Except it doesn't match your expectations. I am going to repeat this for you again. What Minx cited, limited as it was, was not about who gets stopped. It was about who the police used force against AFTER a stop was made. It completely bypasses the profiling issue altogether because that step wasn't included, it's examining things after that step.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
After the stop people can still be a danger. Men are more likely to be dangerous than women, blacks are more likely than whites to be dangerous. If the police use force rationally, the same logic still applies.
If it was just racism or just sexism then the logic wouldn't apply.
Please provide non-circular support for this claim. I'm perfectly willing to accept that men are more likely to act in a way that causes the police to use force than women are, I am not willing to concede that African-Americans are more likely to do so than whites when stopped, and particularly not that African-American women are almost as likely as white men to do so.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Except that the police assumes a priori that blacks are more dangerous and therefore use force even before anything happens. See the Oklahoma case. The victim "looks like a bad guy". Why? Because he's big and black.
Hope is the denial of reality
Big black guys are more likely to be dangerous than puny white women so assuming that they are more dangerous is rational.
You put me in a dark alley and give me a loaded weapon then put me face to face with a lion and face to face with a hamster then I'm more likely to shoot the lion than the hamster. Even if the lion was not attacking.
If the police are worried about being shot, as you claim they are, the physical size of the person doesn't make any difference to how much of a danger they are.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
And you'd be fined for animal cruelty. I'd hope that shooting a human being would get you a bigger punishment.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'd only be fined if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I had no right to self defence.
If the lion was running at me and I shot it I don't think a court in the world would convict. I wouldn't need to wait until it was a second away from killing me before I felt in danger.
If the hamster did the same thing I wouldn't shoot.
If a big dog did the same thing I might be more likely to shoot it than the hamster but less likely than the lion.
However to make it a better analogy, if a zoo keeper feels threatened every time a lion looks at him and kills it, he probably shouldn't be a zoo keeper and would get fired.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What is funny is that a good chunk of Americans who feel they need a constitutionally guaranteed gun in their pocket, are the same people who want the police to act like the US is a lawless police state.
Congratulations America
Ironically, or tragically, RB the twitchy zookeeper could probably get a job as a cop:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...-dog-body-cam/
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Now those two are screwed.Ironically, or tragically, RB the twitchy zookeeper could probably get a job as a cop:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...-dog-body-cam/
Because pushing the door back open when they were not invited in was a constitutional violation which robs all their subsequent actions of any ghost of legitimate defense.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
First he pulled the "I'm not touching you" to whitewash the harassment. Now he is playing the "it's coming right for us!" line. This is like reading cheesy southpark fanfic.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Big black guys are more likely to pull the trigger on a cop than a puny white woman is. Though firearms are not the only danger.
"more likely" != "likely", if the difference is risk is 0.01 vs 0.1 then that doesn't exactly justify the pre-emptive killings the US police apparently favour, and that you are currently performing Olympic level mental-gymnastics to try and justify, now does it?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Actually it does justify it. Because not every person in the USA is getting shot, just some, the issue repeatedly raised is the ratio of shootings but if the ratio of risk is higher then the ratio of shootings will rationally also be higher. If the ratio is 0.01 to 0.1 then rationally the ratio of killings of the latter group should be at least 10x higher.
Again if the Police weren't so routinely getting killed or injured then they wouldn't be preemptively shooting either. The root cause of the problem needs tackling not just the symptom.
maybe you glossed over the definition of preemptive, or maybe you don't know it, or maybe you really are this big of an asshole.
but this is not the response of a normal or mentality healthy person.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Randblade, please understand this: there is no amount of bullshit or sophistry you can indulge in that can possibly justify the assertion that the US police officers getting routinely killed or injured (they actually *don't* but never mind) justifies randomly executing young black men on flimsy pretexts.
No amount of ridiculous analogies about animals or red herrings about gender are going to make it ok for the police to, e.g. stop and search a young black man, pin him to the ground because he was 'resisting arrest' (he wasn't) and then shoot him in the back of the head because they felt "threatened" (they weren't).
There is no possible 'bigger picture' or 'root cause' that makes any of this ok or acceptable.
Make that the starting point of your thoughts.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
He'd make a great apologist for dictators. Some Ukrainians supported Hitler; understandable to starve them all to death. Some Kurds rebelled; perfectly ok for Hussein to try to kill them all. Some white guys kill a whole bunch of people throughout the world; perfectly legitimate to use violence against all white people. Oh wait, he wouldn't support the last statement for obvious reasons.
Hope is the denial of reality
How about you recognise the starting point that I've said all along that unacceptable officer-shootings are not OK and that they should be prosecuted? That to further that there should be to make clear what is happening every officer should be made to wear body cameras to record what is happening and use as evidence against either suspect or police officer as the case may be?
While Lewk and I have both been saying we should make the police wear body cams that can and should be used as evidence as to what happened in the incident, there are very few alternative productive proposals other than "waahhh the popo pigs are waycist"
The issue is that there are very few crystal clear wrong shootings and most come in a shade of grey. Shining more light on the matter, compiling more evidence and cutting the risks will all reduce the number of grey shootings, by either shining a light on what happened or better by preventing it in the first place.
This is a good point - what do y'all want? What specific policy proposals do you want to see enacted that both decrease the amount of improper police shootings while not increasing LEO danger and/or increase the crime rate?
mandatory 'de-escalation' training would be a good start. Implementing such training should have always been a requirement. Instead its news when departments finally cave to it.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Indeed.
Preemptive self-defense is legal, if it is reasonably justifiable. The only way it is justifiable is if there is a high enough risk. QED the higher risk is what justifies it.
Considering I used the word "preemptively" in my post and said it was justified I clearly didn't "gloss over" the word.
This is largely a war term (ie: caroline test), as preemptive by definition is a response before self-defense is required. A preemptive shooting would be a cop shooting someone under the anticipation that they may turn violent. Not as a response to them acting like it.
You're basically trying to legalize pre-crime ala minority report, and thats insane.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No I'm talking about situations where a suspect is eg aggressive and irrational and reaches for a pocket and a nervy cop pulls the trigger thinking they are reaching for a gun before the suspect pulls the trigger themselves.
Or even situations where a suspect is armed and dangerous and waving a gun around and is shot even though the suspect hasn't actually pulled the trigger yet.
Taking action before the suspect starts shooting would still be self-defence even if the cop is the first to pull the trigger.
thats not preemptive. Its still poor training for a cop to murder someone before accessing an actual threat though. That goes back to the instutional problems encouraging the current mindset of "us vs them" and "everyone is out to get you".
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's what I meant by preemptive, the cop is preempting the suspect pulling the trigger.
And I'm talking all along about cops that have assessed the threat. That is why all my talk of risk and threat has been relevant. If the cops are not acting rationally and relative to the threats (real or perceived) then there is a problem.
and that could be where your problem is
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote