It implies that the coroner did not release the body for removal until the coroner had completed the onsite investigation.
All right then, assuming (rashly) that you know that to be the procedure, what does the coroner’s indifference as well as the police’s toward doing any of that imply to you?
This isn’t that hard, unless you’re having trouble facing those implications.
It implies that the coroner was waiting for the completion of the evidence gathering before authorizing the removal of the body.
All right then, since you persist: What does the fact that no one in a position of authority acted like they gave a shit imply to you?
This thread is an embarrassment.
How do you type while doing your Superiority Dance?
I’m saying the sole point I’m making is that we ought not value the lives of suspected criminals less than the lives of police. I believe it follows from this principle that a just use of force policy will seek to weigh equally the lives of criminal suspects who are not a genuine threat and the lives of police officers. Thus, a policy that has police firing at 9 non-threats for every true threat is not valuing the lives of suspected criminals at a level equal to the police.
It gives them “an edge” as compared to the policy that shoots faster, that’s true. I thought your point was that aiming for 1:1 would inevitably lead to even worse odds for the cops because such a policy will further embolden criminals. And my response was that if the ratio gets worse than that, then the tactics can be adjusted back in the direction of shooting earlier so as to aim for that goal.
I may have missed a post. Catch me up or give me a post #.
Voice to text, Duh.
BobLibDem (and elucidator): I presented a scenario asked asked you what you would do. You said that you would try pepper and then the taser. No mention of shooting. I specifically said a loved one was in danger, not you, since people often value the safety of family members over their own. I did so in attempt to see where, in the order of priority, you place a suspects safety over that of others. The only conclusion that one could draw from your reply was that you were willing to risk the safety of a loved one (because sometimes pepper, tasers & even guns don’t work) in order to not hurt the assailant too badly. I made no reference to the St Louis situation in my scenario. I have no idea what bringing wives to work has to do with the hypothetical.
I also fail to see what is self-serving, absurd or below-the-belt in my post. Please enlighten me.
It implies that they were doing their job properly, trying to gather whatever evidence was necessary, instead of “accidentally” damaging or hiding it. doorhinge has made it quite clear he thinks the same.
There’s no good reason to rush. If they’d moved the body immediately, you would be asking why they disturbed the evidence, because you can’t help but give in to your ignorant anti-authoritarian prejudice.
It’s already been established that they were doing nothing of the sort, nothing at all.
Now try again, this time with relation to reality.
And my point is that it does not follow from this principle. Because even if criminal lives are equally valuable as police lives, such a policy could render the police less effective at protecting the public from criminals, which is a separate consideration from the value of criminal vs police lives. (As noted, I personally think criminal lives are less valuable, but this discussion here is assuming they are equally valuable.)
It’s the same post that you quoted (#2282). The first two sentences and the third sentence were making different points (which is why I wrote "in addition …). You quoted the whole thing but only addressed the second point.
Oh, I see. Ok. Let me expand my ratio by a dimension. An ideal use of force policy is one in which the number of people harmed by the police who were not a genuine threat is equal to the number of police or members of the public harmed by the failure to act sooner.
Of course, that just follows from the same principles I just established, that we ought to value the lives of suspected criminals the same as anybody else.
ETA: I do think the fleeing criminal who has been lawfully ordered to stop and who refuses is deserving of less protection. So make the ratio higher for that particular scenario if you like, but I think 9:1 is pretty extreme.
2282 is my post, I think, and I cannot make what you just said onto the post of yours I quoted in that post. So maybe it’s easier if you just restate what I have failed to address.
No, it really hasn’t. Unless you’ve got access to the complete investigation, which you haven’t.
Budget Player - you said, “…I would find it perfectly justified for the officer to open fire - show a little restraint, aim away from vital organs…”
This where the majority of the public has a disconnect from reality. “Aiming away from vital organs” is akin to “shoot the gun out of his hand”. Cops have a pretty dismal hit rate when aiming (pointing, really - there isn’t much aiming going on in these types of encounters) for center mass. There are a whole host of reasons for this but suffice it to say that, when you are in fear for your life with only seconds or less to act, there are physiological and psychological changes that take place in an instant. These changes make it difficult to employ fine motor skills (like shooting a gun accurately) and remember accurately exactly what happened. It is because of these changes that cops often “mis-remember” traumatic events. There are plenty of scientific studies that confirm this. Too often the public sees “mis-remembering” as outright lying.
The was much ado in another thread about the St Louis Chief mis-stating the facts that were on the video tape. People complained about the failure of the Ferguson PD to release information right away. I stated back then that, when information is released before an investigation is done (or, at least, started), there are going to be errors and that people would then scream police incompetency. Then the St Louis incident came along and proved my point. Certain people are all over St Louis PD for getting some things wrong in the initial statement. None of these things were really material to decision to shoot. Had the Chief taken a little more time and compared the video to what he was being told, he may have had the facts straight. That would surely instill more public confidence. But people want answers NOW, damnit!
To be better than you, it’s more of a Superiority Falling Out of Bed.
The question is disingenuous and it hints at cowardice, offering me the opportunity to declare myself a sniveling weakling. I can count those I truly love on one hand and probably have a finger left to flip the bird. If a grizzly bear was threatening my son, I would kill it in a heartbeat. (At that, the bear would be lucky if it were me, his mother would tear his throat out with her teeth and scratch out his eyes for good measure.)
The analogy to someone sworn to protect and serve is disingenuous. That is duty, not love. Cops aren’t drafted or conscripted, they put themselves forward, they say that they can be trusted with lethal force. In effect, they are declaring themselves better people than most all of the rest of us.
Some are, I’ve no doubt, I’ve met a couple of them, and I stand in awe. Met the other kind too. 'Nuff sed. A fireman swears to duty, to put himself at risk for others. But we do not trust him with lethal force and the discretion to use it. And a cop must have that, he must have that trust in hm to peform his duty.
Is it too much to ask that such trust be well-deserved? Perhaps it is, and we have a problem that cannot be solved. But we should at least *try *to solve it, before we give up.
PS: my answer is not identical to **Bob’**s, let it be noted for the record.
**Richard Parker **-“An ideal use of force policy is one in which the number of people harmed by the police who were not a genuine threat is equal to the number of police or members of the public harmed by the failure to act sooner”. Says who? I take it that you mean “in your opinion”. How do you make those numbers equal? “Well, we shot x number of people that didn’t deserve it. We will stand down from taking action until a like number of cops or citizens have been shot. We must balance the equation in accordance with the policy”.
I fail to see how a use of force policy can be written based on statistical analysis and some ratios. It isn’t a math problem.
To be fair, no thread on this (or any other forum) ever needed or desired your participation. What is your expertise, “being an obnoxious shithead”?
Well that was… interesting.
@MikeF: fair enough.
Seriously, dude, when was the last time you posted something that wasn’t some unoriginal variant of calling either a specific poster or multiple posters stoopid? If this board is all that unenlightening and aggravating for you, maybe another would be more congenial, knowhamean?