Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Everything Else Erfworld




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 150
OneHugeTuck wrote:
nulloverride wrote:
when it's pretty obvious that it's not the majority of police who are corrupt.


Counterpoint: The vast majority of police are corrupt. When was the last time you saw/heard one or more police officers pointing out/saying something like "Yeah, that was police brutality/corruption/etc." And then, when was the time before that?

My point being, it's not 'just a few bad apples' when all the 'good' apples stay still/silent about the 'bad' apples, and do nothing about it. The few that do speak out about/point out police brutality/corruption get fired and/or threatened and blackballed and etc by the 'good' cops.


It does happen occasionally. Like that cop that shot the therapist in Florida, who was unarmed and lying on the ground--and not even the suspect. Why'd you shoot me? "I don't know." But we only ever hear about it if there's video. If there is no video, it's covered up. 100% of the time.

I think part of the problem with all this is the word "criminal" as a noun. We want to believe criminals are always and will always be criminals--that they will always be looking for opportunities to commit ever worse crimes. When the reality is, most people are good people most of the time, just sometimes people boop up, and sometimes that means doing something illegal. Boopups are not limited by race or wealth or ethnicity, or by profession. Meth addicts boop up all kinds of ways, not least taking meth in the first place. People of good will boop up. Even cops. As a society we'd be better off if we recognize that error is not necessarily evil will.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:28 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 589
    dirocyn wrote:
    As a society we'd be better off if we recognize that error is not necessarily evil will.
    That's only really possible if we also recognize that a lack of 'evil will' doesn't prevent tragedy. But when you recognize that, it basically obviates all the gains you were looking for by appealing to the idea of "basically good people".

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:36 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user has been published! Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user got funny with a rodent Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:45 am
    Posts: 826
    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    dirocyn wrote:
    As a society we'd be better off if we recognize that error is not necessarily evil will.


    That's only really possible if we also recognize that a lack of 'evil will' doesn't prevent tragedy. But when you recognize that, it basically obviates all the gains you were looking for by appealing to the idea of "basically good people".


    I think both of these points are important. Most errors are not based on ill will.

    Of course, that doesn't change the fact that errors can result in tragedy.

    On some level, as long as we have armed police, errors that result in tragedy are unavoidable due to our human imperfections.

    That fact doesn't change if we disarm the police, of course... it just means that more police and crime victims will pay the price, rather than suspects.

    _________________
    Here's my "Charlie as Hitler" Downfall video for Erfworld: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-EA8xQOf_s

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:42 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:49 pm
    Posts: 22
    Location: IA/IL - USA
    Carl wrote:

    I've been avoiding wading too deep into this so far because, well, it's a booping pain in the boop subject. It's never as simple as arguments try to make it out. But i think his point, (and what i just tipped him for), is that the police shouldn't be running into armed opponents against whom they need lethal force that often. If they are you've got a freaking problem.

    Now don't get me wrong, whilst i think the widespread availability of firearms in the US does not help the situation, it's a long way from the root cause, so please don't take what i'm about to say next as "no guns is great y'all", but to quote this article in britain in 2016 police discharged their weapons just seven times, and thats a highpoint compared to prior years, the low point was 3 times in 2013. Note that's discharges. Not hit someone, not killed someone. Actual deaths due to police shootings are so rare i couldn't find specific figures for the average on a cursory search. And whilst it doesn't explicitly say so i believe that discharge figure includes accidental discharges. The equivalent given population size differences would be just 35 discharges. When you contrast a 1000 actual fatal shootings by US police against that you start to see some of the issues That shock many people. Particularly non-US nationals.


    That's all well and good, but the UK doesn't have all the same circumstances as the US. Firstly, out of 150K police in the UK only about 6500 of them have the training required to carry a gun on the job, so the vast majority of them are not packing. Apparently about 23K assaults on police happen in a given year (the Guardian). This is compared to 1MILLION police in the USA, who killed 1000 people. That's 1/10th of 1% of all officers in the country who killed anyone last year. In 1000 years, every police officer will have killed someone, statistically. Except most of those people will be dead in less than 100 years. So there's no chance all, most, or even (in fairness) SOME of the police alive today will kill someone or even likely discharge their weapon. Statistically it is pretty rare. The presence of guns doesn't really change anything, crime-wise, in the US. If you look at the 13 states that have "constitutional carry" - meaning you can carry a gun without any additional permit or license or training - 75% of them have a lower (usually MUCH lower) crime rate than California and New York, which have a ton of extremely tight restrictions on gun ownership and practically no one except super wealthy people ever even get issued a license to carry.

    If you compare other crime statistics - I have no reason to believe or not to believe this site - you can see the UK (~64M) has about 1/5 the population of the United States (~318M), and 1/2 the total number of crimes. That's not proportionate. 6 million crimes in the UK and 12 million crimes in the US (10% vs 3% crime rates). Their people are more fearful of being victims of crime. That's about where the comparison stops being in the favor of the US - if you are going to be victimized in the UK you pretty much have to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. At least most places over here you're given the opportunity for a different outcome. At any rate, most of the murders are not just a guy snapping or hitting random people - at least not in my area - they are from things like gang violence. Most of the people in the US who are killed with firearms are suicides(CDC, 2014). The gang violence is related to drugs, because why else be in a gang? Drugs are carted into this country along thousands of miles of coastline and sparsely populated borders. That's been happening for decades. It's kind of like how prohibition in the 20's spawned a ton of organized crime and violence over alcohol. You could still buy cocaine over the counter at that time but booze was a no-no. You walk around any given small town or suburb in this country and most people are not imagining they will be mugged or murdered for no reason. Murders usually aren't arbitrary anyway. Go to Chicago or another big city, though, and maybe you'll pie the corner when you cross a dark alley. Also, if you look at Hawaii vs California the crime rate is about half of California's in Hawaii, another island. Coincidence? Who can say, because the crime rate varies pretty wildly state-to-state in the USA.

    The point is, if I wasn't coherent enough, that there are a thousand or a million factors when it comes to why there's a certain level of crime or why certain kinds of crime may or may not be more prevalent. One of those factors is geography. A big one is poverty. Another is the motivation for crime - in the US it seems to be largely focused around gangs and/or drugs. All of this relates to excessive police force: If you are a police officer, and most of the people committing crime in your area are gang bangers, and you encounter someone who dresses, acts, and talks like a gang banger and doesn't cooperate with you, you might be more likely to treat that person like they're associated with a gang. If I were walking around in a sailor's uniform, using sailor lingo, people might think I was in the Navy and react appropriately. Combine that with an attitude of non-cooperation in some of these high crime areas, and it really does make it difficult for police. Does that justify excessive violence on the part of the police? No. I've said before I agree with more body cams and other measures. But you can't regulate them so much they can't do their jobs. Geographically speaking, I don't believe that the majority of police departments in the country are corrupt, or have a high percentage of corrupt officers. I think those places are relatively few and far between, but when they're bad they can be really bad. Chicago has had a huge problem. They allegedly ran some kind of "black site" for a number of years, and they regularly let people go who get caught with illegal guns and things like that. They also fail to prosecute straw purchasers. In IL we also have a ton of people in jail for stupid things like weed. Maybe they should drop charges on more weed people and less straw purchasers. Or maybe not let people plea out of that stuff. But that catch-and-release stuff for people who provide guns to gang bangers and other crooks definitely contributes to police shooting people and gang members shooting people. The media also needs to back off some of these things. It doesn't help but contribute to the perception of a problem when you have HuffPo or someone trying to conflate one incident in Baltimore with the entire nation. That's not the experience everywhere, and I think a lot of people don't account for that fact when you have these infotainment types sensationalizing everything. One cop shoots a guy on Facebook and everybody hears about it for days or weeks. One cop saves a lady from a burning car, and you're lucky if they don't have that brushed under the rug by the end of day 1 if they show it on national news at all. You could say "well the guy saving the lady was just doing his job..." Was he, though? I'm not so sure about that. A police officer isn't trained or equipped to fight fires or do fire rescue, typically. There's a strong argument that something like that is way above the call of duty.

    Someone suggested that high levels of contact with the criminal element might lead to that rubbing off on the police over time. Maybe there's some merit to that. Maybe police in big cities need to be rotated out to towns with low crime from time to time to give them a break. The drawback of that is that there's also a correlation with 'community policing' where an officer gets to know his neighborhood and therefore it helps keep crime down. But either way, reducing the reasons for crime would reduce criminality and thus the "rub-off" effect. Getting better infrastructure, schools, and access to jobs for people in high crime areas would go a long way to reducing the overall crime rate. As another person said, giving police a higher penalty when they are criminally abusive would probably be useful as well.

    I'm rambling because there's just so much you can point to and say "this contributes" and maybe be right, maybe be wrong, and there's a "how much" component to your right- or wrong-ness. But I think I've emphasized the fact there's a myriad of things involved in this issue and you cannot just say there's one thing that matters.

    My information about homicide in the US came from the FBI and CDC. They have a whole huge list of statistics you can look up for as recently as 2015, I think.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:16 pm 
    Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:22 pm
    Posts: 750
    Xellos wrote:
    Carl wrote:
    Now don't get me wrong, whilst i think the widespread availability of firearms in the US does not help the situation, it's a long way from the root cause, so please don't take what i'm about to say next as "no guns is great y'all", but to quote this article in britain in 2016 police discharged their weapons just seven times, and thats a highpoint compared to prior years, the low point was 3 times in 2013. Note that's discharges. Not hit someone, not killed someone. Actual deaths due to police shootings are so rare i couldn't find specific figures for the average on a cursory search. And whilst it doesn't explicitly say so i believe that discharge figure includes accidental discharges. The equivalent given population size differences would be just 35 discharges. When you contrast a 1000 actual fatal shootings by US police against that you start to see some of the issues That shock many people. Particularly non-US nationals.

    That can be easily explained by the fact that regular British policemen do not carry funs. Can't shoot at people with a badge.
    "The policy in England and Wales has long been that the police should not generally be armed" [...] "But where an operational need arises, specialist armed officers should be available to be deployed."
    On the other hand, UK has a strong ban on weapons of all kinds, not just guns.
    Spoiler: show
    Image



    There's a lot more going on than the fact that UK police don't routinely carry guns. It's a factor but it's a long way from the whole thing.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:27 pm 
    User avatar
    Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:53 am
    Posts: 357
    Carl wrote:
    Xellos wrote:
    That can be easily explained by the fact that regular British policemen do not carry funs. Can't shoot at people with a badge.
    "The policy in England and Wales has long been that the police should not generally be armed" [...] "But where an operational need arises, specialist armed officers should be available to be deployed."
    On the other hand, UK has a strong ban on weapons of all kinds, not just guns.
    Spoiler: show
    Image



    There's a lot more going on than the fact that UK police don't routinely carry guns. It's a factor but it's a long way from the whole thing.

    Probably. However, the absence of guns is a sufficient explanation for absence of shooting, regardless if there are other factors or not.

    _________________
    What are you gonna do, foe me?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:46 pm 
    Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:22 pm
    Posts: 750
    nulloverride wrote:
    Carl wrote:

    I've been avoiding wading too deep into this so far because, well, it's a booping pain in the boop subject. It's never as simple as arguments try to make it out. But i think his point, (and what i just tipped him for), is that the police shouldn't be running into armed opponents against whom they need lethal force that often. If they are you've got a freaking problem.

    Now don't get me wrong, whilst i think the widespread availability of firearms in the US does not help the situation, it's a long way from the root cause, so please don't take what i'm about to say next as "no guns is great y'all", but to quote this article in britain in 2016 police discharged their weapons just seven times, and thats a highpoint compared to prior years, the low point was 3 times in 2013. Note that's discharges. Not hit someone, not killed someone. Actual deaths due to police shootings are so rare i couldn't find specific figures for the average on a cursory search. And whilst it doesn't explicitly say so i believe that discharge figure includes accidental discharges. The equivalent given population size differences would be just 35 discharges. When you contrast a 1000 actual fatal shootings by US police against that you start to see some of the issues That shock many people. Particularly non-US nationals.


    That's all well and good, but the UK doesn't have all the same circumstances as the US. Firstly, out of 150K police in the UK only about 6500 of them have the training required to carry a gun on the job, so the vast majority of them are not packing. Apparently about 23K assaults on police happen in a given year (the Guardian). This is compared to 1MILLION police in the USA, who killed 1000 people. That's 1/10th of 1% of all officers in the country who killed anyone last year. In 1000 years, every police officer will have killed someone, statistically. Except most of those people will be dead in less than 100 years. So there's no chance all, most, or even (in fairness) SOME of the police alive today will kill someone or even likely discharge their weapon. Statistically it is pretty rare. The presence of guns doesn't really change anything, crime-wise, in the US. If you look at the 13 states that have "constitutional carry" - meaning you can carry a gun without any additional permit or license or training - 75% of them have a lower (usually MUCH lower) crime rate than California and New York, which have a ton of extremely tight restrictions on gun ownership and practically no one except super wealthy people ever even get issued a license to carry.

    If you compare other crime statistics - I have no reason to believe or not to believe this site - you can see the UK (~64M) has about 1/5 the population of the United States (~318M), and 1/2 the total number of crimes. That's not proportionate. 6 million crimes in the UK and 12 million crimes in the US (10% vs 3% crime rates). Their people are more fearful of being victims of crime. That's about where the comparison stops being in the favor of the US - if you are going to be victimized in the UK you pretty much have to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. At least most places over here you're given the opportunity for a different outcome. At any rate, most of the murders are not just a guy snapping or hitting random people - at least not in my area - they are from things like gang violence. Most of the people in the US who are killed with firearms are suicides(CDC, 2014). The gang violence is related to drugs, because why else be in a gang? Drugs are carted into this country along thousands of miles of coastline and sparsely populated borders. That's been happening for decades. It's kind of like how prohibition in the 20's spawned a ton of organized crime and violence over alcohol. You could still buy cocaine over the counter at that time but booze was a no-no. You walk around any given small town or suburb in this country and most people are not imagining they will be mugged or murdered for no reason. Murders usually aren't arbitrary anyway. Go to Chicago or another big city, though, and maybe you'll pie the corner when you cross a dark alley. Also, if you look at Hawaii vs California the crime rate is about half of California's in Hawaii, another island. Coincidence? Who can say, because the crime rate varies pretty wildly state-to-state in the USA.

    The point is, if I wasn't coherent enough, that there are a thousand or a million factors when it comes to why there's a certain level of crime or why certain kinds of crime may or may not be more prevalent. One of those factors is geography. A big one is poverty. Another is the motivation for crime - in the US it seems to be largely focused around gangs and/or drugs. All of this relates to excessive police force: If you are a police officer, and most of the people committing crime in your area are gang bangers, and you encounter someone who dresses, acts, and talks like a gang banger and doesn't cooperate with you, you might be more likely to treat that person like they're associated with a gang. If I were walking around in a sailor's uniform, using sailor lingo, people might think I was in the Navy and react appropriately. Combine that with an attitude of non-cooperation in some of these high crime areas, and it really does make it difficult for police. Does that justify excessive violence on the part of the police? No. I've said before I agree with more body cams and other measures. But you can't regulate them so much they can't do their jobs. Geographically speaking, I don't believe that the majority of police departments in the country are corrupt, or have a high percentage of corrupt officers. I think those places are relatively few and far between, but when they're bad they can be really bad. Chicago has had a huge problem. They allegedly ran some kind of "black site" for a number of years, and they regularly let people go who get caught with illegal guns and things like that. They also fail to prosecute straw purchasers. In IL we also have a ton of people in jail for stupid things like weed. Maybe they should drop charges on more weed people and less straw purchasers. Or maybe not let people plea out of that stuff. But that catch-and-release stuff for people who provide guns to gang bangers and other crooks definitely contributes to police shooting people and gang members shooting people. The media also needs to back off some of these things. It doesn't help but contribute to the perception of a problem when you have HuffPo or someone trying to conflate one incident in Baltimore with the entire nation. That's not the experience everywhere, and I think a lot of people don't account for that fact when you have these infotainment types sensationalizing everything. One cop shoots a guy on Facebook and everybody hears about it for days or weeks. One cop saves a lady from a burning car, and you're lucky if they don't have that brushed under the rug by the end of day 1 if they show it on national news at all. You could say "well the guy saving the lady was just doing his job..." Was he, though? I'm not so sure about that. A police officer isn't trained or equipped to fight fires or do fire rescue, typically. There's a strong argument that something like that is way above the call of duty.

    Someone suggested that high levels of contact with the criminal element might lead to that rubbing off on the police over time. Maybe there's some merit to that. Maybe police in big cities need to be rotated out to towns with low crime from time to time to give them a break. The drawback of that is that there's also a correlation with 'community policing' where an officer gets to know his neighborhood and therefore it helps keep crime down. But either way, reducing the reasons for crime would reduce criminality and thus the "rub-off" effect. Getting better infrastructure, schools, and access to jobs for people in high crime areas would go a long way to reducing the overall crime rate. As another person said, giving police a higher penalty when they are criminally abusive would probably be useful as well.

    I'm rambling because there's just so much you can point to and say "this contributes" and maybe be right, maybe be wrong, and there's a "how much" component to your right- or wrong-ness. But I think I've emphasized the fact there's a myriad of things involved in this issue and you cannot just say there's one thing that matters.

    My information about homicide in the US came from the FBI and CDC. They have a whole huge list of statistics you can look up for as recently as 2015, I think.


    What is it with me going out of my way to emphasize i'm not trying to say US gun culture is to blame and there are other factors. And then two people in a row ignore that. Seriously WTH.

    As an aside, use your own site before you link it with random statistics. If you look at specific crimes compared the disparity never disfavours the UK that heavily. On top of which if you click the total crimes link it takes you to a page that in addition to providing a full listing by country explicitly notes that such figures are inherently unreliable. I suspect myself from when breakdowns of UK crime figures have been reported on the UK news provided to them by the police statistics people that the UK figure is including little stuff like speeding tickets issued, parking fines, and other minor things. Conversely given a quick search indicates the US issues 34 million tickets a year, (i make no claims on the accuracy of this and i have some doubts about the veracity), that clearly isn't being included. (A quick search regarding the UK indicates a little over a 100,000 with fines of £100 or more, (minimum is £100 check uk.gov website for that).

    In fact a quick search turned up two exhibits. The UK Office for National Statistics formal statistics report on crime and a wikipedia article. The latter has the usual issues, looking for better now but i raise it because the article specifically notes that in 2012 there were 12.2 million arrests, down 0.2 mil from the prior year. Whilst the victimology section notes that in 2011 there were 5.8 million violent victimisations and 17.8 million property victimisations. The similarity between the former figure and your source and the significant difference between the latter claims and your source makes me suspect it may be compiled from arrest lists for The US, but be using ONS outputs for the UK. I'll also note that if you compare the ONS reported rates of violent crimes per 1,000 over the same time periods the Wikipedia graph covers, the numbers are pretty similar. And at least for this discussions thats probably the most relevant set of figures as whilst, (as some aspects of this discussion show), there's no doubt a number of cases of fatal shootings, and weapon discharges of all kinds by police do occur without a violent crime occurring, the majority are almost certainly occurring around and because of a violent crime.

    ONS report: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... lent-crime

    Wiki Article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_ ... ted_States


    As i allready stated the first time i also agree there's a lot more at work than just the availability of guns. What i was really getting at there TBH was that if the numbers are so wildly out of line it clearly represents a fundamentally different criminal culture. Your criminals are willing to escalate to levels that require a firearms response much more often than ours are, (and don't let the weapons ban fool your, career criminals have been shown through breaking of smuggling rings and various investigations to either have the know how or know people who have the know how to get them guns and worse on occasion, they just mostly don't. Hence why people like that nutjob a couple of years back that attacked two police women with a pistol and hand grenade generate such shock and outrage. It just doesn't happen normally). That willingness to escalate is at the core of the difference in how and why your police respond the way they do. Why that happens is a lot more complex that "just because we have lots of guns in the US". I agree with people who say it's a partial cause inasmuch as it makes any escalation that does occur that much more deadly, but there has to be that willingness to escalate that far in the first place. And the reasons for that are incredibly complex.

    As an aside in case you aren't aware, the reducing number of armed police isn't a government created situation. The government actually tried a modest push to arm more police officers after the grenade incident. The police came out in mass open public attack against the idea.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:22 pm 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:29 pm
    Posts: 25
    Quote:
    This notion that police shooting people is somehow an "extrajudicial killing" is frankly bogus. That implies more of an execution-style killing than a self defense situation, or a specific escalation of force. Like the officer has purposely hunted someone down for the reason of killing them. That is not what usually happens. The typical scenario is that the suspect has a weapon (apparently 80% of the time) and they turn it on the officer or someone else. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Other times, perhaps the nonlethal options available to the officer fail to stop the aggressor. Tasers don't work on everybody. Mace and pepper spray don't work on everybody. Gunshot wounds don't even stop everybody right away if they're on enough drugs or adrenaline. A strong enough person can kill you just as dead with their bare hands as they could with any kind of weapon. A weak person with the right weapon can kill you whether that weapon is a gun or something else. You do not owe it to an attacker to give them the opportunity to harm or kill you or someone else because you are worried about anybody's feelings or some silly notion of fair play. Police officers have rules of engagement and levels of force that they need to try in any given situation, but not every situation gives an officer the time to cycle through every level of force. Sometimes you have to skip to the end or wind up with a suspect that got away and a dead or injured officer or other people.


    To be clear, my problem is not with police shooting people. I actually don't have a problem with that at all. I have a problem with police killing people. People don't need to be shot to end up dead. People can be choked, or given "rough rides", or simply beaten, and end up dead all the same.

    If someone puts the officer in mortal fear, then the officer should win a self-defence claim if they use deadly force and are charged with murder. That's working as intended. But do you see how, legally speaking, the officer's fear should offer absolutely no defence against the putative Fifth Amendment claim on the government/department/officer for having taken the suspect's life without due process? It's a simple point, and yet there exists to my knowledge no simple, formal way of making a Fifth-Amendment claim against the government or its officers for a taking of life without due process, an extrajudicial killing. I think this is a huge problem in our legal system.

    The term "extrajudicial killing" does not imply the stalking and killing of a target. It may make you think of those situations, but the fact that you see a distinction is my very point. For the Fifth Amendment, with one exception I will discuss, there is no difference between someone stalked and killed by police and someone who just ends up dead after encounter. The presumption should be that an armed suspect whose life is taken in a police encounter was killed extrajudicially, without due process. This is the only position consistent with the Fifth Amendment; conveniently, it is also consistent with the Cuddihy view of the Fourth Amendment as a limitation on the exercise of discretionary executive power.

    What is this exception? Consider a case clearly to the contrary: if there were in fact a legally issued warrant out for a person's arrest, and that person was armed at time of encounter and killed during encounter, it would become so much easier for the officer's department to defend against a Fifth Amendment claim, for due process would have been followed!

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:48 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:21 pm
    Posts: 20
    I might be wrong (european here) but, has anybody considered BANNING GUNS?

    That way you can demilitarize your police forces, cos you are not expecting someone to get out of a car shooting an assault rifle.
    You can't "feel threatened" at someone reaching for his wallet.

    And a whole lot of other things. Seems to be working ok for the rest of the world.

    No?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:13 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:54 pm
    Posts: 1723
    Website: http://www.tendonitisexpert.com
    Drest wrote:
    I might be wrong (european here) but, has anybody considered BANNING GUNS?


    Lots of people in the US have. Lots of people think that's the solution...and thus some cities/states have ever increasing gun control.

    And yet....the more gun control a city/state has, the higher it's crime rate.

    Funny that.

    Drest wrote:
    That way you can demilitarize your police forces, cos you are not expecting someone to get out of a car shooting an assault rifle.


    LOL. This is the US. We're on a one way fast lane of ever increasing militarization of the police.

    There wouldn't be any demilitarization even if there was a 100% ban on citizenry owning/possessing guns (because, ya know, we'd still need to be on the lookout for those dangerous criminals.

    Drest wrote:
    You can't "feel threatened" at someone reaching for his wallet.


    And yet, recently a police officer murdered a man in the passenger seat for doing exactly that, reaching for his wallet to get his id when told to do so, after informing the officer that he was carrying and had a permit to do so.

    Drest wrote:
    Seems to be working ok for the rest of the world.

    No?


    I'd say no, but not going to get into the obvious reasons why.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:48 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 589
    Well, what is obvious to some is not obvious to others.

    The problem with gun bans in the United States is that it is probably the most unambiguously illegal thing the government can do. That doesn't mean it hasn't been tried, and while there is a recent trend of gun bans that previously law-abiding citizens simply and openly refused to obey, most of the crime that flourishes in places where guns have been banned for decades appears to be driven by the segment of the population that regards all legal authority as basically illegitimate whether or not it is arguably consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

    In American history, "when they come for our guns" is the line drawn in the sand, the proximate cause of "the shot heard round the world." The founding principle of America is that a government that disarms the citizenry is tyrannical. The Second Amendment is probably the only part of the Constitution that a substantial portion of the American population can quote (correctly) from memory. That means, for all practical purposes, it is the Constitution as far as public perception goes. You can argue with Americans about anything else, and they really don't know what the Constitution says about it. For all the love the First Amendment gets in theory, almost nobody actually knows it verbatim. The Tenth Amendment has a recent surge in popularity, but it lags way behind the First and Second Amendments and even most self-identified Tenth Amendment advocates would have to look up the exact words (it's actually the Ninth and Tenth combined).

    There's plenty of argument about what the Second Amendment actually means, but a relatively large number of people know what it says and can quote it with confidence. And they mostly think it means "if the government tries to take your guns, you're no longer a free nation."

    I honestly think you could convince Americans it was Constitutionally valid for the government to execute everyone and start fresh more easily than you could convince them a gun ban was legitimate. If you ask a hundred Americans where the Constitution says the government can't just resort to Exterminatus, probably only a few will be able to identify the passage and I doubt whether even one will be able to quote it from memory. If you ask them where it says the government can't ban guns, they all know exactly which passage that is and a lot of them can quote it word (and comma) perfect.

    The thing is, most people will quietly submit to legal authority even to the point of walking into an execution chamber without real resistance if you convince them that's what the law demands. But discard the myth of legality, and you raise the possibility of successful resistance. Everyone has been fed too many stories in which illegitimate governments are overthrown, so the possibility that the government is illegitimate raises the possibility that it can be overthrown. The myth that resistance is futile is crucial to reducing the amount of resistance, but the myth that resistance against a criminal government is NOT futile is a powerful counter.

    I don't really care whether or not resistance is futile. I only care whether cooperation is futile.

    Which it is, when dealing with criminals. The more you cooperate, the worse your situation gets.

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:41 am 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Year of the Dwagon Supporter Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:50 pm
    Posts: 41
    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    You can argue with Americans about anything else, and they really don't know what the Constitution says about it. For all the love the First Amendment gets in theory, almost nobody actually knows it verbatim. The Tenth Amendment has a recent surge in popularity, but it lags way behind the First and Second Amendments and even most self-identified Tenth Amendment advocates would have to look up the exact words (it's actually the Ninth and Tenth combined).


    Your post reminded me of this snippet, which is tangentially related. Even the pundits that a good chunk of Americans are listening to, frankly mostly on the right, don't understand the Bill of Rights, even though it really is arguably their business to know and inform their viewers about it and its relationship to the news.

    And we have a lot of people sitting in their living rooms agreeing with all these ill-informed pundits.

    I don't expect people to memorize the Constitution. I've read all of it through a few times (we used to get printed copies of the full text of the Constitution from time to time when I was in the Air Force), but I can't say I have a verbatim knowledge. Still, it seems that even beyond not knowing what it says, beyond not understanding the gist of Bill of Rights, so many "real Americans" don't truly care. Maybe despite waving the the US Constitution around as a flag of moral superiority, they never really cared at all as long as it wasn't their perceived rights being infringed.

    _________________
    So I reached over and said, "Hello,
    Is there some planet you'd care to go?"
    And she said, "Venus on the rocks." - Deep Purple

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:17 am 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 589
    Of course that last bit applies to the Second Amendment too. The U.S. actually has stricter national controls than are readily possible in a lot of other countries (whatever their legislation says) of certain categories of firearms and devices due to the NFA, passed with little opposition back when very few Americans had or wanted the weapons that were being banned. In many countries with "stricter" gun control, if you can get a gun at all you don't have too much trouble getting a fully automatic machine gun or a grenade launcher. In America, the community of people with the knowledge to make guns is (or at least was, there seems to be a shift taking place) largely supportive of and cooperative with the bans on such heavier weapons of war. This reflects itself to a degree in the marked American preference for the AR-15 platform, where stamped/hammered steel receiver designs like the AK tend to dominate elsewhere.

    I'm not convinced that having more practical control over machine guns and grenade/mortar/RPG launchers really matters...except for instances of organized terrorism. An ordinary gang of criminals or a 'lone wolf' terrorist has little practical use for full-auto weapons or explosive device launchers. And organized terrorists can usually beat bans by smuggling, like they do in Europe.

    But that's not really relevant to the fact that Second Amendment interpretations usually revolve around what kinds of arms a given person has/wants rather than any set principles. Wherever someone falls on the spectrum, they tend to interpret it to their own convenience, "this can be banned because I don't need/want it so I don't see why anyone else would."

    There's an interesting dynamic arising because so many American gun enthusiasts are now beginning to desire access to fully automatic weapons and explosive device launchers. I'm not convinced many people would have much interest in them if it weren't for the fact that they're banned. Which is how they got banned in the first place (admittedly at a time when most Americans were less fond of pointless extravagances). A more recent ban on cosmetic features that made guns look more dangerous initially passed, then was eliminated after it caused a surge in popular interest in those specific cosmetic features.

    In the rest of the world, where gun bans are in place, impoverished people supplement their income by making and selling black-market guns. The laws do keep the price and legal risks of owning a gun high enough to keep them out of the hands of most people who aren't likely to commit violent crimes. They also provide an additional mechanism by which black market money is transferred in some measure to economically marginalized but productive people.

    But I have to laugh at the idea that they actually work to prevent violent crime.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:05 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:21 pm
    Posts: 20
    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    Lots of people in the US have. Lots of people think that's the solution...and thus some cities/states have ever increasing gun control.

    And yet....the more gun control a city/state has, the higher it's crime rate.

    Funny that.


    Very useful when you can simply go a few miles out and buy whatever the hell you want, and bring it back with you.
    Very smart.

    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    LOL. This is the US. We're on a one way fast lane of ever increasing militarization of the police.

    There wouldn't be any demilitarization even if there was a 100% ban on citizenry owning/possessing guns (because, ya know, we'd still need to be on the lookout for those dangerous criminals.


    Those dangerous criminals now have way less guns. There're way less armed civillians going around. You know, that works for at least undermining the argument. If there's no desire, well, nothing can be done - but that's the reason you supposedly vote for.

    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    And yet, recently a police officer murdered a man in the passenger seat for doing exactly that, reaching for his wallet to get his id when told to do so, after informing the officer that he was carrying and had a permit to do so.


    And that's exactly what i was referring to. In a court of law that person won't be seriously be able to say "well, i thought he was reaching for his gun" cos that's not fucking plausible.

    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    I'd say no, but not going to get into the obvious reasons why.

    Have fun with your thousands of gun murders per year i guess?

    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    In the rest of the world, where gun bans are in place, impoverished people supplement their income by making and selling black-market guns. The laws do keep the price and legal risks of owning a gun high enough to keep them out of the hands of most people who aren't likely to commit violent crimes. They also provide an additional mechanism by which black market money is transferred in some measure to economically marginalized but productive people.

    But I have to laugh at the idea that they actually work to prevent violent crime.


    I would really like to know where you get that "in europe people *make* guns to sell".
    Also, those bans keep them out hands of people without ties to organized crime too. Fun fact: that's most of the population.
    Despite what you seem to imply, an "arsenal" here is something like 5 guns and a rifle, a few knives. That, again, is an arsenal from organized crime, not something a random person might have. I bet that's way less than what a normal law abiding gun enthusiast citizen has in the USA.

    As closure for me (cos i really don't feel this could go anywhere), let *me* laugh at the idea that you having guns can be used to "overthrow your government".
    And despite what you might think, yes, not having a gun for 50$ prevents violent crimes *made with guns*. Cos you know, if you are a bit mentally unstable and you take a knife, you can maybe kill one or two people. If the same happens with a gun you have one of your shootings.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:12 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 589
    There is really nothing to be done about people who think that killings are inherently worse because they happen to involve a gun.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:57 am 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! This user was a Tool before it was cool This user has been published! Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary Shiny Red Star Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:48 am
    Posts: 502
    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    There is really nothing to be done about people who think that killings are inherently worse because they happen to involve a gun.


    You know very well what he meant. It is much harder to do a mass killing when you do not have access to a gun, especially some sort of machine gun. The perpetrators turned to other things, like using trucks on Christmas market (the worst incident so far, 12 people killed and 50 injured and that was a terrorist attack!) or using a hatchet. It would have been worse if guns were involved and available to everyone and that's a fact.

    Killings ARE worse because they happen to involve a gun, because guns are quite literally the tool made for the job. And that's not counting injuries or accidental discharges or suicides with a gun. Or edgy police because they think that every single traffic stop can turn into a freaking shoot out because something MIGHT be wrong with the guy they just pulled over and he has a gun!

    _________________
    Don't click on this link, you might feel cheated if you do.
    Hint:
    Spoiler: show
    It's my fanfiction. :)


    My erf PC game (first test version): Jack Attack Give it a go.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:51 am 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 589
    I always felt biological pathogens were the tool that was really meant for the job of effective mass killing.

    The great thing about them is that, unlike guns, letting everyone have them doesn't prevent anyone from using them for mass killings.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:06 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:54 pm
    Posts: 1723
    Website: http://www.tendonitisexpert.com
    youngstormlord wrote:
    Killings ARE worse because they happen to involve a gun, because guns are quite literally the tool made for the job.


    That's just unfounded belief though. It's worse only because you think so, in your particular view.

    Hammers kill more people in the US that automatic rifles do. 'Legally' prescribed pharmaceutical medications kill more people in the US than 'all' guns do, by a factor of like 10 as I recall.

    Yet people are fixated on the 'guns are made to kill so it's worse if you get killed by a gun than a hammer or a delivery truck' meme, full of faith in their belief while reminding blind to the facts/numbers (funny how faith does that, in general).

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:21 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:54 pm
    Posts: 1723
    Website: http://www.tendonitisexpert.com
    Drest wrote:

    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    LOL. This is the US. We're on a one way fast lane of ever increasing militarization of the police.

    There wouldn't be any demilitarization even if there was a 100% ban on citizenry owning/possessing guns (because, ya know, we'd still need to be on the lookout for those dangerous criminals.


    Those dangerous criminals now have way less guns. There're way less armed civillians going around.


    Why exactly to you think dangerous criminals have less guns? Please cite the source.

    Drest wrote:
    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    And yet, recently a police officer murdered a man in the passenger seat for doing exactly that, reaching for his wallet to get his id when told to do so, after informing the officer that he was carrying and had a permit to do so.


    And that's exactly what i was referring to. In a court of law that person won't be seriously be able to say "well, i thought he was reaching for his gun" cos that's not fucking plausible.


    As far as I can tell that statement can only mean that you haven't been paying attention to the court cases/results of court cases regarding police officers/LEO shooting people (and getting away with it....like the BART officer that flat out murdered a dude being held down on the ground by other officers, etc).

    The murderous officer my statement referred to, while pending charges and court dates, despite having changed his testimony to now include 'I saw the gun', is incredibly unlikely to get a guilty verdict. He 'feared' for his life (usually the only magic words needed), the victim's hands was moving towards his pockets (depending on the version you're listening to), and cops have 'instantenous life or death decisions to make because they have tough scarey jobs etc.

    If he gets a guilty verdict, that will be a rare event. If he doesn't, it will be par for the course.



    Drest wrote:
    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    I'd say no, but not going to get into the obvious reasons why.

    Have fun with your thousands of gun murders per year i guess?


    The bulk of which happen in the few crime central cities (Detroit etc) which have the most gun laws/limits, you mean? If you remove the top three cities/high gun death high gun restriction cities, then the US has very small gun death statistics.


    Drest wrote:
    As closure for me (cos i really don't feel this could go anywhere), let *me* laugh at the idea that you having guns can be used to "overthrow your government".


    Laugh all you want. The US (for instance) doesn't arm rebels and minority groups in multiple foreign nations (and radicalize islamic elements, but hey) because it's laughable for small numbers of armed individuals to bring down a gov't.


    Last edited by OneHugeTuck on Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:12 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 589
    OneHugeTuck wrote:
    Laugh all you want. The US (for instance) doesn't arm rebels and minority groups in multiple foreign nations (and radicalize islamic elements, but hey) because it's laughable for small numbers of armed individuals to bring down a gov't.
    I'm pretty sure the guys who are involved in all that do occasionally chuckle about it, though.

    Ironically, all my guns are made for the purpose of testing concepts and mechanics, I used to make guns "more lethal" so I could kill things with them, but I don't have any of those anymore. Not that I can't kill things with the guns I have now, they're quite sufficiently lethal.

    But I prefer to kill using knives, now.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Everything Else Erfworld


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: