Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 320: Comin' Out of the Woodward

(+) Yeah! (+)

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Then we shouldn't be cops either.

So then there should be no cops in the world in your opinion. So, you are a defund police person. I got ya. So, you believe crime should run rampant because in less than .1% of scenarios use of force happens, and because in what another .1% of that time it may result in a possibly unjustified death?

I wonder how much the death rate goes up by removing the police in your estimation.

---

Maniac64 posted...

Let's blow this guys mind now and send him to talk with police from a country where they dont regularly carry a gun and yet can still arrest people.

False equivalency. They aren't in countries where 300+ million guns are on the streets. Where gun violence in states on the regular probably outraces their entire gun violence for their country.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So then there should be no cops in the world in your opinion. So, you are a defund police person. I got ya. So, you believe crime should run rampant because in less than .1% of scenarios use of force happens, and because in what another .1% of that time it may result in a possibly unjustified death?

I wonder how much the death rate goes up by removing the police in your estimation.

Cops are fine, cops having guns in all situations not so much.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So then there should be no cops in the world in your opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r94vuvwUSkY


---

Corrik7 posted...

False equivalency. They aren't in countries where 300+ million guns are on the streets. Where gun violence in states on the regular probably outraces their entire gun violence for their country.

I'll tell you what. That's fair. We will begin aggressively culling the number of guns in this country too.

Man we can make some real progress by working together.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Cops are fine, cops having guns in all situations not so much.

Cops shouldn't have to die because you are afraid a likely criminal might at some point in a fraction of a percentage MAYBE be shot.

It's as simple as that. If you value life, you should value life. Not just Black Lives while committing crimes.

I do like the person in this topic who says "so an untrained person is just as good as a cop". When the article clearly spells out that the untrained person is likelier to DIE. The trained person is likelier to analyze the situation and use force when needed and MAYBE stop it from getting to that point.

It basically is equating those who freak out and complain and use 2020 hindsight and all details not given to the cop OR IGNORE the details that the cop has in situations to make their assessments as no better than those who criticize professionals from their aimchairs for not making the right passes or decisions or such.

---

Okay, so I know I've been saying "here's a wild story" like 3 times in the past 5 days.

...But I think we have a winner.

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1306061469218414592

We have a second QAnon supporter who won a GOP primary for the US Senate yesterday, this time in Delaware. That's not the wild part. She is also a self-proclaimed former drug runner for Mexican cartels.

---

Corrik7 posted...

False equivalency. They aren't in countries where 300+ million guns are on the streets. Where gun violence in states on the regular probably outraces their entire gun violence for their country.

But some of his examples were what to do with unarmed people. So gun prevalence doesnt really matter there. Those are the situations I want him to hear about. The ones where his trainers apparently said they still had to shoot or just let the person go.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Cops shouldn't have to die because you are afraid a likely criminal might at some point in a fraction of a percentage MAYBE be shot.

It's as simple as that. If you value life, you should value life. Not just Black Lives while committing crimes.

I do like the person in this topic who says "so an untrained person is just as good as a cop". When the article clearly spells out that the untrained person is likelier to DIE. The trained person is likelier to analyze the situation and use force when needed and MAYBE stop it from getting to that point.

It basically is equating those who freak out and complain and use 2020 hindsight and all details not given to the cop OR IGNORE the details that the cop has in situations to make their assessments as no better than those who criticize professionals from their aimchairs for not making the right passes or decisions or such.

People's loved ones have died. There is no freak out here. Also, I support lessening the budget of police forces and at the same time having them be more focused on other activities. Using that money to fund other departments so cops don't have to deal with so many wide ranging problems is part of the solution.

---

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1306229473705103360?s=21

lol

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

People's loved ones have died. There is no freak out here. Also, I support lessening the budget of police forces and at the same time having them be more focused on other activities. Using that money to fund other departments so cops don't have to deal with so many wide ranging problems is part of the solution.

Wouldn't more funding to get the technology in place be a better idea if accountability is the goal?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Wouldn't more funding to get the technology in place be a better idea if accountability is the goal?

There is no "technological" solution. Are you talking about body cams? Those don't provide accountability and the effect they have on police behavior is negligible. In other words, they can provide evidence of wrongdoing but it doesn't matter if real systems of accountability aren't in place. That means citizen oversight with real power to fire officers or affect police departments, and the end of qualified immunity so that bad cops are financially liable instead of getting bailed out by public funding. And yes, reducing the amount of money the city spends on police misconduct settlements and lawsuits is "defunding the police."

---

Follow up: The Breonna Taylor case is a great example of how body cams can fail. No footage of the incident, yet later we found out the officers were wearing them and must have turned them off. Instead of punishing the officers for either murder or breach of camera protocol, the city has settled with the family for 12 million. At no point did accountability enter the question. The investigation is still "ongoing" and the murder happened six months ago and it took a literal uprising to get where we are now.

---

Which means the taxpayers are the only ones getting punished, as they are footing the $12 million bill.

---

Maybe instead of buying body armor, tear gas, tanks, assault weaponry and military gear to play soldier they should use things like the 12 million they casually dropped to settle another wrongful death lawsuit on things like investing in developing new non-lethal devices. Also, a cop signed up to do a job where they could be in danger, a civilian did not. Cops are knowingly putting their lifes at risk. Cop death should be way more common than a cop killing an unarmed citizen. But its big rare news when a cop dies but just Tuesday when a random citizen dies.

I don't think spending millions on weapon R&D instead of current weaponry constitutes a major blow to the MIC or police violence. <_<

Like...tear gas is "nonlethal." It's also banned by the Geneva Convention.

---

I don't think it's a big ask to try and develop something to incapacitate citizens that aren't considered war crimes.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

I don't think it's a big ask to try and develop something to incapacitate citizens that aren't considered war crimes.

Anything that incapacitates humans would be against war conventions. If it was a gas that made you very nicely lay down and take a nap and dream about the best things in life, it would still be banned by war conventions because it is something that can cause a slaughter when used in war.

---

If that's the criteria then why arent bombs and gatling guns considered a war crime? Those also can cause a slaughter.

---

Yeah that doesn't make much sense. A Sleep Ray causes more of a slaughter than a Nuclear Bomb?

Maniac64 posted...

If that's the criteria then why arent bombs and gatling guns considered a war crime? Those also can cause a slaughter.

Because they overtake the senses in a mass delivery system.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Because they overtake the senses in a mass delivery system.

Ok thanks. Still seems dumb but at least makes some sense.

---

Maniac64 posted...

Ok thanks. Still seems dumb but at least makes some sense.

Like a Tranq Dart wouldn't be banned by the Convention. But a gas that does what I said would be. It would be considered a chemical weapon.

---

Our war crimes conventions are heavily influenced by European norms from before World War I. Gas was a new thing, so it was banned. In the Middle Ages they tried to ban crossbows for the same reason and justified it with reasoning like, "a peasant with an hour of training can use a crossbow to kill a knight with a sword who's been training his whole life, that's not fair."

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

I don't think it's a big ask to try and develop something to incapacitate citizens that aren't considered war crimes.

Regardless, you are still basically asking for a "safer" general-use weapon. Why do all officers need specialized weaponry to "incapacitate" citizens? What's wrong with reserving that for special forces? Sir Chris has already brought up bilateral disarmament, which is an approach other countries have used for this.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Our war crimes conventions are heavily influenced by European norms from before World War I. Gas was a new thing, so it was banned. In the Middle Ages they tried to ban crossbows for the same reason and justified it with reasoning like, "a peasant with an hour of training can use a crossbow to kill a knight with a sword who's been training his whole life, that's not fair."

Well, I would argue the rules are heavily influenced by what the great powers deem they can't stop a lot also.

If the greater powers could all dissipate chemicals and biological agents used against them and the undeveloped countries couldn't, then it likely wouldn't be banned either.

---

I think that if cops have to have weapons they should be as safe as possible and we've had years to do something like that but they bought four tanks each for local police departments instead and that's ridiculous. They've thrown so much money away. Get rid of the police optimally, the mafia would do about as good of a job gathering protection money and keeping people safe than the corrupt modern gang called the police.

I don't think the issue is necessarily what kind of weapons police have as much as which kind of police have them.

The guy you send to a mental disturbance case should not be armed ANYWHERE near the same as the guy you send to deal with an active shooter. Cops that are specifically trained to deal with KNOWN violent threats absolutely should be armed, and they should be trained for that specific scenario. But then they shouldn't be sent to go deal with some naked guy screaming in the middle of the street. There needs to be different forms of police trained and properly armed (or not) for different situations.

The problem is that they've basically taken a one size fits all approach.

EDIT: Reading more of the topic, I see people have basically already said this.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

I think that if cops have to have weapons they should be as safe as possible and we've had years to do something like that but they bought four tanks each for local police departments instead and that's ridiculous. They've thrown so much money away. Get rid of the police optimally, the mafia would do about as good of a job gathering protection money and keeping people safe than the corrupt modern gang called the police.

Without even looking, I'd bet all military equipment is mostly hand me downs from the military.

---

The problem about why the cops not paying for military equipment is a very important, but unrelated issue to the police.

(Our military budget is dumb and wasteful)

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

The problem about why the cops not paying for military equipment is a very important, but unrelated issue to the police.

(Our military budget is dumb and wasteful)

Well, we have 3 options with old equipment.

1. Destroy it
2. Sell it to a third country.
3. Give it to our police forces when applicable and of use.

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/516714-pelosi-schumer-encouraged-by-trump-call-for-bigger-coronavirus-relief-package

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/16/senate-republicans-trump-covid-relief-416163

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/15/coronavirus-stimulus-pelosi-says-house-stay-until-deal-bill/5794034002/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/coronavirus-stimulus-update-trump-suggests-he-could-back-bigger-relief-bill.html

---

Corrik7 posted...

Well, we have 3 options with old equipment.

1. Destroy it
2. Sell it to a third country.
3. Give it to our police forces when applicable and of use.

1. While doing any of those lower the military budget because we have too many weapons.

---

So apparently the attorney general was encouraging Sedition charges against protestors:

https://twitter.com/JamesVGrimaldi/status/1306290839946174469

Seems pretty obviously unconstitutional to me (1st amendment rights and whatnot).

---

Democrats shoot down Problem Solvers Caucus Bill.

Poll shows that 61% of Americans have heard that the Democrats have killed the Coronavirus Stimulus Bill based off the filibustering of the Senate Bill.

---

This poll result was so surprising

https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/1306314149794910208

That I had to look it up myself, and yes, it's on pewResearch:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/

Confidence in world leaders to do the right thing in global affairs. Countries polled, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea, and a bunch of European countries.

Merkel: 76%

Macron: 64%

Johnson: 48%

Putin: 23%

Xi: 19%

Trump: 16%

How do you lose a vote of confidence to Putin and Xi Jinping? They're so bad. o_o.

(Granted, the countries actually geographically close to China--Australia, South Korea, and Japan, all trust Trump more than Xi. So that's...something?)

---

metroid composite posted...

So apparently the attorney general was encouraging Sedition charges against protestors:

https://twitter.com/JamesVGrimaldi/status/1306290839946174469

Seems pretty obviously unconstitutional to me (1st amendment rights and whatnot).

It looks like the Supreme Court never got to rule on the constitutionality of sedition because President Jefferson pardoned everyone who had been convicted under the Sedition Act 1798 and the statute expired. Sedition is probably a common law crime but apparently the Supreme Court held in 1812 that there are no valid federal common law crimes anymore. So yeah......not sure what Barr is trying to accomplish here.

---

metroid composite posted...

This poll result was so surprising

https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/1306314149794910208

That I had to look it up myself, and yes, it's on pewResearch:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/

Confidence in world leaders to do the right thing in global affairs. Countries polled, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea, and a bunch of European countries.

Merkel: 76%

Macron: 64%

Johnson: 48%

Putin: 23%

Xi: 19%

Trump: 16%

How do you lose a vote of confidence to Putin and Xi Jinping? They're so bad. o_o.

(Granted, the countries actually geographically close to China--Australia, South Korea, and Japan, all trust Trump more than Xi. So that's...something?)

Putin and Xi Jinping are not known to break their word. Usually if they say something, it happens.

---

metroid composite posted...

This poll result was so surprising

https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/1306314149794910208

That I had to look it up myself, and yes, it's on pewResearch:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/

Confidence in world leaders to do the right thing in global affairs. Countries polled, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea, and a bunch of European countries.

Merkel: 76%

Macron: 64%

Johnson: 48%

Putin: 23%

Xi: 19%

Trump: 16%

How do you lose a vote of confidence to Putin and Xi Jinping? They're so bad. o_o.

(Granted, the countries actually geographically close to China--Australia, South Korea, and Japan, all trust Trump more than Xi. So that's...something?)

Obviously that is not an encouraging poll, but it is also like half composed of EU countries, including some countries voting for their own leaders.

---

red sox 777 posted...

It looks like the Supreme Court never got to rule on the constitutionality of sedition because President Jefferson pardoned everyone who had been convicted under the Sedition Act 1798 and the statute expired. Sedition is probably a common law crime but apparently the Supreme Court held in 1812 that there are no valid federal common law crimes anymore. So yeah......not sure what Barr is trying to accomplish here.

He's trying to stifle speech because he's a fascist (and I don't say that lightly).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

He's trying to stifle speech because he's a fascist (and I don't say that lightly).

Charging people with sedition isn't going to accomplish that though. The trial court will dismiss the case. If he appeals the circuit court will affirm the trial court. If he goes further, the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 against sedition being a real crime in the US. All Barr is going to get out of this is a flowery history lesson from Gorsuch on the American Revolution.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Charging people with sedition isn't going to accomplish that though. The trial court will dismiss the case. If he appeals the circuit court will affirm the trial court. If he goes further, the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 against sedition being a real crime in the US. All Barr is going to get out of this is a flowery history lesson from Gorsuch on the American Revolution.

The point is to intimidate people in the short term. Doing blatantly illegal stuff and stalling in the courts has been a hallmark of the Trump presidency.

---

oh my god, I turned on the local news and they cut to a press conference of Trump talking...and my goodness, after 5 minutes of hearing him talking he's quite frankly a certified nutjob. Accusing biden of crazy random crap concerning vaccines without any evidence. Talking about how its all the blue state's faults why coronavirus cases were so high, then immediately saying that those same blue states should open up right away. He sounds like a conspiracy theorist youtuber with 2 subscribers streaming some crazy rant, but no, its our President talking, giving a press conference.

Edit: Decided to sit through more of this. The way he keeps on talking about Biden....he sounds like a child, "Biden could've never handled this as well as I have..." His whole little discourse on H1N1 and how the Obama administration handled it was so ridiculous, it sounded more like an SNL skit.

---

I love how, in response to Trump talking about how Biden hasn't rolled out a national mask mandate, Biden today basically responded with "*Spoiler voice* Somebody tell him I'm not the president right now, he is."

I can't believe Trump's main campaign strategy right now is to literally pretend he isn't president.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Obviously that is not an encouraging poll, but it is also like half composed of EU countries, including some countries voting for their own leaders.

Countries voting for their own leaders doesn't seem to have made too big of a difference.

One of Macron's lowest scores is from France (12% below the median). Johnson was only 3% above the median in the UK. Merkel gained a small boost from Germany (5% boost).

Though really, I don't have much of a reaction to those three. Merkel is more internationally trusted than Macron is more internationally trusted than Johnson--that's about what I would expect. Johnson being unpopular in the EU because of Brexit is also what I would expect (lol those 20s from Italy and Spain). No real surprises there.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

I love how, in response to Trump talking about how Biden hasn't rolled out a national mask mandate, Biden today basically responded with "*Spoiler voice* Somebody tell him I'm not the president right now, he is."

I can't believe Trump's main campaign strategy right now is to literally pretend he isn't president.

"No, I don't take any responsibility at all"

---

https://twitter.com/AmerIndependent/status/1306343848680054784

While it's of course not surprising, I think we should take a step back and really appreciate how absolutely disgusting it is for the president of the united states to imply that deaths in "blue states" don't really count

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/AmerIndependent/status/1306343848680054784

While it's of course not surprising, I think we should take a step back and really appreciate how absolutely disgusting it is for the president of the united states to imply that deaths in "blue states" don't really count

He's not saying that. He's blaming Democrats for handling the virus badly in blue states. I.e. he and the Republican Party have done a great job.

---

red sox 777 posted...

He's not saying that. He's blaming Democrats for handling the virus badly in blue states. I.e. he and the Republican Party have done a great job.

He's the president of all 50 states. Had he had an issue with the job the governors of blue states were doing, he could have helped out (and, in fact, had a responsibility to do so). But of course, his attitude was perfectly summed up by the quote I just posted: "No, I don't take any responsibility at all"

---

Is that even true?

Technically right now Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida are red states
---