|
Post by robeiae on Oct 16, 2020 9:03:44 GMT -5
No, no, no, no. Goddammit, it's stuff like this that really makes me question Biden, whether or not I can vote for him: reason.com/2020/10/15/joe-biden-townhall-cops-shoot-in-the-leg/He's got to know better than this, he just has to. Saying "we should disarm the police" is ten times more legitimate than this "shoot 'em in the leg" nonsense. And he's said this multiple times. Is there no one on his staff who realizes how utterly stupid this is? Or does he, do other actually think this is a viable idea?!?!
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 16, 2020 14:31:23 GMT -5
I don't have a link handy to provide a citation, but I know this isn't the first time he's made this dumb suggestion. If I recall correctly, he also said this toward the end of the primaries and/or around the early days of the Floyd/BLM protests.
Given that, I think it's actually something he thinks is a reasonable idea that makes sense (at least to him).
A better response would be that all police should be armed with non-lethal weapons/deterrents (tazers, pepper bullets, etc.) that they MUST use first, and only use deadly firearms as a last resort. If the first instinct of so many cops is to shoot first and cover up ask questions later, then it'd be much better if the first thing they (often) recklessly shoot was non-lethal.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 16, 2020 15:24:50 GMT -5
If "shoot 'em in the leg" becomes a legitimate procedure, then a cop could pump a couple rounds into a suspect's legs at any time, right? If someone complains about the use of unnecessary or deadly force, the cop would have a ready-made defense (even when a suspect died from getting shot in the leg, which is actually quite possible).
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 16, 2020 16:32:56 GMT -5
Like I said, it seems to make sense to him but people like you and me still have functioning brains and can see the myriad reasons it's a stupid idea on its face.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 16, 2020 17:03:08 GMT -5
Right. But I guess I'm surprised no one around him has set him straight. Or maybe they've just decided that no matter how stupid an idea it really is, there are enough morons out there who think it's a "thoughtful take"? Nah, that can't be it....
Regardless, it makes me question Biden's fitness to serve.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 16, 2020 18:49:10 GMT -5
Perhaps they have tried and every time they bring it up, he says something like, "C'mon, man! That's malarkey! You ain't black! You wanna fight? I'll challenge you to a push up contest and I'll win!"
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 17, 2020 20:59:19 GMT -5
I don't have a link handy to provide a citation, but I know this isn't the first time he's made this dumb suggestion. If I recall correctly, he also said this toward the end of the primaries and/or around the early days of the Floyd/BLM protests. Given that, I think it's actually something he thinks is a reasonable idea that makes sense (at least to him). A better response would be that all police should be armed with non-lethal weapons/deterrents (tazers, pepper bullets, etc.) that they MUST use first, and only use deadly firearms as a last resort. If the first instinct of so many cops is to shoot first and cover up ask questions later, then it'd be much better if the first thing they (often) recklessly shoot was non-lethal. The problem with that is if the tazer, pepper bullets, etc, didn't work, they now have to drop whatever they used, pull out their firearm, and shoot again. It might make sense in certain circumstances. If someone is shooting at you, it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 17, 2020 22:14:37 GMT -5
I don't have a link handy to provide a citation, but I know this isn't the first time he's made this dumb suggestion. If I recall correctly, he also said this toward the end of the primaries and/or around the early days of the Floyd/BLM protests. Given that, I think it's actually something he thinks is a reasonable idea that makes sense (at least to him). A better response would be that all police should be armed with non-lethal weapons/deterrents (tazers, pepper bullets, etc.) that they MUST use first, and only use deadly firearms as a last resort. If the first instinct of so many cops is to shoot first and cover up ask questions later, then it'd be much better if the first thing they (often) recklessly shoot was non-lethal. The problem with that is if the tazer, pepper bullets, etc, didn't work, they now have to drop whatever they used, pull out their firearm, and shoot again. It might make sense in certain circumstances. If someone is shooting at you, it doesn't. Why not? It seems to work fine in most other western countries. The issue with what you're suggesting, and what we have now, is that cops pull out their deadly firearms in nearly every confrontation. Somebody's acting all crazy like they're high or mentally disturbed? Pull out your gun and probably shoot them. Somebody's weilding a pocket knife? Pull out your gun and probably shoot them. Somebody's running around in your general direction with no visible weapons at all? Pull out your gun and probably shoot them. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. A real-life, deadly version of the " law of the hammer." I'm not saying they shouldn't also carry letal firearms. Obviously it would be stupid if they weren't allowed to. But not every situation, even one where weapons are involved, is life-threatening for the cops especially when they outnumber a suspect. Cops should stop treating them / acting like they all are life-threatening. What I'm saying is that perhaps fewer people would get shot and killed if the first weapon cops reached for was non-lethal. When cops are interacting with the public, reaching for the deadliest weapon should be the last option, not the first (as it currently is).
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 18, 2020 1:59:40 GMT -5
But not every situation, even one where weapons are involved, is life-threatening for the cops Yeah, I think this is a really key point often missing in debates on whether this or that police shooting was justified. Someone having a gun is sometimes offered up as ipso facto evidence that a shooting was justified, yet there's obviously a natural tension between that assumption and--on the other hand--the assumption that guns make people safer. (And oftentimes you find people who somehow hold both of those assumptions simultaneously. )
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 18, 2020 8:26:40 GMT -5
One thing I think we should do is bring back revolvers. This unloading of clips at suspects is a big problem imo, not only with regard to killing suspects, but also with regard to injuring/killing bystanders and, in fact, other officers.
Does that mean that sometimes suspects will have better weapons? Absolutely. So what? Part of the job. And there's nothing wrong with having a weapon with a clip in the trunk, locked until absolutely needed.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 18, 2020 18:59:16 GMT -5
The problem with that is if the tazer, pepper bullets, etc, didn't work, they now have to drop whatever they used, pull out their firearm, and shoot again. It might make sense in certain circumstances. If someone is shooting at you, it doesn't. Why not? It seems to work fine in most other western countries. The issue with what you're suggesting, and what we have now, is that cops pull out their deadly firearms in nearly every confrontation. Somebody's acting all crazy like they're high or mentally disturbed? Pull out your gun and probably shoot them. Somebody's weilding a pocket knife? Pull out your gun and probably shoot them. Somebody's running around in your general direction with no visible weapons at all? Pull out your gun and probably shoot them. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. A real-life, deadly version of the " law of the hammer." I'm not saying they shouldn't also carry letal firearms. Obviously it would be stupid if they weren't allowed to. But not every situation, even one where weapons are involved, is life-threatening for the cops especially when they outnumber a suspect. Cops should stop treating them / acting like they all are life-threatening. What I'm saying is that perhaps fewer people would get shot and killed if the first weapon cops reached for was non-lethal. When cops are interacting with the public, reaching for the deadliest weapon should be the last option, not the first (as it currently is). Your suggestion is that it always be illegal to use their lethal fire arm first. That might make sense in a lot of situations, but not all. If you have someone who is acting crazy, but is either unarmed or at least not armed with a gun, it may be fine. But if the person is actively shooting at you? You want them to expose themselves to get off a shot with say a taser, which may miss, or bounce off their leather jacket, or whatever, then drop the taser and then, and only then, go for the gun? To me, once you fire on cops, all bets are off. It's different with the specific situations you mentioned. High or mentally disturbed? Pocket knife? Running around in your general direction? Sure, I get why we should want cops to use non-lethal force in those situations. But someone is actively firing at you?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 18, 2020 21:09:37 GMT -5
Firstly, I never said it should be "illegal." You're strawmanning.
Secondly, the situations that I described happen in a much greater frequency than the ones you described. I'm sure concessions could be made for active shooter situations, but those are relatively pretty rare as a proportion of all cop-citizen encounters.
Again, as I stated above:
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 19, 2020 7:05:05 GMT -5
A better response would be that all police should be armed with non-lethal weapons/deterrents (tazers, pepper bullets, etc.) that they MUST use first, and only use deadly firearms as a last resort. If the first instinct of so many cops is to shoot first and cover up ask questions later, then it'd be much better if the first thing they (often) recklessly shoot was non-lethal. I disagree that it was a strawman arguement. I was responding to this. Bolding, italics, and underlining mine. It was a simple and I feel reasonable reading of what you wrote. Maybe you simply used the word must and intended it to mean something besides a regulation that stipulates that they cannot use a lethal forced option until they have exhausted non-lethal methods first, but there's nothing there to suggest otherwise. I don't see anything to indicate that you meant in some cases. Again, you didn't write the legislation so perhaps your language wasn't as exact. I'm trying not to make assumptions. Also, I don't know that active shooters are far less than the other situations as much as we don't hear about them. (I also don't know that your incorrect there. (Hard to drum up outrage that a cop shot and killed someone who was firing at them. I'm not sure if I like the use of the term 'concession' here either. Like, "Oh, alright. I suppose if the guy has already fired on you with a submachine gun, and you've seen your partner turned to swiss cheese just as they got out of the car, you can use your gun without trying the tazer on the guy who is too far away to hit with it." More specific language would be needed. It's difficult to create a set of rules to tell police what limits you want to place on them in regards to use of force they can use in the field to safeguard their own life. If law or regulation makes a cop feel handcuffed that he or she is unable to use their own judgement, or common sense, that defending their lives is seen a a criminal defense, you'll see cops stop responding to 'shots fired' calls. Having said all of that, I think in cases where no gun is involved it's reasonable to tell cops they have to use non lethal options first. Especially if they have another cop covering them with a gun. You idea in general isn't one I find objectional, it's the wording of it.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 19, 2020 7:29:14 GMT -5
I disagree that it was a strawman arguement. I was responding to this. Bolding, italics, and underlining mine. It was a simple and I feel reasonable reading of what you wrote. Maybe you simply used the word must and intended it to mean something besides a regulation that stipulates that they cannot use a lethal forced option until they have exhausted non-lethal methods first, but there's nothing there to suggest otherwise. I don't see anything to indicate that you meant in some cases. Again, you didn't write the legislation so perhaps your language wasn't as exact. I'm trying not to make assumptions. If it wasn't a strawman, then I can only surmise that you either don't know what "illegal" means, or perhaps you don't know how jobs work. If my boss says that, as part of my required job duties/expectations, that I "must" clock in by 9:00 AM and I don't do it, that's not a law. That's a job regulation/requirement. If I break that regulation, I get fired. I don't go to jail. This is just a preachy rant that ignores both what I said and the obvious spirit in which I said it. Seems you agree with me and you're only finding my wording "objectionable" because you didn't take care to pay attention to what I actually said and instead imputed your own biases on it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 19, 2020 7:47:59 GMT -5
Alright, fireworks!
I think that there is always a fair amount of trepidation from people who tend to support the police out of hand, whenever anyone suggests any sort of limitation on the ability of police to respond. And I actually think that's understandable, to some extent. There are really bad people out there, serious scumbags who won't bat an eye if they hurt or even kill another person. No one wants to get killed while they're doing their job, after all. And frankly, there isn't enough money in the world that would get me to do some of the stuff that cops do on a routine basis.
But...I also think that the proliferation of guns with increased lethality, coupled with the general increase in population (which means increased population density), and therefore a general increase in crime of every sort has created a set of circumstances that modern police forces have adapted to poorly. Rather than approaching these new circumstances as something very different than the past, police forces have just "evolved" simplistically: they've grown on size, they've improved their weaponry, and so on. They haven't really taken a hard look at methodology, imo.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% opposed to "defund the police," and I think the idea that police officers should put their lives at risk by somehow not being allowed to use their weapons when threatened by a violent suspect is ridiculous. Still, there are too many cases where the cops should have done, could have done much better than they did. And--to me--it appears that part of why they did so poorly is because they used their weapons as a first resort.
|
|