If you can discern an actual, substantive claim from elucidator’s post, you can criticize my response for failing to address it.
But you cannot criticize me for failing to construct that substantive claim from the semantically null bullshit the the actual post contained.
In Scotland, this is the law. If a cop can’t handle it, he doesn’t get issued a firearm: [INDENT]A police officer is not entitled to open fire against a person unless the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is committing, or is about to commit, an action which is likely to endanger the life or cause serious injury to the officer or any other person and there is no other way to prevent the danger.
CHAPTER 3 ISSUE AND CARRIAGE OF FIREARMS 3-
In no case must a prisoner be harshly treated or have greater force used against them than is absolutely necessary to restrain.
**
Circumstances When Weapons May Be Fired**
You may open fire against a person only when absolutely necessary after traditional methods have tried and failed, or must, by the very nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried.
To sum up, a police officer should not decide to open fire unless that officer is satisfied that nothing short of opening fire could protect the officer or another person from imminent danger to life or serious injury. [/INDENT]
So in Scotland they do NOT expect police to take a risk of serious injury to spare a life?
I think the proposed Mike Brown law is a good idea.
Apparently, a study done in California showed that reports of police brutality plummeted when officers were equipped with body cameras.
Sounds fair to me. We give them the legality to use force, they give full transparency.
Absolutely agree.
The shooting following the Brown one, with the knife…very little outcry about that one. Because there was a video. People that reflexively distrust the police can’t argue with a video that shows justification; people that reflexively support the cops can’t argue with a video that shows no justification.
“Semantically null” if you are exceptionally dull witted. How is it I understood his concern? Sheer like-mindedness?
Ah, so. It was hard for me to tell that apart from dry sarcasm. (You tend to over-irony somewhat IMO.)
I’m pretty sure that’s not substantially different from most US police standards. Bricker or one of the other US attorneys could cite any case law differences but I believe the standard for the judgment call (subject presents an imminent danger of death or serious injury to cop or others) is the same here as in Scotland. And I’d wager it’s just as difficult for a prosecutor in Scotland to second-guess a police officer’s decision on the scene as it is for her counterpart in the US.
Yes, because clearly the problem with law enforcement is that there aren’t yet enough of their every-day actions being second guessed by armchair constables who think that “shooting the leg to slow him down” and “taking a little extra risk” are viable doctrines.
And as we’ve seen over the course of this story, the public reaction to any video evidence it doesn’t like is to declare that it was obviously doctored anyway.
This doesn’t seem to me a persuasive argument.
Are these ‘armchair constables’ empowered to take disciplinary action against cops, or are there professional and knowledgeable entities like review boards of other LEO professionals, grand juries and DOJ investigators who actually take that responsibility in the real world?
Yes, public opinion is sometimes based on unrealistic expectations driven by ignorance and the tropes of fiction. But greater transparency has rarely exacerbated that condition, only acted to alleviate or at least somewhat mitigate popular ignorance.
Yes, like-mindedness combined with a generous interpretation when considering words from ideological allies.
I find it hilarious that you were advancing your understanding of elucidator in the last paragraph and admitting that you didn’t quite get his meaning in this one.
If your intent was to insult me, you’ve failed: nothing your ilk says about me can offend me.
You have, OTOH, succeeded in insulting yourself. Your comment, if it was intended as a true view of your feelings, demonstrates that the heinous cognition that I and others ascribe to you and your ilk is not an exaggeration at all. You “right-wingers” really do have “thinking” just as putrid as it seems.
The police force on which Wilson served previously was disbanded for excessive force and corruption.
We understand others via our empathy systems. So this is what you would wish for if you were in septimus’ shoes, right? Right? Or perhaps you have good reason for thinking that septimus is inclined to enjoy real life violence? It is the case that one thing wingers have difficulty wrapping their minds around is that normal people aren’t as fucked in the head as they are.
I do not know what Scottish practice is. That is not a good reading of my cite, though. Cops on the beat take a risk of serious injury every day: it’s a occupational hazard. According to the Manual of Guidance, guns may be fired only when absolutely necessary, when nothing short of opening fire can protect against imminent danger.
The Manual of Guidance incidentally was for Britain; it had an additional section for Scotland, suggesting that guidelines in that section of the country are more restrictive. I repeat that I know nothing of how they work in practice.
And furthermore studies and common experience suggest that people behave better when they know they are being monitored. Basic criminology says that sure and certain punishment matters more than the intensity of the same.
Isn’t that an accurate description of the mindset that makes people throw Molotov cocktails at police? They found out Wilson shot Brown, decided the police were guilty of wrongdoing and punished them by throwing incendiaries at them?
Um, Grumman the discussion/hijack in question involves whether we should equip the cops with body cameras.
The smear machine is out in full force. Do you think WaPo would ever put out an article documenting how many times Brown’s mother got divorced (or if she was married at all)? And if not, why not?
Because – unlike Wilson’s work history – that would be completely irrelevant to the story.
Are you sure about that?
“Did the St. Louis police have to shoot Kajieme Powell?”
IMO, it is a continuation of the Zimmerman case arguments about what constitutes a “reasonable” perception of the threat of serious bodily harm.
How is Wilson’s work history relevant? He could have murdered 50 people in his last job, and still have been acting in self defence here.
I stopped reading that article when it mentioned that the cops didn’t fire a warning shot :smack::smack:
No reasonable person can think someone coming at you with a knife isn’t such a threat. It’s that obvious that it would make a good test of whether someone is reasonable or not - if they don’t think it’s a threat, their opinion is worthless.
It’s a bit harder with unarmed people, but at an absolute minimum, an adult male of average build or larger punching you in the face would meet it. Also a lot of women, teenagers, and smaller men doing so.