Do Police have a right to Murder?

Your strawman. I'm merely saying they can take a little more risk. Right now Police in the USA is not even in the top 10 most deadliest jobs, farmers, yes farmers have a higher chance of dying on the job then police.

Yeah, I know, what is your point?

Pretty sure if the police started doing that the present public distrust would be amplified by many magnitude. Imagine police driving by neighbors shooting out of their car windows "stop commiting crime! die die die!" The public expect police to NOT be thugs, if the police are reduced to that, what benefit are they over the regular thugs?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You appear to be trying to equate accidents with a choice to take a bullet

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. Inherent bias is part of current police training, and it's a real thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its a choice to take a risk, assume that person is armed and will kill you or not. The same as a farmer choosing to take a risk and reach into a combine, or the same with a roofer choosing where they step, sometimes they make the wrong choice and pay for it with their lives, but when police make the wrong choice, we pay either way.

Yeah well it is stupid. Tell me in said training do they also say that the reason police overwhelmingly shoot men instead of women is because of "implicit bias"? Again, sure everyone has bias, but the real problem is police are allowed to kill legally at a level that the public is not accepting of. Think of it this way: why should a police officer give a fuck about implicit bias if they are allowed to get away with it regardless?

 

Agreed. That has to be fixed.

 

Where would we get reliable numbers?

 

Google?
There would be no reliable numbers but a figure may be worked out with the few statists we may gather.
Probably the best way is for a member to make up a number post it their methodology and other members can input.
I suppose someone has worked out something and written about it.
I will start the bidding at 1000 per year.
Alex

 

No

Accidents are not a choice to take a risk

ac·ci·dent
\ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
noun

• : a sudden event (such as a crash) that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury
• : an event that is not planned or intended : an event that occurs by chance

Mirriam-Webster

A farmer choosing to take a risk and reach into a combine is a stupid farmer

 

Agreed. But the rate of accidents is determined by the risks you choose to take. If you choose to reach into a combine (or chipper) to clear a jam, you have chosen to take more risks - and the odds of an accident go way up.

 

Oh, I take your point, or, at least, a version of it. Mostly, I'm just joking about the fact that you picked China for the example, and I'm uncertain what numbers I would believe coming from that government. Or those governments. Still, though, there is a point to be made about China ... I think.

No, really, on the scale of that population, if China was Chicago on a bad weekend, we would have heard about it by now.

Or something like that.

("There are no homicides in China except those committed by evil foreigners and the noble but tragic duty of the Law." Sadly, I can't quite figure the proper vector for the corrupted-by-western-capitalism melamine joke, a low-hanging fruit.)

 

Yes.
I don't even know what the guns laws, possible register, etc are or is.
No facts and I have not tried google.
And I get to a stats type site and get sidetracked looking into how many pets per head and other irrelevant stuff.
Alex

 

Definition means nothing here, it is your interpretation that working a dangerous jobs is only accidental for non-police professions. If you CHOOSE a dangerous profession that your problem, why should the public have to pay?

As for china, many of my Chinese co-workers tell me that if you get hit by a car in china, you better die, or else the driver will kill you so he does not need to pay your medical bill... looked it up, it was no joke!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ly_kill_the_pedestrians_they_hit_china_s.html

 

Yeah, and? The problem is what counts a self defense, for example does this count as self-defense:

Well not yet most police officers have body cams, more and more are getting them at an experiential rate, for good reasons that you have already state and more. The era of people trusting police officer words is over.

It is not hard to look up police income, for example the two officer that shot and killed a drunk man waiting for a ride because he was playing with a water hose, in long beach CA, from whom the city had to pay $6.5 M to the family, and each officer only $5 K make an average of $58,912 a year. Now had these officer been willing to take a little more risk and not shoot first, the city would not have lost $6.5 M, and had the situation be different and one of the officer had got killed, how much do you think that would have cost the city?

What chance are we talking about? What gradient of risk is too much for you? Was sending in a sniper, SWAT and helicopters and most off all approaching without warning, one drunk guy on a stairwell and then shooting him with a shotgun and handgun until dead because of a water nozzle that he was not even holding at the time... too much of a chance?

Yes so why then can't police take a little more risk?

Like I understand that most of the time police don't fuck up and do shot second, here is a good example:

 

Yes, it's morally correct for police, because self-defense is morally correct for any human.

No one can expect someone to sacrifice their own life to avoid potential further wrongdoing (riots, etc.) by others. It is actually immoral to demand such, even from cops, who are just as human as anyone else. The actions of others, like rioting, cannot make the moral action of self-defense somehow immoral.
The criminal that gets away, by killing a cop, is likely to have future, innocent victims. People who participate in riots take their own risks, and they should be held just as accountable for their actions as a cop in a bad shoot.

In this climate, it doesn't matter if the victim is armed or got shots off. If the victim was black, that's all that seems to matter, regardless of obvious guilt. Rioters, i.e. criminals, are only interested in an excuse for their crime.
The only thing that stops killings is more armed and well-trained people. Home invasions are rare in communities known to be well-armed for a reason.

 

Are you aware of the cannon fodder the military has made of people?

Generally a cop killer is found right away and shot.

Wrong, See the videos above, lots of riots from the first case with the white guys, not riots for black guy that shot first (and thankfully his shooting first was caught on bodycam)

Yeah Somalia.

 

War is moving the goalposts from pure self-defense, now, isn't it? The morality of war depends on many things not relevant to self-defense, like conscription, magnitude of threat, being the initiating force, etc..

Generally, a person willing to shoot a cop will be willing to harm anyone they think can help them escape, i.e. hostages, bystanders, etc..

Maybe you're confusing protests with riots, since I can find no evidence of riots over Doug Zerby. And do you really think people wouldn't protest if there wasn't video evidence showing the black guy had a gun? Hell, even after the video showing Michael Brown committing a strong-arm robbery, the riots continued.

Yeah, non-sequitur.

 

Is this an honest question? I've never experienced the pitfalls of being a police officer, but I'm assuming their asses are wired tight when in tense situations.

Suicide by criminal? For the sake of society?

 

The criminals have the advantage, in the sense they get to define the rules they by which they play the game. Liberals never ask whether criminals should be allow to murder and what should happen if they do. This is never brought up by liberals. Instead, they side with the criminals, by adding restrictions to the victims and to their defenders, while ignoring and justifying criminal behavior; criminal rights. The left relates better to criminals.

The fair way , in any competition, is for both law enforcement and the criminals to play by the same set of rules. We cannot expect the criminals to follow the rules of good citizens and/or write reports after any breach of the rules. The definition of a criminal is someone who ignores the law and tries to cover up that breach. Therefore, a fair fight should allow the cops to use the same rules the criminals use, when dealing with criminals. This is called a fair fight, which is not how the left thinks. The left prefers their side, be allowed to cheat, and the other side has to follow rules, that make it easier for their side to cheat.

If you have a criminal with a long rap sheet, he/she has proven that they follow different rules. They define a set of rules that internally justifies then being a predator. When the cops deal with them, based on the rap sheet, they should be allowed to play by these same rules. If the criminal assaults, but does not murder, the cops can beat him up, but they can't kill him. This honors the victims of the criminal. If you are a gang banger who has to kill to be initiated, the cops get to play by those rules, with that person, since this is how they play. This is called righteous indignation. It is one set of rules, defined by the criminal who will still has the advantage by setting the rules.

The cops already do this to a limited extent. When they are in safe areas of the city, where the vast majority of people follow the rules, the cops are on a short leash; little departure from the rules. They will be friendly with friendly people; same rules. They reflect the people they deal with and play by the same rules. But in other areas of the city, where there is heavy crime, where rules break down, they should be allowed off leash, to reflect that behavior; one set of rules in each situation. In all cases the local population decides the rules and the cops reflect.

 

Soldiers are defendinf the nation, why aren't police?

Again, generally they get shot dead first.

Irrelevant. You know what I meant and are being obtuse.

aah but you said "In this climate, it doesn't matter if the victim is armed or got shots off. If the victim was black, that's all that seems to matter, regardless of obvious guilt." clearly you were wrong because obvious guilt of getting a shot off with a black guy means no riots, or even protests.

The solution is obvious: put cameras on all cops.

There is no video of what happened when Micheal Brown encountered that cop, if there was, there probably would be no riots.

Just pointing out the argument of having all citizens well arm reduces crime, is bullshit. If you want a closer example look at how many people have guns in westside Chicago.

If the people notice that the police operate by the same rules as the criminals, all civilization goes out the window. You can't fight thugs with thugs it will just exacerbate a spiral towards anarchy.