Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, Martin did... The typical 16 year old would not attack a neighborhood watch person. But what way did he follow Martin? Zimmerman lost Martin within seconds of leaving his vehicle and started talking to the cops. It was Martin who came out of hiding to confront and then attack a surprised Zimmerman. So you would have hid from a neighborhood watch person and then attack them as they came by? You were talking about supreme douchebags?

When I was sixteen if some creepy guy was stalking me and I got into hiding there would have been no "confrontation" when I came out, because he'd have never seen me coming. Nothing "douchebaggy" about it, other than the creepy stalker of course.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh, I'm sure the neighbors were watching... Thats what neighbors do, they look out for each other. Thats what Zimmerman was doing.

Watching... not stalking with a gun. Like I said... I didn't have to worry about my neighbors stalking me with guns. Zimmerman wasn't "watching", he was stalking with a gun.

 

[Berzerker]

It isn't the "assumption of innocence" that's at issue. It's that a cop isn't supposed to take risks that could escalate a situation...whether that does turn out to escalate the situation or not is also not the issue. No matter how many times they "get away with" things and don't have to shoot their way out of it there is no excuse for it.

If this cop knew Brown would attack him, he wouldn't have given him the chance. But he assumed Brown wasn't going to attack. While that was clearly a mistake in this situation, do you really want cops assuming we're guilty? The drug war has turned this country into a nation of suspects ruled by increasingly trigger happy cops. Looks to me like this cop showed proper restraint and gave Brown every chance to surrender, Brown charged at him instead.

 

[Berzerker]

When I was sixteen if some creepy guy was stalking me and I got into hiding there would have been no "confrontation" when I came out, because he'd have never seen me coming. Nothing "douchebaggy" about it, other than the creepy stalker of course.

So you'd attack neighborhood watch people from behind and blame them.

Watching... not stalking with a gun. Like I said... I didn't have to worry about my neighbors stalking me with guns. Zimmerman wasn't "watching", he was stalking with a gun.

Zimmerman wasn't watching or 'stalking' anything, he didn't know where Martin was and thought he ran off in the direction of a rear entrance and even told the cops that before Martin attacked him. So he headed back to his truck and was intercepted by Martin. He got attacked, knocked to the ground, and Martin was on top beating him before the gun entered the picture. All facts matter...

 

[Lexicus]

His life was ruined because somebody attacked him. The victim blaming reminds me of the people who persecute rape victims because they asked for it.

His life was ruined because he, against police instructions, created a situation where a 16 year old boy was shot dead. Oh and then walked away from it a free man.

 

[Berzerker]

he followed the cops instructions

 

[Timsup2nothin]

he followed the cops instructions

Bull. No cop instructed a neighborhood watch to follow anyone. They told him to stay in his car.

Meanwhile, yeah, when I was sixteen if some creeper followed me I'd have hit him from behind given the chance. There is no room for chivalry with a creeper...you never know, the creeper might have a gun.

As to "if he knew Brown would attack him..." exactly which part of don't risk escalating the situation is it that you aren't following and I'll try to put it in simpler terms. Let's try this part...

I don't assume everyone in every parking lot is an enemy...but I don't get out of my car when someone is close enough to pinch me in my own car door. Do you think cops should take fewer common sense precautions than I do? They certainly have as many enemies as I have. Or do you just think that they can get away with taking those risks since they have a gun and a world half full of badge licking sycophants to back their play if they end up having to use it?

 

[Berzerker]

Bull. No cop instructed a neighborhood watch to follow anyone. They told him to stay in his car.

They didn't tell him to stay in his car, the dispatcher heard his heavy breathing and concluded he was on foot following Martin and told him that wasn't needed. Zimmerman had already lost Martin and he arranged to meet the cops and was returning to his truck when Martin came out of hiding to beat him up.

Meanwhile, yeah, when I was sixteen if some creeper followed me I'd have hit him from behind given the chance. There is no room for chivalry with a creeper...you never know, the creeper might have a gun.

In all the times I've wandered thru strange neighborhoods, not once did I conclude people watching me were anything other than residents concerned by my presence. Is being watched creepy? Yes... It happens all the time. If you think its okay to attack people because you feel creeped out, you are a threat to others. Maybe your next victim will have a gun, something to consider. Maybe you should be armed, that way you can gun them down from your hiding place. You mock stand your ground laws while advocating the assassination of "creepers". Whats wrong with this picture?

As to "if he knew Brown would attack him..." exactly which part of don't risk escalating the situation is it that you aren't following and I'll try to put it in simpler terms. Let's try this part...

I don't assume everyone in every parking lot is an enemy...but I don't get out of my car when someone is close enough to pinch me in my own car door. Do you think cops should take fewer common sense precautions than I do? They certainly have as many enemies as I have. Or do you just think that they can get away with taking those risks since they have a gun and a world half full of badge licking sycophants to back their play if they end up having to use it?

So you actually sit in your car for fear someone close by will run over and slam the door on you? And you're gonna attack people from behind for creeping you out? Has either ever happened? If a cop issues instructions from his car and you ignore him, he's probably gonna get out of his car. "Escalating" the situation is unavoidable when people ignore the cops. Didn't Obama's justice dept exonerate the cop? Brown is dead because he charged at a cop he had just attacked, not because the cop opened his car door.

 

[Senethro]

Being pro-cop or even just pro law enforcement means you should be against bad cops or people disobeying police procedure. I really don't get the reflexive defense of these idiots as completely innocent instead of being dangerously incompetent.

 

[Truthy]

Being pro-cop or even just pro law enforcement means you should be against bad cops or people disobeying police procedure. I really don't get the reflexive defense of these idiots as completely innocent instead of being dangerously incompetent.

A lot of the time "anti-cop" (pro criticizing cops/not being super naive?) people bait them when they generalize from these instances to make the case that cops are mostly all racist and police departments are mostly oriented around furthering racist or classist objectives. Which is sometimes an ok conclusion but the pro-cop people still want to try to undermine the argument somehow. But some of the instances provoke different reactions. Pro-cop people mostly didn't defend the cops who killed Eric Garner, so they're not uniformly opposed to criticizing cops. And a lot of the most famous cases are the ones with more pro-cop people defending because the back and forth made them famous to begin with (ssc).

 

[Senethro]

Now see, I don't think an expectation that a law officer who goes armed should be able to keep ahold of his gun is that of being super naive. Maybe it just comes of living in a state where cops don't need guns to make simple stops.

 

[KmDubya]

Now see, I don't think an expectation that a law officer who goes armed should be able to keep ahold of his gun is that of being super naive. Maybe it just comes of living in a state where cops don't need guns to make simple stops.

What are you going to give cops who don't have guns to protect themselves? Rape whistles so that they can make noise and see if someone with a gun will come and save them?

A cop without a gun is useless, that's what rent a cop security guards are for.

 

[Kyriakos]

What about having a program to train cops in karate? It will help them be less obese too (though there is that indiana jones gif)

Anyway: here cops (afaik) all carry a handgun, but they are virtually never allowed to use it. It isn't as in the US where a cop can claim "oh, in my view i was in danger from the guy having a knife/umbrella/pointed stick and being 5 meters away from me, so i shot him".

 

[Senethro]

What are you going to give cops who don't have guns to protect themselves? Rape whistles so that they can make noise and see if someone with a gun will come and save them?

A cop without a gun is useless, that's what rent a cop security guards are for.

Idk maybe a overseas training course to see how it's done.

 

[Lexicus]

he followed the cops instructions

No he didn't.

A cop without a gun is useless, that's what rent a cop security guards are for.

Good to know you apparently think the purpose of the police is to shoot people.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Killing Bad Guys is their job.

 

[Ryika]

Depends on the situation though. Your normal "Everyday Cop" probably doesn't need a gun in a country that doesn't allow ordinary citizens to carry guns. Even then there are arguments for having them carry guns, if for nothing else then to react to rampages and terrorist attacks, but a cop shouldn't really have to use them in his normal work.

A cop in an american low-income area though? Yeah, that guy absolutely needs a gun, and it's the expected outcome that sometimes bad people are shot to save innocent people.
There are cases of unnecessary and unprovoked gun action, but the problem there isn't "the gun", the problem is bad training, and sometimes a general lack of self-restraint.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Zimmerman wasn't watching

Really? Your defense of Zimmerman now is “He wasn’t watching”? Cause when I commented about not having to worry about neighborhood watch stalking me, your response was:

Oh, I'm sure the neighbors were watching... Thats what neighbors do, they look out for each other. Thats what Zimmerman was doing.

So first you defend Zimmerman by saying “watching is what neighbors do, that’s what Zimmerman was doing”… then minutes later you say “Zimmerman wasn’t watching”… This is like talking to two different people posting as one person. Because it seems like when I was making the point that neighborhood watch shouldn’t be stalking people, you claim that Zimmerman was just watching not stalking. But when I refute that by pointing out that he was in-fact following Trayvon with a gun, you switch to claiming that he wasn’t watching, he was innocently going back to his car. Or maybe you did this unintentionally? Can you at least acknowledge that you’ve taken contradictory positions based on what supported the argument you were trying to make at the time?

So he headed back to his truck

Full stop… “headed back to his truck”? OK… so why was he out of his truck? What was his purpose in leaving his truck in the first place? The watching (which you claimed he wasn’t doing) or the stalking (that you claimed he wasn’t doing)? Or are you claiming that he got out of his truck to innocently head back to his truck?

All facts matter...

I know you were going for a clever play on the phrase, but the irony is pretty thick here, given the above.

 

[KmDubya]

What about having a program to train cops in karate? It will help them be less obese too (though there is that indiana jones gif)

Anyway: here cops (afaik) all carry a handgun, but they are virtually never allowed to use it. It isn't as in the US where a cop can claim "oh, in my view i was in danger from the guy having a knife/umbrella/pointed stick and being 5 meters away from me, so i shot him".

Five meters is actually too close to let an assailant with a knife. The Tueller drill is done in training where it shows that a bad guy 21 feet (6.xx meters) can cover the distance in 1.5 seconds which is faster than a person can identify the threat, draw his weapon and fire. You take a criminal intent on inflicting harm, give them a knife and 21 feet of distance to a cop and the criminal will probably come out victorious.

It certainly will not help the cop to worry that if he does kill a criminal in the line of duty he will be vilified, publicly shamed and threatened and will probably have to move far away for his and his families safety. Better for the cop to get stabbed as long as they live, or better yet just don't try too hard to actually catch or get too close to a bad guy.

If all the police will be unarmed then you'd better not hire any women or guys that aren't above average size and strength. You put Rhonda Roussey (the former womens MMA champ) up against Michael Brown at something like 6'5" and 300 lbs and she's not winning that fight without a firearm. Your typical cop will have way less training and athleticism than a pro MMA champ so it'd go even worse for them.

The willingness to aggressively fight to win (which the criminal has in abundance) will trump training, especially the non-lethal style that police will have to take. They're not going to be trained in dirty lethal fighting that SF or some commando team gets that results in killing and maiming. They don't even teach them chokeholds anymore due to people occasionally dying while being choked out. A criminal is not going to have that sort of moral dilemma when it comes down to a survival fight.

No he didn't.



Good to know you apparently think the purpose of the police is to shoot people.

A cop on the beat would be expected to actively thwart an ongoing crime if they came upon it. During that action lethal force could very well be required or at least the threat of lethal force. Without firearms cops would at best be witnesses or just clerks taking down the facts after the crime has occurred.

 

[Lexicus]

A cop on the beat would be expected to actively thwart an ongoing crime if they came upon it. During that action lethal force could very well be required or at least the threat of lethal force. Without firearms cops would at best be witnesses or just clerks taking down the facts after the crime has occurred.

Just to get an idea of where you're coming from, let's say a cop happens upon a teenager running away from a store, having shoplifted at it. He's too fat to give chase. Does he shoot the fleeing teenager with his gun or does he act as a "clerk taking down the facts after the crime has occurred"?