Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, Oling is saying they should have gotten out and started shooting people.

The situation was obviously deteriorating very quickly. You sure can see it build and explode. So, we'd all like to know how the cops should have responded where you and pal would have deemed it acceptable.

So far we've heard that shooting people is acceptable, but running over them isn't. Any other options that would be acceptable?

Just trying to sort things out and expose the obvious bias that is going on here. Some people simply won't ever admit that cops are put into impossible situations where their only option is a bad one.

What about the protesters? Did they have better options? Maybe could have handled things differently? Oh right, they were 'peaceful' and not a 'threat.'

I get how this works.

Well if that's what you got from Oling's post this isn't going to make much sense. He was being obviously ironic with the shooting comment. And there have been numerous suggestions made about what a normal cop would do.



What I really disagree with is the bolded. This cop was not in an impossible situation at all. In fact there were two other cruisers right there that didn't run everyone over. It was anything but a choice between bad options.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think anyone is actually saying this.

Independant of this situation Do you believe that at some point when an Officers life is threatened He has the right to respond with lethal force?

Yes. Pretty much 100% of the time. Against the threat obviously. Never ever against anyone innocent.

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you believe that at some point when an Officers life is threatened he has the right to respond with lethal force even if there is risk of an innocent person dying (stray bullet or something)

Aim for the center of mass. Limits the possibility of injury to the innocent, which should be the ultimate goal in any lethal confrontation. If your decision isn't limiting the risk to public, or at least not reasonably expected to reduce the risk, I don't support it.

Originally Posted by GGG

If you believe that Officers have at some point the right to defend themselves and that innocent people could be hurt in this defense then not much separates you from the posters you are criticizing. It’s really just a matter of degree that you believe the officers life is at risk and the amount of risk to the public that is acceptable for the officer to protect themselves. Having a discussion around when these thresholds are breached would be much more productive than accusing people of not caring about teenagers and calling cops pigs.

That's not true at all. I've always been supporting of personal defense. See my responses in the Michael Brown thread. But it's limited to the actual threat and it's about limiting the risk to the public.

If the police ran over one guy who was shooting at them, I wouldn't bat an eye. If they ran over a bunch of teenagers, I would be livid and...oh wait that happened here.

Driving away from an active shooter (in their mind), hitting dozens of innocent people (now leaving them to be shot) and leaving behind their fellow officers make these officers lower than scum. That's not eliminating the threat, that's not reducing the risk to the innocent. It's the exact the opposite.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think anyone is actually saying this.

I agree that no one is saying it. That's why I said they were thinking that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I agree that no one is saying it. That's why I said they were thinking that.

I would argue that no one in this thread is actually thinking it. It’s a strawman you have created

They have a different view of when an officers life is threatened and how much risk can be taken in defending it.

[zamler]

That to me looks like a situation that could easily get out of hand for the cops. If they stop I'm betting the crowd would have tried to gain entry in the vehicle. Maybe not but that's the vibe I get. So what are they supposed to do? Drive away slowly? Maybe that would work maybe not. I don't have enough knowledge and no experience with such things to say.

Me personally my expectation is if I am in the street I'm going to get hit by a car which is why I don't stand in the traffic.

[Acey]

A cop comes through with lights on, get out of the way and then go back to your protesting in the streets.

Not sure I side with the protesters one this one. Get the hell out of the street.

[underGRADFlame]

This whole thread just makes me think of this...

[Mr.Coffee]

I feel like both schteve and Oling have brought up good points. And Azure and OMG.

Not sure where I land on this one. Pretty wild video. My sense is if the cop after the first, more gentle ramming had stopped and not careened off aggressively with the person still on the hood in the distance, it would have been slightly more reasonable. That second burst is where the cop seems like he should be thrown in a jail cell. Running over people... obviously sub-optimal. But on the other hand, some of these protesters are being quite dooshy as well so my sympathy meter is kinda low.

Cops shouldn't drive over people. Yeah. I wonder if slowly creeping and then very slowly accelerating would have done the trick as maybe people get out of the way. But I also don't think I'd be climbing all over the hood of a cop car in that situation either. Sometimes you kinda get what you're asking for. Dunno.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I feel like both schteve and Oling have brought up good points. And Azure and OMG.

Not sure where I land on this one. Pretty wild video. My sense is if the cop after the first, more gentle ramming had stopped and not careened off aggressively with the person still on the hood in the distance, it would have been slightly more reasonable. That second burst is where the cop seems like he should be thrown in a jail cell. Running over people... obviously sub-optimal. But on the other hand, some of these protesters are being quite dooshy as well so my sympathy meter is kinda low.

Cops shouldn't drive over people. Yeah. I wonder if slowly creeping and then very slowly accelerating would have done the trick as maybe people get out of the way. But I also don't think I'd be climbing all over the hood of a cop car in that situation either. Sometimes you kinda get what you're asking for. Dunno.

Both sides are absolutely in the wrong, IMO.

But in the end, police should not use potentially lethal force unless there is a danger to someone else's life, and the second half of that was certainly potentially lethal.

[Mr.Coffee]

Agreed

[WhiteTiger]

I thought about this one for a while, and there is a point of consideration I'd like to add to the mix that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

Police vehicles carry a lot of extra equipment in the rear of the vehicle. Shotguns, beanbag launchers, med kits, riot gear, most everything an officer will/may need on their shift is in the back. In a cruiser, that's in the trunk. In an SUV, that's in the back hatch area.

IF the rear window of the SUV was broken, anyone behind the SUV could have access to that equipment.

[dobbles]

As I caught up in this thread and read all the bickering, I thought I was going to side with oling. I am pretty anti police at this point, and definitely think police across the board (no not EVERY, but at this point it sure looks like a majority) needlessly escalate situations. I figured there was no way that it was necessary to run those people over. My initial reactions were that the dude in front laying backwards on the hood was not a reason to drive over people.

But then I did watch it again and you can pretty plainly see thanks to the reflections that there is a large hole in the rear window. And if windows were starting to get broken out, I can understand why the officer was fearful and even that he acted with a sense of urgency as opposed to trying to warn or drive out slowly.

Sure the cops have all the firepower and in a way shouldn't need to feel threatened by mostly peaceful protesters. But I at least can understand it from the officers point of view.

I think if this was an AITA, I would just vote ESH as there's plenty of fault to go around.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

This whole thread just makes me think of this...

Except one of them is wrong.
That number was painted there for a reason. It is either a 6 or a 9.
One of them is ignoring the larger context and refusing to acknowledge that their point of view does not include all of the relevant information that will lead them to the correct conclusion.

This picture is a great example of exactly what is wrong with a lot of people these days, their belief that their opinion is unassailable and that they don't need to try to see beyond their own narrow view.

We see it way too often in politics these days.
1) it's a 6
2) no, it's a 9
1) that doesn't make sense, why would there be an upside down 5 and 7 on either side of a 9
2) FAKE NEWS!

I'm not saying this is you, I just like pointing out the complete irony of this particular image.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Except one of them is wrong.
That number was painted there for a reason. It is either a 6 or a 9.
One of them is ignoring the larger context and refusing to acknowledge that their point of view does not include all of the relevant information that will lead them to the correct conclusion.

This picture is a great example of exactly what is wrong with a lot of people these days, their belief that their opinion is unassailable and that they don't need to try to see beyond their own narrow view.

We see it way too often in politics these days.
1) it's a 6
2) no, it's a 9
1) that doesn't make sense, why would there be an upside down 5 and 7 on either side of a 9
2) FAKE NEWS!

I'm not saying this is you, I just like pointing out the complete irony of this particular image.

Interesting take, what's not to say its not stylize "g" and not a number at all...

Perspective is everything and the fact that people believe their opinion is unassailable becomes the biggest factor, you look at that and say its painted why? Is that how it looks from your perspective? Why does one side have to be 100% right?

I don't believe there is any irony in this image... we as a society need to look at things from all angles, even the ones we don't agree with and have discussions... peaceful, rational discussions. While emotion is powerful, it often clouds us and prevents us from any kind of meaningful discussion that could bring about change.

I understand the protests but i don't agree with the means and actions of some of the protesters/rioters/looters/activists. I understand the police and the job they have, I don't always agree with the actions/force used by individual police officers.

But I do know that making choices based on emotion and acting out of anger does nothing to promote meaningful discussion and change, it breeds distrust and caution from the other party and never creates common ground.

[Cliche]

seattle-city-councilmember-kshama-sawant-joined-a-large-group-of-protesters-outside-the-chop-zone-who-marched-to Seattle Mayor Durkans-house-on-sunday-afternoon

Mayor Durkan and her family are in the state program to keep their address confidential because of the death threats mostly related to her work as Seattle's U.S. Attorney under President Obama. Instead of working to make true change, Councilmember Sawant continues to choose political stunts. Tonight she did so without regard for the safety of the Mayor and her family. The Mayor was not even home - she was working at City Hall. Seattle can and should peacefully demonstrate but should not put families and children at risk."

/louisville-breonna-taylor-protest-shooting-suspect-identified/3277736001/

A frequent participant in Louisville's month of protests has been accused of fatally shooting a photographer in the city's Jefferson Square Park after a dispute with another person.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Interesting take, what's not to say its not stylize "g" and not a number at all...

Perspective is everything and the fact that people believe their opinion is unassailable becomes the biggest factor, you look at that and say its painted why? Is that how it looks from your perspective? Why does one side have to be 100% right?

I don't believe there is any irony in this image... we as a society need to look at things from all angles, even the ones we don't agree with and have discussions... peaceful, rational discussions. While emotion is powerful, it often clouds us and prevents us from any kind of meaningful discussion that could bring about change.

I understand the protests but i don't agree with the means and actions of some of the protesters/rioters/looters/activists. I understand the police and the job they have, I don't always agree with the actions/force used by individual police officers.

But I do know that making choices based on emotion and acting out of anger does nothing to promote meaningful discussion and change, it breeds distrust and caution from the other party and never creates common ground.

1) yeah, it could be, that is my point, with greater context, and more information we could likely know for certain what it is

2) That is the irony of this picture. People post it as a way of saying, you need to look at things from all angles, but that's the exact opposite of what is going on in this picture. The point of looking at things from all angles, gathering context, and getting as much supporting information as possible is so that you can evaluate your opinion, and maybe change int.
This image shows two people refusing to look at any other angle and the message is "Well, agree to disagree I guess".

What this image shows to me isn't a message of "we can both be right" it's an image of at least 1 person digging in their heels and refusing to change their opinion because they don't want to question their initial conclusion.

I think there is room for a message of "we can both be right" I have no problem with that, I just think this image is stupid and completely counter to that message. Change it to a duck that is also a rabbit, and sure, fill your boots, but this one is dumb.

I'm not rallying against anyone in this thread, or you, I just think this particular image is really dumb.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

1) yeah, it could be, that is my point, with greater context, and more information we could likely know for certain what it is

2) That is the irony of this picture. People post it as a way of saying, you need to look at things from all angles, but that's the exact opposite of what is going on in this picture. The point of looking at things from all angles, gathering context, and getting as much supporting information as possible is so that you can evaluate your opinion, and maybe change int.
This image shows two people refusing to look at any other angle and the message is "Well, agree to disagree I guess".

What this image shows to me isn't a message of "we can both be right" it's an image of at least 1 person digging in their heels and refusing to change their opinion because they don't want to question their initial conclusion.

I think there is room for a message of "we can both be right" I have no problem with that, I just think this image is stupid and completely counter to that message. Change it to a duck that is also a rabbit, and sure, fill your boots, but this one is dumb.

I'm not rallying against anyone in this thread, or you, I just think this particular image is really dumb.

Maybe there is no "right" answer. You think the image is stupid, i think its meaningful, looking at the same thing... perspective.

[DownInFlames]

Shouldn’t the heading say “realest”?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Shouldn’t the heading say “realest”?

* Thought maybe they were trying to be clever, then saw the seemingly random usage of commas.

Oh well, I am sure the heart was in the right place

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Maybe there is no "right" answer. You think the image is stupid, i think its meaningful, looking at the same thing... perspective.

But almost never is there a situation that doesn’t have a “wrong answer”. And the image you shared doesn’t represent a situation where people actually discuss and come to an understanding. It’s more often than not used as a defence of ones idea because they have no interest in learning more, or hearing about the other perspective. Absolutely, one of them could be wrong. One likely is. They need to see each other’s perspective, but “agree to disagree” isn’t always appropriate. Which is the closing opinion of the cartoon in my eye.