311–316 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they were in plain clothes anyway. Any gangster could knock and announce themselves as being the police.
At least the gangsters would announce themselves, on your scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even though I personally think no knock warrants are unjustified and should be banned. I don't think it's reasonable to say it's a wanton disregard for life when so many judges and police departments disagree. But I guess time will tell if they get charged and convicted.
> I don't think it's reasonable to say it's a wanton disregard for life when so many judges and police departments disagree. You and I probably have disagreements about how the current system values a human life relative to their other goals. I have no problem viewing a police department (or many police departments) systematically acting in a wanton manner. That doesn't excuse the individuals that carry out the actio…
I don't think "I was just following orders" is a defense against breaking the law. But I think arguing that something is a common practice throughout the U.S. is a defense against the act showing a willful or depraved indifference to human life.
Basically I don't believe in the death penalty. But I also don't think the doctor who administers the lethal injection for the state should be convicted of manslaughter if they happen to kill an innocent person. (I also think the death penalty kills more innocent people per execution, than execution of warrants).
> I suspect most PDs during a no-knock warrant will still use uniformed police officers
Definitely agree here. But plainclothes warrant execution has been become increasingly common over the last decades. The no-knocks, are getting more no-knockier.
USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…
This kind of reporting really needs to stop. There’s plenty of room for color in news and it’s used to its full potential.
Wasn’t the FCC fairness doctrine designed to combat this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is "not returning fire" really an impossible standard to you? How about: If you do something that could be met with justified self defense and you encounter that self defense your first instinct as police should be to retreat and clarify the situation? Why is it reasonable to have the first instinct to shoot back?
Do you think that a blanket policy that all officers retreat when fired upon without returning fire wouldn't be exploitable by criminals?
In general I do think there are many situations where police should not automatically return fire when fired upon. Not all situations – but many situations.
Also, I’m not obsessed with making all criminal acts impossible or making sure that there are never any loopholes or ways for criminals to get away with something.
First of all, that’s an impossible standard to meet even if you put no limits at all on police action. Crime happens regardless and criminals get away with it. (Which is not intended to be defeatist hyper-cynicism. My intention here is to say that perfection in terms of solving crimes is an impossible standard even if you don’t give a fuck about human rights and dignity. You have to measure differently.)
Second, policing that respects human dignity and reduces overall harm (as opposed to being fixated on this one possibility of some criminal getting away with it) will sometimes lead to criminals getting away with it and that’s a trade-off I’m more than willing to accept.
I would be much more keen on talking about trade-offs, otherwise you always run into the trap of running into a situation where a policy could possibly in some way be abused by criminals and as soon as that happens this policy is automatically no good anymore. That seems like dangerous dead-end thinking to me. You always run into stop signs.
Loopholes are a valid argument against a policy, however they are not the final argument against a policy. Put them on the con-side and keep on thinking about it in terms of trade-offs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hold the WaPo in high regard and tend to read it everyday but I missed this entirely, and sounds rather shocking. Could you please source your statement?
Me shouting at a cloud: "every day" means "all days" or, adverbially, "on every day"; "everyday" means "ordinary, common, expected". I know I'll get downvoted, but I see the conflation of "everyday" and "every day" everywhere and it's driving me bonkers. ETA: Note, they are pronounced differently. "Everyday" has a single primary stress on the first syllable. "Every day" has two primary stresses, one on the first syll…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't like people defending themselves against plain clothed intruders with guns they legally bought, then maybe you need to revoke the 2A. Most cops don't need guns. Almost no normal civilians need guns. The entire developed world that's not the USA gets by just fine without the 'right' to own a semi-automatic machine gun.
Without 2A, people like Breonna would have to rely on gentlemen like those that visited her apartment to defend themselves. For some reason I'm skeptical about this idea. Abolishing 2A would greatly increase safety for the rich, who will get to keep guns and armed guards regardless of any laws, and correspondingly reduce safety for the poor.