Dumpster Fire Discussions

[IglooDame]

Folks, this is "libertarianism" on display: "failure to instantly obey the commands of agents of the state is violence!"

Maybe you're thinking of authoritarianism? Or are the quote marks ironic and I should listen for the whoosh?

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe you're thinking of authoritarianism? Or are the quote marks ironic and I should listen for the whoosh?

They're sort of ironic. The joke is that most US right-libertarians are actually just fascists. I used to say they were cryptofascists but not even anymore.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Some of us even remember how the police responded with dogs, fire hoses, and batons to the non violent civil rights protests of the 1960s. The police said disperse; they didn't.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"escalation" of what, exactly? Not violence.

i wouldn't necessarily classify initiating a high speed chase as "violence" either, but it's still a bad idea.

plate not matching vehicle likely already had cop suspecting vehicle theft, if the guy starts running in that context it's not unreasonable to detain him. we are missing some context for what information was given to cop ahead of the situation, if any. something prompted the cop to check that. i don't think cop pulled lyoya over due to expired tags, then in the short moment after lyoya stepped out of vehicle managed to check and notice the plate doesn't match the vehicle or something.

if cop had info on previous crimes lyoya did, it would already be more tense than baseline.

when someone is being detained, yes running escalates the situation. that's not a thing you do in that context and it will *reliably* increase force/effort used to secure the person.

 

[IglooDame]

i wouldn't necessarily classify initiating a high speed chase as "violence" either, but it's still a bad idea.

plate not matching vehicle likely already had cop suspecting vehicle theft, if the guy starts running in that context it's not unreasonable to detain him. we are missing some context for what information was given to cop ahead of the situation, if any. something prompted the cop to check that. i don't think cop pulled lyoya over due to expired tags, then in the short moment after lyoya stepped out of vehicle managed to check and notice the plate doesn't match the vehicle or something.

if cop had info on previous crimes lyoya did, it would already be more tense than baseline.

when someone is being detained, yes running escalates the situation. that's not a thing you do in that context and it will *reliably* increase force/effort used to secure the person.

Departing at high speed is dangerous because of the high speed of a vehicle, though.

Regardless, "increasing force/effort" is not the issue. "Increasing to deadly levels of force/effort without justification" is the issue.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And here is how the police treat white people:

Link to video.
The North Carolina State Highway Patrol released a video on Tuesday showing Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) surrendering his license in a March 3 traffic stop. The trooper who pulled over Cawthorn told the conspiratorial far-right congressman it was because of expired tags. But a dashcam video taken before the stop reportedly shows Cawthorn veering partially left of center twice.

After running Cawthorn’s license, the trooper told the congressman he’d discovered “a little problem”: The license was suspended because of an out-of-state ticket, so the trooper was taking it. Cawthorn sounded surprised about the suspension, saying “Is that so?”

Since Cawthorn was then unable to drive, a woman who has not been identified stepped out of the truck. She put on high heels before helping the congressman into his wheelchair so he could get in the passenger seat. Cawthorn is due in court May 6 on a charge of driving with a revoked license.

HuffPost reached out to Cawthorn, but did not immediately receive a response. Cawthorn was previously charged with driving with a revoked license in 2017, but that charge was dismissed, according to the Raleigh News & Observer. He now faces two additional charges of speeding, from Oct. 18, 2021, and Jan. 8 of this year. During the October stop, Cawthorn appeared to be surprised when the officer told him the vehicle was registered to his father.

“It looks like it’s registered to, I guess, your dad,” the officer said after checking. “Is it really?” Cawthorn can be heard saying.

 

[Strong Reaction]

i'm not okay with preferential treatment. i do not ask that people take undue risk, and that includes if the person presenting it is supposedly special for whatever reason.



this is a big part of why i don't trust fbi/government claims about other recent events. there were more fbi agents involved in that plotting than normal citizens, including all the heavy lifting when it came to coming up with how the "kidnapping" would happen, weapons procurement etc. it was an fbi plot outright, and correctly concluded as entrapment.

of course, that won't help the poor fool who plead guilty to a fake charge, likely out of fear. also why i don't assign perfect credibility to guilty pleas.



police, victims, criminals, and news organizations alike all seem to have a rather selective memory of whether or not tasers are "lethal". police will simultaneously claim they are or aren't, depending on who has them. criminals and victims will both do that as well etc.

however, getting incapacitated/made helpless by someone who is fighting you is imminent risk of severe harm (and possibly death) per se'.



stick it anywhere within reach on the cop and pull the trigger?



too much bias. both escalated. the first thing lyoya did was jump out of the car and remain out against instruction. this led to the false claim above that the officer asked him to do that, when in fact it was the opposite. immediate escalation.

attempting to run is also escalation, obviously. tackling the person too. then fighting to stand back up and break free. then pulling the taser, then grabbing the taser. all escalations.



when they were standing, yes. don't think this guy is a "kid"?



once they were on the ground, it seems lyoya managed to get the taser out of the cop's hand entirely. maybe i misinterpreted the footage, but i don't think the cop could have grabbed his pistol the way he did otherwise.



my original complaint was the fake news/propaganda in reporting the incident. you can see evidence of that even in this thread, with posters claiming "he did not have a taser" or that the officer instructed him to get out of the vehicle. both objectively false statements, and with causal linkage to protests/throwing crap at officers over it.

in the other thread, i compared this to the harm done by jones/infowars, and questioned how if infowars is liable for insensitive false comments, how can media organizations that falsely claim lyoya was shot as an unarmed black man not be sued into the ground? the ostensible reason in both cases must be that lies cased harm/damages, but it's not obvious to me how the lyoya fake news is less damaging than the infowars fake news, in fact it seems to be more so.



lyoya was not shot until after he had possession of the taser. you might not think that threat sufficient, but it was a threat.

ideally, officer doesn't need to pull taser at all. a better officer would either successfully subdue him rather than whatever the heck that attempt was, or stall until help arrived.

speaking of which, i'm kind of amazed at how bad the officer and lyoya were in the struggle from a technical sense on watching video again. i've seen many high school wrestlers that would a) trivially subdue lyoya while being smaller than the officer and b) would have no trouble disengaging from what the officer did and starting to run on foot again. i know it's easy to armchair evaluate this stuff compared to doing it yourself. i know that darned well in fact. but this was pretty bad. i observed two amateurs, and would expect at least one of them not to be.

however, taser was within legal rights, and that was a good time to stop fighting. lyoya was shot because he took the taser by force. you can call that an "execution" if you want, but it doesn't make it so.

The point about the taser is, 26 years old is a kid to me, the kid was not in a dominant position he was face down, if the cop couldn't hit him twice, in a dominant position with the taser how was he going to do it? Also non lethal is non lethal you can try to twist it anyway you want but a taser is a non lethal weapon. Also he was unarmed in the sense that the scenario started that way. He became armed, however briefly, after the cop lost his taser. The onus to de escalate is on the cop. You never know what the mental state of an individual is. In fact many cases in which the police murder citizens involve mentally ill people. Most of the kids actions were defensive, trying to get away, resisting. He did not look to intent on leaving i.e. his movement looked slow. It looked like he was trying to create space between him on the cop. Its subjective though. I found this online which kinda explains the attitude/tactics that the police use.

What PERF and leading police chiefs call for in this report are changes in policies, training, tactics,
and equipment that provide officers with better tools for handling difficult
situations. And we recommend discontinuing outdated concepts, such as
use-of-force continuum's, the so-called “21-foot rule,” and the idea that
police must “draw a line in the sand” and resolve all situations as quickly
as possible
https://www.policeforum.org/

My main point is the situation did not need to result in murder and the police need to use different techniques to deal with civilians and they definitely have a choice in the matter.

Why is this woman not dead? It fits all the criteria for use of deadly force. They had the "right" to yet amazingly she is alive.
https://www.ocregister.com/2010/12/22/ex-councilmans-wife-charged-with-shooting-at-police/

Why is this man dead? It did not fit the criteria of use of deadly force
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/angelo-quinto-navy-veteran-death-police/

The above examples show the police show discretion in certain cases, they have a choice in whether they use deadly force or not. One in which they showed leniency and the other they choose cruelty.

And finally, Patrick Lyola's race does not matter to me, the police will murder civilian of all races. That is what I am opposed to. It happens frequently.


Police Kill Too Many People—White and Black
https://time.com/4404987/police-violence/

Daniel Shaver shooting: Ex-Arizona police officer acquitted of murder
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...zona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641

I suppose the Daniel Shaver murder is OK by you with your reasoning, he did reached for his waistband, while crawling toward the police.

 

[Farm Boy]

Don't go too far with how police treat white people. You might just be the right kind of white people to think they treat them/us a certain way.

 

[Strong Reaction]

I'm just saying its mostly a policy/tactic issue, its not always a race issue, though it sometimes is. I suppose it depends on where your from, but the poor Shaver guy his whiteness did not save him. He was killed like a dog.

 

[Farm Boy]

Representatives are not a representative sample. Just sayin'. That was it, really.

 

[Strong Reaction]

On a lighter note Mike Tyson is in the news again. I mean why you gotta poke the bear?

https://nypost.com/2022/04/21/mike-tyson-appears-to-punch-airplane-passenger-in-crazy-footage/

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Regardless, "increasing force/effort" is not the issue. "Increasing to deadly levels of force/effort without justification" is the issue.

the justification is the presence of the taser. i admit, i do not like the "schrodinger's taser threat", where everyone claims non-lethality when they have it and then it's suddenly lethal/dangerous in the other person's hand. that bothers me, and as mentioned earlier it's one hypocrisy police and people they interact with share.

The point about the taser is, 26 years old is a kid to me

i know 26 year olds sometimes act like children (heck, people more than twice that age sometimes do), but that is firmly in "adult" territory.

the kid was not in a dominant position he was face down, if the cop couldn't hit him twice, in a dominant position with the taser how was he going to do it?

both people were contesting the taser, until the cop lost it. it shouldn't be that hard to use it from a "non-dominant" position.

i don't know your experience, but i can tell you that if you are fighting over some object and the other person has it while face down, they have a significant leverage advantage. doesn't matter if it's a ball, gun, toy, etc. contesting it like that is easier as the person on the ground. this is also why football players fall on a fumbled football and cover it with their body; that makes it the hardest to take it from them by far.

it would be somewhat harder to use from the ground, but we're talking 1-2 seconds tops. actually these situations unfold incredibly quickly in the moment, generally. you don't actually get time to consider it carefully, once it's happening.

Also non lethal is non lethal you can try to twist it anyway you want but a taser is a non lethal weapon.

https://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/Taser Media CPP.pdf

"less lethal", indeed. i don't think it's as black and white as you say. this is also why police and suspects alike use the "schrodinger's taser" argument. though one might notice that this also makes its attempted use by the cop questionable as well. if it's a sufficient threat to merit self defense, maybe it wasn't appropriate to use it in this context at all, and maybe it's not a surprise when the other guy doesn't want to get tased either...

My main point is the situation did not need to result in murder and the police need to use different techniques to deal with civilians and they definitely have a choice in the matter.

i would agree this case was mishandled (i don't really believe "clean shoot" above, was just annoyed). what i will not agree with is that it's an incident of "shooting an unarmed black man", because that's false and not a matter of opinion. it ignores what actually happened, and the situation at time of shooting.

 

[IglooDame]

both people were contesting the taser, until the cop lost it. it shouldn't be that hard to use it from a "non-dominant" position.

i don't know your experience, but i can tell you that if you are fighting over some object and the other person has it while face down, they have a significant leverage advantage. doesn't matter if it's a ball, gun, toy, etc. contesting it like that is easier as the person on the ground. this is also why football players fall on a fumbled football and cover it with their body; that makes it the hardest to take it from them by far.

it would be somewhat harder to use from the ground, but we're talking 1-2 seconds tops. actually these situations unfold incredibly quickly in the moment, generally. you don't actually get time to consider it carefully, once it's happening.

The football player is just looking to possess the fumbled football, until the ref blows the whistle. If the ref wasn't blowing the whistle and they needed to get up and run with the ball again? Okay, let's try that. Right. I'll wait. Still waiting. Yeah, no.

"Somewhat harder to use from the ground"? When you're face-down? Seriously? Why do you think police are trained to put a person face-down prone when cuffing them, if they consider them a threat? Sure these situations unfold quickly, but that's why I'd expect police to be trained to handle the situations generally.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If the ref wasn't blowing the whistle and they needed to get up and run with the ball again? Okay, let's try that. Right. I'll wait. Still waiting. Yeah, no.

try that in a pile or even vs one person on top of you and you will lose it.

players are trained to dive onto the ball rather than scooping it if there is doubt, and they are taught that way for a reason. even long before a whistle. despite that scooping and running with it successfully is a higher value play.

"Somewhat harder to use from the ground"? When you're face-down? Seriously?

i have not operated a firearm from a prone position, but i can otherwise tell you from experience that if you don't have control of someone's arms in that situation, there are a hell of a lot of things either person can do in a very short timeframe. even before you factor possibility of person on ground simply reach back (or across) to randomly shove taser into person on top and firing it.

if you don't have feet hooked/control both arms as the person on top, you do not have control of the person face down and the smallest mistake can screw you even if they're weaponless.

or to put another way, i am 15+ years past my prime, significantly older than lyoya was. if i wanted to taser cop in the moment lyoya got control of it, it would not take 2 seconds. i am not special, that's just how it is in these situations. what makes it hard in reality is how fast these things progress. lyoya did not choose to use the taser on the spot, likely never thought about how to operate one in the middle of a scuffle for a meaningful amount of time at any point in his life. he probably wasn't thinking in terms of fighting for his life right then, either.

but that doesn't change the fact that another man in that exact same situation absolutely could have tasered that cop inside 2 seconds once he had it, and the cop knew it. to me, the biggest failure was pulling the taser out in first place. i don't think it's warranted unless suspect attacks/starts throwing punches/etc, not just just over resistance/running. i consider it excessive force, precisely for the same reason cop considered it a threat.

again, a lot of the disconnect here comes down to "schrodinger's taser" that is both safe/non-lethal and dangerous depending on who has it. imo, they are non-trivially dangerous and the risk of being incapacitated/at someone's mercy makes it even more so. that estimation should not change depending on who is holding it.

you might even make a case that lyoya was defending himself from excessive force, and was killed while trying to do so. i'm not sure i would disagree with that even. there's a tough call to make with to what degree people can/should be allowed to resist police when the police are doing something that is partially or fully unlawful. if you put me on a jury where a cop gets beaten up by someone who was pulled over after assaulting his wife, i would convict the guy for both assault on the wife and the cop. if you put me on a jury where a cop gets beaten up by someone who refuses to hand over charge-less asset forfeiture, i would acquit/hang that jury. yet in both cases, the resistance is there and might look completely identical.

was lyoya justified in resisting? i don't think so. i also don't think taser was warranted. but lyoya wasn't unarmed when he was shot, period.

 

[warpus]

This is a thread for all the currently irrelevant political non news that folks want to post.

Seems like the vast majority of the discussion arcs from the "Freedom Truckers" thread belong here.

 

[Farm Boy]

i'm not sure i would disagree with that even.

Then the discussion ends there. That's a hard judgement point. Not hard as in difficult, but it's a logical wall. Everything after has determined fault. The instigator/escaltor/executioner is in the wrong.

 

[Samson]

you might even make a case that lyoya was defending himself from excessive force, and was killed while trying to do so. i'm not sure i would disagree with that even.

Then the discussion ends there. That's a hard judgement point. Not hard as in difficult, but it's a logical wall. Everything after has determined fault. The instigator/escaltor/executioner is in the wrong.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The police officer was implementing the states monopoly on force, and Lyoya was defending himself in a way that is illegal.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, if the escalation is illegal, defense is not illegal even if it happens to be functionally suicide. But that still doesn't preclude there being two illegal things going on at once. If one is a theoretical threat in a different set of circumstances, and the other is two close range fatal gunshots to the cranium, then we know which criminal action deserves much more societal... repercussion. So if one illegal activity was punished with immediate fatality, how should we be looking to punish the officer responsible? I mean, at this rate, we're looking at whether or not he has any kids, right?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The instigator/escaltor/executioner is in the wrong.

you are correct. i have uncertainty, yet the answer to this changes conclusions about ensuing behavior. it's why i gave the example with two different assaults on cop too.

legal and ethical frameworks answer it differently, i suspect.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The police officer was implementing the states monopoly on force

i don't think what state has wrt force is quite a "monopoly". people have the right to defend themselves if state isn't involved in a particular example at all. i don't think it's functional to make it illegal to defend oneself from ostensibly state employees who are themselves breaking the law, either. like if a cop went gta-style on random civilians, it isn't just other officers allowed to stop him.

But that still doesn't preclude there being two illegal things going on at once.

true, if one man punches another, and the other responds with a grenade, both are illegal acts, though different scale.

the law might not consider the taser excessive, however. i'm going to guess it doesn't. i don't like that, ethically. and if the taser is considered sufficient threat to shoot, it's not coherent law because it must also be considered a similar threat in officer's hands. it's not a magic wand that only responds to one user.

 

[Farm Boy]

I am still of the frame of mind that billy clubs are an improvement over tazers. Sure, they cripple people, but they do it predictably. And "I killed him for touching my stick" sounds as insecure as it is.