Jump to content

Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues


Ace Nova

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Ok.  I don't necessarily agree but I understand your point.

He had his children in the car.  What if he said, "he was going to get his gun in the front seat and then he was going to shoot the children in his car"?

Verbal threats simply aren't sufficient for the police to shoot someone, in my opinion. Shooting should only be used when all other options have failed and when failure to shoot would result in violence being committed upon themselves or other people. Verbal threats is not sufficient. Even if he did pick up a knife he shouldn't be shot seven times in the back, the police should then have backed off to a safe distance where they could control the situation. They should be trained at de-escalation and only if the man stormed against them with the knife raised would it possibly be okay to shoot him. 

This requires that police officers are properly trained in de-escalation and how to use their firearms when required, in how to manage situations like the one in the video, to keep themselves safe while not shooting someone when that is not entirely required. And the great failure with US law enforcement is that in many cases their police officers to not receive sufficient training to handle such situations. And without such skills they are much more likely to panic and shoot when not needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

That was a tongue in cheek comment...hence the :P after the comment.  There could likely be a half dozen or more theories as to why he won in 2016.  Pretty sure the Clinton campaign is still trying to figure it out. :lol:

Low turn out was a factor. Why people stayed at home?

https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-turnout

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Verbal threats simply aren't sufficient for the police to shoot someone, in my opinion. Shooting should only be used when all other options have failed and when failure to shoot would result in violence being committed upon themselves or other people. Verbal threats is not sufficient. Even if he did pick up a knife he shouldn't be shot seven times in the back, the police should then have backed off to a safe distance where they could control the situation. They should be trained at de-escalation and only if the man stormed against them with the knife raised would it possibly be okay to shoot him. 

This requires that police officers are properly trained in de-escalation and how to use their firearms when required, in how to manage situations like the one in the video, to keep themselves safe while not shooting someone when that is not entirely required. And the great failure with US law enforcement is that in many cases their police officers to not receive sufficient training to handle such situations. And without such skills they are much more likely to panic and shoot when not needed. 

I can see "verbal threats" not being sufficient in a country like Norway where there's around a one in a thousand (or more) chance that the guy would actually do it.

Unfortunately, that is not the case in the U.S.  If a convicted felon says he is going to grab his gun and shoot the kids in his car...and then proceeds to enter his vehicle, you better believe he's going to shoot the kids in the car. 

How would you feel if it was your children in the car?  The police tried to talk him out of it "verbally" but he still went ahead, entered the vehicle and killed your children as the police stood there and watched?  

As far as better police training in de-escalation and even adding "mental health teams" that can help in certain crisis events, I completely agree. 

 

 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Padme said:

Low turn out was a factor. Why people stayed at home?

https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-turnout

Because everyone believed the dozen or so polls that had Clinton winning by a landslide, maybe?  I'm pretty sure that even Trump was surprised that he won, tbh. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I can see "verbal threats" not being sufficient in a country like Norway where there's around a one in a thousand (or more) chance that the guy would actually do it.

The main reason why a verbal threat wouldn't be sufficient isn't the likelihood of the guy following through with the threat, but because there is usually always sufficient time between the threat is expressed and the execution of the threat for the police to interact. A guy with his back to you uttering verbal threats simply isn't an imminent danger to you, unless he already hold a handgun or a grenade or something, and hence shooting him because of the threat is entirely needless. You don't shoot because of threats, you shoot because there is no other alternative to prevent violence against you or others. If the guy started to follow through with the threat, on the other hand, i.e. picked up a gun and started to turn around or something like that, could there be an argument that the police were justified in shooting because they had no other alternative. So no, this has nothing to do with the fact that Norway may be less violent than USA, but all to do with police being more trigger-happy (which is a horrible expression, btw, since I am sure the police officer was scared out of his wits when he started peppering the black man's back with bullets and not at all happy).

But in a sense it has got something to do with the differences in gun crimes/violence between USA and Norway. The fact that we have a police force who won't be defended from people, like you when they needlessly kill a man with his back to them, results in less violence in our society (because criminals will be less likely to use violence against the police themselves when they don't fear getting shot if they don't, which means that criminals will be less likely to carry weapons, which results in less violence in general in society) and results in an increased trust between law enforcement and civilians (because the police will not as frequently kill people needlessly). In addition you have a culture of fear, a militarized and hopelessly under-trained police force, and ridiculous gun laws.

The current riots in USA is connected to this incessant gun culture you have, where police shoot to kill when not needed, where civilians see the police as their enemies and not their protectors, and where black people tend to get the short end of the stick more frequently than white people. Part of the solution is fixing the police (together with many other things), and one step in that direction is to acknowledge when police do bad (and not defend it), which includes a governor criticises the police for shooting a black man in the back seven times. The governor took the right step here, by addressing the awfulness of what the police officer did, and hopefully words will be followed by action - and with that I don't mean punishing the officer for the killig but long-term changes to how police are trained so that some time in the future the police in USA will be considered protectors and not enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

1755393850_tenor(2).gif.cce046d13cd538022c4a0c2332c9f993.gif

 

For the umpteenth time my point was that heads of state should advocate for "peace".  Let me simplify it for you...this is my post to downzy, since both of you guys seemed to have put on your boxing gloves this morning, ready to knock out the straw man...:P

He has been mostly advocating for "peace" since his disastrous original tweet.  He amended his original tweet after tweeting it and replaced it with "more appropriate" tweets. 

He knew it was a mistake and he changed it.  I commend him for acknowledging his mistake and taking appropriate actions to correct it.  (Even if it was a day or two after the riots started).

 

Is that better? 

 

 

 

 

I completely understand what you're saying.  The damage has been done and now the guy is on damage control.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

Because everyone believed the dozen or so polls that had Clinton winning by a landslide, maybe?  I'm pretty sure that even Trump was surprised that he won, tbh. :lol:

I don't know if Trump was so surprised. I remember that Kellyanne Conway said in an interview during the campaign that Republicans have a "silent majority" Well played from their part. They don't have to show their cards.

 I don't see how the polls are an excuse for not participating in the election

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It amazes me that we have video of an unarmed man being shot in the back seven times and the far greater crime that warranted pages of posts is one tweet by a governor acknowledging that fact.

I can only imagine what some of you might have said about the 1992 beating of Rodney King. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, downzy said:

It amazes me that we have video of an unarmed man being shot in the back seven times and the far greater crime that warranted pages of posts is one tweet by a governor acknowledging that fact.

I can only imagine what some of you might have said about the 1992 beating of Rodney King. 

:facepalm:

We could have gone on to talk about the shooting itself or the kids that were killed had you and Soul not presented 6 pages of straw men arguments.  ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, downzy said:

It amazes me that we have video of an unarmed man being shot in the back seven times and the far greater crime that warranted pages of posts is one tweet by a governor acknowledging that fact.

I can only imagine what some of you might have said about the 1992 beating of Rodney King. 

Trevor Noah raised a good point:

The police deemed the black man who had their backs against them such a threat that they shot him seven times in the back, while they did nothing with a white man carrying an automatic rifle who came towards them with people all over calling out saying he had just shot people. 

The important difference? One was black, the other was white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

The police deemed the black man who had their backs against them such a threat that they shot him seven times in the back, while they did nothing with a white man carrying an automatic rifle who came towards them with people all over calling out saying he had just shot people. 

 

It was bizarre watching that kid walk around for minutes with his hands up (after he had just killed 2 people and injured another)  carrying a semi-auto assault rifle around his neck and not being apprehended.  Have the police stated why he wasn't apprehended immediately yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Dude??? Seriously? :lol: 

I am being serious.  Someone has asked them that, right?  And I mean in the sense of, "Why did you let a kid that had just killed 2 people walk around armed for minutes after killing them?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I am being serious.  Someone has asked them that, right?  And I mean in the sense of, "Why did you let a kid that had just killed 2 people walk around armed for minutes after killing them?"  

Why was a kid walking around with a semi auto rifle in the middle of a city at all? That would be my first question. Let’s answer that first and go from there. 

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Why was a kid walking around with a semi auto rifle in the middle of a city at all? That would be my first question. Let’s answer that first and go from there. 

Why does everyone have to stick to one position with no nuance? Why can't the kid have been dumb for bringing the rifle and trying to LARP as a cop, but the rioters were also idiots and wrong to bum rush him and physically assault him? Both these things can be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Trevor Noah raised a good point:

The police deemed the black man who had their backs against them such a threat that they shot him seven times in the back, while they did nothing with a white man carrying an automatic rifle who came towards them with people all over calling out saying he had just shot people. 

The important difference? One was black, the other was white.

Dumb.

First off, those are two different sets of cops, cops aren't of a hive mind.

Second, the white man had his arms in the air and was trying to surrender, the cops didn't even know what had just occurred because they weren't there.

Third the black man was going back into his vehicle and from the perspective of the cops was going to get a weapon. I've said they should have tried to tackle him before he was able to reach his vehicle, but once he does, that becomes a very dangerous situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

:facepalm:

We could have gone on to talk about the shooting itself or the kids that were killed had you and Soul not presented 6 pages of straw men arguments.  ;) 

It's as you if learned the concept of straw man last week and now you enjoy employing it even though it never actually fits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Why does everyone have to stick to one position with no nuance? Why can't the kid have been dumb for bringing the rifle and trying to LARP as a cop, but the rioters were also idiots and wrong to bum rush him and physically assault him? Both these things can be true.

My main point is that when tensions are running high and you can get a firearm out of a cereal packet you’re asking for trouble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, downzy said:

It's as you learned the concept of straw man last week and now you enjoy employing even though it never actually fits.

Yep.  That’s it.

 

Me in this thread: I think the entire thing is nauseating.  People are getting killed out there.  I think the governor’s initial tweet should have been focused on peace.   I’m glad he eventually went that route and added to his tweets. 
 

Soul Monster: You think it’s ok for police to shoot people in the back 7 times? 
 

Me: No, of course not.  

Soul Monster: You must think it’s ok for police to shoot people in the back 7 times if you didn’t like his tweet.

Me: No, I don’t think that.  I think the governor’s initial tweet should have been focused on peace and I’m glad the governor realized it.

Soul Monster: How is it ok for a cop to shoot someone 7 times in the back?

Me: ....

 

6 pages of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Yep.  That’s it.

 

Me in this thread: I think the entire thing is nauseating.  People are getting killed out there.  I think the governor’s initial tweet should have been focused on peace.   I’m glad he eventually went that route and added to his tweets. 
 

Soul Monster: You think it’s ok for police to shoot people in the back 7 times? 
 

Me: No, of course not.  

Soul Monster: You must think it’s ok for police to shoot people in the back 7 times if you didn’t like his tweet.

Me: No, I don’t think that.  I think the governor’s initial tweet should have been focused on peace and I’m glad the governor realized it.

Soul Monster: How is it ok for a cop to shoot someone 7 times in the back?

Me: ....

 

6 pages of that. 

Oh, you've just had a ''Soul Monster argument''. All my sympathies (from an experienced campaigner).

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Yep.  That’s it.

 

Me in this thread: I think the entire thing is nauseating.  People are getting killed out there.  I think the governor’s initial tweet should have been focused on peace.   I’m glad he eventually went that route and added to his tweets. 
 

Soul Monster: You think it’s ok for police to shoot people in the back 7 times? 
 

Me: No, of course not.  

Soul Monster: You must think it’s ok for police to shoot people in the back 7 times if you didn’t like his tweet.

Me: No, I don’t think that.  I think the governor’s initial tweet should have been focused on peace and I’m glad the governor realized it.

Soul Monster: How is it ok for a cop to shoot someone 7 times in the back?

Me: ....

 

6 pages of that. 

You honestly make me laugh Ace...

You accuse Soul and I of making straw man arguments and then employ one yourself.

Do you really need me to start quoting your initial posts in this thread and the US politics thread where you claimed Governor Evers' tweet was divisive? 

SM and my response has been: divisive to who?  The people who think shooting unarmed black people in the back is fine and acceptable?  That the Governor's remarks were tacit approval for protestors to burn it all down?  That anything the Governor was going to say or tweet about was going to have any real effect on what happened on the streets the following few nights?  

You also claimed the Governor spoke without knowing all the facts.  As I pressed you in the other thread, the video speaks for itself.  Anyone with an IQ above 50 can see what happened and find little to no reason to doubt that Blake was murdered.  As I mentioned in the US politics thread, my three cop friends said there is no justification for the cop's actions in this situation.  The man was killed.  The Governor addressed this fact.  

Look, this is the hill you decided to take your stand on.  Fine.  SM and I found it absurd and we challenged you on it.  Again, it seems strange to me that this is the aspect of this incident that bothered you the most.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed this being mentioned, but the NBA playoff games were all postponed in light of the events. What started as a protest by the Milwaukee Bucks, who refused to play, lead to a domino effect with other players and teams following suit. Eventually the NBA went ahead and postponed all those playoff games. I believe this is a historical first in NBA.

Teams are of course in quarantine between games, making this additional sacrifice is perhaps even more awe inspiring.

(Our Raps recently swept their series, BTW :headbang:And will protect our title!!)

Subsequently the NHL went ahead and took a bit of criticism. They did project an image reading "We Skate for Black Lives" in the big screens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Yep.  That’s it.

 

Me in this thread: I think the entire thing is nauseating.  People are getting killed out there.  I think the governor’s initial tweet should have been focused on peace.   I’m glad he eventually went that route and added to his tweets. 
 

Soul Monster: You think it’s ok for police to shoot people in the back 7 times? 
 

Me: No, of course not.  

Soul Monster: You must think it’s ok for police to shoot people in the back 7 times if you didn’t like his tweet.

Me: No, I don’t think that.  I think the governor’s initial tweet should have been focused on peace and I’m glad the governor realized it.

Soul Monster: How is it ok for a cop to shoot someone 7 times in the back?

Me: ....

 

6 pages of that. 

And this, ladies and gentleman, is a great demonstration of straw man argumentation. Thank you for providing the example and showing us you now know what it is, Ace :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, downzy said:

 

SM and my response has been: divisive to who?  The people who think shooting unarmed black people in the back?  That the Governor's remarks were tacit approval for protestors to burn it all down?  That anything the Governor was going to say or tweet about was going to have any real effect on what happened on the streets the following few nights?  

You also claimed the Governor spoke without knowing all the facts.  As I pressed you in the other thread, the video speaks for itself.  Anyone with an IQ above 50 can see what happened and find little to no reason to doubt that Blake was murdered.  As I mentioned in the US politics thread, my three cop friends said there is no justification for the cop's actions in this situation.  The man was killed.  The Governor addressed this fact.  

 

His initial tweet was divisive and was extremely one sided.   He could have been 100% correct in his statement.  That has nothing to do with whether or not something he says could be divisive.   

For example: 

Half the country thinks the sky is blue.  The other half of the country thinks it's red.  People that think the sky is blue are upset and ready to riot because not everyone agrees that the sky is blue. One day, someone kills someone for saying the sky is blue.  People who think the sky is blue become even more outraged.  

The governor tweets:  The sky is blue.  We have another incident when someone who thinks the sky is red killed someone who thought the sky is blue.  We will back up any person who thinks the sky is blue because the people that think the sky is red are wrong.

 

That is a divisive tweet regardless of whether or not he is 100% right.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...