It doesn't depend on anything. They showed up, killed someone within a few seconds, and only then figured out what was going on. You can say "but they didn't know" or "but someone reported X" all you want. It's still extremely reckless behavior at best. It's entirely unacceptable for police.
We should use this as a test for police officers. If you say the shooting was acceptable in this case, you don't get to leave the station carrying a gun. We need police that find out what's happening before they shoot someone.
You keep wanting to make this a black and white scenario but it wasn't. The officer had a split second decision...
Yeah. If the police show up and shoot someone a few seconds later, they should always be punished for that -- unless they saw a gun pointed at someone. And even then they're going to end up killing an undercover or plainclothes officer once in a while because they shot first and asked questions later.
Maybe you haven't heard. Police are never, ever responsible in these situations.
Tamir Rice was big, how could they have known he was only 12 years old? How could they have known his gun (which was in his pants when he was shot) wasn't real? How could they know Eric Garner would die from (not) choking him out? How could the police know Philippe wasn't reaching for a gun? How could the police know Freddie Gray would die of a broken back?
We've been told over and over, police have zero responsibility to find out what's going on before acting, zero responsibility for the consequences of those actions if the officer could reasonably be said to be afraid, zero responsibility for "accidents" that injure people due to police actions, and zero responsibility for "mistakes" like raiding the wrong house or shooting bystanders during a manhunt.
Everyone else is 100% responsible to make sure officers feel completely safe and respected at all times.
How about the police just leave people alone unless there's a genuine danger?
Bringing the police into a situation can be dangerous for police and for those around them. So
1. repeal the laws that regulate non-violent, non-recklessly-dangerous behavior, 2. if you do decide to enforce some minor rule, the only means to enforce it is to take a photo and send a ticket in the mail, 3. make keeping everyone safe the #1 priority of police and hold them accountable for failures to keep people safe, even if it means criminals get away a lot more often 4. instruct officers that their role is to provide a service to the people in the community and their attitude needs to match that role unless they want a desk job
Ok, then what's the point of complaining about a few executive salaries? (Besides dividing people based on envy and making union workers unhappy and easier to lead/control for the benefit of union bosses.)
What would you prefer? Force the company to rehire 22000 people for 5 minutes before it goes bankrupt again? Force then to raise the price of Twinkees to $10 each so they can make money with 22000 workers? Force us all to buy these $10 Twinkees? Subsidize the company so they can afford to sell Twinkees at a huge loss?
Shorter version: Management is bad and they get huge paychecks -- therefore, anything the union does is flawless and perfectly justified, regardless of the outcome. You can always justify anything by criticizing someone else.
But how are we going to demonize the other side then? What names will we call them? On what basis will we set ourselves above our neighbors? And if we're not better people than them, how do we justify ruling over them and using their (lesser) existences to further our own personal goals?
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
The idea that people should be "ruled" is the real problem with this. The specific "rulers" don't matter. People are free. Free people may decide to form a government to serve them, not to rule them. Free people need government to do things an individual can't really do by himself, like build a road or mount a military defense.
Rulers are illegitimate. Wanting to rule over your neighbors is evil, regardless of whether you call yourself a scientist or a god-king.
But 28 countries acting in concert might manage more progress than 28 acting individually.
Then it will help to make sure "progress" benefits a huge majority of voters. If it seems to mostly benefit a minority, then the majority might decide they're better off without "progress".
No one is shouting. But it's dismissive and disrespectful to claim that all 52% of people on the Leave side were simply tricked and all 48% of people on the Remain side were well-informed.
What are the non-disrespectful and non-dismissive reasons behind the election outcome?
Not sure. I've heard lots of criticism of the Brexit vote that basically comes down to "politicians didn't tell the whole truth". Which would be a valid complaint if politicians were known for being reliable truth-tellers. But, in my experience, they aren't. So complaining about them seems really hollow. Perhaps you can explain what I'm missing? Are claims that politicians "lied" novel or insightful or informative?
Sounds like there's some negotiating to be done between the two sides. Was there negotiation before the Brexit vote, or were these questions already decided?
Actually, I don't really have a prediction. But I'd prefer people think things through and not just post mindless talking points or make up dramatic stories. Hype is annoying.
The UK by itself is a weaker entity than when it was a part of the EU. To think otherwise is delusional.
Sound like a problem for a desperate country. What if they don't think they're desperate and don't think they need the EU for what they saw the EU as costing them? What if they'd rather have no trade deal than the EU's trade deal?
Strength is useful when it gets you what you want. When it doesn't, what good is it?
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't depend on anything. They showed up, killed someone within a few seconds, and only then figured out what was going on. You can say "but they didn't know" or "but someone reported X" all you want. It's still extremely reckless behavior at best. It's entirely unacceptable for police.
We should use this as a test for police officers. If you say the shooting was acceptable in this case, you don't get to leave the station carrying a gun. We need police that find out what's happening before they shoot someone.
You keep wanting to make this a black and white scenario but it wasn't. The officer had a split second decision ...
Yeah. If the police show up and shoot someone a few seconds later, they should always be punished for that -- unless they saw a gun pointed at someone. And even then they're going to end up killing an undercover or plainclothes officer once in a while because they shot first and asked questions later.
It's extremely reckless behavior at best.
I don't know. That's why I'm asking what people think is the right thing.
So anyone can tell a story to a 911 operator and the police should show up and just open fire without knowing what's going on.
Hate is the point, then? If not hate, then what? Is everyone who makes more than $273k evil?
Ok, but you didn't say which solution you were in favor of. Do you want the company to be forced to rehire all 22000 people or not?
Granted. Now what's the answer to the question?
So, no answer to the question then.
Maybe you haven't heard. Police are never, ever responsible in these situations.
Tamir Rice was big, how could they have known he was only 12 years old? How could they have known his gun (which was in his pants when he was shot) wasn't real? How could they know Eric Garner would die from (not) choking him out? How could the police know Philippe wasn't reaching for a gun? How could the police know Freddie Gray would die of a broken back?
We've been told over and over, police have zero responsibility to find out what's going on before acting, zero responsibility for the consequences of those actions if the officer could reasonably be said to be afraid, zero responsibility for "accidents" that injure people due to police actions, and zero responsibility for "mistakes" like raiding the wrong house or shooting bystanders during a manhunt.
Everyone else is 100% responsible to make sure officers feel completely safe and respected at all times.
How about the police just leave people alone unless there's a genuine danger?
Bringing the police into a situation can be dangerous for police and for those around them. So
1. repeal the laws that regulate non-violent, non-recklessly-dangerous behavior,
2. if you do decide to enforce some minor rule, the only means to enforce it is to take a photo and send a ticket in the mail,
3. make keeping everyone safe the #1 priority of police and hold them accountable for failures to keep people safe, even if it means criminals get away a lot more often
4. instruct officers that their role is to provide a service to the people in the community and their attitude needs to match that role unless they want a desk job
Ok, then what's the point of complaining about a few executive salaries? (Besides dividing people based on envy and making union workers unhappy and easier to lead/control for the benefit of union bosses.)
That is more-or-less what happened. Yet we still hear much complaining and few real answers from so many people.
What would you prefer? Force the company to rehire 22000 people for 5 minutes before it goes bankrupt again? Force then to raise the price of Twinkees to $10 each so they can make money with 22000 workers? Force us all to buy these $10 Twinkees? Subsidize the company so they can afford to sell Twinkees at a huge loss?
Please let us know what the best choice is.
Shorter version: Management is bad and they get huge paychecks -- therefore, anything the union does is flawless and perfectly justified, regardless of the outcome. You can always justify anything by criticizing someone else.
Thanks for letting us know.
But how are we going to demonize the other side then? What names will we call them? On what basis will we set ourselves above our neighbors? And if we're not better people than them, how do we justify ruling over them and using their (lesser) existences to further our own personal goals?
Are you against progress?
The relevant CS Lewis quote:
The idea that people should be "ruled" is the real problem with this. The specific "rulers" don't matter. People are free. Free people may decide to form a government to serve them, not to rule them. Free people need government to do things an individual can't really do by himself, like build a road or mount a military defense.
Rulers are illegitimate. Wanting to rule over your neighbors is evil, regardless of whether you call yourself a scientist or a god-king.
Yeah. Politicians make stuff up. Are politicians generally honest in the UK? Do they generally keep their promises?
Filing a court motion is not news. Appealing a ruling is not news. They are pro forma. It would be more newsworthy if they didn't happen.
But 28 countries acting in concert might manage more progress than 28 acting individually.
Then it will help to make sure "progress" benefits a huge majority of voters. If it seems to mostly benefit a minority, then the majority might decide they're better off without "progress".
No one is shouting. But it's dismissive and disrespectful to claim that all 52% of people on the Leave side were simply tricked and all 48% of people on the Remain side were well-informed.
What are the non-disrespectful and non-dismissive reasons behind the election outcome?
Not sure. I've heard lots of criticism of the Brexit vote that basically comes down to "politicians didn't tell the whole truth". Which would be a valid complaint if politicians were known for being reliable truth-tellers. But, in my experience, they aren't. So complaining about them seems really hollow. Perhaps you can explain what I'm missing? Are claims that politicians "lied" novel or insightful or informative?
Sounds like there's some negotiating to be done between the two sides. Was there negotiation before the Brexit vote, or were these questions already decided?
Actually, I don't really have a prediction. But I'd prefer people think things through and not just post mindless talking points or make up dramatic stories. Hype is annoying.
The UK by itself is a weaker entity than when it was a part of the EU. To think otherwise is delusional.
Sound like a problem for a desperate country. What if they don't think they're desperate and don't think they need the EU for what they saw the EU as costing them? What if they'd rather have no trade deal than the EU's trade deal?
Strength is useful when it gets you what you want. When it doesn't, what good is it?