significant hazards.

In that case one would be entitled to ask, "what did you do in order to verify that it was not a hoax?" How did you plan to mitigate the potential risk of shooting an innocent bystander?

There can be standard procedures for situations so the risk assessment for the raid could be as listed in standard procedures.

Keep in cover, identify as police, ensure that suspect is not in a position to shoot the police (by keeping them covered from several directions and keeping them dazzled) so that the police aren't at risk and can take time to assess the threat.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:23 PM   #446
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,898
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That isnt refutation. That is supposition.
No. You used the word strategy. If the cop uses this word in court any half decent prosecutor would say "that is a lie. You can't call your behaviour a strategy".
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:32 PM   #447
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I said adequate. A risk assessment shouldn't just consist of cataloguing the hazards and the risks - it should contain mitigating actions either to reduce the risk of occurrence, or to reduce the severity of any of the significant hazards.

In that case one would be entitled to ask, "what did you do in order to verify that it was not a hoax?" How did you plan to mitigate the potential risk of shooting an innocent bystander?

There can be standard procedures for situations so the risk assessment for the raid could be as listed in standard procedures.

Keep in cover, identify as police, ensure that suspect is not in a position to shoot the police (by keeping them covered from several directions and keeping them dazzled) so that the police aren't at risk and can take time to assess the threat.
In sure his lawyer will gladly provide all the risk mitigating strategies he took with explanations of why he didn't take others.as for procedures, this argument was based on only 10 principles provided. No procedures were included.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:35 PM   #448
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
No. You used the word strategy. If the cop uses this word in court any half decent prosecutor would say "that is a lie. You can't call your behaviour a strategy".
The cop wouldn't have to use that word in court because he cannot be forced to testify.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:36 PM   #449
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,522
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I said adequate. A risk assessment shouldn't just consist of cataloguing the hazards and the risks - it should contain mitigating actions either to reduce the risk of occurrence, or to reduce the severity of any of the significant hazards.

In that case one would be entitled to ask, "what did you do in order to verify that it was not a hoax?" How did you plan to mitigate the potential risk of shooting an innocent bystander?

There can be standard procedures for situations so the risk assessment for the raid could be as listed in standard procedures.

Keep in cover, identify as police, ensure that suspect is not in a position to shoot the police (by keeping them covered from several directions and keeping them dazzled) so that the police aren't at risk and can take time to assess the threat.
Simply saying "I performed a risk assessment" does not abrogate responsibility if the risk assessment was performed incompetently. Easily demonstrated in the case because an unarmed and completely innocent person was mistakenly targeted and killed.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:39 PM   #450
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Simply saying "I performed a risk assessment" does not abrogate responsibility if the risk assessment was performed incompetently. Easily demonstrated in the case because an unarmed and completely innocent person was mistakenly targeted and killed.
Not at all. The fact that a bad outcome occurred does not mean efforts to mitigate risks failed. Low probability events still occur.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:47 PM   #451
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,643
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In sure his lawyer will gladly provide all the risk mitigating strategies he took with explanations of why he didn't take others.as for procedures, this argument was based on only 10 principles provided. No procedures were included.
Are you aware that those ten principles do not apply in the United States? It's like you seem to think that any American cop would actually know them. I should clarify and say they were written for the Australian police services and not for the US services.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:49 PM   #452
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,643
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Not at all. The fact that a bad outcome occurred does not mean efforts to mitigate risks failed. Low probability events still occur.
Then the cop should be able to not only state such mitigation, but when they were done, with whom, and so on. You know, backed by evidence and not just whatever comes off the top of the cop's head.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:49 PM   #453
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,909
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Not at all. The fact that a bad outcome occurred does not mean efforts to mitigate risks failed. Low probability events still occur.
That is undoubtedly true in general. However we are talking about this specific case, where this is not the case.

There is no evidence of anything approaching a reasonable attempt to reduce the risk of harming innocent people, or even of wrongly shooting someone quilty.

An analogy. In the UK, I am responsible for ensuring that I'm driving a roadworthy car. If I am involved in a crash and I have bald tyres, at the least, my insurance wouldn't cover me and I'd probably be liable for criminal prosecution. If I said that I'd assessed the tyres and thought that praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary to protect me reduced my risk, so I was safe, I wouldn't get anywhere.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:51 PM   #454
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,283
The swatter is going to be sent to Kansas to face charges.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/cri...192741914.html
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:54 PM   #455
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Are you aware that those ten principles do not apply in the United States? It's like you seem to think that any American cop would actually know them. I should clarify and say they were written for the Australian police services and not for the US services.
I am aware. It is also likely that there are a ton of procedures referenced and created to formalize the process. I'm simply mocking the idea of, "wouldnt happen here. We got them ten principles!"
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:56 PM   #456
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Then the cop should be able to not only state such mitigation, but when they were done, with whom, and so on. You know, backed by evidence and not just whatever comes off the top of the cop's head.
As I mentioned up thread, the silver lining of killing someone is that lawyers get involved and you won't be put into a position of answering those questions without review by your lawyer first.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 02:56 PM   #457
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,898
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Are you aware that those ten principles do not apply in the United States? It's like you seem to think that any American cop would actually know them. I should clarify and say they were written for the Australian police services and not for the US services.
And that was the point in my posting them. I also pointed out that the very large Victoria Police Force manages to shoot, on average, one person a year, a figure Force Command is not happy with.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:00 PM   #458
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post

There is no evidence of anything approaching a reasonable attempt to reduce the risk of harming innocent people, or even of wrongly shooting someone quilty.
I don't think there is much evidence either way at this point.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:00 PM   #459
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,522
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Not at all. The fact that a bad outcome occurred does not mean efforts to mitigate risks failed. Low probability events still occur.
Bob,

Although sometimes it is interesting to see what you can come up with, I just don't feel like playing with you right now. My apologies.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:04 PM   #460
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Bob,

Although sometimes it is interesting to see what you can come up with, I just don't feel like playing with you right now. My apologies.
As if I came up with the concept of a black swan event.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:07 PM   #461
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Bob,

Although sometimes it is interesting to see what you can come up with, I just don't feel like playing with you right now. My apologies.
It's the only way to win. The effort:entertainment ratio is miserably low.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:07 PM   #462
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,898
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I am aware. It is also likely that there are a ton of procedures referenced and created to formalize the process. I'm simply mocking the idea of, "wouldnt happen here. We got them ten principles!"
More ignorance. These principals came into being after there were 40 deaths by police shootings in 20 years from 1985. As well as these principals, more firearms and other training was implemented, with emphasis on "safety first". This was all part of Project Beacon. Since then police shootings have not gone away (they can't be completely eliminated) but they have more than halved.

I was pointing that other forces adopt other than shoot first ask questions later tactics.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:10 PM   #463
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
More ignorance. These principals came into being after there were 40 deaths by police shootings in 20 years from 1985. As well as these principals, more firearms and other training was implemented, with emphasis on "safety first". This was all part of Project Beacon. Since then police shootings have not gone away (they can't be completely eliminated) but they have more than halved.

I was pointing that other forces adopt other than shoot first ask questions later tactics.
And those principles are so stupidly written and generically worded, that if that was the sole extent of the change, any description of an action can be twisted into compliance.

They are all the garbage of a corporate mission statement.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:15 PM   #464
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,898
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And those principles are so stupidly written and generically worded, that if that was the sole extent of the change, any description of an action can be twisted into compliance.

They are all the garbage of a corporate mission statement.
Rubbish. Although I was not a sworn member, I did have a police radio in my car, and listened to police responding to very serious events. These principals were followed to great effect.

In any case, what is so surprising about them? Principals of command, control, isolating offenders and back-up are (or should be) pretty fundamental.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:36 PM   #465
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I'm advocating that police officers, who have the benefits of extensive training (compared to civilians) and trained backup (officers don't get sent alone to shots fired calls, for example), should be more careful than civilians when it comes to shooting people
I'm all with you so far.

Quote:
and when they've caused a death out of clear negligence they should be charged with and convicted of murder.
The reason why we have manslaughter charges is to distinguish deliberate murder from accidental, mistaken or unintented killings. If you blur the distinction you are, in my view, creating a dangerous situation where people will be legally unable to defend themselves, which is the opposite bad situation of the one you're trying to solve. Creating a big problem to solve another big one doesn't sound great to me.

Quote:
They should then spend at least 10 years in a maximum-security prison.
Why not execution, while you're at it? What possible positive result could this have?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:38 PM   #466
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I will concede that from a pedantic, nit-picking POV the term "murder" might reflect a certain amount of hyperbole (although the amount of premeditation reflected in the prep for offensive measures does put things in a different light as far as I'm concerned), the description "summary execution" seems quite reasonable.
First of all, it's not a semantic nit-picking as the two terms denote very different legal concepts. And since Babbylonian is arguing for a change to the legal system, that's more than a bit relevant.

Second, no, it's not reasonable. A summary execution is a punishment for a crime, not a bad reaction to an actually non-threatening situation.

Words are important.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:41 PM   #467
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Rubbish. Although I was not a sworn member, I did have a police radio in my car, and listened to police responding to very serious events. These principals were followed to great effect.

In any case, what is so surprising about them? Principals of command, control, isolating offenders and back-up are (or should be) pretty fundamental.
The problem is using them as a basis for reviewing a specific person's actions who has access to a lawyer and there is limited information.

Nearly all of them are variations of ...."to the extent possible." Without substituting your judgement for his, there is a lack of evidence to assess his judgement. As a single event, the fact the shooting occurred makes it indistinguishable from the extremely rare event occurring or a likely outcome.

These kind of principles benefit from having willing participants, data, and leadership in a position to make employment decisions based on their judgement of adherence to the system. Now that someone is dead, the officer involved is best served by not cooperating.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:43 PM   #468
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,963
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You made a deeply flawed blanket claim that only the police are required deal with people who might be dangerous. I pointed out numerous examples of others who are also required to deal with dangerous others.

You have now made your claim worse by alleging all those people do is shout a request to stop and then retreat to call the police. I do not believe you, from what I have seen in numerous videos and news stories, Joe public intervene and deal with dangerous people on aregular basis. They are usually referred to as heroes. One which springs to mind is the Senator how was shot in the head, I am sure those who came to her rescue were un-armed.

Parents and teachers and indeed anyone is authorised to use force to protect themselves and others, you should read up on Human Rights legislation and the law to do with self defence of a person and others.

In the UK there is such a thing as citizens arrest, the common law power to use reasonable force to remove someone from a premisis (so a shopkeeper can physically remove a customer from his shop) and it is not assault to physically prevent another from say walking out into traffic. I suspect that is also the case in the USA.

You got it wrong, please stop digging yourself further into a hole.

I have it all wrong? In all of the examples you cite -- particularly the "heroes" -- those people may choose whether to intervene or not. They are not required to do so. In some cases the law may protect them if they do so, and in others, particularly involving the use of weapons or if they cause greater harm, say by moving an accident victim, maybe not. If they choose not to intervene, they fulfill their civic responsibility by calling the cops. Even firefighters will abandon a burning building to save their own lives. The police alone are the only people who are required to control a dangerous situation, even at the risk, even the loss, of their own lives.

I'm not defending bad cops or police misconduct. I think a lot more cops should go to jail. But it shouldn't really be necessary to make the point that police officers play a role that is different from civilians', and they are supported in that role by laws and public policy.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:50 PM   #469
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,288
This is a frustrating conversation because the sides being drawn are between LEOs and the general populace while I'm drawing a line between "People shot without reasonable cause" and "People not shot without reasonable cause."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 03:56 PM   #470
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The reason why we have manslaughter charges is to distinguish deliberate murder from accidental, mistaken or unintented killings. If you blur the distinction you are, in my view, creating a dangerous situation where people will be legally unable to defend themselves, which is the opposite bad situation of the one you're trying to solve. Creating a big problem to solve another big one doesn't sound great to me.
You're the one advocating for keeping a bigger problem, which is allowing police officers to kill if they have even the suspicion of a potential threat. I wouldn't be blurring anything; I would be creating a new category of murder that would specifically deter police officers from killing without just cause. The reason I think we need such a specific law is that police officers tend to get away with their unlawful killings, to the point that they at times don't even suffer professional consequences, let alone criminal charges.
Quote:
Why not execution, while you're at it? What possible positive result could this have?
Because I don't believe in execution. The positive result would be deterrence. Police officers might not kill so readily if they know they will be unlikely to get away with it. As things stand now, there is virtually no consequence to them killing with little to no provocation, unless you count "they have to live with themselves" as a significant consequence; I do not.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 04:26 PM   #471
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,643
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I am aware. It is also likely that there are a ton of procedures referenced and created to formalize the process. I'm simply mocking the idea of, "wouldnt happen here. We got them ten principles!"
Ah, okay.


Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
As I mentioned up thread, the silver lining of killing someone is that lawyers get involved and you won't be put into a position of answering those questions without review by your lawyer first.
Yeah. Lucky copper.

The issue which you you haven't yet covered (at least I don't recall it so I apologize in advance if you have) is what are the standards when it comes to prosecuting a cop versus a non-cop? I mean, it's blatantly obvious that there are double standards here. Why are you upholding only one side and not both? Or am I mistaken?


Originally Posted by lionking View Post
And that was the point in my posting them. I also pointed out that the very large Victoria Police Force manages to shoot, on average, one person a year, a figure Force Command is not happy with.
Yeah, I always wanted to move to Oz (but I really dislike desert climates and I'm now too old and poor to immigrate); I just loved the essential attitude of Aussies, most especially the absolutely wholly, unabashed teasing in a way irony of naming a municipal swimming pool after the PM who went swimming with family/friends and just.... disappeared. Can't recall the name offhand, but I just thought to myself, "them's my peeps!" after reading about it.


Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And those principles are so stupidly written and generically worded, that if that was the sole extent of the change, any description of an action can be twisted into compliance.

They are all the garbage of a corporate mission statement.
Yes, that Declaration of Independence is really awful too. Maybe they should have thought of actually writing some rules and laws down as well? Oh, wait a sec...



Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Rubbish. Although I was not a sworn member, I did have a police radio in my car, and listened to police responding to very serious events. These principals were followed to great effect.

In any case, what is so surprising about them? Principals of command, control, isolating offenders and back-up are (or should be) pretty fundamental.
It's really simple. American cops now fully understand that they will almost never be prosecuted or held responsible for their misdeeds, nor will most fellow officers report illegal behavior. Without the sting of a paddle, the teacher can just scream all he wants and the kids might as well misbehave.



Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Now that someone is dead, the officer involved is best served by not cooperating.
So what? Is justice best served? Is the community best served by letting a lackadaisical copper just blast someone to bits and casually stroll on home to continue to "serve and protect"? Is the state or country best served to allow some to evade justice over others who are theoretically seen as equals?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 04:44 PM   #472
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,288
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
I would like to see this particular Douchebaggery continue and be encouraged. Afterall, what will the swatters do if they know that they haven't been given a false address?
What?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 04:49 PM   #473
Elagabalus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,467
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
What?
I think giving someone your actual address would only encourage more swatting behavior. Otherwise I agree to everything you said to WP.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:07 PM   #474
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
You're the one advocating for keeping a bigger problem, which is allowing police officers to kill if they have even the suspicion of a potential threat.
You must have me confused with another poster. I have never made such a suggestion. In fact I agreed with most of what you said, remember? I am simply saying that calling manslaughter murder is nonsensical. Please refrain from expanding my comments to mean more than what's actually written.

Quote:
I wouldn't be blurring anything; I would be creating a new category of murder that would specifically deter police officers from killing without just cause.
But you're doing so by calling not murder "murder". Again, that's more confusion and risk.

Quote:
The reason I think we need such a specific law is that police officers tend to get away with their unlawful killings, to the point that they at times don't even suffer professional consequences, let alone criminal charges.
Again, I agree, but I don't think your proposed solution solves the problem, and also think it creates another, major one.

Quote:
The positive result would be deterrence.
Perhaps it would deter people from becoming police officers, yes.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:11 PM   #475
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,288
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
I think giving someone your actual address would only encourage more swatting behavior. Otherwise I agree to everything you said to WP.
Why not just give them, radical idea, no address at all and not play the "Come at me bro" game?

Again I can't speak for the legality of it but morally daring someone to try something but giving them someone else's information is a dick move.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:14 PM   #476
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,288
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Perhaps it would deter people from becoming police officers, yes.
Someone who decides not to become police officer because it would be too hard for them to shoot people probably shouldn't be a police officer.

I don't get this suggestion that if we punish a cop for an unlawful killing today we run the risk of being short of police officers tomorrow, to say nothing of even if that was true that being the preferred choice.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:25 PM   #477
Elagabalus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,467
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Why not just give them, radical idea, no address at all and not play the "Come at me bro" game?

Again I can't speak for the legality of it but morally daring someone to try something but giving them someone else's information is a dick move.
As I understand it, the swatter was not involved in the original online spat between the two gamers and was merely recruited later. I don't game and I don't swat but my default position would be to assume the person was giving me a false address. It IS the internet after all.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:25 PM   #478
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,375
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Ah, okay.



Yeah. Lucky copper.

The issue which you you haven't yet covered (at least I don't recall it so I apologize in advance if you have) is what are the standards when it comes to prosecuting a cop versus a non-cop? I mean, it's blatantly obvious that there are double standards here. Why are you upholding only one side and not both? Or am I mistaken?



Yeah, I always wanted to move to Oz (but I really dislike desert climates and I'm now too old and poor to immigrate); I just loved the essential attitude of Aussies, most especially the absolutely wholly, unabashed teasing in a way irony of naming a municipal swimming pool after the PM who went swimming with family/friends and just.... disappeared. Can't recall the name offhand, but I just thought to myself, "them's my peeps!" after reading about it.



Yes, that Declaration of Independence is really awful too. Maybe they should have thought of actually writing some rules and laws down as well? Oh, wait a sec...




It's really simple. American cops now fully understand that they will almost never be prosecuted or held responsible for their misdeeds, nor will most fellow officers report illegal behavior. Without the sting of a paddle, the teacher can just scream all he wants and the kids might as well misbehave.




So what? Is justice best served? Is the community best served by letting a lackadaisical copper just blast someone to bits and casually stroll on home to continue to "serve and protect"? Is the state or country best served to allow some to evade justice over others who are theoretically seen as equals?
I don't think I really have opinions on your questions.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:35 PM   #479
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,643
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't think I really have opinions on your questions.
Okay, that's cool by me and I do get irritated at times, but I also want to say that I also appreciate your calm, non-attacking nature here.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:35 PM   #480
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
But you're doing so by calling not murder "murder". Again, that's more confusion and risk.
The officer aimed his gun for a relatively long period of time and decided to shoot a suspect despite having no good reason to do so. That sounds like murder to me. Just how much more premeditation should be required?

Last edited by Babbylonian; 3rd January 2018 at 05:36 PM.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.