Democrats plot effort to counter Tucker Carlson on Jan. 6 narrative

[bmk1245]

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Then you heu should be perfected or removed from service completely shouldn't they? 

It could have also ended with everybody alive which would be the desired outcome.

Or could have ended up with two people dead. Policemen aren't supermen, have split second to decide.

[psyche101]

36 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Or could have ended up with two people dead. Policemen aren't supermen, have split second to decide.

That's why I suggested training with non lethal force. He did what he could with the limited tools he had. There's clearly room for improvement. And if tasers aren't up to the task, remove them completely or correct the flaws. I suspect police prejudice is part of that evaluation. It should be proven. No business uses equipment that is 40% efficient.

If both people lived it would have been the best outcome. It wasn't the best outcome. There's room for improvement. 

[bmk1245]

17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's why I suggested training with non lethal force. He did what he could with the limited tools he had. There's clearly room for improvement. And if tasers aren't up to the task, remove them completely or correct the flaws. I suspect police prejudice is part of that evaluation. It should be proven. No business uses equipment that is 40% efficient.

[...]

Right, bring unarmed social workers into conflict zone... Won't get many of those guys/gals left in the end...

And what do you mean by "police prejudice is part of that evaluation"? Are you implying racial issues?

17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

[...]

If both people lived it would have been the best outcome. It wasn't the best outcome. There's room for improvement. 

Yes, both people lived it would have been the best outcome. Can't argue with that. Though perpetrator being eliminated is better than victim ending being dead.

[+Paranoid Android]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I'm uncomfortable with you so flippantly calling death shots. 

I'm commenting on events that have already happened!  Within the context of the events,  I am very comfortable with the actions the police took, both with Bryant and with Babbitt!

It doesn't bother me if you are "uncomfortable" with this.  It's my opinion,  you have your opinion,  that's it!

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Outrage?

And you honestly don't think training should assist stupidity that ends lives?

The police were following their training!

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Should we just take warning labels of everything and let things sort themselves out? 

Honestly,  part of me would say yes to that,  at least with some of the more extreme and ridiculous warning labels (eg, putting  "CAUTION: CONTENTS MAY BE HOT" on a coffee cup - you honestly deserve to get burned if you can't work that out).  But most warning labels serve a legitimate purpose. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You don't seem to be picking up.that I understand the actions police took. What I'm proposing is better training to minimise the use of lethal force. 

They followed their training! You don't want "better training", you want "different training". Which is a completely separate discussion. I don't think you understand that Use of Force training demands lethal force under many circumstances,  including both the Bryant and Babbitt situations.  

 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why do you maintain that lethal force is the one and only answer? 

I'm advocating that police follow their training! Under the two circumstances I've discussed,  lethal force was the appropriate response based on the law and their training!

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Namely distance but also limited view created by hoards of more gutless people hiding behind and around her. 

You do remember she was halfway through a window? 

And your vast experience puts them on par how? 

And you also seem to be of the opinion that the current training is perfect and can't be improved. 

I disagree.

I haven't said anything about their current training,  except to say that they followed it appropriately. If the police want to change the way they train their staff, or change the Use of Force policies, that's another issue altogether,  I may or may not be for our against such a proposed change!

I certainly haven't said it's perfect.  

Edited March 13 by Paranoid Android

[psyche101]

36 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Right, bring unarmed social workers into conflict zone... Won't get many of those guys/gals left in the end...

Maybe just utilise methods to de-escalate and to consider a taser as first option. Better training for the first arrivals. There was no attempt to de-escalate. 

36 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

And what do you mean by "police prejudice is part of that evaluation"? Are you implying racial issues?

No prejudice against tasers. 

Some police just outright don't like them and feel lethal force is the only practical outcome. 

36 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Yes, both people lived it would have been the best outcome. Can't argue with that. Though perpetrator being eliminated is better than victim ending being dead.

So it's best to try to achieve the best outcome in future situations wouldn't you agree? 

[psyche101]

14 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm commenting on events that have already happened!  Within the context of the events,  I am very comfortable with the actions the police took, both with Bryant and with Babbitt!

It doesn't bother me if you are "uncomfortable" with this.  It's my opinion,  you have your opinion,  that's it!

 

The police were following their training!

 

Honestly,  part of me would say yes to that,  at least with some of the more extreme and ridiculous warning labels (eg, putting  "CAUTION: CONTENTS MAY BE HOT" on a coffee cup - you honestly deserve to get burned if you can't work that out).  But most warning labels serve a legitimate purpose. 

 

They followed their training! You don't want "better training", you want "different training". Which is a completely separate discussion. I don't think you understand that Use of Force training demands lethal force under many circumstances,  including both the Bryant and Babbitt situations.  

 

 

I'm advocating that police follow their training! Under the two circumstances I've discussed,  lethal force was the appropriate response based on the law and their training!

 

I haven't said anything about their current training,  except to say that they followed it appropriately. If the police want to change the way they train their staff, or change the Use of Force policies, that's another issue altogether,  I may or may not be for our against such a proposed change!

I certainly haven't said it's perfect.  

Try reading the post again

1 - Personally I find you overly comfortable with the outcome

2 - I suggested to improve training inclusive of non legal options

3 - I never said the officer was in the wrong or didn't follow current training

4 - I said it's not perfect and should consider improvements after cases like this where a better outcome would be desirable 

Don't care if you are for or against. Training would be organised by professionals whom are more experienced than you. You seem to be against improving current methods. That's the issue being discussed, not your false analogy.

[bmk1245]

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Maybe just utilise methods to de-escalate and to consider a taser as first option. Better training for the first arrivals. There was no attempt to de-escalate. 

[...]

Easier said than done. Your solution taser? If that not works, taser more?

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

[...]

Some police just outright don't like them and feel lethal force is the only practical outcome. 

[...]

No wonder, with 40% failure

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

[...]

So it's best to try to achieve the best outcome in future situations wouldn't you agree? 

Perp don't gives rats munch 'bout his life, try reason with him.

[bmk1245]

10 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Try reading the post again

1 - Personally I find you overly comfortable with the outcome

2 - I suggested to improve training inclusive of non legal options

3 - I never said the officer was in the wrong or didn't follow current training

4 - I said it's not perfect and should consider improvements after cases like this where a better outcome would be desirable 

Don't care if you are for or against. Training would be organised by professionals whom are more experienced than you. You seem to be against improving current methods. That's the issue being discussed, not your false analogy.

Aussies vs Kiwies...

[bmk1245]

Relax, penguin, just messing with yea...

[psyche101]

37 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Easier said than done. Your solution taser? If that not works, taser more?

Please read the posts 

I said either they work or do not. If they do not, then get rid of them. If they do, use them more often. Make a bloody decision. 

There are also other methods which are non lethal like stun guns. Make a decision and use what works. 

Again, no company uses machinery that is 40% efficient. Why use such a dubious product at all. 

37 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

No wonder, with 40% failure

If that's true, who was the person who recommended a product that is so ineffective? Are they still making recommendations and if so why?

37 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Perp don't gives rats munch 'bout his life, try reason with him.

Mikayla Bryant was a 16 year old girl. 

Edited March 13 by psyche101

[psyche101]

35 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Aussies vs Kiwies...

We are both Aussie.

I'm just the good sort is the difference. 

[bmk1245]

15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Please read the posts 

I said either they work or do not. If they do not, then get rid of them. If they do, use them more often. Make a bloody decision. 

There are also other methods which are non lethal like stun guns. Make a decision and use what works. 

Again, no company uses machinery that is 40% efficient. Why use such a dubious product at all. 

If that's true, who was the person who recommended a product that is so ineffective? Are they still making recommendations and if so why?

[...]

OK, make bloody desision, will yea

15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

[...[

Mikayla Bryant was a 16 year old girl. 

So? Criminal is criminal. Mikayla slashes your daugters throat, how youd feel?

[psyche101]

23 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

OK, make bloody desision, will yea

Dude is it your English?

Get rid of tasers or use them. That's what needs to happen. That's what I'm saying. 

Why are they in use of they are 40% effective? If that's true stun guns and rubber bullets need a comeback.

23 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

So? Criminal is criminal. Mikayla slashes your daugters throat, how youd feel?

And kids do stupid things that shouldn't be a death sentence  how would you feel if Mikayla was your daughter? 

[bmk1245]

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Dude is it your English?

[...]

Ain't Assie Polack

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

[...]

And kids do stupid things that shouldn't be a death sentence  how would you feel if Mikayla was your daughter? 

Stupid kid tries to shank your kid, I bet you will tare perp limb to limb.

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Try reading the post again

1 - Personally I find you overly comfortable with the outcome

2 - I suggested to improve training inclusive of non legal options

3 - I never said the officer was in the wrong or didn't follow current training

4 - I said it's not perfect and should consider improvements after cases like this where a better outcome would be desirable 

You also suggested that the officers skittle have looked for non-lethal solutions,  when the current training explicitly teaches otherwise. 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Don't care if you are for or against. Training would be organised by professionals whom are more experienced than you. You seem to be against improving current methods. That's the issue being discussed, not your false analogy.

I am not against improving things.  I'm just pointing out that in both situations the training they received was followed appropriately (training that was implemented by professionals who are more experienced than you).

It's a nice sentiment to imagine a non-lethal solution to every situation,  it just doesn't work in practice and not everyone can be saved. 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Ain't Assie Polack

Clearly not. 

I don't get why it's so hard to understand. 

3 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Stupid kid tries to shank your kid, I bet you will tare perp limb to limb.

Toutai Kefu didn't. I think he's an honorable man because he didn't. 

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You also suggested that the officers skittle have looked for non-lethal solutions,  when the current training explicitly teaches otherwise. 

I suggested his training should have given him the option. There was no attempt at de-escalation. 

I've not said the officer failed in his training. IMHO his training failed him. Pretty sure that what I said to begin with.

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I am not against improving things.  I'm just pointing out that in both situations the training they received was followed appropriately (training that was implemented by professionals who are more experienced than you).

Not denied 

People who are more experienced than I have also suggested non lethal approaches be given greater focus. 

Tasers are a non lethal option that doesn't get used often enough. If police have doubts about them, they should be pushing for improvement or replacement. Not putting up with something allegedly 40% efficient. That's repeating a process expecting a different result. Not going to happen. If anything, Mikayla's case should highlight that inefficiency. It clearly needs to be addressed. 

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It's a nice sentiment to imagine a non-lethal solution to every situation,  it just doesn't work in practice and not everyone can be saved. 

No it won't work in every situation. In this one I suspect it would have. There's no hard and fast rule to criminal activity. Reducing these situations is the goal. That's the only vantage point that offers a road to further improvement. 

[Golden Duck]

The Capitol Police should have been worried about the field of fire, while the Columbus Police didn't need to have the same concern when they didn't even stop the thrust of the knife.

[bmk1245]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Clearly not. 

I don't get why it's so hard to understand. 

Toutai Kefu didn't. I think he's an honorable man because he didn't. 

Lucky one time, may not be that lucky next time.

[itsnotoutthere]

pp

Perspective.

Edited March 13 by itsnotoutthere

[F3SS]

6 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

pp

Perspective.

I don’t even need that perspective to ask on what planet does that crime only get 180 days in jail. The judge either sympathizes with the crime or this is one of those equity sentences. Maybe it's both. Outrageous all around.

[Gromdor]

51 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I don’t even need that perspective to ask on what planet does that crime only get 180 days in jail. The judge either sympathizes with the crime or this is one of those equity sentences. Maybe it's both. Outrageous all around.

It's not either one.  Guy managed to luck out/delay the system (like a certain Orange man is currently doing) to get the initial charges to expire.  The 180 days was the max they could get him for under his Alford plea: No prison time in plea deal for Rochester man facing rape charges against juveniles under 10 (yahoo.com)

The charges won't even be on his record. 

Sadly, this isn't unusual- A teacher got 30 days and the 14year old victim killed herself: Former Montana teacher gets 30 days for student rape | Fox News

There are more I can link, but you get the idea.

Edit to add: On hindsight, that link I gave for Shea probably didn't give the best explaination on how the system failed.  Basically, he was a minor, covid delayed trial, charges expire, they attempt to charge him again when he was an adult, he makes his Alford plea, etc.

Edited March 13 by Gromdor

[+Paranoid Android]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I suggested his training should have given him the option. There was no attempt at de-escalation. 

I've not said the officer failed in his training. IMHO his training failed him. Pretty sure that what I said to begin with.

Not denied 

You keep saying "no attempt at de-escalation". Yet Use of Force policies demand officers meet a threat level with an equal or greater threat neutraliser. That means that if a person is in the middle of shanking someone, as Bryant was doing, the ONLY LEGAL OPTION that the officer has is to use lethal force. If the officer uses anything less than lethal force he is not following his training. Lethal force is a last resort option that officers have to deal with situations where a person's life is in direct danger. 

You may not like that, but that is the law. I am all for improving training, but blaming the training when the officers are doing everything they are told to do is simply wrong.

 

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

People who are more experienced than I have also suggested non lethal approaches be given greater focus. 

Activists, more like. 

 

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Tasers are a non lethal option that doesn't get used often enough.

In your opinion. 

 

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If police have doubts about them, they should be pushing for improvement or replacement. Not putting up with something allegedly 40% efficient. That's repeating a process expecting a different result. Not going to happen. If anything, Mikayla's case should highlight that inefficiency. It clearly needs to be addressed. 

No it won't work in every situation. In this one I suspect it would have. There's no hard and fast rule to criminal activity. Reducing these situations is the goal. That's the only vantage point that offers a road to further improvement. 

I think the laws that currently exist do what they need to reduce these situations. That they happen is still a tragedy, I'm not saying it's not. But if Bryant wasn't in the process of attempting to murder a fellow human being, she'd still be alive today. If Babbitt wasn't in the process of advancing on a room full of politicians while a riot was happening mere metres away, she'd still be alive today! 

I don't blame police officers when the individuals are guilty. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

You keep saying "no attempt at de-escalation". Yet Use of Force policies demand officers meet a threat level with an equal or greater threat neutraliser. That means that if a person is in the middle of shanking someone, as Bryant was doing, the ONLY LEGAL OPTION that the officer has is to use lethal force. If the officer uses anything less than lethal force he is not following his training. Lethal force is a last resort option that officers have to deal with situations where a person's life is in direct danger. 

You may not like that, but that is the law. I am all for improving training, but blaming the training when the officers are doing everything they are told to do is simply wrong.

Why is blaming the training wrong? You seem opposed to introducing non lethal options.

Why exactly is that?

That's the point your making. You keep mentioning officers for no good reason. They are not part of the discussion. Training is. Unless you feel it's perfect it can be improved. However that doesn't seem to be your problem here. Introducing a non lethal option is. I don't get that thinking. 

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Activists, more like. 

“We believe that the Taser is the best alternative out there,” said Sangamon County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Jack Campbell.

https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/crime/2010/04/11/a-question-force-tasers-can/41756147007/

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

In your opinion. 

So you're saying they should be used less and lethal force should be solely used? 

That seems to be where your heading and it's not a great place .

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I think the laws that currently exist do what they need to reduce these situations. That they happen is still a tragedy, I'm not saying it's not. But if Bryant wasn't in the process of attempting to murder a fellow human being, she'd still be alive today. If Babbitt wasn't in the process of advancing on a room full of politicians while a riot was happening mere metres away, she'd still be alive today! 

It doesn't sound like you find anything tragic about either situation. It sounds like you're insistent on arguing regardless of the situation.

Yes the laws exist to reduce these situations. I don't understand what you have against making them better. There's no way you can say a non lethal option would not have been the best outcome in both cases. If that can be achieved it should be. We shouldn't be "fine" that both died. It should be a tragedy that we can learn from to better systems. 

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't blame police officers when the individuals are guilty. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

Nobody did 

You're just a broken record and pushing barbaric wild west thinking. 

Edited March 13 by psyche101

[+Paranoid Android]

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Why is blaming the training wrong? You seem opposed to introducing non lethal options.

Why exactly is that?

That's the point your making. You keep mentioning officers for no good reason. They are not part of the discussion. Training is. Unless you feel it's perfect it can be improved. However that doesn't seem to be your problem here. Introducing a non lethal option is. I don't get that thinking. 

You haven't demonstrated their training is faulty, yet you are blaming their training. The only ones to blame are the criminals whose own actions led to their deaths! 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

“We believe that the Taser is the best alternative out there,” said Sangamon County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Jack Campbell.

https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/crime/2010/04/11/a-question-force-tasers-can/41756147007/

Do you read your own links? Of particular note is this: 

Quote

County use down, city use up

Police laud Tasers as a safer version of the billy club. Opponents say there’s not enough evidence to show that the weapons aren’t capable of causing serious injury or death, especially when used numerous times on the same individual.

The billy club is a police baton, and obviously a very different weapon to a gun. The police you are quoting is suggesting that the taser is a great alternative to the baton! 

The situation involving Ma'khia Bryant required police using a gun as per Use of Force Guidelines. 

I don't have any problems with police using tasers in non-lethal situations. 

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

So you're saying they should be used less and lethal force should be solely used? 

That seems to be where your heading and it's not a great place .

What a terrible interpretation of what I said. Have you ever noticed that you writing "so you're saying" is almost always followed by a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said? 

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It doesn't sound like you find anything tragic about either situation. It sounds like you're insistent on arguing regardless of the situation.

Yes the laws exist to reduce these situations. I don't understand what you have against making them better. There's no way you can say a non lethal option would not have been the best outcome in both cases. If that can be achieved it should be. We shouldn't be "fine" that both died. It should be a tragedy that we can learn from to better systems. 

I don't have anything against making them better. You haven't provided evidence of what is "worse" and how the police will "make it better", though. 

And I do find them tragic. Just because I don't whinge and moan about how sad it is now that someone I never met is dead doesn't mean I don't see a tragedy. 

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Nobody did 

You're just a broken record and pushing barbaric wild west thinking. 

When all else fails, resort to ad hominems and straw men. Very typical

Edited March 14 by Paranoid Android