Amulek Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: Nondeadly force has often historically led to deadly force. It is natural for police and protestors to fear escalation if they have experienced or known of it before. This whole thing started with an unjustified display of deadly force. All protestors need to do to fear is to remember what happened to George Floyd. The protests aren’t happening in a vacuum. People’s reasoning and fears aren’t solely based on what they are experiencing right then. I appreciate your empathy. I just honestly don't see the two situations as being incidental, personally.
Amulek Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: If that reasoning is valid, then police should be leaving if they are afraid for their lives, correct? Cities are welcome to give police that option and then live with what they get as a result. Do you think it would be a net positive?
Calm Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Amulek said: Cities are welcome to give police that option and then live with what they get as a result. Do you think it would be a net positive? You are skipping over my point which was in response to you saying protestors would leave if they were truly afraid for their lives. If police have a reason to stay even when they see their lives threatened, why couldn't protestors have reasons as well? Edited June 25, 2020 by Calm
Calm Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Amulek said: I appreciate your empathy. I just honestly don't see the two situations as being incidental, personally. Was that an autocorrect typo and you meant equivalent rather than incidental? If incidental, can you clarify please. I am just taking people at their word if they say they are in fear for their lives or the lives of others. I believe police and the National Guard feared for their lives in a general sense as well as in specific circumstances. I have also seen blacks expressing the belief that any encounter with police may have them end up dead. I just saw a video where a cop had his hand on his gun in a position to draw it quickly when he was having a confrontation (just a vigorous, assertive discussion, no verbal abuse from either side, though one cop kept trying to get close iirc) with a black man in a public parking lot who was simply insisting they tell him whether he had a legal right to be there or not. There were a total of 6 white cops there, I heard reference to "open carry" so I am wondering if the citizen had a gun on him. However, the cops admitted he was in full legal rights to be there and was not breaking any laws. They still insisted he leave. When the black man asked the one cop to remove his hand from the gun because he was afraid of being shot, the cop refused. When asked why he had his hand on his gun ready to draw, he answered "because I can". I would be very, very nervous about that cop being trigger happy if I was in the citizen's situation. Knowing the cops at protests had guns even if they weren't using them, knowing nonlethal means were often actually lethal especially if used incorrectly which they were in many places, living with the belief (accurate or not) that their lives are in danger from police violence 24/7 even in their homes (given the blacks killed by police in their own home, not unreasonable), there is no place they are not in danger, I think all these things and more add up to a perception they could be killed being out there. While police no doubt fear for their lives when on duty, I wonder if they have the same perception of danger even in their own homes at least when they don't live in the high risk communities. ------- On a related topic.... I don't see any reason save to explain police overreaction to argue police were more afraid of their lives than protestors were. Were you talking about police expectations for another reason? Edited June 25, 2020 by Calm 1
Amulek Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: You are skipping over my point which was in response to you saying protestors would leave if they were truly afraid for their lives. If police have a reason to stay even when they see their lives threatened, why couldn't protestors have reasons as well? Police have a duty to protect the citizenry which requires that, when necessary, they put their lives in danger. They are trained to do so, and there are lots of incentives and structures which have been designed and put into place to reinforce that behavior. Regular people (in general) aren't built like that. They might put themselves in a situation where they could be injured, but it's highly unlikely they will intentionally put themselves in a situation where there is a legitimate chance that they will actually be killed.
Tacenda Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: Was that an autocorrect typo and you meant equivalent rather than incidental? If incidental, can you clarify please. I am just taking people at their word if they say they are in fear for their lives or the lives of others. I believe police and the National Guard feared for their lives in a general sense as well as in specific circumstances. I have also seen blacks expressing the belief that any encounter with police may have them end up dead. I just saw a video where a cop had his hand on his gun in a position to draw it quickly when he was having a confrontation (just a vigorous, assertive discussion, no verbal abuse from either side, though one cop kept trying to get close iirc) with a black man in a public parking lot who was simply insisting they tell him whether he had a legal right to be there or not. There were a total of 6 white cops there, I heard reference to "open carry" so I am wondering if the citizen had a gun on him. However, the cops admitted he was in full legal rights to be there and was not breaking any laws. They still insisted he leave. When the black man asked the one cop to remove his hand from the gun because he was afraid of being shot, the cop refused. When asked why he had his hand on his gun ready to draw, he answered "because I can". I would be very, very nervous about that cop being trigger happy if I was in the citizen's situation. Knowing the cops at protests had guns even if they weren't using them, knowing nonlethal means were often actually lethal especially if used incorrectly which they were in many places, living with the belief (accurate or not) that their lives are in danger from police violence 24/7 even in their homes (given the blacks killed by police in their own home, not unreasonable), there is no place they are not in danger, I think all these things and more add up to a perception they could be killed being out there. While police no doubt fear for their lives when on duty, I wonder if they have the same perception of danger even in their own homes at least when they don't live in the high risk communities. ------- On a related topic.... I don't see any reason save to explain police overreaction to argue police were more afraid of their lives than protestors were. Were you talking about police expectations for another reason? This young man was coming home from the store and one of the kindest people ever. https://m.facebook.com/TheHandsFreeRevolution/photos/a.149731118410856/3280700008647269/?type=3&source=48
Amulek Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: Was that an autocorrect typo and you meant equivalent rather than incidental? If incidental, can you clarify please. It's most definitely an autocorrect typo. The word should be "identical," not incidental. Sorry about that. Quote I am just taking people at their word if they say they are in fear for their lives or the lives of others. I believe police and the National Guard feared for their lives in a general sense as well as in specific circumstances. I have also seen blacks expressing the belief that any encounter with police may have them end up dead. I believe protesters who say they have a general fear of the police. And I can even believe that, in some particular encounter, someone might believe there is a credible threat that they could be killed. But just because someone believes there is a credible threat doesn't mean there actually is one. And when you are evaluating risk, you look at what the actual risk is - regardless of the perceived risk. When I look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the protests / riots, I think it's clear that the police are more justified in being fearful of their lives. Because, in addition to whatever general level of fear each side may have, there have been multiple, specific instances where a violent element (either with or merely attached to the protesters) has literally, intentionally attempted to kill police. Despite whatever perceptions the protesters may have, they simply aren't facing a comparable threat from law enforcement. There are zero cops intentionally trying to kill protesters. Unless or until that changes, then (at least in my opinion) the group that is more justified in actually fearing for their lives is going to be the group that has actually had people intentionally try to kill them. I recognize that you evaluate the circumstances differently, and I doubt either of us will change each other's mind so I'm going to try and let the topic go.
Calm Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, Amulek said: And when you are evaluating risk, you look at what the actual risk is - regardless of the perceived risk. You can never know the actual risk. It is all what you perceive.
Calm Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 6 minutes ago, Amulek said: There are zero cops intentionally trying to kill protesters. Unless or until that changes, then (at least in my opinion) the group that is more justified in actually fearing for their lives is going to be the group that has actually had people intentionally try to kill them. So what then? What is the purpose of your point that police are more afraid?
Meadowchik Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Amulek said: It's most definitely an autocorrect typo. The word should be "identical," not incidental. Sorry about that. I believe protesters who say they have a general fear of the police. And I can even believe that, in some particular encounter, someone might believe there is a credible threat that they could be killed. But just because someone believes there is a credible threat doesn't mean there actually is one. And when you are evaluating risk, you look at what the actual risk is - regardless of the perceived risk. When I look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the protests / riots, I think it's clear that the police are more justified in being fearful of their lives. Because, in addition to whatever general level of fear each side may have, there have been multiple, specific instances where a violent element (either with or merely attached to the protesters) has literally, intentionally attempted to kill police. Despite whatever perceptions the protesters may have, they simply aren't facing a comparable threat from law enforcement. There are zero cops intentionally trying to kill protesters. Unless or until that changes, then (at least in my opinion) the group that is more justified in actually fearing for their lives is going to be the group that has actually had people intentionally try to kill them. I recognize that you evaluate the circumstances differently, and I doubt either of us will change each other's mind so I'm going to try and let the topic go. I'm not sure what your point is exactly then. Are you saying that generally, American militarisation of police is appropriate?
Meadowchik Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 58 minutes ago, Calm said: So what then? What is the purpose of your point that police are more afraid? Yup! And shouldn't those who are trained to use non-lethal and lethal force be extensively trained in how to govern their emotions? Even then, should police, who interact with the general public daily, be trained to use non forceful tactics the majority of the time?
USU78 Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I'm not sure what your point is exactly then. Are you saying that generally, American militarisation of police is appropriate? You've no doubt seen the vid of the Italian carabinieri lighting out after the mob with riot gear, including clubs and shields. What's the qualitative difference? Every one in the world uses pretty much the same tools when confronted with the same stimuli. Why? They're effective and they're necessary. Your kid's a cop? You want him "militarized." Your kid's a violent, provocative, or arguably good faith protestor? You want him not violent; you want him not provocative; you want him to be safe. But they aren't, are they? Be honest. The alleged peaceful protestors have as their principal aim a gross violation of Section 121. Force and compulsion. Power. Edited June 26, 2020 by USU78 1
Amulek Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 59 minutes ago, Calm said: You can never know the actual risk. It is all what you perceive. Not all perceptions are justified though. Quote So what then? What is the purpose of your point that police are more afraid? The point is that they are under greater stress and have greater reason to fear for their lives because they are legitimately facing a more dangerous situation. And a greater degree of danger justifies a more aggressive use of force.
Calm Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Amulek said: The point is that they are under greater stress and have greater reason to fear for their lives because they are legitimately facing a more dangerous situation. And a greater degree of danger justifies a more aggressive use of force. So you are justifying overreactions or are you saying there is very little actual overreaction? If the later, how would you define firing rubber bullets at journalists and arresting them? Are these justifiable reactions? Edited June 26, 2020 by Calm
Meadowchik Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 32 minutes ago, USU78 said: You've no doubt seen the vid of the Italian carabinieri lighting out after the mob with riot gear, including clubs and shields. What's the qualitative difference? Every one in the world uses pretty much the same tools when confronted with the same stimuli. Why? They're effective and they're necessary. Your kid's a cop? You want him "militarized." Your kid's a violent, provocative, or arguably good faith protestor? You want him not violent; you want him not provocative; you want him to be safe. But they aren't, are they? Be honest. The alleged peaceful protestors have as their principal aim a gross violation of Section 121. Force and compulsion. Power. You're mistaken in you're characterisation of protestors. My daughter attended a peaceful BLM protest that even followed social distancing. She was instructed to respect those rules by me and reportedly had no issues. She's been to two other peaceful protests this past year before the lockdown and has had no issues. Of course, police here in the UK are generally unarmed, so it's a different culture and attitude. Here, I'm not worried about police looking for opportunities to use force because their job usually is not about using force. Regarding daily life, my teen son is an Aspie and is very cautious but also a little strange in public, though very polite. I'm not afraid that people will misconstrue his strangeness for menace. We're American, and I would feel differently about these situations for my kids if we were still in the US. Police everywhere do not necessarily act the same. In any case, no I do not want militarised police, which is more than just being armed.
Tacenda Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Amulek said: Not all perceptions are justified though. The point is that they are under greater stress and have greater reason to fear for their lives because they are legitimately facing a more dangerous situation. And a greater degree of danger justifies a more aggressive use of force. Try this for feeling in danger. https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1307236400&ref=content_filter
Amulek Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 17 minutes ago, Calm said: So you are justifying overreactions or are you saying there is very little actual overreaction? Isn't an "overreaction," by definition, unjustified? It kind of sounds like you are asking, 'So, are you justifying wife beating, or are you just saying that there is very little wife beating actually happening?' Quote If the later, how would you define firing rubber bullets at journalists and arresting them? Are these justifiable reactions? Possibly. It depends on the totality of the circumstances. During protests police may balance journalists' rights with public safety. A journalist has the same rights as the general public to access public property, but they aren't granted special rights to disobey police orders, nor are they allowed to interfere with police work.
Amulek Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Try this for feeling in danger. https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1307236400&ref=content_filter Sorry, I'm not on Facebook so I can't access the link. Maybe share a news story instead.
Meadowchik Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 5 minutes ago, Amulek said: Isn't an "overreaction," by definition, unjustified? It kind of sounds like you are asking, 'So, are you justifying wife beating, or are you just saying that there is very little wife beating actually happening?' It kind of sounds like you are arguing that no unjustified use of force by police can exist because of the alleged inherent dangers of their work.
Tacenda Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 11 minutes ago, Amulek said: Sorry, I'm not on Facebook so I can't access the link. Maybe share a news story instead. https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1307236400&ref=content_filter This should work.
Tacenda Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Amulek said: Sorry, I'm not on Facebook so I can't access the link. Maybe share a news story instead. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2771453306219475&id=908009612563863&ref=content_filter This should work. Sorry about that. Edited June 26, 2020 by Tacenda
Amulek Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: It kind of sounds like you are arguing that no unjustified use of force by police can exist because of the alleged inherent dangers of their work. Then you haven't been paying attention to what I have said - even when I have said it directly to you: "That isn't to say that every use of force by law enforcement has been justified. They clearly haven't been. And when LEO's engage in unjustified, unlawful behavior they should be held accountable for that."
Calm Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) I probably should have said an atypical or not according to usual protocol reaction rather than overreaction. I am assuming you have, iirc you said you have, but just to be sure you have watched a number of the media posted videos of journalists being arrested and fired upon? I am focusing on journalists because we can generally determine what they were doing in an area and claims of police violence are usually documented. Edited June 26, 2020 by Calm
Meadowchik Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Amulek said: Then you haven't been paying attention to what I have said - even when I have said it directly to you: "That isn't to say that every use of force by law enforcement has been justified. They clearly haven't been. And when LEO's engage in unjustified, unlawful behavior they should be held accountable for that." No, I remember you saying that. I'm just struggling to see the point of your position. You need to define the bolded above if it is going to be meaningful. If you do not define it, and if you continue as you seem to be doing now emphasizing the stress of LEO as some excuse for their use of force, you undermine your position. In any given situation, people have all kinds of stress, stress which may or may not be visible. Those who are authorized to use force should be much more skilled at governing their emotions than those in the general public. 1
Recommended Posts