Page 7 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 326

Thread: Daunte Wright shot with Taser. And by "taser," I mean, "Gun."

  1. Top | #61
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,054
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrell View Post
    The bottom of this article has a picture of the gun & the taser. I don't think a reasonable person could mistake the two.
    Many cops are morons, but they are NOT blithering imbeciles. Many cops have about zero respect for black lives, but they do NOT want the bother of accidental-shooting paperwork.

    These gun-instead-of-laser incidents ARE accidents. The problem is that some cops are overly hyped-up (how many are using meth or such?) and view wild-west quick-draw as part of their job description. They don't check to see what sort of weapon they're shooting anymore than a batter examines his baseball bat when the pitch is already on the way.

    Best may be to lay off most of the cops in America — they can become garbage collectors, a MUCH more dangerous occupation — and replace them with sensible and humane people. (The rottenest eggs are a small minority of cops, but a majority refuse to tattle on their murderous or racist fellows: these enablers need to be fired too.)

  2. Top | #62
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,011
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    The part where I disagree is that the person is the source of the liability rather than training and instruction. What this tells me, clearly, is that firing drills entirely neglect nonlethal options, and fail to incorporate tool selectivity.
    "The source of the liability"? As a 26 year old veteran of the force, and president of the Brooklyn Center police union, if there is a serious problem with police training, she is also very much a part of that problem.

    It is moreover obvious that she did have some training in the use of tasers, given that she shouted "taser taser taser" before drawing her weapon. I'm not saying there isn't a training problem, as I suspect they drill them on guns a lot more than on non-lethal actions. But if the argument is that she just didn't know how to identify or use a taser, that to me seems quite suspect. She clearly knew what the taser was, though I think it is fair to ask whether even that option would have been appropriate in a situation where no danger was apparent.

    Thing is, I believe her completely that this was an accident. But there are accidents that should not and must not happen, and accidental street execution of unarmed American citizens for is one of them. If you work in a public role, with official authority of any kind, the safety of those in your care becomes an immediate and real personal responsibilty for the safety and wellbeing of the citizens you work for, and anyone who does not understand that should not hold such a role at all. If I made a mistake that took the life of one of my students - let's say, running one over with one of the school vans while on a field trip - you think anyone would be saying, "hey, the real problem here is the DMV for giving him his license?" A public agency is not an LLC. Ultimately, there must be individual liability for "accidents" that take the life of an innocent person. Said life taker knows they are responsible for the safety of those around them and agrees to shoulder that responsibility when they accept the job. Specially responsible, not incidentally responsible. And absolutely liable.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  3. Top | #63
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,728
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,639
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    The part where I disagree is that the person is the source of the liability rather than training and instruction. What this tells me, clearly, is that firing drills entirely neglect nonlethal options, and fail to incorporate tool selectivity.
    "The source of the liability"? As a 26 year old veteran of the force, and president of the Brooklyn Center police union, if there is a serious problem with police training, she is also very much a part of that problem.

    It is moreover obvious that she did have some training in the use of tasers, given that she shouted "taser taser taser" before drawing her weapon. I'm not saying there isn't a training problem, as I suspect they drill them on guns a lot more than on non-lethal actions. But if the argument is that she just didn't know how to identify or use a taser, that to me seems quite suspect. She clearly knew what the taser was, though I think it is fair to ask whether even that option would have been appropriate in a situation where no danger was apparent.

    Thing is, I believe her completely that this was an accident. But there are accidents that should not and must not happen, and accidental street execution of unarmed American citizens for is one of them. If you work in a public role, with official authority of any kind, the safety of those in your care becomes an immediate and real personal responsibilty for the safety and wellbeing of the citizens you work for, and anyone who does not understand that should not hold such a role at all. If I made a mistake that took the life of one of my students - let's say, running one over with one of the school vans while on a field trip - you think anyone would be saying, "hey, the real problem here is the DMV for giving him his license?" A public agency is not an LLC. Ultimately, there must be individual liability for "accidents" that take the life of an innocent person. Said life taker knows they are responsible for the safety of those around them and agrees to shoulder that responsibility. Specially responsible, not incidentally responsible.
    So to make sure you understand pointedly what my argument is, it is not that she didn't know how to use a taser (also, why is the taser policy so much more telegraphed than gun use policy?). Rather, my argument is that it doesn't matter how well you can execute all the other trappings of taser use if there is no muscle memory associating those preambles with the actual draw.

    That she's a representative for the police union, though, puts her in rarified position with such distinguished names as Bob Kroll.

    As I have said, put her in front of a grand jury, use reasonable charges here (manslaughter; negligent homicide), and give her due process. But process her.

    It would be more like your drivers training for that job specifically only ever asking you to make right turns, your route only containing right turns, and this being the only time you ever drive, the only way you ever turn or move being towards the right, and someone asks you one day to "make a left turn up there", and then distracting you just a little bit before the turn. Spoilers: you're going to end up making a right turn.

    That's what happened here. It's not good. It's still evidence of a Problem, bad training, possibly even incompetence. It's definitely yet another argument for why traffic cops shouldn't have guns. I just refuse to judge the cop harshly here.

  4. Top | #64
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,011
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    As I have said, put her in front of a grand jury, use reasonable charges here (manslaughter; negligent homicide), and give her due process. But process her.
    I do not disagree with this. But that process does not require her colleagues and supervise to opine on national television that she is innocent, and blame the victim for his death. And there is no way in hell she should be considered above liability, which is what you said in the post I was responding to. You seem to actually agree with me, as you are saying that she, not a representative of her department, should be standing before a jury. Perhaps I overinterpreted what you meant by "liability".

    I just refuse to judge the cop harshly here.
    This, I do not agree with. She killed someone whose life she was explicitly responsible for, and she had plenty of opportunities, in her life and during this incident, to make different decisions than those which led to this killing. Including, almost certainly a role in negotiating training requirements, a role which I don't see how her union position could possibly not include.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  5. Top | #65
    Liberal Rastafarian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    895
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,033
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post

    And that "only way to get around" should still at a minimum lead to her complete removal from the force (benefits and all) & payout to the victim or surviving family. Keeping someone like that on the force is a liability and counter to public safety.
    That, too, is reactionary.

    I agree that she should be investigated and this should potentially lead to charges; someone is dead after all.

    The part where I disagree is that the person is the source of the liability rather than training and instruction. What this tells me, clearly, is that firing drills entirely neglect nonlethal options, and fail to incorporate tool selectivity.

    Which is to say, they only train to draw guns; it is apparent she lacked a few necessary days of training where she has to draw what she is told to draw precisely
    Your use of the word reactionary is only applicable to how good you felt typing it until you explain how my comment was reactionary. I did not claim the officer was the source of the liability I said SHE IS A LIABILITY. I have no idea from which alternate universe you received a message from me stating she's the source. I also was not discussing the training & would appreciate it if you'd ask my opinion about that instead of posting craptastic preemptive rubbish.

  6. Top | #66
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,011
    Rep Power
    22
    Ah, and it appears that Officer Potter herself agrees with me 100% on this. From her resignation letter:

    "I have loved very minute of being a police officer and serving this community to the best of my ability, but I believe it is in the best interest of the community, the department, and my fellow officers if I resign immediately."
    Yes, it is. I'm glad someone in this situation is of a mind to take adult responsibility for their actions.

    The police chief, who honestly I'm a bit more upset with than I am with Potter, is also resigning, but from the sound of it with a bit less grace and a lot more mayoral pressure.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  7. Top | #67
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,728
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,639
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post

    And that "only way to get around" should still at a minimum lead to her complete removal from the force (benefits and all) & payout to the victim or surviving family. Keeping someone like that on the force is a liability and counter to public safety.
    That, too, is reactionary.

    I agree that she should be investigated and this should potentially lead to charges; someone is dead after all.

    The part where I disagree is that the person is the source of the liability rather than training and instruction. What this tells me, clearly, is that firing drills entirely neglect nonlethal options, and fail to incorporate tool selectivity.

    Which is to say, they only train to draw guns; it is apparent she lacked a few necessary days of training where she has to draw what she is told to draw precisely
    Your use of the word reactionary is only applicable to how good you felt typing it until you explain how my comment was reactionary. I did not claim the officer was the source of the liability I said SHE IS A LIABILITY. I have no idea from which alternate universe you received a message from me stating she's the source. I also was not discussing the training & would appreciate it if you'd ask my opinion about that instead of posting craptastic preemptive rubbish.
    I am, first and foremost, interested I doing that which improves outcomes, and prevents things from happening badly in the present and future.

    I do not accept that she is, specifically, the [source of] liability. Where did I get that? I got that from language theory, or the meaning of "to be". She is, in her present and badly trained state, as are all such officers, a liability that will not be remidied through her, or anyone's firing, excepting those who are in charge of training regimens.

    I'm going to impugn exactly the actions taken in space which lead to the result I want to see happen. Here the result is "not shooting people". The things that actually make her "a liability" make every cop there liabilities uniformly.

    Now, whether what she did creates NEW liabilities (such as painting a target on the whole department), that's a different discussion.

  8. Top | #68
    Liberal Rastafarian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    895
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,033
    Rep Power
    51
    Apology accepted. Since you asked me no questions I have no further comment.

  9. Top | #69
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,054
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Ah, and it appears that Officer Potter herself agrees with me 100% on this. From her resignation letter:

    "I have loved very minute of being a police officer and serving this community to the best of my ability, but I believe it is in the best interest of the community, the department, and my fellow officers if I resign immediately."
    Yes, it is. I'm glad someone in this situation is of a mind to take adult responsibility for their actions.
    She should be applauded just for that. Call me sexist but I think women are more likely to make this choice. Am I wrong? Isn't the male often more likely to want to go back out on the street? Thugs like Chauvin seem driven by a foul testosterone.

  10. Top | #70
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,728
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,639
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Ah, and it appears that Officer Potter herself agrees with me 100% on this. From her resignation letter:

    "I have loved very minute of being a police officer and serving this community to the best of my ability, but I believe it is in the best interest of the community, the department, and my fellow officers if I resign immediately."
    Yes, it is. I'm glad someone in this situation is of a mind to take adult responsibility for their actions.
    She should be applauded just for that. Call me sexist but I think women are more likely to make this choice. Am I wrong? Isn't the male often more likely to want to go back out on the street? Thugs like Chauvin seem driven by a foul testosterone.
    Hm... I missed that post. Good on her for stepping down. It shows a lot of character otherwise missing in American police culture.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •