Police Use of Force Analysis NSFW

[Deleted member 619]

You haven't actually contributed meaningfully to the conversation. You still haven't explained how police would effect arrest if high speed pursuit and pit maneuver is not allowed.



How do you remedy this oh bogus one?

You aren't capable of contributing meaningfully, you disgusting, toxic little cunt. You haven't the cognitive capacity for any of this. I thought I'd encountered the entire realm of dumbcuntery in my several decades of stupid cunts on the internet, but you've managed to plumb entirely new depths, and you're still too fucking stupid to even be aware of just how ridiculously bad you're doing.

Never was Scott Weitzenhoffers's 'anonymous' analogy more true. Is anybody's bishop still standing?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

We should just all be leftists to be honest.

Yes because blind groupthink never leads to massive problems.

It might be their fault that several precincts across the country actively try to put their recruits through ineffective training that teaches them to be overtly aggressive. How are you even supposed to consider the possibility that someone might not be a threat when you're working with a manual that lists "hands" as an indicator of aggression?

Because you reaching for something after being consistently non compliant means a massive chance of being violent. What are they reaching for if they are being noncompliant and in possession of a firearm? They will use said firearm as illustrated in these videos.

Not many people actually have this choice? I hate to break it to you, but when you live in a place with little in the way of economic opportunity and little in the way of educational infrastructure, your best bet to actually make money is through criminal enterprise.

Then they risk death as a result. You break into someone's home or commit to threat of serious bodily harm and I can legally shoot someone for this. They are stupid and are continually stupid especially when colleges do offer programs at reduced cost or free of charge assuming you pass the course.

Hmmm, I have a kid to feed that I can't really feed without making money, and the only way I can pay the bills right now is by pushing these drugs, but I don't wanna have to pay a fine or go to jail. Well, I guess we'll just starve, then.

That would be your lack of foresight for your own actions. You have a kid and no safety net because you were negligent. You pay for it not me.

I don't understand why "poor" decision making is justification in your mind for someone's death.

Again false premise he wasn't shot because he was poor. "Poor decision" meaning poor in terms of quality of critical thinking. You break the law you risk force used against you period.

You can't demonstrate this claim.

On video they show weed in the car so even if the guy isn't or wasn't smoking it that is still unlawful possession. Doesn't really matter if he was or wasn't smoking still illegal.

That sounds pretty reductive, honestly. Yes, the police are empowered to use force; yes, the police can arrest you. Doesn't mean they should.

They are literal law ENFORCEMENT officers. They use force in order to FORCE compliance that is their literal function. Your logic is basically arguing that knives function isn't to cut things. How were these officers acting beyond the scope of their duty?

And so far, I'd agree, based on the videos we've seen thus far. But then again, we don't determine social trends and mechanisms by watching a couple of youtube videos, especially when they're all pulled from the same source.

Show me a better source for concise videos with audio in them that are easily accessible.

I've told you before, Bogan: ignoring data and instead favoring a few specific instances is a really stupid way to get an understanding of society in general.

Like I said post more complete sources of information then.

And you would know this because of a handful of youtube videos? Sure thing, dude.

No not "only." This is just the best way to preserve context is video and audio.

You can infer based on behavior, Bogan. Humans have done this for centuries.

Not really neutral actions wouldn't inform you one way or the other.

You may again be surprised to hear this, Bogan, but the US actually dwarfs the cartel in essentially all aspects: scope, reach, resources, so on. What makes you think we couldn't just buy someone off, promise them amnesty and immunity to prosecution, and use their info to bring down the cartel?

Because those people are still in Mexico and thus still able to be assassinated or got to in order to threaten or intimidate. A promise by speech or writing does not guarantee you being alive or remain unhurt and you to still be safe from the cartel and continue your function as a member of government.

Restaurants assume that you're with people you spend time with on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean you are immune to Corona virus just because you hang out with someone on a regular basis. Again this is arbitrary implementation. "Oh its ok because I hang out with them all the time" I am not going to get the virus. That isn't the argument that the CDC makes and it doesn't mean you are safe from corona virus making the measure worthless.

Airlines make you wear your mask for the entire flight, and check you for symptoms before letting you past security.

You are still point blank right next to another passenger that could be sick and not showing symptoms. You are breathing the air they are breathing as the air is recycled. Mask or no mask you are taking on more risk than simply not wearing a mask and being in a conventional setting.

I will concede, however, that these measures are all compromises to keep businesses running.

But they aren't law at least in my state and the majority of states in the U.S. the mask mandates were found to be unconstitutional and thus you cannot levy fines or enforcement if they are not laws which they aren't. Businesses are not going to implement this if there is no requirement or negative consequence. note most mask mandates are a declaration on the part of state government and hasn't gone through legislative process.

They can't be enforced, but the regular rights of a business owner can. A business has every right to require that patrons and staff wear masks, and have every right to call police and have patrons that refuse to comply escorted off the premises.

What happens when the majority of patrons or a large plurality enough to significantly affect business say "no"? Obviously the business will resend those mask requirements as many places here locally have done purely because they cannot risk a further reduction in profit vs expense. It happened here at my jobs because both the employees and the customers said "enough is enough we are willing to take the risk fuck off" leave me alone type of stuff.

Not every business owner thinks solely about making money immediately. Some might see the wisdom in promoting public safety and health to avoid future shut downs or just customer and employee drop off resulting from illness and death.

They are focused on it because of the economic down turn correct? There are many empty businesses that shut down due to Corona the massive reduction in profit for restrictions on numbers relating to patrons and number of goods sold. It is inevitable and places don't care from what I a have seen locally. Even if a business posts masks mandates that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to enforce it. There are gas station that have mas mandate in effect and yet employees and customers don't wear masks here. Why? Because people are tired of dealing with this they don't want to put up with this crap anymore. When they consider the risk they prefer convenience.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

I'd expand on that but, as I mentioned, I have no intention of saying word one other than flicking peanuts from the gallery until this complete cunt is entirely ejected.

I will say that I have said nothing I can't defend and, once this turd is history, I'll happily engage in all the discussion you like.

Until then. all intelligent discussion is off the table anyway, regardless of my participation, so I'm playing with the disgusting little creature until his forum extinction, at which point I'll engage in any topic you like.

Ah so you are a peanut gallery. Focusing on insignificant details and have no actual constructive purpose.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I mean, that is a weird thing to say. Everyone should not be leftists, ideological diversity is pretty nice imo.

This is wonderful.

Me, I have funny ideas about the political spectrum. As in all things, I'm a pragmatist, so I tend toward what works. Of course, my metric for 'what works' is always going to be a point of contention, but I can see ideas from across the political spectrum that could easily serve to improve society for all. I can take the idea of keeping government as small as possible from the right, but think that there are good reasons benefiting society to regulate health and social care, to name a single example.

Part of the problem with all of it is the way we polarise. It's gotten to the point - largely through propaganda and social media (not mention propagandic use of social media) - where it's almost impossible to express an opinion on something as benign as choosing between toenail clippers and scissors without being dropped into a box labelled with your complete worldview and your opinion on everything rom the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to the aesthetics of the winning showstopper on the Great British Bake Off.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

You aren't capable of contributing meaningfully, you disgusting, toxic little cunt. You haven't the cognitive capacity for any of this. I thought I'd encountered the entire realm of dumbcuntery in my several decades of stupid cunts on the internet, but you've managed to plumb entirely new depths, and you're still too fucking stupid to even be aware of just how ridiculously bad you're doing.

Never was Scott Weitzenhoffers's 'anonymous' analogy more true. Is anybody's bishop still standing?

Notice the content of your comments vs mine. You are a self admitted peanut gallery going after insignificant details and have no actual purpose other than that. You are the toxic person here not me.

You are just used to your little pathetic echo chambers and can't think critically. Guess what right wingers are not the majority here we are outside of our echo chambers and not generally in them.

Critically think man how do you arrest someone if you are not allowed to pursue them? Your previous comments make it obvious that you have no idea as you answer in short generalities without detail. When pressured and criticized as I have you resort to name calling without explanation of the topic at hand.

You are worthless and pathetic. Stay on topic and you will look like a fool. Diverge into bickering and yet you still appear to be a fool.

These are not the purpose of the forum and I repeatedly ask people to stay on topic and yet here we dealing with the same problem people.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ah so you are a peanut gallery. Focusing on insignificant details and have no actual constructive purpose.

No, you have no constructive purpose, so I refuse to engage in the illusion that you do. If you weren't a complete fucking moron, you might stand a chance of learning something. As it is, you're just something to despise until your inevitable ejection, cunt.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I refuse to engage the refuse.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Or maybe my inevitable ejection, to be fair. I don't have the kind of hubris that would value my contribution over yours.

That said, if your ejection isn't imminent, my withdrawal is. You set new levels of disgust for me, and I've spent time with paederasts on suicide watch.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

And tried (and failed) to ignore the people that were here. Oh, so brave.

People ignore false premises and this place is full of them. Ok come to a right winger forum and argue for a bit. Send some screenshots.

And much like a goldfish, you have already forgotten the context of me bringing this up. Again, we are only discussing this now because you brought it up. Why bring it up if you were not trying to use it as a justification?

The law says you can't drive under the influence. If you are in the drivers seat then obvious in some states you can be charged as DUI if key is in ignition or even if you are simply sitting in the driver's seat. This is based on law and intent which ironically is part of law. This is why it is relevant and part of the conversation it isn't a justification it is a statement of law.

Yet his door was not ajar. When I sleep in my car, I do not leave my lights on. So I honestly do not see why the officers were bothering with this one in the first place.

Ah so when you sleep in your car do you usually smoke weed or leave weed in the open? His actions don't equate to what you would do or vice versa. Don't cover for his stupidity with something you might do when obviously he didn't do those things.

You are quite sure, but you actually have no proof. Well, glad you are quite sure about it...

Common occurrence judging from the footage that is available. Generally cops investigate odd things and so the situation escalates from investigation to an arrest. What else could it be? The black dude on camera admits it is weed. Possession of weed is illegal. What is so hard about this?

Again, you brought up the temptation of driving while high. Why bring it up unless you were trying to use it as a point in your favor?

Because it is the reason cited why it is illegal to possess drugs in a vehicle as stated in statute. It is literally the reason given for the law being the law.

So then should police not enforce the law as written when it is so clear the guy was in illegal possession of mamajuana? Personally I am pro weed but the law is very clear about this he is in illegal possession when normally at his house he wouldn't have been caught. Do you want the law enforced or not?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

That said, if your ejection isn't imminent, my withdrawal is. You set new levels of disgust for me, and I've spent time with paederasts on suicide watch.

Blah blah blah blah cya.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'd expand on that but, as I mentioned, I have no intention of saying word one other than flicking peanuts from the gallery until this complete cunt is entirely ejected.

BoganUSAFFLClerk is not going anywhere. He has actually cleaned up his act quite a bit since the mods initiated the "red carding" because of JohnHeintz. So it might be worth your time to talk around BoganUSAFFLClerk and actually bring something of substance to this thread.

People ignore false premises and this place is full of them.

Yes. People do ignore false premises around here. You say that like it is a bad thing.

Ok come to a right winger forum and argue for a bit. Send some screenshots.

About 12 or so years ago, I stopped joining creationists forums because they would always block me and remove all my comments. Seeing as there is so much overlap between creationists and the Right, I have no doubt that would happen again. They are such special snowflakes. Your attempt (and failure) to ignore users and my experience with the Right are my evidence for this conclusion.

The law says you can't drive under the influence. If you are in the drivers seat then obvious in some states you can be charged as DUI if key is in ignition or even if you are simply sitting in the driver's seat. This is based on law and intent which ironically is part of law. This is why it is relevant and part of the conversation it isn't a justification it is a statement of law.

So, not a justification, just a statement of law. It would be best if you had gone down this road in the first place, which I would wager was what you actually wanted to do, but forgot about the context until I pointed it out again. That is why I stated that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I actually wanted to lead to talking about laws, dumb laws, and why officers seem to enforce dumb laws when lately making a show of not enforcing other laws.

Common occurrence judging from the footage that is available. Generally cops investigate odd things and so the situation escalates from investigation to an arrest. What else could it be? The black dude on camera admits it is weed. Possession of weed is illegal. What is so hard about this?

Again, no evidence for it; you are just sure of it.

The hard part about this is that a man is dead because he was asleep in his car. So tell me, do you really think falling asleep in a car is worth a man's life? Just a scary thought because I cannot tell you how many times I have fallen asleep in my car, knowing that there are people out there thinking that such an occurrence should carry a death sentence. I also cannot pin down your feelings on whether weed should be legal or illegal, so before anything else is stated, would you care to elaborate?

 

[Deleted member 619]

BoganUSAFFLClerk is not going anywhere.

Then I'm out. I have no intention of sharing space with such a complete dishonour to humanity.

 

[We are Borg]

Blah blah blah blah cya.

Is it really that hard to to have some respect to someone, i don’t mind moderating but sometimes i think some users are behaving like toddlers.

 

[We are Borg]

Then I'm out. I have no intention of sharing space with such a complete dishonour to humanity.

Just ignore him don’t respond to him.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Why don't you actually engage with the topic?

Oh right. I'll engage with the troll because the troll tells me to engage with the troll.

You aren't very smart.

Perhaps not. But I am manifestly too smart to fall for your trolling shit.

 

[Patty P]

There's plenty of ideological diversity among leftists, be it guns, form of government, etc.

Diversity including things such as race realism, transgender discrimination, and policies that deprive the poor of means by which they might find footing and improve their station don't really do much for society. Why would we entertain those things?

it's just dishonest to imply that any ideology apart from leftism is "race realism", transphobia and deprivation of the poor. Blatantly dishonest.

 

[Patty P]

I'd expand on that but, as I mentioned, I have no intention of saying word one other than flicking peanuts from the gallery until this complete cunt is entirely ejected.

I will say that I have said nothing I can't defend and, once this turd is history, I'll happily engage in all the discussion you like.

Until then. all intelligent discussion is off the table anyway, regardless of my participation, so I'm playing with the disgusting little creature until his forum extinction, at which point I'll engage in any topic you like.

I don't agree with you that Bogan should be removed. You don't HAVE to respond to his posts. That's under your discretion.

this is of course your choice, unfortunate that this choice is however.

 

[Patty P]

This is wonderful.

Me, I have funny ideas about the political spectrum. As in all things, I'm a pragmatist, so I tend toward what works. Of course, my metric for 'what works' is always going to be a point of contention, but I can see ideas from across the political spectrum that could easily serve to improve society for all. I can take the idea of keeping government as small as possible from the right, but think that there are good reasons benefiting society to regulate health and social care, to name a single example.

Part of the problem with all of it is the way we polarise. It's gotten to the point - largely through propaganda and social media (not mention propagandic use of social media) - where it's almost impossible to express an opinion on something as benign as choosing between toenail clippers and scissors without being dropped into a box labelled with your complete worldview and your opinion on everything rom the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to the aesthetics of the winning showstopper on the Great British Bake Off.

Pretty much agree with all of this

 

[*SD*]

This thread is also temporarily locked due to it being NSFW. The OP broke no rules in posting it, in fact they followed them (as they currently stand) to the letter. NSFW topics are under review as to where they appear and how they can be accessed, Borg locked the other NSFW thread for this reason, so I'm locking this one for the same. The NSFW threads WILL be unlocked, once we do a bit of twiddling to make sure there is an appropriate section for them on the forum.

The rules are currently under review, and the revised rules will include this NSFW modification.

For clarity - NSFW threads WILL BE ALLOWED and this one UNLOCKED once we make a few adjustments as to their placement and accessibility.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Not justified. Conflicting orders. No time given to comply.