Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:32 pm UTC

natraj wrote:what, no. that is a deliberately obtuse misinterpretation of what 'shoot first' implies. it is not 'shoot first before the other person', it is 'shoot first before you have had a chance to assess the situation'.
I believe you believe that, and if we were in Baltimore you would probably be right. But in Oregon the situation was slightly different. The salient difference is that unlike the typical urban environment where the issue of, is the person being stopped, armed. In Oregon the protesters were armed and by their own words prepared to fight. Do you see the difference? It may be that when facts are actually available that your interpretation will turn out to be correct, but until that point there is nothing obtuse about what I said.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, they shot one of the other guys in the wrist(Payne) while his hands were out of the window and in the air. That seems difficult to justify. Incidentally, that was at the first roadblock, which sort of explains panicky behavior. If you've stopped, and cops just start shooting...well, that casts his decision to try to leave in a different light, doesn't it? Sure, sure, the ranchers could lie, but...Payne got out of the vehicle. So, he literally could not have incurred that injury at the second stop.

Police apparently fired hundreds of rounds in total. Exact count unavailable so far as I can tell.


Where did you read this? I saw one article that talked about similar stuff but it seemed pretty sketchy (This). Most of the other reports say that Ryan Bundy was the other person who was injured by gunshot, not Ryan Payne.


Time for some double checking. Perhaps a reporter made an error based on first name? It does look as though other sources are reporting that Ryan Bundy was shot. Which, if that's the case, opens up the possibility for it happening later. Still odd, though. You're still shooting someone who very clearly isn't aggressing. Given the shooter and Lavoy's positioning, it isn't reasonable to suppose that a missed shot from that hit the vehicle.

morriswalters wrote:And if I was in law enforcement in this situation currently my mantra would be shoot first, since by definition it implies that the alternative is for the other guy to shoot first. Happy talk about being sure, in the situation under discussion, is simply that. This isn't Ferguson. You conveniently forget what happened at the Bundy family ranch and the Feds walked rather than risk it. So it isn't hard to believe that LE was afraid of a firefight.


Shooting first is valid if a reasonable threat is presented. Shooting first on general principles without a specific threat, not so much. That's what we're discussing. Nobody is claiming that police must always shoot second. There is significant doubt that shooting was intended at all. Certainly, nobody in the vehicle shot. They had guns. Well, some of them did. They didn't use them, or attempt to do so.

morriswalters wrote:Yeah I ran across this as well. I used my sniff test on it. It failed. To start with I doubt if you can count that reliably with someone shooting at you, and eyewitness statements have a tendency to veer from reality. When Lavoy was shot the groups were separated by some distance. As is usual in these discussions everyone is in front of the facts. The post mortem on Lavoy hasn't been released. That will tell us how many times he was shot. Sooner rather than later someone will go on the record with how many guns were discharged. Certainly in court it will be disclosed.


An exact count? Should be stupid easy after the fact. Capacity of mag - rounds remaining for involved parties. Done. Add in any additional expended mags, if applicable.

It is unlikely that by "hundreds of rounds" they mean that Lavoy was shot hundreds of times. They mean total rounds fired. They are almost certainly including the OC rounds fired at the vehicle, as well as standard rounds fired in the incident, even if not at Lavoy. Someone else being shot indicates that obviously, bullets were used elsewhere. Police are kind of notorious for mag dumping, so your "sniff test" doesn't seem entirely persuasive.

It looks like you're intentionally misinterpreting multiple things. Please stop doing that.

morriswalters wrote:
natraj wrote:what, no. that is a deliberately obtuse misinterpretation of what 'shoot first' implies. it is not 'shoot first before the other person', it is 'shoot first before you have had a chance to assess the situation'.
I believe you believe that, and if we were in Baltimore you would probably be right. But in Oregon the situation was slightly different. The salient difference is that unlike the typical urban environment where the issue of, is the person being stopped, armed. In Oregon the protesters were armed and by their own words prepared to fight. Do you see the difference? It may be that when facts are actually available that your interpretation will turn out to be correct, but until that point there is nothing obtuse about what I said.


Someone being armed and someone presenting an immediate threat are two different things. There were no guns to anyone's head here. The most the police can claim is that he was trying to draw a gun. Twice, some claim. Because they didn't shoot him the first time. Which is frigging strange. If your goal is to draw a gun, you don't go for it over and over again. That doesn't make any sense.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Time for some double checking.
There is no way of double checking. There is no hard data.
Tyndmyr wrote:They had guns. Well, some of them did. They didn't use them, or attempt to do so.
True and not germane, until they were arrested you had only their statements to go on. For the record either these people are serious, or they aren't. I have an opinion but reserve it. But give them the respect they would want. That they were serious in what they intended. And all we have is their public statements.
Tyndmyr wrote:An exact count? Should be stupid easy after the fact.
I'm certain that somebody actually knows, just not the reporter, therefore neither you or I.
Tyndmyr wrote:It looks like you're intentionally misinterpreting multiple things. Please stop doing that.
Pot calling kettle. However on the off chance that your are correct, if you present me with an exemplar I will retract or support. The point is straight forward. At this point only LE knows how many shots were fired.
Tyndmyr wrote:If your goal is to draw a gun, you don't go for it over and over again. That doesn't make any sense.
Again not much data. I haven't heard LE describe their version at all. It could be they are stone walling. I wouldn't put it past them, but lacking data I remain uncommitted. If you are referring to the guy who died I have no idea. We will never know what was going on in his mind. Since I don't understand the mind set that made him rabbit and having no other facts, the point is moot for me.

Here is the source Chen calls sketchy. Second Eyewitness: Chronicling the Tragic Ambush and Murder of LaVoy Finicum

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:54 am UTC

If the Michael Brown shooting taught me anything, its that eyewitnesses utterly suck. 40 people were interviewed, there were like 38 different storiesVery few stories could match up the position Brown was in when he died (was he running at the officer? Were his hands up? etc. etc. All the important details were drastically different. )

Goes for both sides of course, Police Officers are eyewitnesses all the same, they just get the benefit of looking at the video and cooperate to make a stronger case of their story to the public. (A standard eyewitness won't have the privilege of looking at video footage, and has to go 100% by memory). They also have training to have better note-taking skills and whatnot to make their stories more official sounding.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

wumpus
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby wumpus » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:21 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:If the Michael Brown shooting taught me anything, its that eyewitnesses utterly suck.


This has been well established science for years. Unfortunately, the US insists on absolutely medieval standards of evidence. The only thing that is changing is just how many people have movie cameras in their pockets.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4370
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:40 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:If the Michael Brown shooting taught me anything, its that eyewitnesses utterly suck. 40 people were interviewed, there were like 38 different storiesVery few stories could match up the position Brown was in when he died (was he running at the officer? Were his hands up? etc. etc. All the important details were drastically different. )

Goes for both sides of course, Police Officers are eyewitnesses all the same, they just get the benefit of looking at the video and cooperate to make a stronger case of their story to the public. (A standard eyewitness won't have the privilege of looking at video footage, and has to go 100% by memory). They also have training to have better note-taking skills and whatnot to make their stories more official sounding.


Sadly, pretty much all forensics is in the same boat. If you wanted a scientifically rigorous legal system, it would be basically impossible to convict anyone without DNA evidence, since that's the only tool we have that is in any way reliable.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:42 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:If the Michael Brown shooting taught me anything, its that eyewitnesses utterly suck. 40 people were interviewed, there were like 38 different storiesVery few stories could match up the position Brown was in when he died (was he running at the officer? Were his hands up? etc. etc. All the important details were drastically different. )

Goes for both sides of course, Police Officers are eyewitnesses all the same, they just get the benefit of looking at the video and cooperate to make a stronger case of their story to the public. (A standard eyewitness won't have the privilege of looking at video footage, and has to go 100% by memory). They also have training to have better note-taking skills and whatnot to make their stories more official sounding.


Sadly, pretty much all forensics is in the same boat. If you wanted a scientifically rigorous legal system, it would be basically impossible to convict anyone without DNA evidence, since that's the only tool we have that is in any way reliable.

Good DNA evidence is reliable. DNA evidence is not always good.
http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447202433 ... s-fallible
"When they retested it, the likelihood that it could be someone else was, I think, one in 30-something, one in 40. So it was a significant probability that it could be someone else," Torres says.
You're also outdated.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4370
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:38 am UTC

sardia wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:If the Michael Brown shooting taught me anything, its that eyewitnesses utterly suck. 40 people were interviewed, there were like 38 different storiesVery few stories could match up the position Brown was in when he died (was he running at the officer? Were his hands up? etc. etc. All the important details were drastically different. )

Goes for both sides of course, Police Officers are eyewitnesses all the same, they just get the benefit of looking at the video and cooperate to make a stronger case of their story to the public. (A standard eyewitness won't have the privilege of looking at video footage, and has to go 100% by memory). They also have training to have better note-taking skills and whatnot to make their stories more official sounding.


Sadly, pretty much all forensics is in the same boat. If you wanted a scientifically rigorous legal system, it would be basically impossible to convict anyone without DNA evidence, since that's the only tool we have that is in any way reliable.

Good DNA evidence is reliable. DNA evidence is not always good.
http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447202433 ... s-fallible

"When they retested it, the likelihood that it could be someone else was, I think, one in 30-something, one in 40. So it was a significant probability that it could be someone else," Torres says.
You're also outdated.


Interesting, had not yet heard about that. Even if it's only at 95% confidence, that's actually still far better than most other areas of forensics.

commodorejohn
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:31 am UTC

Still pretty shitty for the one guy in twenty, though.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3753
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Dauric » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:22 pm UTC

Frontline: The Real CSI

DNA comparisons are actually science. Most forensics, like Fingerprinting, have never actually been tested in scientifically controlled conditions to determine how accurate the techniques actually are. They're accepted as accurate because they get convictions, they get convictions because they're accepted as accurate.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:34 pm UTC

That, and you run into misunderstandings of statistics a lot with biometrics, DNA included. Even if you have a fairly good accuracy, say, one in a million chance of an error...it depends how that's used. If you're looking at a biometric database of 5 million people, and looking at the hits, well...odds are quite good that your best match* is not the correct individual.

On the other hand, it's pretty good for exonerating people who were convicted by other means, because then you have a suspect pool of one, and thus a result of "no match" is probably correct, assuming you've got valid samples and all that.

Note that error chances usually presume entirely random data, as well. In the real world, suspect pools are often non random, and you frequently have a bunch of relatives. Maybe not direct, but a lot of areas are pretty non-random in terms of genetic background. Some markers just won't provide a lot of additional certainty in this situation, which can mean that your actual error rate is way higher than claimed.

All these things are useful, but....they have limitations, and a lot of people frankly don't understand statistics or error rates well enough to fully comprehend them.

Video is actually one of the better sources of evidence around. It may not capture everything, but at least people generally understand the limitations of video. Well, except for the "zoom and enhance" that is so ridiculous, I suppose.

*Or a match, depending on particular measurement.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

Shooting first is valid if a reasonable threat is presented. Shooting first on general principles without a specific threat, not so much. That's what we're discussing. Nobody is claiming that police must always shoot second. There is significant doubt that shooting was intended at all. Certainly, nobody in the vehicle shot. They had guns. Well, some of them did. They didn't use them, or attempt to do so.

Why shouldn't the police should shoot 2nd be a policy if the department demonstrates a history of abuse and systemic failures? Precedent: Oakland police right to "innocent until proven guilty" was revoked due to how often they claimed innocence when their body cams were damaged or shut off. The accused cops had to prove themselves innocent, and were assumed guilty until proven otherwise.
Last edited by sardia on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:52 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The accused cops had to prove themselves innocent, and where assumed guilty until proven otherwise.
The last time I looked, where prosecution is concerned, innocent until proven guilty is a right, if not implicitly stated as such in the Constitution.


Moron Alert!
Ammon Bundy, leader of the monthlong armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge, said from jail Thursday that the takeover was "a needed action" and called on state and federal law enforcement officials to leave eastern Oregon.
Has the State of Oregon lost it's duty to police the state at large?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:41 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The last time I looked, where prosecution is concerned, innocent until proven guilty is a right, if not implicitly stated as such in the Constitution.


Moron Alert!
Ammon Bundy, leader of the monthlong armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge, said from jail Thursday that the takeover was "a needed action" and called on state and federal law enforcement officials to leave eastern Oregon.
Has the State of Oregon lost it's duty to police the state at large?

The constitution only protects you from crimes. The protections from policy are much more limited, or else we wouldn't have needed all those addon laws for civil rights, women's rights etc etc. It is legal to discipline a cop who has failed to keep his camera activated or well maintained by assuming the cop is at fault. The cop will have to prove otherwise during his discipline hearing. There's nothing unconstitutional about this policy, and the burden is on the individual to prove otherwise.

Mutex
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:45 pm UTC

That would only allow them to discipline / fire the cop though, which is still a bit lenient if they killed someone for no justifiable reason. Better than nothing and letting them keep their job though.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:27 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:where prosecution is concerned

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:12 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Shooting first is valid if a reasonable threat is presented. Shooting first on general principles without a specific threat, not so much. That's what we're discussing. Nobody is claiming that police must always shoot second. There is significant doubt that shooting was intended at all. Certainly, nobody in the vehicle shot. They had guns. Well, some of them did. They didn't use them, or attempt to do so.

Why shouldn't the police should shoot 2nd be a policy if the department demonstrates a history of abuse and systemic failures? Precedent: Oakland police right to "innocent until proven guilty" was revoked due to how often they claimed innocence when their body cams were damaged or shut off. The accused cops had to prove themselves innocent, and were assumed guilty until proven otherwise.


Well, I don't actually want people to die. Not even cops.

Destruction of evidence is a crime, and should be pursued, however. At a certain rate, it becomes implausible to blame malfunctions. Likewise, when police routinely kill a lot of people, a standard of "gun drawn", not "motion that may or may not be towards a gun" is reasonable as a lower bar. I don't think we should require the police wait until a shot is fired, but the threat of a gunshot should at least be imminent.

Gun to hostages head? Okay, shoot, if you can do so safely for everyone else.

Hand moved towards pocket? Not okay.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:36 pm UTC

I'm not sure that is a reasonable standard though

I don't think that the human brain can make conscious choices in the time frame of someone twitching into their jacket or pocket in high adrenaline situations. Also the brain has a horrible tendency to interpret the eyes visual information and fill in the blanks. I actually suspect a fair number of cops that will swear blind (and actually believe) they see the gun until they realise its not true. Maybe you can train to suppress the reaction, but I wouldn't be surprised if its hardwired into the subconscious.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 08, 2016 5:25 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'm not sure that is a reasonable standard though

I don't think that the human brain can make conscious choices in the time frame of someone twitching into their jacket or pocket in high adrenaline situations. Also the brain has a horrible tendency to interpret the eyes visual information and fill in the blanks. I actually suspect a fair number of cops that will swear blind (and actually believe) they see the gun until they realise its not true. Maybe you can train to suppress the reaction, but I wouldn't be surprised if its hardwired into the subconscious.
How dare you be rational! To suppose there might be an alternative narrative. Case in point, two officers attempt to subdue a subject of an arrest warrant with some previous history of being aggressive with police, they tase him, and while he is down they attempt to subdue him. He draws and shoots one officer, killing him, before being shot in turn by the second officer.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'm not sure that is a reasonable standard though

I don't think that the human brain can make conscious choices in the time frame of someone twitching into their jacket or pocket in high adrenaline situations. Also the brain has a horrible tendency to interpret the eyes visual information and fill in the blanks. I actually suspect a fair number of cops that will swear blind (and actually believe) they see the gun until they realise its not true. Maybe you can train to suppress the reaction, but I wouldn't be surprised if its hardwired into the subconscious.


I am entirely okay with cops being trained to not end peoples lives pointlessly.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:28 pm UTC

Would you be ok with cops putting their lives in increased danger in order to save more civilian lives?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Would you be ok with cops putting their lives in increased danger in order to save more civilian lives?


That's pretty much why they exist.

If police are not making us safer, what's the point?

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:02 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Would you be ok with cops putting their lives in increased danger in order to save more civilian lives?
Would you put on a badge and take that risk?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote:Would you be ok with cops putting their lives in increased danger in order to save more civilian lives?
Would you put on a badge and take that risk?


This is pretty much what the military, by definition, do. So yes, I would.

Perhaps not everyone would. That's fine. We don't need everyone to be cops. In fact, some people definitely should not be.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3753
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Dauric » Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
leady wrote:I'm not sure that is a reasonable standard though

I don't think that the human brain can make conscious choices in the time frame of someone twitching into their jacket or pocket in high adrenaline situations. Also the brain has a horrible tendency to interpret the eyes visual information and fill in the blanks. I actually suspect a fair number of cops that will swear blind (and actually believe) they see the gun until they realise its not true. Maybe you can train to suppress the reaction, but I wouldn't be surprised if its hardwired into the subconscious.


I am entirely okay with cops being trained to not end peoples lives pointlessly.


I believe Leady's point is physiological (brain hardwiring) rather than psychological (mental state/training). There's a lot of information that our eyes don't actually perceive in any particular moment, from imperfections in the lens of the eye to blind spots with low numbers of photoreceptor cells in the back of the eye. Our visual cortex has evolved to fill in those gaps with 'remembered' information, so that if you have a blind spot in one area, when your eye moves that blind spot moves, but the area covered by the blind spot is filled in by information from before your eye moved. Our visual cortex is so dedicated to the task of compensating for imperfections in our visual field that we don't consciously realize how much processing is going in to compensating for those imperfections.

The problem is that the visual cortex's method for compensating for these blind spots can be overridden by other parts of the brain, especially when those other parts of the brain are -expecting- to see something. High levels of stress, a fast moving or rapidly changing field of visual information, or anticipation of threats can all exacerbate the problem, all of which apply to police officers facing a Shoot/NoShoot decision.

So the problem becomes how difficult it is to consciously train to override the mechanisms in the brain that evolved to quickly evaluate threats with less than all the information because our eyes are such horrible information gathering instruments.

(there's a graphic I've seen but been unable to find at the moment that shows a sample image of what we think we see, and what we actually see in any one instant, and it's something like 20%-30% of what we think we can see in our visual field (in a healthy eye no less) is actually obscured for one reason or another, and it's only the visual cortex filling in the blanks that lets us think we see everything.)
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

Plenty of other armed people seem perfectly able to not shoot people at a rate significantly below US police. Including armed officers in other police forces.

I have difficulty ascribing such a habit to unchangeable human nature given that most people seem perfectly capable of not shooting anyone putting a hand in a pocket.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3753
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Dauric » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Plenty of other armed people seem perfectly able to not shoot people at a rate significantly below US police. Including armed officers in other police forces.

I have difficulty ascribing such a habit to unchangeable human nature given that most people seem perfectly capable of not shooting anyone putting a hand in a pocket.


Oh I completely agree that the rates of police in the U.S. shooting unarmed civilians is well beyond suspiciously out of the bell-curve for armed forces of one stripe or another, however it's worth noting that there are brain-mechanics that lead to overzealous threat identification, not just people being dicks for the sake of being dicks.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:06 pm UTC

Oh sure. I don't insist that "cops are dicks" is a sufficient explanation, merely that it's a soluble problem. Maybe we train 'em different, maybe it's a matter of incentives and lack of punishment, maybe it's a buncha factors like that.

I mean, the whole "without cops, would we be safer" is something I genuinely have difficulty answering. I mean, sure, there has to be some law and order, but...in practice, there's always someone enforcing that. Organized crime, for instance. I mean, you might not have as much say in what the law is, but...then again, how much say do you actually have now? The more you start really looking at it, the less convinced I am that police are a solid gain for society. At least, in the US, how they're done now.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Plenty of other armed people seem perfectly able to not shoot people at a rate significantly below US police. Including armed officers in other police forces.

I have difficulty ascribing such a habit to unchangeable human nature given that most people seem perfectly capable of not shooting anyone putting a hand in a pocket.
Plenty other cultures are not as gun driven as this one.
Tyndmyr wrote:This is pretty much what the military, by definition, do.
This is not a comparison you should make. The Military quite commonly kills civilians, by design. And it doesn't have a shoot second kind of viewpoint, in point of fact it employs snipers and drones to kill, at a distance, without warning.

What happened in Oregon isn't what happens in general policing. The site was chosen for isolation to prevent mass casualties, had a gun battle broken out. A not unlikely risk if you have read the postings of the actors. No cover and no one else around.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:48 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote:Would you be ok with cops putting their lives in increased danger in order to save more civilian lives?
Would you put on a badge and take that risk?

Would your rather I take no risk at all by disregarding the lives of others when I put on the badge? If I shot everyone that moved and some that didn't, what kind of cop am I?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Plenty of other armed people seem perfectly able to not shoot people at a rate significantly below US police. Including armed officers in other police forces.

I have difficulty ascribing such a habit to unchangeable human nature given that most people seem perfectly capable of not shooting anyone putting a hand in a pocket.
Plenty other cultures are not as gun driven as this one.


And again, that's not something baked into human nature. This argument basically boils down to the police being particularly fearful, and us pointing once again that in the US, police don't really get killed all that much. And then, mostly by cars.

The actual risk to the police in the US does not seem so large as to make their reactions reasonable.

I note, also, that given rates of shooting various people, fear of guns is clearly not the only factor. You start looking at other fears as well. Like, fears of minorities. At a certain point, one must simply accept that police are acting a bit irrationally, and in a way that is not common to all police forces. So it CAN be fixed.

Tyndmyr wrote:This is pretty much what the military, by definition, do.
This is not a comparison you should make. The Military quite commonly kills civilians, by design. And it doesn't have a shoot second kind of viewpoint, in point of fact it employs snipers and drones to kill, at a distance, without warning.

What happened in Oregon isn't what happens in general policing. The site was chosen for isolation to prevent mass casualties, had a gun battle broken out. A not unlikely risk if you have read the postings of the actors. No cover and no one else around.


Regardless, your question was one of motivations. Would people risk themselves to make others safer. And yes, many people do.

So, clearly it's possible to find such people to staff the police. Such a standard as Sardia proposes is not unreasonable.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Like, fears of minorities. At a certain point, one must simply accept that police are acting a bit irrationally, and in a way that is not common to all police forces. So it CAN be fixed.
Again if you want to argue that fine, but their were no black faces in Oregon, certainly among the ranchers. And the victim had stated that he was prepared to die. This isn't the Police Misbehavior thread. If it is then let me know so I can quit posting.
sardia wrote:Would your rather I take no risk at all by disregarding the lives of others when I put on the badge? If I shot everyone that moved and some that didn't, what kind of cop am I?
This, at least to me, is an incomplete picture. I've never been shot at by a cop, nor have you, I suspect. On the other hand three days ago a worker in a liquor store was killed exactly one block away from my home with a gun. The interactions involving firearms and police where people are shot and killed are relatively rare as compared to the number of interactions(on the order of 50,000,000 a year). People are killed by law enforcement in the UK. But when you get down to it far fewer people are killed by guns in the UK, period. Our per capita firearms deaths are roughly 46 times theirs.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:25 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Like, fears of minorities. At a certain point, one must simply accept that police are acting a bit irrationally, and in a way that is not common to all police forces. So it CAN be fixed.
Again if you want to argue that fine, but their were no black faces in Oregon, certainly among the ranchers. And the victim had stated that he was prepared to die. This isn't the Police Misbehavior thread. If it is then let me know so I can quit posting.


It is certainly not, but it's relevant to this instance that police have a certain pattern of violence. Certainly, if you possessed a membership in a group known for violence, say a gang or what not, that would reflect badly on you in a murder trial, yes? Why shouldn't we consider this with regards to police?

It simply appears that there was no particularly rational reason to kill this man. Someone stating they are prepared to die is not cause to murder them. They must actually pose a credible, imminent threat. I do not believe that it is correct to treat "movement, possibly towards pocket" as meeting this standard.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Certainly, if you possessed a membership in a group known for violence, say a gang or what not, that would reflect badly on you in a murder trial, yes? Why shouldn't we consider this with regards to police?
We might, if the Police were a monolithic group. But they aren't.
Tyndmyr wrote:Someone stating they are prepared to die is not cause to murder them.
It is the only thing that we have to indicate state of mind. If someone promises to kill you and you end up dead by violence, we can and will assume that someone was involved. If you say you are prepared to die to achieve your goal than it isn't a stretch to believe that if I attempt to thwart you, you will offer me violence. The preferable outcome would have been for no one to die. But what happened isn't murder.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:23 pm UTC

They are as much as widespread gangs are. They have a certain kinship, many practices in common, and a tendency to look out for each other.

Prepared to die is a little different from prepared to kill. The former indicates a belief that you will be killed...which does not seem to have been incorrect. Just because someone is willing to face danger does not mean they themselves are dangerous, and it does not justify killing them. That ends up being a near-universal excuse for a violent power to surpress opposition. That's...really troubling.

Murder might be a stretch...but homicide, at least, seems pretty obvious. We lack sufficient evidence to indicate premeditation or the like, but yeah, he got killed, and he hadn't actually offered violence. You're justifying killing him based on what he thought, and might have later done, not based on what he did. A belief that the government is hostile and out to getcha might be a little paranoid, but it isn't a crime worth killing over.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:They are as much as widespread gangs are. They have a certain kinship, many practices in common, and a tendency to look out for each other.


As do Teacher unions... or nurses, or immigrants.

But there aren't any truly national groups of Police Officers. Even the Fraternal Order of Police (the US's largest Police Union) mostly make statements on a city-by-city basis, and don't seem to have much sway in the way of national politics. The individual FOP chapters in each city have huge role in local politics of course, but there's really not much tying all Police Officers together with kinship... at least, nothing beyond the kinship that a San Francisco teacher would have with a New York teacher.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:47 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:They are as much as widespread gangs are. They have a certain kinship, many practices in common, and a tendency to look out for each other.


As do Teacher unions... or nurses, or immigrants.

But there aren't any truly national groups of Police Officers. Even the Fraternal Order of Police (the US's largest Police Union) mostly make statements on a city-by-city basis, and don't seem to have much sway in the way of national politics. The individual FOP chapters in each city have huge role in local politics of course, but there's really not much tying all Police Officers together with kinship... at least, nothing beyond the kinship that a San Francisco teacher would have with a New York teacher.


And if teacher's unions or nurses started making a habit of intentionally killing people, I would also be concerned about them.

Immigrants, that's a stretch. A mexican farm worker is not particularly similar to a syrian refugee. Yeah, you may have local similarities within a given population, and a certain kinship, but it seems really off to argue that all immigrants are as tightly connected as police, who routinely go out of the way to offer advantages to other members of police, even within different departments.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:55 pm UTC

Ehhh, I'll just give it to you.

An MS13 thug ain't gonna trust another MS13 guy just because they flash the same gang signs at each other, and certainly don't really function on a national scale. So gangs are a relatively appropriate comparison. I just don't like it when people think that all police are the same.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:57 pm UTC

Oh, to be sure, plenty of cops that are good folks. But then, we're always trained that cops are good, and you should comply with them, mostly.

Far more so for any other group, I think. In practice, what other group is going to demand compliance as much? Maybe a gang, if you live in a rough area, but mostly police, for most folks. And a *lot* of police violence ends up looking a great deal like punishment for lack of compliance, rather than anything else.

So it seems here. I mean, he didn't stop with the vehicle, and then, kept talking. Even though words ain't a threat, and he's apparently trying to avoid hitting people while driving(though that one cop was oddly less concerned about that. He seriously looked like he was trying to run into that vehicle)....it looks like he's getting shot for non compliance.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:07 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Far more so for any other group, I think. In practice, what other group is going to demand compliance as much?


Teachers.

So it seems here. I mean, he didn't stop with the vehicle, and then, kept talking. Even though words ain't a threat, and he's apparently trying to avoid hitting people while driving(though that one cop was oddly less concerned about that. He seriously looked like he was trying to run into that vehicle)....it looks like he's getting shot for non compliance.


Lets be frank here: he's getting shot because the local cops didn't respect him and didn't trust him, and because he was "armed and dangerous" and publicly espousing that fact.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ucim and 24 guests