The students aren't wrong, the officer should have let the man murder at least 7 students first, maybe 26 before shooting the machete out of the mans hand and asking him to kindly stop
A killer has rights you know
Man that guy who went off about justice [I]always[/I] coming from the barrel of a gun.. It's like that clip of Ozzy Ozbourne's daughter saying something racist about Mexicans but expecting thunderous applause, everyone is just sitting there like "oh god, somebody shut this idiot up".
From the old thread, there really were some pretty crazy people who were close friends of his and involved in some organizations he was. And as we know, people close to people like that do some FUCKING CRAZY rationalizations.
They need counseling p. much
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51523380]From the old thread, there really were some pretty crazy people who were close friends of his and involved in some organizations he was. And as we know, people close to people like that do some FUCKING CRAZY rationalizations.
They need counseling p. much[/QUOTE]
Yeah but putting him on a list of innocent "people of color" definitely makes it feel like this is more about anti-police protest than remembering their close friend. If it was just a sad eulogy to their "mentally ill" buddy I'd agree with you, but this seemed like they already had an agenda they wanted to push.
Political correctness can kill.
I think it's time to cut your losses and ditch the Political correctness game when you get openly laughed at and ridiculed on national broadcast.
Unfortunately though the people protesting this are the same people that don't know how to call it quits, don't know when enough is enough, and don't have the level of comprehension to realize they should be embarrassed.
Okay, I'm not going to watch the video because expecting Fox News to accurately cover liberal-leaning college protests is like expecting Pravda to accurately cover the Soviet economy. Seriously, I gave it a shot and was rolling my eyes in five seconds at the obvious bias.
There are some possible legitimate complaints. I don't know if they're what the protests are about, but it's a hell of a lot more likely than "dumb liberal kids complain about the cop saving their lives by shooting a black man". College students may be dumb but they're not that dumb.
The primary concern is "was lethal force necessary to subdue the suspect?". Given the choice between "subdue the suspect non-lethally and deliver them to the court for due process" and "kill them on the spot", the former is obviously preferable. We want every opportunity to make sure that the systems put in place to protect us do not run out of control. I do not know the particulars of this case, but for FBI use-of-force rules, a suspect is considered "armed with a lethal weapon" if they have a knife and are within a certain distance of you or an innocent (15ft IIRC). And that is only "force is permitted", not "force is required". Again, I don't know the specifics of this case, but if the officer had a nonlethal option that could have been used safely, but did not (I'm talking "tase him from 10 feet away", not "try to tackle him"), some complaint is reasonable. As much as we like to glamorize it in media, we generally don't like cops killing people, especially when better options exist.
Now, as a general personal principle, I do not question the actions of police during combat unless something particularly egregious comes to light. When violence is happening, pausing to consider all your options is usually the wrong choice - and so decisions that may have been sub-optimal can be forgiven. It's also too tempting to use information that was not available at the time, or to use 20/20 hindsight to criticize a decision that had unforeseen (and possibly unforeseeable) consequences.
Given what I currently know, there is nothing the officer did that was so blatantly wrong as to demand protest. I haven't been in any shootings but I've been in emergencies, I know enough of what that officer must have been going through to understand why less-than-perfect decisions can be fully excused. I reserve the right to protest should additional information come to light, but I personally do not think it is warranted. (Although perhaps the protesters know, or at least think they know, something I do not)
However, people go to college, in part, to learn what the real world is like. These are students. They can similarly be excused for not knowing certain adult things because that's why they're at university. We probably don't even need to elevate this to the news - other students are probably giving them the same argument I just gave, and the situation will resolve itself. Putting it on TV is only good for giving anti-liberals something to feel smug about.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51523811]I'm talking "tase him from 10 feet away"[/QUOTE]
And then they'll whinge about tasers being inhumane instead. These sorts of people are just blowhards who like to moan about things while feeling morally superior, regardless of whether their cause makes any sense.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51523811] These are students. They can similarly be excused for not knowing certain adult things because that's why they're at university.[/QUOTE]
Um If you're in college you're at least 18 given the rare younger 17 year old freshmen.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;51524315]Um If you're in college you're at least 18 given the rare younger 17 year old freshmen.[/QUOTE]
Maybe some people are mature, fully-functioning adults at 18. I certainly wasn't. Most of the students around me weren't. If you don't remember doing any dumb shit in college, you were probably just too drunk to remember it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51524282]And then they'll whinge about tasers being inhumane instead. These sorts of people are just blowhards who like to moan about things while feeling morally superior, regardless of whether their cause makes any sense.[/QUOTE]
not to mention tasing people who are about to murder might not even stop them. not to say that cops shouldn't use tasers more often, because they should, but not in life or death situations.
Tasers aren't reliable. You don't want to use something that isn't reliable in a life or death situation. Police can use lethal force to protect themselves or the public against a dangerous threat, and that's what they did. They met lethal force with lethal force. I hope some of these people crying about it realize it's possible that they wouldn't be here to cry about it had the officers not done it
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51523811]The primary concern is "was lethal force necessary to subdue the suspect?". Given the choice between "subdue the suspect non-lethally and deliver them to the court for due process" and "kill them on the spot", the former is obviously preferable.[/QUOTE]
No, the former is both more dangerous because (insert less than lethal thing here) is less reliably effective than shooting the person, and a waste of time and taxpayer money when you have someone actively stabbing people (just because he was bad at it doesn't change the clear intent).
Deadly force should be met with deadly force, period.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51523811]
The primary concern is "was lethal force necessary to subdue the suspect?". Given the choice between "subdue the suspect non-lethally and deliver them to the court for due process" and "kill them on the spot", the former is obviously preferable. .[/QUOTE]
Maybe when we got Phasers that can be set to stun this would be a valid point.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51524893]No, the former is both more dangerous because (insert less than lethal thing here) is less reliably effective than shooting the person, and a waste of time and taxpayer money when you have someone actively stabbing people (just because he was bad at it doesn't change the clear intent).
Deadly force should be met with deadly force, period.[/QUOTE]
Is taxpayer money really a concern in situations like these lol
Aren't police officers allowed to shoot anyone that is immediately and directly threatening the life of someone else?
Justice does not care about color or race.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51524337]Maybe some people are mature, fully-functioning adults at 18. I certainly wasn't. Most of the students around me weren't. If you don't remember doing any dumb shit in college, you were probably just too drunk to remember it.[/QUOTE]
That's not an excuse. You're a legal adult at 18, you should be held to adult standards of intelligence.
My only complaint with the video is that they refer to the students at Ohio state like a whole group yet I would imagine this was done by only a few students. I highly doubt the majority of the student body feels this way.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51525672]It is easier and simpler to perpetuate the notion of educational instituitions being ultraliberal shitholes I believe.[/QUOTE]
It's not entirely untrue, I keep seeing pieces of paper with "FIGHT RACISM, FIGHT IMPERIALISM, REMEMBER FIDEL CASTRO" and pictures of Karl Marx plastered around my unis campus
[QUOTE=Naught;51524397]not to mention tasing people who are about to murder might not even stop them. not to say that cops shouldn't use tasers more often, because they should, but not in life or death situations.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TheTalon;51524783]Tasers aren't reliable. You don't want to use something that isn't reliable in a life or death situation. Police can use lethal force to protect themselves or the public against a dangerous threat, and that's what they did. They met lethal force with lethal force. I hope some of these people crying about it realize it's possible that they wouldn't be here to cry about it had the officers not done it[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51524893]No, the former is both more dangerous because (insert less than lethal thing here) is less reliably effective than shooting the person, and a waste of time and taxpayer money when you have someone actively stabbing people (just because he was bad at it doesn't change the clear intent).
Deadly force should be met with deadly force, period.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51524913]Maybe when we got Phasers that can set to stun this would be a valid point.[/QUOTE]
I seem to have been extravagantly misunderstood. Perhaps willfully, since there seem to be a number of people here who care more about grumbling about kids-these-days and durn-politically-correct-libruls, but I'll avoid attributing malice what might just be miscommunication.
All those things I quoted above are all valid arguments [I]that I already agreed with[/I], at least in principle. I am not saying that the officer's actions were wrong in any way (based on all information I currently possess). In fact, I explicitly said the exact opposite - and went on to say that the mere existence of better options, had they existed, would not make the actions he instead took "wrong".
What I [I]am[/I] saying is "hey, these protestors are wrong, but they are wrong in a way that is far less wrong than they are being made out to be". There are varying degrees of "wrong" - and "you shouldn't shoot terrorists, we need to Initiate a Dialogue" is much more wrong than "was jumping straight to lethal force the correct decision in this situation?". If you are not passingly familiar with police combat, you could easily have false information or bad assumptions that could lead you to believe it was not, while still using perfect reasoning to do so. Or even if you do have some level of knowledge, someone applying 20/20 hindsight might also come to that conclusion. However, there is no reasonable chain of logic I can come up with, no matter how forgiving with the wrong assumptions or common fallacies, that can end with the conclusion "we shouldn't shoot terrorists if they're black". Which is why I highly doubt that that is what the protestors are arguing, and that arguing with the straw-man Fox News is pushing as their message is pointless, and serves only to unfairly demonize them, and taint related arguments (which may be much more valid) by relation.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51525464]That's not an excuse. You're a legal adult at 18, you should be held to adult standards of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
Sure. Hold them to adult standards of intelligence. But also don't assume they're children. They may be wrong, but don't assume they're wrong because they're whiney man-babies who have no idea how the world works, assume they're wrong because they're working off bad information, or are falling into common thought-traps like hindsight reasoning or neglecting unseen costs.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51525626]Here is where you are getting it wrong and an otherwise very sane, well-written comment is getting so many dumbs. These here are armchair comments. Really, once lethal force is permitted, there isnt simply many other options within that timeframe to stop the perpetrator as effectively as lethal force. Taser certainly doesnt cut it.[/QUOTE]
I suppose I should have emphasized that bit some more (I knew some level of misunderstanding was likely, since my position here is way more complicated than usual, which is why I'm writing so many fucking words to try to explain myself, but I guess I missed that part).
I said "a nonlethal option that could have been used safely" - and there likely was not a safe way. I am familiar with how tasers do not always stop someone - hell, I'm familiar with how [I]bullets[/I] do not always stop someone. The "could have been used safely" scenario I was thinking of was "no innocents within knife range, officer having clear line of fire and enough distance to draw another weapon should the taser fail" (which is probably more than the ten feet I originally specified, come to think of it). That is extraordinarily unlikely to have been the situation as it presented itself (I do not know, and I don't think that information is public yet, but it's definitely not likely). However, I hope you will agree that, [I]if[/I] that was the situation, protests would be much more reasonable - even if you disagree with the conclusion, I hope you can see that it is even less wrong than it would be if the scenario were otherwise.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51525817]It's not entirely untrue, I keep seeing pieces of paper with "FIGHT RACISM, FIGHT IMPERIALISM, REMEMBER FIDEL CASTRO" and pictures of Karl Marx plastered around my unis campus[/QUOTE]
I think this comes from most conservatives distrusting and refusing to take part in higher education.
A lot of boomer conservatives think a college education is just meant for brainwashing people into becoming walking democrat votes, so none of them really want to take part and challenge the beliefs of the left.
Theirs kids typically go on to get trade diploma's, join the military, or anything else that isn't college.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51525945]I think this comes from most conservatives distrusting and refusing to take part in higher education.[/QUOTE]
Also important to note that openly expressing conservative views right now might as well be social suicide because of the implied association with Trump and the alt-right.
I don't know what they're talking about.
I mean, I'd rather be alive than be sliced or have my neck slit by a raging murderer.
Good on the officers that took him down. Keep on doing it.
Somehow I suspect they would not have protested the killing of the attacker if it was a grazed and deranged white supremacist behind the terror attack killing random people. These people are the prime example of hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=srobins;51523358]Man that guy who went off about justice [I]always[/I] coming from the barrel of a gun.. It's like that clip of Ozzy Ozbourne's daughter saying something racist about Mexicans but expecting thunderous applause, everyone is just sitting there like "oh god, somebody shut this idiot up".[/QUOTE]
Kind of amazing that Kelly got Rancic fired from Fashion Police for "being a racist" in regards to black people and then says some amazing things about hispanics not three weeks later.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51523811]Okay, I'm not going to watch the video because expecting Fox News to accurately cover liberal-leaning college protests is like expecting Pravda to accurately cover the Soviet economy. Seriously, I gave it a shot and was rolling my eyes in five seconds at the obvious bias.
There are some possible legitimate complaints. I don't know if they're what the protests are about, but it's a hell of a lot more likely than "dumb liberal kids complain about the cop saving their lives by shooting a black man". College students may be dumb but they're not that dumb.
The primary concern is "was lethal force necessary to subdue the suspect?". Given the choice between "subdue the suspect non-lethally and deliver them to the court for due process" and "kill them on the spot", the former is obviously preferable. We want every opportunity to make sure that the systems put in place to protect us do not run out of control. I do not know the particulars of this case, but for FBI use-of-force rules, a suspect is considered "armed with a lethal weapon" if they have a knife and are within a certain distance of you or an innocent (15ft IIRC). And that is only "force is permitted", not "force is required". Again, I don't know the specifics of this case, but if the officer had a nonlethal option that could have been used safely, but did not (I'm talking "tase him from 10 feet away", not "try to tackle him"), some complaint is reasonable. As much as we like to glamorize it in media, we generally don't like cops killing people, especially when better options exist.
Now, as a general personal principle, I do not question the actions of police during combat unless something particularly egregious comes to light. When violence is happening, pausing to consider all your options is usually the wrong choice - and so decisions that may have been sub-optimal can be forgiven. It's also too tempting to use information that was not available at the time, or to use 20/20 hindsight to criticize a decision that had unforeseen (and possibly unforeseeable) consequences.
Given what I currently know, there is nothing the officer did that was so blatantly wrong as to demand protest. I haven't been in any shootings but I've been in emergencies, I know enough of what that officer must have been going through to understand why less-than-perfect decisions can be fully excused. I reserve the right to protest should additional information come to light, but I personally do not think it is warranted. (Although perhaps the protesters know, or at least think they know, something I do not)
However, people go to college, in part, to learn what the real world is like. These are students. They can similarly be excused for not knowing certain adult things because that's why they're at university. We probably don't even need to elevate this to the news - other students are probably giving them the same argument I just gave, and the situation will resolve itself. Putting it on TV is only good for giving anti-liberals something to feel smug about.[/QUOTE]
You're a hypocrite, you say its biased then you continue to not even watch it before shitposting.
Honestly I can't be fucked reading all that text but I already know you're an idiot.
[QUOTE=Tasm;51526986]
Honestly I can't be fucked reading all that text but I already know you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]
It's a vicious cycle.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51525817]It's not entirely untrue, I keep seeing pieces of paper with "FIGHT RACISM, FIGHT IMPERIALISM, REMEMBER FIDEL CASTRO" and pictures of Karl Marx plastered around my unis campus[/QUOTE]
i dunno, 2-3 people could do that easily but
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
