|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ferguson and its implications
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I heard about the hate crime thing. I thought people who killed cops already got stiffer sentences.
I can see why the cops might want a hate crime designation. OTOH, it might make the "war" much worse: it makes the cops even more untouchable.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If I drew a gun on a public street, people - including police - would run away and then call for back up. Back-up would include a negotiator.
Do US police ever back off and not immediately confront ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If I drew a gun on a public street, people - including police - would run away and then call for back up. Back-up would include a negotiator.
Do US police ever back off and not immediately confront ?
Is there a parallel with taking aircraft hostage? It used to be that aircraft hijackings were fairly routine - the plane would be flown to some suitable spot, there would be a negotiator and after a while there would be a deal and the hostages would get to go home.
The rulebook was always "play along and nobody will get hurt". These days, people are rather more inclined to fight against a hijacking, for well-known reasons.
So you pull a gun in public. Is this some kind of cry for help, or are you about to go postal on a load of shoppers?
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
Perhaps you're right, LC - all those police in other developed countries who don't shoot on sight are being terribly irresponsible.
On the other hand, apparently it's possible to shoot up a neighborhood while wearing body armor, point your gun at an officer, and still be "taken into custody without incident or injury."
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
Haven't you just described Open Carry?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
Here's the thing that flummoxes me:
Here I am, armed (arguendo), facing someone who has already pulled out a gun and has it trained (presumably) on an intended target, or is maybe just moving it forth-and-back on a group in a more-or-less defensive manner.
Let's take CASE A: I am in this person's line of sight.
For this scenario to work out in the way that we might hope, I have to be speedier at pulling and accurately aiming my own piece than the guy who's already got his gun out and is aiming, already prepared to shoot.
Going for my own piece will attract the gunner's prompt attention and is likely to get me, or the intended target, or both, shot. The likelihood of my getting him before he gets me / intended target seems pretty small.
CASE B -- I am not in the gunner's line of sight, and therefore could surprise the gunner -- maybe.
That said, in the Empire State Building shooting some while back, I read that at least as many civilian injuries were sustained as the result of cops aiming for the shooter -- cops who presumably train with guns regularly to maintain their qualifications.
Even in CASE B, there's a very high risk of the wrong people getting injured, permanently maimed, and/or killed.
Then there's possible CASE C: a third party comes upon a situation where each of two people has a piece; they're aiming at each other; who's the aggressor? What's going on? How do you know? What is the advantage of adding a third gunner to this mix?
Seems to me the odds stack heavily toward tragedy here, with added guns stacking them even further that way.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht said: quote:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
Well, some of us prefer to conduct ourselves in public spaces as if life were not a perpetual 'Shootout at the OK Corral.'
I can think of a number of reasons why you might want to hesitate before pulling out your own gun and blazing away:
1. It could be a fake gun.
2. The person who is waving a gun around might be an undercover police officer.
3. There are lots of other people around who aren't waving guns - are you sure you're not going to hit one of them instead?
4. Bullets can ricochet. Are you willing to bet someone else's life that yours won't?
5. Are you PREPARED to kill the gun-brandisher? Because that's what it will take, if they are really planning to shoot. If you aren't, your gun is a useless lump of metal and you might as well join everyone else in running away or diving for cover.
6. And most important of all: even if it is a real gun and the person holding it is really going postal, pulling out your gun will make them more likely to start firing, not less so. Are you sure you are fast enough on the draw to kill them before they can hurt anyone, when their gun is in their hand and yours is still in your pocket or bag? If you're not, then going for your gun is like holding up a big sign saying 'Please shoot me first'. Which may help some of the other bystanders to get away, but not many people aspire to that level of altruism.
[x-posted with Porridge]
[ 06. January 2015, 12:40: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the rest of the neighbors, what foolishness.
Have you ever shot anyone or seen anyone shot? Do you have any idea beyond the telly or cinema of what happens when someone does/is?
First, the odds you will actually hit your intended target are smaller than you think. But say you actually manage to hit your intended target and not anyone else; there is still another problem.
Most fatal gun injuries are not immediately fatal. Many people are not even aware they have been shot.
So, if you do not wound innocent passersby and do hit the bad guy, s/he may well simply return fire. Putting more people in danger.
It is rarely as simple as people think.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Adding to Jane's list:
7.) How are the cops, or anyone else with a gun who wants to help out, going to know whether you're a Good Gal/Guy, or a Bad Gal/Guy?
After the movie theater shooting in Colorado, a bunch of people went out and bought guns. I tried to visualize a possible scenario: movie starts; Joker-style Real Shooter starts shooting; various other people start shooting (in the half dark!); no one's quite sure who's the Real Shooter; spooked by that and the running movie, people shoot anyone they see; innocent people are wounded or killed; Real Shooter slips away; cops show up; all they know is that there are bloody people on the floor, and a lot of shooters.
How's that going to end?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How's that going to end?
Like it ends with all those semi-trained hunters in the Maine Woods during deer season?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
The ones wearing camo, rather than the bright colors that would make them stand out? Who've had a six-pack or three? And want to be Rambo?
Yeah, about like that.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
While guns may be necessary for hunting (though bow-hunters might dispute that), they’re not only not needed in the shooter-pulls-a-gun-in-public scenario, they aggravate it. When that second gun gets pulled, it instantly escalates an already fraught situation.
Crisis intervention training can prevent fatalities. I wish everyone were taught these skills, maybe in school. Every staffer in my agency gets this training, including receptionists and cleaners.
I and others in my agency use these skills on a pretty regular basis, and they have served us well, preventing serious physical harm. One possible exception: last year, I was jumped by another manager’s client and beaten pretty badly. My training failed to prevent this, because (A) I was taken completely by surprise from behind, and (B) as I was not the intended target, I was not on my guard.
I and others have successfully “talked down” people holding guns, knives, and a broken bottle, using the skills we were taught. I trust that training, it’s proven itself effective over and over. Whenever I’ve relied on this training, the situation got resolved without serious injury (there have been occasional minor scratches & bruises). There were no victims; nobody ended up wounded, maimed, or dead.
The minute some – helpful stranger? Would-be-hero? Another nut-job? How do we tell? – gun-carrier pulls out a piece, any chance of using crisis intervention techniques to defuse the situation flies straight out the window.
Will crisis intervention always work? No. Will it always prevent shots from being fired, or someone from being knifed? No. There is nothing fail-safe in this world.
The thing is, this culture seems entranced with competitive violence, and seems driven toward high-tension drama. Violence infuses the language we use to talk about our common life: patients “battle” cancer; politicians “fight” for their constituents, and so on.
By contrast, there’s little drama in crisis intervention. Rarely does it include do-or-die moments. It unfolds slowly and patiently, not quickly and dramatically. It starts high, but gradually ratchets down to a bloodless, calm end. There seems to be something in the American psyche that repudiates this kind of denouement.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The thing is, this culture seems entranced with competitive violence, and seems driven toward high-tension drama. Violence infuses the language we use to talk about our common life: patients “battle” cancer; politicians “fight” for their constituents, and so on.
Are you seriously suggesting these kinds of figures of speech are peculiarly American?
[ 07. January 2015, 12:05: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Well, that's my impression. I'd like to be wrong, but where else in the first world do we have such high murder rates, or other deaths from gun violence? It's not that violence per se is unique to this culture; violence seems a human built-in. But in this culture, we do seem to slaughter each other at higher rates than people in other cultures do.
And, given our propensity for waging war abroad, we also seem to slaughter others at rates perhaps higher than other cultures do, though I don't know this.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The thing is, this culture seems entranced with competitive violence, and seems driven toward high-tension drama. Violence infuses the language we use to talk about our common life: patients “battle” cancer; politicians “fight” for their constituents, and so on.
By contrast, there’s little drama in crisis intervention. Rarely does it include do-or-die moments. It unfolds slowly and patiently, not quickly and dramatically. It starts high, but gradually ratchets down to a bloodless, calm end. There seems to be something in the American psyche that repudiates this kind of denouement.
This. The language we use in large degree shapes how we view the world, and in return, how we move and act and choose to respond in various situations.
The Myth of Redemptive Violence is deeply woven into the heart of American culture. Being married to a Canadian, I've often noticed both the similarities and differences in our two countries. So much is the same-- similar demographics, similar geography, and most notably, similar history. Yet how we tell that history is remarkably different-- the language, the themes we choose to emphasize. Americans stress "individualism", Canadians "cooperation". Americans emphasize the "righteous violence" theme throughout our history, even while Canadians would tell virtually the same story differently. I can't help but believe this has something to do with the very different rates of violence in our two countries.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Whilst I'll not argue against the Redemptive Violence mythos of America, nor such things shaping language, ISTM "battling" disease and "fighting" for justice are more about the active v. the passive.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
There are ways of being active rather than passive that don't require the language of violence, though.
We can "treat" disease, we can "live with' disease; we can "seek" justice, "right" wrongs, "work for" equality. A desire to express such undertakings in the active voice is readily achievable without using the language of war.
I don't know if this is still in use, but UK politicians used to "stand" for office rather than "run" for office, as in the US. "Run" may not be particularly warlike, but it's certainly more competitive-sounding than "stand."
As for mythos shaping language, that might be a chicken'n'egg question. Which is the shaper, which the shaped? I have no idea. Do the words we choose spring from our beliefs, or do our beliefs form around the language we use?
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
It is quite possible to arrest the shooter calmly even after 5 people have been shot. The Mounties very methodically moved the shooter into a space where he knew he had no options.
But there is no telling what would have happened if some rogue civilian had decided to take on Bourque. At that point it might have open warfare.
In this case, we have a quiet trial where it was all laid out for everyone to see, and whatever passes for "justice" was served with no-one else being hurt, bar one or two idiots who decided to publicly threaten to kill more Mounties.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is quite possible to arrest the shooter calmly even after 5 people have been shot. The Mounties very methodically moved the shooter into a space where he knew he had no options.
According to that link, the Mounties did try to shoot him; they just failed to hit him.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
So persuading him to put down his gun and allow them to arrest him worked and shooting at him didn't?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was Porridge's point...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to that link, the Mounties did try to shoot him; they just failed to hit him.
Now, now, that's not the point. The point is (as is generally the case with HB) that Americans/guns are BAD, and Canada/gun control are GOOD. Details like the shootout that happened first just confuse the issue. </dripping sarcasm>
[ 08. January 2015, 18:52: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The Mounties very methodically moved the shooter into a space where he knew he had no options.
According to the link provided, the Mounties went to the wrong building, and were tipped off to the location of the suspect by a citizen. I'm failing to see the "methodical moving" of the suspect, unless you imply that the apartment building raid was some sort of decoy to get him out in the open...?
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But I would point out that nobody else got shot or otherwise injured. Admittedly, the shooter behaved in a rather odd way as well, being so narrowly focussed on shooting at police.
And no-one was interested in being the hero who shot the villain.
Different strokes, y'know.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But I would point out that nobody else got shot or otherwise injured.
But it wasn't for lack of trying the first time; the Mounties who fired certainly did want someone else to get shot or otherwise injured. quote:
And no-one was interested in being the hero who shot the villain.
Was that what the Mounties were interested in during the first encounter?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Oh, hell, I don't care. You people need your violence and your guns. Enjoy, d*mmit!
Some of us would prefer to do things differently.
There is no way to argue this topic.
[ 09. January 2015, 15:34: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
The real conflict is between arguing vs. shooting.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, hell, I don't care. You people need your violence and your guns. Enjoy, d*mmit!
Some of us would prefer to do things differently.
There is no way to argue this topic.
Don't be absurd. I'm not defending guns or violence, I'm just attacking sanctimonious twaddle.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, hell, I don't care. You people need your violence and your guns. Enjoy, d*mmit!
Some of us would prefer to do things differently.
There is no way to argue this topic.
I don't know who HB means by "you people" here, but if this is a reference to Americans, please note: I have neither need nor use for violence or guns, and I am an American.
[ 10. January 2015, 11:47: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
After the movie theater shooting in Colorado, a bunch of people went out and bought guns. I tried to visualize a possible scenario: movie starts; Joker-style Real Shooter starts shooting; various other people start shooting (in the half dark!); no one's quite sure who's the Real Shooter; spooked by that and the running movie, people shoot anyone they see; innocent people are wounded or killed; Real Shooter slips away; cops show up; all they know is that there are bloody people on the floor, and a lot of shooters.
How's that going to end?
How about a real-life example that took place outside in broad daylight in which the confused people with guns were all officers of the law?
Last April, security guards at a Target store in Compton tried to detain someone for a theft, but he got away and drove down to Long Beach -- obeying traffic laws the whole time! -- pursued by sheriff's deputies (who patrol Compton). When he got out of his car, they shot him with a stun bag, but he ran off. Long Beach cops who were stationed nearby heard the stun bag shots and took them for gunfire. They hadn't seen what happened and had no idea why the guy was being pursued, but still chased him down the stairs toward the beach and shot him in the back. They didn't exactly rush to give him medical care, and he died. The cops' justification for shooting him was that the guy reached for his waist. Except he didn't.
Read about it here and watch the rather disturbing video shot by a patron at a local restaurant.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But enough Americans worship guns that the entire Congress will not do anything about the problem. No other country in the world that has any control within its borders is so unstable, except for the ones that deliberately want to shoot one group of its citizens.
Which, in the US case, is the blacks.
It is not sanctimonious twaddle to point out that a large proportion of whites in the US live in fear that blacks will one day rise up in revolt, so the solution is to shoot them first. The police have this bias built into their psyche. Hence the ridiculous overarmed response in Ferguson, and the ongoing slaughter of innocent people. And the police get away with it because enough of the citizens approve, as any person of colour can tell you.
But I am a mere observer, not bound by the rigorous custom of saying that "guns make you safe". Guns make too many of their owners into idiots.
Look, I know that some Americans loathe the gun culture more than I do.
But that attitude of "too big a problem" allowed slavery to effectively continue to the present day.
And it is made worse by the sanctimonious twaddle that is taken to be Christian policy in the churches.
Torture people? sure, fine, because "we are awesome". NOT because it is right. Kill blacks? Well, sure, what did you expect? Support intolerable inequity? Of course, it allows the rich to become richer.
None of this makes sense in a "civilized" country, but the voters have chosen Duck Dynasty for their legislature and their churches, and it just goes on.
And the rest of us outside are powerless to do anything about it, even as the rot in attitude seeps across the border, along with the illegal weapons.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Gee, HB, what would you have us do? Undertake a second Civil War to rid the nation of gun worshipers? Because that's what it took to rid the nation of slavery. Slaughter of hundreds of thousands of our citizens. But thanks for blaming us all for the gun nuts. I suppose you blame all the Muslims for the Muslim terrorists, and all the Irish for Sinn Fein, and all the Brits for the UKIP.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...whites in the US live in fear that blacks will one day rise up in revolt, so the solution is to shoot them first.
That is absurd. No one kills more blacks in America than blacks.
Even if you combine the numbers of blacks killed by whites and killed by cops, it isn't even competitive.
How could they ever "rise up in revolt" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) when they can't even safely get out of their own neighborhoods?
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is not sanctimonious twaddle to point out that a large proportion of whites in the US live in fear that blacks will one day rise up in revolt, so the solution is to shoot them first.
This isn't sanctimonious twaddle, it's just bullshit totally unsupported by evidence.
The sanctimonious twaddle part was your laughable attempt to portray the Moncton incident as an example of the Mounties arresting the shooter calmly.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This isn't sanctimonious twaddle, it's just bullshit totally unsupported by evidence.
It's anti-American bigotry is what it is.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It's anti-American bigotry is what it is.
As long as they keep sending us their oil and best entertainers, I say we let it slide.
It's not as if they could survive out from under our coat anyway, poor things.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It's anti-American bigotry is what it is.
Which, unfortunately, is HB's usual stock in trade. Which, unfortunately, alienates even those of us Americans who might otherwise agree with him in greater or lesser degree.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
If you really wish to persist in personal attacks, take.them.to.Hell. And if you want to indulge in a pond/border war, then do so entirely elsewhere.
/hosting
[ 12. January 2015, 16:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
My apologies to the Hosts.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
"It's not just about race it's about power." Discussing how the some of these issues are more about the fact that those who currently have power will do anything to keep it (which, of course, is all tangled up with race because of our history).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I'm not making this up.
My grandfather had a heart attack while police chief in Sarajevo, if you remember the unfortunate history of that area.
My father had to give up a research position in Germany when Hitler came to power (and, no, I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law - this is just history)
And now I'm watching the Bastion of Democracy, the Light to all the World, destroy itself over skin colour and equal rights in general. Colour me "disappointed"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm not making this up.
My grandfather had a heart attack while police chief in Sarajevo, if you remember the unfortunate history of that area.
My father had to give up a research position in Germany when Hitler came to power (and, no, I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law - this is just history)
And now I'm watching the Bastion of Democracy, the Light to all the World, destroy itself over skin colour and equal rights in general. Colour me "disappointed"
Good grief! It's like your family's cursed by history!
Still, at least it seems things are getting better - apparently whatever killed your grandfather and fired your father is only making you "disappointed". Perhaps your offspring (if any) can look forward to being mildly annoyed when their turn comes.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
I'm scratching my head as to what that comment means or is supposed to imply, but this seems a good place to point out - again - that personal attacks belong in Hell. Stick to the issue.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm not making this up.
Here's another appalling story.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There's something about guns for sure, but it is different though overlapping issue with the issue of racial politics. Both issues are rather different in the USA than in other places. It is also clear the policing and regulation of police is different.
As a contrast, from the above link:
quote:
Public-police relations in Canada are generally positive, because police here accept close scrutiny as a key component of the legal system. Outside Quebec, any suspicious death in Canada involving a police officer is investigated by an independent body, insulating police from suspicions of a cover-up and raising public confidence in the process.... Where systemic problems have occurred...the public response has been to demand improvement. And, by and large, police have accepted such critiques with an appropriate sense of obligation, at least after the fact.
I don't get the sense that in the USA public-police relations are "generally positive". Are they? Are they 'generally positive' in the UK, Australia, other places?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As a contrast, from the above link:
You do realize that "the above link" is just a newspaper editorial, right?
In parts of the newspaper where they have actual news, on the other hand, we can find articles with headlines like Police who lie: How officers thwart justice with false testimony. The subhed is good too: "In 100 recent cases across Canada, police used illegal techniques, excessive force and racial profiling, then covered it up with false testimony."
On the plus side, though, Maclean's editorial staff thinks Canadian public-police relations are "generally positive".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As a contrast, from the above link:
You do realize that "the above link" is just a newspaper editorial, right?
In parts of the newspaper where they have actual news, on the other hand, we can find articles with headlines like Police who lie: How officers thwart justice with false testimony. The subhed is good too: "In 100 recent cases across Canada, police used illegal techniques, excessive force and racial profiling, then covered it up with false testimony."
On the plus side, though, Maclean's editorial staff thinks Canadian public-police relations are "generally positive".
Macleans is a news magazine, not a newspaper, the most widely circulated in Canada by far. The reference to illegal techniques is most likely to the recent Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Big entrapment methods* are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The main point of my post is to ask about the nature of public-police relations. My personal experience is that traffic police are difficult, but all other police encounters are generally positive, whether RCMP or municipal. (RCMP are the provincial police in many provinces by contract with the province.) I have been stopped by RCMP and city police, and we've personal family experience of both RCMP and city police re specific crimes - nothing negative to report and I have written notes of complement. So I am asking about general public perception of police and related.
I am interested that locally when the police use a firearm, a taser, or an armoured vehicle, they are required to report why, and a full investigation is published. In this city I live in, about 400,000 people in the greater area, we have about 11 police use of weapons incidents each year and 4-5 murders, though weapons use by police has exceeded 20 incidents in some years and murders exceeded 10. Do such reports occur; I understand that we may be 4 times less or more than USA rates.
So what is the general nature of public-police relationship or perception Dave W and others?
* the police would pretend, undercover that they are a fancy criminal organization and lead an unsuspecting person to confess to prior misdeeds, most often murder. as a way of impressing the fake Mr. Big boss. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that this is unconstitutional.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
