Fucking Guns

1246720

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I did plan to arrive earlier and vote myself. I was going to do my best John Wayne and when they arrested me, start yelling, "Trump told me to vote. He said it would be OK".
    Just speak with Russian accent.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I've seen pictures - presumably not photoshopped - of people turning up to the anti-gun violence rallies with open carry AR-15s.

    At least we know who the dicks are now.
    Someone needs too (quite possibly has done) get photos of each and everyone of those jerks* with their substitute dicks on display, post each of them on social media with a caption of "supports the murder of children". Even better if they can be named.

    * point of order. They aren't "dicks", they are dickless half-men needing to compensate for their lack down below with the biggest gun they can legally (for now) own and wave around.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    tbf, naming and shaming worked well for the Nazi rallies back in summer.
  • I'm for it. But would that approach create incitement to do any one of many nasty things to the miscreants? And that could cause trouble for the protesting kids, even if they aren't the ones doing nasty things.
  • Hasn't the nasty stuff already been done? Those kids have already been victims of intimidation by gun wielding nutters, some of them seen first hand the effects of those guns. I understand that the dickless wonders were within the letter of the law in being there with their junk out for all to see, so the police couldn't do anything. But, they deserve to know that their actions have consequences.
  • What I was trying to say is that if the gun creeps' pictures and names are put on social media, it's likely that someone, somewhere, will do something to them (including violence), their identity and finances, etc.

    If that happens, the gun creeps might have cause to bring a suit for any of the things done to them--or even make criminal complaints.

    That could cause a lot of trouble for a lot of people.

    And the NRA has got to be considering civil or criminal charges for hate speech against the protestors..

    As I said in my previous post, I'm basically for going after the gun creeps (legally and non-violently). But bad things could be set in motion, and consequences have to be considered.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I understand that the dickless wonders were within the letter of the law in being there with their junk out for all to see, so the police couldn't do anything.

    Which speaks volumes in itself.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    There was another march, to Montgomery from Selma, starting on 21 March 1965, and following the "Bloody Sunday" attacks by police and state troopers near the Edmund Pettus bridge on March 7th. Pete Seeger observed that the young people on that march, added another verse to "We shall overcome" which they sang on that march. It was "we are not afraid, today".

    How do you stand up to intimidation? Particularly if the law seems impotent, or even involved in the intimidation? The answer seems to be that "we stand". It is a communal expression of belief in the rightness of a cause.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    mt--

    I don't think I have, either. But, at protests, there's usually someone, on any side, who makes a mistake, does something stupid, or is perceived to do something stupid. And it falls apart from there.

    Plus I gather that if one cop is in trouble, even self-caused, the others go into support her/him, especially with a "mob" that seems to be out of control. They learn to protect each other on duty every day. And there's a good chance that will kick in at a protest.

    FWIW.

    The National Guard did at Kent State. Of course, police are (purportedly) trained to actually police not wage war on its citizens.
  • Hasn't the nasty stuff already been done? Those kids have already been victims of intimidation by gun wielding nutters, some of them seen first hand the effects of those guns. I understand that the dickless wonders were within the letter of the law in being there with their junk out for all to see, so the police couldn't do anything. But, they deserve to know that their actions have consequences.


    Yes. We need a special, sub-level of hell to discuss the sort of person who would walk into a march of children, led by children who had very recently experienced the extreme trauma of watching their friends murdered in front of their eyes, and take actual joy in assuming a bullying, mocking, threatening pose towards children exercising their 1st amendment right of protest. I have led too sheltered a life to even have the vocabulary to discuss such a thing.

  • [ignorant questions]
    Are there laws in the US against intimidation, particularly in relation to attempting to silence the exercise of First Amendment rights?

    Do laws relating to assault also cover emotional distress? Could someone be charged for behaving in a manner likely to cause distress to others?
    [/ignorant questions]
  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    Here is a synopsis of the definition of the crime of intimidation in my state (where we did have people with assault rifles at our march):
    ++++

    A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:

    (1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;

    (2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful action


    http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-45-2-1.html

    ++++

    Intimidation can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the level of threat
  • Lyda wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    mt--

    I don't think I have, either. But, at protests, there's usually someone, on any side, who makes a mistake, does something stupid, or is perceived to do something stupid. And it falls apart from there.

    Plus I gather that if one cop is in trouble, even self-caused, the others go into support her/him, especially with a "mob" that seems to be out of control. They learn to protect each other on duty every day. And there's a good chance that will kick in at a protest.

    FWIW.

    The National Guard did at Kent State. Of course, police are (purportedly) trained to actually police not wage war on its citizens.

    For anyone who's not familiar with the 1970 Kent State shootings, here's the Wikipedia article. The iconic photo is at the top right of the page.
  • Would the Ohio National Guard be considered a "well regulated militia"?
  • Well, its interesting. Given that so many Americans had been killed by Americans before this, what made this shooting the seminal event it became? Is it too simple to say that this was rich white kids being shot at, instead of Black Americans? Was it that song? It can't be that simple can it? Surely before Kent State Black American citizens had been killed by the police acting as police and not vigilantes, if that makes a difference.
  • I'm livid about something someone said in the news. I was going to do a full call to Hell; but it would probably get redirected here, to keep things tidy.

    So I call Rick Santorum to Hell.

    Rick Santorum: Students should learn CPR, not seek 'phony gun laws' (Chicago Trib).
    "How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that when there is a violent shooter that you can actually respond to that," the Republican said on CNN's "State of the Union."

    May his dentist do a root canal on each and every one of his teeth, then wire his jaw shut. And not give him any follow-up pain relievers. Then may survivors of all the different school shootings all the Pirates of the Caribbean put him in a huge stuff bag, and pour in a bag of itching powder, and seal up the bag, after putting a couple of air holes in. Then put him in a driverless submarine that will go with the currents at only 1 mile an hour, all around the world. Then launch the sub.

    If he doesn't wait for someone else to solve his problem, he may find his way out of the bag. In which case, the sub is packed with several years' worth of basic supplies. Somewhere on the sub, there just might be a ship-to-shore radio hidden...

    And may giant squids decide the sub is a new toy. Maybe they'll do CPR on him, as necessary.

    {Note to anyone concerned: This is just me venting. No one should do this.}

    We now return you to your s'more-making session.

  • OK, after expressing my gut reaction to anything Santorum spouts ...

    1. CPR. Yes, good, a skill that far more people should have. But, nothing to do with the current crisis of guns and school shootings. CPR wouldn't do much good when your class mates have been shot.

    2. Telling people not to campaign for laws to protect them or others. What the Fuck? Does this arse-wipe actually believe in democracy? Maybe he'd like to tell the NRA the same thing, that they shouldn't be campaigning for relaxing gun control so people can arm themselves on the very spurious basis that "a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"? Or tell the Religious Right that they shouldn't campaign for anti-abortion laws, or to define marriage according to a narrow definition of their own making?
  • And now from a saner person:
    Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said in an op-ed Tuesday that the Second Amendment should be repealed, citing the protests in response to the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, as an impetus for the change.

    :notworthy:



  • Amen to that.

    IJ
  • Hear.
  • Foaming DraughtFoaming Draught Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    I was going to post a clip of “And so say all of us”. But it’s about being a jolly good fellow, which rather undoes @Boogie ‘s well made point, so I’ll just use the refrain:
    And so say all of us.
  • I heard on the podcast The History of England that King Henry VIII was once so constipated that his doctors filled a pig's bladder with herbs and oil and shoved it up the royal backside, where it stayed slowly disgorging its contents for two hours.

    May Rick Santorum experience similar treatment.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I heard on the podcast The History of England that King Henry VIII was once so constipated that his doctors filled a pig's bladder with herbs and oil and shoved it up the royal backside, where it stayed slowly disgorging its contents for two hours.

    May Rick Santorum experience similar treatment.

    I have the awful idea that Mr Santorum would like this
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    What Mr Santorum likes is spotlights. He's an idiot who misses all the press he used to get while running for President, and is probably considering running again. He's best ignored.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Yes, I would rather talk about John Stevens than Rick Santorum. I'm thrilled that Justice Stevens has opened the conversation about repealing the Second Amendment. I think it's the only answer. For years and years now every small effort at gun control has run up against conservative wall called "The Constitution." Often they think that's the only point that needs to be made.

    The left works so hard to make tiny changes that usually wont pass and wont make much difference if they do. If we pass a law making it impossible for mentally ill people or felons to buy guns they will probably just use their family member's gun or steal one. As long as guns are everywhere making access a little harder for some people wont matter much. Police will expect a gun in the hand of a suspect when it's only a cell phone.

    "The constitution!" argument allows the pro-gun side to ignore the cries of school students, to ignore the evidence that "a good guy with a gun" doesn't really stop the bad guys. One recent armed guard at a school chose not to engage the shooter, and then, in the next incident to make news, the guard did engage the shooter but his bullet either missed (always a huge danger in a school setting) or didn't matter because the shooter and already shot himself.
    Why did that boy and his girlfriend have to die? Because the boy's father owned a gun so there was no time for him to get over the break-up. It's the prevalence that's the main problem.

    I know lots of people think repealing the constitution is an extremist view but I think it's our only answer. Justice Steven
  • Telling people not to campaign for laws to protect them or others. What the Fuck? Does this arse-wipe actually believe in democracy? Maybe he'd like to tell the NRA the same thing, that they shouldn't be campaigning for relaxing gun control so people can arm themselves on the very spurious basis that "a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"? Or tell the Religious Right that they shouldn't campaign for anti-abortion laws, or to define marriage according to a narrow definition of their own making?

    No, no, you don't understand. The 2nd Amendment is sacred, sacramental, the ground of our being, the very air which we breathe. The 1st Amendment-- really just an offhand palate cleanser to get us to the 2nd, not meant to be taken seriously at all.

  • If sensible gun control gets passed in the US, what will happen to the millions upon millions of guns out there, many of which were bought or exchanged hands, through legal loopholes in the background check system or illegally, in such a way that there is no way to track who owns them? I feel a large number of the hardest of second amendment supporters and criminals would refuse to hand the assault weapons or any other guns that would be illegal in a new gun control regime in in an amnesty. I suspect paranoid weapons stockpilers would go on stockpiling weapons - and would turn increasingly to the black market as legal means of obtaining weapons of war were shut off, and standoffs like Ruby Ridge and Waco would become frequent, giving rise to martyrs that would encourage a whole new generation of antigovernment gun fanatics.

    The insecurities at perceived loss of racial, gender, and economic privilege that motivate white men to public violence will, I fear, not die out with the baby boomers. I even fear that as many Latinos, particularly fair-skinned ones without much Amerindian identity, begin to assimilate to white culture in the second and third generation after arriving in the US and even begin to identify as and be seen as white (think of George Zimmerman) - this is precisely what happened with the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jewish people, Lebanese Christians, and is increasingly happening with children of Whites and Asians, although not to Asians themselves - as this assimilation occurs, there will be even more disgruntled young white men disappointed with not getting with they feel is owed to them who feel a need to arm themselves to the teeth.

    I think we may very well see some meaningful gun reform having to do with future gun sales emerge from the post-Parkland movement. This would help reduce mass shootings and gun violence generally. But I doubt much can be done about the millions of guns already out there. There will still be mass shootings, criminals will still manage to get the deadliest of weapons, and militias will still be preparing for the next civil war. And as much hope as I have for some change in my lifetime, the ongoing gun disease in our culture continues to depress me.
  • Any meaningful gun control laws have to have both an end to sales of (a specified class of, if not all) guns, possessing said guns illegal, and an amnesty/buy-back scheme to allow people to comply with the law on possession. The vast majority of people will obey the new law, and it's likely that the vast majority of the newly banned guns will be handed in and destroyed within a few months of the law coming into force. Judging by Wikipedia the ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Australia in 1996 resulted in over 1 million guns being handed in, and there's reference later to later amnesties where it's estimated that there were 260,000 illegally held guns (presumably not all those banned in 1996). For arguments sake lets say there were 1 million guns handed in, and 250,000 left illegally held - that's still 80% of guns handed in (and, that's almost certainly a lower estimate).

    If the US follows a similar trend, and there's a ban on the AR-15 type of weapon of mass murder with more than 80% of those guns handed in and destroyed that will be a massive reduction in the availability of those guns. Both how easy it is for a young adult to get one and go on a rampage, or for criminals to get them.

    In a sense if some survivalist wants a stash of guns and ammunition stuck out in a secure location in the desert then there's not too much of a problem as long as they stay hidden away. A gun buried in the ground, under the floorboards of a cabin or wherever isn't going to spontaneously walk a dozen miles into town to shoot up the local high school.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Any meaningful gun control laws have to have both an end to sales of (a specified class of, if not all) guns, possessing said guns illegal, and an amnesty/buy-back scheme to allow people to comply with the law on possession. The vast majority of people will obey the new law, and it's likely that the vast majority of the newly banned guns will be handed in and destroyed within a few months of the law coming into force. Judging by Wikipedia the ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Australia in 1996 resulted in over 1 million guns being handed in, and there's reference later to later amnesties where it's estimated that there were 260,000 illegally held guns (presumably not all those banned in 1996). For arguments sake lets say there were 1 million guns handed in, and 250,000 left illegally held - that's still 80% of guns handed in (and, that's almost certainly a lower estimate).

    I doubt any law that could get passed here would be able to include an amnesty for all the AR-15's out there. It is still legal to own quite a few, but not all, of the machine guns (fully automatic weapons) that were manufactured before the law was passed banning those. The assault (semiautomatic) weapons ban of the 1990s allowed the continued possession and transfer of banned weapons that were in possession at the time the act was passed. An amnesty of the kind you are describing would involve tens of millions more weapons owned by tens of millions more people that are much more difficult to trace because of the intentional spotty design of our gun laws. I suspect passing a law requiring such an amnesty for old weapons would be politically impossible - although I think a ban on the manufacture and sale of new assault weapons might be feasible.

    In most cases, guns do not make a house safer, but the usually false perception that criminals with illegal guns are just waiting to invade your home, amplified by sensationalist local news outlets and exploited by Conservative propaganda, make people believe that. Here in Baltimore, where support for gun control is very strong among African-Americans, I know at least one otherwise law-abiding African-American citizen who because of fear of crime and distrust of the police continues to carry a concealed weapon in violation of the city's laws. If a gun amnesty was passed, any stories of people robbed or killed in their own homes by people with illegal guns, even if rare and increasingly rare under the new laws, would be blown out of proportion like they always are and heighten opposition to and noncompliance with the amnesty. This is a country with more guns than people, and although assault weapons and/or semiautomatic weapons are only part of those guns, they are a significant chunk of them, and getting them off the street and out of the homes of the fearful may be as impossible as the war on drugs.
  • Twilight--
    Twilight wrote: »
    Police will expect a gun in the hand of a suspect when it's only a cell phone.

    Like the guy killed in Sacramento, CA in the last couple of days. I don't know many details, but AIUI: he was in his grandparents' backyard; 2 cops were investigating a vandalism spree (breaking car windows); there may have been some tip that this guy had a gun; they went to the backyard where he was; they thought his cell phone was a gun; and they shot him 20 times, killing him.

    And they never identified themselves as police.

    From the much-respected "Forum" talk radio show on our KQED public station: "California Attorney General to Investigate Police Killing of Stephon Clark".

    It's about an hour long. The page has the audio, and a short summary. I missed about the first half, this morning; but the rest of it was good. Had several guests.

    Care to place bets as to whether the cops will be charged with anything, let alone convicted and imprisoned?

  • Today's headlines: donations to NRA tripled after Parkland shooting.
  • Crap.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Like the guy killed in Sacramento, CA in the last couple of days. ...
    From the much-respected "Forum" talk radio show on our KQED public station: "California Attorney General to Investigate Police Killing of Stephon Clark".
    The text accompanying the audio is depressingly predictable "Stephon Clark, the unarmed 22-year-old African-American man".
  • Yes, sorry, I should've mentioned that.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Twilight--
    Twilight wrote: »
    Police will expect a gun in the hand of a suspect when it's only a cell phone.

    Like the guy killed in Sacramento, CA in the last couple of days. I don't know many details, but AIUI: he was in his grandparents' backyard; 2 cops were investigating a vandalism spree (breaking car windows); there may have been some tip that this guy had a gun; they went to the backyard where he was; they thought his cell phone was a gun; and they shot him 20 times, killing him.

    And they never identified themselves as police.

    From the much-respected "Forum" talk radio show on our KQED public station: "California Attorney General to Investigate Police Killing of Stephon Clark".

    It's about an hour long. The page has the audio, and a short summary. I missed about the first half, this morning; but the rest of it was good. Had several guests.

    Care to place bets as to whether the cops will be charged with anything, let alone convicted and imprisoned?
    The reports on this have been as slanted as most of these incidents. I've watched the video. The police were responding to a call from a man who said someone was breaking car windows in his neighborhood. The police went to this largely black neighborhood to protect the property of the residents, not with the intention to shoot an unarmed man, cause a riot, or lose their jobs.

    The police drove up at the same time as the helicopter above provided them with light and information. The helicopter spotted the man going from backyard to backyard by climbing over fences and saw him shattering a window with what later proved to be a cement block. Video shows him stopping to look into car windows. Suddenly Clark sees the police cars, with lights flashing, and runs to the backyard of the house where he has recently been staying. His grandmother's house. We can hear the police yelling on the video saying, "Stop. Stop. Show me your hands." Clark does not raise his hands, instead he reaches into his pocket, pulls out something long and black and walks toward the police. We now know it was his cellphone.

    The police over reacted in fear and panic, thinking they were being advanced on with a gun. They shot him twenty times. Overkill for sure. However. If we must have sympathy for the security guard at Parkland who didn't enter the school to face the shooter (and, as we know now, lied when he said he thought the shooter was outside) then can't we have sympathy for the police facing a criminal in the dark? Where's all the "You can't judge them if you weren't in their shoes. You would have done the same thing?"

    The news media has tried to turn this into another Travon Martin case with the pitiful headlines, "Father of two shot in his grandmother's yard," but that really has no bearing on the case. The police didn't know he was a father of two or in his grandmother's yard and those things should make no difference.

    Yes he was a father of two but he had been arrested for domestic violence, so that's probably not as pretty a picture as we might at first think. He had been in prison for something, was out on parole, living off the charity of his grandparents, and still chose to break car and house windows in their neighborhood. He was engaged in a criminal act and got shot by the police.

    My point is the same. Fewer guns would probably mean fewer deaths like this, because the police would be less likely to have thought that cell phone was a gun if guns were rare.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    They shot him twenty times. Overkill for sure. However. If we must have sympathy for the security guard at Parkland who didn't enter the school to face the shooter (and, as we know now, lied when he said he thought the shooter was outside) then can't we have sympathy for the police facing a criminal in the dark? Where's all the "You can't judge them if you weren't in their shoes. You would have done the same thing?"

    I'd argue that this reluctance to judge the actions of the police is one of the main reasons they feel free to act with impunity. If they know in advance that no one is going to judge them for anything, even it it's "[o]verkill for sure", why wouldn't they feel free to go on shooting sprees?
  • How can they bring in alive white men with assault weapons, but kill scores of black men with cell phones or with empty hands?
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Those weren't my words, Croesus, they were the words of people defending the deputy at the Florida shooting who did nothing. Hence the quotes. I called him a coward at the time and was called a dick for doing it, because, it was said, "Most people would have been afraid in that situation," and I shouldn't criticize him because I would have done the same if I wasn't in his shoes. Yet, a few weeks later, these police who were frightened into what seems like a state of panic are pilloried by the very same people who were defending the other man. The man who failed to try and protect school kids is defended, but the men who were fighting a criminal in the dark are given no slack whatsoever. At least they were trying to do their jobs.

    The police sometimes make mistakes and shoot unarmed people. When it happens there is always an investigation and sometimes they lose their jobs. That may happen in this case. Why is it that when the victim happens to be black there is added to that, a public outcry and inflammatory headlines everywhere. NPR's "Police shoot young father of two in his grandmother's backyard," was so misleading it sounded like they were all out back on the swing set.

    What would you have the police do? When they get a call saying an African American has been reported breaking the law, should they just stay back at the station for fear that things might turn ugly and they will lose their jobs? Does anyone care about the hard working black people in that neighborhood whose cars were being ruined? Many of them may not have had another way to work the next day, or insurance to have their car fixed. But you're all on the side of the man throwing cement blocks through their windshields.

    Don't even start pretending the police shot this man because of his color. They were there to defend the African American residents and their property and probably couldn't see well enough to tell the color of the perpetrator.

    The most likely victims of the police are not African Americans but mentally ill people. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed during a police encounter than any other people. Those untreated severe mental illness are involved in at least 1 in 4 police shootings and as many as half of all fatal police shootings.

    But those shootings don't make the headlines and that's why some here think only African Americans get shot by the police.


  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    They went into an African-American neighbourhood to arrest an African-American. Yes, by all accounts, he wasn't a particularly good person, but he was unarmed.

    And the cops shot him 20 times.

    Where's the due process in that? Or does the US now execute people who break car windows?
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    They did not go into the African American neighborhood to arrest an African-American.

    The 911 call only said it was a man wearing a black hoodie. No one knew his race until he was dead. The police were not exacting punishment, they thought they were defending themselves against a drawn gun. Do you really think the police knew that was a phone and decided to execute him for breaking windows? I find that very hard to believe. Even if they were the cold blooded murderers you seem to think they were, it would not be in their best interest to be suspended from work while an investigation went forward.

  • Really? Time off with pay commends itself to me.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    Those weren't my words, Croesus, they were the words of people defending the deputy at the Florida shooting who did nothing. Hence the quotes. I called him a coward at the time and was called a dick for doing it, because, it was said, "Most people would have been afraid in that situation," and I shouldn't criticize him because I would have done the same if I wasn't in his shoes. Yet, a few weeks later, these police who were frightened into what seems like a state of panic are pilloried by the very same people who were defending the other man. The man who failed to try and protect school kids is defended, but the men who were fighting a criminal in the dark are given no slack whatsoever. At least they were trying to do their jobs.

    The police sometimes make mistakes and shoot unarmed people. When it happens there is always an investigation and sometimes they lose their jobs. That may happen in this case. Why is it that when the victim happens to be black there is added to that, a public outcry and inflammatory headlines everywhere. NPR's "Police shoot young father of two in his grandmother's backyard," was so misleading it sounded like they were all out back on the swing set.

    What would you have the police do? When they get a call saying an African American has been reported breaking the law, should they just stay back at the station for fear that things might turn ugly and they will lose their jobs? Does anyone care about the hard working black people in that neighborhood whose cars were being ruined? Many of them may not have had another way to work the next day, or insurance to have their car fixed. But you're all on the side of the man throwing cement blocks through their windshields.

    fwiw I was the one (tho perhaps there were others) who made the comment re parkland police officer. I have not commented on this case


    I would agree with your point re the untreated mentally ill and police encounters-- something I've seen in my work with the homeless. Police training in this area is woefully inadequate

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Well, anyone who wishes to take a break from US domestic genocide of melanin-enhanced men, is welcome to contemplate this:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/380613-kansas-weighs-proposal-making-schools-that-refuse-to-let-teachers-carry




  • I saw that Ohher. In the adjusted words of Bob Dylan, why don't they just let the law take its course?

    On the subject of the cops in Sacramento, it does seem to me that police must have the possibility that a suspect is going to be armed uppermost in their mind when they are responding to a call. That's going to impact their perception, especially in situations of limited visibility. I can't see why the issue of disproportionate police shootings of African Americans can't be linked to gun control. I suppose it would really stick in the craw of campaigners though to give credence to Police using the prevalence of guns to justify killing unarmed black kids. After all, police plant stuff on people, or so they say on cop shows.

    I do want to think well of the Police. I come from a social class and ethnic background that considers policing an honorable and difficult job to do, so I guess that colors my opinions. I don't deny that there are systemic problems with racism here in Australia, as well as police who shouldn't be in the job. Police racism here reflects racism in the community. Its easy to map, because apart from racism against Indigenous people which remains broadly the same, each new immigrant community goes through a period of being the target of racist attitudes before that kind of melts away as a newer ethnic group arrives and is targeted. So back in the 70's and 80's, it was greeks and italians who were targeted and stereotyped, Vietnamese kids were in trouble in the 90's, and now its africans and muslims who are copping it. But I don't reckon you join the Police force and adopt the force's racism. I reckon you start out racist and use your power as a cop in a racist way. Is that trite? Probably.

    I want to have it both ways, that's my problem. I do feel that it is possible, but I have trouble reasoning my way through to that position. My brain hurts.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    It's possible that we've got two factors being compounded.

    The first being the simple fact that police have to assume that anybody can be armed. That is going to affect their reactions, no matter how well trained they are. If in doubt, any hint of a threat is logically responded to with deadly force. That's the so-called protection gun availability provides [/snark]

    Second, perhaps the litigious nature of the US makes any error the police make much more expensive and troublesome. IF there is somebody do seek reparations. Wounded by the police = payday. I imagine that this is looked upon rather negatively by police officers, jaded as they often become when dealing with society's underbelly.

    So, take those two components and you have police officers willing to assume the worst, and unwilling to take any chances. Because once they pull that trigger once, they've already committed themselves to killing the suspect. Might as well be certain about it.

    The 20 bullets used is probably more of a testament to how poorly in control of the situation they were rather than any particular malice.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Yes, like Simon, I want to have it both ways. I'm aware of and abhor racial profiling, but I refuse to believe it's behind every sad case that makes the news. In cases like this Sacramento one it seems much more like frightened cops, than evil racist cops to me. And then I always get mad at biased reporting no matter whether it's Fox News or CNN. Every report mentioned "Grandmother's back yard," at least twice.

    I just happened to read that the Sacramento police chief is African American as well as one of the two police doing the shooting, so I really don't think this is a case of, "domestic genocide of melanin-enhanced men."
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Really? Time off with pay commends itself to me.

    Even if it means a national reputation as a racist and death threats to your home and family?
Sign In or Register to comment.