Pattern Ghost

I can't tell who the bigger ass is here, the cop or the Young Turks moron.

/grouphug

No, you shouldn't. I'm a former cop. Lapsedgamer was a cop. Not all cops are stupid and corrupt.

I said I didn't say anything to him about it. (If you recall, he was a bit of a monster guy.) It was mentioned to my superiors, but thanks for playing.
 
I know you don't like to admit when you're wrong, but I think you really need to learn how to do that. You're clever. You're not that clever. Nobody is always right.
 
YOU ARE WRONG. Period. End of story.
 
Put your broad brush away. Complain about specific incidents, individuals and even departments. Quit acting like an angry, ignorant child.

No, you shouldn't. I'm a former cop. Lapsedgamer was a cop. Not all cops are stupid and corrupt.

It would appear the motto has also been edited "To serve our own interests and protect our own asses"

Since he was responding to comments I made -- and having had plenty of use of force training, and having employed it on the job -- I'm going to comment. Retention holsters are one factor. While it's possible that the officers did everything right leading up to the victim's death, it's much more likely that one or more of them did something wrong.
 
The first thing that likely went wrong was the initial contact. We have no basis to judge how that went, as the video doesn't record it, and eyewitnesses are less than reliable. No mention was made of it in the article to my recollection. But it's a very common point of failure.
 
The second thing is the complete lack of coordination or any kind of skill shown in restraining the guy, even though they had the advantage of size and numbers. If he had been taken down cleanly and restrained, he wouldn't have had a hand free for a gun grab. That's not necessarily criminal in itself, but it's something that needs to be looked into even if just from a training perspective.
 
The LAPD states that the subject had an officer's gun. If he got the gun after getting into an altercation, and after a sloppy take down attempt, then something went wrong, retention holsters notwithstanding. (And as I said earlier, the gun taken could have been a back up weapon or in an officer's hand or something similar.) If the justification for the shooting is that the subject got a gun, then there needs to be a through explanation made. I'm sure such an explanation will be made to someone at some point, but it might be a good idea to make it public.
 
 
 
 
I hope I've avoided this. Having had some experience with the area, I've been trying to keep my comments objective and informative.
 
 
 
You may not have noticed this, but sometimes people express their opinions on discussion boards.

The part of the skirt in direct light looks considerably brighter. The whole thing may look better on screen. This is a dark pic.

Kimbra singing "Good Intent" in Simlish. (The Sims gibberish language.)
 

it's a bit dark and muddy, but hey I'm fine with more superhero shows. I'm by and large FAR more forgiving of Hollywood's treatment of superheroes than I am of the treatment they get at their own comic book companies. Go figure. 

As the Token Female Member of This Action-Adventure Team, My Job is to Kick.

I don't know what your point is. That was a bad shoot. No disagreement there. However, you posted it in response to a simple statement of fact, so I don't understand your reasoning.
 
I believe I went over this earlier in this thread, but I'll reiterate: Police have no requirement to warn someone before shooting. It's entirely discretionary and for good reason.
 
Do you remember the Tacoma mall shooting in 2005? Well, Brendan McKown does. He was carrying his concealed weapon and confronted the shooter, ordering him to drop his weapon. McKown is now paralyzed as a result, and the shooter is now happily married in jail. (That last link isn't really germane to the discussion, but included because it's rather odd news.)
 
McKown made two errors in judgment: First, he engaged a long arm with a handgun. Second, he did what we see TV cops doing every night, what we expect from the good guys: He gave fair warning before opening fire. I don't know what made him do the latter, but it cost him dearly.
 
If you require police to give verbal warnings in every case, you put them at risk. It is always better to be the actor than the reactor and issuing commands and waiting for them to be followed puts you into the reactor role. This isn't always a good idea.
 
Police are expected to use good judgment and discretion when applying force. They're expected to use reasonable force. The problem with all of these cases are the officers themselves. The standards of use of deadly force and the use of force continuum that have been commonly been used for decades are both effective tools.
 
The bottom line is we need better men behind the badges.

I think shaking stuff falls into the fairly low budget SFX department.

Rose, I think we're talking past each other here.
 
 
 
Why don't we let him answer for himself if he feels the need to?
 
 
 
 
I don't see how his posting a link to the Pasco shooting applies at all, then. The Cops not only gave orders to the guy, they also attempted to tase him and the Taser prong didn't stick. And neither of these things is where they went wrong.
 
 
 
 
I would agree that in pretty much every single case of a killing by police in this thread, the deaths could have been avoided had better cops shown up to the scenes.
 
 
 
You don't get to decide that. The topic being discussed was whether or not police should be required to give warnings. The post wasn't meant to address the Pasco shooting AT ALL in the first place. Ragitsu brought that in. Neither of us can tell exactly what he meant by posting a link with no commentary.
 
In fact, that link was completely irrelevant because 1) a warning WAS given and 2) the man was very likely incapable of understanding any warning. Warnings weren't really the issue in that shooting. The fact that they went to a lethal level of force AT ALL is the issue. The fact that they murdered a person who wasn't in his right mind, and endangered many bystanders is the issue in Pasco. I hope to hell they hang for it, too.* The guy who got shot was the guy the police were supposed to be protecting, if only from himself.
 
Here's the bottom line: Police have to be entrusted with a certain amount of discretion in doing their jobs. They have to have a certain level of indemnity to be able to do their jobs without constantly second-guessing things. The unfortunate truth is that when you take a large number of people (ie, all law enforcement officers in the US) and give them a large amount of discretionary power, you will have many who will abuse that power. Even if the percentage is relatively small, the raw number is large. That's before factoring in various levels of institutionalized corruption and protectionism, particularly in several large departments. And something needs to be done about all of this.
 
 
 
 
*Actually, WA got rid of hanging some time back.

Sorry, Rose, you're missing the point completely.  You need to look at the context here.
 
Ragitsu seems* to be suggesting (posts 426, 430) that police should be required to give a verbal warning.
 
My post was a refutation of that. The example was exactly the correct one for the point I was actually making.
 
That point: You cannot require an officer give a verbal warning in every case. Use of deadly force and the use of force continuum are very well established. They work. They're ignored all too often by bad cops. This is a training issue, not an issue with the rules themselves.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Seems to. He'll have to weigh in to be certain.

When my Mom moved into her current residence, she was warned about the crows, and given a list of precautions to prevent them dumping the trash, including having lids that lock down on the cans, spraying the bags with cleaning chemicals, padlocking the utility closet where the can is stored, and so on.
 
She took a different tack: she feeds them. On trash day, her crows will arrive near the back porch, and will wait patiently for her to put out peanut butter sandwiches (cut into fourths). The crows will approach the edge of the porch, bow their heads, and tap a foot. She will tell them that it's okay to take their small square of sandwich, and only then will they approach and take theirs. After a few months of this, the original pair brought along a juvenile, who was presented to her (they called to her, did the greeting above, and then called to "junior" to come forward, which he did). Her trash is never touched, even though she doesn't put the bags into the barrel much anymore. I jokingly tell her that she's paying "protection money" with the sandwiches.
 
The neighbor, on the other hand, frequently has to pick up the mess of strewn trash. Seems one of the folks over there decided to yell at the crows, and throw objects. Crows can really hold grudges.
 
The last wrinkle in this was a bit of "outside muscle" from the coast--a seagull that was blown in on one of the storms a few months ago. The crows seemed to adopt the seagull into their little group, and have somehow "explained the rules" about what trash is off limits and what's fair game. So, now the seagull knocks over the neighbor's trashcan, and sits in their recycling bins (to throw out choice bits), while the crows cheer it on.

I don't know what your point is. That was a bad shoot. No disagreement there. However, you posted it in response to a simple statement of fact, so I don't understand your reasoning.
 
I believe I went over this earlier in this thread, but I'll reiterate: Police have no requirement to warn someone before shooting. It's entirely discretionary and for good reason.
 
Do you remember the Tacoma mall shooting in 2005? Well, Brendan McKown does. He was carrying his concealed weapon and confronted the shooter, ordering him to drop his weapon. McKown is now paralyzed as a result, and the shooter is now happily married in jail. (That last link isn't really germane to the discussion, but included because it's rather odd news.)
 
McKown made two errors in judgment: First, he engaged a long arm with a handgun. Second, he did what we see TV cops doing every night, what we expect from the good guys: He gave fair warning before opening fire. I don't know what made him do the latter, but it cost him dearly.
 
If you require police to give verbal warnings in every case, you put them at risk. It is always better to be the actor than the reactor and issuing commands and waiting for them to be followed puts you into the reactor role. This isn't always a good idea.
 
Police are expected to use good judgment and discretion when applying force. They're expected to use reasonable force. The problem with all of these cases are the officers themselves. The standards of use of deadly force and the use of force continuum that have been commonly been used for decades are both effective tools.
 
The bottom line is we need better men behind the badges.

I don't know what your point is. That was a bad shoot. No disagreement there. However, you posted it in response to a simple statement of fact, so I don't understand your reasoning.
 
I believe I went over this earlier in this thread, but I'll reiterate: Police have no requirement to warn someone before shooting. It's entirely discretionary and for good reason.
 
Do you remember the Tacoma mall shooting in 2005? Well, Brendan McKown does. He was carrying his concealed weapon and confronted the shooter, ordering him to drop his weapon. McKown is now paralyzed as a result, and the shooter is now happily married in jail. (That last link isn't really germane to the discussion, but included because it's rather odd news.)
 
McKown made two errors in judgment: First, he engaged a long arm with a handgun. Second, he did what we see TV cops doing every night, what we expect from the good guys: He gave fair warning before opening fire. I don't know what made him do the latter, but it cost him dearly.
 
If you require police to give verbal warnings in every case, you put them at risk. It is always better to be the actor than the reactor and issuing commands and waiting for them to be followed puts you into the reactor role. This isn't always a good idea.
 
Police are expected to use good judgment and discretion when applying force. They're expected to use reasonable force. The problem with all of these cases are the officers themselves. The standards of use of deadly force and the use of force continuum that have been commonly been used for decades are both effective tools.
 
The bottom line is we need better men behind the badges.

Happened upon this on YouTube, thought this might be a good place for it:
 

This sounds like something Walter would do on Fringe:
 
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140704-i-bring-the-dead-back-to-life

Well, my idea of accountability is . . . rather extreme. Abolition is more likely.

My initial intent was to show that even the original creator of WW had a fluid idea of her core concepts. Not only was she a strong woman fully in command of her own destiny, but also that she could be vulerable and could be subjegated. WW can be a sex kitten and a stong woman at the same time. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
 
If an artist today drew WW in some of the poses and situations that Moulten put her in, there would be massive outrage. I would posit that those people are not taking her original concept into consideration and in fact, the majority of them are likely ignorant of how she was originaally portrayed and a percentage of them would be shocked and dismayed to discover it.
 
That doesnt give carte blanche for modern writers to destroy WW feminist ideals. Not at all, but neither do those ideals exclude artissts from portraying Diana as sexy. And many peoples idea of sexy vary considerably. What i personally consider sensual portrayal of sex appeal, many would find to be pornographic. One artists portrayal of WW might appeal to me, yet offend someone else. Whose perception of WW is the correct one?