Poll of the Day > Should BLM change their name?

(+) Yeah! (+)

ZBug_ posted...

This.

That's assuming anyone saying "all lives matter" is a far-right conservative.

It's possible to support the general message of Black Lives Matter while still criticizing the name, and still having concerns over the movement promoting outright criminals to martyrdom.
---

Voxwik posted...

That's assuming anyone saying "all lives matter" is a far-right conservative.

fair assumption more often than not

---

Mead posted...

fair assumption more often than not

I will concede when I looked the tag up it was really disgusting. Whenever I've said it I've made sure to include black lives matter at the same time for that reason.

It is extremely irritating how this whole thing is "with us or against us" nonsense. I stand by the all lives matter statement and I stand by defending the vast majority of police as public servants who do not deserve to be treated like dirt, but I don't want to allow raging bigots to take ownership of a phrase that is perfectly reasonable like "all lives matter."

It is absolutely nonsensically insane to cry racism when a guy resists arrest, steals a taser, and ends up getting shot in return.
---

Voxwik posted...

It is absolutely nonsensically insane to cry racism when a guy resists arrest, steals a taser, and ends up getting shot in return.

In most of the world lethal force is only considered if a life is actually being threatened. Id call that pretty sane.

---

Voxwik posted...

I will concede when I looked the tag up it was really disgusting. Whenever I've said it I've made sure to include black lives matter at the same time for that reason.

It is extremely irritating how this whole thing is "with us or against us" nonsense. I stand by the all lives matter statement and I stand by defending the vast majority of police as public servants who do not deserve to be treated like dirt, but I don't want to allow raging bigots to take ownership of a phrase that is perfectly reasonable like "all lives matter."

It is absolutely nonsensically insane to cry racism when a guy resists arrest, steals a taser, and ends up getting shot in return.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/78751785/940663483
---

Mead posted...

In most of the world lethal force is only considered if a life is actually being threatened. Id call that pretty sane.

I hate cops but you can't act like attacking cops doesn't warrant a counter attack

---

Muscles posted...

I hate cops but you can't act like attacking cops doesn't warrant a counter attack

I could be wrong but I think the problem is the killing, not that they did anything at all.

Muscles posted...

I hate cops but you can't act like attacking cops doesn't warrant a counter attack

lethal force is a lot more than just a counter

---

I mean, it might be a little excessive but it's not completely unwarranted like in cases such as George Floyd, Eric Garner, or Breonna Taylor.

---

Muscles posted...

it might be a little excessive

wow muscles

---

Read the rest of the post, being a little excessive on someone attacking the police is completely different than cold blooded murder of an unarmed citizen

---

Muscles posted...

I hate cops but you can't act like attacking cops doesn't warrant a counter attack

Reasonable force. Self defense is defined by using reasonable force yo protect you from harm.
if these were two civilians, the shooter would be arrested. So why are cops above the law? THATS the problem.

---

Muscles posted...

Read the rest of the post, being a little excessive on someone attacking the police is completely different than cold blooded murder of an unarmed citizen

Little excessive still resulted in someone being killed when their actions didnt justify the death sentence.
Hes still fucking dead

---

ZBug_ posted...

if these were two civilians, the shooter would be arrested. So why are cops above the law? THATS the problem.

Because cops are meant to intervene and use force to control situations. It's like how if a boxer gives another brain damage they don't go to prison because it was a reasonable expected risk of how boxing works. This is different from if you have a bar brawl and give someone brain damage as you shouldn't be fighting to begin with.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because cops are meant to intervene and use force to control situations. It's like how if a boxer gives another brain damage they don't go to prison because it was a reasonable expected risk of how boxing works. This is different from if you have a bar brawl and give someone brain damage as you shouldn't be fighting to begin with.

Muscles posted...

Read the rest of the post, being a little excessive on someone attacking the police is completely different than cold blooded murder of an unarmed citizen

Y'all really did miss the whole "excessive force" and "police brutality" part of this hot button issue didn't you?


---

Wouldn't defudning police result in more speed traps and petty law enforcement to make back the money on fines? They already do that shit to hit quotas.

Also someone going 90 on roads that aren't highways is still pretty dangerous even if you are the only car on the road.

I'd also think less money would result in more corruption and weaker training. Also less money on oversight and might end up with less officers working longer shifts encouraging accidents and poor judgement.

I mean, I don't know enough about police funding right now to say it's not jusitified but I'd highly doubt removing large amounts of funding alone would have a positive outcome. It seems more like knee jerk reaction.

Also lol at the guy not wanting radical people to hijack a movement. That will happen to literally any leaderless movement. There is nothing that can prevent it and it will happen 100% of the time to all movements.

---

To what? All Lives Matter?

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's like how if a boxer gives another brain damage they don't go to prison because it was a reasonable expected risk of how boxing works.

That's more ignorance and or medical understanding only catching up later. With obviously the legal understanding catching up even later if at all.


---

ZBug_ posted...

Reasonable force. Self defense is defined by using reasonable force yo protect you from harm.
if these were two civilians, the shooter would be arrested. So why are cops above the law? THATS the problem.

Or just dont attack cops like a reasonable human being.

Been able to get through all my years of life so far without feeling the need to get on a viral video after starting crap with local police officers.

Just...be a normal person

---

chaosbowser posted...

Y'all really did miss the whole "excessive force" and "police brutality" part of this hot button issue didn't you?

You don't see a difference between this and the cases of George Floyd, Eric Garner, etc. then idk what to say. What do you expect to happen when you poke the bear? This dude should be nominated for a Darwin Award.

That's not to say the cops were right to do it but its hard to feel bad for someone that goes around doing stupid shit and getting themselves killed over it.

---

Muscles posted...

That's not to say the cops were right

yeah because what they did was fucking wrong

when a drunk idiot steals a taser fires it off wildly and then lumbers away slowly, you go grab his dumb ass, arrest him and charge him. You dont shoot him in the back like some inept thug. We need cops to be better than that.

---

Its sad when a tiger attacks someone too but whats gonna happen if you jump in a tigers cage and start fucking with it? You can't just put yourself in stupid situations then get angry when something bad happens because of it

---

Muscles posted...

Its sad when a tiger attacks someone too but whats gonna happen if you jump in a tigers cage and start fucking with it? You can't just put yourself in stupid situations then get angry when something bad happens because of it

jfc muscles

tigers are wild animals, not trained human beings that we entrust with authority

and if an animal does attack a person, it gets put down

---

I wouldn't be opposed to this cop getting put down, because, as I already said, I think they were wrong to do it

Both sides can be wrong

---

chaosbowser posted...

Y'all really did miss the whole "excessive force" and "police brutality" part of this hot button issue didn't you?

I already pointed out that what constitutes excessive force is pushing the boundary on what they already do. You can drive at excessive speed without driving fast enough to be considered reckless or dangerous driving, similarly you can get caught for excessive force without being significantly beyond the boundary of reason. It being excessive does not mean it is as grievous and the George Floyd case.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

That's more ignorance and or medical understanding only catching up later. With obviously the legal understanding catching up even later if at all.

We still allow boxing, we know it causes brain damage, we continue with the understanding this is a risk.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We still allow boxing, we know it causes brain damage, we continue with the understanding this is a risk.

And the usage of gloves is also still required, while that aggravates the brain damage, to reduce damage to the hands.

---

Muscles posted...

I wouldn't be opposed to this cop getting put down, because, as I already said, I think they were wrong to do it

Both sides can be wrong

you certainly are an expert at being wrong

---

Go ahead and feel sorry for the dude stupid enough to grab a taser from a cop and try to use it on them. I'll focus on the people that got killed despite doing nothing wrong.

---

Muscles posted...

Go ahead and feel sorry for the dude stupid enough to grab a taser from a cop and try to use it on them. I'll focus on the people that got killed despite doing nothing wrong.

Im more focused on all the cops that arent trained to de-escalate situations when possible and face no accountability for abusing power because of bullshit like qualified immunity.

---

Ok we agree on that too, I feel like we agree about cops but not the victim here

I am not pro cop, I am for cops being trained to use non lethal tactics and de-escalate situations, and I am for getting rid of qualified immunity, you should look into Justin Amash's bill and write your senator to support that bill

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

And the usage of gloves is also still required, while that aggravates the brain damage, to reduce damage to the hands.

Just as we don't give cops knives and explosives. Police are given just what is necessary and if things go pear shaped, it's part of the risk of law enforcement. To do their job there is always risk of harm or death so the main point if things go wrong is malice.

You can't give a guy a gun and say "Go stop crime however you can!" and be surprised they use that gun to stop crime.
---

Muscles posted...

I mean, it might be a little excessive but it's not completely unwarranted like in cases such as George Floyd, Eric Garner, or Breonna Taylor.

is that mole on your nose touching your brain, because you sound foolish, ok?

but seriously, get that mole looked at, ok?

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

Also someone going 90 on roads that aren't highways is still pretty dangerous even if you are the only car on the road.

To the driver maybe.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

That's more ignorance and or medical understanding only catching up later. With obviously the legal understanding catching up even later if at all.

No that's ridiculous. No boxer should go to jail for that.

DrYuya posted...

Or just dont attack cops like a reasonable human being.

Been able to get through all my years of life so far without feeling the need to get on a viral video after starting crap with local police officers.

Just...be a normal person

The cops started it though.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You can't give a guy a gun and say "Go stop crime however you can!" and be surprised they use that gun to stop crime.

If that's how cops were trained then literally everybody who has committed a crime would have been shot instead of arrested.
---

ClarkDuke posted...

is that mole on your nose touching your brain, because you sound foolish, ok?

but seriously, get that mole looked at, ok?

You're so original, I've never heard that one before

---

Revelation34 posted...

If that's how cops were trained then literally everybody who has committed a crime would have been shot instead of arrested.

Well...it's not exactly what we do but I don't think an 8 week course is all that far from it. Clearly the nuances of being a cop are more complicated than that. Apparently in many countries becoming a cop requires 4 years of training. An equally interesting point is that Canada also trains their cops for a short 8 weeks and has the same issues with police brutality that we do.

---

Muscles posted...

Go ahead and feel sorry for the dude stupid enough to grab a taser from a cop and try to use it on them. I'll focus on the people that got killed despite doing nothing wrong.

The fact that you don't feel sorry that someone died for something incredibly pretty is irrelevant. People have been trying to tell you that it's not about feeling sorry for the now dead man but that killing someone for what he did is unacceptable.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It being excessive does not mean it is as grievous and the George Floyd case.

Who said it had to be ? Honestly there's a lot of attempting to pivot away from the point happening for those trying to defend the cops. The degree of grievousness doesn't really change that it's...not okay. It's still excessive force. It's national headlines are because we have another black man being killed with excessive force in the middle of a national outcry against exactly that. It's basically just more fuel for the fire no one said it had to be an entirely new fire to matter.

---

Revelation34 posted...

If that's how cops were trained then literally everybody who has committed a crime would have been shot instead of arrested.

This might surprise you, but people generally don't like shooting other people. They do like shooting people who are attacking and robbing them and their colleagues though.

They get discretion to shoot if there's a threat to them or others so they use it as it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It's very hard to make the rules very strict as people do get scared and will find it hard to keep RoE in their heads. If an officer feels a threat to their lives but RoE threatens to imprison them if they slip up and they end up getting shot from that hesitation, cops will be too scared to do their jobs.

Nobody wants to be paid peanuts to endanger themselves then get imprisoned because the threat dropped their gun just before they shot, for example. They need relative freedom to use force or relative safety in their jobs; if they're told anybody could shoot them even at a routine traffic stop, they're not going to be happy to do their jobs without a gun.
---

chaosbowser posted...

The degree of grievousness doesn't really change that it's...not okay.

This is the problem with black and white thinking. There are degrees of "okay", we have various degrees of murder and manslaughter with various degrees of sympathy for them because severity matters.

A mild problem requires a mild response; if we had a protest everytime McDonalds got your order wrong we'd be in a civil war by now. When officers are expected to forcibly arrest people, injuries are a mild deviation from the expectation. It's unreasonable to treat police shooting a criminal wrongly the same as a pedestrian shooting another person wrongly.
---

chaosbowser posted...

Well...it's not exactly what we do but I don't think an 8 week course is all that far from it. Clearly the nuances of being a cop are more complicated than that. Apparently in many countries becoming a cop requires 4 years of training. An equally interesting point is that Canada also trains their cops for a short 8 weeks and has the same issues with police brutality that we do.

Two months should be enough but I guess it isn't. 6 seems like it would be too long. 4 months?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This might surprise you, but people generally don't like shooting other people.

American cops clearly do.
---

Muscles posted...

You're so original, I've never heard that one before

so, what did the doctor say?

---

chaosbowser posted...

The fact that you don't feel sorry that someone died for something incredibly pretty is irrelevant. People have been trying to tell you that it's not about feeling sorry for the now dead man but that killing someone for what he did is unacceptable.

I agree with that, but you can think the police were wrong to kill him and still think he was an idiot for grabbing their taser and trying to shoot them with it

---

He was not blameless for the situation, but the cop who shot him is solely to blame for the result. He broke his own departments protocol by shooting him.

---

Mead posted...

He was not blameless for the situation, but the cop who shot him is solely to blame for the result. He broke his own departments protocol by shooting him.

Pretty sure any police protocol is to shoot when they shouldn't.
---

Muscles posted...

I agree with that, but you can think the police were wrong to kill him and still think he was an idiot for grabbing their taser and trying to shoot them with it

Sure but trying to argue we shouldn't feel bad for idiots is something you should expect people to give you shit for and people will obviously not agree with you on it. It's an opinion so it cant be wrong or right but it is one that is rather cold and inflammatory in nature.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This is the problem with black and white thinking. There are degrees of "okay", we have various degrees of murder and manslaughter with various degrees of sympathy for them because severity matters.

A mild problem requires a mild response; if we had a protest everytime McDonalds got your order wrong we'd be in a civil war by now. When officers are expected to forcibly arrest people, injuries are a mild deviation from the expectation. It's unreasonable to treat police shooting a criminal wrongly the same as a pedestrian shooting another person wrongly.

Nice try bud but this isn't black and white thinking. I didn't think I'd have to explain the specifics of why killing isn't just a mildly wrong thing but this too for you I will explain. This isn't a mild deviation. While it may not be an outright lynching like Floyd it is still very far into the territory of not okay. Someone was murdered for something petty and most definitely not because the cops lives were in danger. We have long ardous processes for murder row victims yet someone stealing a taser gets not one but 4 bullets loaded into him with resultant death. Believing he deserved it on the account of his stupidity is irrelevant to the fact that these actions far exceed the bounds of what our society and laws deem as okay for murder.

---

Mead posted...

He was not blameless for the situation, but the cop who shot him is solely to blame for the result. He broke his own departments protocol by shooting him.

dumb protocol there.

a taser is considered a deadly weapon because you can incapacitate someone, and they can't do anything after
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

dumb protocol there.

a taser is considered a deadly weapon because you can incapacitate someone, and they can't do anything after

Tasers are not THAT good. They temporarily stun people for like less than a minute some people may not be stunned at all.

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

dumb protocol there.

a taser is considered a deadly weapon because you can incapacitate someone, and they can't do anything after

The first things that should be happening after someone is tasered is that they should be brought to a hospital to make sure their heart is beating normally. Those things can kill you hours later if the use of one has mess up the heart rhythms of the tasered person.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

Wouldn't defudning police result in more speed traps and petty law enforcement to make back the money on fines? They already do that shit to hit quotas.

You act like the quotas aren't already a part of the problem. Literally paying cops to create crime.

Law enforcement should not be a for profit business.

---