• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Everyone is Innocent vs Caution

Ikari said:
Caine said:
For example, the guy shot and killed in the back by the Charleston SC Officer. That officer was wayy wrong in pulling the trigger and I want him prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But im not too worked up over the life he took, because that guy wasn't exactly an angel.
Click to expand...
And that's great. "Even when they unlawfully kill someone, they killed someone I assume to be a dirtbag, so it's cool". Guess innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing anymore. Just got a bunch of Judge Dredds on the s

yeah, government execution of citizens without trial. Nothing to get worked up over.
Click to expand...
I don't that's what Caine said, at all.
 
stonewall50 said:
You know I always see the comments from people who don't understand why cops are "paranoid." That kind of thing. Does anyone actually have a problem with officers distrusting the populace and exercising due caution when even basic traffic stops turn violent?
Click to expand...
I do.

A single video does not, in any way shape or form, give us anything resembling a true picture of the risks police face. It doesn't tell us which tactics work best in handling a situation that might turn violent. It doesn't depict the millions of routine traffic stops that do not involve the driver pulling a gun.

Your fundamental premise here is deeply flawed.
 
radcen said:
The fatal flaw in the question is in insinuating that the two (innocent vs caution) are mutually exclusive. It is precisely that "black/white" and "either/or" mindset, from the extreme of either side, that is the problem.
Click to expand...

I see you have stumbled onto a big problem I have with the people that would fall on the opposite side from me.

They treat law enforcement interactions with people as black and white. Like there is a manual that covers all scenarios. There isn't. Obviously. And it isn't up to the officer to decide your innocence. It is his job to arrest people with probable cause and for the courts to decide if said arrest had enough evidence to determine you are "proven guilty."
 
Visbek said:
I do.

A single video does not, in any way shape or form, give us anything resembling a true picture of the risks police face. It doesn't tell us which tactics work best in handling a situation that might turn violent. It doesn't depict the millions of routine traffic stops that do not involve the driver pulling a gun.

Your fundamental premise here is deeply flawed.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me this video doesn't show a risk for law enforcement? And that the premise of the video: people are unpredictable...is a fundamental flaw?

Millions of routine traffic stops DO occur. But that doesn't matter. The officer has to be ready for that 1,000,001 stop that does involve a gun. There is a 1% chance that it will be 100% raining. An officers caution is very much warranted given the number of times people react violently towards law enforcement.

Let me ask you: do you own a gun for self defense?
 
radcen said:
I don't that's what Caine said, at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If a POS is killed unlawfully...I'm not gonna lose sleep over how the world suffered a great loss. In fact I will lose sleep more than someone broke the law to deal with that POS or the fact that the guy has to be arrested even though he did society a favor.

It sucks. I agree. Caine was just saying the guy isn't worth any tears for sure. I know it bugs the **** out of a lot of people who people like Mike Brown got turned into a saint.
 
stonewall50 said:
I see you have stumbled onto a big problem I have with the people that would fall on the opposite side from me.

They treat law enforcement interactions with people as black and white. Like there is a manual that covers all scenarios. There isn't. Obviously. And it isn't up to the officer to decide your innocence. It is his job to arrest people with probable cause and for the courts to decide if said arrest had enough evidence to determine you are "proven guilty."
Click to expand...
Your fatal flaw #2 (actually confirming #1): Presuming I am "on the opposite side", which reinforces my point about some at the extremes of the topic. I am not on the opposite side. I am in the middle, opposing bad cops, and only the bad cops. You fail to see the nuances of those actually in the middle. You fail to understand that it is indeed quite possible to oppose bad cops and not lump all cops in the same category. Even with this response to my point, you blind yourself to the idea that innocence and caution aren't mutually exclusive, and choose to zero in on caution as being the only important aspect. You perpetuate the "us vs them" mindset.
 
Visbek said:
I do.

A single video does not, in any way shape or form, give us anything resembling a true picture of the risks police face. It doesn't tell us which tactics work best in handling a situation that might turn violent. It doesn't depict the millions of routine traffic stops that do not involve the driver pulling a gun.

Your fundamental premise here is deeply flawed.
Click to expand...

As is yours - the fact that most folks are healthy most of the time, or that most drivers do not have "accidents" on most trips, does not make having insurance a bad idea. Having a gun (or insurance) and not needing it is better the needing a gun (or insurance) and not having it. A healthy concern for known risks is wisdom - not foolishness.
 
radcen said:
Your fatal flaw #2 (actually confirming #1): Presuming I am "on the opposite side", which reinforces my point about some at the extremes of the topic. I am not on the opposite side. I am in the middle, opposing bad cops, and only the bad cops. You fail to see the nuances of those actually in the middle. You fail to understand that it is indeed quite possible to oppose bad cops and not lump all cops in the same category. Even with this response to my point, you blind yourself to the idea that innocence and caution aren't mutually exclusive, and choose to zero in on caution as being the only important aspect. You perpetuate the "us vs them" mindset.
Click to expand...

Talk about presumptions. How many times have we had discussions? Lol. Granted I did word that kind of clunky. Forgive me I've taken a sebaticle (spelling?) from this hell hole and have been doing a lot of clunky insurance typing.

I never said you were on the opposite side. I was mainly stating that the other side from me is very often prone to the assumption that the issue is 100% clear and that the officers have a specific manner in which they should act.
 
stonewall50 said:
So you are telling me this video doesn't show a risk for law enforcement? And that the premise of the video: people are unpredictable...is a fundamental flaw?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that one video does not give us a reliable indicator of the real risks officers face, or how to manage them.

Your comments also mischaracterizes many of the criticisms many people have against police. In some cases (like this one), the officer acted properly, and was justified in firing on the suspect. In other cases, officers do have a choice, and for various reasons opt to kill the suspect rather than subdue them using other methods. Watching this video gives us absolutely no guidelines whatsoever on the proper use of force.
 
stonewall50 said:
Talk about presumptions. How many times have we had discussions? Lol. Granted I did word that kind of clunky. Forgive me I've taken a sebaticle (spelling?) from this hell hole and have been doing a lot of clunky insurance typing.

I never said you were on the opposite side. I was mainly stating that the other side from me is very often prone to the assumption that the issue is 100% clear and that the officers have a specific manner in which they should act.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. All is good. :)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
As is yours - the fact that most folks are healthy most of the time, or that most drivers do not have "accidents" on most trips, does not make having insurance a bad idea. Having a gun (or insurance) and not needing it is better the needing a gun (or insurance) and not having it. A healthy concern for known risks is wisdom - not foolishness.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

The purpose of insurance is to distribute risk among a large pool, in order to lessen the burden on any specific individual. It also assumes that yes, sooner or later, something unexpected will happen -- e.g. everyone with health insurance and car insurance is going to make several claims during their lifetime. (FYI, drivers file insurance claims, on average, every 18 years.)

As to knowing the risks -- yet again, absolutely nothing about this video gives us any valid information about the risks officers face. It is merely an anecdote, something that plays on emotions. You cannot tell me, based on this video, how often a driver will pull a gun at a traffic stop, or how many officers were killed by gunfire in the line of duty in a given year. In fact, this may exaggerate the risks, since it's a single video shown in isolation.

It is also not clear at all what stonewall would have us do. Should we give police officers the benefit of the doubt in all circumstances, and exculpate them from any incidents where someone dies in police custody? We are well past the point where such unconditional faith is justified. Recognizing the risks officers face does not change the fact that an officer who abuses his or her powers and standing can inflict incredible damage to civilians, to communities, and the legitimacy of the police itself, and that steps must be taken to address those issues.
 
Visbek said:
I'm saying that one video does not give us a reliable indicator of the real risks officers face, or how to manage them.

Your comments also mischaracterizes many of the criticisms many people have against police. In some cases (like this one), the officer acted properly, and was justified in firing on the suspect. In other cases, officers do have a choice, and for various reasons opt to kill the suspect rather than subdue them using other methods. Watching this video gives us absolutely no guidelines whatsoever on the proper use of force.
Click to expand...

This isnt a question about proper use of force. This is a question about what mentality an officer should have going into EVERY encounter. Are you suggesting that this video DOESN'T depict a real risk officers face?

The fact is that this video demonstrates one of the hundreds or thousands of potential problems officers could face. Thus the argument is that officers MUST be cautious approaching all situations. And part of that caution is distrusting you and not assuming you are just some random Schmuk who has no ill intent.
 
visbek said:
i'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

The purpose of insurance is to distribute risk among a large pool, in order to lessen the burden on any specific individual. It also assumes that yes, sooner or later, something unexpected will happen -- e.g. Everyone with health insurance and car insurance is going to make several claims during their lifetime. (fyi, drivers file insurance claims, on average, every 18 years.)

as to knowing the risks -- yet again, absolutely nothing about this video gives us any valid information about the risks officers face. It is merely an anecdote, something that plays on emotions. You cannot tell me, based on this video, how often a driver will pull a gun at a traffic stop, or how many officers were killed by gunfire in the line of duty in a given year. In fact, this may exaggerate the risks, since it's a single video shown in isolation.

It is also not clear at all what stonewall would have us do. Should we give police officers the benefit of the doubt in all circumstances, and exculpate them from any incidents where someone dies in police custody? We are well past the point where such unconditional faith is justified. Recognizing the risks officers face does not change the fact that an officer who abuses his or her powers and standing can inflict incredible damage to civilians, to communities, and the legitimacy of the police itself, and that steps must be taken to address those issues.
Click to expand...

do you own a gun for self defense?
 
stonewall50 said:
This isnt a question about proper use of force. This is a question about what mentality an officer should have going into EVERY encounter. Are you suggesting that this video DOESN'T depict a real risk officers face?
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Allow me to demonstrate why your entire premise is fallacious. Here's a dashcam video you might recognize:



A police officer chased a drunk driver, who flipped his car. The driver was exiting his vehicle, unarmed, and the officer shot him. When other officers approached, he said the driver refused to exit the vehicle, and denied that the driver was shot. FYI, the driver died yesterday. The DA has refused to press any charges at all.

After looking at this video, should a civilian conclude that police officers should be approached with fear and distrust? Should we conclude that a police officer can kill a civilian with impunity?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That must explain why the crime rate is dropping while the number of guns is rising in the US.
Click to expand...

And you're committing the logical fallacy of assigning causation to correlation. The crime rate has been dropping significantly long before the number of guns available was rising. The crime rate began to fall in the late 1980's, and it's continued ever since. Another example of this causation-correlation problem was shown by the guys who wrote "Freakonomics", who showed that about sixteen years after Roe v. Wade, the homicide and violent crime rates began dropping, that once there were fewer unwanted children who made it to their late teens, the crime rates began dropping.

Is that the reason crime rates dropped? I doubt it...even though the correlation is significantly stronger than the one you drew between gun ownership and crime rates...

...especially since it's been shown time and time and time AGAIN that gun-friendly states generally have significantly higher homicide rates, which makes it obvious that more guns do NOT equal less crime.
 
stonewall50 said:
I'm suggesting that the cops have every right to regard you with caution and distrust...even on a basic traffic stop. This is why.
Click to expand...

No problem with that at all... hell, they can think that we are all loaded for bear and ready to blast them for all I care as long as they don't pull their piece and fire until there is a valid threat... like a gun or knife out.
 
stonewall50 said:
Well let me ask you this...do you honestly expect to have a problem with the cops? What are you doing? I don't mean that in the "if you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a problem with xyz." I mean I have had numerous encounters with law enforcement. The only time I feel like I'm gonna have a problem is when it was me speeding.

Maybe I'm just not afraid of cops? I know that I'm legal and that if there is a problem I can sort it out in court. Hell...the more reasonable I am...the more reasonable they will be. I just don't see a bad apple having any desire to be a dick to me.
Click to expand...

I had an unpleasant experience with cops in Jacksonville, FL. I was simply geocaching-a "sport" that involves finding stuff hidden by others with the location posted on the internet. Some off duty marshal confronted my and had called for police backup. I wasn't doing anything wrong. Just walking about the public streets of Jacksonville. But I won't be back. I had a similar experience in Leningrad during the USSR era. Don't like totalitarian regimes.
Like the junior clock maker in Texas authorities should be hesitant to involve themselves in perfectly legal behavior. Police should be cautious and reasonable.
 
Visbek said:
*sigh*

Allow me to demonstrate why your entire premise is fallacious. Here's a dashcam video you might recognize:



A police officer chased a drunk driver, who flipped his car. The driver was exiting his vehicle, unarmed, and the officer shot him. When other officers approached, he said the driver refused to exit the vehicle, and denied that the driver was shot. FYI, the driver died yesterday. The DA has refused to press any charges at all.

After looking at this video, should a civilian conclude that police officers should be approached with fear and distrust? Should we conclude that a police officer can kill a civilian with impunity?
Click to expand...


You seem to be missing the point here. Do you own a gun?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom