Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Countryfox

Also in the news

By Countryfox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, marbles said:

Really?

Enlighten me on how this is “par for the course”

For a very long time now, there have been numerous examples of US police injuring or flat-out killing people in the line of their work with justification that is dubious at best, and then the legal system either declining to indict them or a jury finding them not guilty. That someone actually answered for the death of George Floyd, for instance, appears to be the exception, rather than the rule. And look at how much effort that took! (If you want specific examples/stats, I will produce them on request).

 

Of course, my own personal view is that it's better for one thousand guilty men to go free than one innocent man be convicted and therefore a very exacting burden of proof must be met...but I would argue (just a hunch) that there is a bias in the legal system that allows police to not be accountable for these "accidents" more than the average person on the street would be. When really, it should be the other way round - when you move into a position of authority over people, you should take on a responsibility of duty of care towards them and violations of that duty of care should be looked at very closely. If that's not ones particular brand of beer, then other professions without the same standard exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted (edited)

My issue is with your use of "par for the course"

 

First, the vast majority of police interactions in the US DO NOT result in the use of force, or a shooting. So you cant be talking about that. 

Second, exactly how was this individual an "innocent bystander" - was he not protesting?  Did he not refuse to move or leave? 

How should the police have gone about removing him?

What would you do?  Never mind.  I already know the answer to that.

 

How many examples are there of people complying with the police, ended with a shooting or brutality?

 

Ill tell you what is "par for the course"

People seeing the headline "Police Shooting" and immediately act as if the police ambushed a 100 year old granny.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, marbles said:

My issue is with your use of "par for the course"

 

First, the vast majority of police interactions in the US DO NOT result in the use of force, or a shooting. So you cant be talking about that. 

Second, exactly how was this individual an "innocent bystander" - was he not protesting?  Did he not refuse to move or leave? 

How should the police have gone about removing him?

What would you do?  Never mind.  I already know the answer to that.

 

How many examples are there of people complying with the police, ended with a shooting or brutality?

 

Ill tell you what is "par for the course"

People seeing the headline "Police Shooting" and immediately act as if the police ambushed a 100 year old granny.

 

 

Allow me to clarify then: by "par for the course" I mean the lack of accountability for events like this, not the prevalence of such events themselves.

 

The guy certainly wasn't an "innocent bystander", but the last time I checked extrajudicial punishment in the US was still mostly frowned upon so if the guy isn't going to move then you move him physically or come up with a way to get him to move - you certainly don't give him a shove that could (and did) result in a major head injury. And if you do do that, then the guy is your responsibility and his immediate medical attention then becomes your responsibility too.

 

As per above,"complying" doesn't come into it - not complying with the police leaves you open to penalty of law for resisting arrest or whatever else, it doesn't leave you open to egregious injury (or death) caused by police simply because you wouldn't listen, except when clearly and definitively posing a capital threat (which this guy, and I suspect a great many others involved in similar cases, were not). The legal system is there for a reason.

 

WRT the last sentence, if the US fuzz and people who support them are so worried about how they are perceived, perhaps they might want to look closer at exactly why.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jattdogg

Jattdogg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-manure-is-hot-commodity-amid-commercial-fertilizer-shortage-2022-04-06/

 

The machinery of civilisation is complex, often lacks redundancies, and often runs on shit.

 

And now, that machinery is throwing some cogwheels.

Guess we are going to have to buy a cow and have it shit in the garden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Lionator

Lionator

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Buried within all the bad news, there’s been an insane amount of progress in understanding multiple sclerosis. Firstly they found that Epstein-Barr seems to be the cause. Now they’ve already found a potential therapeutic mechanism to prevent or perhaps even reverse MS 

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2315586-ms-reversed-by-transplanted-immune-cells-that-fight-epstein-barr-virus/

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fox_favourite

fox_favourite

Posted
Posted
On 13/04/2022 at 03:16, Jon the Hat said:

Man goes nuts and shoots people.  Gun sales go up.  There is no treatment for this national insanity.

Also reminds me of when covid first hit America. We Brit’s queued for bog roll, Americans queued for guns 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

Such a crazy mindset!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...