• Michigan cop shot 5 times tells off judge
    336 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;35832896]they focused on one little piece of lankist's sentence, exploded its meaning into something random and non-related, then ran with it in a flash across like two pages of completely incomprehensible banter.[/QUOTE] I think you're right and I was only actually arguing against this post: [QUOTE=Lankist;35829105]You. You live in a very sheltered little world if you think you can trust police implicitly. They lie, fabricate evidence, discriminate and kill. You can call that the minority of police, but I'd rather distrust the majority than be caught dealing with that minority.[/QUOTE] That logic is extremely flawed. I actually agree with him that many police are corrupt and get away with shit that they shouldn't get away with, and they do fabricate evidence and lie. I would say that the majority do not do these things, but there are probably quite a lot. I might be biased in this sort of thing because there are four cops in my family.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35839893]I'm saying the two are incomparable. So if I'm not understanding you, you're either saying they are comparable or you're just putting that out there to be racist.[/QUOTE] I'm saying there's a comparison between crimes committed by African Americans and their DNA? Yeah, you're not understanding me. When people assume that all police officers are corrupt assholes, it's no different than assuming all African Americans are criminals. It's a stereotype - an exaggerated assumption. Are some black people criminals? Sure. Are some cops corrupt? Yes. I'm not racist and I even said that. It was just an analogy. Understand now?
First off: The system could be construed as corrupt. It's not really up for contention that police officers can get off easy on a crime that than Everyman Joe would be harshly or semi-harshly punished for. Yes, bad cops can get away with crimes because of the fact that they're a cop. This is an unfortunate result of the best system we've come up with that's actually worked. The reason cops are treated more lax in terms of consequences of their actions is because sometimes cops have to make tough decisions that are in-the-moment, and the law recognizes that. A cop is in pursuit of someone that tried to rob a place at gunpoint, and that person reaches a dead end in their escape. They immediately reach in their jacket and pull something out. The cop shoots that person. It is quickly found out that that person didn't pull out a gun, they pulled out their cellphone for whatever reason. So why the hell would the cop shoot them if it was just a cellphone? A regular civilian would be sent to prison for quite a while if they shot some person in an alley that was pulling out their cellphone. These are things we have the luxury of criticizing in retrospect. If the cop in that little example was charged for manslaughter that wouldn't make sense, and so they are treated in a way that makes the most sense for someone in their line of work. Is it up for dispute that it DOESN'T make sense? Sure, I'm obviously just stating my opinion, given that I'm typing it. The point is that any "system" society has set up can be criticized in this manner. But to avoid bringing up a moot point, one should not only criticize, but pose an actual solution that would, on the whole, be more beneficial than the system we have now. You don't have to, but just know that your arguments have been heard countless times before, and there are various reasons why they haven't influenced actual law. Lankist, I concluded that you were trolling around the time you first started posting in this thread. Using slippery slope logic at every turn (we give cops guns, it only makes sense that they'll kill innocent people) and treating King Tiger's obviously sarcastic comments as serious parts of the discussion were big hints. But generally being suspiciously unwavering with your position even against casual comments about the OP is what gave you away. Same with Lachz0r. You see a thread that will inevitably be controversial, and see an opportunity to be controversial yourself and cause pages of arguments. Congratulations, I guess. That--^ was serious. Now, what I failed to mention that you may approve of, considering one of your repeated points, is that I never go outside because I'm deathly afraid of being struck by lightning. It would REALLY suck if I was that one person out of 1,00--large number of people--that got zapped. I might even die. That--^ was a joke. See the difference? Oh, and [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35839893]I'm saying the two are incomparable. So if I'm not understanding you, you're either saying they are comparable or you're just putting that out there to be racist.[/QUOTE] ...He was being sarcastic and using overstatement to show how ridiculous the argument against cops in this thread really is.
i think its cool how, rather than actually addressing my points, you call troll that's new [editline]6th May 2012[/editline] Hey everyone if you have an unpopular take on a story that means you're a TROLL because it's IMPOSSIBLE that someone actually has more relevant input on this field than the internet at large.
[QUOTE=visiblewind;35850552]This is an unfortunate result of the best system we've come up with that's actually worked. The reason cops are treated more lax in terms of consequences of their actions is because sometimes cops have to make tough decisions that are in-the-moment, and the law recognizes that. A cop is in pursuit of someone that tried to rob a place at gunpoint, and that person reaches a dead end in their escape. They immediately reach in their jacket and pull something out. The cop shoots that person. It is quickly found out that that person didn't pull out a gun, they pulled out their cellphone for whatever reason. So why the hell would the cop shoot them if it was just a cellphone? [B]A regular civilian would be sent to prison for quite a while if they shot some person in an alley that was pulling out their cellphone.[/B][/QUOTE] That's actually batshit insane, ludicrously incorrect, and part of the dangerous fetishization of police in this country. Being reminded some of the uneducated believe this is terrifying. [B]Police have no additional rights to use of force compared to any normal citizen, except as that extends to making an arrest.[/B] Citizens have the capacity to make arrests for felonies in most states anyway, making the distinction effectively between who can and cannot shove someone a bit to get them into a squadcar. In the circumstances you describe, a citizen in the exact same position as a police officer (pursuit of someone who committed a felony to arrest them, and then shooting them believing they were in danger) would get the exact same treatment by the courts. Period. We do [I]not[/I] give police special treatment with regards to use of force. This is made explicit repeatedly during coursework and training. [editline]6th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35829105]i don't know what this is supposed to mean but aight[/QUOTE] I was criticizing you for being less than eloquent earlier. Then I notice this thread is full of the types of guy who masturbate to Dirty Harry. Negates the criticism a smidge.
haahhaah best system we've got? americas got one of the worst fucking law enforcement systems in the goddamn western world lol.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.