Policing without using guns

[gmase]

You have posts that are on both sides of the fence, I consider that complacency - willing to agree it's not right, but not willing to consider every option to make change.

Correct. I am not pro- or anti-law enforcement. Shooting someone in the back is not good. Kneeling on someone's neck is not good. Shooting someone in a split-second decision as they lunge is different. Each case has its own facts and needs to be evaluated based on its own merits.

"not willing to consider every option to make change"
Where did you get that idea? I am a pragmatic person. It's not all or nothing to me.

I agree that the public needs to be safe, do you think the public is satisfied with the current level of safety as it is now?

Yes and no. It depends on who you ask.

When there is worldwide protests against police brutality this shows that a significant percent of the world and especially in north america, do not accept the trade off that you described in exchange for the current level of safety - that is allowing more police profiling and more police powers, in exchange for the level of safety now and the amount of police misconduct now.

You don't need to listen to the NPR article I posted above, just glance through the narrative. People in high-crime neighborhoods feel abandoned by the police and want them back. Others want them gone. Like many aspects of public life, there are many voices - not one. When there only becomes one voice, we all lose.

I call it pragmatism, not complacency.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

My issue is that you seem to be content here to not change much in the way of helping reduce police brutality, not that you are to blame or have any power to make the changes necessary - I take issue with your complacency.

Complacency like when you say - that things happen and it doesn't make it right, but won't consider any changes that might prevent or reduce policy violence.

Thank you for your input

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

You're not the only one with that opinion, because I guess that no one you care about including yourself has had any police brutality happen to them.

Because many like you are not bothered much by police, you all are complacent towards changes to policing, whereas people that want changes are more sympathetic.

Similar to rape victims not getting much sympathy until this #METOO movement caused alot of the complacency to change, or until the complacent people themselves get raped or someone they care enough about is a victim.

I'm saying complacency towards police misconduct is similar to complacency towards other government wrongdoings such as police violence and the Holocaust and apartheid etc.

Nice lecture, now tell me why I am not concerned about Police who brutalize citizens. Oh, and use simple words as I am not too smart.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

Which great American city do you live in or near? I thought you were Canadian.

I currently have no fixed address.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

Nice lecture, now tell me why I am not concerned about Police who brutalize citizens. Oh, and use simple words as I am not too smart.

It's not that you are not concerned, you are complacent - meaning that You Might care some, but you don't care enough to provide actual help to victims of police mistreatment.

Your complacency is because, as you've already described in your above posts, you believe that your meek and polite attitude during your police interactions is sufficient for you to avoid police mistreatment - therefore as you've already stated above, you don't like it when you find out about police mistreatment, but you are not willing to change the current system.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I agree in theory.

In reality:
Does the cop get spotted three extra seconds to pick his or her weapon of choice? “Let me see - gun, taser, lasso, or flash-gun?” What happens if he/she picks the taser option, but selects the gun? We have seen that one.

Plus, they are trained to use these non lethal weapons. And they are trained to use guns as a last resort. As we all know, you can train someone to drive a car, but there are plenty of accidents every day.

Also in reality, the police are mistreating and killing people they should not be killing or mistreating - these are not accidents, despite your comparisons to the same.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I'm totally against police not having guns. But they should be told and trained to use them as last resort, when their lives or the lives of civilians are clearly at stake, not when they have the feeling that the suspect might be a threat to them or to some civilians.
Every suspect killed the police is a failure from the police 'cause that suspect won't be trialed, we won't hear about what caused him to come to the point he came to.

In England and China and other countries where traffic police do not carry guns, the point of this is for the obvious fact that most police interactions do not require the presence of guns.

Also, whenever there is the need for police firearms, armed police can be called to attend - of course people will cry out about the what if traffic police randomly encounter axe wielding killers etc, well they will have to retreat and call for back up just like the armed traffic cops do anyways whenever they run into situations they can't handle on their own.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I said I want cops using guns as last resort. But before coming to that last resort, there's a whole range of non-lethal weapon that could be used, from tasers to flash-guns, etc.
Police should be trained to use these weapons as much as they are trained to use guns

I think while more training is fine, it's less about training and more about change in police culture, and simply not letting all cops on the streets have weapons by default - other countries such as England and China don't give all cops weapons by default, and there are less incidents of police brutality in those countries.

More training does got equal less police misconduct, this has been proven in the past as police budgets have always gone up drastically without decreases in police mistreatment - also in China etc police are not trained more than in america, and still there are less incidents of police misconduct compared to america.

 

[gmase]

I currently have no fixed address.

Ok.

Also in reality, the police are mistreating and killing people they should not be killing or mistreating - these are not accidents, despite your comparisons to the same.

Yes. They are also helping and providing aid to people in need. Unfortunately, those actions do not frequently get recorded and make national news. In my personal example cited above, the police and other first responders did provide aid to the victim at the time of injury.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

It's not that you are not concerned, you are complacent - meaning that You Might care some, but you don't care enough to provide actual help to victims of police mistreatment.

Your complacency is because, as you've already described in your above posts, you believe that your meek and polite attitude during your police interactions is sufficient for you to avoid police mistreatment - therefore as you've already stated above, you don't like it when you find out about police mistreatment, but you are not willing to change the current system.

How much is enough?

 

[gmase]

How much is enough?

It is never enough until your heart stops beating.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

Correct. I am not pro- or anti-law enforcement. Shooting someone in the back is not good. Kneeling on someone's neck is not good. Shooting someone in a split-second decision as they lunge is different. Each case has its own facts and needs to be evaluated based on its own merits.

"not willing to consider every option to make change"
Where did you get that idea? I am a pragmatic person. It's not all or nothing to me.


Yes and no. It depends on who you ask.


You don't need to listen to the NPR article I posted above, just glance through the narrative. People in high-crime neighborhoods feel abandoned by the police and want them back. Others want them gone. Like many aspects of public life, there are many voices - not one. When there only becomes one voice, we all lose.

I call it pragmatism, not complacency.

What you called pragmatism is part of the problem, many have the same problem you do, you all have excuses to sit on the fence with excuses like - well if someone lunges at you it's a split second decision or let's just chalk it up to an accident where nobody is wrong.

What you all can't seem to understand is that nobody is protesting over the accidents and other police killings that are justified - you should all remind yourselves that the protests are about the Floyd cases and other inexcusable misconduct.

Remember that the word misconduct means illegal conduct, not accidents or excusable actions.

So, when you say there are many voices that lead to your pragmatism, which voices are excusing the misconduct?

Anyone that excuses misconduct or tries to normalize it, is part of the problem.

Like you said, some people want more police while some want less, at least those people have chosen a side - and have not mistaken their indecision and complacency for pragmatism, how are you helping by arguing for straddling the fence?

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

Ok.


Yes. They are also helping and providing aid to people in need. Unfortunately, those actions do not frequently get recorded and make national news. In my personal example cited above, the police and other first responders did provide aid to the victim at the time of injury.

Why even bring up that police help people? Of course sometimes they do, but the protests are not about how much they are helping people - the protests are about how much they are bullying brutalizing and killing people unreasonably.

So try not to cloud the issue.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

We can argue at the poles of the argument all we want, but we live in a real world which needs a real world answer. Police need to do their job, the public needs to be safe.

This article is very interesting.

You keep repeating here and in other threads that police need to do their jobs and the public needs to be safe - why?

Nobody is trying to protest against public safety or against police doing their jobs - I'll keep repeating this until you and others understand that the protests are against police NOT doing their jobs properly and against the public NOT being safe from police MISconduct.

That you confuse the issue by thinking that police misconduct is an acceptable part of having police on the public payroll - is exactly the problem that people are protesting about, what you mistake as pragmatism is in fact complacency.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

How much is enough?

Enough to cause you to stop normalizing police misconduct whenever you talk or post about the subject - for example making light of the subject like @gmase continues to do such as his reply to you below your post that it is enough when your heart stops bleeding, an obvious joke about all the bleeding hearts concerned about nothing.

If people like you don't stop confusing police misconduct with acceptable police conduct, bad police culture will continue to gain power.

So the first step is understanding that there is no grey area regarding police misconduct - the actions of police are either acceptable or not, it can't be both.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

It is never enough until your heart stops beating.

You making light of the police brutality issue normalizes police misconduct, that is why you are part of the problem.

If this thread was about rape and you made the same post joking that when someone heart stops bleeding you've cared enough about the rape issue, this that pragmatism to you?

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Enough to cause you to stop normalizing police misconduct whenever you talk or post about the subject - for example making light of the subject like @gmase continues to do such as his reply to you below your post that it is enough when your heart stops bleeding, an obvious joke about all the bleeding hearts concerned about nothing.

If people like you don't stop confusing police misconduct with acceptable police conduct, bad police culture will continue to gain power.

So the first step is understanding that there is no grey area regarding police misconduct - the actions of police are either acceptable or not, it can't be both.

I'll watch myself.

 

[gmase]

You making light of the police brutality issue normalizes police misconduct, that is why you are part of the problem.

If this thread was about rape and you made the same post joking that when someone heart stops bleeding you've cared enough about the rape issue, this that pragmatism to you?

It is a porn board not a forensic league meeting.

But since you asked, I was not make making fun or light of police brutality. @bubb 's comment made me think of the lyrics to the song. Plus I think he was referring the length and quantity of your posts - not police brutality.

Thanks again.

 

[gmase]

You keep repeating here and in other threads that police need to do their jobs and the public needs to be safe - why?

Because stating the police need to be derelict and the public needs to be in harm's way does not seem very rational to me. What do I know right?

Remember that the word misconduct means illegal conduct, not accidents or excusable actions.

I do not remember that definition of misconduct. Why? Because it is not true. Misconduct does not mean illegal. With all the legalese on traffic stops you used in earlier posts, you should know that much.

What you all can't seem to understand is that nobody is protesting over the accidents and other police killings that are justified - you should all remind yourselves that the protests are about the Floyd cases and other inexcusable misconduct.

Thank you for explaining what you believe we are missing. With no fixed address you must be traveling all over the US coordinating and participating in these protests. Good for you.

 

[gmase]

Can someone tell @Ace Boobtoucher he is needed in aisle 1008642? We really need his opinion on this subject.