Such is the state of the world right now...

I side with the civilians, not with the criminals.

There's WAY WAY WAY too many situations in which a cop shoot because he think he MAY be in danger because the person he's arresting/controlling make a movement such as reaching for his wallet because he was asked to show papers and then shot. Those people that die are civils, not criminals.

^For that, there needs to be better training.
Still easier to say it than to live it. Cops arent psychic.

I dont see the UK as good example though.

better training can only help so much when there's a completely obsolete way of thinking through the whole nation.

"

faerwin wrote:

better training can only help so much when there's a completely obsolete way of thinking through the whole nation.

What specifically do you mean?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

better training can only help so much when there's a completely obsolete way of thinking through the whole nation.

What specifically do you mean?

Just look at the way Disrupted classified the UK police video and his general comments towards people that are arrested.

To him, police should have no consideration for the lives of the people they arrest. As in, all criminals should be shot if they show any sign of resistance...

As long as the police see themselves as superior,
as long as the police see everyone else as expendable,
as long as the general population of the state see the police as the enemy,
as long as the general population are armed with guns,

this will not change.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

better training can only help so much when there's a completely obsolete way of thinking through the whole nation.

What specifically do you mean?

Just look at the way Disrupted classified the UK police video and his general comments towards people that are arrested.

To him, police should have no consideration for the lives of the people they arrest. As in, all criminals should be shot if they show any sign of resistance...

As long as the police see themselves as superior,
as long as the police see everyone else as expendable,
as long as the general population of the state see the police as the enemy,
as long as the general population are armed with guns,

this will not change.

I asked because I was curious if you meant this (emboldened).

I do see the first three points as a challenge, although I do not believe they are absolutes. Nonetheless, some portion of both populations hold these views, and that is problematic.

To the last point, /shrugs, that ain’t gonna change.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

better training can only help so much when there's a completely obsolete way of thinking through the whole nation.

What specifically do you mean?

Just look at the way Disrupted classified the UK police video and his general comments towards people that are arrested.

To him, police should have no consideration for the lives of the people they arrest. As in, all criminals should be shot if they show any sign of resistance...

As long as the police see themselves as superior,
as long as the police see everyone else as expendable,
as long as the general population of the state see the police as the enemy,
as long as the general population are armed with guns,

this will not change.

There's so much wrong here I dont even know if I should answer, so I'll try to summarize it;

Stop putting words in my mouth, [Removed by Support].

I was talking about violent thugs and I said it properly. I had the lives of the officers under consideration - unlike you if you think there's nothing wrong with the video - you are either naive or dishonest and I've seen enough of your posts around to know the exactly which it is.

what you describe as a "violent thug" can be many things.

Someone that's drunk
Someone that's in a state of distress
Someone that fear for its life (which is, in the state, a very valid thing when you meet a cop, especially if you are black)
Someone with a criminal history (regardless of how they are acting during the confrontation)
Someone that make a "suspicious" movement

Even in the case of someone that's actually acting violent and represent a real risk to the officer, lethal action should be used as a LAST resource, not as the defacto action.

"

faerwin wrote:

what you describe as a "violent thug" can be many things.

Someone that's drunk
Someone that's in a state of distress
Someone that fear for its life (which is, in the state, a very valid thing when you meet a cop, especially if you are black)
Someone with a criminal history (regardless of how they are acting during the confrontation)
Someone that make a "suspicious" movement

Even in the case of someone that's actually acting violent and represent a real risk to the officer, lethal action should be used as a LAST resource, not as the defacto action.

had to roll my eyes at that bolded part. lol.

Either way, stop dancing around the issue. A violent thug is a violent thug, ofc other cases exist.

Im not saying everybody is a violent thug, even if you repeat that forever.
and yes, I am for the least lethal option first, but one with actual effect (not gonna be for pepper spray if the assailant is wearing goggles, and aint gonna treat a knife attack with baby gloves).

and because It seems I have to say it for it to be understood, I am also of the belief that everybody deserves second chances (on third and fourth and so-on chances its another story).
but if there's a dangerous situation with violent thug, grabbing for the officer gun or swiftly pulling out a knife then I will support the one being attacked every time, no matter how much crocodile tears others may shed later.

Twitter admits on hidden camera that their algorithms for bans and suspensions focus on "God," "the cross," and other content typical of "rednecks:" https://youtube.com/watch?v=64gTjdUrDFQ&t=10m22s

Bonus quote: "I would say a majority of [our algorithms target] Republicans because they're all from Russia and they wanted Trump to win."

Imagine the outrage if a social media concern was caught saying their punitive algorithms focus on "Allah," "the hijab," and other content typical of "camel jockeys..." then went on to say the "majority" of their algorithms target "Democrats because they're all illegals from Mexico and they wanted Clinton to win."