[Newfie]

Dissident,

I think you are close to answering many of your questions. I did not watch the video but will try to respond as best I can.

But first, I agree that too many folks are shot by cops. No system will ever be perfect and there will always be failures, but we need to keep at it to reduce these failures.

Philadelphia has 2,000 officers and funding for 200 tasers per year.

Tasers are not always effective. The fellow shot in the back by the cops had just been tasered twice and simply walked away. There is another video, police body cam, of a stop where the perp was eventually tazered but still manage to shoot both cops and kill one, the one with the body cam. In fact this guy, who was given every possible opportunity to cooperate was also heavily sprayed besides being tazered, and restrained by 2 officers.

I can see that cops may not have a lot of faith in these methods.

But also, look at the cops. Look at all the shit they already have on their belts.l and they have these vests. And they have to drive around with all that crap. Now you want to add tazers and spray.

But then there is the decision tree that these guys must work through. They roll up to an incident, there is a guy with a knife. The col has on a vest, a BALLISTIC vest, intended to stop bullets, not knives. There are vests against knives, but they are a different design. So the cop has little protection against knives. The cop is being threatened, he is in an excited physical and mental state, now you want him to calmly consider his options: wrestle with the perp, spray him (which way is the wind blowing? Will I disable myself or my partner?), tazer (what kind of clothes is the guy wearing? Will it be effective?), or do I shoot him?

As to intentional non-lethal shooting (foot, leg, etc) there are a number of factors but consider this. The guy shot is the back, cop had a hand in him and still missed 3 of 7 times. But also where does the bullet go? It is hard to enough to shoot someone in the center of mass, which will stop the bullet. When you are shooting at a leg or other extremity then you have a significant chance the billet will ricochet and injure/kill a bystander. And what are you trying to accomplish, wound the guy so he stops? Typically in these circumstances where gun fire is warranted the guy is sky high or in some mentally agitated state. You could shoot him in the leg and he might no even know it. It is not uncommon to fatally shoot a deer with a high powered rifle, with a well placed shot, and have it run over a hundred yards before succumbing. Adrenline will make a person do amazing things. Thats why coos are trained to shoot to physically stop the person, hit the center of mass and hope you hit something vital, assume the perp is gonna keep on coming until he cant.

So thats what cops are trained to do and why. Sure tazers and gas work sometimes. Has is used in jails where the inmates don't have access to knives or firearms. Corrections officers don't wear guns in the jail but do when transporting an inmate.

Its complicated.

[ralfy]

Why is Crowder laughing?

Also, "21 Foot Rule and "proportional threat"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h0-q_IJbxE

[AdamB]

Why is Crowder laughing?

Also, "21 Foot Rule and "proportional threat"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h0-q_IJbxE

In concealed carry classes for citizens in my state, the 21 foot is mentioned not so much as a hard limit, but one dependent upon the situation. Convince Joe Citizen that you really are going to shoot him from 40 yards away with your rifle, and Joe Citizen is not constrained by the 21 foot rule. Joe Citizen is also not expected to be the target of some random miscreant coming at them on a dead run, which is good because getting a firearm from concealment probably takes longer than a police officer can do it from their holster. Joe Sixpack can get arrested for bringing out their firearm and NOT using it, generally not a situation that Joe Policeman has to worry about.

Within the residence of Joe Sixpack, there aren't many rules at all that apply. The very presence of an uninvited guest is enough justification to begin perforating the perpetrator. Just don't do it in the garage, yard or porch.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Tasers are not always effective. The fellow shot in the back by the cops had just been tasered twice and simply walked away.

If a guy has walked away and isn't currently actively endangering the cops or the public, WHY do they need to shoot him in the back with a gun? (Like they didn't need to repeatedly beat Rodney King while he was lying on the ground, unarmed).

I don't see why that's necessary or acceptable. And if the cops have a little time, why not try rubber bullets first before lethal fire? Rubber bullets are no joke with a gun having stopping power.

And I'm NOT saying it's OK that people actively fight with cops with weapons including knives, and sometimes when such people get shot because a cop reasonably fears for his life, THEN I ask "why the hell are certain groups of people frequently fighting with cops and expecting nothing bad to ever happen?"

Hell, I look about as dangerous as a little girl, and I'm ALWAYS polite, keep my hands where a cop can see them, and ask permission BEFORE reaching for anything like my wallet, my glove compartment, etc. as startling a cop or pissing him/her off isn't on my agenda (nor is getting shot or smashed in the head with a club, etc). It's not that I necessarily love cops, though I appreciate those who do their job properly - it's simply about self-interest.

Somehow, manners, common sense, decency, etc. seems to have often left the field for BOTH teams. It's insane.

[Newfie]

In this case the guy:
Had an open warrant
Had just shown extremely poor judgement
Was acting as if on drugs or otherwise not within control
Was getting into a car, not his own, with children inside.

Because of the warrant the cops would have been required to hive chase.

Because of his very recent behavior, resisting arrest, and stealing a car, with children he was continuing to show extremely poor judgement.

So if the cop lets him drive off then he is putting the kids in mortal danger.

OR the cop says “This stops here.”

What would you have had the cops do if they were your kids?

[vtsnowedin]

I expect riots after the election.
It remains to be seen how well the leaders in those cities will deal with something they have had advance warning of and time to make preparations.
To me the answer is to declare that the police have no tear gas or tasers with them and will shoot on sight any looter or anyone throwing an object at the police.
Then you only have to shoot a couple of very stupid people before everybody else goes home to be safe.
Draconian I know but do you have a better plan?

[Newfie]

Philadelphia just banned less than lethal deterrents for crowd control, riots. They apparently think this is a humanitarian and progressive measure.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Philadelphia just banned less than lethal deterrents for crowd control, riots. They apparently think this is a humanitarian and progressive measure.

Well, Philly is a great city, but if the cops have to just let riots proceed as long as they don't get bad ENOUGH to justify legal force, I'm happy to just stay away from now on.

[Plantagenet]

Well, Philly is a great city, but if the cops have to just let riots proceed as long as they don't get bad ENOUGH to justify legal force, I'm happy to just stay away from now on.

No doubt crime will go up in Philly just like its going up in other cities where the Ds have attacked the police. I'm amazed that Ds think riots, arson, looting and increased violent crime are OK, but for some reason the Ds think that if someone shouting a BLM slogan smashes and window and steals a TV and then sets the store on fire then "racial reckoning" is going on........to me it just looks like rampant criminality.


Racial reckoning or rampant theft and criminality? Other then the BLM slogans, is there a difference?

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

No doubt crime will go up in Philly just like its going up in other cities where the Ds have attacked the police. I'm amazed that Ds think riots, arson, looting and increased violent crime are OK, but for some reason the Ds think that if someone shouting a BLM slogan smashes and window and steals a TV and then sets the store on fire then "racial reckoning" is going on........to me it just looks like rampant criminality.


Racial reckoning or rampant theft and criminality? Other then the BLM slogans, is there a difference?
Cheers!

One thing I was struck by was how just about every business in downtown Philly had strong, metal, lockable doors one had to be buzzed through, to enter or exit.

Apparently it was to prevent rampant shoplifting. This was in the 80's.

Now, is that a black criminal problem since lots of the folks shopping in downtown Philly were black -- or is that a poverty problem, because a lot of the people in poverty in big cities like Philly are black?

I'm certain that staunch liberals and staunch conservatives are going to tend to come at that issue from VERY different belief systems, well over 90% of the time.

As a moderate, I'm suspicious when either side tries to pretend that it's all or nearly all clearly one way or the other. And of course, in our current environment, it's not like EITHER side is going to be doing much LISTENING re causes or solutions.

...

What I am certain of is that store owners who have been serving largely black communities for years or decades or (with their parents, grandparents, etc) generations, are NOT the primary cause of all racial injustice, so I'm not buying the whole "It's OK because it's all racial reckoning" mantra.

[Newfie]

I lived in Philly for a long time and worked there longer and do not recall having to be buzzed through, but my memory is suspect!

I have been saying, since the 80’s, that we are creating a bifurcated society, and that is going to be a big problem, and here we are. There are always a lot of ways to view a problem, each with a degree of validity.

My personal hobby horse is that it is a failure of the education system. I count at least six layers of segregation.
White flight
Religious schools (catholic, jewish, baptist, etc.
Private schools for the well heeled
Magnate schools to promote racial equality, segregate the smart kids
Charter schools for kids with an advocate
And then public schools for the dregs and unfortunates

And thats just in the cities.

More recently I have pondered the possibility we are creating a caste system.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Magnate schools to promote racial equality, segregate the smart kids

So while you are discussing failure of the education system, you mean "magnet" schools, right? The irony is palpable.

After I graduated from college, did teachers just quit correcting peoples' papers, or did they accept any word that sounded similar to the intended word?

[AdamB]

More recently I have pondered the possibility we are creating a caste system.

Now this is an interesting idea. I've thought along these lines myself, but never quite put a name to it. I was thinking it was primarily along the lines of education, which leads to segregation of opportunity, income, and then just keeps going right into the next generation, continuing to reinforce the scheme all along the way. Developing a caste system.

[evilgenius]

I lived in Philly for a long time and worked there longer and do not recall having to be buzzed through, but my memory is suspect!

I have been saying, since the 80’s, that we are creating a bifurcated society, and that is going to be a big problem, and here we are. There are always a lot of ways to view a problem, each with a degree of validity.

My personal hobby horse is that it is a failure of the education system. I count at least six layers of segregation.
White flight
Religious schools (catholic, jewish, baptist, etc.
Private schools for the well heeled
Magnate schools to promote racial equality, segregate the smart kids
Charter schools for kids with an advocate
And then public schools for the dregs and unfortunates

And thats just in the cities.

More recently I have pondered the possibility we are creating a caste system.

That is a very interesting way of looking at it! Americans do understand class, they are just confused about what money can do for them. It can give their children a lot of opportunity, but you have to engage yourself, if you want to jump classes. You can pay for the best teachers. That's about all that you can do with money. Otherwise, you have to engage. That means being willing to change your entire construct, based upon what you discover. Developing a concept of tolerance that lets you sin now and again, but still takes you in the right direction, is probably the first thing most people do. You can be stingy about paying taxes, and still understand tolerance. But then there is this creepy feeling there is more going on. I like your point about caste systems.

[Newfie]

There is some irony here. The big cities like to see themselves as bastions of inclusiveness but have all these enclaves and separations.

I grew up in a rural area, one school for everyone. So we all bumped into one another, all classes and pay grades mingled. There was segregation along lines of perceived ability, 7 levels. Level 1 got different programming from level 2. Level 7 were all special needs kids. But we all rode the same bus, all ate the same lunch, all went to the same gym.

It was similar with the draft, with exceptions. For the most part the draft is encouraged the commingling of the classes, backgrounds, education, geographical regions. The all volunteer army has encouraged a military class and relieved the middle class from being worried their son would be killed, that is for the others.

[evilgenius]

That's right. Money can also buy a person the freedom not to have to go into the military. If a person can get even a community college degree, they can achieve the sort of separation that going into the military could give them. The military will always take you, and it doesn't cost any money. They might teach you something useful.

It takes resources to go to even community college. And it's not just community college that a person can throw money at in order to save either themselves or their children from a bleaker future. There are coding camps and technical schools that are sort of on that same level, which some lower middle class to middle class people could choose. I think most upper class people choose university. Poor people choose from the lower list as well, in order to help them rise. The most important thing is to reach a level of wisdom where the view is not of the next paycheck as received, but of organizing and planning in such a way that creates what they will look like in the future.

[vtsnowedin]

A poor teenager, minority or not, that joins the military immediately gets middle class status and income. A good choice for many that have the brains but not the money for college.

[Newfie]

VT,

That pretty well describes me back in 1972. 3 years out of high school, aimless life, low draft number. I needed a reset, 3 hots and a cot.

I was a CO but that just meant 4 years instead of 2 (thank you President Nixon) with nothing to show for the effort. So I renounced my CO status and joined the USCG. It worked for me. Gave me the stability and discipline I needed to scoop up my shit.

But I never really fit in there.

[dohboi]

eg wrote: "The most important thing is to reach a level of wisdom..."

I think the poor don't lack much in wisdom, by and large. That is more the case for the super rich.

Recent studies have shown that if most poor people are given a substantial chunk of money to spend however they wish, they spend it in quite rational ways--stable housing, education/training, etc.

https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/de ... t_help.pdf

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... r-families

https://unu.edu/publications/articles/g ... eople.html

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/coronavi ... employment

[vtsnowedin]

I think intelligence is pretty evenly spread across the masses from rich to poor. A poor man can be intelligent but not educated but the brightest will find a way to get that education or self teach themselves. Others learn by experience and develop a high level of skills and common sense that serves them well.
The well to do or rich have the advantage of the education their parents provide for them among other advantages but there are some both rich and poor that are born stupid and no amount of education can fix that.
The most annoying people are the rich that got into the top schools on their daddy's dime and never bothered to really learn anything but think they are the smartest people in the world.