Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Stamping out Chauvinism

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It should be noted not every police killing of a white person whose killed by police is justified. 

This is the problem with comparing individual high profile media cases.
For example Tony Tampa died died from a similar amount police brutality as Floyd.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/dallas-police-officers-video-bodycam-tony-timpa

Racist Trends do exist in terms of the frequency of police abuse can’t safely be squared away by “black people commit more crime”

Trends police being more likely to plant evidence on black people than white people.

That doesn’t mean no police has ever planted evidence on white people.

Just that they’re more significantly likely to do it against black people.

I think white people are starting to realize they're in danger too. Sometimes cops shoot you if you call them for help as happened to Justine Damond. I'd say police brutality is out of control across the board--the cops in my town attacked and beat my father when he had early onset alzheimer's because he "seemed threatening and was wearing a hoodie" which they put in their report. And is illegal, so helped with the settlement. The next town over, an elderly woman with dementia who may have been lost was beaten and arrested (on video). Even when they're not killing us, all kinds of unnoticed abuses are happening. 

Edited by Centrist Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I think white people are starting to realize they're in danger too

If they're smart, they are.  Not just by metropolitan police departments, but by every so-called law enforcement organization the US has, and we have even more than we realize,

I will never forget how the state police in Texas treated us, as we got caught by a speed trap -- situated between two hills on the highway. The questions they demanded us to answer, all the rest.  That's just one example.  So far we've been fortunate not being hurt worse than that by cops in Texas and Ohio, who have always been notorious for a$$holery due to Ohio using speeding tix etc. to fund whatever.

I read in the NY Times that the cop who killed the girl is a crack shot.  If that is true,  why shoot to kill, and shoot her that many times, particularly right after the verdict of Chauvin came down?

But at this time we sure don't don't know everything pertinent, so I am withholding judgment, well as much as it's possible for someone like me to do so in such a situation, knowing so well the history cops shooting unarmed black children (and others) in this nation, for way over a century now.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I think white people are starting to realize they're in danger too. Sometimes cops shoot you if you call them for help as happened to Justine Damond. 

The cop who shot her actually got convicted and went to jail. I wondered what was different in that case? Oh right, he was a brown-skinned guy named Mohamed.

The thin blue line gets a little thinner around non-white cops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And had she stabbed the woman she was attacking before he could get to her?

That’s not a given it would have happened since she hadn’t stabbed anyone yet, and if she had it’d been less likely to be deadly than the officer’s shot. They should choose the path that makes less people dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

That’s not a given it would have happened since she hadn’t stabbed anyone yet, and if she had it’d been less likely to be deadly than the officer’s shot. They should choose the path that makes less people dead.

I don’t disagree.  But when someone’s life is literally at risk because they are being attacked with a deadly weapon I cannot, without more context, condemn the officer for acting to to protect the person being attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t disagree.  But when someone’s life is literally at risk because they are being attacked with a deadly weapon I cannot, without more context, condemn the officer for acting to to protect the person being attacked.

There’s a reason that “bringing a gun to a knife fight” is an expression we all understand as being about overkill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

That’s not a given it would have happened since she hadn’t stabbed anyone yet, and if she had it’d been less likely to be deadly than the officer’s shot. They should choose the path that makes less people dead.

It's also not a given that the officer could have gotten to Bryant before she stabbed the girl in pink multiple times, and one stab wound in the right place is enough to kill a person. It's also not a given that the officer doesn't get stabbed in the process of tackling Bryant. There's also a scenario here where two people are dead and Bryant is spending decades, if not the rest of her life, in prison.

No one is saying that it's a good thing Bryant was shot. It's deeply unfortunate, but there are other scenarios that could have resulted in worse outcomes than what happened.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mormont said:

Not to fault anyone for that (I'm not sure myself, and honestly even the likes of bfc may be looking at it and not really sure how he'd have reacted), but I do think this is really a critical factor, without which it's hard to say for sure whether this was justified or a further example of how US policing is problematic.

Thanks Mormont, this is part of what I was trying to get at and losing track of my point in getting frustrated. That there must be departments where the first response in a situation like this isn't to just kill one person.

3 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Run up and tackle her. More likely than not nothing would have happened that couldn’t be fixed with stitches and everyone lives. They should have a mandate to preserve life and if they want credit for “putting their lives on the line” this is how to earn it.

 

10 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

That’s not a given it would have happened since she hadn’t stabbed anyone yet, and if she had it’d been less likely to be deadly than the officer’s shot. They should choose the path that makes less people dead.

@Ser Scot A Ellison if you read my replies looking to understand my point rather than just find a quote you can snip down to engage in your pedantic scotratic debate style I made it pretty clear that I'm at a similar point to Fury. When the threat level is a potential stabbing I want them to go with the uncertain option that has a chance of no one dying, rather than the certainty of one person being dead by repeated shots.

If deadly force is absolutely required it should still be only enough to eliminate significant threat, which in a case like this would be a single shot hitting followed by other physical intervention and then rendering medical treatment. Shooting her 5 times is not stopping the threat, it's deciding that her life is the problem and killing her. Which is a problem with policy and training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's also not a given that the officer could have gotten to Bryant before she stabbed the girl in pink multiple times, and one stab wound in the right place is enough to kill a person. It's also not a given that the officer doesn't get stabbed in the process of tackling Bryant. There's also a scenario here where two people are dead and Bryant is spending decades, if not the rest of her life, in prison.

No one is saying that it's a good thing Bryant was shot. It's deeply unfortunate, but there are other scenarios that could have resulted in worse outcomes than what happened.

It's also not a given that if the police hadn't shown up someone would be stabbed. Suicide by cop is a real thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

It's also not a given that if the police hadn't shown up someone would be stabbed. Suicide by cop is a real thing. 

I mean sure, but that's kind of a stretch here. We have no evidence suggesting that was a possible motivation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back in security guard school (2 day class) many years ago, the rule was:

 

1 - You do not drawn your firearm unless you intend to use it.

2 - You use your firearm *ONLY* if a life is at stake.

3 - If you use your firearm, you shoot to kill - no shooting to wound.

Years later, point 3 was changed to 'shoot to stop.'  (usually interpreted as 'center of mass.')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mean sure, but that's kind of a stretch here. We have no evidence suggesting that was a possible motivation. 

It doesn't have to be a motivation - it can be a desperate reaction. In general police presence for the AA population in the US is not a de-escalating tactic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

It doesn't have to be a motivation - it can be a desperate reaction. 

But that's the height of speculation, because again, we have nothing to suggest that's the case. And even if it was, let's say, it doesn't change the fact she tried to attack two people with a knife. The framing in this event is just so odd (and not just here). I'm watching Joy Reid's show right now and a panel of four agreed that Bryant was trying to defend herself by lunging at someone with a knife, someone I might add who was pinned against a car and cowering, i.e., zero threat to Bryant at all. 

Quote

In general police presence for the AA population in the US is not a de-escalating tactic. 

Typically yes, but you can't always deescalate every situation. Chauvin had infinite points in which he could have defused the situation, but didn't. Potter had an easy possibility to deescalate the situation with Wright. Shit, they wanted him on minor charges and had his address. Let him go and arrest him later. But this situation? Hard to really deescalate things when you show up on a scene and within seconds you see someone trying to stab another person when you were called because someone feared a person was trying to stab people. There's no time to deescalate, at best you could try to mitigate the situation, but in that situation the cop's first duty is to protect the person who appears is about to be stabbed.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, karaddin said:

If deadly force is absolutely required it should still be only enough to eliminate significant threat, which in a case like this would be a single shot hitting followed by other physical intervention and then rendering medical treatment. Shooting her 5 times is not stopping the threat, it's deciding that her life is the problem and killing her. Which is a problem with policy and training.

My understanding is that the problem with a single shot is that it's not a guarantee to stop someone immediately. It'll stop them very quickly, but momentum can carry them for a half second/full second. Which would be plenty of time for the girl in pink to still get stabbed once and then you've potentially got two dead people. That's why training in the US is always to shoot multiple times. 

I know some people disagree with that training, even folks in this thread who think the shooting itself was justified. Personally, I think the training makes sense. Firearms are lethal force. If a situation has escalated to where a firearm is justified (which I do believe should be a very high bar, but I think this specific situation merits it), that means lethal force is justified. And if lethal force is justified, be lethal; don't take chances that could result in the bad event still occurring that you're trying to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I just think you're massively overestimating the likelihood of a swiftly fatal stabbing being performed by a teen girl who has just lost a lot of her momentum and aim due to being shot. Also overestimating the likelihood that a teen girl is able to continue doing much of anything after being shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, karaddin said:

Again I just think you're massively overestimating the likelihood of a swiftly fatal stabbing being performed by a teen girl who has just lost a lot of her momentum and aim due to being shot. Also overestimating the likelihood that a teen girl is able to continue doing much of anything after being shot.

And a teen girl with a steak knife, which is a shitty weapon in the first place. It’s not a hunting knife or a tactical weapon. Most nonprofessional kitchen knives are dull and structurally weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

back in security guard school (2 day class) many years ago, the rule was:

 

1 - You do not drawn your firearm unless you intend to use it.

2 - You use your firearm *ONLY* if a life is at stake.

3 - If you use your firearm, you shoot to kill - no shooting to wound.

Years later, point 3 was changed to 'shoot to stop.'  (usually interpreted as 'center of mass.')

Jesus, the concept of a 2 day (!) security guard school where the question of lethal force is even coming up is alarming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not digging into the references to confirm the numbers, but the wiki entry for stab wound rates the mortality rate of stab wounds in the UK as between 0 and 4%. Maybe I'm just stereotyping British teens, but I'd wager the average British teen is better at knife wielding than the average US teen :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm not digging into the references to confirm the numbers, but the wiki entry for stab wound rates the mortality rate of stab wounds in the UK as between 0 and 4%. Maybe I'm just stereotyping British teens, but I'd wager the average British teen is better at knife wielding than the average US teen :P

There's a lot of conflated data in this article (it doesn't separate a single wound from multiple wounds, for example), but the numbers indicate that we're way better at killing people. Shocker, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's a lot of conflated data in this article (it doesn't separate a single wound from multiple wounds, for example), but the numbers indicate that we're way better at killing people. Shocker, I know.

They just can't catch a break, being beaten even in their own specialty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...