Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by T.R, May 27, 2020.
More training means more money, as opposed to this "defund" idiocy.
No it doesn’t. The Police should learn to live within their means. Tighten their belts in other places.
Serious reply, in cartoon form so you should be able to figure it out:
And yet, we still spend too much money and they still get no training. Not really seeing your point.
"Hand me, on a silver platter, the utopia I feel I deserve, or I will be held to no standards for my personal conduct."
Anyone who propagates that horse shit can fuck completely the hell off.
The fuck you whining about?!?!
Anyway, current system isn’t working:
At least for those who care more about results than posturing which I realize isn’t you.
Clear your cache, you seem to be seeing a different cartoon to the one Anc posted.
The problem with this meme is it implies that the reason why the Norweigan , Finnish and German police rarely shoot people compared to the U.S. is because of their longer training periods, as opposed to such factors that likely include a) those countries are far less populated than the U.S. b) have far less crime and guns, even on a per capita basis, than the U.S. c) those countries have better social safety nets than the U.S. d) those countries not having to deal with intersections of racism and poverty (and the historical institutional reactions to the same) like the U.S.
So, what you're saying is that longer training periods won't matter, the US will still have a higher rate of police killing people unless we address other issues in this country.
If by "whining" you mean addressing the elements within the silly little cartoon you floated as a reply, I see a lot of exactly what I describe. It isn't just limiting criminal justice and the penal system to offenders who actually harm others. The "artist" implies that the individual should be protected from their bad decisions and handed a comfortable life in spite of it. This I will not support.
Results for the individual, or the collective? And what sort of results? Third, fourth, fifth chances for people who deploy every possible excuse for their refusal to function as responsible adults?
Or until we purge every shitbag who decides it's ok to hurt everyone around them because they were dealt a bad hand in life and/or were mistreated by police.
That's an interesting cognitive leap you've made there. Tell me, what did Tamir Rice do that justified him getting shot by the police?
Why don't you back up and start with some evidence of me suggesting it was justified?
Your statement seems to imply that if the police kill someone, it is justified. Are you saying that there are instances where police kill people when it is unjustified? Tell me, do you think that a majority of police killings are justified?
In other words, you intentionally distort my meaning to serve some canned argument you were aching to pinch off.
Sometimes it is justified, sometimes it isn't.
I would never try to answer that without personally witnessing them all, because people fucking lie to cast themselves as the most sympathetic character in their story and excuse what they have done. Cops do it, civilians do it, and neither is subject to any special dispensation or lower standards from me. If you want to dispute that, do so with direct evidence and not some dishonest bullshit "interpretation."
You're projecting a lot there.
Oh do tell.
And how do you determine that?
Care to guess as to how many are? What metrics do you use to decide this?
And yet you're more than willing to state
What am I supposed to draw from that statement? How do you define a "shitbag"? How do you define "mistreated by police"?
I am reasonably certain that we can both agree that there are cases where police killing someone is justified or unjustified, depending upon the specifics of the situation. I'm also certain that both of us are going to make automatic assumptions when we hear that the police killed someone (before we're given the details). I don't know what yours might be, but mine are going to include a question as to if it was justified. Will yours?
Panel 1: A cartoon police officer is shown holding the metaphorical weight of many issues.
Figure 1: *holds a "Defund The Police" sign.
Figure 2: Defund the police? How is he supposed to carry all that?
Panel 2: Cartoon police officer is shown carrying much less weight. The weights taken off them have been distributed to other programs happening around them.
Figure 1: He's not
Figure 2: !!!
From those elements I am unable to discern how you have determined that "the "artist" implies that the individual should be protected from their bad decisions and handed a comfortable life in spite of it."
It seems you are reading more into the panel than is presented in it, hence projection.
What I'm saying is that there is not necessarily a connection between the training period of the U.S. cops and the number of people that they shoot, and the training period of these European cops and the fewer people that they shoot.
I would guess that the shittiest trained U.S. cops would probably also rarely kill people if they were put in the situations of their European counterparts, because the Europeans relatively rarely are put in situations where people point guns at them, let alone fire them, or even where they can reasonably expect to be threatened with lethal force. I'm too lazy to track down the number of European cops killed in the line of duty or shot at, but I would probably guess that a city like Chicago or New York easily dwarfs their numbers. And if these better trained European cops found themselves assigned to urban American settings, they would probably have found themselves in situations where they were threatened with lethal force and were justified in defending themselves.
I would assume longer training in the U.S. might bring down the rate of police killing some. But I estimate of the (for round figures) 1000 U.S. police killings a year, the bulk of them fall into the categories of mostly unavoidable, either because they are justifiable, or because they are the sort of mistakes that no amount of training will rectify.
To run down some well-known cases of police killings:
I think better training could have avoided the deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd because the officers could have been taught that a chokehold and the knee restraint were inappropriate under the circumstances.
I don't think it likely better training would have avoided the death of Breonna Taylor because the officers would have been taught that (and rightly so) that they were justified in firing back. Arguably, better training on the mechanics of shooting would have had the officers not fire as wildly as they did. But there is the component that an officer might panic or neglect the lessons hey were taught in the heat of a given moment.
I am pretty sure that even the best training would not have avoided the death of Michael Brown as I think the evidence supports the notion that Brown tried to reach for Darren Wilson's gun.
You raised the Tamir Rice case. And it sound awful in the abstract: a 12-year-old shot with a toy gun. But the law says you can't judge whether a shooting is justified with the benefit of hindsight. The facts show that it would be hard for anyone just seeing the gun in the abstract to know that it was a toy. I don't think better training would have avoided that.
FWIW, Politifact looked at this meme and generally seemed to agree that while the underlying facts are accurate, it lacks the context about how the U.S. has a whole lot more going on gun-wise.
Let me flip a variation of this question onto you. Do you think a majority of police killings are unjustified? And if so, on what basis?
At least some of the rocks that are being borne by the police officer and then in the second panel are being fit into their correct homes have to do with personal choices/responsibility, at least from a certain perspective.
Drug users, drug dealers, prostitution are pretty explicitly the result of individual choices. Arguably so are such things as homelessness in at least some cases.
The cartoon explicitly suggests that the solution to the crime problem involves spending on such things as drug treatment, job placement, and social workers, all of which reasonably could be said to suggest that the individuals who would enjoy these services should get them despite their choices to use drugs, to not do more to seek jobs on their own, and to find assistance without either the government or a charity's help.
I assume that you’re familiar with this concept: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio
Given that we know innocent people have been killed by police, not to mention the ones that have been executed by the state, I feel safe in saying that the majority of people killed by police is unjustified. That doesn’t mean that the majority of people killed by police are innocent, just that their actions don’t warrant being killed for them. Eric Garner being an example of this.
The concept that it is better that 10 guilty people are acquitted than one guilty person go free has, of course, nothing to do with how many guilty people get acquitted versus how many innocent people are convicted, let alone how many innocent people are killed by police. At face value, the fact of one innocent person being convicted doesn't mean that the majority of people who are convicted are also innocent. It just means a system that allowed that one innocent person to be convicted would be, in Blackstone's mind, messed up.
The notion that George Floyd and even (for argument's sake) the majority of police killings that received national publicity (let's say that's like 25-50 over the last 10 or so years) is unjustified does not necessarily mean that the majority of the 1,000 or so police killings a year are unjustified. Indeed, part of why the highly publicized police killings get the publicity they do is because of the man-bites-dog nature of them.
In any case, we also have to deal with how one is defining "unjustified."
I think Eric Garner's death was unnecessary and avoidable in both the big picture and the little picture sense. There was no particular need to use a chokehold or to even arrest him for the crime of selling loose cigarettes. And yet, selling loose cigarettes is an offense for which someone can be arrested, and an officer who is making an arrest can use some level of force. I think reasonable people can disagree as to what that level of force might/should be and if the officer in this case exceeded it. (FWIW, I again think that the force was unjustified, but it isn't strictly wrong to hold that the officer was justified to use a chokehold to try to subdue Garner the way it is IMO crazy to try to argue that Chauvin's use of force was justified under those circumstances.)
I won't speak for Raoul, but no, that is not what ... I interpret and also can intellectually decipher from the cartoon. it just means that while training would be HUGE, there are still other factors that will continue to be problems.
Clearly, she broke in (looking for drugs most likely) and was trapped there because police vans have automatic, military-grade defence systems. No officers involved, ohnonono.
While true, that doesn't mean that better training won't reduce those figures from the obscene heights they are today compared to every other developed democracy in the world.
I don't know why you are so against better police training, but you clearly contort logic to take that stance, and have done so repeatedly through dozens of posts.
Separate names with a comma.