What do we know about the LAPD police force?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Where does their bad reputation come from and what might drive that former police officer to go rogue against them?

What do you know about the LAPD?

Their bad repuation comes from the fact they're a bunch of trigger-happy morons who shouldn't have an ounce of public authority.

ravenshrike:
Their bad repuation comes from the fact they're a bunch of trigger-happy morons who shouldn't have an ounce of public authority.

I believe this is a candidate for the most appropriate use of a meme in 2013.
image

I don't really have a response to that kind of answer but I expect that will be taken care of soon...

Friendly Lich:
Where does their bad reputation come from and what might drive that former police officer to go rogue against them?

What do you know about the LAPD?

You want us to source their bad reputation?
Eh, I'm sure there are plenty of shooting-incidents and racism-related arrests that people like to refer to. Just google it.
(The reason I won't google it and source is because I don't claim the LAPD are morons, because I don't like in the US and do not care. I don't claim they are bad, or good, just that this is probably why people would).

The LAPD have historically been the single most corrupt and racist police force in the history of California, if not the entire USA.

There are numerous cases in which officers have been known to have been moved to higher positions and given paid vacation as "punishment" for abuses of power such as the Rodney King incident.

They're notoriously corrupt, and always have been.

ravenshrike:
Their bad repuation comes from the fact they're a bunch of trigger-happy morons who shouldn't have an ounce of public authority.

Jayemsal:
The LAPD have historically been the single most corrupt and racist police force in the history of California, if not the entire USA.
There are numerous cases in which officers have been known to have been moved to higher positions and given paid vacation as "punishment" for abuses of power such as the Rodney King incident.
They're notoriously corrupt, and always have been.

This sort of rubbish is probably why the topic was opened as a split of the Dorner manhunt topic. One incident of over 20 years back and pure prejudice is hardly anything to go on.

Sure, there's shootings and such, but that's nothing else than normal for America.

2-3 anecdotes across decades is woefully inadequate to throw accusations at an organisation of 10.023 officers and 2879 other employees. If you had 3 cases of corruption it would mean a corruption rate of 1 in 4000 or 0,025% corruption. Meaning the chance that any random LAPD employee you encounter is honest, is 99,975%.

Go figure how much of a non-discussion this is going to be...

Blablahb:

ravenshrike:
Their bad repuation comes from the fact they're a bunch of trigger-happy morons who shouldn't have an ounce of public authority.

Jayemsal:
The LAPD have historically been the single most corrupt and racist police force in the history of California, if not the entire USA.
There are numerous cases in which officers have been known to have been moved to higher positions and given paid vacation as "punishment" for abuses of power such as the Rodney King incident.
They're notoriously corrupt, and always have been.

This sort of rubbish is probably why the topic was opened as a split of the Dorner manhunt topic. One incident of over 20 years back and pure prejudice is hardly anything to go on.

Sure, there's shootings and such, but that's nothing else than normal for America.

2-3 anecdotes across decades is woefully inadequate to throw accusations at an organisation of 10.023 officers and 2879 other employees. If you had 3 cases of corruption it would mean a corruption rate of 1 in 4000 or 0,025% corruption. Meaning the chance that any random LAPD employee you encounter is honest, is 99,975%.

Go figure how much of a non-discussion this is going to be...

Well I COULD bring up the fact that nearly the entire LAPD was proven to have been recieving pay directly from the mob when it was in control of LA, all the way into the 70s.

But thats just 2-3 anecdotes across decades.

You're lying to yourself if you honestly think they only have a few sprinkles of corruption in their history.

Jayemsal:
Well I COULD bring up the fact that nearly the entire LAPD was proven to have been recieving pay directly from the mob when it was in control of LA, all the way into the 70s.

But what does the LAPD then and the LAPD now have to do with eachother? That's over 40 years ago.

Jayemsal:
You're lying to yourself if you honestly think they only have a few sprinkles of corruption in their history.

I look forward to you showing us proof that at least 5000 individuals (so now rubbish generalisations or assumptions please) employed by the LAPD are corrupt. That would be somewhere around 40% of their employees.

Blablahb:

Jayemsal:
Well I COULD bring up the fact that nearly the entire LAPD was proven to have been recieving pay directly from the mob when it was in control of LA, all the way into the 70s.

But what does the LAPD then and the LAPD now have to do with eachother? That's over 40 years ago.

Jayemsal:
You're lying to yourself if you honestly think they only have a few sprinkles of corruption in their history.

I look forward to you showing us proof that at least 5000 individuals (so now rubbish generalisations or assumptions please) employed by the LAPD are corrupt. That would be somewhere around 40% of their employees.

The connection, is that a great deal of people who were shown to be corrupt or engaging in abuses of police power are now in high ranking positions of the LAPD.

Not to mention the fact that when viewing their behavior in this manhunt, only a moron would still think they actually care about obeying the law.

They want this man dead, not alive.

Jayemsal:
The LAPD have historically been the single most corrupt and racist police force in the history of California, if not the entire USA.

I believe that honor goes to Chicago PD.

Prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, the LAPD was the most militarized police force within the US (and, arguably, the entire North American continent). The culture of racial paranoia that dominated urban police departments in the 60s, 70s, and 80s never really went away and changed more into a class paranoia with racial undertones. The LAPD exemplified this, and eventually had to change its practices after the Rodney King riots. Today, it's much better, but still infamous and militarized following a huge step up in the drug war.

Jayemsal:
The connection, is that a great deal of people who were shown to be corrupt or engaging in abuses of police power are now in high ranking positions of the LAPD.

So basically by dodging the question, you're admitting it was pure prejudice that you claimed the LAPD is corrupt, and you can't prove that is it even remotely plausible?

Jayemsal:
Not to mention the fact that when viewing their behavior in this manhunt, only a moron would still think they actually care about obeying the law

You can't support prejudice and speculation, by more prejudice and speculation.

Not just that, but if they didn't care about the law they'd have shrugged at Dorner's killing and carried on without trying to get him.

Heck, they only even threw that psycho out to begin with because he made false accusations to avoid failing his training. Who'd not care about the law and then even bother with false accusations being made? Your claims are ridiculous.

Blablahb:

Jayemsal:
The connection, is that a great deal of people who were shown to be corrupt or engaging in abuses of police power are now in high ranking positions of the LAPD.

So basically by dodging the question, you're admitting it was pure prejudice that you claimed the LAPD is corrupt, and you can't prove that is it even remotely plausible?

Jayemsal:
Not to mention the fact that when viewing their behavior in this manhunt, only a moron would still think they actually care about obeying the law

You can't support prejudice and speculation, by more prejudice and speculation.

Not just that, but if they didn't care about the law they'd have shrugged at Dorner's killing and carried on without trying to get him.

Heck, they only even threw that psycho out to begin with because he made false accusations to avoid failing his training. Who'd not care about the law and then even bother with false accusations being made? Your claims are ridiculous.

You know perfectly well what I mean.

And quite frankly, you seem like you're purposely trying my patience.

The fact of the matter is, they have opened fire on two innocent women of a different race than him, in a different truck model, of a different color than his, under the presupposition that they MIGHT be him. They have run a man(different race) off the road without any hint of warning, destroying his truck in the process, under the presupposition that they MIGHT be him.

They could have killed those women, they could have killed that man.

These are the actions of a violent, cornered organization that holds no respect for the rule of law, unless it serves their own purposes.

Jayemsal:
You know perfectly well what I mean.
And quite frankly, you seem like you're purposely trying my patience.

It's not my fault you accuse an organisation of over 12.000 people of corruption without proof. The questionable quality of your arguments is your problem. Better ask why you're trying your patience.

And I know exactly what you mean, that's why I went one step ahead and concluded that you're admitting that your corruption accusation comes from pure prejudice, after reading a few news headlines.

Jayemsal:
The fact of the matter is, they have opened fire on two innocent women of a different race than him, in a different truck model, of a different color than his, under the presupposition that they MIGHT be him.

Shootings by cops fearing to be the next victim of a gun owner are quite common in the US.

That's not a police problem, that's a gun culture problem. If you're opposed to such police shootings, which makes sense and which I am too, please endorse a gun ban.

Jayemsal:
They have run a man(different race) off the road without any hint of warning, destroying his truck in the process, under the presupposition that they MIGHT be him.

They probably didn't want to end up as a newspaper headline that went "Cops spot car of Dorner, stopped him to ask gently if it was him, then got shot when it turned out to be him".

For complaints about this, please turn to the NRA and other gun lobbyists who make that level of carefullness and force necessary, by ensuring that any criminal who wants to, has acces to deadly weapons.

Jayemsal:
These are the actions of a violent, cornered organization that holds no respect for the rule of law, unless it serves their own purposes.

You've just been describing examples of them trying to uphold the law rather frantically... You're not just throwing unproven accusations, but you're actually contradicting them yourself too by grasping at straws by mentioning anecdotes.

The LAPD have a history of racism and violence. The rodney king beating, the most brutal video I've seen of police brutality ever, led to riots throughout the city. Since then the city has never been the same, and of course there are plenty of instances of abuses that wouldn't be national news except it's LA. The LA riots make every example of one or five officers now national news. Is their reputation earned? Yes, but in the past decade they have been transforming their practices more and more.

So I'd say The Rodney King riots started it all.

Blablahb:

Jayemsal:
You know perfectly well what I mean.
And quite frankly, you seem like you're purposely trying my patience.

It's not my fault you accuse an organisation of over 12.000 people of corruption without proof. The questionable quality of your arguments is your problem. Better ask why you're trying your patience.

And I know exactly what you mean, that's why I went one step ahead and concluded that you're admitting that your corruption accusation comes from pure prejudice, after reading a few news headlines.

Jayemsal:
The fact of the matter is, they have opened fire on two innocent women of a different race than him, in a different truck model, of a different color than his, under the presupposition that they MIGHT be him.

Shootings by cops fearing to be the next victim of a gun owner are quite common in the US.

That's not a police problem, that's a gun culture problem. If you're opposed to such police shootings, which makes sense and which I am too, please endorse a gun ban.

Jayemsal:
They have run a man(different race) off the road without any hint of warning, destroying his truck in the process, under the presupposition that they MIGHT be him.

They probably didn't want to end up as a newspaper headline that went "Cops spot car of Dorner, stopped him to ask gently if it was him, then got shot when it turned out to be him".

For complaints about this, please turn to the NRA and other gun lobbyists who make that level of carefullness and force necessary, by ensuring that any criminal who wants to, has acces to deadly weapons.

Jayemsal:
These are the actions of a violent, cornered organization that holds no respect for the rule of law, unless it serves their own purposes.

You've just been describing examples of them trying to uphold the law rather frantically... You're not just throwing unproven accusations, but you're actually contradicting them yourself too by grasping at straws by mentioning anecdotes.

Last time I checked, opening fire on a vehicle containing two older non-black women that in no way resembles the vehicle of a tall black ex-soldier is NOT "trying to uphold the law frantically" It is the police getting away with attempted murder, or at the very least, assault with a deadly weapon. They may have used the excuse of searching for a criminal, I dont give a fuck, these two women almost died were it not for the terrible fucking aim of this corrupt cop.

He is not facing any charges by the way. (I'm so shocked...)

I dont give a fuck who the cops are chasing, or why, it does NOT give them the right to attack fire fucking guns at innocent people for no good reason.

This is not a gun culture problem, this was a trained police officer. A failure in his use of his training is a failure in the force that trained him, NOT gun culture.

Blablahb:
Snip

Jayemsal:
Snip

And none of you have yet to source a single claim, even as much as a linked news-article.
We're waiting, or do you prefer to yell 'You're wrong / No, you're wrong!' forever?

Blablahb:

Jayemsal:
You know perfectly well what I mean.
And quite frankly, you seem like you're purposely trying my patience.

It's not my fault you accuse an organisation of over 12.000 people of corruption without proof. The questionable quality of your arguments is your problem. Better ask why you're trying your patience.

And I know exactly what you mean, that's why I went one step ahead and concluded that you're admitting that your corruption accusation comes from pure prejudice, after reading a few news headlines.

Jayemsal:
The fact of the matter is, they have opened fire on two innocent women of a different race than him, in a different truck model, of a different color than his, under the presupposition that they MIGHT be him.

Shootings by cops fearing to be the next victim of a gun owner are quite common in the US.

That's not a police problem, that's a gun culture problem. If you're opposed to such police shootings, which makes sense and which I am too, please endorse a gun ban.

Jayemsal:
They have run a man(different race) off the road without any hint of warning, destroying his truck in the process, under the presupposition that they MIGHT be him.

They probably didn't want to end up as a newspaper headline that went "Cops spot car of Dorner, stopped him to ask gently if it was him, then got shot when it turned out to be him".

For complaints about this, please turn to the NRA and other gun lobbyists who make that level of carefullness and force necessary, by ensuring that any criminal who wants to, has acces to deadly weapons.

Jayemsal:
These are the actions of a violent, cornered organization that holds no respect for the rule of law, unless it serves their own purposes.

You've just been describing examples of them trying to uphold the law rather frantically... You're not just throwing unproven accusations, but you're actually contradicting them yourself too by grasping at straws by mentioning anecdotes.

You know what I think it's all about Blahb? Gay furries. Clearly, the entire department has an extreme phobia of gay furries. That's why they shoot at random civilians, they are worried that if they get too close, they might contract a terrible case of the gay. If we just banned all the gay furries then the department could do it's job. But that would be irrelevant, nuts, and would just be another case of me derailing a thread towards my pet topic of deviant sexuality now wouldn't it?

Realitycrash:

Blablahb:
Snip

Jayemsal:
Snip

And none of you have yet to source a single claim, even as much as a linked news-article.
We're waiting, or do you prefer to yell 'You're wrong / No, you're wrong!' forever?

Aren't they just carrying over an argument from the thread about the rampaging ex-cop? I'm pretty certain they both know what the other is referring to.

Revnak:

Realitycrash:

Blablahb:
Snip

Jayemsal:
Snip

And none of you have yet to source a single claim, even as much as a linked news-article.
We're waiting, or do you prefer to yell 'You're wrong / No, you're wrong!' forever?

Aren't they just carrying over an argument from the thread about the rampaging ex-cop? I'm pretty certain they both know what the other is referring to.

I wouldn't know, I abandoned that thread fairly quickly after noticing that some people were sticking up for a psycho.

Realitycrash:

Revnak:

Realitycrash:

And none of you have yet to source a single claim, even as much as a linked news-article.
We're waiting, or do you prefer to yell 'You're wrong / No, you're wrong!' forever?

Aren't they just carrying over an argument from the thread about the rampaging ex-cop? I'm pretty certain they both know what the other is referring to.

I wouldn't know, I abandoned that thread fairly quickly after noticing that some people were sticking up for a psycho.

I hadn't read it until recently because I expected it to have already been derailed to being about gun control before I had noticed it. I was right.

Jayemsal:

Well I COULD bring up the fact that nearly the entire LAPD was proven to have been recieving pay directly from the mob when it was in control of LA, all the way into the 70s.

But thats just 2-3 anecdotes across decades.

You're lying to yourself if you honestly think they only have a few sprinkles of corruption in their history.

In the 70's. I doubt there are many cops from then still serving 30-40 years later. You can point to almost every police force in the developed world and show they were rotten to the core decades ago - I know a few stories about bent UK coppers from the 60's and I'm sure everyone else here (especially lil devils) has stories about their local force.

Yes LAPD was bent in the past but what proof is the current LAPD is corrupt? Shooting the wrong people shows a group on edge, fearful for their lives and not willing to take a risk, not corrupt. Yes they haven't acted 100% in the right but when you know someone is actively hunting you and your family do you play it safe?

Seems pretty standard for a debate about police. People irrationally sticking up for some unjustifiable actions by a police organization that should conduct itself more professionally and a few condemning every member of the Police for the actions of a few. I don't really doubt that the LAPD leadership is corrupt because I'm a rational human being. The question is, how much? Does it stop at fundraising by the police brass from rich benefactors who want to make the police into a pmc for their friends or at widespread racism, bias and bribes? Republicans and Corporate Democrats lowering taxes and revenue, de-funding police departments as a result is part of the problem, maybe that's where people should start?

Karma168:

Jayemsal:

Well I COULD bring up the fact that nearly the entire LAPD was proven to have been recieving pay directly from the mob when it was in control of LA, all the way into the 70s.

But thats just 2-3 anecdotes across decades.

You're lying to yourself if you honestly think they only have a few sprinkles of corruption in their history.

In the 70's. I doubt there are many cops from then still serving 30-40 years later. You can point to almost every police force in the developed world and show they were rotten to the core decades ago - I know a few stories about bent UK coppers from the 60's and I'm sure everyone else here (especially lil devils) has stories about their local force.

Yes LAPD was bent in the past but what proof is the current LAPD is corrupt? Shooting the wrong people shows a group on edge, fearful for their lives and not willing to take a risk, not corrupt. Yes they haven't acted 100% in the right but when you know someone is actively hunting you and your family do you play it safe?

No, I do not play it safe. But I certainly do not begin shooting innocent people and running innocent drivers off the road.

Notsomuch:
Seems pretty standard for a debate about police. People irrationally sticking up for some unjustifiable actions by a police organization that should conduct itself more professionally and a few condemning every member of the Police for the actions of a few. I don't really doubt that the LAPD leadership is corrupt because I'm a rational human being. The question is, how much? Does it stop at fundraising by the police brass from rich benefactors who want to make the police into a pmc for their friends or at widespread racism, bias and bribes? Republicans and Corporate Democrats lowering taxes and revenue, de-funding police departments as a result is part of the problem, maybe that's where people should start?

Even if we accept the (incorrect) proposal that the LAPD is overall a good organization, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, one corrupt cop DOES ruin it for the whole bunch. They should take great efforts to prevent things like this from happening, and their lack of action in this regard speaks volumes.

Notsomuch:

Even if we accept the (incorrect) proposal that the LAPD is overall a good organization, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, one corrupt cop DOES ruin it for the whole bunch. They should take great efforts to prevent things like this from happening, and their lack of action in this regard speaks volumes.

The problem is the culture of protection within the police force. It doesn't sound bad that an organization should look after it's own but unless it's absolutely proven that an officer did something wrong they are going to Vindicated by the system and protected. In any non-extreme case they are pretty much in charge of policing themselves and that isn't a very good recipe for success. At most with many of these beating or killing videos now being released across the country (Coupled shortly after with pushes by Police organization for stricter recording laws. Classy.) the officers will get a slap on the wrist. There needs to be proper accountability.

Capcha: do you believe in miracles?

Blablahb:

ravenshrike:
Their bad repuation comes from the fact they're a bunch of trigger-happy morons who shouldn't have an ounce of public authority.

Jayemsal:
The LAPD have historically been the single most corrupt and racist police force in the history of California, if not the entire USA.
There are numerous cases in which officers have been known to have been moved to higher positions and given paid vacation as "punishment" for abuses of power such as the Rodney King incident.
They're notoriously corrupt, and always have been.

This sort of rubbish is probably why the topic was opened as a split of the Dorner manhunt topic. One incident of over 20 years back and pure prejudice is hardly anything to go on.

I'm sorry, where did I reference their past exactly? Two trucks, neither of which looked REMOTELY like the truck Dorner was driving except for the general trucklike shape, riddled with bullet holes along with the surrounding scenery. Trigger happy morons who should not have an ounce of public authority, yet the absolute worst that will happen to the fuckwits responsible will see them put on administrative leave and then POSSIBLY shuffled off to another police department.

ravenshrike:
I'm sorry, where did I reference their past exactly?

The part of the argument that went "Rodney King in 1991, therefore, 12.000+ people corrupt in 2013"

ravenshrike:
Trigger happy morons

...Just like people wanted them when they were harping on about the second amendment, and voting for gun ownership.

Realitycrash:
And none of you have yet to source a single claim, even as much as a linked news-article.
We're waiting, or do you prefer to yell 'You're wrong / No, you're wrong!' forever?

The moment you figure out how I have to fulfill a reversed burden of evidence and prove the non-guilt of people, I'll get right on it. I however have no idea why or how to do that, so I'll settle for stating that any proof behind such generalising accusations is lacking.

Although I could probably google up a few dozen stories of lapd officers doing their work? Would that work?

Well then, they arrested a guy who tried to trespass at the grammy awards. I guess that makes the burden of evidence 1-0 doesn't it?

They're a large police force that has gotten into quite a few scandals. Thats about it. I think a better question then what did The LAPD do to get a bad reputation is to ask what the NYPD did to maintain such a good one. I hardly ever hear anything bad about them.

Blablahb:
...Just like people wanted them when they were harping on about the second amendment, and voting for gun ownership.

What does a citizen's right to own firearms have to do with Police officers neglecting their training and opening fire on innocent people? This is in no way a gun control argument.

Blablahb:

ravenshrike:
I'm sorry, where did I reference their past exactly?

The part of the argument that went "Rodney King in 1991, therefore, 12.000+ people corrupt in 2013"

ravenshrike:
Trigger happy morons

...Just like people wanted them when they were harping on about the second amendment, and voting for gun ownership.

I'm sorry, where did I reference Rodney King again? The post you first quoted was the first post I made in any Dorner thread. As for your quixotic tilting against the 2nd amendment, any non-LEO who proceeded to shoot up innocent people, their vehicles, and the surrounding scenery would be in jail so fucking fast their head would spin

Shadowstar38:
What does a citizen's right to own firearms have to do with Police officers neglecting their training and opening fire on innocent people?

Gun ownership forces officers to work in an environment where they can be shot and even killed by anyone, at any given time. As a result they rightfully fear this, and are forced to use more violence to prevent that from happening. Weapons escalate a situation into becoming more violent. This is why for instance you have crazy paranoid stuff like forcing anyone to always hold their hands up at gunpoint, and officers approaching even daily situations with a hand on their pistol. If you don't have gun ownership, none of that caution and violence is necessary, and policing is far more effective, calmer, gentler as a result, and when officers do screw up, the consequences are far less severe.

So basically: get guns, guns get fired, get shootings, it's really not any more complicated than that.

ravenshrike:
any non-LEO who proceeded to shoot up innocent people, their vehicles, and the surrounding scenery would be in jail so fucking fast their head would spin

How long did it take again before the murderer of Trayvon Martin even saw the inside of a courtroom, let alone get convicted for it?

Blablahb:

Shadowstar38:
What does a citizen's right to own firearms have to do with Police officers neglecting their training and opening fire on innocent people?

Gun ownership forces officers to work in an environment where they can be shot and even killed by anyone, at any given time. As a result they rightfully fear this, and are forced to use more violence to prevent that from happening. Weapons escalate a situation into becoming more violent. This is why for instance you have crazy paranoid stuff like forcing anyone to always hold their hands up at gunpoint, and officers approaching even daily situations with a hand on their pistol. If you don't have gun ownership, none of that caution and violence is necessary, and policing is far more effective, calmer, gentler as a result, and when officers do screw up, the consequences are far less severe.

So basically: get guns, guns get fired, get shootings, it's really not any more complicated than that.

ravenshrike:
any non-LEO who proceeded to shoot up innocent people, their vehicles, and the surrounding scenery would be in jail so fucking fast their head would spin

How long did it take again before the murderer of Trayvon Martin even saw the inside of a courtroom, let alone get convicted for it?

Except their fear is horrifically ill founded. Police kill roughly 20 times as many citizens with firearms than citizens kill police.
http://books.google.com/books?id=41w-dnG_xHsC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=number+of+people+shot+by+police+in+america&source=bl&ots=eFHzGeGXnR&sig=-yOZAnGdzpMbqHo7OJ0DCRbEKxU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zNcaUYjDPOyFyQHg_IEY&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/2012-officer-fatalities.html

And I would consider roughly fifty fatalities to be inconsequential given the number of police in the nation. Cops should know better. They are more likely to shoot an assailant than an assailant is to shoot them many times over. Go derail some other thread.

Revnak:
Except their fear is horrifically ill founded. Police kill roughly 20 times as many citizens with firearms than citizens kill police.

Now you're misinterpreting numbers: What you see there is the result of a number of factors, which can't be controlled or excluded.

So you can't, like you just did, take the sheer number of deaths of police officers murdered by gun owners and equate it to the number of people killed by police as they enforce the law. Those numbers can be caused by anything, and don't tell us anything about what the standards of US police are, or how well they stick to them.

Revnak:
They are more likely to shoot an assailant than an assailant is to shoot them many times over.

Yeah, but only because they act a little paranoid, have their hand on their weapon and shoot, and sometimes shoot when it's unjustified. What you said means nothing without a carefull explanation of the causes and methods of each case.

I do know one thing though, if you police a crazy gun culture like the US like you'd police a country with a gun ban, many police officers would lose their lives.

What do you think if you stopped a car, walked up casually without weapons and went "Gosh, you look remarkably much like Christopher Dorner. Would you mind stepping out of the car and waiting for a bit while I go confirm your identity?"

Exactly. So the only thing which that number of people killed by bullets each year tells us, is that the US is in dire need of a firearms ban. Anything else is just not causally related to the shootings.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Except their fear is horrifically ill founded. Police kill roughly 20 times as many citizens with firearms than citizens kill police.

Now you're misinterpreting numbers: What you see there is the result of a number of factors, which can't be controlled or excluded.

So you can't, like you just did, take the sheer number of deaths of police officers murdered by gun owners and equate it to the number of people killed by police as they enforce the law. Those numbers can be caused by anything, and don't tell us anything about what the standards of US police are, or how well they stick to them.

Sure. It's rather irrelevant. Just like all your bullshit. It is irrelevant to their standards. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about whether or not it is reasonable for a police officer to fear being shot.

Revnak:
They are more likely to shoot an assailant than an assailant is to shoot them many times over.

Yeah, but only because they act a little paranoid, have their hand on their weapon and shoot, and sometimes shoot when it's unjustified. What you said means nothing without a carefull explanation of the causes and methods of each case.

Sure, they kill more because they're paranoid. And they should not be paranoid. They honestly are not that likely to get shot. These are our police officers. We should expect better of them. Also, that paranoia thing should apply the other way around too, except even more extreme as all cops have guns. I know if I were an armed criminal I'd be afraid of cops. Wonder why that doesn't seem to have too significant of an impact on the numbers?

I do know one thing though, if you police a crazy gun culture like the US like you'd police a country with a gun ban, many police officers would lose their lives.

What do you think if you stopped a car, walked up casually without weapons and went "Gosh, you look remarkably much like Christopher Dorner. Would you mind stepping out of the car and waiting for a bit while I go confirm your identity?"

Exactly. So the only thing which that number of people killed by bullets each year tells us, is that the US is in dire need of a firearms ban. Anything else is just not causally related to the shootings.

Except they looked nothing like the guy at all and were driving a very different vehicle. But otherwise your comparison was spot on. Oh, and other countries would hunt him down with armed officers as they knew he was armed, so I have no idea how that's relevant. And there are many things we can learn by breaking down statistics on gun violence. Like how irrelevant violence against officers is to police violence.

Blablahb:

Shadowstar38:
What does a citizen's right to own firearms have to do with Police officers neglecting their training and opening fire on innocent people?

Gun ownership forces officers to work in an environment where they can be shot and even killed by anyone, at any given time. As a result they rightfully fear this, and are forced to use more violence to prevent that from happening. Weapons escalate a situation into becoming more violent. This is why for instance you have crazy paranoid stuff like forcing anyone to always hold their hands up at gunpoint, and officers approaching even daily situations with a hand on their pistol. If you don't have gun ownership, none of that caution and violence is necessary, and policing is far more effective, calmer, gentler as a result, and when officers do screw up, the consequences are far less severe.

So basically: get guns, guns get fired, get shootings, it's really not any more complicated than that.

So basically, I'm not allowed to be appalled when trained officers misuse their firearms unless I support a gun ban. That's quite unrealistic.

Regardless, the actual issue here is that officials who were given their weapons by the state, trained to handle them, and given the authority to use them, mishandled their weapons and nearly killed unarmed civilians that were in no way close to the guy they were after.

That's not a problem with the second amendment, or "gun culture". It's an issue of ineptitude on the LA police force.

Shadowstar38:
So basically, I'm not allowed to be appalled when trained officers misuse their firearms unless I support a gun ban. That's quite unrealistic

Oh, you can be apalled, it just would be strange to pretend it was unwanted or someone would want that to not happen. Not after they first supported the stages for it happening to be said by supporting gun ownership.

That would be like throwing a brick at a window, and then 'being apalled' when a window is broken.

Shadowstar38:
That's not a problem with the second amendment, or "gun culture". It's an issue of ineptitude on the LA police force.

So you're saying that if police officers never had to be in situations where they could be killed in a split second, and never have to chase after loonies that are armed to the teeth, they'd still shoot people at the same rate, because gun ownership plays no role?

Sounds strange, but I can't wait to see you prove that. Maybe you can compare per capita fatal unjustified police shootings with a country that has a gun ban. I know that all records for the Netherlands are available online for one thing.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked