The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 5067
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:34 am

I think more than two cops were at the scene.

Also, I saw a photo and report that showed, inscribed on the side of the shooter cop’s weapon, were the words, “You’re f***ed”

Rather disturbing, if true.

Philosophically, you think bad, and bad is what you get.

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:20 pm

Hi, Walker

I am back, as promised.

I will not try to justify what these cops did because, to me, this specific situation is unjustifiable. The way they give all those instructions make me think they had too much fear going on. The way they threaten both the man and the woman about the possibility of getting shot makes no sense at all. You just need to look at a still image of the scene to know something is wrong: a man and a woman stretched out on the floor and a cop with a rifle pointing toward them — this is not a dangerous situation at all. I don’t know what happened before that to maybe put them in such a “red alarm” state, but nothing was going on at that moment to justify such fear.

That said, with respect to “teaching my children well”, imagine these scenarios:

1 - At 2’30” in this Shaver video http://www.newsweek.com/police-release- ... ing-742241 the woman is kneeling on the floor with her arms in the air. Imagine that she is your daughter and she had received from you the instruction to not move irrespective of what the cop says. You said that in a traffic stop she should “put both hands high on the wheel where they can be seen, even before the cop approaches the car, and don’t move” (this is fine advice), but what to do when walking on a hall and being told to “get on the ground”? Is it to not move at all, to just freeze in the exact position you are? Let’s assume your heuristic is “as soon as yelled by a cop, kneel down and throw your hands in the air and don’t move anymore irrespective of what the cop says”. So, your daughter would be at the lady’s exact position at 2’30”: a very “non-threatening posture” and, therefore, safe, according to you (and I agree).
But now, the cop is yelling that she should crawl towards him. She won’t comply. If she doesn’t give a good reason for not moving (and she must not, according to her father, because talking is moving) and just stares at the cops, especially these scared, inexperienced cops, what do you think will happen? Remember that they are eager to deal with the “real threat” of the man behind her. The situation would escalate even faster than it did. Even if she did talk (assuming talking is not moving according to your teachings), explaining to these cops that her attittude has been ingrained by her father ever since she was a little kid won't be easy. It is enervating to give a command and not to be obeyed. This is not sadism, a sense of superiority, or anything like that. It’s just a tense situation where you need control. And if you can’t have it, there is a problem.
Now, after 2 minutes of non-compliance of your daughter, the man is crying and nervous, the cops are shouting like crazy, nobody seems to be understanding each other, and your daughter is in the middle of the fire zone.
The man decides to make a stupid move like he did, or another kind of stupid move, e.g., going to the other side of the aisle, and now your daughter is really in the middle of the fire zone. And the scared cop shoots. Your daughter gets hit.

2 - Or worse, the guy is indeed an armed criminal, so when realizing that your daughter is hesitating too long, he sees the chance of reaching her from behind and grabbing her: now, you have a hostage situation.

3 - Or the man begins to shoot while the cops are yelling at your daughter trying to make her get out of the hall and, therefore, failing to pay enough attention to the guy in the back. In hindsight, I guarantee you there would be critics saying the cop should have reached the girl and dragged her out of the way since she was not complying. But there are many situations where “reaching for the girl and dragging her” would put more people in danger, especially her.

4 - Or you are patrolling the streets and you see a bus nervously flashing his lights. You realize there seems to be suspicious activity inside. The bus is full and you need to enter from the opposite side with respect to the suspects, otherwise, they will see your approach. As soon as you get on the bus, you begin yelling your commands to the suspects. But there are people in-between you and them. You need to give orders to them too. It is a tense situation, you need to keep the suspects on your field of vision while counting on the others to help you by complying. There is a man right by the suspects whom you want to put his hands on top of his head and press his way into the nearest seats even if he has to sit on the lap of someone. But he is one of Walker’s sons. He remembers his father explaining that he should not move because the cop may be inexperienced and scared and remember the Shaver case! So he does not move and you (the cop) gets nervous. You begin to think this man might be one of the suspects too. And now the real suspects reach for their gun….

I hope my point is clear. There are too many unforeseen situations that might arise and which might be aggravated by this rule of not moving.
Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:41 pm
Teach your children well.

I’ve taught mine that if they are ever in a traffic stop, to turn on their interior lights and put both hands high on the wheel where they can be seen, even before the cop approaches the car, and don’t move. It's a courtesy to the cop.
This is perfectly sound teaching and I abide by it 100%. But as soon as the cop reaches the car and begins giving instructions, your children will have to start complying. What you should say in that case is “When in doubt, KEEP STILL and ask until you get the command right; then, BEFORE beginning to move, repeat the command saying that you will do it, and do it SLOWLY”.

This is what I have done countless times when being pulled over by the frequent police roadblocks we have around here. These are always tense situations, especially because one of my guns (I always carry two pistols) is always underneath my right leg. So, if a cop approaches me from the right, he might see the gun before I ever have the chance to say anything, and get nervous. I always keep my hands face-high (I could just as easily do what you suggest and grab the wheel) and keep repeating until they acknowledge it’s OK “I am a cop and I have a gun underneath my right leg, can I get my wallet?”. And when he says so, I repeat BEFORE moving “I am getting my wallet now, OK?” and then I reach for it.

Heuristics are life-savers. Man has evolved by relying on them. But heuristics reach the necessary (optimal) level of complexity by extensive trial-and-error through generations. There is never a perfect heuristic (that would be a contradiction), but experience is the most fertile soil to grow adequate ones. All I ask is that you realize I’ve been through countless real-life situations on both sides of the coin, and think a bit more carefully about the heuristics you are passing to your children. It all boils down to the statistically-optimal behavior; and all I am saying is that I have a larger statistical sample to deal with than the totality of these few outlier-videos that you might watch.
Walker wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:34 am
Philosophically, you think bad, and bad is what you get.
I couldn't agree more with that. That's why I am here on this board.

You, and your children, be safe.

Best,
M.

Walker
Posts: 5067
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:44 pm

Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:29 pm
Mnemoriam wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:11 pm
You too be safe.
After watching the disturbing Daniel Shaver video, do you think that folks should teach their children to not move a muscle after being ordered by a cop to lie face down, no matter what the cop orders after that?
My apologies for the lack of clarity.

What I meant is that if ordered by a cop to lie face down and not move, to comply with that order.

Then, no matter what the cop orders after that, don't move a muscle.

In that position with hands and feet exposed, any threat posed by movement is neutralized, for there is no movement, and the inexperienced cop full of fear can't move you into a position where you pose a perceived threat.

That poor kid was begging for his life.

*

I've seen people get rattled going through a metal detector with a guard barking orders at them, and they weren't even threatened with death.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7126
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:17 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -acquitted

No wonder your bastard cops don't mind the fact that their murders are being filmed--nothing ever happens to them except perhaps a slap on the wrist with a wet McDonald's receipt. What a fucked-up sick kunt of a country.

Walker
Posts: 5067
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:54 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:17 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -acquitted

No wonder your bastard cops don't mind the fact that their murders are being filmed--nothing ever happens to them except perhaps a slap on the wrist with a wet McDonald's receipt. What a fucked-up sick kunt of a country.
Another reminder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

The cop looks too young to know about policing before this century.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7126
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:57 pm

Walker wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:54 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:17 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -acquitted

No wonder your bastard cops don't mind the fact that their murders are being filmed--nothing ever happens to them except perhaps a slap on the wrist with a wet McDonald's receipt. What a fucked-up sick kunt of a country.
Another reminder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

The cop looks too young to know about policing before this century.
You effectively live in a Police State but the population is too moronic to see it.

Walker
Posts: 5067
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:01 pm

I would suggest that those who support the words of Obama from the clip, and not all the people, lack perspective.
Some folks thought he was very presidential.

Sold on style, not content.

I’ve noticed that young people on a power trip like to refer to folks as “son,” or else “young man,” like the cop in the video was doing.

The words on his weapon reflect a combat mentality.
https://media.tmz.com/2017/12/08/1208-b ... tter-1.jpg

What's next. Skulls painted on helmets?

Walker
Posts: 5067
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:05 pm

Perhaps you’re beginning to understanding why an armed militia isn’t another branch of the government,

or rather,

must be independent of government control.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:59 am

Another good instance of VT trolling a thread without offering anything in terms of ideas. Never offers ideas.

In America, we don't support the concept of No-Go Zones and a increasing lack of political and administrative sovereignty over areas of our interior. Our formula works, as the US is still around, and the British Empire is not, good chance the U.K. won't be around soon. You've made many mistakes, perhaps too many.

I don't necessarily like the idea of militias patrolling the streets beyond that of neighborhood watches. If you let the population get so liberal to the point gangs rule the streets, like in the Phillipines, a obvious Thermidorian Reaction will eventually kick in, human nature doesn't support a negative Oeconomia for multiple generations.... it is the central reason why feudalism was always experiencing peasant uprisings, the population would snap every once in a while from the abuse. Cops are a essential stop gap to stop-gap measure in societies on the brink, to pull back and for a res public to reassert itself, reform, and make sense of the mess it is in. Many peaceful societies have gone to shit overnight from lack of planning and general dishonesty about it's circumstances.

Where I live, we have a different problem, we have a police officer who made national news for NOT shooting someone who was holding a gun, he was a Afghanistan Marine veteran, and had a feeling the guy holding his girlfriend hostage wasn't going to shoot, as he seemed more interested in getting the cop to shoot him. He was still new on the force, but was the first responded. Another cop showed up, and shot the guy after pushing the first cop out of the way.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/us/wv-cop ... index.html

The guy had no bullets in his gun, was a suicide. The marine had far more combat experience, and was the first responder. He was fired, and sent off by the city. I've gone through two lawyers on crafting a new law and type of judiciary level to judge cases like this, and to get him recalled and offered his job back, with commendation. I'm set to meet with another lawyer soon.

Big problem is, which I've taken into account, is that any military or police unit is going to instinctively move to protect it's members under threat, or who have seniority. I saw this in Iraq with a friendly fire incident, a gunner opened up on some Iraqi police down the rode from out base who were screwing around at night. One laid down on the ground. Died for it, cause it was suspicious. No evidence of digging a roadside bomb, nothing. What happened? The specialist who shot them got promoted. I talked about it to a Lt. later on, and is became a hush hush situation of talking to a near whisper, trying to uncomfortably rebuttal that he didn't just kill him, he had a reason, I didn't really think he just murdered them. I said yes, and was rejected. Meanwhile, they scapegoated some scouts in my unit put in a very dangerous scouting/surveillance mission, where they had to kill to protect their position, and the US military, due to some political pressure to act somewhere to appease Europe (people like VT), put them through a trial for murder, and convicted them, even though training videos require people to question what to do under these very situations, kill or not kill to preserve your hiding place, with no solid answer as what to do (open ended morale conundrum). But the Army decided that someone had to face trial, and so it landed on them, because On of the privates new to accounts disliked the leader (he was a satanist, but only because he lost his family to a accident, the new guys didn't comprehend that fact, or why he was so hard on them in their training, so called Jag to get rid of him).

In the end, the guy who deserved to go to jail got promoted, and the guy who deserved our trust and gratitude, perhaps a medal for all the work he did, was sent to jail by a military command searching for a scapegoat for some sickos in Europe.

Politics mostly boil down to this insanity. My solution has been the creation of a new judicial alternative for police in my state, who if they loose their gun for not shooting, so long as they are not a trainee or intentionally placed by a superior in a cordon with specific instructions, keep pay for two months as they seek recourse by getting 5 sheriffs, police chiefs, or police colonels from the state to agree to hear the specifics of their case over. It would have to be voluntary for them to do the hearing, and signed off by 5 police leaders from across the state. He rulings will act as precedent, from a competent jury of peers, for the municipal level courts to take as evidence that the cops did, or did not, act competently, in choosing less force than others on the police force expect.

There is too much judgment, too many guys thinking they know so much. My town's police force in the last few years was nearly completely replaced, but in doing so, the new guys formed a police union, and refused to accept responsibility in par with their rank. They had rank, but claimed no training, no special police classes or schools, so refused to take responsibility. End result was a dispatcher would call in a call, and every cop would show up, in a gaggle fuck, with no coordination, whoever felt life being first was first, 10 cops in the front, none in the rear..... and then would stand around for 45 minutes watching as only one or two cops actually did anything. I resorted to taking photos of the gaggle fucks, and they would notice, and some would reposition it so it looked like they tried to do a cordon, but most failed, and just went on chit chatting, out of the way. They can pull off excellent highway maneuvers, but I'm fairly certain a senior citizen with a peg leg can evade them if they raid a house by going out the back, with no cops in sight, hobbling away.

It is in this environment of no obvious leaders, all young guys, that a mentality of someone being a Mr. Know It All pushing aside a cop with less seniority (never mind his combat experience, just a noob) can occur. Weak units, incompetent commanders who can't force conformity to advance tactics, trusting your team memebers gut instincts, is going to produce it's own absurd pecking order derived from serotonin substituting for situational awareness. It will make a police force stupid and unresponsive, save in the very worst ways.

It is important that police forces trust in the decision of first responders when they decide to de-escalate. It is sickening to me someone had to die because some idiot cop thought he knew better than one of his brothers, pushed him aside and shot. Even worst that the city went the safe road of blaming the cop for cowardness in not shooting, despite the evidence he was right. They are just trying to avoid a lawsuit.

So that's why I'm having such a hard time. Hard to find a lawyer willing to help craft this law. It is a completely new kind of Court, first I've ever heard of. I want that marine back on the force, one willing to listen to his gut and not shoot when he think things can be resolved less than lethally. He might get it wrong, but I'm willing to embrace that occasional possibility if it means creating a more civilized police force that encourages such thinking, exploring it, gaining experience in knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot.

It is a uphill battle. One I'm thinking I'll loose. I hate loosing on issues like this, but I'll keep refining it. My state doesn't produce many philosophers, so have in the long term a disproportionate amount of influence, in the Loooooonnnnnggggg term.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/us/wv-cop ... index.html

Please VT, shut your mouth in this thread unless you have something valid to add. Seriously, this is a philosophy forum, have ideas to trade. Form a well worded concept, retort with well thought out complex ideas. You never have ideas, but you should start now. Have no idea why you are even on this site.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:33 am

I can't begin to state how sad and frustrating it is to see a goodman disgraced while some hothead gets to walk around proud, like he did something wonderful despite all the facts vindicating the first. It is something that has constantly eaten away at me. We really need to promote and advance those who know when not to pull the trigger. I'm not too lost over the suicidal man, he wanted to die.... but it would of been much better had he lived. I want a society where a proven hero with a track record as his could of risen to the level of highest cop in my state. Not seeing much point to rank and a pretend meritocracy if good men are not promoted, if the police force and military isn't allowed to express itself at times humanely or as a neighborly or even nurturing force at times. It shouldn't loose track of it's humanity. Why I'm always so strict when it comes to police brutality. I give credit to cops in awkward situations handling rough cases of people resisting arrest in tough crowds, especially in hellholes like Ferguson, but at the same time you can't loose a inch on improving the individual cop, and the relations with the community, however small and insignificant the advance. It doesn't seem often it matters. It really does, every individual promoted and reinforced in doing good has a much better chance at avoiding resentment, less prone to violence, to getting thrown in jail. That results in greater wealth and a more stable family, and that passes on to the next few generations. It is a very slow civilizing build, and isn't always obvious in terms of immediate rewards and punishments. There comes a point when weeding a wild field and planting it goes from a feral mess into a garden. It is never obvious exactly when that occurs. A society needs good stewards, or else the instincts of those wanting more will impose itself on the ability of everyone else to not just thrive, but survive. It takes constant. Assurances, long term exposure, a guarantee to people you have their backs, for them to feel safe, to switch from efforts of pure survival to that of the intellect and arts. You can't produce a good society out of pure cut throats selfishness. You won't long have such a good society if the cops themselves turn rotten, cynical, self aggrandizing and corrupt. It is why such good men are precious, need nurtured and fast tracked. They need to be a part of the brains of the state apparatus, whenever coercive force must be used. They can present alternatives that SOPs and state legislators can't anticipate, can make a lot of problems go away with understanding. It is always a terrible loss to a society to loose them, to protect the hotheaded and send the good away in dishonor. My town desperately needs him back. I hate it that he is gone, just reinforces how rotten some have become. Really gets at me.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7126
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:10 am

↑↑↑↑↑ I don't see any 'philosophy' here either, just a rambling mess of someone with a compulsive need to externalise every single thought that comes into their head.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests