Politics And Current Events

[Morkle]

interesting how the kid's race is left out...

Yep, this will get no national attention outside of these articles. If he was black, Maryland would be burning.

PS - this is a situation where if the kid really did have a real looking gun and when the officer arrived he stood in a shooting stance as the witnesses say, I don't blame the officer for shooting him. And if he was pulling out an an additional weapon after he was shot the first time, I don't think it is wrong to shot him again because the officer does not know if he is pulling out another firearm or not.

Well that's where I want the details. What is a "shooting stance." It is literally all opinion of the person who called, and the officer.

Did the kid not say anything? Did the cop just get out of the car and blast him?

[nocera]

Is there video? Is it weird that I'm surprised when there isn't video nowadays?

[nocera]

I mean, if it's anything like Tamir Rice, the kid didn't have a chance.

[Pavel Bure]

I think there is a difference between having empathy, and excusing it away.

I agree, officers should be held at a higher standard, and should be prosecuted. Involuntary manslaughter or something. This isn't your typical case where the kid was already in the car driving away and some officer unloads the clip on him. I think it was truly a mistake. You can tell by her actions afterward.

And that's where I feel the empathy. But if she has to go to prison, it very well may be the right call. But I do feel for her in this one. I disagree with Freddy, KC, and some others where the book should be thrown at her and she is garbage. But I also don't feel it should be viewed as a woopsie and let's all move on.

What does going to prison do? This gets super muddled for me because I think she should be charged and tried but I don’t think prison solves anything. It’s not going to deter the police from using deadly force, it doesn’t rehab her for something she thinks was an accident, it does nothi productive to solve the greater problem.

I don’t have the answer here but considering what she has said and that she has already tendered her resignation...

I don’t have a good answer here just that prison doesn’t seem like the right one.

[NTP66]

I wish for nothing but bad things to happen to the people who release statements from Pissbaby.

[NAN]

How many videos do you see an officer walking up to a vehicle for speeding, or an expired tag or something, and next thing you know some dude pulls out a gun and starts firing.

To me, this is the cause of greater concern from the Brooklyn Center incident. Pending any contrary information that may come out, I view the officer's specific negligent conduct as a one-off incident (compared to Chauvin, who had 17 use-of-force complaints filed against him in 18 years), which is why I don't regard her as a threat to civil society going forward. What's more troubling is how a traffic stop for expired plates/registration escalated in relatively short order to the point that a fatal shooting occurred. And that's also why I view the Virginia incident with the Army medic as more troubling in terms of what the future has in store.

That Virginia incident is a case of a bad cop being bad IMO and should be the focus on what should occur for police reform. Even though the guy didn't get shot, that was a case of the cop escalating the incident for absolutely no reason that could have ended much worse. And those are the types of cops that need removed.

[MWB]

People excusing this away seem to have a complete loss of perspective. They seem to think that police have no responsibility at all to know and use their weapons systems correctly. Ignoring that those fundamental proficiencies are rooted in training and practice (in this case over 26 years) and are the baseline requirements you have to achieve in exchange for being given the elevated responsibility and authority to use force against citizens. These officers should be (but sadly, are not) held to a higher standard. The same way other state actors like judges have a special trust and confidence.

Imagine if a citizen panics and accidentally shoots a cop during a no-knock raid. A citizen with no LEO training or even awareness of the situation. They're arrested, if not killed, immediately. This woman 'confused' a pistol with a taser, items on opposite sides of the service belt and purposefully different ergonomics to prevent this exact thing, and now people like MWB who normally have well reasoned stances are just "Leave her alone! The guilt of being a colossal **** up is punishment enough!" Bad optics aside I don't view this through the lens of Chauvin. It's a person that made an incredibly negligent blundering mistake that they were explicitly trained not to make. Prosecute.
Normally, given the negligence/recklessness of it I might say let the civil court handle it. But we can't, because of qualified immunity. So, in lieu of that remedy, Prosecute.

If I came across that way, it wasn’t my intent. Although, I think I was pretty clear in saying it was a mistake that should never be made and she should be punished. I just don’t know that it makes her an awful person. I certainly at no point said her guilt should be punishment enough.

[NAN]

interesting how the kid's race is left out...

Yep, this will get no national attention outside of these articles. If he was black, Maryland would be burning.

PS - this is a situation where if the kid really did have a real looking gun and when the officer arrived he stood in a shooting stance as the witnesses say, I don't blame the officer for shooting him. And if he was pulling out an an additional weapon after he was shot the first time, I don't think it is wrong to shot him again because the officer does not know if he is pulling out another firearm or not.

Well that's where I want the details. What is a "shooting stance." It is literally all opinion of the person who called, and the officer.

Did the kid not say anything? Did the cop just get out of the car and blast him?

Yeah, I'm doing what I hate, and speculating on what may have happened. Until video comes out, it's difficult to make judgement.

[MWB]

her mistake wasn't a brain fart. it was that she lost touch with her unique ability to kill someone with her work-issued equipment. if that was at the forefront of her mind, she would have tased him. but she lost the thread and killed him instead.

no malice, but also no innocence

I agree with this. And that last part was what I way trying to get at yesterday. There doesn’t seem to be malice. But that doesn’t equate to innocence.

[dodint]

People excusing this away seem to have a complete loss of perspective. They seem to think that police have no responsibility at all to know and use their weapons systems correctly. Ignoring that those fundamental proficiencies are rooted in training and practice (in this case over 26 years) and are the baseline requirements you have to achieve in exchange for being given the elevated responsibility and authority to use force against citizens. These officers should be (but sadly, are not) held to a higher standard. The same way other state actors like judges have a special trust and confidence.

Imagine if a citizen panics and accidentally shoots a cop during a no-knock raid. A citizen with no LEO training or even awareness of the situation. They're arrested, if not killed, immediately. This woman 'confused' a pistol with a taser, items on opposite sides of the service belt and purposefully different ergonomics to prevent this exact thing, and now people like MWB who normally have well reasoned stances are just "Leave her alone! The guilt of being a colossal **** up is punishment enough!" Bad optics aside I don't view this through the lens of Chauvin. It's a person that made an incredibly negligent blundering mistake that they were explicitly trained not to make. Prosecute.
Normally, given the negligence/recklessness of it I might say let the civil court handle it. But we can't, because of qualified immunity. So, in lieu of that remedy, Prosecute.

If I came across that way, it wasn’t my intent. Although, I think I was pretty clear in saying it was a mistake that should never be made and she should be punished. I just don’t know that it makes her an awful person. I certainly at no point said her guilt should be punishment enough.

The satire was an aggregate position. I only used your name because I put you on the highest pedestal.

[Ad@m]

I wish for nothing but bad things to happen to the people who release statements from Pissbaby.

I WILL SOON BE

ThePissBaby

[Gaucho]

Wow...

Sarah Halimi: court rules murder-accused should not stand trial due to drug intake
https://www.france24.com/en/video/20210 ... rug-intake

[MWB]

People excusing this away seem to have a complete loss of perspective. They seem to think that police have no responsibility at all to know and use their weapons systems correctly. Ignoring that those fundamental proficiencies are rooted in training and practice (in this case over 26 years) and are the baseline requirements you have to achieve in exchange for being given the elevated responsibility and authority to use force against citizens. These officers should be (but sadly, are not) held to a higher standard. The same way other state actors like judges have a special trust and confidence.

Imagine if a citizen panics and accidentally shoots a cop during a no-knock raid. A citizen with no LEO training or even awareness of the situation. They're arrested, if not killed, immediately. This woman 'confused' a pistol with a taser, items on opposite sides of the service belt and purposefully different ergonomics to prevent this exact thing, and now people like MWB who normally have well reasoned stances are just "Leave her alone! The guilt of being a colossal **** up is punishment enough!" Bad optics aside I don't view this through the lens of Chauvin. It's a person that made an incredibly negligent blundering mistake that they were explicitly trained not to make. Prosecute.
Normally, given the negligence/recklessness of it I might say let the civil court handle it. But we can't, because of qualified immunity. So, in lieu of that remedy, Prosecute.

If I came across that way, it wasn’t my intent. Although, I think I was pretty clear in saying it was a mistake that should never be made and she should be punished. I just don’t know that it makes her an awful person. I certainly at no point said her guilt should be punishment enough.

The satire was an aggregate position. I only used your name because I put you on the highest pedestal.

That’s your biggest mistake.

[shafnutz05]

I don't think the government should be in the business of killing its citizens.

yeah, i think it's pretty grotesque to advocate for the death penalty in any situation. either the purpose of prison is societal protection or it isn't. you don't get to just cherry pick the really bad crimes and say THEY'RE about punishment and others are about civics.

and if one is saying the death penalty is some sort of economic measure to substitute for a lifetime of expensive housing...equally grotesque.

I know I am way late to this, but what about mandatory castrations (or whatever the modern equivalent is)? Essentially, completely removing one's ability to even have a sex drive. In the case of rapists and pedophiles, who have high rates of recidivism and are fundamentally wired the wrong way, I wouldn't be opposed.

[nocera]

I don't think the government should be in the business of killing its citizens.

yeah, i think it's pretty grotesque to advocate for the death penalty in any situation. either the purpose of prison is societal protection or it isn't. you don't get to just cherry pick the really bad crimes and say THEY'RE about punishment and others are about civics.

and if one is saying the death penalty is some sort of economic measure to substitute for a lifetime of expensive housing...equally grotesque.

I know I am way late to this, but what about mandatory castrations (or whatever the modern equivalent is)? Essentially, completely removing one's ability to even have a sex drive. In the case of rapists and pedophiles, who have high rates of recidivism and are fundamentally wired the wrong way, I wouldn't be opposed.

Hard pass on that too.

[Gaucho]

I don't think the government should be in the business of killing its citizens.

yeah, i think it's pretty grotesque to advocate for the death penalty in any situation. either the purpose of prison is societal protection or it isn't. you don't get to just cherry pick the really bad crimes and say THEY'RE about punishment and others are about civics.

and if one is saying the death penalty is some sort of economic measure to substitute for a lifetime of expensive housing...equally grotesque.

I know I am way late to this, but what about mandatory castrations (or whatever the modern equivalent is)? Essentially, completely removing one's ability to even have a sex drive. In the case of rapists and pedophiles, who have high rates of recidivism and are fundamentally wired the wrong way, I wouldn't be opposed.

Hard pass on that too.

[shmenguin]

I don't think the government should be in the business of killing its citizens.

yeah, i think it's pretty grotesque to advocate for the death penalty in any situation. either the purpose of prison is societal protection or it isn't. you don't get to just cherry pick the really bad crimes and say THEY'RE about punishment and others are about civics.

and if one is saying the death penalty is some sort of economic measure to substitute for a lifetime of expensive housing...equally grotesque.

I know I am way late to this, but what about mandatory castrations (or whatever the modern equivalent is)? Essentially, completely removing one's ability to even have a sex drive. In the case of rapists and pedophiles, who have high rates of recidivism and are fundamentally wired the wrong way, I wouldn't be opposed.

Yeah no that’s rotten. Worse than anything else mentioned.

The castration resources go towards prevention not punishment. It’s not any governing body’s job to disable someone’s nuts.

[shafnutz05]

Swing and a miss

Those are always the toughest cases for me, because there are countless stories of repeat offenders.

Oddly enough, I actually find the whole Megan's Law thing to be *way* overused. For example, an 18 year old guy that has relations with a 16 year old female classmate should not be on a f***** sex offender registry.

[shmenguin]

Swing and a miss

Those are always the toughest cases for me, because there are countless stories of repeat offenders.

Oddly enough, I actually find the whole Megan's Law thing to be *way* overused. For example, an 18 year old guy that has relations with a 16 year old female classmate should not be on a f***** sex offender registry.

This is the quiet part that Fox News won’t say out loud about Gaetz.

[shmenguin]

Seems like the police need a better plan for dealing with fleeing, non-violent suspects. If you have ID or plates on the perp, let them go. Full stop. Don’t use any force to detain unless they’re boarding a boat for Mexico. What’s the harm here? Just pick them up later. This guy wasn’t going to go into hiding and even if he does...ok? He won’t be driving his unregistered car anymore. Mission accomplished. You even get to add a ton of time to the sentence once you do catch them too.

You apparently can never have a system so that people know which weapon is which 100% of the time, so remove weapons from the equation. No chasing of flee-ers and drones to give citations for moving violations. Good start.

[MR25]

NAN's argument that police don't know if the people they're pulling over are armed sounds like the best argument for banning guns ITT

[Pavel Bure]

NAN's argument that police don't know if the people they're pulling over are armed sounds like the best argument for banning guns ITT

Or not executing frivolous traffic stops.

[mikey]

Or not executing at frivolous traffic stops...

[NAN]

Seems like the police need a better plan for dealing with fleeing, non-violent suspects. If you have ID or plates on the perp, let them go. Full stop. Don’t use any force to detain unless they’re boarding a boat for Mexico. What’s the harm here? Just pick them up later. This guy wasn’t going to go into hiding and even if he does...ok? He won’t be driving his unregistered car anymore. Mission accomplished. You even get to add a ton of time to the sentence once you do catch them too.

You apparently can never have a system so that people know which weapon is which 100% of the time, so remove weapons from the equation. No chasing of flee-ers and drones to give citations for moving violations. Good start.

What about instances though where the vehicle they are driving may be stolen or the ID they present is fake, you have no way to identify them or find them later. Then you get into having to serve a warrant for their arrest at their home, which some don't like. What if they are considered nonviolent with the officer but go around the corner and pull a gun and take a hostage because they know they are going to jail for a while? Or what if they are completely hammered or impaired and aren't using sound judgement. I mean, some of these things are not common, but there is a possibility you start putting innocent people in danger as well. If everyone would just go home and chill, then it makes sense. But there are definitely times that won't be the case.

I just think it's far easier said than done.

For drones, etc, I think that will be the case for speeding one day on a wide scale basis. But you will also have suspected drunk drivers, people with lights out, erratic driving, etc where there will be traffic citations that will have officer interaction.

[Freddy Rumsen]