There is very little outrage, recreational or otherwise. Surprisingly different from when a black kid with a gun threatens the police, then the shooting is the worst thing since the holocaust. That being another situation where the LGBT victims are all but ignored…
But you know what? Normally, I’d want to say that the lack of outrage was reasonable, that there has here been a proportionate response to what happened. But given the ridiculously over the top responses to obviously legal killings of black people, it’s clear that there’s bias, if not deliberate prejudice happening here. The hypocrisy stinks.
On one level, you’re just wrong that there’s no outrage. Maybe it isn’t being covered in your media ecosystem, but it is in mine. And since your point is about liberal hypocrisy, my ecosystem is what matters to your point.
But on another level, you’re right that this is not on the frontpage of the Huffington Post for a week.
The reason is that black people built a movement. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? It’s called Black Lives Matter. Before that movement, police killings of black people got almost no national attention. Indeed, lots of police killings of black people continue to get no national attention, contrary to the Fox News narrative.
We have not yet seen a similar movement emerge for the rights of people with mental illness, even though they constitute an even larger proportion of victims of police violence as black people. I would like to see that movement happen. But I’m pretty confident Steophan would respond to “People with Mental Illness Matter” with the same derision you bring to Black Lives Matter.
No, I’m pretty sure Steophan has a special antipathy toward BLM.
He’s repeatedly called innocent black people “thugs,” argued against murder convictions when white people murder black people, and argued that black people should be charged even after prosecutors determined they were defending themselves against police brutality.
Common theme here isn’t that he loves police, it’s that he doesn’t like black people.
[ul][li]How big should a person with a knife be before he or she is considered as using deadly force? Over six feet? Over five feet six? Over 150 pounds? Over 200? Can you describe the training that will allow someone to accurately estimate someone’s height, weight, and reach on a few seconds’ notice? Who do you know who has undergone that training, and how reliable was it?[/li][li]Accounts, as you mention, vary as to whether the knife was open or not. What needs to be done so that police can determine accurately enough if a knife is open, again, on a few seconds’ notice? [/li][li]Can you show studies that determine that someone who is mostly determined to self-harm poses no risk to others, most or almost all the time?[/li][li]Can you describe the training you have undergone, or delivered, that make you a better judge of when a police baton or a Tazer is as effective as a pistol in confronting a person with a knife? [/ul]I realize that last one isn’t fair - you have had no such training. I have, and thus my estimate of the relative risks of baton vs. pistol are going to be more accurate than yours. Accordingly, I will let you know that a knife is lethal force, and thus a police baton is less effective and much higher risk than a pistol, because a baton forces the officer into the lethal range of a knife, and a Tazer is less reliable because the barb can get caught in clothing and/or is less effective than shooting. [/li][/QUOTE]
This seems highly specific for a general use of force policy. Unless the current policy says “Everyone with a drawn knife that comes within 5 feet of an officer can be shot” Is there a listed distance that officers can measure during an encounter to determine if the suspect is close enough to shoot or not?
Police departments in the US are increasingly using appropriate tactics for people with mental illness holding knives. Basically they create space around the person and keep a 5-10 foot radius around them, keeping everyone away. Officers in front armed with tasers are supported by officers right behind them armed with pistols. You then create a moving corridor if the person approaches. The result is a lot less dead people with mental illness.
But it takes training. And it takes some resources. It is easy to get those things when there is political will, but that depends on people believing that it is better not to shoot people even when it is legal to do so.
The answer is simple. You just don’t shoot people so often. We can and have brought up example after example where people were shot when they didn’t have to be. So train them not to shoot in those situations.
We also have pointed many, many times to every other police force that has deescalation techniques that can help stop this stuff. We even have data to show it works. Just because we don’t say it every single fucking time we bring it up doesn’t mean we don’t actually have any ideas.
It’s just not the point of this thread. It’s not recreational outrage or posturing–both of those would mean we don’t actually mean what we say. The best word for it is “catharsis.” The point of this thread is to let off steam about how fucked up it is that all these things keep happening.
I don’t trust my local police officers anymore, either. They have a huge image problem, and that makes it hard for the good ones to do their jobs. They come off as tribalists who defend their own no matter what they do, instead of, you know, defenders of the people. They come off as cowards who too quickly resort to force instead of deescalation. It’s a huge problem.
And just taking a public position of “we need to reduce the number of people we kill” alone would be a good idea for them. Hell, it should just always be true–every time you have to kill instead of arrest is a tragedy. Why wouldn’t you want to do it less?
If the people don’t trust cops, then cops can’t do their jobs. They need to care.
Fortunately, when it comes to debates with you, establishing moral (and intellectual) superiority is a pretty low bar to clear.
I could outline a series of steps i believe would be necessary to improve these situations, but i acknowledge that such things take time and investment on the part of people involved, and i also acknowledge that there might be things that i, as someone who isn’t in law enforcement, might not have considered. I understand that policy decisions are often complicated and messy, but i also believe that it is reasonable, in policy discussions, to outline desirable outcomes in the hope that people who formulate policy can get to those outcomes, or at least come close.
In the same way, i believe that someone can argue for more access to health care or more equitable housing policy or a better tax policy, and outline some specific goals of such a program, without being able to produce a 150-page white paper on exactly what step should be taken in every specific instance. I’d certainly prefer that approach to the one that you have adopted in this thread, which seems to be along the lines of, “The people who get shot pretty much all deserve it, and those who criticize the police are just posturing.” That seems, to me, to be far more lazy and indefensible than what you’re accusing me of.
As others have noted, there are actually police departments, both here and abroad, that DO, in fact, manage to deal with situations like this without killing clearly self-destructive and mentally ill people. But, as Richard Parker suggests, implementing this sort of thing requires both resources, and the sort of policy considerations that you are happy to poo-poo as mere posturing. And, fundamentally, it requires people to give a shit about who gets shot by police.
Simple answers are for the simple-minded, BigT. Which might be why you favor them.
It’s because when ideas are brought up, they are stupid or impractical ideas. mhendo’s is a good example - police shooting or not shooting based on the size of the person is silly. Thus the basis for the RO is stupid.
“He’s coming at you with a knife - just don’t shoot. Just accept a higher risk that you might die or be injured.” That’s stupid, and that’s why mhendo can’t defend it.
Yay. Another aphorism as a substitute for actual thought! Nicely self-referential though. What thoughts are more simple than aphorisms?
Why do you seem incapable of actually dealing with the arguments that were actually said instead of picking on individual words? I specifically brought up arguments. If your claim here is true, then you should be able to tell me how they are stupid and impractical.
mhendo’s argument was that he didn’t have to know the details of how to implement something to point out it was a good idea. You have not refuted that. You’ve called him a coward, but you don’t rationally refute anyone.
And, no, telling cops to take higher risks is not stupid. There is a pretty good argument right now that cops are overly focused on their own personal safety rather than the safety of the populace. There is an argument that they avoid even relatively minor injuries in a way that increase the risk of the populace for little reward for them. A rational discussion would involve weighing the risks versus reward. The only reason you think it is stupid is an emotional one.
And, no, changing your response based on the size of the person involved is not stupid. It’s not useful if you’re dealing with someone who has a gun, but weight classes are relevant in determining threat levels in many situations. It’s not as simple as your absurd version, but you love to simplify your opponent’s arguments to the point of absurdity.
I think it’s because you can’t argue against actual nuanced arguments.
Wait. Steophan thinks there is no outrage about the suicidal LGBT kid getting shot? There are fucking riots going on! Cop cars have been torched. People are told to not go outside for fear of violence.
Well, I’d prefer that any movement acknowledges that all lives matter equally, but if I had to make a choice between supporting a movement for the rights of people who’ve had equality for over half a century against one for the rights of people who still don’t have equality, I’m obviously going to choose the latter. So yes, Crazy Lives Matter or LGBT Lives Matter would be far more important.
But ultimately, even those movements would be exclusionary and divisive. The reason, in my opinion, that Gay Pride has been so successful is that it’s been extremely inclusive, welcoming straight people to events and marches and so on. That stands in stark contrast to the likes of Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, which inherently try to divide people by class or race.
No outrage on this board, specifically from hypocrites like you, who would be up in arms were the victim black.
The protests and riots are just as unacceptable here as they have been in any of the other cases discussed, it just appears that it’s Antifa rather than BLM that’s the instigator. The shooting was pretty clearly justified from the video, especially as the police had reason to believe that Scout Schultz had a gun, because of the 911 call that they (allegedly) made.
It fucking sucks being mentally ill, I know this from experience. But I still have to be responsible for my actions. Hopefully it won’t cost me my life, but if I threaten an armed person and they kill me, it’s nobody’s fault but mine - and if I’m not responsible for my actions, it’s nobody’s fault at all.
If all it takes to be “qualified” to talk is to have taken personal risks, then I am fully qualified. I have gotten involved and put my own ass on the line, more than once. We will agree to not discuss the wisdom of it though?
The person in question was a threat to no one else. This was a case of “suicide by cop”.
I don’t place a lot of blame on the cop, but this was still a “suicide by cop” and might have been handled by non-lethal means. Maybe.
