I’ve tried disarming people with magic markers as well. You have to get a little lucky to get inside the attack without getting a sharpie shoved in your gut but a taser can shoot someone from across the street, from behind a car door (which might not be bulletproof but is probably knife proof).
Its not the comment that bothers me, its the actually trying to run someone over with a car that bothers me. I might be wrong but that seems extreme for a knife when you have four guys with guns and tasers.
I have no idea what the idiot who can’t spell my name the same way two times in a row is blathering about, since I haven’t commented at all about tasering.
There are no statistics. Even experts and federal guys who *want *to track this stuff can’t. Nobody in the US can tell you how many police shootings have happened last month, let alone how many were maybe not on the up-and-up.
That’s kind of a big part of the issue. And no, it’s not innocent - the HHS knows exactly how many cases of the measles there have been, for comparison. To the single digit.
Its nice that Damuri didn’t suffer from auditory exclusion in most of his stressful incidents. But it did happen at least once and studies show that it is the rule, rather than the exception, for most officer-involved in shootings. I don’t know of any studies concerning suspects and auditory exclusion. Perhaps they suffer it, as well. However, when an officer visually perceives a deadly threat directed at him he doesn’t the option of complying/submitting. The criminal suspect does but that’s not how they’ve been thinking up until that point. Sometimes they change their mind and sometimes they don’t.
BTW, hysterical deafness, as far as I can tell, is more of a long term deafness usually as the result of some psychological shock. Auditory exclusion is temporary, lasts a matter of seconds and results from acute fear-induced stress. I know using the term “hysterical” commonly invokes visions of some crazed person and maybe that is the intent. It isn’t really accurate, though.
No. there are several people on this board who think that the police shouldn’t be getting special treatment (right up until someone points out that in most of the cases, the police probably met the same standards for using lethal force that everyone else has to meet when they use lethal force). Several people have been getting bent out of shape about whether or not Terence Crutcher was ever actually given an order to stop or get on the ground as half a dozen cops followed him with guns drawn as he approached his car.
Not half of all police shootings. Half of the police shooting that they are protesting and rioting and looting over.
I’m not implying that is settled. that was the point of bringing up the new study to imply that the common wisdom that there is significant racial disparity between when blacks get shot and when whites get shot might not be as simple as it first appears.
I think the EASY argument to make is that blacks get shot more frequently than whites considering their higher rate of getting shot by police. I think that most of the studies cited in your vanity fair article are restating in different ways.
I think the new study is remarkable because it is the first study to NOT say that blacks get shot more often.
I think blacks probably DO get shot more often, I think cops probably DO have a conscious or subconscious fear of black men that affects their decision making when it comes to use of force. But I think the new study casts some doubt on the common belief that the disparity is as large as we might believe.
And THAT is the problem. I can understand auditory exclusion in a fight or flight scenario. But Officer Shelby had half a dozen officers right next to her. All with guns drawn on an unarmed guy who was practically staggering to his car with his hands in the air. If that level of threat is enough to trigger these instincts, then she probably isn’t the cop you want next to you when things REALLY go sideways.
We give cops extraordinary power in order to maintain a civil society. Cops have a virtual monopoly on the use of force when they are NOT being threatened. They can mace, taser and beat suspects into compliance even if their lives are not being threatened. Shouldn’t we select for cops who don’t get so stressed out when they have their gun drawn next to half a dozen fellow officers who ALSO have their gun drawn, all trained on an unarmed guy staggering to his car with his hands in the air? I’m not implying anything about her motives or intentions, I am willing to accept that she didn’t want to kill Terence Crutcher and that she probably thought that her life was in danger (ergo manslaughter rather than murder) but ISTM that this was an unreasonable fear (ergo manslaughter rather than self defense) considering the circumstances and if she was so scared that she went deaf (like I did when I stared out a plane door into 10,000 drop), maybe she shouldn’t be running around with a gun and the authority to use that gun to enforce the law. Similarly, I should probably not be an airborne ranger or any of those special forces that require me to be in control of myself as i jump out of a plane.
Sure, and I can accept that shelby might otherwise be a good officer but isn’t this a disqualifying feature for a police officer? Its not really her life that was in danger in that situation but the fact that she perceived her life to be in danger in that situation to the point of going deaf seems like a disqualifying factor.
Yo’, luci, I’m only back for a moment (still got chit to do, sorry) but I found an actual ground level video that shows Crutcher reaching for his door shortly before being shot. I hope you have a large monitor for full screen purposes as that’s what you’ll need if you want to actually see him doing this, as the Times for some reason chose that exact moment to darken the screen in order to add some text that could easily have been added at some other point in the video. But despite the fact that several of the thread’s posters have already discussed having seen him do this you would have us believe you remain skeptical, here’s proof:
And no, Damuri, I never said men couldn’t rape boys. Evil Economist is a troll who follows me around posting lies about what I said in an effort to goad me into re-arguing the Joe Paterno issue outside its intended thread. Believe him at your own peril.
I only glanced at that Paterno thread, but I came away with you saying the rape in the shower between Sandusky and a boy wasn’t physically possible, because of the stance or some shit–hence your weird cardboard tube defense!
Your opinions are forever tainted, Pedophile and cop apologist!