3 ms·

TL;DR: Here are three strawmen we can argue about instead of the actual case in front of us, which had nothing to do with Ving Rhames or guns or bomb threats.

TL;DR: Here are three strawmen we can argue about instead of the actual case in front of us, which had nothing to do with Ving Rhames or guns or bomb threats. Oh, and as a bonus, I'll start my three with a story about a big, menacing black man and a poor little petite white woman. This line of conversation is unworthy of humanity, much less Hacker News.

cgriswald 9y ago
The case in front of us wasn't the topic I was discussing. The topic was the GP's absolutist view in response to that topic. Just because these scenarios are fictitious does not make them strawmen arguments. In the first scenario, I was pointing out that even unarmed people can be dangerous. In the second, I was pointing out that often innocent lives are in danger. In the third, I was pointing out just how absurd it is to expect police to shoot "only after at least one shot has been fired by the suspect, period." Obviously these scenarios fall apart in the real world and that's the point. It was your decision to bring race into the discussion. I chose Ving Rhames because he's big and I had recently seen him in a movie. Apparently to have a valid point I need to pretend he doesn't exist and go with John Cena instead (as if specifically excluding a black actor would somehow not be racist). I didn't specify the race of the female officer at all.
- dudul 9y ago
  And I was talking about a situation where somebody walks out of a front door. For your 1st scenario, yes the police officer should be able to handle it without a gun. That's what training is for. US cops need to spend less time at the shooting range and more time studying close combat technics, like in every other civilized country. For the other 2 scenarios, sure the cop can shoot, even if for the last one there are probably ways to avoid it upstream.
  - cgriswald 9y ago
    The vast majority of officers never fire their weapon in the line of duty. US cops do study close combat techniques. Talking about the training generally is impossible, since the quality, type, and upkeep of that training varies a lot by department. Usually it depends on what is needed in their area and what funds are available. That said, all departments put office safety first. They will not generally take unnecessary risks, so a charging behemoth who has specified his intent to kill will probably be shot, regardless of close combat training.
    - llukas 9y ago
      Please compare how long it takes to train US cop vs other first world countries. Length of training is woefully inadequate.

cgriswald 9y ago

The case in front of us wasn't the topic I was discussing. The topic was the GP's absolutist view in response to that topic. Just because these scenarios are fictitious does not make them strawmen arguments. In the first scenario, I was pointing out that even unarmed people can be dangerous. In the second, I was pointing out that often innocent lives are in danger. In the third, I was pointing out just how absurd it is to expect police to shoot "only after at least one shot has been fired by the suspect, period." Obviously these scenarios fall apart in the real world and that's the point. It was your decision to bring race into the discussion. I chose Ving Rhames because he's big and I had recently seen him in a movie. Apparently to have a valid point I need to pretend he doesn't exist and go with John Cena instead (as if specifically excluding a black actor would somehow not be racist). I didn't specify the race of the female officer at all.

dudul 9y ago
And I was talking about a situation where somebody walks out of a front door. For your 1st scenario, yes the police officer should be able to handle it without a gun. That's what training is for. US cops need to spend less time at the shooting range and more time studying close combat technics, like in every other civilized country. For the other 2 scenarios, sure the cop can shoot, even if for the last one there are probably ways to avoid it upstream.
- cgriswald 9y ago
  The vast majority of officers never fire their weapon in the line of duty. US cops do study close combat techniques. Talking about the training generally is impossible, since the quality, type, and upkeep of that training varies a lot by department. Usually it depends on what is needed in their area and what funds are available. That said, all departments put office safety first. They will not generally take unnecessary risks, so a charging behemoth who has specified his intent to kill will probably be shot, regardless of close combat training.
  - llukas 9y ago
    Please compare how long it takes to train US cop vs other first world countries. Length of training is woefully inadequate.