Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-07-2017, 11:19 AM
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
There's probably 1,000 things that led up this cop shooting this woman that had nothing to do with the particular incident. He was probably exhausted from doing shit that cops shouldn't have to do, like dealing with people with mental problems who should be receiving healthcare but aren't because this is America. His own healthcare and coverage probably sucks. Issues of stress, anxiety, depression, insomnia, addiction, all going completely unaddressed. I'm not posting this to excuse the cop or take his side. I'm talking about looking for a solution, not justice. We can say there's no excuse. For legal purposes that's fine. But there is a cause. Or most likely multiple causes. Instead, of excusing police brutality we need to work on addressing all the shit that leads up to it. That includes the despair of the citizenry. Not that this woman was a part of the nihilism of despair but indirectly she may have been a casualty of it. It's a complicated problem but if we want effective policing we can trust the police have to feel a certain way. They can't be stressed out of their minds or impaired with anxiety. It appears that a lot of this is because of nerves rather than malice. We have to address our problems. We can't look at everything in isolation. One thing leads to another. Cops need better pay, better healthcare, non-judgmental training and mental healthcare BEFORE this shit happens. Help with alternative job placement if it's not for them. Sabbaticals. And the people they're serving also need this. A lot of what I'm saying is not only do we need universal single payer healthcare but we need to really work a lot harder at protecting our mental health.

Sorry for those of you outside of America. I'm talking about our particular American baggage here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2017, 11:24 AM
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
(18-07-2017 11:17 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(18-07-2017 11:15 AM)SYZ Wrote:  WTF? This doesn't make any sense, either grammatically or morally. Huh

So—in a nutshell—it's "better" for a cop to die than an innocent civilian? Regardless of the circumstances, and all things being equal? Bizarre.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2017, 11:33 AM
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
(18-07-2017 11:19 AM)ImFred Wrote:  There's probably 1,000 things that led up this cop shooting this woman that had nothing to do with the particular incident. He was probably exhausted from doing shit that cops shouldn't have to do, like dealing with people with mental problems who should be receiving healthcare but aren't because this is America. His own healthcare and coverage probably sucks. Issues of stress, anxiety, depression, insomnia, addiction, all going completely unaddressed. I'm not posting this to excuse the cop or take his side. I'm talking about looking for a solution, not justice. We can say there's no excuse. For legal purposes that's fine. But there is a cause. Or most likely multiple causes. Instead, of excusing police brutality we need to work on addressing all the shit that leads up to it. That includes the despair of the citizenry. Not that this woman was a part of the nihilism of despair but indirectly she may have been a casualty of it. It's a complicated problem but if we want effective policing we can trust the police have to feel a certain way. They can't be stressed out of their minds or impaired with anxiety. It appears that a lot of this is because of nerves rather than malice. We have to address our problems. We can't look at everything in isolation. One thing leads to another. Cops need better pay, better healthcare, non-judgmental training and mental healthcare BEFORE this shit happens. Help with alternative job placement if it's not for them. Sabbaticals. And the people they're serving also need this. A lot of what I'm saying is not only do we need universal single payer healthcare but we need to really work a lot harder at protecting our mental health.

Sorry for those of you outside of America. I'm talking about our particular American baggage here.

A balanced fair post and very eloquently put imo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2017, 11:36 AM
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
(18-07-2017 11:24 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(18-07-2017 11:17 AM)tomilay Wrote:  

So—in a nutshell—it's "better" for a cop to die than an innocent civilian? Regardless of the circumstances, and all things being equal? Bizarre.

If you read my point honestly, you'd understand I really prefer that nobody and that includes the cop, should die.

A highly hypothetical example might demonstrate this better. "I shot that toddler because it was in the way" is more tragic, IMO, than the heroic "he jumped on the toddler, saved it as the gunman's bullets rained on him".

If I have to spell it out, I am not advocating for the killing of police.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like tomilay's post
18-07-2017, 11:41 AM
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
(18-07-2017 11:36 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(18-07-2017 11:24 AM)SYZ Wrote:  So—in a nutshell—it's "better" for a cop to die than an innocent civilian? Regardless of the circumstances, and all things being equal? Bizarre.

If you read my point honestly, you'd understand I really prefer that nobody and that includes the cop, should die.

A highly hypothetical example might demonstrate this better. "I shot that toddler because it was in the way" is more tragic, IMO, than the heroic "he jumped on the toddler, saved it as the gunman's bullets rained on him".

If I have to spell it out, I am not advocating for the killing of police.

If it's any consolation, I've understood what you meant the whole time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ResidentEvilFan's post
18-07-2017, 11:41 AM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2017 11:53 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
@SYZ

Isn't a police officer job to protect innocent civilians at the risk of his life? If he risks his life, we should ''expect'' him to lose it from time to time while protecting innocent civilians. That's sad and tragic, but it will happen at some point. We should also ''accept'' the fact that sometime, he will fail to protect innocent civilians, thus that they will die. That's also sad and tragic, but it will happen at some point. What we shouldn't ''accept'' is for the police officer to kill the innocent civilians he was supposed to protect in the first place. Of the three, I think this one is the worst. At least in the first two scenarios, people died while the police officer was doing what we expected of him not the exact opposite. I think that's what Tomilay was trying to express. It's the idea that the role and position of the police officer could be subverted to such a tragic degree.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like epronovost's post
18-07-2017, 11:47 AM
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
(18-07-2017 11:41 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @SYZ

Isn't a police officer job to protect innocent civilians at the risk of his life? If he risks his life, we should ''expect'' him to lose it from time to time while protecting innocent civilians. That's sad and tragic, but it will happen at some point. We should also ''accept'' the fact that sometime, he will fail to protect innocent civilians, thus that they will die. That's also sad and tragic, but it will happen at some point. What we shouldn't ''accept'' is for the police officer to kill the innocent civilians he was supposed to protect in the first place. Of the three, I think this one is the worst. At least in the first two scenarios, people died while the police officer was doing what we expected of him not the exact opposite. I think that's what Tomasia was trying to express. It's the idea that the role and position of the police officer could be subverted to such a tragic degree.

I'm assuming you mean Tomilay and not Tomasia,?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2017, 11:54 AM
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
(18-07-2017 11:47 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(18-07-2017 11:41 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @SYZ

Isn't a police officer job to protect innocent civilians at the risk of his life? If he risks his life, we should ''expect'' him to lose it from time to time while protecting innocent civilians. That's sad and tragic, but it will happen at some point. We should also ''accept'' the fact that sometime, he will fail to protect innocent civilians, thus that they will die. That's also sad and tragic, but it will happen at some point. What we shouldn't ''accept'' is for the police officer to kill the innocent civilians he was supposed to protect in the first place. Of the three, I think this one is the worst. At least in the first two scenarios, people died while the police officer was doing what we expected of him not the exact opposite. I think that's what Tomasia was trying to express. It's the idea that the role and position of the police officer could be subverted to such a tragic degree.

I'm assuming you mean Tomilay and not Tomasia,?

edited, thanks!

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2017, 12:30 PM
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
(18-07-2017 11:41 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @SYZ

Isn't a police officer job to protect innocent civilians at the risk of his life? If he risks his life, we should ''expect'' him to lose it from time to time while protecting innocent civilians. That's sad and tragic, but it will happen at some point. We should also ''accept'' the fact that sometime, he will fail to protect innocent civilians, thus that they will die. That's also sad and tragic, but it will happen at some point. What we shouldn't ''accept'' is for the police officer to kill the innocent civilians he was supposed to protect in the first place. Of the three, I think this one is the worst. At least in the first two scenarios, people died while the police officer was doing what we expected of him not the exact opposite. I think that's what Tomilay was trying to express. It's the idea that the role and position of the police officer could be subverted to such a tragic degree.


You're watching too much TV.

June 27th 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer does not have the constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.

Look it up.

A cop protects others of his own free will. He is not sworn to take a bullet for you, me, or anybody else. If he does, it' s simply because he's the better person...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2017, 01:01 PM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2017 01:06 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Australian Woman Killed By Police in Minnesota
(18-07-2017 12:30 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  You're watching too much TV.

June 27th 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer does not have the constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.

Look it up.

A cop protects others of his own free will. He is not sworn to take a bullet for you, me, or anybody else. If he does, it' s simply because he's the better person...

How is that pertinent to what I said?

Police officers are expected to put themselves in dangerous situation to keep the peace thus protecting innocent citizen. When a police officer flashes his lights to stop a speeding car he does so to protect innocent citizen because speeding cars are dangerous to others and the driver himself. He does so at the risk of starting a chase, getting assaulted, insulted or even shot by an angry driver. What the Supreme Court ruled is simply that a police officer can use his best professionnal judgement on how to deal with those risks. It's a ''no police martyr'' clause, not a ''it's not my job to protect you from dangerous criminals'' clause. We have to expect that police officers will stop dangerous criminals and that sometime one of them is going to tragically die while doing it because dangerous criminals are dangerous and criminals for a reason. We should minimise that risk, but not up to the point that the police itself would become more dangerous to civilians than the dangerous criminals it needs protection from.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: