d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Open And Shut Case
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 25,521
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 11,456.00
Sep 22 2016 11:54am
Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 22 2016 10:13am)
I vaguely remembered it from the Ferguson or Baltimore thread, which ever it was originally made in, and it just fit perfect into Duff's question lol

I shudder to think of the bodycount if business owners exercised their legal right to shoot looters tho...



I doubt the body count would be that high. Something called deterrence would eventually settle in and the idiots would realize that stealing a few hundred dollars worth of stuff isn't worth losing your life for. I wonder why places like Singapore and more recently the Philippines have plummeting crime rates? I wonder if increasing the cost of criminality is having some effect?
Member
Posts: 90,679
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Sep 22 2016 12:01pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 22 2016 11:54am)
I doubt the body count would be that high. Something called deterrence would eventually settle in and the idiots would realize that stealing a few hundred dollars worth of stuff isn't worth losing your life for. I wonder why places like Singapore and more recently the Philippines have plummeting crime rates? I wonder if increasing the cost of criminality is having some effect?


The largest shooting we have on record was in Orlando this year and was a national tragedy, a group of 3-5 store owners firing indiscriminately into a crowd could produce just as many bodies in short order.

Ahh yes, deterrence, and if you feel the cost needed to make it work as crime prevention is not morally repugnant its because you are yourself morally bankrupt.
Member
Posts: 25,521
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 11,456.00
Sep 22 2016 12:04pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 22 2016 11:01am)
The largest shooting we have on record was in Orlando this year and was a national tragedy, a group of 3-5 store owners firing indiscriminately into a crowd could produce just as many bodies in short order.

Ahh yes, deterrence, and if you feel the cost needed to make it work as crime prevention is not morally repugnant its because you are yourself morally bankrupt.



You're being dramatic at this point. We're not talking about spraying bullets into random crowds. I'm talking about a store owner firing at someone that is trying to break in. I doubt after the first guy drops that anyone else is going to be too eager to loot that place. Hell, even warning shots would be enough to get purps to scatter.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Sep 22 2016 12:06pm
Member
Posts: 77,542
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Sep 22 2016 12:08pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 22 2016 12:44pm)
Eh, i disagree. Let's say hypothetically you're in highschool in Charlotte. You get let out of class at 3:30 and start hearing that a large amount of people are headed down town to see the protests. It quickly becomes a large mob of people walking around with a few fringe idiots smashing windows or looting, then a few monkey see monkey do types take up the looting and before you know it a mass of people who aren't looting are in the crossfire and dead. That post i made earlier outlined that in the hysteria of 92 some koreans were seen firing into crowds at random to attempt to disperse the mobs, that's what it invariably leads to as well as unintended crossfire. In any protest mob there are a large number who aren't looting or damaging anything, look up any video and you'll see there are 5 guys smashing a car and 30 guys encircling it. Looting follows that same relationship to a point.


The impending danger warrants the force. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do but it's certainly necessary when your livelihood is threatened.

If you were in a car with the 5 guys smashing it and 30 guys encircling it would you not slam on the gas and get out of there regardless of how many people you run over?

Mind you I don't advocate spraying bullets into crowds but I fully support gunning down anyone that tries to break in.

This post was edited by duffman316 on Sep 22 2016 12:09pm
Member
Posts: 90,679
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Sep 22 2016 12:10pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 22 2016 12:04pm)
You're being dramatic at this point. We're not talking about spraying bullets into random crowds. I'm talking about a store owner firing at someone that is trying to break in. I doubt after the first guy drops that anyone else is going to be to eager too loot that place. Hell, even warning shots would be enough to get purps to scatter.


Ya you're right, better to trust people to do only the minimum amount of shooting when fearing for their lives....

The difference is what i'm referencing has already happened.

For reference, the koreans had armed shopkeeps firing thousands of warning shots and actual kill shots, and still were devastated by the riots.

Quote
One of the most iconic and controversial television images of the violence was a scene of two Korean merchants firing pistols repeatedly at roving looters. The New York Times said "that the image seemed to speak of race war, and of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands."[79] The merchants, jewelry store and gun shop owner Richard Park and his gun store manager, David Joo, were reacting to the shooting of Mr. Park's wife and her sister by looters who converged on the shopping center where the shops were located.[79]



Quote (duffman316 @ Sep 22 2016 12:08pm)
The impending danger warrants the force. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do but it's certainly necessary when your livelihood is threatened.

If you were in a car with the 5 guys smashing it and 30 guys encircling it would you not slam on the gas and get out of there regardless of how many people you run over?

Mind you I don't advocate spraying bullets into crowds but I fully support gunning down anyone that tries to break in.


That would be fine if it were the only option. Riot gear and gas canisters do the same job to disperse mobs, but the government doesn't like the liability so they let marshall law rule until the fires die down.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 22 2016 12:12pm
Member
Posts: 15,789
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 30.90
Sep 22 2016 12:11pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 22 2016 09:47am)
Didn't you know the victim was just a boy of 16 years picking up his child from school with his own school textbook in hand. Wait, we can't make the young perp angle work with the concerned father angle without making him look like he was a dad at 11....

The desire for all of the facts up front is what drives the hysteria, its our own fault for making social media such a 2010+ success. The biggest rise in wealth happened from a guy creating an website to instantly update everyone about everything, this is the bad consequence of that mentality. Anyone who trusts the media doesn't realize they'll lie out their ass as they have the Trump card of "early information came in that was later invalidated" as people gear up for a riot based on that info. We need to get out in front of the issue and make it mandatory for police departments to release pertinent information such as presence of a weapon as soon as is humanly possible. Social media is the tool thats both killing and could potentially save police-community relations, but utter transparency is needed in some situations.


The only way to save police-community relations is to make it a significantly more difficult job to get and significantly easier to lose, and to pay them more. Right now it's just not realistic to expect intelligent people to become police officers unless they're born into policing families.

I have a few friends who are police officers who only became cops because they failed to become what they really wanted to be, and I have friends who wanted to be police for their entire lives but then found out that they were smart enough, or skilled enough, or well enough connected to get much better jobs.
Member
Posts: 90,679
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Sep 22 2016 12:14pm
Quote (Shadowoffury @ Sep 22 2016 12:11pm)
The only way to save police-community relations is to make it a significantly more difficult job to get and significantly easier to lose, and to pay them more. Right now it's just not realistic to expect intelligent people to become police officers unless they're born into policing families.

I have a few friends who are police officers who only became cops because they failed to become what they really wanted to be, and I have friends who wanted to be police for their entire lives but then found out that they were smart enough, or skilled enough, or well enough connected to get much better jobs.


While i agree to a point your plan also makes it infinitely harder to find people willing to police low income high crime neighborhoods, which are already struggling to fill spots and why you see so many problems with police misconduct. Higher pay would offset it a bit, but we have equal pay in teachers and we see its almost impossible to get quality candidates to the hood to teach even with drastically higher pay.
Member
Posts: 25,521
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 11,456.00
Sep 22 2016 12:17pm
Quote (Shadowoffury @ Sep 22 2016 11:11am)
The only way to save police-community relations is to make it a significantly more difficult job to get and significantly easier to lose, and to pay them more. Right now it's just not realistic to expect intelligent people to become police officers unless they're born into policing families.

I have a few friends who are police officers who only became cops because they failed to become what they really wanted to be, and I have friends who wanted to be police for their entire lives but then found out that they were smart enough, or skilled enough, or well enough connected to get much better jobs.



Don't know what part of the country you live in but where I live this doesn't hold true. Many cops are college educated. The most recent police test I took there were 2200 people taking it, many like me, had bachelors degrees. Unfortunately, they took out the 60 credit hour requirement because they couldn't get the demographics they were looking for. So here I am a university graduate, being told, sorry we don't want you, we'd rather have a black guy with a highschool diploma so we have potentially better community relations. At this point many police departments are moving away from the thought process that a better educated police officer is the best option.
Member
Posts: 90,679
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Sep 22 2016 12:28pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 22 2016 12:17pm)
Don't know what part of the country you live in but where I live this doesn't hold true. Many cops are college educated. The most recent police test I took there were 2200 people taking it, many like me, had bachelors degrees. Unfortunately, they took out the 60 credit hour requirement because they couldn't get the demographics they were looking for. So here I am a university graduate, being told, sorry we don't want you, we'd rather have a black guy with a highschool diploma so we have potentially better community relations. At this point many police departments are moving away from the thought process that a better educated police officer is the best option.


anecdotal proof at best, 60-120 credit cops are documented on the rise, and will remain on the rise. The trend isn't even old enough to have a statistically significant downturn yet...
Member
Posts: 44,158
Joined: Jun 22 2007
Gold: 3,100.00
Sep 22 2016 12:40pm
Quote (Beowulf @ Sep 22 2016 01:48pm)
I don't think the op gets paid to do anything


It's just that he was a flaming liberal mere months ago, complete 180.

Either that or trolling.

This post was edited by obisent on Sep 22 2016 12:40pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll