my dude, they are already taught that. nothing about these points is new or different. i don't know if you've noticed but it ain't working.Whats wrong with that? Cops get taught to take out the legs generally anyway when not using guns (i.e. with batons) . Shooting above the waist is much more likely to lead to a fatal or life altering injury. Only thing of course is that it doesnt factor in the difficulty of it and/or the threat the officer's life, but the thought behind it - especially with the de-escalation he mentioned isnt crazy. What he should have said that the use of a gun should be avoided bc of the lethal ability it carries and the almost near automatic reason that its typically pulled to permanently take someone out.
His primary focus in almost everything he has said about it is to focus on training, a national database, re-structuring etc. The vast majority of this country do not believe its an all police bad concept. At least I dont think so. There are plenty of great cops and departments as a whole out there, those should be held up as shining examples. Im about as left of center as one can be but the whole defund the police concept when taken literally and applied without measure- is dumb.my dude, they are already taught that. nothing about these points is new or different. i don't know if you've noticed but it ain't working.
no you arentIm about as left of center as one can be
again, training does not work. neither do body cams. stop perpetuating nonsense when we already know for a fact that it isn't the solution.His primary focus in almost everything he has said about it is to focus on training, a national database, re-structuring etc. The vast majority of this country do not believe its an all police bad concept.
You're acting like police violence and corruption is so unique to the US. Its not. Now if you strictly wanted to focus on lethal force being used, then yes - but that's still only a piece of the puzzle.again, training does not work. neither do body cams. stop perpetuating nonsense when we already know for a fact that it isn't the solution.
It's not meant to be taken literally though. I think few people will say that all police forces should be disbanded entirely. The idea is to take money away from the police and create budget for mental health units - like the CAHOOTS unit in Eugene, OR (link to their website and a discussion). That can be a lot of money, too, given how many US police departments have militarized in recent years. (That equipment is expensive!)His primary focus in almost everything he has said about it is to focus on training, a national database, re-structuring etc. The vast majority of this country do not believe its an all police bad concept. At least I dont think so. There are plenty of great cops and departments as a whole out there, those should be held up as shining examples. Im about as left of center as one can be but the whole defund the police concept when taken literally and applied without measure- is dumb.
no you arent
I agree. Which is why im glad some folks recognize how problematic the optics of just saying "defund the police" are. It is a very broad systematic problem that requires many different steps. But just because one solution isnt the end all solution (i. E. Body cams) - it doesn't mean it can't still be part of the solution.It's not meant to be taken literally though. I think few people will say that all police forces should be disbanded entirely. The idea is to take money away from the police and create budget for mental health units - like the CAHOOTS unit in Eugene, OR (link to their website and a discussion). That can be a lot of money, too, given how many US police departments have militarized in recent years. (That equipment is expensive!)
Proper mental health support and treatment coupled with supportive and engaged neighbourhood police units (i.e., a friendly neighbourhood presence focused on establishing ties and working with people) would be a much better use of funds than an armoured truck and would prevent and solve a lot of problems.
are we talking about the u.s elections? yes.You're acting like police violence and corruption is so unique to the US. Its not. Now if you strictly wanted to focus on lethal force being used, then yes - but that's still only a piece of the puzzle.
Newsflash: this is a massive country with thousands of police departments who all run different equipment, run different trainings, etc. There is a reason why some of these deaths are given so much attention (and rightfully so) - exactly because it doesnt, and shouldn't happen all the time.are we talking about the u.s elections? yes.
aren't cops already trained in de-escalation? yes
has it worked? no
don't we already know this? also yes
why are you still repeating BS talking points that will only result in more innocent deaths?
that's great. show me how training, restructuring(whatever that means), is supposed to be the solution?Newsflash: this is a massive country with thousands of police departments who all run different equipment, run different trainings, etc. There is a reason why some of these deaths are given so much attention (and rightfully so) - exactly because it doesnt, and shouldn't happen all the time.
You cant approach one another if both sides are pushing each other into a corner more and more and all it leads to is hyper polarization without recognizing that each side comes at it from two different angles. That's how we got where we are. Media and politicians love it though.
I guess just shooting them like they currently do works well ala Trump, shit don't break what's not broken right?how can anyone take this idiot or his campaign seriously?! beats me
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How about not shooting?I guess just shooting them like they currently do works well ala Trump, shit don't break what's not broken right?
Watching US politics really gives me a new found respect for our Dutch politicians. Either ours are very smart or theirs are very dumb, but even our right wing nutjob is at least sort of intelligent. I mean, he gives speeches in Latin, that requires an IQ of at least 180.
Shooting someone in the leg is de-escalating the situation. Got it.how can anyone take this idiot or his campaign seriously?! beats me
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Probably the latter.Watching US politics really gives me a new found respect for our Dutch politicians. Either ours are very smart or theirs are very dumb, but even our right wing nutjob is at least sort of intelligent. I mean, he gives speeches in Latin, that requires an IQ of at least 180.
It might also be that in the US even the fecking toilet lady is publically elected.Probably the latter.
One of the perks of being home schooled.It might also be that in the US even the fecking toilet lady is publically elected.
Only thing I ever ran for is class president. I won in a landslide naturally. Great numbers!
ouchOne of the perks of being home schooled.
I'm just jealous is all. I was home schooled and I never received so much as a nomination...ouch
Not just another instrument of government propaganda in the country, Facebook India refused to take down accounts and posts of rabid islamophobes spreading an insane amount of hate (tbf pro Modi propaganda and Islamophobia is indistinguishable).They were summoned by a Delhi Assembly in connection to the Delhi riots but they have refused to appear.Not exactly related, but the head of FB India has said many times how much she loves our prime minister and what he does. Her platform has oceans of pro-Modi propaganda. I have zero faith in that company to be an kind of neutral arbiter of anything
I really don't see the problem with this? This is a good thing, not a bad thing, no?how can anyone take this idiot or his campaign seriously?! beats me
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It is not THE solution but better education of police personell has to be at least a part of it. To imply that better training would not help in reducing police incompetence and power abuse is pretty ridiculous. Basic Police training in the US is sorely lacking compared to other First World countries. A friend of mine who trains new recruits of the German Police for a living called it "catastrophic, chaotic and highly dangerous". The last point is especially aimed towards the higher focus of the training towards intimidation instead of deescelation. The length of the training is also an issue here. It is quite frankly far too short. It is in many cases only a fraction of the time that it takes for them to be allowed fully armed (sometimes to the teeth) compared to their counter parts in the rest of the World.that's great. show me how training, restructuring(whatever that means), is supposed to be the solution?
It’s a good thing if you are a normal person.I really don't see the problem with this? This is a good thing, not a bad thing, no?
Shooting bad guys in the legs instead of 8 times in the back is what they should've been doing all along, really.
If you're in a situation where you need to shoot someone then you're shooting to kill. Gun's are never a non-lethal response weapon, and the idea that you can just shoot someone in the leg and put them down safely is basically TV cop show nonsense.I really don't see the problem with this? This is a good thing, not a bad thing, no?
Shooting bad guys in the legs instead of 8 times in the back is what they should've been doing all along, really.
1. I mean, sure, if your life is at immediate risk, and the offender has a gun, shoot to kill. Which is why I used the example of "... 8 times in the back."If you're in a situation where you need to shoot someone then you're shooting to kill. Gun's are never a non-lethal response weapon, and the idea that you can just shoot someone in the leg and put them down safely is basically TV cop show nonsense.
1) If you're using a gun, you're supposed to be either in imminent danger or someone else is in imminent danger. Trying to shoot someone in the leg is harder than shooting them in the body (also the reason cops don't try for head shots) and if you miss then you or someone else is probably dead.
2) Even if you hit them and they're still capable of reacting, then you or someone else is probably dead.
3) A gunshot wound to the leg can be MORE dangerous than shots to various parts of the torso. If you hit an artery or major blood vessels then you probably killed them anyway.
Basically the training needs to be in massively reducing the cops use of guns in the first place in favour of de-escalation and the use of non-lethal weapons. If a gun needs to be used however there is never going to be a safe option, they're intended to kill and they will kill.
This is not really accurate. There are certainly some situations, where the police should shoot for the legs rather than shoot to kill, and I'm pretty sure this is also taught in police academies around the world. Specifically, if a suspect is armed with a knife or blunt weapon and refuses to comply after repeated warnings. You can find plenty of articles describing incidents, where police have used this approach.If you're in a situation where you need to shoot someone then you're shooting to kill. Gun's are never a non-lethal response weapon, and the idea that you can just shoot someone in the leg and put them down safely is basically TV cop show nonsense.
1) If you're using a gun, you're supposed to be either in imminent danger or someone else is in imminent danger. Trying to shoot someone in the leg is harder than shooting them in the body (also the reason cops don't try for head shots) and if you miss then you or someone else is probably dead.
2) Even if you hit them and they're still capable of reacting, then you or someone else is probably dead.
3) A gunshot wound to the leg can be MORE dangerous than shots to various parts of the torso. If you hit an artery or major blood vessels then you probably killed them anyway.
Basically the training needs to be in massively reducing the cops use of guns in the first place in favour of de-escalation and the use of non-lethal weapons. If a gun needs to be used however there is never going to be a safe option, they're intended to kill and they will kill.
I'd be fascinated to read a single example of a police academy anywhere in the world teaching this if you have an example?This is not really accurate. There are certainly some situations, where the police should shoot for the legs rather than shoot to kill, and I'm pretty sure this is also taught in police academies around the world.
The torso without any doubt. Although there are several areas of the torso which are likely to be immediately fatal, people very often survive individal gunshot wounds to the body. There is a lot of body mass there and wounds can often be survivable. The thighs are an awful place to be shot, due to the high blood flow there and prominence of blood vessels, and being shot in or lower than the knees is likely to result in something crippling if you survive. The stomach would seriously suck, but at least there you'd survive for a reasonable amount of time during which you can potentially receive medical help to save you.But if you had the choice between getting shot in the leg or in the torso, what would you choose? Which shot do you think you're most likely to survive? Be honest now.
Alright, then. I'd choose getting shot in the leg 10 out of 10 times. To each their own, I guess.The torso without any doubt. Although there are several areas of the torso which are likely to be immediately fatal, people very often survive individal gunshot wounds to the body. There is a lot of body mass there and wounds can often be survivable. The thighs are an awful place to be shot, due to the high blood flow there and prominence of blood vessels, and being shot in or lower than the knees is likely to result in something crippling if you survive. The stomach would seriously suck, but at least there you'd survive for a reasonable amount of time during which you can potentially receive medical help to save you.
3 deaths out of 49 incidents where the police had to fire their gun in Norway the past 10 years.I'd be fascinated to read a single example of a police academy anywhere in the world teaching this if you have an example?
I don't think the curriculum will be available online, but given that you can easily find dozens of examples of police using this approach, I would assume it is something that is taught. I could be wrong. Shooting for the legs was also part of the escalation principles I was taught in the army, when I did guard duty.I'd be fascinated to read a single example of a police academy anywhere in the world teaching this if you have an example?
Why on earth did they choose blue to represent the percentage of ballots returned?Keep track of Mail-In Voting.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/mail-in-ballot-tracker-us-election-2020