quote:
"No intent" isn't the greatest defense to me. I'm sure their noble intentions of clearing the theater of this nuisance were altruistic in the extreme.

I'm not sure police have an obligation to be altruistic?

quote:
It's a person with Down's for chrissakes.

Ok. I get that. So what laws should be ignored for them? Not arguing that they're shouldn't be any difference, just wonder where the line should be drawn.

And, as a follow up, how is a policeman supposed to know where that line lies? We never want cops playing "judge and jury", but that works both ways... unfortunately.

If we we expect them not to use judgement on the job. Seemingly senseless arrest are part of the consequences.

(FTR, I'd prefer they be allowed some room for judgement.)

quote:
And the majority of cops who stop motorists aren't subject to any sort of danger. But the odds aren't applied in reverse, are they?

I'm not understanding. Are you saying motorists are in greater danger than the cop making a traffic stop? Or that the stoping cop shouldn't take precautions to protect himself from motorists until they prove intent to harm him? Not trying to be argumentative. Just not understanding what you're getting at.

quote:
How many people dying from asphyxia/chest/neck compressions will it take to institute change? This is a known problem

Is it? Roughly 31,000 people will die in car accidents this year. One estimate is 280,000 will die this year from obesity related disease. How does police-induced asphyxia stack up against that?

I'm not suggesting we should simply ignore it. But on the list of hung we should be worried about, it seems overblown. It just seems like we're having an orchestrated emotional reaction here.

That always makes me suspicious. Especially, when I see lede's like the OP... which seem crafted specifically to reinforce that emotional response...

This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 5:58 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by the808bass

The Lou

Member since Oct 2012

111802 posts

Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:09 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
I'm not understanding. Are you saying motorists are in greater danger than the cop making a traffic stop? Or that the stoping cop shouldn't take precautions to protect himself from motorists until they prove intent to harm him? Not trying to be argumentative. Just not understanding what you're getting at.

Cops want us to respect their often hyper-reactive responses based upon incidences that have a very small statistical chance of happening. Then, when the shoe is on the other foot and they've killed someone through negligence or carelessness or whatever you want to term their issue here, we're supposed to recognize that the incidents are really rare. They don't get it both ways.

quote:
What laws should be ignored

Who said anything about laws being ignored? I don't need them to ignore laws. I need them to not kill fat people through chest and neck compression in non-violent confrontations. That's also the part of the judgment I want them to exercise. I do want them to utilize judgment on the job. I don't see a lot of that in these publicized incidences. And the rush to defend the indefensible keeps widening the chasm between civilians and LEOs.

Your last argument is just stupid. Fewer than 50 cops will be killed in the line of duty by violence this year. Based upon your argument, I think we can cross that off the list of things to worry about.

This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 6:11 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board