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 1st January 2018, 04:40 AM   #281
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,505
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Yes. When he reaches for the gun, given the distance and the limit of such things as rubber bullets and tasers, it is the minimal force needed.
The gun that wasn't there, you mean. As some upthread said, how is an innocent targeted in such circumstances to know not to reach for something they didn't have? And let's not kid ourselves that these goalposts aren't movable. It seems that just about any possible movement a suspect can make - or even a lack of movement when ordered to do something - can be retrospectively deemed to be "threatening" if it results in them getting shot whilst unarmed.
Information Analyst 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 1st January 2018, 04:52 AM   #282
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,505
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Oh well that solves the problem then; American police aren't proper professionals because they never asked "What would they do in Australia where guns are for the most part banned and an armed hostage situation is extremely unlikely rather than a daily occurrence like it is here?" when drafting their departmental procedures on how to respond to self-reported active shooters. I guess all we have to do is import some proper professionals from the right countries.
Presumably you have some figures to back that up?
Information Analyst 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 1st January 2018, 05:07 AM   #283
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 38,817
Originally Posted by 332nd View Post
Is it illegal to drop your hands to your belt line?
Not just illegal. The penalty is instant summary execution.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 1st January 2018, 05:09 AM   #284
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 38,817
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Any risk above zero is a failure by the police.
No. It's about risk management.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 1st January 2018, 05:11 AM   #285
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 38,817
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
How about a better one.

You go to a female friends house, a neighbor says "thank god you are here, someone just broke in and is raping her. " you hear noises inside but the door is locked.

Are you responsible if you break down the door? What if you stopped the person " raping" her and find out it was a prank?are you responsible for that?

Police go into a call base on information given. It's all they have.
Then they assess the situation.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 1st January 2018, 06:09 AM   #286
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
An innocent person was shot to death. That means that a deadly risk was not guarded against, which means that their risk assessment was incorrect. And every time someone says that the police officer who shot him had to shoot the moment he thought there might be a gun, they're admitting that another deadly risk - that of the police officer being too close and out of cover - was also not properly considered. Their risk assessment, if they actually bothered to do one, was a steaming pile of crap. The fact that somebody died in such a senseless way is irrefutable evidence.

Dave
This is not true. A risk guarded against does not always reduce the risk to zero. The risk assessment may have concluded the time available made their position the least risky option.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 06:10 AM   #287
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
No. It's about risk management.
No, it is not. They cannot be trusted with risk management.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 06:11 AM   #288
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Not just illegal. The penalty is instant summary execution.
There isn't a penalty. The officer acted in self defense.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 06:13 AM   #289
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,443
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There isn't a penalty. The officer acted in self defense.
..to a non-existant threat.
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando 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 1st January 2018, 06:13 AM   #290
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 38,817
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No, it is not. They cannot be trusted with risk management.
No cops at all then. Is that what you were angling at?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 1st January 2018, 06:17 AM   #291
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,761
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This is not true. A risk guarded against does not always reduce the risk to zero. The risk assessment may have concluded the time available made their position the least risky option.
Or they may have not bothered with a risk assessment and just gone in unprepared. But if someone dies in such obviously unnecessary circumstances, it's impossible to argue that a proper risk assessment was carried out effectively. This is a Never Happen event, and could easily have been prevented.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 1st January 2018, 06:21 AM   #292
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The gun that wasn't there, you mean. As some upthread said, how is an innocent targeted in such circumstances to know not to reach for something they didn't have? And let's not kid ourselves that these goalposts aren't movable. It seems that just about any possible movement a suspect can make - or even a lack of movement when ordered to do something - can be retrospectively deemed to be "threatening" if it results in them getting shot whilst unarmed.
In engaged in two different conversations here.

One is how I'm arguing police simply should not have permission to shoot until a weapon is present. If there isn't a weapon after the fact, then it is should Elbe a crime with no permitted defense.

The other is why qualitative rules like "use risk assessment" doesn't permit holding their feet to the fire.

Reviewer: "you were supposed to use risk assessment."

Officer: "I did."

R: "what about X, y , and z? If you considered those, this wouldn't have happened."

O: "I considered those and reached a different conclusion on best strategy."

Can you say he didn't?
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 06:23 AM   #293
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by erlando View Post
..to a non-existant threat.
Which is neither a penalty nor a death warrant. It's bad, but we should use better terminology.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 06:31 AM   #294
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Cool

Originally Posted by erlando View Post
..to a non-existant threat.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Or they may have not bothered with a risk assessment and just gone in unprepared. But if someone dies in such obviously unnecessary circumstances, it's impossible to argue that a proper risk assessment was carried out effectively. This is a Never Happen event, and could easily have been prevented.

Dave
It is very possible to say a proper risk assessment was carried out. Just because a qualitative strategy reaches a different conclusion than you doesn't mean it was done wrong. And the benefit of shooting someone in the process is that it becomes a criminal issue. The cops can now use lawyers (which wouldn't happen at my job for a debrief on what went wrong). They can now simply have the lawyers write what decisions were made with available evidence and how it followed all the principles laid out.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 07:23 AM   #295
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,701
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
In Scotland there would be a check made of all police systems to gather intelligence on the house and anyone likely to be inside. So, for example, a report is made of illegal guns in a house. If a check of all systems finds that there is nothing to back that claim up and the householder is not involved in any crime, instead of a firearms raid, a couple of unarmed cops will go and speak to the householder and request a check is made.

Any report made that could lead to a house search/raid has to be preceded by intelligence gathering as a way of assessing the credibility of the initial report.

I would not be surprised at all if in the USA that is often missed out. The culture is to shoot first and ask questions later.

To be fair, this situation is quite a bit different from a report of illegal guns in a house. The call was about an active event that had supposedly already resulted in a death, with more deaths being threatened. The level of urgency would be much higher.

That said, someone should have been gathering whatever information they could while officers were on their way. Maybe they were, and it wasn't useful, but the detail about the number of floors could have easily been confirmed by someone with Google Maps, or even confirmed with the officers on scene. That alone would have (should have) sent up a red flag.

The failures on multiple levels here indicate a problem. And just like those intermittent pains you feel every now and then, it may be a symptom of a very serious problem.
Cl1mh4224rd 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 1st January 2018, 07:32 AM   #296
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,814
The intelligence gathering on an address in Scotland if there is a report of a hostage situation;

1 -the Command and Control system has a "tile" which will show any previosu calls to the address.
2 - any names given will go through the PNC to see if there is a firearms certificate registered to that person, or any warning signal, in particular violence, weapons or alleges (as in known for hoax calls or false allegations).
3 - those names will also go through Crime Management, the Intelligance database and Vulnerable Persons database to see if there is anything to suggest the call is real or a hoax and what level of risk the suspect actually poses.

That will be ongoing as police attend, initially to corden and contain and the the main priority will not be armed officers making the first approach, it will be a trained negotiator who makes that approach. If there is a phone number known, the house can be called, or else the old loudhailer comes into use.

The procedure here is to ask questions first and lots of them.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie 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 1st January 2018, 07:37 AM   #297
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The intelligence gathering on an address in Scotland if there is a report of a hostage situation;

1 -the Command and Control system has a "tile" which will show any previosu calls to the address.
2 - any names given will go through the PNC to see if there is a firearms certificate registered to that person, or any warning signal, in particular violence, weapons or alleges (as in known for hoax calls or false allegations).
3 - those names will also go through Crime Management, the Intelligance database and Vulnerable Persons database to see if there is anything to suggest the call is real or a hoax and what level of risk the suspect actually poses.

That will be ongoing as police attend, initially to corden and contain and the the main priority will not be armed officers making the first approach, it will be a trained negotiator who makes that approach. If there is a phone number known, the house can be called, or else the old loudhailer comes into use.

The procedure here is to ask questions first and lots of them.
See, this is a no-BS procedure. This isn't "apply 10 principles" garbage.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 08:09 AM   #298
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,835
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
To be fair, this situation is quite a bit different from a report of illegal guns in a house. The call was about an active event that had supposedly already resulted in a death, with more deaths being threatened. The level of urgency would be much higher.

That said, someone should have been gathering whatever information they could while officers were on their way. Maybe they were, and it wasn't useful, but the detail about the number of floors could have easily been confirmed by someone with Google Maps, or even confirmed with the officers on scene. That alone would have (should have) sent up a red flag.

The failures on multiple levels here indicate a problem. And just like those intermittent pains you feel every now and then, it may be a symptom of a very serious problem.
Yes, although an illegal gun in the UK would be treated as a significantly more serious offence than the US and the chances of someone possessing one without criminal intent is lower.

There's a massive 'excluded middle' in the defense of this shooting in which it's being framed as if the choices were to accept the call or ignore the information completely (I'm not talking about you here btw) with silly analogies like sending an ambulance to a call, but of course it is possible to respond to a call prepared for the worse case scenario but take steps to confirm the situation before escalating to deadly force.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer 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 1st January 2018, 08:17 AM   #299
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,127
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There isn't a penalty. The officer acted in self defense.
To what?
Craig4 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 1st January 2018, 08:20 AM   #300
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,814
Too many US police forces have militarised and are desparate to use their firepower.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie 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 1st January 2018, 08:22 AM   #301
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,443
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
See, this is a no-BS procedure. This isn't "apply 10 principles" garbage.
They are not mutually exclusive. In fact both should be used.
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando 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 1st January 2018, 08:24 AM   #302
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
To what?
That is what makes it a bad use of self defense. But that doesn't make it into the cop enforcing a penalty.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 08:26 AM   #303
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by erlando View Post
They are not mutually exclusive. In fact both should be used.
The principles should be stripped of all their qualitative and judgement elements and made into procedure.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 08:43 AM   #304
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,951
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward
There isn't a penalty. The officer acted in self defense.
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
To what?
And this is the fallback positions used by both the police and their apologist; the really odd idea that a police shooting is justified not if there is a threat, not if there's a possibility of a threat, but if the situation hasn't proven that a threat is a total impossibility.

A cop responding a threat with lethal force, fine.
A cop responding to a potential threat with lethal force, perhaps depending on exact circumstances.
A cop responding to a very possibility of a threat with lethal force... bad but if it was just a very rare occurrence it would be not forgivable but at least understandable. Even in stuff of this seriousnss and magnitude "**** happens" can be invoked if the events stay rare and uncommon enough to be statistically insignificant.
But the apologist want to go one step further and make it so a cop is always, always not only justified in but almost sort of required to act with lethal force if the situation hasn't proven threat free enough with "enough" being an impossible goal; don't move, don't breathe, show your id without someone moving toward your pocket or waistband, don't twitch, don't move too slow, don't move too fast, don't approach the cop, don't run from the cop, hope to hell none of your pets or family members make a motion or noise, you can always rationalize a reason a threat was possible after the fact.

It's textbook "Shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)" I'm amazed that there are people for whom the utter absurdity of this isn't obvious; expecting people to be able to prove a negative at moment's notice with zero context in every interaction with the police to their unspecified level of satisifaction under threat of death.

In the framework being used police could just walk down the street shooting everyone with backpack under the logic that the possibility that they had a weapon existed and couldn't be proven otherwise.

The fact that for so many people in this thread the fact that after all was said and done the suspect didn't actually have a gun is just a total non-factor that doesn't matter, acting annoyed that we're even bringing it up as if it's some minor nitpicking detail, is incomprehensible.
__________________
"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 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 1st January 2018, 08:56 AM   #305
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
And this is the fallback positions used by both the police and their apologist; the really odd idea that a police shooting is justified not if there is a threat, not if there's a possibility of a threat, but if the situation hasn't proven that a threat is a total impossibility.

A cop responding a threat with lethal force, fine.
A cop responding to a potential threat with lethal force, perhaps depending on exact circumstances.
A cop responding to a very possibility of a threat with lethal force... bad but if it was just a very rare occurrence it would be not forgivable but at least understandable. Even in stuff of this seriousnss and magnitude "**** happens" can be invoked if the events stay rare and uncommon enough to be statistically insignificant.
But the apologist want to go one step further and make it so a cop is always, always not only justified in but almost sort of required to act with lethal force if the situation hasn't proven threat free enough with "enough" being an impossible goal; don't move, don't breathe, show your id without someone moving toward your pocket or waistband, don't twitch, don't move too slow, don't move too fast, don't approach the cop, don't run from the cop, hope to hell none of your pets or family members make a motion or noise, you can always rationalize a reason a threat was possible after the fact.

It's textbook "Shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)" I'm amazed that there are people for whom the utter absurdity of this isn't obvious; expecting people to be able to prove a negative at moment's notice with zero context in every interaction with the police to their unspecified level of satisifaction under threat of death.

In the framework being used police could just walk down the street shooting everyone with backpack under the logic that the possibility that they had a weapon existed and couldn't be proven otherwise.

The fact that for so many people in this thread the fact that after all was said and done the suspect didn't actually have a gun is just a total non-factor that doesn't matter, acting annoyed that we're even bringing it up as if it's some minor nitpicking detail, is incomprehensible.
By the law, it is a nitpicking detail. By the law and what the law should be are different topics.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 10:37 AM   #306
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,879
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Cops who already have a subject in their sights, aimed at, have a huge advantage over someone with a gun tucked into their waist band behind their back.

Why is it so risky that the cops cannot wait to see if a hand movement actually results in a gun appearing from behind the back?
Because one end of the gun projects these little metal things that travel real fast and are not very nice.

Ask a basic question get a basic answer.
sadhatter 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 1st January 2018, 10:40 AM   #307
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,879
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Then they assess the situation.
In which someone appears to be going for a weapon.

Mistakes get people killed, whether we are talking driving, hunting, welding or dealing with an intense police situation.
sadhatter 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 1st January 2018, 10:43 AM   #308
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,879
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
To what?
A perceived threat.

I hate this "ask a super basic question to bog down debate" crap.

What's next "how do they know he physically could have fired a gun?"
sadhatter 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 1st January 2018, 10:54 AM   #309
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,443
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
A perceived threat.

I hate this "ask a super basic question to bog down debate" crap.
But this is basically the debate. Is it acceptable for a law enforcement officer to use a perceived threat as an excuse to use lethal force? "I thought he was going for a gun" sounds hollow as hell when afterwards no gun is found to have been present.
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando 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 1st January 2018, 10:58 AM   #310
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,443
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
In which someone appears to be going for a weapon.

Mistakes get people killed, whether we are talking driving, hunting, welding or dealing with an intense police situation.
There you go again with the victim blaming. The mistake lies solely on the cop killing the innocent man.
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando 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 1st January 2018, 10:58 AM   #311
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,951
Again you can't make "Well in the end he didn't really have a gun" into some minor nitpicking side detail we're unreasonable for bringing up.

The fact that the guy didn't have a gun is sort of a major factor in all this, requiring the extreme police apologetic side to jump through smaller and smaller hoops to invent after the fact justifications for why it's the guy's fault through infinite "If had did done /not done...."

Answer me this question. In what possible scenario can a police officer perceive a threat and be wrong. Because if you can't answer that you are simply giving them a blank check.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 1st January 2018 at 10:59 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 1st January 2018, 10:58 AM   #312
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,761
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Mistakes get people killed, whether we are talking driving, hunting, welding or dealing with an intense police situation.
However, people can choose not to drive, hunt or weld.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 1st January 2018, 11:05 AM   #313
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,210
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
In which someone appears to be going for a weapon.

Mistakes get people killed, whether we are talking driving, hunting, welding or dealing with an intense police situation.

Well that's the problem. Why should the (supposedly) trained professional cop get more leeway to make a mistake than a civilian?
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd 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 1st January 2018, 11:17 AM   #314
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 21,393
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
A perceived threat.

<snip>

Which is too low a bar.

Cop hallucinates non-existent threat ... is fully justified in blasting away without any attempt to verify any facts.

This on top of a complete lack of responsibility for making basic efforts to approach the situation with care, taking steps to assess and evaluate the actual conditions before applying deadly force.

When this is considered acceptable SOP what isn't a surprise is that innocent people get killed. What is a surprise is that it doesn't happen more often.

What is truly discouraging is the number of cop-groupie apologists who see nothing wrong with this state of affairs, and write it off as perfectly reasonable and almost inevitably the fault of the victim.

Certainly never the fault of the out-of-control, adrenaline-soaked cops playing macho TV character to each other with their testosterone inducing toys.

Policing as a hellish combination of The Naked Gun and Rambo, only in real life.

That's what "perceived" gives us.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
***********************************************
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow
quadraginta 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 1st January 2018, 11:18 AM   #315
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
How's about this then? You call the the Local Court House instead of 911- You deserve to die? That should solve everything ...
That touches on another strange aspect of this case. Why did the Court House take this call at all? Why didn't they say: "Sorry, for emergencies call 911. Good day <click>" ?
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about AnjezŽ Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt 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 1st January 2018, 11:19 AM   #316
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Again you can't make "Well in the end he didn't really have a gun" into some minor nitpicking side detail we're unreasonable for bringing up.

The fact that the guy didn't have a gun is sort of a major factor in all this, requiring the extreme police apologetic side to jump through smaller and smaller hoops to invent after the fact justifications for why it's the guy's fault through infinite "If had did done /not done...."

Answer me this question. In what possible scenario can a police officer perceive a threat and be wrong. Because if you can't answer that you are simply giving them a blank check.
They pretty much have a blank check.
BobTheCoward 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 1st January 2018, 11:23 AM   #317
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,776
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
In which someone appears to be going for a weapon.
....
Why is that the presumption? Why isn't it at least equally likely that someone lowering his hands could be reaching for his wallet, pulling up his pants, holding the rail as he walks down the stairs, etc., etc.? Why aren't cops expected to be sure of what's happening before they open fire? And if they say, "Well, that's more risk for me," what about the risk to the innocent guy who gets unjustly slaughtered?
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 1st January 2018, 11:31 AM   #318
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 45,035
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Why is that the presumption? Why isn't it at least equally likely that someone lowering his hands could be reaching for his wallet, pulling up his pants, holding the rail as he walks down the stairs, etc., etc.? Why aren't cops expected to be sure of what's happening before they open fire? And if they say, "Well, that's more risk for me," what about the risk to the innocent guy who gets unjustly slaughtered?
Because it's war. The police are soldiers, and the public are the enemy.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey 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 1st January 2018, 11:55 AM   #319
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,127
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That is what makes it a bad use of self defense. But that doesn't make it into the cop enforcing a penalty.
The distinction is meaningless; the man is dead and he wasn't reaching for a gun.
Craig4 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 1st January 2018, 12:02 PM   #320
Toke
Godless Socialist
 
Toke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 8,168
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Yes.

1 - punish the cops who shoot unarmed people in raids.
2 -train cops to be better at responding to apparent threats such as going for a concealed gun tucked in the back waistband. I know there are training set ups where cops can practice their reactions to people suddenly appearing or producing items in the hands, from the old fashioned cuts outs that spring into view, to modern VR set ups.
3 - a requirement to gather intelligence on a house prior to a raid. If there is nothing to back up the initial report that there is a hostage situation, the police approach should not be as extreme as if there is. If there is no intelligence of issues with that household an initial approach by cops to check shoud be done first. That should be combined with 4
4 -a verification check of the call made claiming there is a hostage situation in the first place. Ensure that the person calling is properly identified and located and if that cannot be done, it must be assumed this may be a hoax and the initail approach should be scaled down.
It would also require cooperation from the police, who seem just fine with current arrangement.
My idea can be implemented from outside/above by either private citizens* or federal regulating agency.



Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Because it's war. The police are soldiers, and the public are the enemy.
And not bothering with any of that rules of engagement BS the real soldiers have to follow.

*Anonymous, 4chan or such
__________________
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

Toke 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 11:34 AM.
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.