Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 304: All Posts Are Bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

This is the only thing Im referring to

Youre a big company like Wendys, you should be able to fix this for your workers, or let them choose to walk away themselves instead of getting relocated. Im not asking them to pay these employees who are now out of a workplace in perpetuity. Thats the governments job.

Their option will be to work at other locations. They will choose not to. And that is that.

---

Ehhh... the dude shot the taser at him after having already attacked the officers. I think you can argue that lethal force shouldn't have been used, but honestly, it's very hard to blame a cop for reacting by shooting at someone after being shot at--no matter what it is, especially since at that moment even he might not have been sure it was a taser after it was fired.

I don't know how two cops couldn't subdue a presumably drunk dude though and how they got a taser stolen.

https://youtu.be/RP6lAQFHtGM

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Ehhh... the dude shot the taser at him after having already attacked the officers. I think you can argue that lethal force shouldn't have been used, but honestly, it's very hard to blame a cop for reacting by shooting at someone after being shot at--no matter what it is, especially since at that moment even he might not have been sure it was a taser after it was fired.

I don't know how two cops couldn't subdue a presumably drunk dude though and how they got a taser stolen.

https://youtu.be/RP6lAQFHtGM

It's clear cut the cop made a reasonable action.

You also don't know what the dude was on or etc. Who knows. The cops could have shot him reasonably at any point during the skirmish when he grabbed the taser or even without grabbing it depending on the circumstances or at any point fleeing whether he shot the taser or not reasonably. The whole scenario is ridiculous to be arguing at it from an unjustified standpoint. People arguing it was wrong are just exposing their goals. It's not even gray.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

If they have the resources then yes

If they dont have the resources then no

That's the problem. When you advocate this you are incentivizing companies to spend all their resources so that someone else is always left on the hook for unexpected expenses.

---

Corrik7 posted...

What part of their job did they do incorrectly?

I don't know, I'm not the one that fired him.

Clearly they either think he actually did something wrong, or did something they don't think they can actually defend, since they fired him. So clearly he did his job incorrectly enough to warrant it in their eyes.

---

Wait, so this guy got a hold of the cops' taser...and they fired BULLETS at him in response? That seems like a highly unreasonable escalation, and seems indicative of problems with police response in general.

---

Hot take: burning down the Wendy's is actually bad

---

I'm mostly just annoyed they keep burning down the wrong places

Why burn down the Wendy's instead of the police station

---

Who believed we would see the day people openly in topic talk about their preferred crime destinations.

The cause of police injustice is long gone. It's a campaign targeted at police period. Not injustice.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't know, I'm not the one that fired him.

Clearly they either think he actually did something wrong, or did something they don't think they can actually defend, since they fired him. So clearly he did his job incorrectly enough to warrant it in their eyes.

alternatively they just fired him because it's easier to avoid in this controversy.
i do expect him/the union to go take it to the courts, where he'd probably get a good settlement out of the city. aka, they're gonna pay him to go away. it's a political firing.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Hot take: burning down the Wendy's is actually bad

Hotter take: the building.

---

Flamebroiled.

---

Inviso posted...

Wait, so this guy got a hold of the cops' taser...and they fired BULLETS at him in response? That seems like a highly unreasonable escalation, and seems indicative of problems with police response in general.

In the heat of a moment, a guy turned and fired something at him and he reacted by firing back. I don't know that he would immediately assume or know it was a taser at that point. But if he thought it was a gun he could have been worried that he'd fire more rounds at him or someone else. I don't know that this is an outrageous reaction by the cop given the circumstances.

And I think Wang is right about his post. Regardless of if he reacted in the correct way, there's no way given the climate now that they aren't going to immediately react by firing him. If he had truly reacted with lethal force entirely incorrectly, they would be discussing murder charges right now.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

In the heat of a moment, a guy turned and fired something at him and he reacted by firing back. I don't know that he would immediately assume or know it was a taser at that point. But if he thought it was a gun he could have been worried that he'd fire more rounds at him or someone else. I don't know that this is an outrageous reaction by the cop given the circumstances.

I mean in the video you posted it's very clearly not a gun even from far away. And they know he took the taser.

I'm not sure "They thought it was a gun" is reasonable.

Especially when guns and tasers make very, very different noises when shot.

---

I think there's three different arguments here: "Was this a legal response by the officer?", "Was this the right response by the officer?", and "Should we support a framework in which 'legal' and 'right' are distinct qualities here and if so to what extent?"

To the legality, I think precedent will side with the officer here pretty clearly. Cops have an insane amount of protections and defenses embedded in the justice system. It's not exactly a difficult defense for a lawyer to make that, "The officer saw he was fired upon, felt threatened, responded with deadly force."

To whether it was "right," I think most of us with the apparent exception of Corrik feel that deadly force should be a measure of last resort and we hadn't reached that point in this incident.

The last is the toughest section to deal with on a policy basis. Ideally the Venn diagram of "legal" and "right" would be a circle but "right" can be a debatable matter because there isn't a single shared set of rules all people hold. I definitely think the system extends far too much ground towards legally justifying actions it shouldn't be and I don't think that's at all a controversial statement.

---

Anyhoo, as for the argument of "how did he do his job incorrectly"

1. His car was in a drive-thru line at Wendy's, and it was off. He reportedly complied with moving his car into a space. There was no actual reason to arrest him.
2. The main defense of tasers is that they aren't lethal weapons. Thus, a taser does not necessitate the need for responding with lethal force.
3. They apparently waited over 2 minutes before even attempting to render aid once they shot him.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Anyhoo, as for the argument of "how did he do his job incorrectly"

1. His car was in a drive-thru line at Wendy's, and it was off. He reportedly complied with moving his car into a space. There was no actual reason to arrest him.
2. The main defense of tasers is that they aren't lethal weapons. Thus, a taser does not necessitate the need for responding with lethal force.
3. They apparently waited over 2 minutes before even attempting to render aid once they shot him.

1. Is entirely wrong.
2. Is entirely wrong.
3. May be valid.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I mean in the video you posted it's very clearly not a gun even from far away. And they know he took the taser.

I'm not sure "They thought it was a gun" is reasonable.

Especially when guns and tasers make very, very different noises when shot.

I think it's a lot easier to see it's a taser with multiple slow-mo shots and us actively knowing it's a taser before seeing it. When he's in the middle of a chase, trying to stop the guy from getting away, and the guy turns and points something at him that has a bright spark coming from it, I think it's pretty reasonable to think it might have been a gun. But the thing is, if he had waited to consider what he was being shot at by, he could have been shot at multiple more times.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I think it's a lot easier to see it's a taser with multiple slow-mo shots and us actively knowing it's a taser before seeing it. When he's in the middle of a chase, trying to stop the guy from getting away, and the guy turns and points something at him that has a bright spark coming from it, I think it's pretty reasonable to think it might have been a gun. But the thing is, if he had waited to consider what he was being shot at by, he could have been shot at multiple more times.

Dude, the tasers are big, clunky, and yellow. And, you know, they don't go "BANG."

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

points something at him that has a bright spark coming from it, I think it's pretty reasonable to think it might have been a gun

...what?

This ain't Halo, Chief.

---

Okay, I guess he should be able to put all of that together in a split second in an extremely high stress situation you could only imagine being in when something is pointed and shot at him in a situation if he was holding a gun that he could be dead if he took the moment to think about it.

---

Also, rewatching the video, the cop that shot him was chasing after him with his own taser pointed at him. And was less than ten feet away. So there's pretty much no way he'd miss a big, clunky, yellow taser being pointed at him just like the one he is holding.

Like you can see it in his hand the entire time. It's a big ass yellow thing.

There's no way "I thought it was a gun" flies.

I could buy an argument of "We're trained to shoot in that situation even if it's a taser" and blame the culture. But "I thought it was a real gun" is a big nope.

---

It's a big. Clunky. Yellow. Taser. That he even saw the guy take from his partner. And that he is holding one of himself. And that the guy has in his hand the entire time for several seconds as he's chasing him. It's literally not "a split second."

It's a big ass hunk of bright yellow plastic.

C'mon, man.

---

Tell you what.

We'll just agree to disagree on this.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1272000237809414149?s=21

A very normal tweet

There couldn't possibly be a TCT tweet for this on-

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/458763139866435584

---

Like, just to make where I'm coming from clear

https://i.imgur.com/K2SbhLK.jpg

This is what the taser looks like.

If it was one of those smaller black ones, I'd probably agree with you.

But if "I thought it was a real gun" flies with THAT, when he was that close to the guy, then we're pretty much all fucked because they'll be able to say anything looks like a gun.

We can agree to disagree. It's just a bit of a crazy defense when the taser looks like that.

---

Okay SEP.

---

Now that said, Wang's probably right that it'll be easy for the union to just go "He was trained to shoot in that situation even if it's just a taser etc. etc." and probably just get a "go away" settlement.

But any kind of "I thought it was a real gun" defense would frankly be silly to try, since it'd just run up against
"Does this look like a gun?"
"Well, no."
"Does this sound like a gun?"
"Well, no."

And then it becomes an actual personal matter of "Why did you, personally, think it was a gun and respond the way you did?"

It ends up circling back to the bigger problem of "I was trained this way" and "why?"

---

honestly i'd say the biggest issue to that is the classification tasers have. they get called non-lethal because they aren't necessarily lethal like a gun is. when you fire a gun you intend to kill and there's a good chance it can and will kill. at the very least, it will cause severe harm to an individual. tasers are, generally speaking, safe. compared to a gun, far, far safer. with that said, it doesn't take much thought to realize that if this is a weapon meant to disable it's also a weapon that can kill. it is impossible to find a middle ground. if you weaken its ability to kill you will also weaken its ability to disable, and then you'll see cases like the rioter at CNN who laughed off getting hit with two tasers. or if you wanna go a few years back to another death by cop, Eric Gardner, who also tanked a couple tasers to no effect. incidents like that just further the misconception of these weapons' lethality.

but figured lemme shelve my general opinion/thoughts and decided to check for recent info on it. turns out Reuters ran a 5 part series on 'em in 2019. here's one section:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-taser-deaths-insight/as-death-toll-keeps-rising-u-s-communities-start-rethinking-taser-use-idUSKCN1PT0YT

that's a really long and really in depth article that i won't get fully into, read if interested, don't if not. there's a few key takeaways though, including the fact that PDs know that it's not really a non-lethal weapon. they know it can kill, they know of the underlying aspects that can result in deaths, they're aware that there's a notable lack of training on their usage, that there's a mistaken belief of how often it should be used even within the PD, and the usage of tasers is something that should be re-considered. some PDs have done that even by the time of the article, others were working on it.

this info would be something that, despite being public, isn't that well known by the public. and yeah, it mentions 1001 deaths by tasers. this isn't a lot, especially over the time period, but i'm not sure if this covers every PD they got info for, what PDs those were, or how long exactly. but figure it opens up with saying there's some 50~ deaths a year on it based on their info, which, alright. safer than guns, sure. still lethal, sure. but was still bothered by this. common sense says shoot an electric current in a person and it can kill them. easy, right? don't stick a fork in a socket, etc? so why do we consider them non lethal here, exactly?

unfortunately here's where it gets darker, found this interview: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/police-killed-1000-people-tasers-since-2000

and this quote really stuck out.

And Taser says that these weapons have been studied, and that they're overwhelmingly safe. Taser's position is that the risks to the heart are more theoretical. The company does not concede that there has ever been a death direct a cardiac-related death directly attributable to a taser.

in other words: propaganda.
TASER is a company.
they have spent literally decades in saying this is non lethal.
everyone has heard this being called non lethal and immediately compares it to firearms. compared to a gun sure, it's non lethal, but that's just sleight of hand.

so that's a nice piece of propaganda we've all fallen for at some point or another. law enforcement and security likely know already and design revisions are frequently with TASER/Axon (the company's current name) talking about how it can deliver a strong current but not a lethal one even better than before and they acknowledge that today's are safer than previous years were. so uh... they know. so if that cop runs with the defense "if he shoots me with that, he can kill me," he's got a decent amount of evidence to agree with him.

the problem is the taser and potentially the way PDs have trained the usage/security of it.
also if you were interested in one, miiight be a good idea to get one sooner than later. they ain't particularly well regulated but if you get a series of events involving them, people will turn their heads and start asking questions that have already been answered and are just being ignored.

xp1337 posted...

I think there's three different arguments here: "Was this a legal response by the officer?", "Was this the right response by the officer?", and "Should we support a framework in which 'legal' and 'right' are distinct qualities here and if so to what extent?"

this is a good breakdown of the situation. nicely done.

---

I generally fall in the legal but unwarranted category on this one. Don't think its at all possible to convict of a crime here but also think it was incredibly poor judgment and unnecessary on the officers part. Definitely think firing is likely fair.

---

Don't get why the Wendy's was burned down, seems like the wrong target if anything.

Police probably didn't have just cause to kill if this is true

StealThisSheen posted...

His car was in a drive-thru line at Wendy's, and it was off. He reportedly complied with moving his car into a space. There was no actual reason to arrest him.

That said if he was drunk then him having drove around would be reason to arrest him. Though they could just have easily gone "Hey buddy, you had a long day. Let's take you home." and escorted him to his residence, they would have plenty of time to run his license plate and give him whatever ticket they wanted.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but did Corrik literally suggest the police snipe a subject in a high speed case? I was probably too tired to read properly when I glanced over the last few pages, so I can't imagine something that wrong being said unironically.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Losing your license for a DUI is a foolish sentence that should be changed, yes. There are better means to punish that crime.

wait, so you do understand that certain laws are dumb and should be changed. yet you're lawful neutral anyway? why?


---

Corrik7 posted...

If a cop tries to pull someone (or me since it makes you salivitate at the idea apparently?) For a DUI and they start a high speed chase, they very likely will be shot to end the chase because the person fleeing the police is a danger to the people on the road at that point.

you get that if you drive drunk, you're a danger to people period, right? you don't have to be in a "high speed chase," as if the only scenario in which this could be dangerous is like a fucking action movie.

---

red sox 777 posted...

You have the socialist left, which does have ideas but only proposes politically unworkable ones

what's politically unworkable about ideas the socialist left proposes?


---

Losing your license for a DUI is too soft imo.

---

Updated prediction: Unless the race riots are violently and forcefully suppressed, Trump will win less than five states. Biden will win Texas easily.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what's politically unworkable about ideas the socialist left proposes?

They have a 100 year losing record in elections in the US. A lot of it is just a failure to describe what they want in palatable terms - i.e. socialists describe government payments to everyone as "redistribution" or "fair" or "equal." Republicans call the exact same payment a "refundable tax credit." The latter gets passed in a country in love with capitalism, the former loses election after election.

Umbreon posted...

That said if he was drunk then him having drove around would be reason to arrest him. Though they could just have easily gone "Hey buddy, you had a long day. Let's take you home." and escorted him to his residence, they would have plenty of time to run his license plate and give him whatever ticket they wanted.

Whoa. Umbreon just suggested giving a DUI offender a ride home and telling him he had a long day. That's like 1970s stuff.

---

Don't get why the Wendy's was burned down, seems like the wrong target if anything.

It's almost as if these riots have absolutely nothing to do with excessive police brutality and/or racial injustice and instead are about instigating a violent communist revolution...

---

HeroicCrono posted...

They have a 100 year losing record in elections in the US. A lot of it is just a failure to describe what they want in palatable terms - i.e. socialists describe government payments to everyone as "redistribution" or "fair" or "equal." Republicans call the exact same payment a "refundable tax credit." The latter gets passed in a country in love with capitalism, the former loses election after election.

oh yeah, socialist ideas are still too unpopular now to sell to americans. i'm hopeful that will change in the future, though.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

wait, so you do understand that certain laws are dumb and should be changed. yet you're lawful neutral anyway? why?

I wonder how he would feel if everyone else got the standard sentence of probation and a fine and he got the theoretical max jail sentence. Like he watches a few people before him get probation and then he goes up and the judge says, you get the maximum sentence (probably a few months in jail).

I understand his argument that he should not be punished for a clerical error in reporting the conviction to the DMV. But that's sort of besides the point - he could get a significant jail term while others get no jail time at all and it would be perfectly within the letter of the law. But not fair.

Corrik7 posted...

Whoa. Umbreon just suggested giving a DUI offender a ride home and telling him he had a long day. That's like 1970s stuff.

As an alternative to killing him.

If I were running things, he would also not be driving for a minimum of 20 years.

---

HeroicCrono posted...

I wonder how he would feel if everyone else got the standard sentence of probation and a fine and he got the theoretical max jail sentence. Like he watches a few people before him get probation and then he goes up and the judge says, you get the maximum sentence (probably a few months in jail).

I understand his argument that he should not be punished for a clerical error in reporting the conviction to the DMV. But that's sort of besides the point - he could get a significant jail term while others get no jail time at all and it would be perfectly within the letter of the law. But not fair.

Then I wouldn't have plead guilty and fought it. My last 2 DUIs were very winnable. That said, judges can't go against normal precedent without extraordinary criteria. If you can prove they sentenced you harsher than a similar situation, you would win on appeal for a reduced sentence.

I think a lot of you don't really know what you are talking about.

---

Umbreon posted...

As an alternative to killing him.

If I were running things, he would also not be driving for a minimum of 20 years.

He still would have been killed when arrested and resisting/assaulting police officers and fleeing.

---

Corrik7 posted...

He still would have been killed when arrested and resisting/assaulting police officers and fleeing.

No he wouldn't. Because I would make it clear that shooting an unarmed man in the back is unacceptable, that resisting arrest by itself isn't a justification to kill.

If my officers can't detain one drunk, then I've clearly made a mistake in my hiring process.


---

Corrik7 posted...

Then I wouldn't have plead guilty and fought it. My last 2 DUIs were very winnable. That said, judges can't go against normal precedent without extraordinary criteria. If you can prove they sentenced you harsher than a similar situation, you would win on appeal for a reduced sentence.

I think a lot of you don't really know what you are talking about.

Appeals can sometimes take years. Trial is uncertain and expensive if you are hiring private counsel. Even if you ultimately prevail you sustain a lot of suffering from the process. And by talking about an appeal you're proving the point. There is no appeal from permanent damage caused by a police officer. Even if every court up to SCOTUS says he was wrong it won't bring you back if you get shot.

Wait, "last two"?

How many DUIs have you had Corrik?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Then I wouldn't have plead guilty and fought it. My last 2 DUIs were very winnable. That said, judges can't go against normal precedent without extraordinary criteria. If you can prove they sentenced you harsher than a similar situation, you would win on appeal for a reduced sentence.

I think a lot of you don't really know what you are talking about.

red sox is literally a lawyer lol

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox is literally a lawyer lol

To be fair, I neither practice regarding DUIs nor in Pennsylvania so Corrik likely knows much more about the specific process there than me. I am just talking about general principles and hypotheticals though, which I think do demonstrate the point (arbitrary unequal treatment is bad).

Umbreon posted...

No he wouldn't. Because I would make it clear that shooting an unarmed man in the back is unacceptable, that resisting arrest by itself isn't a justification to kill.

If my officers can't detain one drunk, then I've clearly made a mistake in my hiring process.

You are victim blaming. Because two officers didn't subdue a person on any sort of intoxicants that they deserved to be assaulted and the criminal deserved to escape.

Listen. None of the shit you said made sense.

1. You don't escort a DUI offender to their home. Unless you are letting them off, which is 1970s shit. "Hey, you look like you are under the influence! Drive your car home while we follow ya, bud! Okay sleep it off! You had a long day!"

2. You don't write a ticket for a DUI.

3. You arrest someone you have reasonable suspicion for being under the influence of a DUI and take them to somewhere to have a legal reading of their BAC done (whether hospital or police station for blood test or breathalyzer)

4. You can shoot anyone who commits a violent crime and is fleeing a scene. It is your job to subdue that person who is a risk to the public.

5. They could have shot the dude during the scuffle if they wanted to just as legally. It takes one random punch to knock out a cop and for a violent offender to now have a gun also. Him shooting a taser or not is all superfluous to the situation though even greater in the cops defense.

---