Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 28206
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Responding to this post in this thread as think it probably more on topic here.

Whilst it is understandable that people who knew Sterling describe him charitably, personally see no value in making Sterling out as saintly for those that didn’t as think deliberately skewing facts calls into question the rest of any reasoning you use in a debate. Also implicit in it is some sort of acceptance that it is OK if law enforcement or criminial justice system errs against those whose life has been less than perfect. Agree Sterling’s prior history does certainly play some part in hindsight analysis of determining whether he was likely to use his gun, I’m just don’t think it outweighs the descriptions that he was under two police officers who had other means to subdue him and that one officer had reportedly already had a gun to his head and said “I’m going to kill you”.

Unfortunately we both agree that there are more straightforward cases like Shaver or Scott but still think that deaths such as Sterlings are worth investigating as these circumstances (someone who had a criminal history and also carrying a gun) probably account for the bulk of police shootings and are more likely to highlight ways to both a) stop a felon from getting a gun in the first place b) identify problems in police training/equipment/response that resulted in death rather than a conviction for resisting arrest.

Addressing your second point I don’t believe that there is a contagion of police corruption and abuse (although I do believe there are training and culture issues which we can get into separately). However even if I did I don’t see how possessing a gun would help as you can’t outshoot a corrupt police department, you can only reform it. Possession of a gun would probably help with third party threats but I still think a better solution is to have a trained and trustworthy police force that can respond effectively when called, not least because that also protects those not capable of handing their own firearms like the young, ill or disabled.

Don't view it so much as outgunning the police. I don't think it makes sense to simultaneously argue that American police are inherently corrupt and bigoted and murderous (you and I don't argue this, but certainly some do) while also telling me to rely on these allegedly biased and incompetent people for protection. On some more philosophical level I do value the individual right of gun ownership in the balance of power between state and individual. We don't need to get deep into whether or not individuals could formidably oppose the state and I don't think it's a realistic scenario for the foreseeable future. That said, I do believe there is something of a "good tension" between arms of the state (law enforcement) and the citizenry, I just think it would play out on much lower levels (low level police corruption vs. shootouts between police and citizens).

But on a far more practical level, the issue for me is that criminals don't abide by laws. They already own guns illegally, and further gun restrictions don't impact them. So, in a gun free utopia, it wouldn't be just the police having weapons, it would be the police and criminals. Thus rendering law abiding citizens reliant on police protection entirely. That's disturbing (in America, at least) on a number of levels. First, it again gives the police leverage they don't have now. They know we're ever more reliant on them for protection. This is where the rub comes in as far as advocates who hate military/police but use this argument on gun control. Second, it gives the criminals further space to operate, at least until a gun control framework makes a serious dent in the amount of weapons in the hands of criminals. Third, it does reduce my right to protect my own family from criminals, as unlikely as an incident like that may be.

Anyway, this is all ground we've covered so we probably don't need to dive back into gun control, I'm only expanding on my thoughts here for the purpose of tying it back to what I think is an incongruous position by those on the far left when it comes to guns and policing.
 
I know Rick Santorum recently got into hot water for saying the Parkland kids shouldn’t march and instead should learn CPR.

He was understandably mocked for the comment but there was some kernal of truth in there - knowing basic first aid can help in an emergency situation and it doesn’t hurt anyone to know how to control bleeding just in case so if anyone is interested...
 
I know Rick Santorum recently got into hot water for saying the Parkland kids shouldn’t march and instead should learn CPR.

He was understandably mocked for the comment but there was some kernal of truth in there - knowing basic first aid can help in an emergency situation and it doesn’t hurt anyone to know how to control bleeding just in case so if anyone is interested...

Fellow I know was a trauma / triage doc for the US Army, served in Iraq & Afghanistan. He noted that infantry units were loosely wearing tourniquets on all four limbs any time they were on patrol - he asked about it when they had brought a squad mate into his triage unit, and the response was they were doing anything they could to help someone get to the aid station without bleeding out. Very sobering.
 
Fellow I know was a trauma / triage doc for the US Army, served in Iraq & Afghanistan. He noted that infantry units were loosely wearing tourniquets on all four limbs any time they were on patrol - he asked about it when they had brought a squad mate into his triage unit, and the response was they were doing anything they could to help someone get to the aid station without bleeding out. Very sobering.
And to tie this in further, he had previously been a general practice doc, with many pediatric patients, some of whom were killed at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/us/stephon-clark-independent-autopsy.html
Stephon Clark, the unarmed black man who was killed by the Sacramento police in his grandmother’s backyard, was shot eight times from behind or the side, according to a private autopsy commissioned by his family. The autopsy concluded that Mr. Clark’s death was not instantaneous, taking an estimated three to 10 minutes, raising questions about why Mr. Clark was not given more immediate medical care after the shooting.

Mr. Clark, whose death has sparked protests throughout the city, was shot at more than 20 times by officers responding to a vandalism report in a Sacramento neighborhood last week. At least eight of those bullets struck Mr. Clark — with none of them entering from the front, according to an analysis by Dr. Bennet Omalu, a private medical examiner his family’s lawyer hired to conduct an independent autopsy, which was released Friday. “These findings from the independent autopsy contradict the police narrative that we’ve been told,” Benjamin Crump, the family’s lawyer, said in a statement. “This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police and was slain in another senseless police killing under increasingly questionable circumstances.”

Mr. Crump said the results proved that Mr. Clark could not have been moving in a threatening fashion toward the officers when they opened fire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top