By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KLAMarine said:
Runa216 said:

Literally every response to you in this thread. We've tried explaining to you what the movement means, why it's called what it is, how it works, its operational goal is, and the nuance of why "AllLivesMatter" is a technically true statement but completely misses the point. We've given you anecdotes, examples, metaphors, and memes to help make it easier to understand, we're countered your ignorance with education, and we've tried to elaborate on why your stance on the matter, though probably at least somewhat sincere, is wholly misguided. 

If you refuse to acknowledge or respect ANY of those responses, that's on you. Neither I nor SpokenTruth nor anyone else in this thread is responsible for you if you're just going to resist and play the fool. You're presumably a grown-assed man with the stubborn ignorance of a teenager. 

I'm still not recalling ever discussing 'systemic racism' with anyone in this thread... Other topics, sure, but not 'systemic racism'.

Immersiveunreality said:

She had all room to take cover ,shoot the tires and ask the driver to drop his gun and step out of the car while calling for backup herself but instead she firstly made herself vulnerable by going around the car again and then just unloads the whole gun.

This could have been handled better,but this kind of panicky behaviour seems to reflect on a lot of cops in the US.(lack of training?)

No, police are trained to kill someone like this, someone who is a clear threat. The suspect in the video was an obvious threat the moment he opened fire at the officer thus she completely unloaded on him. He signed his own death warrant the moment he opened fire.

Your suggestion is misguided. Shooting the tires or asking the suspect to drop the gun does NOTHING to stop the suspect from shooting at the officer which he intended to do by his actions.

I don't see how the officer could have handled this better, she handled it like a boss.

No wonder that the US are so fucked up if that is true. In pretty much every civilized nation they would have been trained instead to:

  1. Ensure the safety of everybody else around
  2. Make sure nobody else could get into the crossfire
  3. Try to deescalate (and use the time to get a good description of the suspect if he tries to make a run for it so he can be easily found again)
  4. Try to disarm the suspect
  5. Apprehend the person and put him under arrest

In that exact order.

Only if 1+2 are met but 3-5 aren't possible for whatever reason will anyone even think to open fire. And even then, killing is only the very last option if everything else failed along the way. Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright.



Around the Network

"Please educate me on systemic racism"

Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
*After WW2, the GI Bill gave returning vets essentally a free college education and a free house...but it was administered at the local level, so racists locked minorities out. No house, no equity to use, no higher education, no wealth.
*Subconscious biases. When shown a series of pictures of different races while getting a brain scan, the "fight or flight" part of the brain lights up when shown black faces. So, many officers, even ones not explicitly racist, are predisposed to escalate encounters with minorities.
*Police tend to enforce the law more against blacks than whites. A Stanford University study found that, during the day, blacks are disproportionately more likely to be pulled over than whites, while at night, when it's too dark to discern a driver's race, the disparity nearly disappears.
*Public schools are primarily funded by local property taxes, so poor neighborhoods have poorly-funded schools, a shortage of teachers, shortages of textbooks, out of date textbooks, falling apart textbooks, century-old buildings with lead-lined drinking fountain pipes, etc. A black high schooler in Detroit is suing his school district because half the time there was literally no teacher in his classroom.
*Whites flee to the suburbs, where they draw school district boundaries to separate themselves from minorities, wealthy from poor. White-dominated districts on average have 30% more funding per student than minority districts.
*Minority students are more likely to be suspended or even sent to juvenile hall for offenses that white students receive less punishment for, leading to worse education, fewer opportunites, drug abuse, and ultimately more crimes of desperation.
*Whites and blacks use weed at the same rate, but more blacks get locked up.
*Crack cocaine, which minorities are more likely to use, carries a federal sentence 11 times longer than powder cocaine, which whites are more likely to use.
*Minorities have to wait much longer in line to vote than whites because their precincts are assigned far fewer polling places than white precincts.
*Minorities have far less power at the Congressional level than they should because many states pack them into as few districts as possible, and the courts do nothing to stop it.
*(Mostly in the South): the only areas many minority individuals can afford to live are in the shadow of polluting industries. The air they breath and water they drink is literally poisoned.
*Banks are loathe to loan money to minorities, even when they are as qualified as their white counterparts.

Congrats! You are now educated.



Mr_Destiny said:
"Please educate me on systemic racism"

Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
*Whites flee to the suburbs, where they draw school district boundaries to separate themselves from minorities, wealthy from poor. White-dominated districts on average have 30% more funding per student than minority districts.

Congrats! You are now educated.

Something I just learned recently about this is that this movement of whites to the suburbs wasn't just market decisions of the more wealthy or something that accidentally happened. It was a situation very much created by the federal government.

The Federal Housing Administration aided in subsidizing many of the large suburban developments that became the prototype of what we still see as the "suburbs", yet they explicitly did not provide funding for mixed race developments. This means that these houses were created and sold on the cheap, largely on the dollar of the Federal government, pulling whites out of urban and poor areas and providing them with an enormous amount of wealth. They also had a clause in the contract when buying a home which said that you could not resell the houses to African Americans. Even today, only a tiny fraction of the population in these suburbs built during this era are black.

In many areas, the cost of owning a house in these suburbs was actually less than the cost of rent in the cities that they were moving out of, which maintained the poverty trap for black Americans while providing an elevator out of it for white Americans. This movement also increased the density of blacks in cities, which further reduced property values, and created pockets of extreme poverty.

While these explicitly racist policies have been removed for several decades, it is important to note both the huge advantages that have been given to white Americans at the expense of African Americans, and remember the significant impact on wealth (and not just income) on poverty and general well-being. Hundreds of years of discrimination has created the trends we see today. It has created a situation with an enormous racial wealth gap which leaves many black Americans worse off than white Americans with comparable incomes, and it has created a system where we as a country need to do a lot more than provide job opportunities to right the wrongs of our history.

Further, "inheritances and other intergenerational transfers 'account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other demographic and socioeconomic indicators.'” This again demonstrates the effects our racist history still has on black families today for those who would scoff as these systemic injustices as merely things of the past.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/



Mr_Destiny said:
"Please educate me on systemic racism"

Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
*After WW2, the GI Bill gave returning vets essentally a free college education and a free house...but it was administered at the local level, so racists locked minorities out. No house, no equity to use, no higher education, no wealth.
*Subconscious biases. When shown a series of pictures of different races while getting a brain scan, the "fight or flight" part of the brain lights up when shown black faces. So, many officers, even ones not explicitly racist, are predisposed to escalate encounters with minorities.
*Police tend to enforce the law more against blacks than whites. A Stanford University study found that, during the day, blacks are disproportionately more likely to be pulled over than whites, while at night, when it's too dark to discern a driver's race, the disparity nearly disappears.
*Public schools are primarily funded by local property taxes, so poor neighborhoods have poorly-funded schools, a shortage of teachers, shortages of textbooks, out of date textbooks, falling apart textbooks, century-old buildings with lead-lined drinking fountain pipes, etc. A black high schooler in Detroit is suing his school district because half the time there was literally no teacher in his classroom.
*Whites flee to the suburbs, where they draw school district boundaries to separate themselves from minorities, wealthy from poor. White-dominated districts on average have 30% more funding per student than minority districts.
*Minority students are more likely to be suspended or even sent to juvenile hall for offenses that white students receive less punishment for, leading to worse education, fewer opportunites, drug abuse, and ultimately more crimes of desperation.
*Whites and blacks use weed at the same rate, but more blacks get locked up.
*Crack cocaine, which minorities are more likely to use, carries a federal sentence 11 times longer than powder cocaine, which whites are more likely to use.
*Minorities have to wait much longer in line to vote than whites because their precincts are assigned far fewer polling places than white precincts.
*Minorities have far less power at the Congressional level than they should because many states pack them into as few districts as possible, and the courts do nothing to stop it.
*(Mostly in the South): the only areas many minority individuals can afford to live are in the shadow of polluting industries. The air they breath and water they drink is literally poisoned.
*Banks are loathe to loan money to minorities, even when they are as qualified as their white counterparts.

Congrats! You are now educated.

No, he has been informed. To be educated, he needs to be able to absorb the information, understand it, and use it to better himself. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

sundin13 said:
Zoombael said:

I'm apolitical, because politics... it is complex. Not in the sense that politics itself is complex. Anyway.

When i look at the BLM logo i don't see an organisation brought into existence primarily to fight racism, support black communities and all that. What i see is a political movement in the extreme left of the political spectrum. I very much dislike extrem-ism, no matter politics, religion, right, left, christian, muslim, scientology. I dislike the subversive and tolliterian nature.

The raised fist is a commonly used symbol amongst freedom, human rights movements aso, true. Keep digging. 

From the BLM website:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

"Marxist theory on family established the revolutionary ideal for the Soviet state and influenced state policy concerning family in varying degrees throughout the history of the country. The principals are: The nuclear family unit is an economic arrangement structured to maintain the ideological functions of Capitalism. The family unit perpetuates class inequality through the transfer of private property through inheritance. Following the abolition of private property, the bourgeois family will cease to exist and the union of individuals will become a “purely private affair”. The Soviet state’s first code on marriage and family was written in 1918 and enacted a series of trans-formative laws designed to bring the Soviet family closer in line with Marxist theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union#Bolshevik_vision_of_the_family

I'm in a bit of pickle here. As a colored person i'm supposed to be automatically supportive of this extreme-left ideology? That's kinda racist? That's not all. There is more to this.

I really don't want to participate in politcal debates, especially not the one going on right now. I can't help it, when i observe what's going on in the (under)world the politics squabble becomes distant chatter in the background.

I think we need to draw a distinction between the Black Lives Matter movement and the Black Lives Matter organization. The movement is fundamentally decentralized with no real power structure and as such, the beliefs encompassed within it are anything which falls under the logic of the phrase "black lives matter". It is focused around police violence, however it can be used to extend to the value of black lives in other contexts as well. As such, there is no required checklist of beliefs that one must hold in order to agree with the movement. You don't need to be a Marxist or an atheist or whatever else you read from some specific sections of the movement. You simply need to be willing to stand for the value of black lives and against those who seek to diminish this value.

The organization is a very small part of the overall movement. It primarily seeks to aid in some of the logistical struggles of a decentralized movement, but its actual power over the intent of the movement is highly limited. Disagreement with one paragraph on their website does little to actually speak to your opinion on the movement, and whether or not the organization is "extreme-left" shouldn't matter in regards to the ideology of the movement.

I feel that some people dig into things like this when they are specifically looking for a reason to be against something (like, for example comparing the wiki page on the Soviet Union, or complaining about a logo). They find one little insignificant thing that they don't like and use that thing to define something much larger, however simply listening to the voices of the people involved in the protest should show you that they are diverse both in demographics and ideology. All you need in order to support the movement is a commitment to the value of black lives and in my opinion, that is just about the least extreme ideology imaginable.

It matters when the cause of outrage, rioting and looting relies on misinterpretation, hyperbole and deception, trying to justify violent and dissident acts, and the foundation of an organisation is staffed with radical individuals opposing the legitimacy of the government in power and political system and extremist elements spearheading the movement and protests, agitating individuals and groups. Why are the actions of violent left extremists constantly downplayed? Time for history lessons? Would make this post a little more extensive.

I provide factual data, i'm not relying on my gut feeling as you like to insinuate.

https://www.trendswide.com/actress-behind-blm-rally-in-whitehall-disowns-black-lives-matter-uk-for-being-hijacked-by-far-left/

How was CHAZ/CHOP possible? Is this considered this normal and adequate in the US? To occupy whole blocks and forcing out law enforcement, blocking off FD and ambulance, then it is the city that is blamed for consequences? Why was CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) renamed to CHOP (Capitol Hill Organized Protest)? It wasn't because one specific word is politically charged, ey?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism

Yusra Koghali/Yusra K. Ali, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter chapter Toronto (BLMT). 

Her words speak for themselves. The shooting she refers to in the beginning of the video was the Qubec Mosque Shooting in 2017 January 29th. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting

The perpetrator, Alexander Bissonnette, was motivated by 2014 Parliament Hill Shootings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa

Yusra Khogali left BLMT in May 2019. Some years after she has written this long deleted facebook post:

Spoiler!

https://www.reddit.com/r/UofT/comments/4rr3ga/blm_toronto_white_people_are_subhuman_xpost/

For anyone wondering why x instead of a. Hu-man, hu-man-ity. Nuff said.

She exited BLMT because of politcal differences. Allegedly. What i think really happend, she wasn't acceptable as a poster child, too much bad press and indeed, Black Lives Matter struggled with popularity in the beginning years. Afaik BLM has never distanced themselves openly from individuals like her and the extremism they represent. I wonder why. In the contrary. 

The two names Sandy Hudson drops are Andrew Loku and Jermaine Carby. Both shot by canadian police officers in 2015 and 2014 respectively. Both were armed (hammer, knife) at respective encounters with law enforcement, Andrew Loku had PTSD and Carby was on drugs. Nothing indicates the action of the police was unwarranted. Anyone who wants to know more about these cases, do your own research.

Sasha - BLM Oxford (UK)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WngBYll4MF8

The demeanor of those people, how they act, how they talk, the terminology and rhetoric they use. A moderate movement and organisation with no distinct political motives? Mh. And they certainly have enough recruitment material to draw from.

Universities in US and CA seem to be breeding grounds for those typse. As it was predicted...

https://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/20/open-letter/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnJEEdp6W24

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_bias

A study carried out at the University of California found "evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans compared to unarmed white Americans".[1] In this study, the probability of being shot by the police as a black, unarmed person versus as a white, unarmed person was 3.49 times higher. Unarmed Hispanics' likelihood to be shot was 1.67 times higher than for unarmed Whites. However, these stats do not reflect that people get shot when coming into contact with the police which is usually whilst carrying out a violent criminal act or being arrested for a criminal act. Black men represent around 6% of the population but account for around 52.6% of murder arrests and 54.5% of robbery arrests.[13] Even so they only represent 28% of people killed by police whilst non blacks suffer 72% of the people shot and killed for less than half the crimes.[14]

A more recent study was conducted by Michigan State University and the University of Maryland, compiling a list of more than 900 fatal U.S. police shootings in 2015 using crowdsourced databases from The Washington Post and The Guardian.[1] Then, they asked police departments for information about the race of the officers responsible for the shootings. They found black police were more likely to kill black civilians than white civilians. However, the same held true for white and Hispanic officers: Each group of police was more likely to shoot civilians of their own race. Researchers claimed this is true because police tend to be drawn from the communities they work in and are thus more likely to have deadly encounters with civilians of the same race. They conclude that "increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_bias

Where is clear evidency of unproportionally high police brutality against black people in the USA in this day and age? Or Canada?

I see how media stating numbers without necessary context and incomplete data, sending one on a wild goose chase.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/14/donald-trump-george-floyd-police-killings

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2246987-us-police-kill-up-to-6-times-more-black-people-than-white-people/

When it should be easy to provide data that proves beyond any doubt, providing legitimacy for Black Lives Matter exclusive entitlement.

CA cop acts in self-defense when approached by several individuals with hostile intentions, two of them gang members, while wrestling with a suspect...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Fredy_Villanueva

...people take to streets and riot.

Cop gets shot at point blank...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfjZPjzOsAA

...people take to streets and riot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Alton_Sterling

...riot.

Here armed, there armed, resisting arrest, runs away, gets shot, dies, people riot and so on, and so on.

The Left wants to abolish the Police....does the Black community? Watch and find out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyTTxWtOBZM

KGW: What it's like to be a Black officer policing Portland protests | Raw interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha-7SETmJD4

Are there cops guilty of all degrees of racism? There sure are, and i need not to sift through the web to find evidence. However, is the claim of systemic racism materializing in the actions of executive forces justified? With the information at hand, the short answer is: No.

That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Tbf, i don't see (systemic) racism as a crucial factor. It's rather a combination of the american gun cult and the mentality that comes with it, the availability and number of firearms circulating in the US and the relatively high crime rate in the US of A.

At the end i want to mention that i strongly believe in the greater picture (as always) and the roots for all this lie way back in time. Not black history, european history. But this is a chapter for another time, if ever, because i doubt people could wrap their head around it. Their little bubble of reality... and no idea what they're doing to their own country. Sad.



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network
Zoombael said:
sundin13 said:

I think we need to draw a distinction between the Black Lives Matter movement and the Black Lives Matter organization. The movement is fundamentally decentralized with no real power structure and as such, the beliefs encompassed within it are anything which falls under the logic of the phrase "black lives matter". It is focused around police violence, however it can be used to extend to the value of black lives in other contexts as well. As such, there is no required checklist of beliefs that one must hold in order to agree with the movement. You don't need to be a Marxist or an atheist or whatever else you read from some specific sections of the movement. You simply need to be willing to stand for the value of black lives and against those who seek to diminish this value.

The organization is a very small part of the overall movement. It primarily seeks to aid in some of the logistical struggles of a decentralized movement, but its actual power over the intent of the movement is highly limited. Disagreement with one paragraph on their website does little to actually speak to your opinion on the movement, and whether or not the organization is "extreme-left" shouldn't matter in regards to the ideology of the movement.

I feel that some people dig into things like this when they are specifically looking for a reason to be against something (like, for example comparing the wiki page on the Soviet Union, or complaining about a logo). They find one little insignificant thing that they don't like and use that thing to define something much larger, however simply listening to the voices of the people involved in the protest should show you that they are diverse both in demographics and ideology. All you need in order to support the movement is a commitment to the value of black lives and in my opinion, that is just about the least extreme ideology imaginable.

It matters when the cause of outrage, rioting and looting relies on misinterpretation, hyperbole and deception, trying to justify violent and dissident acts, and the foundation of an organisation is staffed with radical individuals opposing the legitimacy of the government in power and political system and extremist elements spearheading the movement and protests, agitating individuals and groups. Why are the actions of violent left extremists constantly downplayed? Time for history lessons? Would make this post a little more extensive.

Jeez...

This is certainly a post. Probably the longest post I've ever seen on this website...

Alright, I'll guess I'll try to summarize your points so I can respond to the general argument because I'm not going piece by piece. Correct me if you think my summaries are incorrect:

1) "Here are several examples of people associated with various Black Lives Matter organizations stating things that I believe are radical"

Again, I don't think this matters? Like, you even post several examples from a person who left a BLM organization due to political differences, so why do you think that they speak for the entirety of the movement? There are millions of people in this movement, and as such, millions of difference perspectives and beliefs. I am not surprised in the least that some of them are too radical for you. I too don't agree with everything every individual who is or has ever been involved in the BLM movement has said, but that doesn't really matter. Again, as it is a fundamentally decentralized movement, as long as you stand for the value of black lives, your beliefs fit. There is no required set of check boxes to prove you are woke enough.

2) "Black people are being shot more because they are coming into contact with police more"

This was an argument I've already had several times over the last several months so I won't spend too long on it, but to summarize, I believe that perspective requires two additional points to be proven before it is a truly valid argument:

a) Is there a strong correlation between crime rate and police shootings? From the data I have seen, there is not a very strong link, which indicates that this hypothesis is inherently faulty and other factors are likely at play.

b) Is the fact that black people are more likely to come into contact with police itself a result of racism? If so, then you are not arguing that racism does not play a part here, but instead arguing that racism in the police systems runs deeper than police shootings. Again, from what I have seen, racial factors very much play a role in the perpetuation of the conditions which cause crime as well as how our police interact with civilians. Take for example stop and frisk, which showed that police tended to stop black individuals more often regardless of whether the stop was justified.

2b) "Black police were more likely to kill black civilians"

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this quote.

3) "The Left wants to abolish the police"

Please read a bit on what the Defund the Police movement is actually about.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
KLAMarine said:

I'm still not recalling ever discussing 'systemic racism' with anyone in this thread... Other topics, sure, but not 'systemic racism'.

No, police are trained to kill someone like this, someone who is a clear threat. The suspect in the video was an obvious threat the moment he opened fire at the officer thus she completely unloaded on him. He signed his own death warrant the moment he opened fire.

Your suggestion is misguided. Shooting the tires or asking the suspect to drop the gun does NOTHING to stop the suspect from shooting at the officer which he intended to do by his actions.

I don't see how the officer could have handled this better, she handled it like a boss.

No wonder that the US are so fucked up if that is true. In pretty much every civilized nation they would have been trained instead to:

  1. Ensure the safety of everybody else around
  2. Make sure nobody else could get into the crossfire
  3. Try to deescalate (and use the time to get a good description of the suspect if he tries to make a run for it so he can be easily found again)
  4. Try to disarm the suspect
  5. Apprehend the person and put him under arrest

In that exact order.

Only if 1+2 are met but 3-5 aren't possible for whatever reason will anyone even think to open fire. And even then, killing is only the very last option if everything else failed along the way. Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright.

"Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright."

>No, shooting is supposed to kill. Tasers and handcuffs are supposed to disable, shooting is for killing. The only way to make certain an armed suspect can no longer fire their weapon is to kill them.



KLAMarine said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

No wonder that the US are so fucked up if that is true. In pretty much every civilized nation they would have been trained instead to:

  1. Ensure the safety of everybody else around
  2. Make sure nobody else could get into the crossfire
  3. Try to deescalate (and use the time to get a good description of the suspect if he tries to make a run for it so he can be easily found again)
  4. Try to disarm the suspect
  5. Apprehend the person and put him under arrest

In that exact order.

Only if 1+2 are met but 3-5 aren't possible for whatever reason will anyone even think to open fire. And even then, killing is only the very last option if everything else failed along the way. Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright.

"Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright."

>No, shooting is supposed to kill. Tasers and handcuffs are supposed to disable, shooting is for killing. The only way to make certain an armed suspect can no longer fire their weapon is to kill them.

Like I said, that's US policy. Like I said, shooting is normally considered the very last resort, and fatally shooting someone is generally very frowned upon unless it's a hostage situation in most civilized countries (the last one of those happened 22 years ago here btw).

Our policemen and -women are trained to shoot in the legs to incapacitate the suspect, and only if that fails will they even consider shooting to kill. And they will only shoot if the suspect is armed and trying to severely harm or even kill either them or other people around the person. If he isn't armed, they have no right to shoot and would forfeit their badge (and weapons license) instantly and forever if they did. I know this isn't the case in the US, but that's also a big part of the reason why we don't have BLM-like protests here - our policemen don't kill people unless they absolutely have to.

While we're at it, most policemen here are not armed in duty unless they have a special mission which warrants weapon usage (like close protection of our grand-duke or prime minister) and are not allowed to keep their weapon off-duty. This ensures that they will stop and think and try to deescalate or even defuse the situation instead of simply trying to shoot mindlessly like US police seem to be overly happy to do.



KLAMarine said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

No wonder that the US are so fucked up if that is true. In pretty much every civilized nation they would have been trained instead to:

  1. Ensure the safety of everybody else around
  2. Make sure nobody else could get into the crossfire
  3. Try to deescalate (and use the time to get a good description of the suspect if he tries to make a run for it so he can be easily found again)
  4. Try to disarm the suspect
  5. Apprehend the person and put him under arrest

In that exact order.

Only if 1+2 are met but 3-5 aren't possible for whatever reason will anyone even think to open fire. And even then, killing is only the very last option if everything else failed along the way. Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright.

"Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright."

>No, shooting is supposed to kill. Tasers and handcuffs are supposed to disable, shooting is for killing. The only way to make certain an armed suspect can no longer fire their weapon is to kill them.

Shooting is supposed to kill? Either you're lying/misinformed or the US police is truly fucked up. Yes, there are situations where the police has to aim for the torso, which has a high chance of mortally wounding the suspect, but that's because the torso is easier to hit than legs or arms and the suspect is deemed to dangerous for the police to take any chances. It is not done with the intent of killing.



KLAMarine said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

No wonder that the US are so fucked up if that is true. In pretty much every civilized nation they would have been trained instead to:

  1. Ensure the safety of everybody else around
  2. Make sure nobody else could get into the crossfire
  3. Try to deescalate (and use the time to get a good description of the suspect if he tries to make a run for it so he can be easily found again)
  4. Try to disarm the suspect
  5. Apprehend the person and put him under arrest

In that exact order.

Only if 1+2 are met but 3-5 aren't possible for whatever reason will anyone even think to open fire. And even then, killing is only the very last option if everything else failed along the way. Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright.

"Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright."

>No, shooting is supposed to kill. Tasers and handcuffs are supposed to disable, shooting is for killing. The only way to make certain an armed suspect can no longer fire their weapon is to kill them.

Now you are making shit up.