or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 338

post #5056 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxgenius View Post

Has anyone here ever not given consent to a search and had it end smoothly?

Last year I did refuse removing my sunglasses so we could, as the cop put it, "have a conversation." He of course was wearing sunglasses and would not take me up on the offer of both of us removing them. I did drive off without being shot.
post #5057 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Last year I did refuse removing my sunglasses so we could, as the cop put it, "have a conversation." He of course was wearing sunglasses and would not take me up on the offer of both of us removing them. I did drive off without being shot.

Maybe he shot your therapist by mistake.
post #5058 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Last year I did refuse removing my sunglasses so we could, as the cop put it, "have a conversation." He of course was wearing sunglasses and would not take me up on the offer of both of us removing them. I did drive off without being shot.

White privilege in action ^
post #5059 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

White privilege in action ^

White male UMC privilege. /flex
post #5060 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


I'm proud of you for standing up to Pio's scurrilous attack on your character.

 

It was brave of me.  Thank you for acknowledging me.

 

 

 

post #5061 of 6095

the problem that i see with "systemic racism" is that it's an unaccountable critique - it doesn't take responsibility for the divisions that the charge itself creates.

 

a proponent might argue that the concept is built to daylight hidden confluences of institutional and individual racial agendas. fine and well, when and where it actually exists. 

 

but consider the implication of turning a case of simple (albeit criminal) professional negligence into a hate crime. what is gained? what is lost? 

 

given the stakes, it's unconscionable that some folks would dispense with the burden of naming altogether.

post #5062 of 6095
The systemic racism argument has lost a lot of credibility from people using it interchangeably with disparate impact. Including use by those who should (or do) know better.

Last week the Dept of Education handed down guidance to K-12 schools effectively saying that in their opinion, there exists no legitimate reason for disciplinary rates to vary by race, and that there will be repercussions for school districts whose stats show this disparate impact. It takes no brainpower at all to see how this framework just turns into a quota system instead of addressing any underlying issues that have the potential to help kids. The net effect will be more classroom disruption and less discipline for those who would benefit from it.

Unintended consequences of policy generated by an ideologically-driven worldview.
post #5063 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

but consider the implication of turning a case of simple (albeit criminal) professional negligence into a hate crime. what is gained? what is lost? 

Criminal charges against officers is one of the more limiting options. Bigger structural reforms could have a lot more benefit without creating those same tensions. Reducing the role of police in writing tickets (fines) for minor offenses would be a good start. The more things that are criminalized, the more bias creeps into the process. The more interactions a community has with officers, the more opportunities there are for something to go wrong and end in violence.



The next step would be the drug war, but that's a bigger knot to unravel.
post #5064 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

the problem that i see with "systemic racism" is that it's an unaccountable critique - it doesn't take responsibility for the divisions that the charge itself creates.

It is not unaccountable but rather based on reams of data and the only divisions created are for those unwilling to acknowledge what the data clearly demonstrates...and that's on them, not the observation.
post #5065 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

First of all, and I'm sure you know this, it's not the conduct after the shoot that matters, but what happened before. I'll concede that it might indicate what they were thinking, if there were any strong inferences to be made. There aren't, though. On the other hand, there are recorded conversations between the cops prior to the shooting. Maybe they wanted to shoot the black guy all along and were just alibiing themselves ahead of time. You seemed to speculate that in the last case, so why not this one?

Your whole argument is just dubious speculation. The kid (kid?) is acting out because he's afraid of the cops, even though he's just run away from the group home, convinced someone to call 911 on him thinking that he's armed and suicidal, and is obviously yelling at the therapist who had tracked him down? Then you say that the cops didn't handcuff the kid. Where do you get that from? The video after the shooting, short as it is, seems to show cops attending to both of them. And why would they handcuff the therapist? It's absolutely routine to handcuff everyone in confused situations like that. Just because they thought he was the one being threatened doesn't preclude him also being dangerous. And that's assuming he remained calm and compliant after being shot. As far as it taking 20 minutes for the ambulance, the only source for that seems to be the therapist himself, and he pretty obviously wasn't in a position to know for sure. He even qualifies the statement by saying something like "about" twenty minutes. I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean -- do you suggest that the cops wouldn't have called for an ambulance if they'd shot him on purpose? How do you know there wasn't an accident or a mechanical failure or one of a million other reasons it might have taken longer than expected for the ambulance to arrive.

Also, if the story is a lie, what's the motive for shooting a completely innocent, compliant therapist? Lemme guess... systemic racism. They saw a black guy and just couldn't help themselves. You'd think they might have picked a better target, since the town is apparently 2/3 black.

Just in case anyone missed this.rotflmao.gif
post #5066 of 6095
Upstanding and productive members of society know how to remain calm and civil after being mistakingly shot by a cop.
post #5067 of 6095
How the fuck do you miss your target 3 times (or 2, depending on if you buy the inept attempted murderer's story) when you're that close and have an AR-15 with optics? The autistic kid was wildly obese also, not like he's a small, moving target.
post #5068 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

How the fuck do you miss your target 3 times (or 2, depending on if you buy the inept attempted murderer's story) when you're that close and have an AR-15 with optics? The autistic kid was wildly obese also, not like he's a small, moving target.

I asked that above and no one could answer. As I said, with my cheap ass 10/22, with my $40 scope, there's no way I could miss that target at 30 yards.
post #5069 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

How the fuck do you miss your target 3 times (or 2, depending on if you buy the inept attempted murderer's story) when you're that close and have an AR-15 with optics? The autistic kid was wildly obese also, not like he's a small, moving target.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


I asked that above and no one could answer. As I said, with my cheap ass 10/22, with my $40 scope, there's no way I could miss that target at 30 yards.

 

The former-cop and soldier carry permit instructor I had claims it is because of adrenaline.  He claimed something like 80-90% of cops miss the first shot (and why any civilian will miss).  I find it suspect though.  I think it is a lack of training - that twice a year at the range isn't sufficient.

post #5070 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

How the fuck do you miss your target 3 times (or 2, depending on if you buy the inept attempted murderer's story) when you're that close and have an AR-15 with optics?.

For everyone's safety, of course.

And maybe you missed it, but I already got dibs on the "fat kid is hard to miss" joaks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?