Sterling Costco Shooting ruled justified

[WalkingWolf]

I won't speak for others, but for myself this is nothing more than a straw man. I tend to avoid "criticizing" individual officers for use of force when it is, indeed, justified. But individual "justification" is hardly the point. What most of would like to see is reform of training and practices, so that the police might once again serve some fathomable function in a stable society.

Nobody would bat an eye if the manager had to shoot this woman in self-defense. And, indeed, if shooting her is the best solution we can envision, one wonders how paying the state to do this is preferable to the manager "cutting out the middleman" (so to speak).

No, folks don't call the police because they assume the police will do what they could have done themselves. They figure a squad of professionals accustomed to physical altercation might bring with them a toolbox encompassing means beyond the last-resort.

I'm pretty sure this is not a recording of that manager to the police dispatcher:

[video=youtube;F5zboV3_9KY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5zboV3_9KY[/video]

Given how thoughtless and easily dismantled your "argument" was, I'm going to chalk one in the "reflexive apologia" column.

They were surrounded by tools, but conditioned not to use the most valuable tool, their brain. Almost every store has a shop broom, probably more than one. Unarmed clerks have used mops and brooms to successfully defend themselves over and over again. Are some police too lazy or just too stupid. It seems all some police and most statists care about is the power of the state to kill, if justified. Hell they do not even mind citizens killing if it can be avoided. The important thing is that the power of the state be glorified, because for lobbyists there is great profit in it.

 

[skidmark]

I am glad it is easy. For expediency, it would suggest changing it. Especially the part that allows each new top cop to write his own rules. That is insane. He/she does not own the department he/she has been entrusted/hired to run. The people do, and since the people bear the brunt of abuse, the people should decide if bear spray, bean bag rounds, tranquilizer darts should be used instead of bullets.
....

You gave got to be kidding. Right? Or will "The People" decide on which level of force can be used in response to what behaviors being exhibited - you know, pretty much what any Continuum of Force policy already is? For more giggles - if "The People" decide, who holds the responsibility when things go south? "The People", right? Or are you going to check voting records and only hold responsible those who voted for the now-existing policy?

Presuming you could get a mathematical majority to agree on anything, how long do you think it would be until the next round of "Let's decide" took place.

What would probably make you happy is what's called a Citizen Review/Oversight Committee. Do you know the easiest way to get one of those created? I'll give you a hint - it is not by educating your kid.

To be clear, I have no intention to change society as a whole. Impossible, imo. I intend to educate my children. All parents/guardians have that responsibility, instead of turning that responsibility over to the state.

I disagree - there are too many examples of society as a whole being changed. Maybe not every single person signed on to the new way but enough did that the way people got things done and lived with each other changed dramatically and radically. And if all you are going to do is teach your kid whatever it is you are going to teach them it seems all you will do is create another voice wandering in the wilderness. Why would you want to do that?

BTW - are you better at integrated calculus than you are at sociology, philosophy, or social anthropology?

stay safe.

 

[utbagpiper]

It wouldn't take much to improve on the present state of affairs. The inevitable reduction in care costs which would result from abolition of bloated and counterproductive regulatory bureaucracies should make it easy on charities, and with non-existent taxes for the middle- and lower-income echelons of society I would expect to see more folks actually able to contribute to charity than ever before. Of course, the incentive is ample because everybody knows somebody with mental health issues, and without a largely-fictitious government-provided "safety net" we would be less inclined to pretend the issue didn't exist.

Which means we should see examples of better conditions abounding. After all, there is no shortage of places in the world which are, de facto, anarchist societies for lack of functioning governments.

Will you please direct me to citations regarding that location on earth which has both de facto anarchy AND much improved conditions for the mentally ill due your theories working out as you believe they would?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Statists prefer we just keep our mouths shut and don't make waves for the state. So what if she could have been taken to a hospital safely, they were legally justified, that makes it moral in their thoughts.

Then, same challenger to you that I offered to Marshaul.

Much of the world's lands and peoples are, in fact, living under de facto anarchy today due to the government that supposedly has authority in that area being too weak and/or ineffective to exert any meaningful authority at all.

Please provide citations to information about such regions demonstrating how much better off the conditions are for the mentally ill in such locations.

Anarchists and their apologetic lap puppies like to spout grand theories without any meaningful evidence of them working.

This is an OC site. NOT a cop bashing site, nor an anarchist site. Too bad if being reminded of that makes a few anarchists uncomfortable.

Charles

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Because the present method of shooting them is so admirable. :lol:

It wouldn't take much to improve on the present state of affairs. The inevitable reduction in care costs which would result from abolition of bloated and counterproductive regulatory bureaucracies should make it easy on charities, and with non-existent taxes for the middle- and lower-income echelons of society I would expect to see more folks actually able to contribute to charity than ever before. Of course, the incentive is ample because everybody knows somebody with mental health issues, and without a largely-fictitious government-provided "safety net" we would be less inclined to pretend the issue didn't exist.

Really, the statists should be the ones finding this issue "uncomfortable", given how badly government intervention has mangled every aspect of health care in the last half-century or so.

:idea:
This post was like poetry. I hope a light comes on in a mind or two after reading it.

 

[utbagpiper]

Nobody would bat an eye if the manager had to shoot this woman in self-defense. And, indeed, if shooting her is the best solution we can envision, one wonders how paying the state to do this is preferable to the manager "cutting out the middleman" (so to speak).

So no credit at all for the cops attempting to use less than lethal force (the taser) and resorting to firearms only when that failed?

It is as if you will, actually criticize every shooting by a cop.

I won't criticize cops for a legally justified shoot, especially not after trying non-lethal means. If a cop can end such a case non-lethally, props to him. But I won't criticize him should he make a legally supportable decision to use deadly force in such cases.

No, folks don't call the police because they assume the police will do what they could have done themselves. They figure a squad of professionals accustomed to physical altercation might bring with them a toolbox encompassing means beyond the last-resort.

Really? People who have never handled a gun call the cops assuming cops won't use guns? Talk about pipe dreams. Even in Utah, only 10% of our adult population have permits to carry. That is one of the higher rates in the nation. From my time in Arizona rates of persons OCing come no where close to that and I doubt CCing has increased all that much even under constitutional carry.

People call cops to stop criminals or resolve problems. They give very little thought to how the cops might do that or else they would not call the cops in certain cases (suicidal family member for example).

There are cases where cops are legitimately criticized and where policy needs to change. When a nut case with a knife can't be talked down and isn't stopped by a taser, the shoot is legit no matter how regrettable. If a cop can and does go above and beyond to end the situation without loss of life, props to him. But I won't require it of him just as I wouldn't require it of you.

Given how thoughtless and easily dismantled your "argument" was, I'm going to chalk one in the "reflexive apologia" column.

The "dismantling" was and is a figment of your very creative imagination.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

:idea:
This post was like poetry. I hope a light comes on in a mind or two after reading it.

Then I extent to you the same challenge. Show me the location on the world where de facto anarchy has actually lead to material improvements for the well being of the mentally ill.

Guys, your claims about the joys of anarchy are as poor tested as the claims from the gun grabbers that if we'd just disarm the citizens violent crime would go away.

Your argument is if we'd just eliminate the government our problems would be a distant memory.

Big chunks of the world have no effective government. Show the location where overall freedom is better than right here. I don't believe it exists which means theories of anarchy sound about as nice as, but are no more likely to ever bear the promised fruit than have the promises of Marxism or of disarming the citizens.

This is an OC site. Not an anarchist or anti-government site. It is not a cop bashing site. The shoot was legally justified. Save the criticism for the cases where it isn't.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

Then, same challenger to you that I offered to Marshaul.

Much of the world's lands and peoples are, in fact, living under de facto anarchy today due to the government that supposedly has authority in that area being too weak and/or ineffective to exert any meaningful authority at all.

Please provide citations to information about such regions demonstrating how much better off the conditions are for the mentally ill in such locations.

Anarchists and their apologetic lap puppies like to spout grand theories without any meaningful evidence of them working.

This is an OC site. NOT a cop bashing site, nor an anarchist site. Too bad if being reminded of that makes a few anarchists uncomfortable.

Charles

Terrible assumption on your part, I am not a anarchist, I am a constitutionalist and a common sensealist. I do believe in a social system controlled completely by the people and responsible to the people, and that the constitution be followed to the letter. Sorry if that makes statists uncomfortable, especially lobbyist statists.

 

[utbagpiper]

Terrible assumption on your part, I am not a anarchist,

You've claimed that in the past, but are quick to take up common cause with the anarchists.

So if you want to agree with them, feel free to provide any evidence that their theories will work. By evidence, I mean something from one of the de facto anarchist regions of the world currently.

I am a constitutionalist and a common sensealist. I do believe in a social system controlled completely by the people and responsible to the people, and that the constitution be followed to the letter. Sorry if that makes statists uncomfortable, especially lobbyist statists.

I wouldn't know how lobbyists feel. I've never made so much as a penny in my activist work for the RKBA. Indeed, it has cost me quite a bit in terms of money out of pocket and vacation days spent away from my job and not with my family.

And for the record, a strict constitutionalist, is also a "statist" by the anarchists' definition of that word. So welcome to the club my fellow constitutionalist and statist.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

You've claimed that in the past, but are quick to take up common cause with the anarchists.

So if you want to agree with them, feel free to provide any evidence that their theories will work. By evidence, I mean something from one of the de facto anarchist regions of the world currently.




I wouldn't know how lobbyists feel. I've never made so much as a penny in my activist work for the RKBA. Indeed, it has cost me quite a bit in terms of money out of pocket and vacation days spent away from my job and not with my family.

And for the record, a strict constitutionalist, is also a "statist" by the anarchists' definition of that word. So welcome to the club my fellow constitutionalist and statist.

Charles

CITE where I have claimed in the past to be a anarchist? Your above post is a outright lie. Marshal can attest to the back and forth between him and I over rabid anarchists. I do not believe in the power of the state over the people, I AM NOT LIKE YOU!

 

[Primus]

You've claimed that in the past, but are quick to take up common cause with the anarchists.

So if you want to agree with them, feel free to provide any evidence that their theories will work. By evidence, I mean something from one of the de facto anarchist regions of the world currently.




I wouldn't know how lobbyists feel. I've never made so much as a penny in my activist work for the RKBA. Indeed, it has cost me quite a bit in terms of money out of pocket and vacation days spent away from my job and not with my family.

And for the record, a strict constitutionalist, is also a "statist" by the anarchists' definition of that word. So welcome to the club my fellow constitutionalist and statist.

Charles

Lmao.

"So welcome to the club my fellow constitutionalist and statist"

For the win! [emoji14]

 

[WalkingWolf]

Lmao.

"So welcome to the club my fellow constitutionalist and statist"

For the win! [emoji14]

Only a mentally incompetent person of low IQ claims to win over the internet...

 

[utbagpiper]

CITE where I have claimed in the past to be a anarchist? Your above post is a outright lie. Marshal can attest to the back and forth between him and I over rabid anarchists. I do not believe in the power of the state over the people, I AM NOT LIKE YOU!

Please re-read my post. I did NOT claim you are an anarchist, indeed, acknowledged clearly that you have claimed in the past not to be an anarchist. I then observe that you frequently agree with the anarchists as you have with Marshaul on this thread.

I am a strict constructionist constitutionalist. Just like you claim to be.

The constitution, strictly read, does provide the state some degree of authority over individuals because "the people" (ie body politic) have delegated such power to the government. So either you do, agree with some degree of government authority over individuals just like I do, or you are not a strict constructionist constitutionalist. You've repeatedly said you are a strict constitutionalist, so I take you at your word on that one.

Welcome aboard, my fellow statists brother.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Only a mentally incompetent person of low IQ claims to win over the internet...

And only someone of lower IQ and lower self-esteem makes a fuss over someone making such a claim.

Welcome aboard my brother.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you have ever bothered to read the BOR you would know that the BOR does not limit the people, it limits the STATE. That would be the opposite of being a statist/capitalist communist. The government you seek is China's government.

 

[Primus]

Only a mentally incompetent person of low IQ claims to win over the internet...

Cite please. TIA.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Cite please. TIA.

Haven't you read your post?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A god complex is an unshakable belief characterized by consistently inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility. A person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of their error or failure, even in the face of complex or intractable problems or difficult or impossible tasks, or may regard their personal opinions as unquestionably correct.[1][2] The individual may disregard the rules of society and require special consideration or privileges.[1]

God complex is not a clinical term or diagnosable disorder, and does not appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The first person to use the term god-complex was Ernest Jones (1913-51).[3] His description, at least in the contents page of Essays in Applied Psycho-Analysis, describes the god complex as belief that one is a god

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the personality disorder. For more information on clinical research and types of narcissism, see Narcissism.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a Cluster B personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process. It is estimated that this condition affects one percent of the population, with rates greater for men.[2][3] First formulated in 1968, NPD was historically called megalomania, and is a form of severe egocentrism.[4]

I am sorry, seems I was wrong, it is not an indication of low IQ.

At the very least declaring victory over the internet is very passive aggressive and has nothing to do with victory. In your case it clearly has to do with grudges that you cannot let go of and sniping because you can't come outright aggressive without breaking the rules. It seems you have a tendency to latch onto anybody else wagon to get over your feelings of inadequacy.

 

[Primus]

Haven't you read your post?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A god complex is an unshakable belief characterized by consistently inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility. A person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of their error or failure, even in the face of complex or intractable problems or difficult or impossible tasks, or may regard their personal opinions as unquestionably correct.[1][2] The individual may disregard the rules of society and require special consideration or privileges.[1]

God complex is not a clinical term or diagnosable disorder, and does not appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The first person to use the term god-complex was Ernest Jones (1913-51).[3] His description, at least in the contents page of Essays in Applied Psycho-Analysis, describes the god complex as belief that one is a god

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the personality disorder. For more information on clinical research and types of narcissism, see Narcissism.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a Cluster B personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process. It is estimated that this condition affects one percent of the population, with rates greater for men.[2][3] First formulated in 1968, NPD was historically called megalomania, and is a form of severe egocentrism.[4]

I am sorry, seems I was wrong, it is not an indication of low IQ.

At the very least declaring victory over the internet is very passive aggressive and has nothing to do with victory. In your case it clearly has to do with grudges that you cannot let go of and sniping because you can't come outright aggressive without breaking the rules. It seems you have a tendency to latch onto anybody else wagon to get over your feelings of inadequacy.

Lol shall we call you Dr. Wolf? What's your going rate for all this diagnosing? Personally I think its worth what we've paid for it. [emoji39]

I will give you credit you are dedicates to your ways. You truly make it an art form.

 

[utbagpiper]

If you have ever bothered to read the BOR you would know that the BOR does not limit the people, it limits the STATE. That would be the opposite of being a statist/capitalist communist. The government you seek is China's government.

No, brother. As two strict constitutionalists, we both want the same government. The BoR imposes certain limits on government, no doubt. But it also contains some implicit powers of government.

For example, the 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, thus implicitly permitting "reasonable" searches and seizures. It explicitly allows the issuance of warrants to search and seize as long as certain conditions are met.

The 5th amendment allows government to hold people for capital and other infamous crimes so long as certain conditions are met. This is an implicit admission that government can impose capital punishment, as well for what is a "capital crime" except one for which the punishment is death?

The 8th amendment implicitly allows for the imposition of fines and penalties, so long as they are not excessive nor cruel and unusual.

The 13th amendment grants government power to prevent slavery. The 14th amendment grants the federal government power to enforce the bill of rights against the States.

Article 1, Sec 8 grants Congress power to grant to authors and inventors exclusive rights to their works and inventions for some limited time. This limits your ability to use someone else's written words, inventions, etc.

As a self-professed strict constitutionalists, you and I are brothers, brother. We support a federal government with certain powers. In the definition of the anarchists, you and I are both "statists".

It is good to have you on board, my statist brother.

Charles

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

You gave got to be kidding. Right? Or will "The People" decide on which level of force can be used in response to what behaviors being exhibited - you know, pretty much what any Continuum of Force policy already is? For more giggles - if "The People" decide, who holds the responsibility when things go south? "The People", right? Or are you going to check voting records and only hold responsible those who voted for the now-existing policy?

Are we still talking about using lethal force against a perp who is wielding a knife or hammer?

As I said before, change the rules of engagement (Continuum of Force). Eliminate immunity for LEO's who kill. They should face the same scrutiny and consequences as any one else who kills in self defense. No immunity.

Presuming you could get a mathematical majority to agree on anything, how long do you think it would be until the next round of "Let's decide" took place.

So, lets get rid of voting all together because the people are to stupid to decide what is best for them?

What would probably make you happy is what's called a Citizen Review/Oversight Committee. Do you know the easiest way to get one of those created? I'll give you a hint - it is not by educating your kid.

Nope.
Change the rules of engagement (Continuum of Force). Eliminate immunity for LEO's who kill anything.

I disagree - there are too many examples of society as a whole being changed. Maybe not every single person signed on to the new way but enough did that the way people got things done and lived with each other changed dramatically and radically. And if all you are going to do is teach your kid whatever it is you are going to teach them it seems all you will do is create another voice wandering in the wilderness. Why would you want to do that?

Nope. We will just need to agree to disagree because:

One of my kids could be POTUS or Chief Justice of SCOTUS, or mayor, or councilman, or sheriff, or the next Samuel Adams of their time.

BTW - are you better at integrated calculus than you are at sociology, philosophy, or social anthropology?

Nope, however, I did learn trigonometry on the job out of necessity to earn a living. I don't find it necessary to learn things I don't plan on using. On the rest, my life experience and personal beliefs shape my opinions.

stay frosty