Jump to content
Awoo.

Police Brutality Thread


CrownSlayer’s Shadow
 Share

Recommended Posts

The thing is that shooting limbs on a moving target in a high-stress situation is very difficult to do, particularly when the average level of accuracy of an officer is already embarrassingly low- I think it's something like 20%. And any gun safety class worth its salt will tell you that you don't even aim a gun at someone you don't intend to kill anyway, because the biggest part on a person contains too many vital organs for aiming in and of itself not to be a high risk in case you do shoot or the gun accidentally goes off.

The kicker is that when foreign countries are forced to actually fire weaponry, they tend not to kill people because they liberally use warning shots first to calm people down and maintain their control over the situation. And while conventional American advice is that warning shots are super-dee-duper dangerous because they will hit someone on the way down or rebounding (which, to me, only raises the rhetorical question of why aren't we afraid of our current reality where over 100,000 people are allowed to raise their guns at people in non-lethal situations or fire a ridiculous amount of rounds for almost any reason and at any time), this has never really proven to be a problem in countries where they are used. So there's definitely non-lethal ways to brandish real guns and get people to back down, but America will never implement them.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CrownSlayer’s Shadow
 

Race doesn't matter.

That's a nice ideal. Now go join the other people blind to the double standards of why it does and should between a black person and a white person committing the same crime.

 

No.

Yes. Even police officers say this.

Very rarely is assault against an officer so serious to warrant a suspect being shot, especially when the suspect is unarmed.

 

Yes, he would. The use of deadly force is authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death. An average sized officer would certainly be at risk of serious bodily injury or death if they were assaulted by a world heavyweight boxing champion, so the officer would have the right to use deadly force.

No, he wouldn't. Because if that person is unarmed that kind of assault would rarely cause serious bodily injury or death with his fists to warrant an officer killing him when they have an arsenal of non-lethal tools at their disposal. Otherwise, how the hell could that average sized officer make it through police academy if he can't deal with a heavyweight boxer trying to punch him in the face? The guy probably shouldn't be an officer then.

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-stun-guns-police-killings-20140825-story.html

Doesn't seem like that when they actually use it.

But in the event a taser fails, this is also why officers have this:

police-model-pepper-spray-by-mace.jpg?t=

And this:

Hardwood_Police_Baton_Tonfa_1707.jpg

Before resorting to a gun. Both of which (especially the baton) should give even an average sized officer a better edge against a unarmed heavyweight boxer.

Edited by ChaosSupremeSonic
  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legosi (Tani Coyote)
That's a nice ideal. Now go join the other people blind to the double standards of why it does and should between a black person and a white person committing the same crime.

 

I must add to this.

 

I understand why the average white person doesn't take the concept of racial skewing seriously. For every correct claim, you also have idiots who seek to construe everything as racist. OJ's lawyer made the case out as some systematic attempt by white elites to destroy a successful black man. I once met a black woman who construed a white father going to Africa and claiming a disputed piece of land to create his own country (he wanted to make his daughter an actual princess) as a racist colonialist. This is to say nothing of how cancerous tumblr can get on the subject as well (for example, that fine gem some have said that only white people can be racist). Ironically, the existence of the "race card" is denied just as much as racism itself.

 

Born into this environment, I myself was skeptical for a long time of the idea of widespread racism and its role in society. But the more research I find, the more and more I find it harder to deny it's far more than an isolated variable.

 

What I'm getting at here is: while I have no doubt there are a good number of people who really do just want to cry racism at every turn and corner, you really can't assume every single case consists of this. There's too much evidence that says otherwise.

 

That's to say nothing of the evidence that points out brutality reaches beyond race as well and is a general problem. It just intersects with racism for extremely ugly results for minorities.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racism is at nearly every turn and corner at human society, with America as no exception. If you accept the belief that we are all consciously and subconsciously taught racial prejudices and apathy through segregation, media, and cultural stereotypes, and that the individual actions that are the result of these biases inevitably add up to systemic inequality by design, then the burden of proof is actually on finding some area of life that is as free as possible from racial bias so as to be reasonably called "colorblind," and if you do tell someone or some institution that's important because you will have just solved a very fundamental human problem, and personally you'll make me a happy camper because I'm sick and tired of being burdened with it. You can't even talk about video games without finding some level of racism towards black people, from the eye-roll stuff where people claim Knuckles is black because "lol rap music," to the diet variety where people claim they can't relate to black characters in games as much as they can the fucking fantasy loli moe anime girls with big ass eyes and bright-ass hair, to the outright hostile variety that is Gamergate.

The reason the average white person doesn't take racism in America seriously is because it doesn't happen to them in a way that is institutional within the bedrock of American society, and when we can't see or experience something then we operate our lives on the idea that it doesn't exist, and subsequently that our actions are either inconsequential or amoral since we all consider ourselves "good people" who don't do "bad things." White people largely live in a bubble free from racial discomfort, and confronting the public about it results in a defensiveness or attempts to reconcile it as something else that does nothing but reveal the culture's own mental fragility concerning the problem. OJ's lawyer is just icing on the cake for people to continue acting like the race card has any real power beyond that card in the deck with the manufacturer's information on it.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 When a police officer is attacked by someone, the police officer has every right to shoot. Simply put, if you assault a cop, then expect to be shot.

If the officer is being assaulted, the officer has the right to shoot.

    A police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them, regardless of what that person's race is.

At the end of the day, according to evidence, Brown assaulted a police officer, so he deserved to be shot.

The police have every right to shoot when they're assaulted.

A police officer has every right to shoot someone who assaults them, particularly someone who punches them and attempts to take their gun. You know, someone like Michael Brown.

Nonsense. An officer undeniably has the right to shoot someone who assaults them. Simple as. 

You know, I think I'm going to have to see some citation for this, because I simply don't believe it is true. Michael Brown had extenuating circumstances since in that case there was an attempted fight over the officer's gun, but I'm pretty sure police officers are not, in fact allowed to simply light up anyone who takes a swing at them; as you've repeatedly insisted to be an inarguable truth from the start. This part in particular:

Officers (and anyone who legally owns a gun, for that matter) don't only have the right to shoot their opponents when they're armed.

As someone who has a concealed carry permit, I know for a fact isn't true. An opponent doesn't have to be armed for you to be allowed to respond with lethal force, but you absolutely do not have a right to pull a gun on someone and shoot them just because they assaulted you. Absolutely do not. The only context that that statement is true is if they have done so after having broken into your house, and even then there are specific requirements that must be met that vary from state to state or you might be up shit creek when the police do arrive.

 

Even if an officer uses a lethal device like a gun to protect themselves or others around them, couldn't they theoretically shoot the person or people in the arms or legs, depending on the situation?

Even ignoring that shooting people in the leg or arm or whatever is simply a movie thing (center mass is the rule), there's really no such thing as a non-lethal shot when you shoot a gun. Officers (or, really anyone who was trained to carry a handgun) aren't trained to act like there is, either.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those people still thinking that black people aren't actually targeted, an officer actually admitted on camera to pulling a man over because he stared at him. I don't even know what the fuck we're supposed to do anymore, because you sure as hell know avoiding eye contact is a classic sign of suspicion.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Race doesn't matter. A police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them, regardless of what that person's race is.

If race truly "didn't matter" white guys would either get shot by police just as frequently as black guys, or black guys would be treated as leniently by police as white guys. Since neither of these things are true, the assertion that "race" doesn't matter just doesn't hold up. Maybe you think it shouldn't matter, which I can understand. But saying it doesn't is simply wrong. I may have said here before that putting race into places where it's unnecessary (e.g. a Mario game) is bad, but trying to take race out of issues that are clearly racial is even worse.

 

You can't even talk about video games without finding some level of racism towards black people, from the eye-roll stuff where people claim Knuckles is black because "lol rap music," 

Oh, I remember that. Even then I thought it was stupid.

Edited by Kaoru Akimotobug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, your phrasing is simply shit. You keep trying to frame "assault" as always a life-or-death situation in order to argue for officers' impunity to kill everything that doesn't want to cooperate (not even touching upon the actions of shitty officers who provoke fight-or-flight responses with their shit training and attitudes), when all assault is legally is getting hit hard enough to get hurt- there's no clarification of the extent of assault there- which is not something the normal citizenry is able to kill for except in very specific circumstances with a shitload of more telegraphing of intent and willingness to kill than what officers are allowed to get away with. 

Oh, sorry. Simply getting assaulted is no reason for an officer to shoot someone. Someone shouldn't get shot just for slapping a police officer. I should have clarified what I meant by assault. I concede on that argument.

But Michael Brown didn't simply assault Wilson. He punched an officer repeatedly, attempted to steal the officer's weapon and lunged at the officer. He deserved to be shot, regardless of what his race was.

 

That's a nice ideal. Now go join the other people blind to the double standards of why it does and should between a black person and a white person committing the same crime.

 

Yes. Even police officers say this.

The first link doesn't bolster your argument at all. It's just about fleeing suspects; not suspects in general.

As for your second and third links, no, the police officers don't say that.

No, he wouldn't. Because if that person is unarmed that kind of assault would rarely cause serious bodily injury or death with his fists to warrant an officer killing him when they have an arsenal of non-lethal tools at their disposal.

 

Wrong. Have you even seen heavyweight boxers? Their punches can be very deadly and dangerous, often as dangerous as an actual weapon.

 Otherwise, how the hell could that average sized officer make it through police academy if he can't deal with a heavyweight boxer trying to punch him in the face? The guy probably shouldn't be an officer then.

Heavyweight boxers are TRAINED martial artists. Average sized police officers don't have anywhere near as much training in close combat as heavyweight boxers do. Pit Mike Tyson in his prime against Darren Wilson, and without a gun, Wilson would likely get wrecked.

Doesn't seem like that when they actually use it.

Circumstances vary.

 Before resorting to a gun. Both of which (especially the baton) should give even an average sized officer a better edge against a unarmed heavyweight boxer.

Nope, heavyweight boxers can guard their faces to protect themselves from mace. And heavyweight boxers tend to be fast, so they can just dodge the baton. 

Edited by Diesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heavyweight boxers don't have backup ready to be called in if necessary. Police officers do. I doubt even a heavyweight boxer could overpower 5 or 6 cops.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heavyweight boxers don't have backup ready to be called in if necessary. Police officers do. I doubt even a heavyweight boxer could overpower 5 or 6 cops.

A heavyweight boxer against 5 or 6 average sized cops with no guns? A heavyweight boxer could still win.

And there are other kinds of martial artists, too. They can certainly a handle a bunch of cops without guns coming at them.

Edited by Diesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CrownSlayer’s Shadow

Diesel, you are so hilariously out of touch with reality that it's clear you're trolling at this point. Boxers can't guard their faces from maces the same way they can block a punch, nor would they be fast enough to dodge a swing from a baton if they're charging an officer - who are TRAINED professionals (or supposed to be) in subduing criminals without lethal force - in the way you implying. Were that so, a gun would do much since they could dodge a bullet just as easily.

And  unless that boxer is Superman, a heavyweight boxer isn't likely to kill you that quickly in a fight with a few punches. I've actually took a few punches from a boxer - hurts like fucking hell, but not enough to kill me and I'm less than average size. Not to mention how big a slippery slope it is to use a heavyweight boxer like that's the only kind of criminal out there.

 

but whatever, I'm done entertaining you. Just needed to stop that blatant misinformation you're doing:

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diesel, you are so hilariously out of touch with reality that it's clear you're trolling at this point.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Boxers can't guard their faces from maces the same way they can block a punch,

Yes, they can. Maces burn eyes. A boxer can block their eyes.

 nor would they be fast enough to dodge a swing from a baton if they're charging an officer who are TRAINED professionals (or supposed to be) in subduing criminals without lethal force - in the way you implying.

A heavyweight champion certainly would be able to. The close combat training heavyweight boxers go through > the close combat training police go through.

 Were that so, a gun would do much since they could dodge a bullet just as easily.

Wrong, because batons =/= bullets.

 And unless that boxer is Superman, a heavyweight boxer isn't likely to kill you that quickly in a fight with a few punches.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I say only a few punches? No. 

 I've actually took a few punches from a boxer - hurts like fucking hell, but not enough to kill me and I'm less than average size.

Irrelevant. Did you take SERIOUS punches from a HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION boxer? No? Then you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 Not to mention how big a slippery slope it is to use a heavyweight boxer like that's the only kind of criminal out there.

YOU were the one who said police officers should subdue ANYONE unarmed without weapons. That's a ridiculous statement, as not everyone is the same. A heavyweight boxer who assaults an officer is far more dangerous than the average joe who assaults an officer.

 but whatever, I'm done entertaining you. Just needed to stop that blatant misinformation you're doing: 

Again, pot calling kettle black.

Edited by Diesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's enough. You spent your entire fucking time in this topic unequivocally saying that police officers are allowed to shoot people for touching them. You don't get to mince words over who's been spreading misinformation. This absolute idiotic side conversation you're trying to push about how heavyweight boxers are trained fighters so they can somehow block mace as if it had the same physical consistency as a fist or casually shrug off baton strikes isn't diverting anyone's attention from your previous posts.

 

Pit Mike Tyson in his prime against Darren Wilson, and without a gun, Wilson would likely get wrecked.

Mike Tyson was a professional heavyweight boxer; one of the best there ever was. Mike Tyson did go to jail for a major criminal act not too far removed from when he was in his prime. Mike Tyson was known for being about a half step away from being uncontrollably insane. Mike Tyson still did not fight off six cops in a rage induced arrest before finally going down for the seventh, so who the fuck gives a shit about what a boxer is capable of in this wonderful example devoid of any repeated basis in history?

Does a heavyweight boxer's body react to electricity? Does a heavyweight boxer's hands have webbing between each finger? Because unless you can come up with something showing Mike Tyson was made out of rubber or some sort of merman in his prime I'm pretty sure a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing without needing to put a dozen bullets into him.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's enough. You spent your entire fucking time in this topic unequivocally saying that police officers are allowed to shoot people for touching them.

No, for assaulting them. You're just rephrasing my post for your own convenience.

Furthermore, I already conceded my argument that police have the right to shoot people for simply assaulting them as there needs to be more than basic assault to warrant deadly force, so there's no reason for you to bring that up. I already admitted I was wrong. 

Mike Tyson was a professional heavyweight boxer; one of the best there ever was. Mike Tyson did go to jail for a major criminal act not too far removed from when he was in his prime. Mike Tyson was known for being about a half step away from being uncontrollably insane. Mike Tyson still did not fight off six cops in a rage induced arrest before finally going down for the seventh, so who the fuck gives a shit about what a boxer is capable of in this wonderful example devoid of any repeated basis in history?

Again, you're rephrasing my post for your own convenience.

In that portion of my post you quoted, I said Mike Tyson in his prime could beat an unarmed (as in, no gun) Wilson, not 6 cops. When I said a heavyweight champion boxer could beat 6 cops that didn't have any guns, I was referring to heavyweight champion boxers in general, not specifically Tyson.

Does a heavyweight boxer's body react to electricity?

Whether or not they do, that doesn't change the fact that tasers aren't even always effective, so it can't necessarily be said officers can just rely on tasers to subdue heavyweight champ boxers:

http://www.tricitytribuneusa.com/tasers-not-always-100-percent-effective/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-taser-is-not-a-surefire-weapon/2013/06/04/1137746c-cc94-11e2-8573-3baeea6a2647_story.html

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/TASERS-INEFFECTIVE-IN-4-OFFICER-INVOLVED-SHOOTINGS-269299881.html

Does a heavyweight boxer's hands have webbing between each finger?

One doesn't need webbing between each finger to block their eyes from mace. And they can use gloves.

Furthermore, mace isn't always effective either.

As you can see, this police officer attempted to mace an ex boxer, and it did nothing. If it didn't work on an ex boxer, it possibly wouldn't work on a heavyweight champion boxer.

Because unless you can come up with something showing Mike Tyson was made out of rubber or some sort of merman in his prime I'm pretty sure a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing without needing to put a dozen bullets into him.

Considering the fact neither tasers nor mace are always effective, it wouldn't necessarily alter the outcome.

And regarding the notion that cops can just call for back-up when they're assaulted by a heavyweight boxer, what's an officer supposed to do during the time it takes for back-up to arrive and the boxer is STILL assaulting them? It's possible that mace and a taser won't work, so if the officer doesn't resort to firearms, it's possible they'll get wrecked by the boxer. Thus, the officer should shoot the boxer.

Edited by Diesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just because it's possible that mace or a taser may not work against them, it's better to not even attempt such methods and just shoot them outright?

Dude, heavyweight boxers aren't superhuman beings from another planet. They're human. Thousands of volts of electricity will hurt them and their reaction time is not fast enough to block mace when they don't see it coming.

...this argument is stupid, anyway. It relies on creating a very specific and unlikely hypothetical situation in an attempt to justify gratuitous police violence.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon
 

If you assault a police officer, then you are definitely asking to be shot. 

So less/non-lethal defensive tactics all of sudden don't exist?  Disproportionate retribution aught not to to be the way of the future.

Edited by Jovahexeon Joranvexeon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just because it's possible that mace or a taser may not work against them, it's better to not even attempt such methods and just shoot them outright?

That's not even what I'm insinuating. You people are trying to argue that they shouldn't shoot them, even though they'd have good reason to as the other methods may not work.

 

Dude, heavyweight boxers aren't superhuman beings from another planet. They're human. 

Doesn't mean mace or taser will necessarily work on them.

Thousands of volts of electricity will hurt them

Not always, because tasers don't always work.

and their reaction time is not fast enough to block mace when they don't see it coming.

But they can very easily see it coming. All they to do is the see the police take out the bottle and they'll know it's coming.

So less/non-lethal defensive tactics all of sudden don't exist?  Disproportionate retribution aught not to to be the way of the future.

Evidently you don't read before you post.

Edited by Diesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the debate is fucked in a topic about police brutality and the institution's wanton disregard for ensuring safety that we need to make and argue over the comparison of black people to professional boxers.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TailsTellsTales
 

And regarding the notion that cops can just call for back-up when they're assaulted by a heavyweight boxer, what's an officer supposed to do during the time it takes for back-up to arrive and the boxer is STILL assaulting them? It's possible that mace and a taser won't work, so if the officer doesn't resort to firearms, it's possible they'll get wrecked by the boxer. Thus, the officer should shoot the boxer.

Why are you obsessed with wanting to find incidents where police can shoot when nobodys life is at risk? I believe police officers should value life and try hard to keep suspect alive that includes the "heavyweight boxer" and guns should be last resort. If the suspect is threatening other people lives including the police officer then yes the police officer should use deadly force if it means to save lives including their own otherwise no need for deadly force to be used.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legosi (Tani Coyote)

Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics said that there was no such thing as absolute good. What would be ethical, just, etc. depended on the circumstances, and a person should condition their mind so as to make the right action at the right time. John Stuart Mill, ethicist who codified utilitarian ethics, stated that later generations have an advantage over prior ones in that they can use the human experience akin to a laboratory, allowing them to avoid making the same mistakes because they have knowledge of what did and didn't work in past cases.

 

Why am I mentioning these?

 

Because we're using an extreme example of the heavyweight boxer. In such a circumstance, yes, the officer might have much more justification in using lethal force if it's clear said boxer has lethal intent.

 

But that's an extreme case. People come in all shapes and sizes. A taser doesn't always work, nor does mace, but an officer should be trained so as to get a good idea when these wouldn't be appropriate. Similarly, they should be trained to know that if they use these, how much they would probably need. They should also be disciplined to know whether or not engaging in this manner would be appropriate, or if they should wait for backup.

 

"That's impractical!" Is it? We have this concept called probable cause. It's already enshrined in our laws that officers are supposed to be of sound mind, able to make educated guesses when there's something wrong or off about a situation. It isn't much of a stretch that they should be able to reason who is and isn't a threat, and what sort of weapon they should use on the person, if any.

 

This is why I feel we need fewer, better trained officers than a larger overall force. It's already been established that for the most part the number of officers doesn't really impact crime or even arrests. There's plenty of reason to review department lists and get rid of the officers who aren't making the cut.

 

The prevalence of firearms in America means officers are inherently in a more dangerous position than counterparts in other countries, so I don't think the unarmed officer ideal would work as well out here. But I think they consent to said danger when they sign up for the job. We as citizens are perfectly right to demand more responsibility and greater risks of officers if it will be to our benefit, because they consent to any standards or risks we impose on them. This is the social contract at work - society as a whole will pool authority in these men and women, but we also are well within our rights to take it back if they don't use it responsibly. Officers need to be of, by, and for the people through and through, or else there should be no officers.

 

Doubly so when we see plenty of cases where officers, even with guns pointed at them, have been able to diffuse the situation. The officer in such situation is perfectly right to shoot the person, but many officers have declined to do so, seeking a better outcome where nobody has to die.

 

I think we need more of those kinds of officers. They need to be training the next generation and making sure those who don't make the cut don't make it past the academy level. Note how execution is often referred to as "the ultimate price." Ultimate meaning final, last, etc. Lethal force needs to be at the very bottom of an officer's options, regardless of the race of the person they're confronting.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, for assaulting them. You're just rephrasing my post for your own convenience

Nope. You just have once again shot your mouth off extensively regarding a topic without knowing what the words you were saying meant.

 

Again, you're rephrasing my post for your own convenience.

Nope. I'm just mocking this contrived example you brought up for no other reason than to divert attention from your failed attempt to claim every hypothetical officer/suspect altercation into a justifiable cause for killing the suspect. Though I suppose it is possible that there is a roving pack of homicidal heavyweight boxers that police officers always have to be at the ready to deal with, I'm certainly questioning how often it is a thing that has actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we even going on with this needless digression? I mean, yeah, professional boxers can pose a notable threat to a police officer if given a chance... but here's the thing: not everyone is even a amateur boxer, much less a pro! Are we black folks really in such a position with this stupid "violent thugs" stereotype that, in a would-be encounter with an officer, we can only be compared to those who are paid to fight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. You just have once again shot your mouth off extensively regarding a topic without knowing what the words you were saying meant.

Baseless statement.

Nope. I'm just mocking this contrived example you brought up for no other reason than to divert attention from your failed attempt to claim every hypothetical officer/suspect altercation into a justifiable cause for killing the suspect.

So, in other words, you're trolling.

 I also note that you just cherry-picked and dodged the majority of my post. You have nothing contributing to add to this discussion. 

Why are we even going on with this needless digression? I mean, yeah, professional boxers can pose a notable threat to a police officer if given a chance... but here's the thing: not everyone is even a amateur boxer, much less a pro!

You people were the ones who said police should refrain shooting anyone unarmed, which includes boxers. That suggests police should handle boxers the same way they'd handle anyone else, which is a ridiculous statement, as boxers are more dangerous than the average person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people were the ones who said police should refrain shooting anyone unarmed, which includes boxers. That suggests police should handle boxers the same way they'd handle anyone else, which is a ridiculous statement, as boxers are more dangerous than the average person.

 

I don't know where you're going with this "you people" thing--not sure if I even want to know--but the argument being made here is that, mayhaps, police officers should not automatically go for the (most) lethal option in response to every perceived threat. Again, boxers may be more dangerous than most folks, but not everyone is a boxer and acting as if they all are is just a showcase of flagrant irresponsibility on the part of the officer.

 

Guns aren't toys nor are they "non lethal"--they're designed to put an end to its target, one way or the other. I do not think that it's bad to argue that, maybe, we should be more careful with how we use this killing tool.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baseless statement.

What does the word "assault" mean? You said it literally half a dozen times, so I hope you know; but it's becoming increasingly clear that you just said a word and pushed it through in the hopes no one would challenge it. Similar to "emulation". And "backtracking". There's probably more.

So, in other words, you're trolling.

Nope. Your persecution complex is your own problem no matter how hard you try and make it everyone else's, but if you're going to resort to a completely stupid extreme example for why non-lethal force cannot be considered in every situation, I'm going to call it for the attempt to move the goalposts that it is.

 I also note that you just cherry-picked and dodged the majority of my post. You have nothing contributing to add to this discussion.

First of all, I suggest you drop the bullshit attitude. You've been given such a free pass on the piles of indefensible garbage you've spewn all over this forum in every thread you've entered ever since you've joined that insulting the guy who has defended you from being banned on multiple occasions probably isn't the best idea on your part. You've contributed nothing to this discussion but show one example where lethal force was justified; and everything where you haven't specifically been talking about that one thing has been you attempting to simply will all other examples of racial police violence to be the same thing. There is a very clear pattern to your posting style, and I daresay you're running out of chances to move away from it.

 

 

But what, pray tell, did I dodge and cherry pick? The shit you posted was the same shit that I already responded to once, and in response you simply tried reiterating it again as if that makes it more true. What about mace, a gaseous/liquid solvent that irritates the skin on contact and plays havoc on someone's eyes and breathing, makes it the same as someone's fist? What about a strict training regiment or high athletic ability makes someone able to completely shrug off a hit from a taser or baton strike? You're acting as if they have no effect on people and others are saying that they are guaranteed to incapacitate someone; which is pretty ridiculous when neither is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Zaysho changed the title to Police Brutality Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.