IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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.
Tags 2020 elections , joe biden , presidential candidates

Closed Thread
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:06 PM   #441
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Ah, Mythbusters...one of my family's favorite shows we used to watch together.

A few problems:
Jamie started at 24 ft. not 50 ft.
Adam didn't have his gun already drawn as a policeman would.
Adam is not a trained police officer.

Other than that, you were spot on how it would be the same as a suspect who was 50 or more feet away having a gun pointed at him by a trained cop.
Let me try to lead you through this...you said, "What a load of bollocks. You say that a knife is equivalent to a gun in an attack when it's certainly not. A guy with gun 50 feet away can kill you; a guy with a knife running at you from 50 ft. away can't at that point. Take him down with a shot or two to the legs. If that doesn't stop him, then shoot to kill. Lethal force should very rarely be the first go to." YOUR SCENARIO, NOT MINE.

I pointed out that 50' is not much of a distance for a running man and could be covered in less than 3 seconds. I also pointed out in another post that most people are lucky to get off 1 aimed shot per second. I didn't point out the (to me at least) obvious first second or two that you need to draw your gun and belabor the point that it would then take another second to fire an aimed round. I did point out that even trained police officers often end up shooting hands and arms due to the fact that even though they are trained it is instinctive to humans to focus on the threat rather than their training. Shooting people in the legs is, in a word, stupid. It's another level of training likely to be forgotten in a stressful moment while they're in a 3 second life or death situation. Could you do it?
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:11 PM   #442
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by bam View Post
Working plainclothes duty, working for a department that requires off-duty officers to carry within their jurisdiction, carrying it for protection in case one of the bad people you may have encountered in your career sees you on your day off and decides it would be a good time to get even? None of these scenarios even cross your mind while you profess to think it over?
Um no. Plainclothes police carry their guns in concealed holsters, not purses.

Carrying a weapon in a purse, even off duty, is not recommended for obvious reasons.

You are trying to come up with a reason against my opinion about less lethal first shooting. We are talking about on duty cops who are overwhelmingly those officers confronted with situations like these, not off duty or dept store security guards.

And I suggest you drop the aggressive attitude you've had since first addressing me. I don't even remember engaging with you before.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:12 PM   #443
lobosrul5
Philosopher
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 7,349
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Shooting for legs or arms lessens the chance of a hit. It does not guarantee stopping the threat or not killing someone. It increases the chance of bystander injury. If you have time to aim for a limb, you have time to use a taser or pepper spray instead.

If you are gonna use a gun, it’s a situation which warrants lethal force. If your goal is to replace a fence plank, are you gonna pull out the sledgehammer?

It was a suggestion on the same level as Trump’s musings about injected bleach (or my own about a Biden/Rice ticket ;p) -someone who has no idea what they are talking about coming up with “ideas.”

Don’t defend it, it was dumb...a fantasy (again, like a Biden/Rice ticket).
I'll give my honestly honest, super no BS opinion.

It was a Biden gaff, but it was nowhere near as dumb as saying people should drink bleach. I mean thats just... yikes. Drink something that will 100% kill you? OK.

Shooting to wound is something that should be considered in rare instances. A regular duty cop alone draws his weapon to respond to a threat expecting him to think through shooting to wound or not when he has a split second to make a life or death decision is not realistic or fair.

OTOH there are some rare cases where I think shooting to wound is appropriate, and apparently some foreign police forces do as well.

A situation where things are relatively contained, you have SWAT officers with long guns, but they can't get close enough to use less than lethal force. Shooting to wound could be appropriate. Especially if you had a sniper on a building. A miss would just hit the area nearby. If the situation gets worse, well you have backup officers to shoot to kill just in case.

But that doesn't seem to be what Biden meant, without some pretty creative interpretation.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:13 PM   #444
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
And I'm still not sure why. My point is and was, you are hardly the first person I've seen get the 50' rule mixed up. Seeing a possible threat 50' away with a melee weapon. Good excuse for a cop to draw his weapon? Yes I totally agree. Shoot someone to kill 50' away before they even run at you instead of trying anything else? No.



Believe me I know all of this... just so you know I've done competition pistol shooting from speed holsters and a variety of concealed carry holster locations.



Yes situations can become complex. I don't think that absolves police if they kill someone without it being necessary though.
Another strawman? Who did I absolve? What did I confuse by responding to a scenario about a 50' encounter posed by another poster?
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:15 PM   #445
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I totally disagree. The police should only shoot to kill when they have no other choice. A guy running at you with a knife or bat, etc will go down if shot in the leg a time or two. You don't just go directly to "kill" if it's not necessary. THAT is what is divisive and pro-riot.
.....
The point is that any gunshot can be lethal, even a shot to a leg that cuts an artery. It can also miss and strike a bystander. And cops aren't Wyatt Earp. Shooting at a moving target's leg doesn't guarantee that's what will be hit. Do we want that to be another defense to a police killing? "Gee, I was only trying hit his shin. Whoops!" Cops aren't supposed to shoot at all unless lethal force is justified. Never forget that cops are also armed with batons, pepper spray and often tasers. If we can expect a cop to successfully shoot for a leg, maybe we should also expect him to be able to wield a two-foot steel baton effectively.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:22 PM   #446
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by bam View Post
No need to insert your own strawmen, I clearly put forth a scenario where Stachys would have difficulty in finding a gun in her purse before her attacker could cover the 50' distance.

There's plenty of videos out if you don't like the Mythbusters segment. In real life police aren't walking around with guns drawn on every encounter they have with people. In addition they are required to use retention holsters that can slow down their draw and their attention is rarely able to be focused on just one possible threat. A run-of-the-mill domestic violence situation has at least two excited people to keep track of and traffic stops may have four or five people involved depending on the size of the car.
Why you put forth a scenario where I would have trouble getting a gun out in time is confusing. Neither Biden nor I was talking about civilians; were were talking about police officers.

You are presenting individual scenarios where an officer may not have time to assess the threat to determine if lethal or non-lethal force should be used. No one is suggesting there are not such situations. All I've said is that, depending on what the officer determines at the time, non-lethal should be use first. You are trying to make a one size fits all argument.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:24 PM   #447
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Cops aren't supposed to shoot at all unless lethal force is justified.
And yet they do. They've argued "justified" down to "feeling a little threatened," and from there to "technically this guy could have been a threat if he'd been armed and high on pcp and not a ten year old black kid playing pokemon go, our bad lol."

I think "you don't get to kill people anymore" is the minimum first step towards making this better.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 3rd June 2020 at 04:25 PM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:26 PM   #448
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by bam View Post
Let me try to lead you through this...you said, "What a load of bollocks. You say that a knife is equivalent to a gun in an attack when it's certainly not. A guy with gun 50 feet away can kill you; a guy with a knife running at you from 50 ft. away can't at that point. Take him down with a shot or two to the legs. If that doesn't stop him, then shoot to kill. Lethal force should very rarely be the first go to." YOUR SCENARIO, NOT MINE.

I pointed out that 50' is not much of a distance for a running man and could be covered in less than 3 seconds. I also pointed out in another post that most people are lucky to get off 1 aimed shot per second. I didn't point out the (to me at least) obvious first second or two that you need to draw your gun and belabor the point that it would then take another second to fire an aimed round. I did point out that even trained police officers often end up shooting hands and arms due to the fact that even though they are trained it is instinctive to humans to focus on the threat rather than their training. Shooting people in the legs is, in a word, stupid. It's another level of training likely to be forgotten in a stressful moment while they're in a 3 second life or death situation. Could you do it?
No, I'm done. Upon reading your first condescending sentence, I've decided not to engage you further. Your aggressive attitude with me is unacceptable, uncalled for, and frankly, confusing as to why you took it from the very beginning.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:27 PM   #449
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, I'm done. Upon reading your first condescending sentence, I've decided not to engage you further. Your aggressive attitude with me is unacceptable, uncalled for, and frankly, confusing as to why you took it from the very beginning.
He's asserting control of the situation, ma'am, PLEASE STEP AWAY.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:29 PM   #450
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by bam View Post
I only responded to the scenario given by Stacyhs: "What a load of bollocks. You say that a knife is equivalent to a gun in an attack when it's certainly not. A guy with gun 50 feet away can kill you; a guy with a knife running at you from 50 ft. away can't at that point. Take him down with a shot or two to the legs. If that doesn't stop him, then shoot to kill. Lethal force should very rarely be the first go to."
...which she made in a debate over Biden's comments referencing police brutality, just like I said and continue to say.

Quote:
I'd be glad to engage with you if you got something besides ignorant snark?
Calling out your strawman isn't snark. Sorry. Hell, you were (erroneously) calling out strawman even before I did.

I mean, like, make up your mind already.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:29 PM   #451
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Um no. Plainclothes police carry their guns in concealed holsters, not purses.

Carrying a weapon in a purse, even off duty, is not recommended for obvious reasons.

You are trying to come up with a reason against my opinion about less lethal first shooting. We are talking about on duty cops who are overwhelmingly those officers confronted with situations like these, not off duty or dept store security guards.

And I suggest you drop the aggressive attitude you've had since first addressing me. I don't even remember engaging with you before.
Plainclothes police carry their weapons where they can, female officers wearing shorts and a modest top utilize purses in real life both on and off duty.

I'm all for less than lethal encounters based on common sense and real life results. Shooting a knife-wielding man charging at me or you with a aimed shot in the legs within 3 seconds doesn't cut it. Utilize less-than-lethal technology - bag launcher, taser or pepper spray if possible.

If you don't like the responses you get try something different. Try thinking the scenario through first before trying to post and score some sort of internet points. I reserve the right to comment on nonsense when I see it whether it's in politics or ct's.
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:30 PM   #452
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The point is that any gunshot can be lethal, even a shot to a leg that cuts an artery. It can also miss and strike a bystander. And cops aren't Wyatt Earp. Shooting at a moving target's leg doesn't guarantee that's what will be hit. Do we want that to be another defense to a police killing? "Gee, I was only trying hit his shin. Whoops!" Cops aren't supposed to shoot at all unless lethal force is justified. Never forget that cops are also armed with batons, pepper spray and often tasers. If we can expect a cop to successfully shoot for a leg, maybe we should also expect him to be able to wield a two-foot steel baton effectively.
Of course any shot can be lethal. That shouldn't even need to be said.

As I said, it should be up to the officer at the time to determine the threat level and his/her response. If they don't think they can stop the threat by shooting at the legs, then they don't shoot at the legs.

Shooting to kill has also ended up with innocent bystanders being killed.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:38 PM   #453
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by bam View Post
I only responded to the scenario given by Stacyhs: "What a load of bollocks. You say that a knife is equivalent to a gun in an attack when it's certainly not. A guy with gun 50 feet away can kill you; a guy with a knife running at you from 50 ft. away can't at that point. Take him down with a shot or two to the legs. If that doesn't stop him, then shoot to kill. Lethal force should very rarely be the first go to."

I'd be glad to engage with you if you got something besides ignorant snark?

Oh, and this was one of your first (maybe the first) posts in this exchange:

Originally Posted by bam View Post
Another topic you can't be bothered to actually think about? A knife wielding attacker could cover the 50' distance and be stabbing you in less than 3 seconds. Could you even find a gun in your purse in that time?

In the real world people are routinely timed in the 40 yard dash (120') in less than 4.3 seconds. 350 lb NFL linemen routinely complete it under 5 seconds.

And here you have the unmitigated audacity to accuse me of snark???

GTFO with that nonsense.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:52 PM   #454
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
"We need the ability to kill anyone around us within five seconds because you never know if they're a bad guy" describes a lot of what's wrong with modern law enforcement mentality.
In your world is some guy holding a knife 50' from you cause for concern or is it something you regularly encounter everywhere you go? What if you were asked to help get a knife away from a "crazy dude threatening to kill people" outside your favorite cafe or coffeeshop? Imagine responding as a police officer - do you go rushing in or stay back? If you stop much beyond 50 feet are you going to be able to try to calmly talk to the person or will you have to yell to be heard above traffic or other noise and risk agitating this person you've never met before? If you pull your gun you're going to be accused of escalating the situation, if you leave it secured and try to calm the situation you may have to react to an attacking man very quickly. If you do have to shoot do you think 3 seconds is a lot of time to draw your weapon, aim a shot at a moving target in the legs without endangering any bystanders and avoid being hurt if you miss or only slightly wound the person?
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 04:55 PM   #455
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Oh, and this was one of your first (maybe the first) posts in this exchange:




And here you have the unmitigated audacity to accuse me of snark???

GTFO with that nonsense.
You still jibber jabbering? What can I help you with good sir? Have an intelligent question you'd actually like answered?
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 05:01 PM   #456
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by bam View Post
In your world is some guy holding a knife 50' from you cause for concern or is it something you regularly encounter everywhere you go? What if you were asked to help get a knife away from a "crazy dude threatening to kill people" outside your favorite cafe or coffeeshop? Imagine responding as a police officer - do you go rushing in or stay back? If you stop much beyond 50 feet are you going to be able to try to calmly talk to the person or will you have to yell to be heard above traffic or other noise and risk agitating this person you've never met before? If you pull your gun you're going to be accused of escalating the situation, if you leave it secured and try to calm the situation you may have to react to an attacking man very quickly. If you do have to shoot do you think 3 seconds is a lot of time to draw your weapon, aim a shot at a moving target in the legs without endangering any bystanders and avoid being hurt if you miss or only slightly wound the person?
Does he even have a knife? Are you even looking at the right guy? Why does everything immediately come to a life or death situation?

Cops aren't even in the top ten most dangerous professions. When was the last time you passed a roofer and thanked him for his service? He's way more likely to die from inattention on the job.

[ETA] You know what would be likely to spook someone more than anything? Someone pointing a gun and screaming at them.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 3rd June 2020 at 05:04 PM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 05:27 PM   #457
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's divisive and pro-riot.
When Trump is being lambasted all over for being divisive and pro-riot, that sure is the proper time to project that onto Biden. Trump said to shoot citizens, threatened to use the military to occupy American cities, flat out told the police to be as rough as they wanted with suspects, and his supporters are saying that Biden telling cops not to kill people as a first resort is what's "divisive and pro-riot." That's some weapons grade gas-lighting there!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 05:55 PM   #458
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by bam View Post
You still jibber jabbering? What can I help you with good sir? Have an intelligent question you'd actually like answered?

Why are you incapable of actual debate without resorting to snark and strawmen?

Yes, I'd really like that answered. I won't claim it's a particularly intelligent question; let me know if you ever decide to be open to moving the debate in an intelligent direction.

Last edited by Cabbage; 3rd June 2020 at 05:56 PM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 05:58 PM   #459
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Does he even have a knife? Are you even looking at the right guy? Why does everything immediately come to a life or death situation?

Cops aren't even in the top ten most dangerous professions. When was the last time you passed a roofer and thanked him for his service? He's way more likely to die from inattention on the job.

[ETA] You know what would be likely to spook someone more than anything? Someone pointing a gun and screaming at them.
I'd like to continue on with the conditions first posted by Stacyhs as it was originally her scenario, not mine and I don't want to be accused of taking it out of context. She posted, "What a load of bollocks. You say that a knife is equivalent to a gun in an attack when it's certainly not. A guy with gun 50 feet away can kill you; a guy with a knife running at you from 50 ft. away can't at that point. Take him down with a shot or two to the legs. If that doesn't stop him, then shoot to kill. Lethal force should very rarely be the first go to."

Does he have a knife - Yes, Stacy didn't say possibly or call it a pillow.
Is it the right guy - Yes, the guy with the knife who is running at you.
Why is everything immediately a life or death situation - I never stated everything was but I would characterize a 3 second encounter with a knife-wielding man as IDLH, would you?

I have thanked roofers and been thanked for roofing, do I get bonus points?

I agree that yelling at someone with a gun aimed at them could be stressful and could spook them but I didn't recommend or require it. I've answered your questions, could you address mine below?

In your world is some guy holding a knife 50' from you cause for concern or is it something you regularly encounter everywhere you go? What if you were asked to help get a knife away from a "crazy dude threatening to kill people" outside your favorite cafe or coffeeshop? Imagine responding as a police officer - do you go rushing in or stay back? If you stop much beyond 50 feet are you going to be able to try to calmly talk to the person or will you have to yell to be heard above traffic or other noise and risk agitating this person you've never met before? If you pull your gun you're going to be accused of escalating the situation, if you leave it secured and try to calm the situation you may have to react to an attacking man very quickly. If you do have to shoot do you think 3 seconds is a lot of time to draw your weapon, aim a shot at a moving target in the legs without endangering any bystanders and avoid being hurt if you miss or only slightly wound the person?
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 06:00 PM   #460
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Why are you incapable of actual debate without resorting to snark and strawmen?

Yes, I'd really like that answered. I won't claim it's a particularly intelligent question; let me know if you ever decide to be open to moving the debate in an intelligent direction.
Post an intelligent question and I'll do my best. Help me help you!
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 06:03 PM   #461
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by bam View Post
Post an intelligent question and I'll do my best. Help me help you!

I'll pass. That was the only question of you that I had any interest whatsoever in.

Thanks anyway.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 06:08 PM   #462
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Why are you incapable of actual debate without resorting to snark and strawmen?
Apparently, he's not.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 06:16 PM   #463
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by bam View Post
I've answered your questions, could you address mine below?
In the same spirit with which you answered mine, sure.

Quote:
In your world is some guy holding a knife 50' from you cause for concern or is it something you regularly encounter everywhere you go?
Most people who hold a knife 50' away are of no concern to me.

Quote:
What if you were asked to help get a knife away from a "crazy dude threatening to kill people" outside your favorite cafe or coffeeshop?
I would not respond by shooting him.

Quote:
Imagine responding as a police officer - do you go rushing in or stay back?
Responding as a police officer, the first and most important thing is to assess the situation. You can't brush it off as someone else's hypothetical and assume everything you've been told to assume is accurate or you wind up arresting a black store owner for looting while letting the white looters go free, as happened just the other day. Is someone there equipped with and threatening to use a knife? Is he currently stabbing someone? Unless someone is getting stabbed with a knife, you don't rush in. If he is not actively stabbing someone, there is no reason to encourage him to stab you. Where is this concept from, the police manual for friggin idiots?

Quote:
If you stop much beyond 50 feet are you going to be able to try to calmly talk to the person or will you have to yell to be heard above traffic or other noise and risk agitating this person you've never met before?
I don't think there exists the sort of person who'd be perfectly fine with a gun pointed at them, but a raised voice will send them into a murder rage.

Quote:
If you do have to shoot do you think 3 seconds is a lot of time to draw your weapon, aim a shot at a moving target in the legs without endangering any bystanders and avoid being hurt if you miss or only slightly wound the person?
If this is the biggest dilemma you're faced with when shooting a fellow human being, you should not be allowed to carry a gun.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 07:58 PM   #464
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
In the same spirit with which you answered mine, sure.


Most people who hold a knife 50' away are of no concern to me.


I would not respond by shooting him.


Responding as a police officer, the first and most important thing is to assess the situation. You can't brush it off as someone else's hypothetical and assume everything you've been told to assume is accurate or you wind up arresting a black store owner for looting while letting the white looters go free, as happened just the other day. Is someone there equipped with and threatening to use a knife? Is he currently stabbing someone? Unless someone is getting stabbed with a knife, you don't rush in. If he is not actively stabbing someone, there is no reason to encourage him to stab you. Where is this concept from, the police manual for friggin idiots?


I don't think there exists the sort of person who'd be perfectly fine with a gun pointed at them, but a raised voice will send them into a murder rage.


If this is the biggest dilemma you're faced with when shooting a fellow human being, you should not be allowed to carry a gun.
I'm not advocating that anyone, police included, shoot people 50' away if they're not an immediate threat but that's not Stacyhs's scenario. Stacyhs's scenario has them running towards you with a knife. Again, NOT MY SCENARIO, no matter how well the situation is handled it ends with a knife-wielding man running at you full speed from 50' away just as Stacyhs has set the scene.

Brushing all the strawmen and imaginary baggage aside, given only the scenario above, do you think 3 seconds is a lot of time to draw your weapon, aim a shot at the legs of a moving target without endangering any bystanders and avoid being hurt if you miss or only slightly wound the person?
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 08:10 PM   #465
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by bam View Post
I'm not advocating that anyone, police included, shoot people 50' away if they're not an immediate threat but that's not Stacyhs's scenario. Stacyhs's scenario has them running towards you with a knife. Again, NOT MY SCENARIO, no matter how well the situation is handled it ends with a knife-wielding man running at you full speed from 50' away just as Stacyhs has set the scene.

Brushing all the strawmen and imaginary baggage aside, given only the scenario above, do you think 3 seconds is a lot of time to draw your weapon, aim a shot at the legs of a moving target without endangering any bystanders and avoid being hurt if you miss or only slightly wound the person?
Nuh uh. You don't get to be all pedantic and dismissive of my questions and then "brush the strawmen aside" when I'm pedantic and dismissive of yours.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2020, 09:25 PM   #466
bam
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 103
Smile

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Nuh uh. You don't get to be all pedantic and dismissive of my questions and then "brush the strawmen aside" when I'm pedantic and dismissive of yours.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...lies/smile.gif I'll try again. I'm not advocating that anyone, police included, shoot people 50' away if they're not an immediate threat. We are in perfect agreement about this point, two peas in a pod, simpatico.

But that's not Stacyhs's scenario. Stacyhs's scenario has them running towards you with a knife. Again, NOT MY SCENARIO, no matter how well (or badly) the situation is handled it ends with a knife-wielding man running at you full speed from 50' away just as Stacyhs has set the scene. If you don't want to utilize Stacyhs's scenario, that's ok with me but don't pretend that isn't what we've been talking about as it directly relates to Biden's comments and Stacyhs's quoted post.

Heap as much imaginary baggage as you need into the scene, good or bad. Imagine yourself as the worst possible candidate or the best because either way I'd like an honest answer. Lay out any scenario (even multiples if it helps you get your point across) you want, in as much detail as you're comfortable sharing as long as the actions you take eventually lead to a knife-wielding man charging you from 50' away. After contemplation, do you think 3 seconds is a lot of time to draw your weapon, aim a shot at the legs of a moving target without endangering any bystanders and avoid being hurt if you miss or only slightly wound the person? Is it presidential or naive? Stupid or something to be trained on by every police officer in the country?
bam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 04:43 AM   #467
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by bam View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...lies/smile.gif I'll try again. I'm not advocating that anyone, police included, shoot people 50' away if they're not an immediate threat. We are in perfect agreement about this point, two peas in a pod, simpatico.

But that's not Stacyhs's scenario. Stacyhs's scenario has them running towards you with a knife. Again, NOT MY SCENARIO, no matter how well (or badly) the situation is handled it ends with a knife-wielding man running at you full speed from 50' away just as Stacyhs has set the scene. If you don't want to utilize Stacyhs's scenario, that's ok with me but don't pretend that isn't what we've been talking about as it directly relates to Biden's comments and Stacyhs's quoted post.

Heap as much imaginary baggage as you need into the scene, good or bad. Imagine yourself as the worst possible candidate or the best because either way I'd like an honest answer. Lay out any scenario (even multiples if it helps you get your point across) you want, in as much detail as you're comfortable sharing as long as the actions you take eventually lead to a knife-wielding man charging you from 50' away. After contemplation, do you think 3 seconds is a lot of time to draw your weapon, aim a shot at the legs of a moving target without endangering any bystanders and avoid being hurt if you miss or only slightly wound the person? Is it presidential or naive? Stupid or something to be trained on by every police officer in the country?
And I will tell you no again. "Okay okay, but seriously, I want an answer to someone else's hypothetical because I'm TRYING to set up this awesome gotcha but no one is taking the bait!" is no way to participate in a conversation.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 06:38 AM   #468
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,576
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
When Trump is being lambasted all over for being divisive and pro-riot, that sure is the proper time to project that onto Biden. (...) That's some weapons grade gas-lighting there!
It is DARVO. Same as with infamous "Obama is narcist". This was in reaction to claim "Trump is narcist". And nothing more.
Any factualness in "Obama is narcist" does not matter. Only thing that matters is accusing your opponent of same thing regardless of if this makes any sense at all. And I am quite sure people peddling that "Obama is narcist" nonsense know very well they are lying and making up things. Amateur propagandists.

My general policy about posts/tweets/texts/articles/whatever by republicans is already for long time same as for crazies, cranks, neo-nazis, commies, religious nutjobs and other very fine people. Assume it is all lies unless proven otherwise (though I don't hold breath on that "unless").
This ideology is already irreversibly rotten to the core and it is inevitable Americans will sooner or latter need to deal with it like Americans dealt with their spiritual predecessors in first civil war or humanity dealt with their spiritual brothers in second world war - hopefully with same outcome.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 07:18 AM   #469
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,848
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
It is DARVO. Same as with infamous "Obama is narcist". This was in reaction to claim "Trump is narcist". And nothing more.
Nah, the right was calling Obama a narcissist way before Trump was a viable candidate.
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 08:04 AM   #470
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,576
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
Nah, the right was calling Obama a narcissist way before Trump was a viable candidate.
I encountered it only in context of comparing Trump to Obama, though to be fair, said exposure was only this board.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 08:17 AM   #471
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
Nah, the right was calling Obama a narcissist way before Trump was a viable candidate.
I always wondered why he didn't decline the Nobel Peace Prize.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 08:34 AM   #472
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I always wondered why he didn't decline the Nobel Peace Prize.
He was too humble to presume to contradict them.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 10:15 AM   #473
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I always wondered why he didn't decline the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yeah, but you also "wondered" why Michelle Obama wasn't wearing a mask 2 years before Covid-19 existed. Your threshold for finding if something is bad that the Obamas did (or Biden, or Clinton, or anyone else with "D" after their name) is apparently far, far lower than what it takes for you to find fault with Trump.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 10:20 AM   #474
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Yeah, but you also "wondered" why Michelle Obama wasn't wearing a mask 2 years before Covid-19 existed. Your threshold for finding if something is bad that the Obamas did (or Biden, or Clinton, or anyone else with "D" after their name) is apparently far, far lower than what it takes for you to find fault with Trump.
If Trump had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize immediately after winning a presidential election, I would be the first to say he didn't earn it and shouldn't accept it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 10:41 AM   #475
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Yeah, but you also "wondered" why Michelle Obama wasn't wearing a mask 2 years before Covid-19 existed. Your threshold for finding if something is bad that the Obamas did (or Biden, or Clinton, or anyone else with "D" after their name) is apparently far, far lower than what it takes for you to find fault with Trump.



Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If Trump had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize immediately after winning a presidential election, I would be the first to say he didn't earn it and shouldn't accept it.

That's a pretty safe claim for you to make simply because you know damn well you'll never be challenged on it by reality.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 11:11 AM   #476
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
That's a pretty safe claim for you to make simply because you know damn well you'll never be challenged on it by reality. : rolleyes :
I admit it's a lot safer than an Obama voter claiming that Obama didn't earn the Peace Prize and shouldn't have accepted it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 11:22 AM   #477
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If Trump had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize immediately after winning a presidential election, I would be the first to say he didn't earn it and shouldn't accept it.
Trump and Nobel Peace Prize go together like oil and water. On the other hand, the Nobel Committee decided Obama did deserve it. Of course, the Committee could have been taken over by the Deep State or paid off or blackmailed or possessed by demons.
Quote:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 11:24 AM   #478
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If Trump had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize immediately after winning a presidential election, I would be the first to say he didn't earn it and shouldn't accept it.
Ok. It must be my google-fu, but I can't find you pointing out that Trump didn't deserve it when he was making headlines claiming that he had been nominated and did deserve it.

Like I said, funny how that works.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 11:25 AM   #479
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I admit it's a lot safer than an Obama voter claiming that Obama didn't earn the Peace Prize and shouldn't have accepted it.

And yet you routinely defend a "president" who, when a veteran gave his own purple heart to Trump, Trump responded, "I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier".

You know, it's almost as though your judgment is based entirely on partisanship without any regard whatsoever to actual merit.

But you would never stoop to that level, now would you?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2020, 11:26 AM   #480
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Ok. It must be my google-fu, but I can't find you pointing out that Trump didn't deserve it when he was making headlines claiming that he had been nominated and did deserve it.

Like I said, funny how that works.

Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

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 02:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.