Is vilification of duties the problem?

[Ifreann]

Yes, that's what I said.

Yes, you were the only one. Because it's a strawman.

Whose position am I misrepresenting in this argument?

---

Unarmed police, armed citizenry. Genuine suggestion from me.

How much are you planning to pay the police under that regime? Because it would have to be high to get any recruitment at all.

Are we abolishing the police? This keeps getting more and more fun.

[Andsed]

Yes, you were the only one. Because it's a strawman.

Whose position am I misrepresenting in this argument?

---

How much are you planning to pay the police under that regime? Because it would have to be high to get any recruitment at all.

Are we abolishing the police? This keeps getting more and more fun.

Yes abolishing the police. That won't totally cause a massive increase in crime.

[Des-Bal]

Whose position am I misrepresenting in this argument?

It is genuinely confusing to me that you have divined what you said but cannot work out who you said it to.

[Ifreann]

Whose position am I misrepresenting in this argument?

---

Are we abolishing the police? This keeps getting more and more fun.

Yes abolishing the police. That won't totally cause a massive increase in crime.

---

Whose position am I misrepresenting in this argument?

It is genuinely confusing to me that you have divined what you said but cannot work out who you said it to.

[Olthar]

This might be the first time in recent memory that I actually agree with the cops. Civilians shouldn't be running off with guns trying to be a hero. At best, they do nothing. At worst, they escalate the situation and cause more death. Leave things like this to the professionals with the training.

That said, the cop probably didn't need to kill the man and should be punished for use of excessive force. Cops need to learn how to shoot to stop, not kill. Or, alternatively, not shoot at all and find a diplomatic way to end the situation.

[Ifreann]

This might be the first time in recent memory that I actually agree with the cops. Civilians shouldn't be running off with guns trying to be a hero. At best, they do nothing. At worst, they escalate the situation and cause more death. Leave things like this to the professionals with the training.

Cops are civilians. And Emantic Bradford Jr. had military training. It's entirely possible that if they'd been on the range, Bradford would have shot better than the cop who killed him.

[Purpelia]

That's irrelevant though. What matters is that police officers have (or at least should have) a duty to place the lives and safety of literally every other citizen, criminals included, before their own. Thus they should only ever engage with firearms if all other actions have been exhausted and even than actively try not to kill anyone.

[Gig em Aggies]

That's irrelevant though. What matters is that police officers have (or at least should have) a duty to place the lives and safety of literally every other citizen, criminals included, before their own. Thus they should only ever engage with firearms if all other actions have been exhausted and even than actively try not to kill anyone.

except in an active shooting then all things are off. that cop had a split second to decided whether Bradford was involved or un involved so he didn't have the opportunity to ask first and shoot later all he saw was a unidentified man with a gun in a mall where a shooting just happened, so he acted within his duties whether or not the person he shot was the suspect or an innocent bystander trying to help.

[Des-Bal]

That's irrelevant though. What matters is that police officers have (or at least should have) a duty to place the lives and safety of literally every other citizen, criminals included, before their own. Thus they should only ever engage with firearms if all other actions have been exhausted and even than actively try not to kill anyone.

It is only acceptable to use deadly force where an imminent deadly threat exists. Imminent. Deadly. Threat. When faced with such a threat, and capable of ending that threat, any reasonable person is going to do so, the alternative is literally choosing your own death. The people saying "we should have higher standards for police" pretty uniformly seem not either not understand what the standards are or don't seem to appreciate that unless you'll execute the officers and then also their families you can't actually carrot and stick your way to them not declining to die. You could probably convince them not to try and protect others so if you push hard enough you can build yourself half a boat.

[Purpelia]

except in an active shooting then all things are off.

No they are not.

that cop had a split second to decided whether Bradford was involved or un involved so he didn't have the opportunity to ask first and shoot later all he saw was a unidentified man with a gun in a mall where a shooting just happened, so he acted within his duties whether or not the person he shot was the suspect or an innocent bystander trying to help.

Where as instead he should have chosen not to act and risk getting gunned down instead.

It's very simple really. Here is the decision matrix of the situation, red being unacceptable outcomes, green being positive ones and gray being neutral.

	Officer shoots	Officer does not shoot
Target is a criminal	Dead criminal	Dead officer
Target is not a criminal	Dead innocent	No deaths

You can easily see how the NO SHOOTING strategy strongly dominates the alternative.

[Kowani]

Wasn’t there a story a little while back about some citizen who stopped a shooting at a Waffle House? Oh, that’s right, there was! What makes this one any different?

[Bogan Laker]

except in an active shooting then all things are off.

No they are not.

that cop had a split second to decided whether Bradford was involved or un involved so he didn't have the opportunity to ask first and shoot later all he saw was a unidentified man with a gun in a mall where a shooting just happened, so he acted within his duties whether or not the person he shot was the suspect or an innocent bystander trying to help.

Where as instead he should have chosen not to act and risk getting gunned down instead.

It's very simple really. Here is the decision matrix of the situation, red being unacceptable outcomes, green being positive ones and gray being neutral.

	Officer shoots	Officer does not shoot
Target is a criminal	Dead criminal	Dead officer
Target is not a criminal	Dead innocent	No deaths

You can easily see how the NO SHOOTING strategy strongly dominates the alternative.

Except the shooter would continue shooting and kill more people. Meaning the officer NOT shooting the potential shooter is also endangering other civilians, not only himself .and personally, I'm sure most people don't consider a dead cop to be a neutral outcome.
I do agree that the cop probably should have tried to disarm the shooter instead of outright killing him. But it is understandable for WHY the cop shot him since cops can't read minds.

[Purpelia]

Except the shooter would continue shooting and kill more people. Meaning the officer NOT shooting the potential shooter is also endangering other civilians, not only himself .and personally, I'm sure most people don't consider a dead cop to be a neutral outcome.
I do agree that the cop probably should have tried to disarm the shooter instead of outright killing him. But it is understandable for WHY the cop shot him since cops can't read minds.

Neutral is perhaps the wrong word. It is better described as less bad than a dead civilian of any type.

[EER OT]

Except the shooter would continue shooting and kill more people. Meaning the officer NOT shooting the potential shooter is also endangering other civilians, not only himself .and personally, I'm sure most people don't consider a dead cop to be a neutral outcome.
I do agree that the cop probably should have tried to disarm the shooter instead of outright killing him. But it is understandable for WHY the cop shot him since cops can't read minds.

Neutral is perhaps the wrong word. It is better described as less bad than a dead civilian of any type.

so your saying a cops life is worth less even though their the ones who wake up every morning wondering if they get to come home that day I bet you don't have that feeling try putting yourself in the shoes of a LEO and see how difficult it actually is to run toward danger when its human instinct to run away. then youll understand that a cops life is a little more valuable then a regular guy like you or me.

[Purpelia]

so your saying a cops life is worth less even though their the ones who wake up every morning wondering if they get to come home that day I bet you don't have that feeling try putting yourself in the shoes of a LEO and see how difficult it actually is to run toward danger when its human instinct to run away. then youll understand that a cops life is a little more valuable then a regular guy like you or me.

They are trained for it, paid for it and volunteered for that job. Same as soldiers. When a soldier dies it's a tragedy but a far lesser one than the deaths of the civilians he is fighting to protect.

[Scomagia]

This might be the first time in recent memory that I actually agree with the cops. Civilians shouldn't be running off with guns trying to be a hero. At best, they do nothing. At worst, they escalate the situation and cause more death. Leave things like this to the professionals with the training.

That said, the cop probably didn't need to kill the man and should be punished for use of excessive force. Cops need to learn how to shoot to stop, not kill. Or, alternatively, not shoot at all and find a diplomatic way to end the situation.

This guy did more than nothing. He also didn't escalate and cause more deaths. He flat out saved lives.

[Gig em Aggies]

This might be the first time in recent memory that I actually agree with the cops. Civilians shouldn't be running off with guns trying to be a hero. At best, they do nothing. At worst, they escalate the situation and cause more death. Leave things like this to the professionals with the training.

That said, the cop probably didn't need to kill the man and should be punished for use of excessive force. Cops need to learn how to shoot to stop, not kill. Or, alternatively, not shoot at all and find a diplomatic way to end the situation.

This guy did more than nothing. He also didn't escalate and cause more deaths. He flat out saved lives.

Not really what he did was confuse the cops as to who he was. If he had waited to pull out his pistol until he identified himself to the police he would have been alive. And possibly asked to help by the police if needed.

[Fartsniffage]

This guy did more than nothing. He also didn't escalate and cause more deaths. He flat out saved lives.

Not really what he did was confuse the cops as to who he was. If he had waited to pull out his pistol until he identified himself to the police he would have been alive. And possibly asked to help by the police if needed.

Your position on this is really confusing me. I've seen you argue against gun free zones in the past as people won't be able to protect themself or others in the event of an attack while the police are on their way. But now you seem to be saying that people in an active shooter scenario with a legally carried weapon should wait until the police arrive before they try to intervene.

These two positions seem to be completely contrary to each other. Can you help be understand your reasoning?

[US-SSR]

Black man + gun + scared cop = ?

If that's too hard, 2 + 2 = ?

Except you forgot that a shooting had just occurred and people were running and screaming so when the cops arrived they saw a guy with a gun and assumed he was involved it had nothing to do with race at all. Here let me rewrite your equation unidentified man + gun + shooting in mall + cops= ? Besides put yourself in his shoes and think what would you do with only a split second to act would A.) ask a guy running away from you with a gun in a mall that just had a shooting are you the shooter or B.) shoot a potential suspect with a gun running away from you with people screaming and running away from gunfire.

998 people were shot and killed by US police in 2018. In 881 cases the race of the victim was known. 435 of those victims were nonwhite. Nonwhites make up a little more than one-third of the US population, but nearly half of the US population killed by police. In 378 cases those killed were fleeing the scene. Of those cases the race of the victim was known in 341. 177 of those were nonwhite.

In the face of those numbers, in the face of case after case of nonwhite individuals killed by nervous cops in all manner of circumstances, to pretend that "it had nothing to do with race at all" is at best willfully ignorant.

[Des-Bal]

998 people were shot and killed by US police in 2018. In 881 cases the race of the victim was known. 435 of those victims were nonwhite. Nonwhites make up a little more than one-third of the US population, but nearly half of the US population killed by police. In 378 cases those killed were fleeing the scene. Of those cases the race of the victim was known in 341. 177 of those were nonwhite.

In the face of those numbers, in the face of case after case of nonwhite individuals killed by nervous cops in all manner of circumstances, to pretend that "it had nothing to do with race at all" is at best willfully ignorant.

In 2017 23% of people killed by the police were black. That same year 36% percent of people who killed police officers were black. Black people disproportionately interact with the police for a variety of socioeconomic reasons, if black people had more interactions with the police but were shot at the same rate as white people it could only be evidence of systemic bias against white people.

[Woodfiredpizzas]

998 people were shot and killed by US police in 2018. In 881 cases the race of the victim was known. 435 of those victims were nonwhite. Nonwhites make up a little more than one-third of the US population, but nearly half of the US population killed by police. In 378 cases those killed were fleeing the scene. Of those cases the race of the victim was known in 341. 177 of those were nonwhite.

In the face of those numbers, in the face of case after case of nonwhite individuals killed by nervous cops in all manner of circumstances, to pretend that "it had nothing to do with race at all" is at best willfully ignorant.

In 2017 23% of people killed by the police were black. That same year 36% percent of people who killed police officers were black. Black people disproportionately interact with the police for a variety of socioeconomic reasons, if black people had more interactions with the police but were shot at the same rate as white people it could only be evidence of systemic bias against white people.

I’m guessing that those are pretty much all men being shot by the police. Do you have any stats on the frequency of women being shot in comparison to the type of crime that men usually get shot for?

[Ifreann]

That's irrelevant though. What matters is that police officers have (or at least should have) a duty to place the lives and safety of literally every other citizen, criminals included, before their own. Thus they should only ever engage with firearms if all other actions have been exhausted and even than actively try not to kill anyone.

except in an active shooting then all things are off. that cop had a split second to decided whether Bradford was involved or un involved so he didn't have the opportunity to ask first and shoot later all he saw was a unidentified man with a gun in a mall where a shooting just happened, so he acted within his duties whether or not the person he shot was the suspect or an innocent bystander trying to help.

Imagine if this happened with any other right. Cop shoots someone for talking. "He might have been about to incite a riot, the cop only had a split second to make the decision".

[Des-Bal]

I’m guessing that those are pretty much all men being shot by the police. Do you have any stats on the frequency of women being shot in comparison to the type of crime that men usually get shot for?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ings-2017/

5% were women. It's worth noting that you don't get shot for a crime you get shot for presenting a deadly threat.

[Woodfiredpizzas]

I’m guessing that those are pretty much all men being shot by the police. Do you have any stats on the frequency of women being shot in comparison to the type of crime that men usually get shot for?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ings-2017/

5% were women. It's worth noting that you don't get shot for a crime you get shot for presenting a deadly threat.

Okay, cheers.

That deadly threat bit is giving me some thoughts I need to work through.
Like are unarmed well dressed black men shot at higher rates than unarmed well dressed others?

[Des-Bal]

Okay, cheers.

That deadly threat bit is giving me some thoughts I need to work through.
Like are unarmed well dressed black men shot at higher rates than unarmed well dressed others?

3% of unarmed victims of police shootings were white 2% were black I don't know if there are stats for well-dressed or how that would be articulated in a methodology. The point is that the image of police seeing a black person and shooting them because they are black or because they've done something bad isn't really accurate. People get shot, by and large, because the police think that they are immediately about to kill someone and that there isn't a better better way to stop them. There are probably many, many issues with how our police function but the fact is that the race angle is what gets people clicking links.

Here's a decent paper with some decent stats.
White officers are less likely to shoot black suspects than non-white officers, is this proof non-whites are actually the racist murderers? No, it's just demographics fucking with numbers, non-white officers are often assigned to non-white neighborhoods so they shoot more non-white suspects. It also doesn't seem to effect how likely an unarmed suspect is to be shot. When we look at all of the numbers in context it just doesn't paint the picture of racist murderous police officers that people seem to think it does.