Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

1 minute ago, daile1bm said:

You brought up "worst case scenario", not me. I don't think yours was the worst case. I think mine was. I also didn't mean that he was going to kill some random innocent bystander, btw. He would likely (hypothetically) put his sights on the officers that are in close proximity.

And at that point the officers would be firing at the suspect with children behind him in the car. One of those stray bullets could have hit the children.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

You're ignoring the fact that they already tazed him and were yelling at him to stop, and he wasn't listening.

Yes, good point. A man who hasn't listened to you before when you tased him will never listen to you, or someone else, again. It is a lost cause. That's why hostage situations with negotiators never, ever, ever work. So I suppose we just need to shoot the fucker because there is no chance we can defuse the situation after he got in the car. Fucking asshole, wouldn't lie down when we tased him and now he is almost getting away! Kill the bastard!

 

1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Ok so back to you. So you're letting the suspect get back into a vehicle with children and drive off. He's going to be driving off frantically at that point and putting everyone's life in that car in danger.

Maybe. Or more likely he will drive off without anyone getting injured. But wait, you have a point, we certainly can't risk him crashing into someone with the car! I get it now, we should definitely shoot him! That way we are almost guaranteed someone will die tonight and lose their father!

 

2 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Let's say he doesn't drive off and grabs a gun in stead and turns around and tries to shoot you. Not only are you hoping you can shoot him before he can shoot you. You are also hoping (and people aren't thinking about this) that none of the shots you are shooting at him don't miss and hit the kids in the car.

Yes, that's how it is to be a cop sometimes. They need to position themselves so that third parties aren't in the line of fire, so that themselves aren't in the line of fire, and be able to point the gun at someone and shoot him. No wonder they need months of training and have a dangerous job! But of course, if they are not able to do this and unwilling to take the risk, if they are incompetent cowards, they could just shoot the fucker sevent imes in the back before that potential situation arises. 

 

6 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Have you even thought of any of these contingencies? Do you think the suspect would get in his car and just casually drive off an drive the speed limit?

Oh no, someone is going to be speeding! Kill him before he crashes!!

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Yes, good point. A man who hasn't listened to you before when you tased him will never listen to you, or someone else, again. It is a lost cause. That's why hostage situations with negotiators never, ever, ever work. So I suppose we just need to shoot the fucker because there is no chance we can defuse the situation after he got in the car. Fucking asshole, wouldn't lie down when we tased him and now he is almost getting away! Kill the bastard!

 

Maybe. Or more likely he will drive off without anyone getting injured. But wait, you have a point, we certainly can't risk him crashing into someone with the car! I get it now, we should definitely shoot him! That way we are almost guaranteed someone will die tonight and lose their father!

 

Yes, that's how it is to be a cop sometimes. They need to position themselves so that third parties aren't in the line of fire, so that themselves aren't in the line of fire, and be able to point the gun at someone and shoot him. No wonder they need months of training and have a dangerous job! But of course, if they are not able to do this and unwilling to take the risk, if they are incompetent cowards, they could just shoot the fucker sevent imes in the back before that potential situation arises. 

 

Oh no, someone is going to be speeding! Kill him before he crashes!!

Or this could happen

 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

You brought up "worst case scenario", not me. I don't think yours was the worst case. I think mine was. I also didn't mean that he was going to kill some random innocent bystander, btw. He would likely (hypothetically) put his sights on the officers that are in close proximity.

And we can't have police officers getting into dangerous situations can we? That's not their job. Their job is to shoot people fleeing from them, seven times, in the back.

Just now, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Or this could happen

In the choice between the very low probability of that happening and shooting someone seven time sin the back, it is the police's job to take their chances. That's why we are supposed to admire and respect them, because they put their lives on the line to protect us. They are protectors, not executioners. Or well, at least that's what I thought.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

In the choice between the very low probability of that happening and shooting someone seven time sin the back, it is the police's job to take their chances. That's why we are supposed to admire and respect them, because they put their lives on the line to protect us. They are protectors, not executioners. Or well, at least that's what I thought.

Actually I would say it's even lower probability that the suspect gets in his car and casually drives off, not endangering anyone. That might be the lowest probability of all!

You sure have a way of admiring and respecting the police. Expecting them to get themselves into Mortal Kombat with suspects that have knives (and pray they don't have a gun in the car) or being perfect marksman where if they have to shoot someone no stray bullets miss and hit children that are directly behind the suspect.

Soul, stick to hard science threads, your ability to reason in a street situation is severely lacking.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Basic_GnR_Fan

[downzy]

15 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

The cops have no idea what is in the car or what he's going into the car for in the moment.

So the threshold for police to use lethal force is for a perpetrator to enter (or attempt to enter) his/her vehicle.  Anyone who who reaches for their car door can be shot down, no questions asked.

17 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

The whole thing is unfortunate, but I would have handled that aspect of the incident similarly.

Well, I'm thankful you're not a cop then.

[daile1bm]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

And we can't have police officers getting into dangerous situations can we? That's not their job. Their job is to shoot people fleeing from them, seven times, in the back.

If the situation calls for it, yes. If someone is violently and realistically threatening your life, you have the right to defend your life, even if you're a police officer.

And to the shot seven times aspect, I don't know if you've ever fired a gun, but it only takes about 2 or 3 seconds to do that. And anyone with any firearms training is taught that you only fire when you feel like your life is on the line you shoot to kill, since that is the perceived threat to you. Until the threat is neutralized, it is still a threat. To add to that they shoot center mass, as it's the largest target to mitigate the risk of missing and hitting someone else. In this case it was his back.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Actually I would say it's even lower probability that the suspect gets in his car and casually drives off, not endangering anyone. That might be the lowest probability of all!

If you want to avoid people being endangered and possible hurt you don't go for the option of shooting someone seven times in the back!   You only shoot someone when that is the only option left and others are in imminent danger.

 

2 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

You sure have a way of admiring and respecting the police. 

Well, I have less and less respect for US police. Does that help?

 

8 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Expecting them to get themselves into Mortal Kombat with suspects that have knives or being perfect marksman where if they have to shoot someone no stray bullets miss and hit children that are directly behind the suspect.

The probability of the guy pulling a gun and threatening someone is very, very low (despite your youtube video , now go and cherry-pick one more!), so yes, you don't shoot someone from the unlikely scenario that they might draw a gun later, even if that means you run the risk of having to later shoot him and possible endanger others in the car or the vicinity.... instead you scuffle with him by the car door, draw your gun, and panicky fires seven shots at him hoping that no one else is hurt!! 

[daile1bm]

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

So the threshold for police to use lethal force is for a perpetrator to enter (or attempt to enter) his/her vehicle.  Anyone who who reaches for their car door can be shot down, no questions asked.

Well, I'm thankful you're not a cop then.

I didn't say that was the threshold. This is a complete strawman. Given the circumstances of this encounter, the cops should have every reason to believe this person was willing to use deadly force on them. Many people have concealed firearms in the driver side of their vehicles. Blake was already willing to fight with police, while in possession of a knife. Why would they believe he wouldn't escalate further by reaching down into the floor of his car for an even more deadly weapon. See the video in the earlier post @Basic_GnR_Fan  to see what can happen.

If you're pulled over and an officer instructs you to go back to your vehicle then feel free. If they tell you explicitly not to do that, then probably don't do that. Especially after you've just been fighting with them and have a knife.

Edited August 28, 2020 by daile1bm

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

If the situation calls for it, yes. If someone is violently and realistically threatening your life, you have the right to defend your life, even if you're a police officer.

But at the moment his life wasn't in danger. He could have retreated back a few meters while the guy possibly entered his car. No danger from any knife then. If the guy then pulled a handgun you would actually be in danger and hence shooting would be justified. 

[Dazey]

19 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Actually I would say it's even lower probability that the suspect gets in his car and casually drives off, not endangering anyone. That might be the lowest probability of all!

You sure have a way of admiring and respecting the police. Expecting them to get themselves into Mortal Kombat with suspects that have knives (and pray they don't have a gun in the car) or being perfect marksman where if they have to shoot someone no stray bullets miss and hit children that are directly behind the suspect.

Soul, stick to hard science threads, your ability to reason in a street situation is severely lacking.

I love how you spelled Kombat with a K.  

Edited August 28, 2020 by Dazey

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If you want to avoid people being endangered and possible hurt you don't go for the option of shooting someone seven times in the back!   You only shoot someone when that is the only option left and others are in imminent danger.

Yes, much better to let the suspect get back to his car and grab whatever he wanted to grab. And then shoot at him if you have to with children behind him!    

 

I think I'm getting a pattern here. Many of you guys watch entirely too many Hollywood movies. Real life isn't the movies fellas. Police officers aren't all expert fighters in the martial arts. And they don't have perfect aim where they can hit targets without ever missing while their adrenaline is pumping. 

 

[daile1bm]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But at the moment his life wasn't in danger. He could have retreated back a few meters while the guy possibly entered his car. No danger from any knife then. If the guy then pulled a handgun you would actually be in danger and hence shooting would be justified. 

Blake already showed intent to both cause life threatening danger by brandishing a knife, and do whatever he needed to evade arrest. The officers life was still most certainly in danger. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but it takes fraction of a second to acquire and fire a gun. Since they don't know what he's going for in the car, they don't have time to sit there and wait to see what he may or may not turn around with. IMO, Blake forfeited any right to the benefit of the polices' doubt when he fought with them and brandished a knife.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I love how you spelled Kombat with a K.  

Finally someone noticed! Great game back in the day (although Street Fighter 2 was better).

1 minute ago, daile1bm said:

Blake already showed intent to both cause life threatening danger by brandishing a knife, and do whatever he needed to evade arrest. The officers life was still most certainly in danger. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but it takes fraction of a second to acquire and fire a gun. Since they don't know what he's going for in the car, they don't have time to sit there and wait to see what he may or may not turn around with. IMO, Blake forfeited any right to the benefit of the polices' doubt when he fought with them and brandished a knife.

But no, police act just like police do in Hollywood movies. They can fire on a suspect before they ever get a shot off and perfectly hit their targets with no misses! 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Basic_GnR_Fan

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Finally someone noticed! Great game back in the day (although Street Fighter 2 was better).

Have you played the new one? It’s fucking great! 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But at the moment his life wasn't in danger. He could have retreated back a few meters while the guy possibly entered his car. No danger from any knife then. If the guy then pulled a handgun you would actually be in danger and hence shooting would be justified. 

And if one of the bullets that missed the suspect hit the children behind him, you'd be bitching about that too.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Yes, much better to let the suspect get back to his car and grab whatever he wanted to grab. And then shoot at him if you have to with children behind him!    

Much better to not shoot the guy and instead defuse the situation, yes. And if they have to shoot, which is extremely unlikely, I don't see why the angle would now have to be worse re: the kids in the backseat.

 

1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Real life isn't the movies fellas. Police officers aren't all expert fighters in the martial arts.

I don't know what Hollywood movies you have seen, but in the movies I have seen de-escalation techniques and defusing strategies certainly isn't usually what goes on in the final scenes. I can't think of many movies where the movie ends with a big non-fight that is solved with communication and good police strategies.

And no one has said the police should go to hand-to-hand fight with the guy, so I don't know why you keep brining that up.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Have you played the new one? It’s fucking great! 

I haven't but I have watched youtube videos of it and it looks fun. The Robocop vs Terminator fight basically gave me a boner.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Much better to not shoot the guy and instead defuse the situation, yes. And if they have to shoot, which is extremely unlikely, I don't see why the angle would now have to be worse re: the kids in the backseat.

 

You wanted them to back up from the suspect, thus making their aim worse and giving a higher probability of missing and a stray bullet hitting one of the kids. Again, not the movies, police miss in real life.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I haven't but I have watched youtube videos of it and it looks fun. The Robocop vs Terminator fight basically gave me a boner.

I just bought it on PC and it’s awesome. I’ve got the original and Street Fighter 2 in an arcade cabinet too.  

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

Blake already showed intent to both cause life threatening danger by brandishing a knife, and do whatever he needed to evade arrest.

Brandishing a knife and evading arrest is NOT equal to be an imminent threat to others  

 

6 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but it takes fraction of a second to acquire and fire a gun. 

And I don't know how many times I have to repeat that you don't shoot someone from the offset chance that if you don't shoot they might get their hands on a gun  You don't shoot to kill because you might be in mortal danger, you shoot when you are in mortal danger.

Hey guys, it is obvious I hold police to higher standards than you. Okay? Can we just agree to disagree on this?

3 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I haven't but I have watched youtube videos of it and it looks fun. The Robocop vs Terminator fight basically gave me a boner.

You wanted them to back up from the suspect, thus making their aim worse and giving a higher probability of missing and a stray bullet hitting one of the kids. Again, not the movies, police miss in real life.

A few meters yes, I am sure a well trained cop hits his mark from a few meters and don't miss with 1 meter or whatever it is back to the back seats. But apparently we can't trust US cops to be that good shots?

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Brandishing a knife and evading arrest is NOT equal to be an imminent threat to others  

A few meters yes, I am sure a well trained cop hits his mark from a few meters and don't miss with 1 meter or whatever it is back to the back seats. But apparently we can't trust US cops to be that good shots?

He was going back to his car, where he could have had more than a knife. The cops don't know what he has in that situation since they haven't searched the car. They can't assume the guy is an angel, has no weapon, and has no bad intentions.

Yes cops are better shots than someone with little firearms experience, but why even put themselves in a situation where a stray bullet could miss and hit children that are behind the suspect. Why are you being so cavalier with the lives of the children?

[SoulMonster]

22 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

He was going back to his car, where he could have had more than a knife.

Eh, yes, still doesn't mean they should shoot him. 

23 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Yes cops are better shots than someone with little firearms experience, but why even put themselves in a situation where a stray bullet could miss and hit children that are behind the suspect. 

Because the probability of that happening is miniscule and the alternative is shooting a guy. 

[daile1bm]

26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Brandishing a knife and evading arrest is NOT equal to be an imminent threat to others 

In a vacuum when none of the other circumstances of this event are taken into the equation i would agree, but with all the other things Blake did prior to the shooting, it shows intent and willingness to escalate. He also didn't simply "evade arrest" he assaulted officers prior to going back to his car for unknown reasons. So yes, simply brandishing a knife, or simply evading arrest, or simply "touching your door handle" (as downzy mentioned) are typically not cause to believe someone is an imminent threat, if taken on their own. But when you combine all of these factors, along with assaulting arresting officers, recently harassing someone with restraining order for sexual assault against you, and having arrest warrants outstanding, it's not unreasonable to assume this completely noncompliant, violent person will escalate things further by reaching into his vehicle for something, in an effort to avoid further consequences.

[Ace Nova]

@SoulMonster

How many unarmed black people do you think get shot in the U.S. on an annual basis?

[daile1bm]

4 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

@SoulMonster

How many unarmed black people do you think get shot in the U.S. on an annual basis?

I know you're not asking me, but from the stats I've heard, it was 10 in 2019. 8 of which were either threatening that they had a weapon, or using their vehicle as one. The 2 other cases, the officers were charged.

Edited August 28, 2020 by daile1bm
edited for revision of numbers