4 ms·
What's already public is pretty harrowing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwEYhIX4cbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwEYhIX4cbM
by soledades 6y ago
What's already public is pretty harrowing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwEYhIX4cbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwEYhIX4cbM
- yeetawayhn 6y agoCan you be more specific about what is harrowing?
- soledades 6y agoIt presumes before the fact that all police killings are justified (Obviously there was a clear and present danger to others!), and holds up remorselessness about killing as a sort of quasi-enlightened state.
- yeetawayhn 6y agoYou misconstrue the content to describe it like that. The justification is predicated on the a clear and present danger to others. What reasoning do you have to support being remorseful for saving others from a clear and present danger?
- deathgrips 6y agoNormal people have nightmares for years after killing someone, even in the most perfectly justified cases of self defense. You don't easily recover. If you can kill someone and be more or less OK after that, you probably have antisocial personality disorder or you've had a lot of training to desensitize you to killing. Neither of those are good qualities in public service.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago> Normal people have nightmares for years after killing someone, even in the most perfectly justified cases of self defense. This isn't an answer to the question. It is in fact a non-answer that endorses the irrational as an enlightened state.
- deathgrips 6y agoDo you think people need a justification to have feelings?
- yeetawayhn 6y agoYour comment implies that people do: > If you can kill someone and be more or less OK after that, you probably have antisocial personality disorder or you've had a lot of training to desensitize you to killing. Or were you wrong about that?
- soledades 6y agoWhat you call misconstruing I call reading between the lines. Edit: and I think remorse is a healthy and useful check on the excess of police violence we've been seeing. I suppose if you think it's all just fine, we're not going to have much common ground for understanding.
- klyrs 6y agoJustice is not served when a police officer takes the role of judge, jury and executioner. Summary execution is the worst of outcomes, and deprives victims of their most fundamental freedom. This guy doesn't think so. He wants cops to love exercising that extra-legal power. It's sick and an affront to the constitution.
- yeetawayhn 6y agoSummary execution is not what is happening when a police officer kills someone who is a danger to others.
- klyrs 6y agoSummary execution is when an accused criminal is killed without the benefit of a trial. What part of this definition are you contesting?
- yeetawayhn 6y agoThe fact that they are not being killed for the commission of the crime but to stop the danger to others. Your problem is not with the definition, but in that the definition doesn't match the situation.
- klyrs 6y agoThanks to sousveillance, we've caught far too many cops on video, shooting unarmed people in the back as they're running away. I call that summary execution. Do you agree? Another pattern we see a lot of is cops escalating situations, and then when the accused (rather understandably) matches that escalation, then the officer kills and claims self defense. I'd actually describe that as premeditated murder, because the danger is a predictable result of the cop's own actions. In the very rare instance of an emplaced shooter, where less lethal means cannot be used and the area cannot be evacuated, then yeah, it makes sense to shoot back defensively. Way too much of police training is focused on killing people. Training, as is done in much of the world, should focus on de-escalation. More cops die in traffic than at the hands of criminals. It's an astonishingly safe job, considering the focus placed on "remorseless killing".
- deathgrips 6y agoThat is reasonable instruction for soldiers but not cops.