mozz

17

Sssshhh

We’re doin like 5 different irrational reasons every single day why PLEASE DON’T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT FELLOW LEFT WING VOTERS

It doesn’t need to make any logical sense, it just needs to be a variety of stuff and literally never fuckin stop

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

Fun fact! I knew you would back up from the desire for statistical rigor when it started to go both ways.

(The number of police who commit misconduct in any given year was about 1% - which is (a) enough number of police to yes still be a massive fuckin problem and deserving of significant reform oversight etc etc (b) Fun fact! Less than 100%)

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

The party still faces a long-term moral quandary of how to square its rhetoric about being the party of freedom, equality and racial justice with the virtually unconditional support it has offered to a far-right government in Israel that is accused of starving and bombarding large numbers of civilians in Gaza since the brutal Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.

Oh so THIS is what it took for the NYT to give a shit about the lives of Palestinians

For the opportunity to arrive to try to attack the Democrats by caring temporarily about them

You fuckin dishonest hacks

2

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

Fun fact! The California Innocence Project actually researched how many police officers commit "misconduct" (by their definition) in any given year. It's one of the only times I am aware of this whole issue being quantitatively studied.

If I tell you what's the number, which is statistically significant, will you then quote back to me your citation (with the statistical backing) for why you think that 0% of police killings are justified? I would actually really like to be able to have more statistical backing to talk about all of this, as opposed to just throwing our prejudices at one another.

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

Sure, let's talk. I'm not tryin to be hostile about it.

You set up a very vague and overbroad situation and then follow it up with a very specific to the point of anecdotal example as if that refutes my rebuttal.

I responded to someone who said the number of people the police kill per year should be 0. I brought up two specific drawn from real life examples where the cops are justified in killing someone, as a way of rebutting it. Does that make sense? Or no?

The conversation I would like to have is, how many of these 1,000 times that the police have killed someone, did the police do something wrong? If you're going to tell me that number is 0, I think you are 1,000% wrong, and I'm happy to explain why. If you're going to tell me it's a complicated question and we need to delve into quite a lot of real world details in order to answer it, then fuckin-A let's talk about it.

I think I'm being a little bit needlessly combative about it, but I don't get what you are saying that I am being bad faith about the way I'm bringing up examples. They're not disingenuous or vague in any way. It's just reality that doesn't match the simplistic frameworks that it seems like I'm hearing. Does that make sense? Or no? What details of these 100% real examples would you need to hear for them not to be vague?

Sure, let's do this like you have a good point. Here's what should happen. Domestic violence experts who are trained in psychology and deescalation techniques could intervene and create a safe exit for victims of abuse and violence. But you know what? I don't know what exactly that task force would look like or how it would operate. What I do know is, it shouldn't look like those guys in blue who shoot black people in their own homes while existing and chuck flashbangs into cribs.

If someone points a gun at the cops when they roll up to the porch to arrest them on a warrant? What if that person shoots the police while they're contacting the domestic violence expert?

(This referring to the example of someone who pulls a gun when the cops roll up to their porch. There's a separate conversation to be had about my friend's experience -- actually, as it happens, the person involved who called the cops was black, the guy who got arrested was white, and the cops showed up and talked to everyone and still managed to take the white guy away and avoid shooting the black guy or throwing any flashbangs into cribs or anywhere else -- i.e. they accomplished a success for the mission. Isn't that relevant?)

7

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

This was literally the 100% opposite of my experience in this case.

Dude getting violent and breaking shit and threatening to kill a third person, cops arrive, followed by there being 100% fewer threats in the house. You are spouting propaganda (which arose from a 100% valid reason, sure) with no particular interest in the conversation about what percent of the time it corresponds to the truth.

Your single minded imagining of how things go (i.e. always in accordance with your prejudices) is harmful to any useful progress, either in this conversation or in police reform. Good luck with your reasonings and progress in learning, sir.

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

They would also be justified in using enough force to stop the crime from happening.

Okay, so wouldn't it be useful to know how many of those 300,000 times when they used force matched this criteria?

I don't think they would be justified if they pulled out a gun, killed the perpetrator, and the perpetrator didn't have any weapons nor acted like they had one.

Okay, so wouldn't it be good to know for these 1000 people who the police killed, how many of them fit this criteria?

It seems like a useful question. No?

11

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

Okay, so dude can beat the fuck out of my friend, and you're going to imply the cops need to die if they try to prevent him and he gets violent with them as a result.

Good to know. Thanks for your insight.

Obviously police brutality does happen -- my point was that it is relevant to know whether it is happening 1% of the time, or 50% of the time, or 99% of the time. You need to know when the police are using force justifiably, or not. Clinging to a comforting and poppycock illusion that they should use lethal force 0% of the time is just as silly as someone else who might cling to the comforting and poppycock illusion that them using lethal force is justified 100% of the time. The truth is in the middle, and it's important to find out where in the middle, instead of just insisting that whatever prejudices you came in with are obviously the reality.

13

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

Okay, so what if they walk up on the porch to talk to that guy and he pulls a gun and points it at them? What then? Deescalation?

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

See my question to Wytch

18

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

I've interacted with the cops several times in my life. Off the top of my head, I think the most recent time was a friend of mine's roommate who was threatening her with physical harm. They came, talked to the guy, and took him away. When the judge was a little bit dismissive about granting her a protective order, the next day, the cop was the one who got outraged and got her a new hearing at which she got her protective order so the guy wouldn't hurt her.

So... what? The cops in that situation should have just stayed away from her house, and let him maybe beat the fuck out of her? Explain it to me what you think should happen; have cops pursue non violence in all situations? Like never kill anyone no matter what the person does? Never use physical force? What should happen, in my friend's situation? What if the guy beats the fuck out of her, and then they see him on the porch of a house some time later -- should they stay off the porch?

24

mozz @mbin.grits.dev 1y ago

Okay, so if the cops walk up on someone's porch, or in a parking lot or etc, to talk to them and that person pulls out a gun and points it at the cops, what should happen?