Zurkir wrote:Gravlen wrote:Yes. Honestly, and especially if you think by implication people on the right lack sympathy for victims of police shootings. Perhaps that failure to be sceptical of the use of lethal force by government agents is common on the authoritarian / racist right, but anyone paying attention, especially during the events of the last year, should be in favour of at least some kind of police reform and should know that the police lies. Not all the time, but enough that we know body cams are strictly necessary.
If you really are though on crime, and serious about law enforcement, you should continuously fight to make sure the right people are being arrested, prosecuted and punished. You should fight to get the police the training they need, for their safety and for the safety of the public. You should fight to have experts in certain fields go out instead of the police, for their safety and for the safety of the public. You should fight to see honesty and accountability when the State uses it's monopoly on violence, and limit both the willingness and the ability of the government to use lethal force against its citizens.
Would you say these ideals are left-wing ideals?
If you believe that every single person (or even a heavy majority) right of the center lacks any base human empathy - just because they don’t shed tears every time a indisputable criminal is shot - then don’t take this as a “insult”, but frankly we shouldn’t even be sharing a country.
Don't worry, I don't take it as an insult because I would agree with you. I wouldn't want to share a country with someone who's opposed to the rule of law and seems to not be opposed to extrajudicial killings. I'm happy to live in a country which doesn't accept the police as judge, jury, and executioner, and where previous criminal activity doesn't automatically justify a death sentence at the hands of agents of the state.
It is simply unacceptable for the power of the State to be abused in such ways, without any accountability.
Zurkir wrote:Because that only shows how severe the degree of polarization is and it’s sad. Look at the left-wing, it’s a platform for anarchists and authoritarian leftists.
A meaningless statement. "Look at the left wing, it includes various types of left-wingers". Not really a ground-breaking observation.
Zurkir wrote: The catch is I don’t judge every single person on that side of the platform as a bandana wearing Molotov tossing lunatic and I know there are good and moral people to the left. Look at the right, it has neo-nazis and police state types. I don’t believe the unfair narrative that the right side of the spectrum is 70% authoritarian white supremacists. But I’m getting the sense that you do or at least have subscribed to something similar.
Your sense of other people's characters is severely deficient, I see. You're not even close to the mark.
Zurkir wrote:Which shows a lack of observation and collective stereotyping which I’ve always gathered to be a practice of bad faith and morally wrong. Just because people support law and order and - I don’t know - a stable society, doesn’t make them racist. A buzz word that’s used to often.
A claim which hasn't been made. I made an effort to single out the authoritarian / racist right as subgroups above. I'm sorry you missed that part.
Zurkir wrote:Do I think that there is room for police reform? Yes. Do I think Derek Chauvin needs to face charges for what was unnecessary force and negligence on his part? Yes. Do I support total police abolition? No, that’s erroneous. Psychologists wouldn’t make a good police force, I hate to tell you.
I don't know where in my post you read a defence of "total police abolition". Was it where I said everyone should be in favor of some kind of police reform, or that we should fight to get the police the training they need, perhaps? It implies something, doesn't it? Hmmm....
Zurkir wrote:Of course my initial query waaaay above was about the definition of “necessary force” and for whatever curious reason you and Vassenor cherry picked me saying the media shows partiality to suspects over trained police officers.
Because you said, and I quote:
Some police shootings for example in which suspects have disarmed police while resisting arrest or actively fought with police and even injured them are labeled as “passively resisting”.
We asked you to show us where that happens. You provided examples without showing that it happened in those examples. I followed up, asking you again. You said it was obvious to anyone who reads the news. I pressed you again. You lamented that you could provide half a dozen links, yet provided none. I asked for just one. You provided none, and started to talk about some author who had written a book instead. And here we are, still without any answers to the original question from you.
Zurkir wrote:And before you twist that (the trained officers part) out of proportion try and remember that out of around seven hundred thousand officers in this country that those shot wrongly or in very unstable circumstances in the last ten years involve - what - less than a hundred officers? Of course that depends on one’s narrative of necessary force and when to and not to shoot - which is the root of the problem. Or a root.
The problem is that the shooting is but one symptom of the systemic racism which plagues a broken system.
I've mentioned several of these problems above, and you've ignored all of them.