- Joined
- Mar 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,414
- Reaction score
- 2,119
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
If we end up with the nightmare of President Harris, will bell-bottoms and tie-dye shirts come back?
I'm 63 years old and this is all like deja vu to me. It's like the 60's all over again. Protests everywhere and the cops are the enemy and were called pigs back then.
I agree, bad results come from bad decisions. In this case it was the cops that made the bad decision, which is why they're on the hotseat. I'm sure, given the infallibility of American authority, they'll get exactly what they deserve.
Those officers were wrong to confront him.
In some cities (and surely in crazy San Francisco!), stores have a policy of NOT confronting shoplifters if they steal "only" a minor amount of merchandise.
So just how much did that gentleman steal?
Besides, some people feel that looting (and presumably shoplifting) is a form of reparations.
Hopefully, President Biden will clarify the situation when he takes office in a few months. Maybe he will announce that no one should be confronted if s/he steals less than $1000 in merchandise. If s/he steals more, then a stern letter of reprimand should be respectfully given to that lady or gentleman.
Good god, can you get any more mealy-mouthed ultra-liberal than that? How about this, along with the same pathetic mindset. If the guy is only guilty of attempted rape just let him go, what the hell, no harm no foul.
I believe I understand your frame of mind/reference from other exchanges in similar threads, so I think it safe to assume that you do know that the protesting is about more than just the police, themselves. That there exists in many, but not all, communities here, long term systemic injustice/inequality and racism, and people are fed the **** up with sucking it up.
Agree? Disagree?
And to be clear, I believe that any law abiding protestor who crosses the line to criminal behavior, looting, destroying property, or harming uninvolved innocent citizens should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law.
It isn’t possible to know what would have happened if police tried an alternate method of controlling and taking Steven Taylor into custody. We only know the choice that was made ended Taylor’s life.
From what I’ve been able to find regarding the killing, the first responding officer, Fletcher, didn’t wait for his partner to get in position to back him up or other responding units to arrive to assist, and that at the time Fletcher shot Taylor, Taylor did not represent a a direct or immediate threat to anyone. A factor that weighed heavily on going forward with prosecuting the officer, and may be the deciding factor for many jurors
With no necessity of immediate use of deadly force, Fletcher has no defense, IMO .
The above case aside, now is a very, very difficult time to be a cop in America. The men and women who wear the uniform are expected to be everything from a family counselor to a emergency (often lifesaving) first-aid provider, who also happens to be a law enforcement officer.
Honestly, I believe too much responsibility is being piled on the shoulders of cops, and when they fail in any way (not including wrongful use of lethal force) the public turns on them, before all information is available, and many of them with genuine glee.
Paramedics aren’t required to physically subdue “patients” in order to render aid.
Please share what options.... Let him roam armed through the store? Run away? He chose his justice.
Justice. 1 each. Store pickup at WalMart.
One of my best friends and his wife are both volunteer paramedics. It’s how I know that paramedics are not required to disarm and subdue patients.hehe...you don't know many paramedics, do you...
But, regardless, a paramedic has to be in close contact with a patient in order to render aid. The comment was made in connection to the fact that perhaps the cop didn't want to get close to the suspect, which somehow justifies the use of a gun. No, sorry. Paramedics must be in close bodily contact with patients, and they don't even get a gun. That was why the other guy's comment got dismissed rather quickly.
Which is why I accurately stated that paramedics aren’t required to subdue patients. Probably, I should’ve said “disarm and subdue”, but didn’t think it necessary at the time.It does seem strange that they just didn't rush him and take away the bat. Don't they train for that? I think this GD Covid mess has made them paranoid of touching perps.
Gee, Fled...I dunno... multiple cops, one suspect, armed with just a baseball bat... Actually, given your stance in other areas of the forum, it's not surprising "kill him with a ****ing gun" would be the only option you see here. :roll:
lol...did it ever dawn on you that the fact that you had to go back to 2011 to find this might weaken your slap attempt? :lol: Nice try, but this was actually a very big deal here when it happened. You didn't have a lot of folks coming out to try to defend the bastard.
And I understand the frustration and anger as much as it’s possible for someone who hasn’t had to endure a lifetime of perpetual fear that his liberty or life might be taken for no good reason. Still, even that doesn’t justify the destruction of property (often of those within the protestors own communities) or violence.I'm torn. As one activist put it, the social contract that exists between cops and certain citizens has been broken, why should they respect the law if the folks paid to uphold it don't. It's not the tack I would take, but I understand the reaction. I would feel totally comfortable in saying that I would be for prosecution to the fullest, etc., for anyone looting after demonstrable steps have been taken to address the grievance. If the cops aren't going to act right, why should anyone else? It's not like this just popped out of thin air five minutes ago. Nice has been tried.
I wasn’t ignoring anything by saying “the above case aside”, I was just shifting the focus to an often neglected aspect of the equation that I believe doesn’t get enough attention.You can't put "the above case aside", though...there are too many of these cases to ignore, that's why you have people in the streets.
That said, I agree, the police are being asked to do too much, some have even been brave enough to come out and say so (can find video link, just a bit lazy at the moment, but ask and ye shall receive...hehe). This is what is at the heart of the defund initiative. Cops are asked to do way too much, and that needs to be stopped. This is a complex issue, but what doesn't change is the fact that while we discuss the minutia, folks are being killed unnecessarily by the police.
One of my best friends and his wife are both volunteer paramedics. It’s how I know that paramedics are not required to disarm and subdue patients.
Maybe it’s different in Canada, or even other places in America, but I sincerely doubt it.
And your comment was a reply to this post by iguanaman;
Which is why I accurately stated that paramedics aren’t required to subdue patients. Probably, I should’ve said “disarm and subdue”, but didn’t think it necessary at the time.
And I understand the frustration and anger as much as it’s possible for someone who hasn’t had to endure a lifetime of perpetual fear that his liberty or life might be taken for no good reason. Still, even that doesn’t justify the destruction of property (often of those within the protestors own communities) or violence.
I believe in John Lewis’ “good trouble”, never the “bad” kind that’s happening now.
You could have stopped at "I dunno".
And "just a baseball bat" is rather silly.
The child wasn't a grown man, armed, advancing on officers after being tased twice...
If and only if these cops did make a bad decision it was prompted by the very bad decision of the bad guy. He is solely responsible for the outcome.
Meh...don't act snarky then cry when you get snark in return. I enjoy all forms of writing, and let my discussion partner decide the tone. :shrug:
And what's rather silly is the notion that an outnumbered man with a bat needed to be shot. Again, I ask, what kind of namby pambies do you have on your police force? Thank goodness they're not in the UK:
The Vast Majority of U.K. Police Don'''t Carry Guns. Here'''s Why.
What ever would they do?
Addressed above. He was armed with a bat. You're not going to get much traction with emotional fear mongering to justify the use of deadly force here, especially given the above. Sorry.
And the fact that bad things happen here doesn't mean I don't denounce them equally as hard as when I criticize them in other parts of the world. In fact, quite the opposite. The difference is when they happen in my own country, I don't denounce them from behind the comfort of anonymity. Your whataboutism falls flat as a result. I have no problem saying your example was a gross deviation from what we expect our police to do on our behalf. Why is it so hard for you to say the same about yours? Or do you believe that this black man was so dangerous and scary that the police had to bring guns to a bat fight? Maybe that systemic perception is part of the problem...and by problem, I mean black people being killed disproportionately and inappropriately killed by police.
Cool...so, if you make a bad decision and speed, the cops should be allowed to shoot you?
The offer of a pass is appreciated, but as you were the confused person, unnecessary.lol...I love a guy that pats himself on the back as much as the next guy, but I can assure you, your anecdotal evidence doesn't negate my anecdotal evidence, based on the fact that I have known more than a couple paramedics working in wild neighborhoods, having to help people despite themselves. :lol:
But I can give it a pass, since it's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. It was the "touching peeps" bit the relates to why covid was being blamed on why the police might be "paranoid" about "touching perps", to where a gun might be used instead, which is a bad justification, since paramedics are required to touch people, despite covid. It doesn't matter the manner of the interaction in this example, only the proximity.
I assume that puts this tangent to bed.
Of course all opinions vary. Historically and factually, violence hasn’t and doesn’t change things for the better.Well, I suppose that opinion probably varies, depending on to what extent this has actually been a problem for the one sharing it.I find it very easy to be calm about the subject, because I'm a big white guy. I don't worry about cops as part of a survival instinct. My folks didn't have to have "the talk" with me, about how to survive encounters with the police. My privilege allows me to be more disciplined in my response, because the injustice isn't happening to me. At the end of the day, I go with MLK on this one:
Overburdened police is a significant part of “the glaring problem”.Fair enough. That we ultimately agree makes this an easy concession to make. But not if it leads to diluted accountability. Maybe save the "yeah, but" until after the glaring problem is fixed...we have the luxury of debating and intellectualizing, but people are dead over this. The sense of urgency validates the call to focus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?