NorthSideSox72 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) Throwing bottles at police in riot gear is a higher use of force than launching chemical rounds into a largely peaceful group? Absolutely it is. A missile (thrown object) is higher on the force scale than a chemical agent like CS. But even if they are the same, it still makes it a reasonable level of force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) The motivations and intentions of the crowd are important factors. Sometimes original motives and intentions can get twisted and corrupted by just a few...and the snowball begins rolling downhill. Not always, but it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 03:13 PM) Absolutely it is. A missile (thrown object) is higher on the force scale than a chemical agent like CS. But even if they are the same, it still makes it a reasonable level of force. The chemical agent is delivered via missile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) The chemical agent is delivered via missile. Which is intended to disperse, not hit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) The chemical agent is delivered via missile. At a high enough velocity to fracture an unarmored soldier's skull in multiple places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) Which is intended to disperse, not hit them. If you launch missiles into crowds, you will hit people with them. If you launch a metal canister with a chemical agent inside, it will be launched with a greater force than one can throw a bottle. There is no way you can claim that missiles that also disperse chemical agents are less force than missiles that do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 For the sake of argument, let's say two bottles are thrown at police in riot gear from an otherwise peaceful crowd not showing any signs of aggression. Is firing or throwing a dozen tear gas canisters into that crowd an appropriate response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) For the sake of argument, let's say two bottles are thrown at police in riot gear from an otherwise peaceful crowd not showing any signs of aggression. Is firing or throwing a dozen tear gas canisters into that crowd an appropriate response? I don't know, I'm not an expert on such things. I'm sure many police would say yes in a situation such as that, though...otherwise they wouldn't be armed with such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) At a high enough velocity to fracture an unarmored soldier's skull in multiple places. Do they know what he was hit by? I thought it was unclear if it was bean bag, canister or rubber bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) I don't know, I'm not an expert on such things. I'm sure many police would say yes in a situation such as that, though...otherwise they wouldn't be armed with such things. Police officers are armed with guns, but they don't fire at the first sign of resistance. Which really brings it back to the original point, these "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal" weapons have, imo, become overly relied on by police forces, and not just for crowd control situations. Drawing out you gun is obviously a big step; pulling out your taser not nearly as much, even though the end result could be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 05:14 PM) Do they know what he was hit by? I thought it was unclear if it was bean bag, canister or rubber bullet. I could of swore he had a canister shaped fracture pattern, but that could just be an early anecdote. A rubber bullet should not cause a skull fracture. That really defeats the purpose of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 10:16 PM) Police officers are armed with guns, but they don't fire at the first sign of resistance. Which really brings it back to the original point, these "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal" weapons have, imo, become overly relied on by police forces, and not just for crowd control situations. Drawing out you gun is obviously a big step; pulling out your taser not nearly as much, even though the end result could be the same. My point as well. 50 people died from 2001-2009 from the use of tasers, cited by the DOJ so likely very conservative in #. That's quite high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) At a high enough velocity to fracture an unarmored soldier's skull in multiple places. I thought that was a rubber bullet. But I suppose depending on the launching weapon, that might happen, I don't really know. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:09 PM) If you launch missiles into crowds, you will hit people with them. If you launch a metal canister with a chemical agent inside, it will be launched with a greater force than one can throw a bottle. There is no way you can claim that missiles that also disperse chemical agents are less force than missiles that do not. You have to understand here, that tear gas, regardless of delivery vehicle, is considered a lower level of force than any type of missle whose purpose is as a missle. This is the way police training is done, and it is the way the court system has acknowledged it. Maybe that is wrong, but that is the way it has been. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) For the sake of argument, let's say two bottles are thrown at police in riot gear from an otherwise peaceful crowd not showing any signs of aggression. Is firing or throwing a dozen tear gas canisters into that crowd an appropriate response? IMO, yes. The number of cannisters is irrelevant - you use the number you need to, to disperse the crowd. Number of cannisters is a silly argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:59 PM) My point as well. 50 people died from 2001-2009 from the use of tasers, cited by the DOJ so likely very conservative in #. That's quite high. I think that's quite low. How many hundreds of thousands of times, or maybe millions, have those been used by police over a decade? And look at the alternatives... they may have used batons, or CS/OC, or forced physical restraint, or even a gun, depending on the circumstances. That pool of other toys, combined, would probably have killed more than 50, especially if a gun was used instead at any significant percentage. Keep in mind that tasers have been used in situations that, sometimes, leave only a gun as an alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 11:18 PM) I think that's quite low. How many hundreds of thousands of times, or maybe millions, have those been used by police over a decade? And look at the alternatives... they may have used batons, or CS/OC, or forced physical restraint, or even a gun, depending on the circumstances. That pool of other toys, combined, would probably have killed more than 50, especially if a gun was used instead at any significant percentage. Keep in mind that tasers have been used in situations that, sometimes, leave only a gun as an alternative. 50 over a six year period, is the conservative estimate. 50 deaths by police against civilians. Actual deaths after tasers have been used were 300+ over that 6 year period. That's really f***ing high. And I don't care about the margins, but the amount of times i've seen tasers come out has been ridiculous. It's a crutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 05:55 PM) 50 over a six year period, is the conservative estimate. 50 deaths by police against civilians. Actual deaths after tasers have been used were 300+ over that 6 year period. That's really f***ing high. And I don't care about the margins, but the amount of times i've seen tasers come out has been ridiculous. It's a crutch. More people get killed by cows every year than by tasers. Maybe we should rid the world of those dastardly evil and dangerous cows, too. Because, you know, we can't have any dangerous stuff out there...people might accidentally die, even though it's not intentional. Oh, wait no...probably not a great comparison, right? Maybe we should just disarm the police completely and see how long it takes the savage humans to start picking off the civilized ones in numbers far exceeding what we have now, because so long as these dangerous police are armed, accidents might happen and nobody is safe. Not sure what I'm talking about? Go take a leasurly stroll around the IIT campus and your chances of seeing it will skyrocket. You know the only thing that controls that around there are -- and get this -- police armed with dangerous guns and even more dangerous tasers! Gasp, I know. If only the entire world were coated with rubber and nobody ever got hurt. The tasers come out first BECAUSE they can't draw their f***ing guns until they're lives are in *imminent* danger. Also, they're no longer allowed to carry batons or large flashlights that can be used as deadly weapons. The taser is considered less dangerous than either the baton or maglight, btw. If a police officer in Chicago draws their gun, they have to write up a report on why, and believe me...someone saw them do it. And if they don't have a good reason why... They can go collect unemployment. Edited October 28, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Tasers, flashlights, whatever, are supposed to come out in circumstances where police would have used a lethal weapon and can instead spare a person's life. Tasers, flashlights, whatever, right now, come out when it is convenient to use them. No one would have shot the "don't tase me bro!" guy in the middle of a library for refusing to leave. No one would shoot a 90 year old woman for disagreeing with police. No one would shoot dozens of people in that crowd in Oakland. They will risk a "Less than lethal" weapon because they aren't lethal as often. When one of those circumstances comes up, they deserve to be questioned. Because occasionally they kill people in situations where the use of deadly force seems patently ridiculous...and the fact that these are rarely lethal doesn't mean we can't question their use when they do wind up being lethal to people who shouldnt' be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 So how many instances of people killing police officers happened over that same time period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 09:45 PM) So how many instances of people killing police officers happened over that same time period? About 50 die in traffic accidents and 50 are killed by firearms in an average year. Texas led the nation by a fair amount last year. Total runs 125-150 the last 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Colbert Super PAC's Latest Ad Will Leave You Speechless, Then Speak For You COURTSIDE, USA – Colbert Super PAC has decided to take its talents to a new TV ad about the ongoing NBA contract negotiations. The spot, entitled "Ball Gag," attacks NBA Commissar David Stern's "gag rule," which bars team owners like Mark Cuban from talking to press, friends, or even their own spouses. The spot, the second in a planned quadrilogy, is made possible by a generous donation from Colbert Super PAC S.H.H., an independent nonprofit which does not reveal its benefactors' names, donation amount, or what (if any) NBA team they own. "My beloved game of ball-in-hoop is in danger, and David Stern is throwing elbows, kneecapping team owners right in the mouth." said Stephen Colbert, President and MVP for Colbert Super PAC and Colbert Super PAC S.H.H. "You know who else supports Cuban censorship? Fidel Castro. It seems to me that Commissioner Stern needs to either grow a beard, or let owners speak their minds." Tonight, Colbert will address this flagrant foul and then premiere the ad on his ESPY-anticipating show "The Colbert Report." The spot will then run tomorrow in an ad blitz that spans Texas from Dallas all the way to Fort Worth on WFAA Channel 8's "Good Morning Texas" – where all of Texas turns to find out how their morning will be. Those who wish to view it on a smaller screen with lower quality can find it online here. Colbert Super PAC, also known as Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, is an independent expenditure-only committee, and Colbert Super PAC S.H.H. is a 501©(4) group that protects donor anonymity. Although there have been persistent rumors that these groups have been acting as a front for Mark Cuban, I doubt you could prove it. ### For Press Inquiries Contact: Alberto Rèalnamè Communications Director, Colbert Super PAC alberto.realname@colbertsuperpac.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 He really is doing a fantastic job of trolling the Supreme Court/our political finance system. I thought his first NBA ad was poignant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Video of Scott Olsen, moments before and after the attack, including police using a flashbang to clear out protesters coming to his aid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) Video of Scott Olsen, moments before and after the attack, including police using a flashbang to clear out protesters coming to his aid anyone know why these guys were on the other side of the barricades from the rest of the "movement?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 09:27 PM) anyone know why these guys were on the other side of the barricades from the rest of the "movement?" Designated "shoot me in the face" protest zone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) Designated "shoot me in the face" protest zone Not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts