somebody link to it…
Armed villain on a crime spree is deliberately rammed by a police vehicle to eliminate the danger to the public. Lawyer claims the villain was suicidal and needed help. Police and the state call the policeman a hero. Villain survives and after hospitalisation is jailed.
TCMF-2L
Don’t speak for me. I am in agreement with the other posters. No one in this thread is seriously calling for the elimination of the police, and for you to say that they are doing so is disingenuous on your part.
I just hope you’re not pegging the value of your comment to its unpopularity.
I think the cop made the wrong call, it’s not good police work to plough into street corner like that, but fuck that Darwin award winner and his suicidal tendencies. He’s clearly a threat to the public.
Yeah, this is a tough one. I think perhaps it was the right call, but the perhaps the wrong way to go about it. For instance, disregarding the fellow officer’s call to stand down. It appears he decided on his own to hit the guy when perhaps he should have alerted his fellow officers to the plan.
That said, it may have been the best way to resolve the situation short of shooting. The guy was obviously an immediate danger, you can’t get into taser range, and the car actually affords a degree of protection from potential gunfire. Short of sniping the guy, this was probably the least lethal method of taking him down.
It helps if you read the entire post, not just the part that got your knickers all twisted up:
Note the phrase “some populations.” So he’s not talking about how he feels, or even how a significant portion of the population at large feels, but specifically about how some subgroups feel about the police.
And even then, extrapolating from that to “We shouldn’t have police at all,” is an enormous leap that’s all but entirely unsupported by the post you were partially quoting.
AtomicDog. I never intended to give the impression I was speaking for you. If I had a time machine I would go back and add a smiley to show it was (intended as) a harmless and light hearted comment. But I am sorry you interpreted it as misattributing comments as yours.
I was not being disingenuous either but this is a public bulletin board, this is the pit and you can make such accusations about me as you please.
TCMF-2F
Miller. My underwear is fine but thank you for your concern.
I don’t entirely follow your line of argument here.
FXMastermind is talking about “some populations” - fine.
You say that means he is not talking about himself. That doesn’t follow automatically to me. If you were to say “Some posters on SDMB are also mods” you would be talking about a sub-group, a minority sub-group however you would not be excluding yourself.
You say he is not talking about a significant portion of the population. To me that doesn’t follow automatically either. Mathematically “several” minority sub-groups could total the majority of the population.
You say extrapolating from groups (and I paraphrase here) who don’t trust the police, should not use the police whether witness or victim, don’t have any expectation of justice from the police doesn’t point towards a view the police are obsolete and should be done away with. I will respectfully disagree with you.
Not knowing FXMastermind I chose to view their post as hyperbole but I felt the opinion espoused deserved calling out.
TCMF-2L
I agree – no doubt it was unorthodox, but I thought it was a good move considering the situation.
BTW, other than being expensive, why aren’t at least the windows of police cruisers bullet-proof?
Can I hijack to a question on English usage?
There is a full stop between “China” and “That.” To me that makes the second sentence a complete thought, not dependent on the prior sentence, though I realize there’s ambiguity.
If I were writing this and wanted to make it clear that the second sentence was not my opinion, I’d replace “China. That” with “China; that” or “China. They think that”
What do English usage experts think?
It was written poorly. But most people can grasp the essential thought. It’s not a stretch to view police as dangerous, criminal and something to be avoided at all cost. Just imagine you are in another country, or if in the US, you are yourself a criminal.
“I think that AtomicDog will agree with me there” is not speaking for me? I don’t think that my interpretation of your comment is incorrect.
When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
No! The first thing to do is claim you know you are in a hole, you meant to get in the hole, and the hole is the safest place around at the moment.
Then you lob a verbal grenade.
What gives you the idea that it’s untested?
All the cannabis at the legal dispenseries is tested for purity, strength, adulteration and so forth, like medicines have to be? I doubt that. I’m not aware of any regulation of them. That’s the sort of testing I’m referring to.
I’m not doubting the effectiveness of cannabis overall, I’m saying that the safety and effectiveness would be massively increased by researching and producing medicines derived from it, rather than the rather random dosage and purity obtained by smoking it.
But advising that someone use cannabis at this point for medical purposes is akin to suggesting changes in diet or exercise, not prescribing a medicine. Something that is fine, and should be legal.
For what it’s worth, I’m glad your father found relief, and hopefully the more people that do, the closer we’ll get to actual medicines derived from it, instead of the research being effectively prohibited.
ETA Not your father, the other Rick’s father. Should pay more attention…
The big reason no one is too concerned about the amount of THC in a particular sample of marijuana is that there is no realistic danger from an overdose of the stuff. Didn’t get enough THC? Take a little more. Got a bit too much? Dude, maintain. It’s not like acetaminophen where if you get too much you shred your liver.
I regularly take legal drugs in the form of random plant parts of untested strength and purity. I have no idea when I drink my morning cup of coffee if I’m going to get a really strong hit of my drug, or some weak-ass ditch weed. Should I ditch the coffee and stick to taking caffeine pills of tested and regulated purity?
No. But I can assure you it is really, really, really good. Seriously.
ETA: Really.
I don’t smoke pot. I also don’t have a problem with the use of medical marijuana for “Stress reduction,” quotes intentional.
But medical marijuana advocates have 2 responses. First, pot is cheaper than pharmaceutical THC. That’s might be a small advantage in cultures with developed health systems like Canada and Europe, but it’s a real thing in the US. Secondly, it’s easier to vary dosages with pot brownies than it is with pills, in practice. Sure you don’t know the exact concentration in the brownie. But dosage varying is easier.
It looks like the Tulsa police department tried to falsify records, giving Bates training he never received.