Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:44 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:37 pm And yet our armed forces follow stricter rules of engangement.

Our armed forces have much stricter training too. I seem to recall we pour well over of a hundred thousand into training any soldier.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:49 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:44 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:37 pm And yet our armed forces follow stricter rules of engangement.
Our armed forces have much stricter training too. I seem to recall we pour well over of a hundred thousand into training any soldier.

100,000 hours is 11.4 years.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:51 pm

stessier wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:49 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:44 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:37 pm And yet our armed forces follow stricter rules of engangement.
Our armed forces have much stricter training too. I seem to recall we pour well over of a hundred thousand into training any soldier.
100,000 hours is 11.4 years.

Pretty sure he meant $100k.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:54 pm

I had about 1300 hours of training as a combat engineer before joining my unit (in the reserves, but the training was the same). I don't know if infantry is more or less. Around 800 of that was combat readiness. That was also 30 years ago.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:00 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:26 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:12 pm
Little Raven wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:01 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:55 pmThere is video of Parscale getting tackled -- unnecessarily mind you -- and the right is *pissed*.
Well, it's nice to know that I'm still not on the right, cause I don't find that egregious at all. If you've reached the point where your spouse is telling the police that you're a danger to yourself and others, then you've reached the point where anything less than your Sunday best is going to draw a reaction from the cops. It's not like they beat his ass or anything....they just took him to the ground and secured him.
Yeah, no problems with that. He was non-compliant.
What is the time frame for compliance? He makes no motion. He is literally stock still. Why? Because he hadn't had a moment to even process what was happening.

How long had the standoff been going on? This may have been at the end of a long, draw out situation. But even if it wasn't, he was told to get on the ground several times. Was he disoriented or unsure? Maybe, but he should have known that there were a dozen
or more police officers there. This wasn't a situation where they surprised him. They said, it is the best time to subdue a subject, before they are fully aware of the fact that they are about to be arrested.

Being stock still means nothing. It takes less than half a second for even an amateur to draw a weapon from a stock still position. He could have drawn and fired in under a second.

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:26 pm
Dude, you're going to be detrained and probably arrested. Trying to talk your way out won't work. The longer it goes on, the more chance he becomes a threat. They did what the had to do given the circumstances.
What was the threat? I couldn't disagree in stronger terms that this was reasonable. Again he is talking to an officer -- this is his body cam -- some guy randomly appears out of the corner and yells commands at him and he is non-compliant because he didn't move like a military cadet? That is not how human's process information.

The threat was potential. He was known to have been armed earlier. Who knows what he may have had on him or what he was taking. Like I said, sometimes it is preferable to not give him a chance to develop full situational awareness and become a threat. He had a chance to lie down, he didn't. Not his fault exactly but you can't let him stand there forever. A fairly inocuous tackle means everyone goes home (or to jail) safely. They didn't riddle him with gunfire or choke him out.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:21 pm

My impression of their tactics was that they had reason to consider him a threat. They had the officer pull him away from the house to isolate him from others while the other officers moved in between him and the house to prevent him from retreating. The officer talking was a distraction, not a solution. They then secured him rapidly and without warning, likely to prevent him from reacting in case he still had a weapon. I could easily see him being able to conceal multiple weapons, even as he was dressed. They acted to ensure if he had any weapon, he would not have the chance to use it.

Whether it was justified or not isn't in that video. Whether that kind of response would be justified is tied to their reports, their prior contacts with him, and what had happened earlier in the call.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:23 pm

YellowKing wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:25 pm I expect it to be Biden mostly speaking directly to the American people and making a case for his presidency, while Trump babbles his typical word salad and lies incessantly.

Don't forget the loud nose breathing

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:16 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:00 pmHow long had the standoff been going on? This may have been at the end of a long, draw out situation. But even if it wasn't, he was told to get on the ground several times. Was he disoriented or unsure? Maybe, but he should have known that there were a dozen or more police officers there. This wasn't a situation where they surprised him. They said, it is the best time to subdue a subject, before they are fully aware of the fact that they are about to be arrested.

The story about there being an armed standoff is being talked about being overblown. The wife said she thought he was suicidal and *thought* she heard a shot but maybe a backfire. They called him to come out with no weapons. They talked for an hour and he walked out holding a beer. They never saw a weapon. Still it was reported but even then once he is passively talking to an officer they could have attempted to you know arrest him.

Being stock still means nothing. It takes less than half a second for even an amateur to draw a weapon from a stock still position. He could have drawn and fired in under a second.

This is where you lose me entirely. First of all the idea that every person is some quick draw gun fighter from the old west is patently ridiculous. It is the stuff of paranoid fantasy that cops say but isn't substantiated by any semblance of reality. Even if this is the case then basically all police violence is justified. If everyone is 1 second from killing an officer then they can shoot anyone. Oh right they usually can. You do see how that works, right? The police escalate, escalate, and escalate some more. This time no one got hurt. If someone did, well that's the breaks.

The threat was potential. He was known to have been armed earlier. Who knows what he may have had on him or what he was taking. Like I said, sometimes it is preferable to not give him a chance to develop full situational awareness and become a threat. He had a chance to lie down, he didn't.

Every threat is potential. Since you didn't address it, I'll say it again. He was engaged in a conversation with another officer. They bark out 4 quick commands in the space of three seconds. An unintoxicated person probably doesn't react quick enough in this situation to be 'compliant' much less one they know is drunk.

Not his fault exactly but you can't let him stand there forever.

Three seconds. Not forever. Why not let him stand there? Try , "You are under arrest." Oh yeah, he is going to fan a 6-shooter and kill them all.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:33 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:16 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:00 pmHow long had the standoff been going on? This may have been at the end of a long, draw out situation. But even if it wasn't, he was told to get on the ground several times. Was he disoriented or unsure? Maybe, but he should have known that there were a dozen or more police officers there. This wasn't a situation where they surprised him. They said, it is the best time to subdue a subject, before they are fully aware of the fact that they are about to be arrested.
The story about there being an armed standoff is being talked about being overblown. The wife said she thought he was suicidal and *thought* she heard a shot but maybe a backfire. They called him to come out with no weapons. They talked for an hour and he walked out holding a beer. They never saw a weapon. Still it was reported but even then once he is passively talking to an officer they could have attempted to you know arrest him.

Being stock still means nothing. It takes less than half a second for even an amateur to draw a weapon from a stock still position. He could have drawn and fired in under a second.
This is where you lose me entirely. First of all the idea that every person is some quick draw gun fighter from the old west is patently ridiculous. It is the stuff of paranoid fantasy that cops say but isn't substantiated by any semblance of reality. Even if this is the case then basically all police violence is justified. If everyone is 1 second from killing an officer then they can shoot anyone. Oh right they usually can. You do see how that works, right? The police escalate, escalate, and escalate some more. This time no one got hurt. If someone did, well that's the breaks.

Not his fault exactly but you can't let him stand there forever.
Three seconds. Not forever. Why not let him stand there? Try , "You are under arrest." Oh yeah, he is going to fan a 6-shooter and kill them all.

You don't have to be a gun ninja to get a shot off in a second. You can suck and get lucky. Or you can just be aveage. And the fear isn't about him killing all the cops and getting away. It's about him getting even one shot off an injuring someone or himself. It's also probably about them not wanting to shoot him if he goes for a gun or a knife or a pack of smokes so they tackled him. Dispatch says he may have a gun, you assume he definitely has a gun. They can only go on what they are told at the time.

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:16 pm
The threat was potential. He was known to have been armed earlier. Who knows what he may have had on him or what he was taking. Like I said, sometimes it is preferable to not give him a chance to develop full situational awareness and become a threat. He had a chance to lie down, he didn't.
Every threat is potential. Since you didn't address it, I'll say it again. He was engaged in a conversation with another officer. They bark out 4 quick commands in the space of three seconds. An unintoxicated person probably doesn't react quick enough in this situation to be 'compliant' much less one they know is drunk.

You say he was talking to them for an hour while drinking beer.
You see the contradiction here, right? He's not surrendering for an hour, he's possibly drunk (making him less likely to be compliant) and the complaint is that they didn't give him enough time to get on the ground once he came out? At that point he wasn't engaged in conversation with another officer, he was being distracted and someone made the call to subdue him.

Tao · Post by **Tao** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:48 pm

The officer that started issuing commands from off camera started shouting get on the ground at 37 seconds in to the video, there is no pause between commands, he shouts it in rapid succession and at 40 seconds goes in for the takedown. You have an individual who is literally in the middle of a relaxed, controlled conversation with a Police Officer, which is where is focus and attention are, all of a sudden hears rapid fire commands and is given three seconds to drop to the concrete. From my perspective this looked to be totally uncalled for. I would not classify it as police brutality, but it was definitely an over aggressive action by the one officer. They had multiple officers on the scene with long arms out and ready, there was an officer engaged with him from the front and an officer covering the rear of the truck, he was not agitated or acting in any threatening manner. All they had to do was instruct him to turn around and put your hands behind your back, or the officer actively speaking to him could have just said, I need to you get down on your knees and put your hands behind your head. Had he then failed to comply or started to argue I could mayyyybe see a takedown. The tackle was over the top but par for the course right now. If you listen closely it also sounds like the officer that took him down immediately started to swear at him like he was already worked up in to a frenzy.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:49 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:33 pm You don't have to be a gun ninja to get a shot off in a second. You can suck and get lucky. Or you can just be aveage. And the fear isn't about him killing all the cops and getting away. It's about him getting even one shot off an injuring someone or himself. It's also probably about them not wanting to shoot him if he goes for a gun or a knife or a pack of smokes so they tackled him. Dispatch says he may have a gun, you assume he definitely has a gun. They can only go on what they are told at the time.

Sure. Everything is a threat. However the mentality that every person is one second from killing a police officer leads to 1000 dead people a year and thousands of more brutalized and injured. Imagine if they started with, "You are under arrest".

You say he was talking to them for an hour while drinking beer.

Where did I say that? I said he walked out with a beer after being on the phone an hour (the timing according to the news accounts - the beer is manifest in the video).

You see the contradiction here, right? He's not surrendering for an hour, he's possibly drunk (making him less likely to be compliant) and the complaint is that they didn't give him enough time to get on the ground once he came out? At that point he wasn't engaged in conversation with another officer, he was being distracted and someone made the call to subdue him.

There isn't a contradiction. It is a mix up about what I was getting at. I was saying he is distracted...which clearly you saw yourself. The real contradiction is to distract someone and then tackle them for being non-compliant. This is what I'm getting at. The decision to subdue him (and potentially injure him and the officer) was IMO completely unnecessary. This illustrates the ground stakes for a discussion of police brutality. Police in this country have it drilled into their head they are a moment from being murdered and the standard for lethal force is they have to be in fear of their life. And then police killings don't lead to accountability.

This unlocks all sorts of lower level violence. Though it probably leads to more discipline because the stakes are lower. In any case, I suspect we won't agree on this; however, I will just say that you're espousing the justifications that a system with some of the most persistent high levels of police violence in the industrialized world uses to justify that violence.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:57 pm

Tao wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:48 pm The officer that started issuing commands from off camera started shouting get on the ground at 37 seconds in to the video, there is no pause between commands, he shouts it in rapid succession and at 40 seconds goes in for the takedown. You have an individual who is literally in the middle of a relaxed, controlled conversation with a Police Officer, which is where is focus and attention are, all of a sudden hears rapid fire commands and is given three seconds to drop to the concrete. From my perspective this looked to be totally uncalled for. I would not classify it as police brutality, but it was definitely an over aggressive action by the one officer. They had multiple officers on the scene with long arms out and ready, there was an officer engaged with him from the front and an officer covering the rear of the truck, he was not agitated or acting in any threatening manner. All they had to do was instruct him to turn around and put your hands behind your back, or the officer actively speaking to him could have just said, I need to you get down on your knees and put your hands behind your head. Had he then failed to comply or started to argue I could mayyyybe see a takedown. The tackle was over the top but par for the course right now. If you listen closely it also sounds like the officer that took him down immediately started to swear at him like he was already worked up in to a frenzy.

What's more evident to me is that Parscale goes to lengths to show he is not a threat by displaying his hands. Even while intoxicated. Frenzy might be a bit strong but that cop was clearly on edge. It's threat tunnel vision. This is warrior versus defender thinking on display most likely. When you have doctrine that eliminating or reducing potential threats is generally more important than community trust it leads to all sort of downstream issues.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:58 pm

This is what I'm taking about:

They called him to come out with no weapons. They talked for an hour and he walked out holding a beer.

Whether it was the cops outside or someone at HQ taking to him, doesn't matter. They were engaged with him for an hour. When he comes out, it's not 30 or 40 seconds. It's an hour and 30 or 40 seconds. Fair? Maybe not. But it's not like everything resets and starts at "Hi, how's it goin'?" when he hangs up and goes outside.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:58 pm

Parscale needs to work on his ground game.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:38 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:58 pm Parscale needs to work on his ground game.

He's definitely no Lewandoski.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 pm

There was absolutely no reason to tackle him to the ground like that. He wasn’t a threat to anyone. He didn’t have anywhere to conceal a weapon in those too-tight shorts and he wasn’t wearing a shirt. He was calm, the situation was calm. Police need to stop escalating things.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:31 pm

Fireball wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 pm There was absolutely no reason to tackle him to the ground like that. He wasn’t a threat to anyone. He didn’t have anywhere to conceal a weapon in those too-tight shorts and he wasn’t wearing a shirt. He was calm, the situation was calm. Police need to stop escalating things.

You could argue that it was unnecessary but you can't argue that there was nowhere to conceal a weapon.

And they weren't escalating the situation. They were attempting to end it without lethal force. Which they did.

I will conceed that maybe the tackler went in on his own, not part of a plan. Still, it was an opportunity to arrest the guy with non-lethal force.

Guy gets shot. Why couldn't they just taser him?
Guy gets tasered. Why couldn't they just tackle him?
Guy gets tackled. Why couldn't they just have a nice discussion?

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:26 pm

JUST based on that video, I also think it’s over the top. I would prefer to see/hear the 10 min prior to the takedown though. Had they already asked him to come outside and surrender multiple times? Had they previously asked him to get on the ground?

But yeah, the “ get on the ground” screamer didn’t give the dude a chance to do just that. Hell, if I’m that guy and completely sober, I probably would not have reacted in any way to those rapid-fire commands except to turn my head like WTF?! Or worse, as skittish as I can be sometimes, freakishly hunch or jump, and scare everybody and then boom goes the dynamite.

Reminds me a bit of the cartoon of two pistol duelers, both counting from 1-10 as they walk away from each other, then one suddenly says “10!” at about the 3-4 mark. :p

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:57 pm

Having searched people for (and finding) concealed weapons in the past, he could easily have had several weapons hidden.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they took so long was because they were just trying to get him away from the door to prevent him from rushing back inside and creating a barricaded/hostage situation if they approached, and everything that took place in front of him wasn't an attempt to talk him down (that had already failed), but a distraction to let the others get between him and the house and take him down.

I'm still going with my standard answer: We don't have enough information.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:56 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:57 pm Having searched people for (and finding) concealed weapons in the past, he could easily have had several weapons hidden.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they took so long was because they were just trying to get him away from the door to prevent him from rushing back inside and creating a barricaded/hostage situation if they approached, and everything that took place in front of him wasn't an attempt to talk him down (that had already failed), but a distraction to let the others get between him and the house and take him down.

I'm still going with my standard answer: We don't have enough information.

Here is my problem with that answer in this type of situation usually. The people who provide the information routinely lie to us. If they did wrong, the information will likely be cooked to fit a narrative where the force was justified in retrospect.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:07 am

I don't disagree with that. The problem is that if they did wrong, they give us story A. But if they did right, they also give us story A. I'm not willing to exonerate them, but I'm also not willing to damn them. I'm fortunate not to be a person that has to potentially ruin careers based on guesswork.

abr · Post by **abr** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:14 am

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:44 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:37 pm And yet our armed forces follow stricter rules of engangement.
Our armed forces have much stricter training too. I seem to recall we pour well over of a hundred thousand into training any soldier.

US police "officers" get six weeks (or a few more at best, depending on the state). In some states, they can start without any training if they then ake it within the first year. The training focus is on shooting and safety of themselves. Deescalation is not really on the menu.
After I read that I stopped wondering.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:28 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:31 pm
Fireball wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 pm There was absolutely no reason to tackle him to the ground like that. He wasn’t a threat to anyone. He didn’t have anywhere to conceal a weapon in those too-tight shorts and he wasn’t wearing a shirt. He was calm, the situation was calm. Police need to stop escalating things.
You could argue that it was unnecessary but you can't argue that there was nowhere to conceal a weapon.

And they weren't escalating the situation. They were attempting to end it without lethal force. Which they did.

I will conceed that maybe the tackler went in on his own, not part of a plan. Still, it was an opportunity to arrest the guy with non-lethal force.

Guy gets shot. Why couldn't they just taser him?
Guy gets tasered. Why couldn't they just tackle him?
Guy gets tackled. Why couldn't they just have a nice discussion?

I think those questions are reasonable. I think whenever a police officer uses any sort of force we should press him as to why he didn’t use less. We need cops in this country to be far, far less inclined to use force of any kind against the public.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:31 am

Fireball wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:28 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:31 pm
Fireball wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 pm There was absolutely no reason to tackle him to the ground like that. He wasn’t a threat to anyone. He didn’t have anywhere to conceal a weapon in those too-tight shorts and he wasn’t wearing a shirt. He was calm, the situation was calm. Police need to stop escalating things.
You could argue that it was unnecessary but you can't argue that there was nowhere to conceal a weapon.

And they weren't escalating the situation. They were attempting to end it without lethal force. Which they did.

I will conceed that maybe the tackler went in on his own, not part of a plan. Still, it was an opportunity to arrest the guy with non-lethal force.

Guy gets shot. Why couldn't they just taser him?
Guy gets tasered. Why couldn't they just tackle him?
Guy gets tackled. Why couldn't they just have a nice discussion?
I think those questions are reasonable. I think whenever a police officer uses any sort of force we should press him as to why he didn’t use less. We need cops in this country to be far, far less inclined to use force of any kind against the public.

Agreed. The mindset should not be "as long as the cops were safe, it doesn't matter what happens to the citizen."

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:44 am

stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:31 am

Agreed. The mindset should not be "as long as the cops were safe, it doesn't matter what happens to the citizen."

I think we'll find it a lot harder to hire and retain cops of the ROE is get shot first, then return fire. Unless we also give them the option to bug out anytime thing look a little bit shady.

abr wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:14 am
malchior wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:44 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:37 pm And yet our armed forces follow stricter rules of engangement.
Our armed forces have much stricter training too. I seem to recall we pour well over of a hundred thousand into training any soldier.
US police "officers" get six weeks (or a few more at best, depending on the state). In some states, they can start without any training if they then ake it within the first year. The training focus is on shooting and safety of themselves. Deescalation is not really on the menu.
After I read that I stopped wondering.

I agree that most training is woefully inadequate. And it isn't consistent. They need constant training in order to avoid developing bad habits and practices, as well a keeping perishable skills up to snuff.

But the comparison to military ROE is not fair. Armed forces are trained to combat with a known enemy, usually at distances measured in hundreds of meters. Cops have to engage unknown FoF at distances usually measured in single digit feet.

The military always seeks overwhelming force of numbers. Are we going to be OK with police patrols of 12-15 cops? Well we be down with MRAP convoys taking up the whole Dunkin parking lot? A traffic stop looking down the barrels of 7 M4s?

Armed forces have a tight chain of command usually aware of every tactical situation. When shit goes pear in modern military engagements, it's usually because things break down into a state very akin to police work. Civilian combatants, close quarters, unclear orders, lack of command, etc. And when an engagement ends in 50 dead bad guys with one collaterally dead civilian, no one bats an eye. Perfectly acceptable. What was the police number? 1 per 1,000? 10,000? Make them more like soldiers?

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:53 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:44 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:31 am

Agreed. The mindset should not be "as long as the cops were safe, it doesn't matter what happens to the citizen."
I think we'll find it a lot harder to hire and retain cops of the ROE is get shot first, then return fire. Unless we also give them the option to bug out anytime thing look a little bit shady.

There is a world of options between what I said and what you arrived at.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:02 am

stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:53 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:44 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:31 am

Agreed. The mindset should not be "as long as the cops were safe, it doesn't matter what happens to the citizen."
I think we'll find it a lot harder to hire and retain cops of the ROE is get shot first, then return fire. Unless we also give them the option to bug out anytime thing look a little bit shady.
There is a world of options between what I said and what you arrived at.

So long as any of those options end in a civilian death or injury, they will be second guessed. Ultimately the only protection would seem to be a bona fide attack. And even then proportionality will be a factor. "He only had a [baseball bat/knife/screwdriver/automobile], use of [gun/taser/truncheon] was not justified!"

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:21 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:02 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:53 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:44 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:31 am

Agreed. The mindset should not be "as long as the cops were safe, it doesn't matter what happens to the citizen."
I think we'll find it a lot harder to hire and retain cops of the ROE is get shot first, then return fire. Unless we also give them the option to bug out anytime thing look a little bit shady.
There is a world of options between what I said and what you arrived at.
So long as any of those options end in a civilian death or injury, they will be second guessed. Ultimately the only protection would seem to be a bona fide attack. And even then proportionality will be a factor. "He only had a [baseball bat/knife/screwdriver/automobile], use of [gun/taser/truncheon] was not justified!"

You're right and they should be second guessed. It is how we will come up with new and better plans of interaction and accountability. The idea that we just have to accept a certain amount of citizen deaths as the price for having a police force is appalling.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:32 am

stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:21 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:02 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:53 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:44 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:31 am

Agreed. The mindset should not be "as long as the cops were safe, it doesn't matter what happens to the citizen."
I think we'll find it a lot harder to hire and retain cops of the ROE is get shot first, then return fire. Unless we also give them the option to bug out anytime thing look a little bit shady.
There is a world of options between what I said and what you arrived at.
So long as any of those options end in a civilian death or injury, they will be second guessed. Ultimately the only protection would seem to be a bona fide attack. And even then proportionality will be a factor. "He only had a [baseball bat/knife/screwdriver/automobile], use of [gun/taser/truncheon] was not justified!"
You're right and they should be second guessed. It is how we will come up with new and better plans of interaction and accountability. The idea that we just have to accept a certain amount of citizen deaths as the price for having a police force is appalling.

It's not the price for having a police force. It's the price for protecting assets and property and lives (yes, ironically). And of note, those with the least to protect seem to the the ones killed the most. Funny how the system manages to make that happen.

We accept a certain number of deaths for pretty much everything. Energy, travel, convenience, recreation, cost savings, you name it. The real question is how many deaths are we willing to live with. And whose.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:37 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:32 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:21 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:02 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:53 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:44 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:31 am

Agreed. The mindset should not be "as long as the cops were safe, it doesn't matter what happens to the citizen."
I think we'll find it a lot harder to hire and retain cops of the ROE is get shot first, then return fire. Unless we also give them the option to bug out anytime thing look a little bit shady.
There is a world of options between what I said and what you arrived at.
So long as any of those options end in a civilian death or injury, they will be second guessed. Ultimately the only protection would seem to be a bona fide attack. And even then proportionality will be a factor. "He only had a [baseball bat/knife/screwdriver/automobile], use of [gun/taser/truncheon] was not justified!"
You're right and they should be second guessed. It is how we will come up with new and better plans of interaction and accountability. The idea that we just have to accept a certain amount of citizen deaths as the price for having a police force is appalling.
It's not the price for having a police force. It's the price for protecting assets and property and lives (yes, ironically). And of note, those with the least to protect seem to the the ones killed the most. Funny how the system manages to make that happen.[/qoute]

Indeed. Teaching the police to have empathy and see everyone as human would go a long way to fixing that, I suspect.

We accept a certain number of deaths for pretty much everything. Energy, travel, convenience, recreation, cost savings, you name it.

No we don't. Everyone one of those topics have people fighting to decrease the deaths for each one of those items. To do less makes us less.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:41 am

Now Trump is asking for people to check for wires before the debate. This is just getting weirder and weirder. Joe should reply that we should just do the debate naked to remove any doubt.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:48 am

Octavious wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:41 am Now Trump is asking for people to check for wires before the debate. This is just getting weirder and weirder. Joe should reply that we should just do the debate naked to remove any doubt.

More projection. He probably asked his enablers if they could wire him answers, and when they said no he decided to accuse Biden.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:57 am

I don't even get the point of any of this BS he's tossing up. It's not going to sway anyone and he just looks like an idiot.

Obviously he's super worried that he's going to get demolished tonight.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:04 pm

stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:37 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:32 am We accept a certain number of deaths for pretty much everything. Energy, travel, convenience, recreation, cost savings, you name it.
No we don't. Everyone one of those topics have people fighting to decrease the deaths for each one of those items. To do less makes us less.

That's super nitpicky. LawBeef is correct. A few things we shut down when someone dies. Others, we continue on as if nothing ever happened. Yes, there are always active processes and people doing work to increase safety, but it's not news and we don't do a thorough review.

NickAragua · Post by **NickAragua** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:07 pm

Jaymann wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:48 am
Octavious wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:41 am Now Trump is asking for people to check for wires before the debate. This is just getting weirder and weirder. Joe should reply that we should just do the debate naked to remove any doubt.
More projection. He probably asked his enablers if they could wire him answers, and when they said no he decided to accuse Biden.

Honestly, I think that's the only thing that would make me watch this debate, is to watch Trump lag out like a 90's video game. I'll keep an eye on social media in case that happens so I can join the party.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:18 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:04 pm
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:37 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:32 am We accept a certain number of deaths for pretty much everything. Energy, travel, convenience, recreation, cost savings, you name it.
No we don't. Everyone one of those topics have people fighting to decrease the deaths for each one of those items. To do less makes us less.
That's super nitpicky. LawBeef is correct. A few things we shut down when someone dies. Others, we continue on as if nothing ever happened. Yes, there are always active processes and people doing work to increase safety, but it's not news and we don't do a thorough review.

I'm in the middle here. I agree that any time violence is used the process should be examined. I think the question should be more along the lines of "why did I escalate to [tackling]" rather than "why didn't I use less force than [tackling]". The thing is, we already have examination process. Police must file reports. The problem isn't that we don't audit executions of process. The problem is that the auditing process if failing. If an improved auditing process chases away police who don't want to be under foot, then so be it. If we end up short of police then we examine how attract more better police while keeping the audit process in place that keeps them accountable public servants.

Of course, I'm a proponent of paying police more out of my taxes, not defunding them, but that comes with the strings of accountability and acting as public servants.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:19 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:44 am But the comparison to military ROE is not fair. Armed forces are trained to combat with a known enemy, usually at distances measured in hundreds of meters. Cops have to engage unknown FoF at distances usually measured in single digit feet.

...

Have you been watching a different set of wars for the past two decades?

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:24 pm

Given that Trump's voice fills me with a terrible rage and I need to be in a very particular frame of mind before I'm willing to listen to him for more than a few seconds without wanting to smash things near me, I'm skipping this and plan to read the highlights over the next couple of days.

I expect Joe will slip a couple times, dodge a little, but otherwise perform well-ish - while Trump will string together 1001 lies and insults without actually answering anything of substance.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:27 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:04 pm
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:37 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:32 am We accept a certain number of deaths for pretty much everything. Energy, travel, convenience, recreation, cost savings, you name it.
No we don't. Everyone one of those topics have people fighting to decrease the deaths for each one of those items. To do less makes us less.
That's super nitpicky. LawBeef is correct. A few things we shut down when someone dies. Others, we continue on as if nothing ever happened. Yes, there are always active processes and people doing work to increase safety, but it's not news and we don't do a thorough review.

Yep. We always want to reduce deaths but we still accept them. Want to stop coal miner deaths? Shut down all coal mines until we can mine 100% with robots. While you're at it, stop burning coal altogether until we get a handle on CO2 emissions. Likewise oil rigs and fracking, stop burning oil. Ban automobiles until we are 100% self driving. And the Ground all aircraft. Rock climbing? Hang gliding? Are you kidding me? Banned.

I mean obviously we don't do that. Because we accept certain deaths and dismemberments and terminal illnesses as the cost of living. The occasional unjustified death at the hands of police is the price of having cops enforce traffic and property laws so we can go about our lives.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:31 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:19 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:44 am But the comparison to military ROE is not fair. Armed forces are trained to combat with a known enemy, usually at distances measured in hundreds of meters. Cops have to engage unknown FoF at distances usually measured in single digit feet.
...

Have you been watching a different set of wars for the past two decades?

Did you read the rest of my post?

When shit goes pear in modern military engagements, it's usually because things break down into a state very akin to police work. Civilian combatants, close quarters, unclear orders, lack of command, etc.