I thought you would have been all over Lindsey Graham's comments over the last week. Your take?
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I thought you would have been all over Lindsey Graham's comments over the last week. Your take?
my dude, they are already taught that. nothing about these points is new or different. i don't know if you've noticed but it ain't working.
His primary focus in almost everything he has said about it is to focus on training, a national database, re-structuring etc. The vast majority of this country do not believe its an all police bad concept. At least I dont think so. There are plenty of great cops and departments as a whole out there, those should be held up as shining examples. Im about as left of center as one can be but the whole defund the police concept when taken literally and applied without measure- is dumb.
no you arent
again, training does not work. neither do body cams. stop perpetuating nonsense when we already know for a fact that it isn't the solution.
You're acting like police violence and corruption is so unique to the US. Its not. Now if you strictly wanted to focus on lethal force being used, then yes - but that's still only a piece of the puzzle.
Ill ignore Mr. old grumpy man above with his one liners, without explaining himself @Eboue
It's not meant to be taken literally though. I think few people will say that all police forces should be disbanded entirely. The idea is to take money away from the police and create budget for mental health units - like the CAHOOTS unit in Eugene, OR (link to their website and a discussion). That can be a lot of money, too, given how many US police departments have militarized in recent years. (That equipment is expensive!)
Proper mental health support and treatment coupled with supportive and engaged neighbourhood police units (i.e., a friendly neighbourhood presence focused on establishing ties and working with people) would be a much better use of funds than an armoured truck and would prevent and solve a lot of problems.
I agree. Which is why im glad some folks recognize how problematic the optics of just saying "defund the police" are. It is a very broad systematic problem that requires many different steps. But just because one solution isnt the end all solution (i. E. Body cams) - it doesn't mean it can't still be part of the solution.
are we talking about the u.s elections? yes.
aren't cops already trained in de-escalation? yes
has it worked? no
don't we already know this? also yes
why are you still repeating BS talking points that will only result in more innocent deaths?
Newsflash: this is a massive country with thousands of police departments who all run different equipment, run different trainings, etc. There is a reason why some of these deaths are given so much attention (and rightfully so) - exactly because it doesnt, and shouldn't happen all the time.
You cant approach one another if both sides are pushing each other into a corner more and more and all it leads to is hyper polarization without recognizing that each side comes at it from two different angles. That's how we got where we are. Media and politicians love it though.
that's great. show me how training, restructuring(whatever that means), is supposed to be the solution?
I guess just shooting them like they currently do works well ala Trump, shit don't break what's not broken right?
How about not shooting?I guess just shooting them like they currently do works well ala Trump, shit don't break what's not broken right?
Watching US politics really gives me a new found respect for our Dutch politicians. Either ours are very smart or theirs are very dumb, but even our right wing nutjob is at least sort of intelligent. I mean, he gives speeches in Latin, that requires an IQ of at least 180.
Shooting someone in the leg is de-escalating the situation. Got it.
Kidding aside, that answer is not that bad.
Probably the latter.
It might also be that in the US even the fecking toilet lady is publically elected.
Only thing I ever ran for is class president. I won in a landslide naturally. Great numbers!
One of the perks of being home schooled.
ouch
I'm just jealous is all. I was home schooled and I never received so much as a nomination...ouch
Not just another instrument of government propaganda in the country, Facebook India refused to take down accounts and posts of rabid islamophobes spreading an insane amount of hate (tbf pro Modi propaganda and Islamophobia is indistinguishable).They were summoned by a Delhi Assembly in connection to the Delhi riots but they have refused to appear.
Zuckerberg is a thundercnut, he'd sell his own mother for cash.
I really don't see the problem with this? This is a good thing, not a bad thing, no?
Shooting bad guys in the legs instead of 8 times in the back is what they should've been doing all along, really.
It is not THE solution but better education of police personell has to be at least a part of it. To imply that better training would not help in reducing police incompetence and power abuse is pretty ridiculous. Basic Police training in the US is sorely lacking compared to other First World countries. A friend of mine who trains new recruits of the German Police for a living called it "catastrophic, chaotic and highly dangerous". The last point is especially aimed towards the higher focus of the training towards intimidation instead of deescelation. The length of the training is also an issue here. It is quite frankly far too short. It is in many cases only a fraction of the time that it takes for them to be allowed fully armed (sometimes to the teeth) compared to their counter parts in the rest of the World.
It’s a good thing if you are a normal person.
The biggest cause of police-related problems in the States is the basic fact that American society is awash with - and drowning in - guns. In fact there more civilian-owned guns than there are people! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
This means that uniformed police officers, when called out to any incident, face a very real fear of being shot. They never know who might have a gun and might use it, which in turn tends to lead to over-reaction and a policy of shoot-first-and-ask questions-later. Add in racism and toxic masculinity to the mix and ... bingo.
Partly in response to this very wide-spread civilian gun ownership, the police have to a large extent become heavily armed para-militaries, with equipment that includes armoured personnel carriers, grenade launchers and more. This is the exact opposite of any community policing ethos that looks to police-by-consent and to de-escalate situations.
However, judging by their general seeming support for Trump, I suspect that most police officers in the States are strong opponents of the sort civilian gun-control initiatives that would reduce the risks they face.
This means that uniformed police officers, when called out to any incident, face a very real fear of being shot. They never know who might have a gun and might use it, which in turn tends to lead to over-reaction and a policy of shoot-first-and-ask questions-later. Add in racism and toxic masculinity to the mix and ... bingo.
Partly in response to this very wide-spread civilian gun ownership, the police have to a large extent become heavily armed para-militaries, with equipment that includes armoured personnel carriers, grenade launchers and more. This is the exact opposite of any community policing ethos that looks to police-by-consent and to de-escalate situations.
However, judging by their general seeming support for Trump, I suspect that most police officers in the States are strong opponents of the sort civilian gun-control initiatives that would reduce the risks they face.
If you're in a situation where you need to shoot someone then you're shooting to kill. Gun's are never a non-lethal response weapon, and the idea that you can just shoot someone in the leg and put them down safely is basically TV cop show nonsense.
1) If you're using a gun, you're supposed to be either in imminent danger or someone else is in imminent danger. Trying to shoot someone in the leg is harder than shooting them in the body (also the reason cops don't try for head shots) and if you miss then you or someone else is probably dead.
2) Even if you hit them and they're still capable of reacting, then you or someone else is probably dead.
3) A gunshot wound to the leg can be MORE dangerous than shots to various parts of the torso. If you hit an artery or major blood vessels then you probably killed them anyway.
Basically the training needs to be in massively reducing the cops use of guns in the first place in favour of de-escalation and the use of non-lethal weapons. If a gun needs to be used however there is never going to be a safe option, they're intended to kill and they will kill.
1. I mean, sure, if your life is at immediate risk, and the offender has a gun, shoot to kill. Which is why I used the example of "... 8 times in the back."
2. See 1. I still don't get why so many more (unarmed, fleeing) people are shot and killed by the cops in the US than (almost?) anywhere else in the world. And why it's weird to say that "It shouldn't be like this, there are ways to avoid murdering so many people".
3. Of course it can be more dangerous, but it usually isn't. Silly argument.
There are so many examples of people getting shot multiple times while running away. Or shot while unarmed ("... but he was reaching for something"). Or shot while laying flat on the ground following every order.
It wouldn't even be necessary to shoot these guys at all, but I think getting shot in the leg while running away is a more proportionate penalty for fleeing than getting murdered.
And sure, it CAN be more dangerous to get shot in the leg than the torso. But if you had the choice between getting shot in the leg or in the torso, what would you choose? Which shot do you think you're most likely to survive? Be honest now.
What Biden says is what every sane person should think, in my opinion.
Edit: As for the last part, I obviously agree. Guns should be the last resort, always. But IF you have to use it, I strongly disagree that "you're shooting to kill". There are ways to strongly reduce the chances of killing someone, while minimizing your own risk at the same time. Like aiming for the legs instead of the torso.
This is not really accurate. There are certainly some situations, where the police should shoot for the legs rather than shoot to kill, and I'm pretty sure this is also taught in police academies around the world. Specifically, if a suspect is armed with a knife or blunt weapon and refuses to comply after repeated warnings. You can find plenty of articles describing incidents, where police have used this approach.
Sure, in the U.S. where everyone and their mom has a gun, it may be more common that the police have to shoot to kill. But to say that the police should only ever shoot to kill is not correct.
I'd be fascinated to read a single example of a police academy anywhere in the world teaching this if you have an example?
The torso without any doubt. Although there are several areas of the torso which are likely to be immediately fatal, people very often survive individal gunshot wounds to the body. There is a lot of body mass there and wounds can often be survivable. The thighs are an awful place to be shot, due to the high blood flow there and prominence of blood vessels, and being shot in or lower than the knees is likely to result in something crippling if you survive. The stomach would seriously suck, but at least there you'd survive for a reasonable amount of time during which you can potentially receive medical help to save you.
Am I seeing this too naively regarding police shootings but why couldn't they be equipped with rubber bullets? Having seen the damage they can do during recent protests and riots would they not incapacitate an "assailant"?
Keep track of Mail-In Voting.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/mail-in-ballot-tracker-us-election-2020
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/mail-in-ballot-tracker-us-election-2020
Alright, then. I'd choose getting shot in the leg 10 out of 10 times. To each their own, I guess.
3 deaths out of 49 incidents where the police had to fire their gun in Norway the past 10 years.
I'd say that's some pretty decent stats proving that you don't have to "shoot to kill".
Obviously I can't find curriculum or specific training memos from the police academy, but I know for a fact that the police here is trained to aim for the legs first, unless the situation really says otherwise. I have many friends who are police officers, and they're very adamant that shooting to kill is very much the last resort, and very rarely happens. Like only a few times in a decade. But actually having to shoot a person happens a lot more frequently (relatively speaking), without the need to "shoot to kill". There is always a risk of killing involved when shooting someone, obviously, but as I've said before, there are ways to effectively limit the potential risk for that.
This is even mentioned in Norwegian law. "(3) When using a weapon, the police are required to limit the harmful effect as much as possible.". The law doesn't say "legs", but lawmakers, courts, and the police themselves, have interpreted it in the way that shooting people in the leg is considered to limit the harmful effect moreso than shooting people in the torso.
Edit: Found this. A thesis about how the law about guns in the police force is to be interpreted, and how it's used in practical situations. Page 47: "This involves that the police should fire at body parts that won't kill the perpetrator, if possible". According to you, that should be the torso. According to the police, it should be the legs. And with only 3/49 deaths when aiming for the legs first, that seems to be a decent way to go.
Last edited:
Arent they only supposed to shoot with intent to kill? If you think someone is dangerous eoough that you have to shoot him then giving them a chance to still fire a weapon or finish reaching for one will not work.
I don't think the curriculum will be available online, but given that you can easily find dozens of examples of police using this approach, I would assume it is something that is taught. I could be wrong. Shooting for the legs was also part of the escalation principles I was taught in the army, when I did guard duty.
Took a criminology class at university, one guest was an FBI officer. Not sure if it extends to local police, but they're trained that you should only use your weapon as a last resort, but the second you switch to that mode you shoot to end the threat, typically aiming for the triangle of shoulders to sternum.
His logic being that in the US you have to assume the suspect is armed, so they're not cooperating and you can't see their hands, they're trained to assume a weapon is on the way. And his example then isn't that the agent or agents partner get shot, but the kind family in the mini van behind them, or the suspects family and so forth.
Also, firing a handgun while dosed up on adrenaline at a potentially moving, angry suspect is almost impossible.
It sucks a lot, but policing in the US has to be different because of their idiotic gun laws.
His logic being that in the US you have to assume the suspect is armed, so they're not cooperating and you can't see their hands, they're trained to assume a weapon is on the way. And his example then isn't that the agent or agents partner get shot, but the kind family in the mini van behind them, or the suspects family and so forth.
Also, firing a handgun while dosed up on adrenaline at a potentially moving, angry suspect is almost impossible.
It sucks a lot, but policing in the US has to be different because of their idiotic gun laws.
Satire is dead
Waht is going on
Why on earth did they choose blue to represent the percentage of ballots returned?
- Status