Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ser Scot A Ellison

Law Enforcement and its abuse of power

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I think I understand your attempt to equate criticism of police training/procedures with an opposition to the very existence of police just fine, thank you very much.

Nope. Try again.

I literally didn't say anything about police training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

They have literally learned nothing after last year have they? 

I think all they've learned is that they need to advocate for laws making it illegal to record them and laws that make it harder for the public to see the body cam recordings.

Share this post


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

I think all they've learned is that they need to advocate for laws making it illegal to record them and laws that make it harder for the public to see the body cam recordings.

"The beatings and cover-ups will continue until our reputation is improved."

Share this post


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

I think all they've learned is that they need to advocate for laws making it illegal to record them and laws that make it harder for the public to see the body cam recordings.

Also GOP state lawmakers are legalizing other violence against protestors.

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/25/22367019/gop-laws-oklahoma-iowa-florida-floyd-blm-protests-police

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2021 at 11:19 AM, Rippounet said:

That's not exactly my position though. What I'm saying is not "Lethal force can never be justified" but "How do we make sure that there are fewer situations where lethal force is optimal/justified in the future?".

Okay but where can we see it justified and optimal?

Because you don’t seem to think it’s okay for officers to be allowed to utilize it in what I have to say under the most reasonable circumstances.

I.E where there’s someone who’s posing an immediate grave danger someone else with a deadly weapon, there’s no significant time(meaning literal seconds) to try disarm the person or even deesclate.

Where do you specifically think it’s okay to use lethal force?

Don’t just say when it’d make things better.
That’s too vague to mean anything.

 

Share this post


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

Also GOP state lawmakers are legalizing other violence against protestors.

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/25/22367019/gop-laws-oklahoma-iowa-florida-floyd-blm-protests-police

I just finished listening to this and it hit the same notes. These pieces of legislation are searching for a problem that doesn't exist solely to crack down on protests.

What really worries me is the language around people using their vehicles to run over protestors if they're scared for their life. I mean, it's possible that murderer from Charlottesville could have used that kind of legislation to justify his actions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

<snip>

We get it. You believe -- the shooting was justified >> training is shoot to kill (shoot to stop is a euphemism) >> Ma'Khia Bryant was killed -- you believe she deserved to be killed. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/us/makhia-bryant.html

Quote

“Ma’Khia Bryant was a child,” Brittney Cooper, author of “Eloquent Rage” and associate professor of women’s and gender studies and Africana studies at Rutgers University, said on MSNBC on Thursday. “The way that she has been talked about — because she is a big girl — people see her as the aggressor. They don’t see her humanity. They have adultified her.”

<...>

Let’s start with adultification bias. What does it mean, and how does it manifest in schools or interactions with law enforcement?

Jamilia Blake: When Black girls are not seen as children, that’s adultification bias. They’re not seen as being innocent; they’re not seen as needing nurturing; they’re seen as more adultlike, and what it is, is dehumanization. Black girls are not afforded the same freedoms that are guaranteed in childhood, like exploration, the ability to make mistakes or the benefit of the doubt.

<...>

All the foster care professionals and others who work with girls who I’ve spoken to have said that they, as non-police officers, have been able to disarm girls with a knife engaged in a fight without shooting someone. And the issue here is also the fact that whenever we have moments of crisis in our society, we call upon individuals like this officer, who was an expert marksman, to come in and respond to something that did not require an expert marksman.

<...>

So much of what I’m seeing in the public domain in response to the footage is this inability for us to just basically ask the humane question of how do we resolve conflict without killing somebody? It’s not necessarily either/or on the adultification bias or racialized violence, but the adultification is informed by the history of racialized violence. You have to see all of the context that created a space for these girls to be read as super, ultra threatening and predatory. It’s more than just tragic; it’s part of the deep legacy of oppression.

It is absolutely abhorrent to believe that she should be condemned to die based on a short video -- as you have. 

How many times does it have to be pointed out that police are biased, dishonest, and actively violent towards non-police and particularly PoC? Yet, we trust this gang to properly ascertain whether they should use lethal force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Week said:

We get it. You believe -- the shooting was justified >> training is shoot to kill (shoot to stop is a euphemism) >> Ma'Khia Bryant was killed -- you believe she deserved to be killed. 

No, I don’t believe a child deserved to be killed.

I believe an officer has a duty to protect others from the possibility of being killed in whatever way is most proficient way possible.

1 hour ago, Week said:

It is absolutely abhorrent to believe that she should be condemned to die based on a short video -- as you have. 

How many times does it have to be pointed out that police are biased, dishonest, and actively violent towards non-police and particularly PoC? Yet, we trust this gang to properly ascertain whether they should use lethal force?

What detail prior to this video would actually get you to see the shooting not being unequivocally murder?

What thing besides the video of trying to stab someone seconds before she was shot would do that?

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that not every police killing is equal?

That had the officer not shot, Bryant could have stabbed possibly  even killed someone?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing him talking to her first?  Seeing him get between her and the other kid?  Remember he's a trained sharp shooter so surely he could have hit her in the shoulder or something IF he had to shoot.  O all kinds of things would show he isn't actually a murderer like Chauvin and so many others are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

where there’s someone who’s posing an immediate grave danger someone else with a deadly weapon, there’s no significant time (meaning literal seconds) to try disarm the person or even deesclate.

I just don't see that killing someone is necessarily going to be that much faster than incapacitating them. At close range and on an unprotected target, the difference should be negligible - and highly unlikely to change the outcome.
In fact, for better or for worse, I could easily imagine situations in which police officiers might be willing to shoot a stun gun faster than a firearm.
And even if you don't buy that the two options are already comparable, in the next few years non-lethal weapons are widely expected to be more efficient than pistols. I think it's easy to see why: neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) is quick, and it would only take a small improvement on current designs to make it easier than shooting to kill, since NMI would require a single good hit on any part of the body. They've been working on it.
If the person you're shooting at is too far or well-protected (even heavy clothes), lethal force will remain the best option for immediate neutralization. Though distance is a tricky one: at long range, shooting also means you could end up hitting the wrong person.
Since we both agree that the point is to protect innocent lives, it's useful to consider how this is best achieved. If the death of a victim is unacceptable to you, then surely so is the death of an innocent bystander.

But I think, beyond that, I'd defend the idea that the police should protect life, period. And I don't agree that one's life should be forfeit the moment you attack someone with a knife, specifically. There is a legal distinction here between attacking someone with a firearm and with weapons "based on human strength", because knifes are just not that efficient for killing.
On some level I just don't support the death penalty in any form, so I guess I tend to see lethal force as justified when it is certain that life will be lost without it. A higher standard than your "posing an immediate grave danger" standard then, but that still allows for an officer to defend killing as suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ripponuet,

The key I think you are missing is that using a firearm to attempt to hit an extremity dramatically increases the possibility of hitting someone you didn’t intend to hit.  Perhaps your point is that shooting should never be an option, because shooting to wound really isn’t a good option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Seeing him talking to her first?  Seeing him get between her and the other kid?  Remember he's a trained sharp shooter so surely he could have hit her in the shoulder or something IF he had to shoot.  O all kinds of things would show he isn't actually a murderer like Chauvin and so many others are.

 

before the video? As in before he arrived on the scene and could possibly interact with Bryant and the person she was attacking?

He did try to talk her in the video. You don’t seem to care about that though. 

Going for a limb is much likely to miss you’ve been told this repeatedly. Sharpshooters can still miss. They’re no some infallible shooting gods.

Also, in the time he could have gotten between Bryant and the girl she was trying to stab could have been killed.

 

Share this post


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

I just don't see that killing someone is necessarily going to be that much faster than incapacitating them. At close range and on an unprotected target, the difference should be negligible - and highly unlikely to change the outcome.
In fact, for better or for worse, I could easily imagine situations in which police officiers might be willing to shoot a stun gun faster than a firearm.
And even if you don't buy that the two options are already comparable, in the next few years non-lethal weapons are widely expected to be more efficient than pistols. I think it's easy to see why: neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) is quick, and it would only take a small improvement on current designs to make it easier than shooting to kill, since NMI would require a single good hit on any part of the body. They've been working on it.
If the person you're shooting at is too far or well-protected (even heavy clothes), lethal force will remain the best option for immediate neutralization. Though distance is a tricky one: at long range, shooting also means you could end up hitting the wrong person.
Since we both agree that the point is to protect innocent lives, it's useful to consider how this is best achieved. If the death of a victim is unacceptable to you, then surely so is the death of an innocent bystander.

But I think, beyond that, I'd defend the idea that the police should protect life, period. And I don't agree that one's life should be forfeit the moment you attack someone with a knife, specifically. There is a legal distinction here between attacking someone with a firearm and with weapons "based on human strength", because knifes are just not that efficient for killing.
On some level I just don't support the death penalty in any form, so I guess I tend to see lethal force as justified when it is certain that life will be lost without it. A higher standard than your "posing an immediate grave danger" standard then, but that still allows for an officer to defend killing as suspect.

This doesn’t seem to have answered my question; when it ever acceptable for law enforcement to use lethal force in your opinion?

Like you’ve said you’re not the against the concept in every instance.

Sowhat ones are in your mind appropriate. Be specific.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This doesn’t seem to have answered my question; when it ever acceptable for law enforcement to use lethal force in your opinion?

Like you’ve said you’re not the against the concept in every instance.

Sowhat ones are in your mind appropriate. Be specific.

Here’s the problem in my view, it can be perfectly consistent to believe in protecting life and not believe taking life can be justified in its protection.  

This doesn’t mean I agree necessarily, but I can see how someone could arrive at that position.

Share this post


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

They have literally learned nothing after last year have they? 

I think they learned a lot, it was just bad lessons. They learnt just how far they can go with open brutality without any repurcussions from other authorities or budgetary impact, or sufficient public outrage to deter them.

I think part of the disconnect between Varys' perspective and mine, Week's etc is that Varys sees the "only a couple of seconds to react" as a point in favour of the shooting - someone's life appeared to be in danger, so the cop must take immediate action to protect that persons life. My perspective is that the lack of time is an argument against it - you've just arrived on the scene, you cannot possibly have any reasonable grasp of the situation and could easily wind up killing the victim for an attempted murderer. I don't think they should be using lethal force in scenarios where they can't have any reasonable confidence about what the situation is, and that training which teaches them to do this is going to result in a lot of bad shootings regardless of whether you think this one was justified, although clearly I do not think this one was.

Share this post


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

Ripponuet,

The key I think you are missing is that using a firearm to attempt to hit an extremity dramatically increases the possibility of hitting someone you didn’t intend to hit.  Perhaps your point is that shooting should never be an option, because shooting to wound really isn’t a good option.

You know what greatly reduces the likelihood you’ll hit someone you didn’t intend to? Not firing the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, karaddin said:

My perspective is that the lack of time is an argument against it - you've just arrived on the scene, you cannot possibly have any reasonable grasp of the situation and could easily wind up killing the victim for an attempted murderer.

At the stage Bryant was about to stab someone she was no longer acting the part of the victim.

But the aggressor against someone who was trying to flee from her.

Being being a victim of a crime doesn’t mean you just get to murder the person who committed a crime against you and it’s really unreasonable to expect police officers to operate in this mindset.

I mean what if Bryant had a gun? Don’t shoot anyway because how could the officer know for that the person Bryant may kill tried to kill her previously?

Whatever happened before the officer came across this wouldn’t make his actions more justified or less justified.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

Here’s the problem in my view, it can be perfectly consistent to believe in protecting life and not believe taking life can be justified in its protection.  

This doesn’t mean I agree necessarily, but I can see how someone could arrive at that position.

See I acknowledge that can be consistent.

But that’s not my grievance here with @Rippounet

Its the explicit statement of not being opposed to law enforcement being allowed to use Lethal force in some situations and dancing around explaining  what those situations are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

At the stage Bryant was about to stab someone she was no longer acting the part of the victim.

But the aggressor against someone who was trying to flee from her.

Being being a victim of a crime doesn’t mean you just get to murder the person who committed a crime against you and it’s really unreasonable to expect police officers to operate in this mindset.

I mean what if Bryant had a gun? Don’t shoot anyway because how could the officer know for that the person Bryant may kill tried to kill her previously?

Whatever happened before the officer came across this wouldn’t make his actions more justified or less justified.

Are you intentionally ignoring the part where I said that was talking generally? That the whole point was training officers to make snap judgements within seconds of arriving on the scene is training them to act without sufficient knowledge. For a different shooting that I'd like to think we can all agree was an emphatically terrible shooting, Tamir Rice was shot within a couple of seconds of the car pulling up. I'd rather the police sometimes fail to take action resulting in some injuries and less deaths than police gunning down innocent people due to making incorrect snap judgments. I think generally its unreasonable to fault individuals to making the wrong snap judgement when that's what they've been trained to do, so I have consistently argued that I think its bad policy and bad training - a systemic issue, not an individual one.

Examples like Chauvin murdering Floyd, that dickhead in...Buffalo was it? Walking his bike over the head of a protestor that had fallen over etc are also individual problems that are thriving within a systemic one. This isn't that, but its still a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...