Two police ambushed; some protesters yell "we hope they die"

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope.
People who aren't criminals are more likely to die from lightening strike than police misconduct.
Tom

What does that have to do with whether or not it is something worthy of concern? No matter what the odds are of being struck by lightning, people still tend to keep themselves safe from lightning and there are lots of things in place to ensure we are protected from lightning.

In any case, comparing murder carried out with impunity by the forces assigned to protect you to natural disasters is just plain false equivocation. We don't specifically arm and train lightning in order to protect us by only ever hitting violent criminals. I would say the absolute bare minimum required of a police officer is to not harm or kill innocent people, and yet they very often do, and they very often get away with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the fact of the matter is that I never made any such claim that only criminals are randomly murdered by the police.

The problem here is that you didn't anticipate mischievous inference.
Certainly, not committing criminal act greatly lessens the associated
risks of apprehension, prosecution, prison, & injury during commission.

You failed to state that bad things can still happen to people who
don't engage in criminal activity. Because you didn't say that, it
means you don't believe that.

I used to think that I know what my opinions are. Boy, was I
wrong! Coming to RF, posters tell me what I really believe.
I just might be the only atheist who's also a Christian creationist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Um...
I am not a criminal?


What is it you are fishing for?

Neither were Breonna Taylor and Daniel Shaver. There's many more I can name. Make sure you never have a mental health crisis, either. They love gunning down mentally ill people. I recall a homeless man who was beaten to death by cops for no reason, too. This is why ACAB is a thing.

 

[tytlyf]

It is NOT a falsehood:

I do not fear being randomly murdered by the police because I am not a criminal​

It is a falsehood.
There's no way a cop would know if you were a criminal or not. It's not like it's advertised above your head walking down the street.

 

[Tambourine]

Nice try.
But the fact of the matter is that I never made any such claim that only criminals are randomly murdered by the police.
Nor do I make any such assumption.

I am not the least bit worried about being randomly murdered by the police.
Why?
Because I am not a criminal.

These statements can't both be true. Pick one.

It is a falsehood.
There's no way a cop would know if you were a criminal or not. It's not like it's advertised above your head walking down the street.

Also, from the cases I've read about so far, it seems almost trivial for a police officer to come up with an after the fact justification why any particular person needed to be killed. And even if they can't, the consequences for murdering an innocent person appear to be almost as trivial for police officers in the US. (Not to say that it's so much better where I live, but at least here the police only very rarely shoots at anybody at all)

 

[amorphous_constellation]

And I'm disgusted by your childish and irresponsible characterization of "both sides of the contemporary national 'debate.' "

If my choice of descriptors is sloppy in your perception, then I accept that as my own failure to write well. Nonetheless, I fail to see how you disagree with my statement in principle, merely by the merit of having posted this thread in the first place

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If my choice of descriptors is sloppy in your perception, ...

It is not a question of 'sloppy' descriptors but of a dangerously distorted characterization fully reflective of Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It is not a question of 'sloppy' descriptors but of a dangerously distorted characterization fully reflective of Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric.

I dislike the man, and I find many right wing beliefs to be unproductive

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I dislike the man, and I find many right wing beliefs to be unproductive

Naitvism, racism, misogyny, and homophobia are 'unproductive'? Seriously?

 

[McBell]

It is a falsehood.
There's no way a cop would know if you were a criminal or not. It's not like it's advertised above your head walking down the street.

So your claim is that i do fear?
Geez, so many people on RF thinking they know me better than me.
Interesting.

 

[McBell]

These statements can't both be true. Pick one.

I have no control over your inability to comprehend.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no control over your inability to comprehend.

Come on, Mestemia. You know full well that the statements "Not only criminals are killed by the police" and "I have no reason to fear being killed by the police because I am not a criminal" are contradictory.

Either elaborate on the nuance in your position that makes accepting both propositions not contrary in your view, or stop asserting them. Calling people ignorant or presumptive just for pointing out the very obvious incompatibility of your statements just makes you look really, really bad.

Either debate in good faith, or not at all.

 

[McBell]

Come on, Mestemia. You know full well that the statements "Not only criminals are killed by the police" and "I have no reason to fear being killed by the police because I am not a criminal" are contradictory.

Really?
So because I do not fear the police even though there have been some instances of the police randomly murdering people, I am in contradiction?
Yet no one can explain this contradiction other than to jump up and down swearing there is a contradiction?

Either elaborate on the nuance in your position that makes accepting both propositions not contrary in your view, or stop asserting them. Calling people ignorant or presumptive just for pointing out the very obvious incompatibility of your statements just makes you look really, really bad.

Either debate in good faith, or not at all.

I have explained that i do not fear the police.
That there has been some instances of police randomly murdering people is not something I fear happening to me.

What else is there to explain?

Is it really so baffling that someone who is not a criminal does not fear the police?
Or not fear that they will be randomly murdered by the police?
What are the odds that I will be randomly murdered by a non-police?
I suspect they are higher than being randomly murdered by the police.
Do I also have to explain why I am not afraid of that happening as well?
Or that I do not fear getting into a car crash?
or getting my foot cut off with the lawn mower?


So if someone can explain, based on what I ACTUALLY said, where is the contradiction?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Really?
So because I do not fear the police even though there have been some instances of the police randomly murdering people, I am in contradiction?

That's not what I wrote. What I (and others) have written is contradictory is your stated position that not being a criminal means you have no need to fear being murdered by police AND your stated position that you know the police also kill non-criminals. THAT is the contradiction.

We have been extremely specific about this for several posts. Why don you not understand it?

Yet no one can explain this contradiction other than to jump up and down swearing there is a contradiction?

It has been explained to you multiple times! I've explained it at least twice now.

I have explained that i do not fear the police.
That there has been some instances of police randomly murdering people is not something I fear happening to me.

What else is there to explain?

Why you think that. Because your stated reason (that you are not a criminal) has already been pointed out as not sufficient, because - as you yourself accept - the police DO kill non-criminals.

So what makes you feel confident that you will not (or cannot) be a victim of murder by the police?

Is it really so baffling that someone who is not a criminal does not fear the police?

Nobody said it was baffling. What's not making sense is your logic behind that determination.

Or not fear that they will be randomly murdered by the police?
What are the odds that I will be randomly murdered by a non-police?
I suspect they are higher than being randomly murdered by the police.

Except the police are more likely to carry it out with impunity, and the police are the people who are armed and trained for the purposes of protecting you. It's not about the statistical likelihood of it - it's about the fact that the police regularly do the exact opposite of the very thing they are supposed to.

Do I also have to explain why I am not afraid of that happening as well?
Or that I do not fear getting into a car crash?
or getting my foot cut off with the lawn mower?

This is all just a distraction from the main point. I've covered the distinction between police, civilians and natural forces multiple times. The problem is the logic you're using - which is very poor.

So if someone can explain, based on what I ACTUALLY said, where is the contradiction?

Dear God, how do you not understand this yet??

If I say "I don't have any concerns about getting cancer because I don't smoke", and then say "It's not only people who smoke who get cancer", I have engaged in a contradiction. This should not be hard to understand.

It could be MORE accurate to say "I am statistically less likely to get cancer because I don't smoke" while also accepting that I could still get cancer, but to say so also acknowledges something else: that you fear cancer as a consequence of smoking.

So, essentially, what you are saying when you write "I have no need to fear the police because I am not a criminal", is ACTUALLY "I do fear the police, and that is why I am not a criminal".

No matter which way you slice it, your logic falls apart.

 

[tytlyf]

So your claim is that i do fear?
Geez, so many people on RF thinking they know me better than me.
Interesting.

It's a falsehood.
What you're saying is "I don't fear being murdered by police because I don't commit crimes."

Accurate?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To be fair, it is possible to be very concerned about a national problem without living in a state of personal, everyday fear. This may seem contradictory, but it is not.

Am I horrified by the instances of excessive police force that we have seen, and concerned about the systemic racism that leads to those outcomes? Yes. Am I personally afraid that I will be killed by the police? No. This is very unlikely.

It's also very unlikely that I will be killed in a terrorist attack, or a crash caused by a faulty Boeing aircraft, or even COVID-19 (notwithstanding it is the leading cause of death today).

It's possible to worry about a problem that causes harm in our country, without personally living in day to day fear for one's own life, because (1) it's a big country, 320 million people; (2) it's not all about me; (3) we can do so, so much better. Why settle for "it probably won't happen to me"? Why are dozens of these incidents acceptable, when something much closer to zero is achievable?

I don't know if this reflects what Mestemia was trying to say, but, to me this is reasonable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Come on, Mestemia. You know full well that the statements "Not only criminals are killed by the police" and "I have no reason to fear being killed by the police because I am not a criminal" are contradictory.

I don't mean to butt in, but do those statements really have to be contradictory?

Just for the sake of argument, suppose 5% of people killed by the police are not criminals. Then the first statement is true. Further suppose that the chances of anyone being killed by police are very small. But if only 5% of those killed by police are criminals then accordingly, your chances go up 20x if you are a criminal. I am making up numbers of course. But perhaps that crosses a threshold for Mestemia of things that are worth being personally fearful about? Lots of things entail risk but for most of us, we only become fearful when that risk is sufficiently high. Maybe being a criminal crosses that line and increases the risk of being killed by police into "fear territory" for Mestemia?

Maybe that's what Mestemia meant?

I'll let him speak for himself but perhaps we should allow him to clarify what he meant rather than pinning him to two phrases. This isn't sworn testimony.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't mean to butt in, but do those statements really have to be contradictory?

Just for the sake of argument, suppose 5% of people killed by the police are not criminals. Then the first statement is true. Further suppose that the chances of anyone being killed by police are very small. But if only 5% of those killed by police are criminals then accordingly, your chances go up 20x if you are a criminal. I am making up numbers of course. But perhaps that crosses a threshold for Mestemia of things that are worth being personally fearful about? Lots of things entail risk but for most of us, we only become fearful when that risk is sufficiently high. Maybe being a criminal crosses that line and increases the risk of being killed by police into "fear territory" for Mestemia?

Maybe that's what Mestemia meant?

I'll let him speak for himself but perhaps we should allow him to clarify what he meant rather than pinning him to two phrases. This isn't sworn testimony.

I already clarified that in a previous post, but if you look at Mestemia's responses they are being extremely dismissive to anybody pointing out the contradiction rather than explaining the nuance that may allow the contradiction to exist.

While I think it's possible you are right, the correct response from Mestemia would be to do what you have suggested - not just dismiss what people are saying and talk down to them.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not what I wrote. What I (and others) have written is contradictory is your stated position that not being a criminal means you have no need to fear being murdered by police AND your stated position that you know the police also kill non-criminals. THAT is the contradiction.

No contradiction if read neutrally.
See the 1st paragraph in post #142.
My inference has his seal of approval.