Violence Outbreak in Kenosha WI

[Outer Acharet]

I totally support the use of Tranqs. No one gets hurt hopefully and they aren't deadly.

Effective use of tranqs would require not only determining the kind of drug that would quickly knock someone out without ODing and killing them but it would also require estimating the weight of who they're gonna hit with them since tranquilizers don't affect everyone the same, so combined that would be using tranq darts nigh on impossible.

NTM the liability of allergic reactions killing or injuring people would probably put tranquilizers out of consideration as non-lethal weapons, at least until they found a tranquilizer drug that the percentage of the population allergic to it was smaller than the percentage that reacts negatively to being tased.

[Loben III]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53908303

Blake’s father says his son is paralyzed from the waist down. Hope the officers can sleep well at night knowing this was totally unnecessary

Reminds me of the afroman song.

[San Lumen]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53908303

Blake’s father says his son is paralyzed from the waist down. Hope the officers can sleep well at night knowing this was totally unnecessary

Reminds me of the afroman song.

What?

[Asle Leopolka]

Effective use of tranqs would require not only determining the kind of drug that would quickly knock someone out without ODing and killing them but it would also require estimating the weight of who they're gonna hit with them since tranquilizers don't affect everyone the same, so combined that would be using tranq darts nigh on impossible.

NTM the liability of allergic reactions killing or injuring people would probably put tranquilizers out of consideration as non-lethal weapons, at least until they found a tranquilizer drug that the percentage of the population allergic to it was smaller than the percentage that reacts negatively to being tased.

Bingo. It's no different than an anesthesiologist drawing blood before knocking you out - they gotta know what your body reacts positively do, what it's allergic to, and how much to give before being a lethal dose. There's not just one tranquilizer and the safe dose varies greatly, so a "standard" dose is nonexistent.

And before anyone says "let cops use guns but train them to aim for the legs, shoulder, etc," it's extremely hard to shoot appendages, especially when a person is moving. The risk of missing and hitting an innocent bystander is way too high. And besides, even if you shoot them in the leg it can still be fatal - a former classmate of mine joined the Army after high school and died in Afghanistan after getting shot in the leg and bleeding out.

[Jolthig]

NTM the liability of allergic reactions killing or injuring people would probably put tranquilizers out of consideration as non-lethal weapons, at least until they found a tranquilizer drug that the percentage of the population allergic to it was smaller than the percentage that reacts negatively to being tased.

Bingo. It's no different than an anesthesiologist drawing blood before knocking you out - they gotta know what your body reacts positively do, what it's allergic to, and how much to give before being a lethal dose. There's not just one tranquilizer and the safe dose varies greatly, so a "standard" dose is nonexistent.

And before anyone says "let cops use guns but train them to aim for the legs, shoulder, etc," it's extremely hard to shoot appendages, especially when a person is moving. The risk of missing and hitting an innocent bystander is way too high. And besides, even if you shoot them in the leg it can still be fatal - a former classmate of mine joined the Army after high school and died in Afghanistan after getting shot in the leg and bleeding out.

Honestly, why pull guns in the first place if the individual is unarmed? Even if guns had tranquilizers instead of lead bullets, the symbol of a gun, is a symbol of fear. The psychological association within the psyches of the people is too much to bear. This is a result of the inferiority complex as a result of systematic racism.

As the book goes, police should only de-escalate, and not vice versa. Even the man who took matters into his own hands was attempting to stop a fight between two women. Before things got any uglier, the police should've for the most part, negotiate with the 3 parties.

[Asle Leopolka]

Bingo. It's no different than an anesthesiologist drawing blood before knocking you out - they gotta know what your body reacts positively do, what it's allergic to, and how much to give before being a lethal dose. There's not just one tranquilizer and the safe dose varies greatly, so a "standard" dose is nonexistent.

And before anyone says "let cops use guns but train them to aim for the legs, shoulder, etc," it's extremely hard to shoot appendages, especially when a person is moving. The risk of missing and hitting an innocent bystander is way too high. And besides, even if you shoot them in the leg it can still be fatal - a former classmate of mine joined the Army after high school and died in Afghanistan after getting shot in the leg and bleeding out.

Honestly, why pull guns in the first place if the individual is unarmed? Even if guns had tranquilizers instead of lead bullets, the symbol of a gun, is a symbol of fear. The psychological association within the psyches of the people is too much to bear. This is a result of the inferiority complex as a result of systematic racism.

As the book goes, police should only de-escalate, and not vice versa. Even the man who took matters into his own hands was attempting to stop a fight between two women. Before things got any uglier, the police should've for the most part, negotiate with the 3 parties.

That's the million dollar question. Police should be trained to only draw their firearms if they know a suspect is armed. Other than that, tasers are a viable option, but even then only if a suspect is belligerent and throwing blows.

[Jolthig]

Honestly, why pull guns in the first place if the individual is unarmed? Even if guns had tranquilizers instead of lead bullets, the symbol of a gun, is a symbol of fear. The psychological association within the psyches of the people is too much to bear. This is a result of the inferiority complex as a result of systematic racism.

As the book goes, police should only de-escalate, and not vice versa. Even the man who took matters into his own hands was attempting to stop a fight between two women. Before things got any uglier, the police should've for the most part, negotiate with the 3 parties.

That's the million dollar question. Police should be trained to only draw their firearms if they know a suspect is armed. Other than that, tasers are a viable option, but even then only if a suspect is belligerent and throwing blows.

correct, and from what I've seen in the video. It appeared the individual was trying to escape to his car, but upon further reports, he was checking on his kids.

[Outer Acharet]

Honestly, why pull guns in the first place if the individual is unarmed? Even if guns had tranquilizers instead of lead bullets, the symbol of a gun, is a symbol of fear. The psychological association within the psyches of the people is too much to bear. This is a result of the inferiority complex as a result of systematic racism.

As the book goes, police should only de-escalate, and not vice versa. Even the man who took matters into his own hands was attempting to stop a fight between two women. Before things got any uglier, the police should've for the most part, negotiate with the 3 parties.

That's the million dollar question. Police should be trained to only draw their firearms if they know a suspect is armed. Other than that, tasers are a viable option, but even then only if a suspect is belligerent and throwing blows.

I don't even know if regular ol' beat cops should have guns. I mean, even in America they didn't until the sixties or seventies, I think.

[Jolthig]

That's the million dollar question. Police should be trained to only draw their firearms if they know a suspect is armed. Other than that, tasers are a viable option, but even then only if a suspect is belligerent and throwing blows.

I don't even know if regular ol' beat cops should have guns. I mean, even in America they didn't until the sixties or seventies, I think.

They should only have guns for self-defensive purposes. Not offense.

[Outer Acharet]

I don't even know if regular ol' beat cops should have guns. I mean, even in America they didn't until the sixties or seventies, I think.

They should only have guns for self-defensive purposes. Not offense.

But who defines self-defense? The officer who shot Blake can easily justify his actions with "A non-compliant suspect with an active warrant for violent crime reached into his car for an object, what if he was getting a gun? I had to act." But in the majority of situations, do cops need guns? It would be easy to perhaps make only one in every three on-the-beat cops carry guns, require special training for those who do, and have those cops patrol and be the only ones to respond to violent crimes. As it is, giving anyone a lethal weapon is a statement that you accept that they will use it and that it will be used to its full effect. It shouldn't be a cop's badge of office to carry a gun.

[Asle Leopolka]

That's the million dollar question. Police should be trained to only draw their firearms if they know a suspect is armed. Other than that, tasers are a viable option, but even then only if a suspect is belligerent and throwing blows.

I don't even know if regular ol' beat cops should have guns. I mean, even in America they didn't until the sixties or seventies, I think.

Unfortunately we've crossed the rubicon with that one.

[Jolthig]

They should only have guns for self-defensive purposes. Not offense.

But who defines self-defense? The officer who shot Blake can easily justify his actions with "A non-compliant suspect with an active warrant for violent crime reached into his car for an object, what if he was getting a gun? I had to act."

The problem with the officer's hypothetical assertion is that the suspect did not have any weapons to begin with. His fellow officers would've searched the vehicle, and found nothing. The what if scenario would be absolutely meaningless.

On top of that, the suspect would have a poor plan for loading his gun & turning off his safety before reaching for it. That would be a false statement by that cop, and it is not grounds for that individual to justify his case.

Nor was Jacob Blake being violent as he was only stopping a dispute between two women.

But in the majority of situations, do cops need guns? It would be easy to perhaps make only one in every three on-the-beat cops carry guns, require special training for those who do, and have those cops patrol and be the only ones to respond to violent crimes. As it is, giving anyone a lethal weapon is a statement that you accept that they will use it and that it will be used to its full effect. It shouldn't be a cop's badge of office to carry a gun.

This I do not necessarily disagree with. I'm with you on the fact that most situations simply does not call for the use of lethal weapons. The goal of the police should be to negotiate & de-escalate situations before they get out of hand. They should have more training in individual psychology, and this should be given a priority more than weapons training. Alongside, your argument that 1 in 3 cops should have a gun which is not a bad idea.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

On second thought maybe Tranqs are a bad idea.

[Loben III]

On second thought maybe Tranqs are a bad idea.

Rubber bullets for hand guns?

maybe pepper spray rounds like they have for paintball guns?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

On second thought maybe Tranqs are a bad idea.

Rubber bullets for hand guns?

maybe pepper spray rounds like they have for paintball guns?

Loudspeakers that play 6ix9ine but bass boosted.

[Jolthig]

No. The police departments need to have more training in individual psychology and how society is like. To have understanding more than just "stopping criminals".

[Outer Acharet]

But who defines self-defense? The officer who shot Blake can easily justify his actions with "A non-compliant suspect with an active warrant for violent crime reached into his car for an object, what if he was getting a gun? I had to act."

The problem with the officer's hypothetical assertion is that the suspect did not have any weapons to begin with. His fellow officers would've searched the vehicle, and found nothing. The what if scenario would be absolutely meaningless.

On top of that, the suspect would have a poor plan for loading his gun & turning off his safety before reaching for it. That would be a false statement by that cop, and it is not grounds for that individual to justify his case.

Nor was Jacob Blake being violent as he was only stopping a dispute between two women.

But in the majority of situations, do cops need guns? It would be easy to perhaps make only one in every three on-the-beat cops carry guns, require special training for those who do, and have those cops patrol and be the only ones to respond to violent crimes. As it is, giving anyone a lethal weapon is a statement that you accept that they will use it and that it will be used to its full effect. It shouldn't be a cop's badge of office to carry a gun.

This I do not necessarily disagree with. I'm with you on the fact that most situations simply does not call for the use of lethal weapons. The goal of the police should be to negotiate & de-escalate situations before they get out of hand. They should have more training in individual psychology, and this should be given a priority more than weapons training. Alongside, your argument that 1 in 3 cops should have a gun which is not a bad idea.

Glad we can agree on the second bit , I agree on the better psych training part, what I meant by "weapons training" was de-escalation training. I feel like too many cops feel like the citizens are the enemy and they have to be wary of attack at all time, when in reality that mindset needs to be broken.

I would like to point out that what video we have available doesn't show them searching the car or the car having even been opened, for that matter. What it does show is Blake walking through a gaggle of cops giving him commands to stop, another cop grabbing his shirt and following him with a gun to his back, Blake opening the door of his car while the cop tries to pull him back, and then the cop firing. So the cops could say they couldn't be sure there was no gun, as we only know in hindsight there was none, and it is possible for a theoretical gun to have been stored loaded with the safety off.

And he wasn't being violent at all, indeed. The worst thing he did that the cops were aware of was not listening to their commands to stay where he was.

[Galloism]

So why aren’t we asking that question?

I think it’s interesting that you assumed it was two white women even when that’s not reported and not what’s shown in the video, and jump from that assumption to the conclusion it was racism. In point of fact, it was probably two black women, and the actual reason for the focus change - the question you asked - was sexism.

Then sexism and racism working together got him shot.

See, you asked a good question. I think you should follow it so it’s logical conclusion.

So why aren’t we asking that question?

Because you're more interested in pressing the wording rather than answering the question.

So do you recognize the sexism that resulted in the focus change?

See, sexism in policing is much much stronger than racism on every metric. It’s a critical part of the conversation if we want to truly improve policing.

Put another way, if we treated black men like white men, they’d have a 50% lower rate of getting shot. If we treated them like black women, the reduction would be 95% or so.

This man died due to sexism and racism working together. Mostly sexism, but likely some racism too.

You need to recognize that. We all do.

[Jolthig]

So I did some more digging into who Jacob Blake was. He apparently had a record already, and past clashes with the Kenosha Police Department. Still, does not justify excessive use of force.

[Jolthig]

For those curious:

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseSearchResults.html

[Vassenor]

On second thought maybe Tranqs are a bad idea.

Rubber bullets for hand guns?

maybe pepper spray rounds like they have for paintball guns?

-looks at all the people left with life changing injuries from being shot with rubber bullets in the last six months-

[Telconi]

Rubber bullets for hand guns?

maybe pepper spray rounds like they have for paintball guns?

-looks at all the people left with life changing injuries from being shot with rubber bullets in the last six months-

As opposed to the people left with life changing injuries from being shot with lead bullets?

[The Black Forrest]

-looks at all the people left with life changing injuries from being shot with rubber bullets in the last six months-

As opposed to the people left with life changing injuries from being shot with lead bullets?

You are not making sense.

So it’s ok to be shot by rubber bullets rather then led bullets?

[Telconi]

As opposed to the people left with life changing injuries from being shot with lead bullets?

You are not making sense.

So it’s ok to be shot by rubber bullets rather then led bullets?

It's certainly better.

[Vassenor]

-looks at all the people left with life changing injuries from being shot with rubber bullets in the last six months-

As opposed to the people left with life changing injuries from being shot with lead bullets?

...You couldn't have missed the point any harder if you'd tried.