There are, it seems, significant differences between police practice in the UK and the average/normal practice in the US (recognising that as each police force is different and independent and thus practice can vary a lot within the US). That can add a lot of confusion for people posting from the UK. And, it isn't just because there's a significant chance that anyone the police have to deal with in the US would have a gun.
Over on the Guilty thread, another police shooting of a teenage black girl has been reported and there's some comments on that about the limited options for a single police officer when dealing with a group of people fighting. In the UK, a group of people fighting is a common part of policing, Friday and Saturday night as the pubs close this wouldn't be unusual and the use of a weapon (maybe a knife, more often something improvised like a broken bottle) also wouldn't be unusual. Dealing with this sort of incident is part of police training, because it happens so often, and it doesn't need the police using a gun, or even a tazer on most occasions. But, also there wouldn't be a single officer responding. I don't think I've ever seen a UK police officer on their own - on the one occasion I've called the police two officers responded (a neighbour had left their door open and there was no answer when I shouted in, after 10 mins to cover the option of he'd started talking to someone while taking the bin in or something I called the non-emergency number for advice - should I go in to see if he was OK - and they sent a car around to do that), a couple of nights ago there was a fire in a neighbours flat (burnt toast!) and the police turned up along with a fire engine, again two officers. When several officers respond to an incident, the options available to deal with that without resorting to using a weapon are significantly greater. Even when a gun is involved, two or more officers gives better view of what's happening and if the use of a gun is justified there are more options for who fires as some angles will have less chance of hitting innocent bystanders than others.
In the UK, traffic officers wouldn't pursue someone unless the other driver is posing a significant threat to other road users - the act of pursuit encourages the fleeing driver to drive even more dangerously. There's a greater reliance on surveillance - a helicopter if available, traffic cameras and other police cars ahead of the suspect. By the time a dangerous driver is stopped there's likely to be several police cars involved in that, again leaving more options.
I think of UK police as public servants. US police have shown their face as a loose gang with strong white supremacist ties. I've only recently learned of the connection of modern policing to slave patrols, and it very clearly reflects in the high death count of Black Americans at the hands of the cops.
An ironic reversal of "Only whites need apply." I don't want to be crass and state the obvious.
But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Law enforcement as a profession tends to attract bullies who want to practice their bullying under protection of law. Blacks can be bullies as well as whites.
But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Law enforcement as a profession tends to attract bullies who want to practice their bullying under protection of law. Blacks can be bullies as well as whites.
I enjoyed this article in the Washington Post. The writer, a cop, makes the point that cops need to slow down. That seems like a reasonable comment to me. Many of the headline shootings have cops arriving on scene and more or less immediately shooting someone. Consider the shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant. The cop arrived at the scene, yells, and shoots her, almost as fast as it took me to write this. The video looks as though he saw the knife and just reacted by shooting.
I enjoyed this article in the Washington Post. The writer, a cop, makes the point that cops need to slow down. That seems like a reasonable comment to me. Many of the headline shootings have cops arriving on scene and more or less immediately shooting someone. Consider the shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant. The cop arrived at the scene, yells, and shoots her, almost as fast as it took me to write this. The video looks as though he saw the knife and just reacted by shooting.
(And a new video has emerged showing that a second cop car, with two more officers, arrived a few seconds after the first, and the second and third cops were running towards the altercation when the first cop fired his weapon.)
One of the most repugnant people on Earth is Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association. The recently published story about his elephant hunt some years ago (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secret-footage-of-nra-chief-wayne-lapierres-botched-elephant-hunt?) reveals a weak-minded, brutal idiot who can't even handle a gun properly as he fumbles, wounding and failing to kill an elephant. Then his wife mutilates another elephant in a victory gesture. Apparently this activity is considered to be a sport.
There's diversity among police as individuals and diversity among police forces. Those in some places function better than others. The USA police have a generally negative reputation from news reports, and it does seem from the reports to be systemic and widespread. Perhaps there are some police forces which operate well and decently? In Canada, I've had the impression that traffic enforcement police are of a different species than others.
I see reports that one of the police officers involved in the murder of Breonna Taylor is publishing a book making money from the tragedy he assisted in causing (or hopefully not making money because the book won't sell). To make it worse, it's a publisher of Christian books who has agreed to publish it (I refuse to describe them as a "Christian publisher" because agreeing to publish this seriously underlines their right to describe themselves as Christian).
I see reports that one of the police officers involved in the murder of Breonna Taylor is publishing a book making money from the tragedy he assisted in causing (or hopefully not making money because the book won't sell).
The mind boggles. You'd think a decent person, even if they thought their actions were entirely correct, and that the death of Ms Taylor was an unfortunate consequence of her boyfriend's poor choices, would have some respect for the fact that an innocent person was killed.
There's diversity among police as individuals and diversity among police forces. Those in some places function better than others. The USA police have a generally negative reputation from news reports, and it does seem from the reports to be systemic and widespread. Perhaps there are some police forces which operate well and decently?
Sure. The police in our suburb just (and I mean *just* — 5 city blocks from my home is the city boundary) outside Minneapolis are generally a good lot, and helpful to the community; they and their chief see their role less as "law ENFORCEMENT" and more as "public safety". Their counterparts in Minneapolis (again, the two cities border one another) have a well-deserved reputation for racism and brutality.
The problem isn't that there aren't good cops (there are some), it's that the culture of policing in America defaults to "warriors" who exist to "pacify" the streets and "take out" the "bad guys". Armed, of course, with weapons and equipment loaned to them by the US military and suitable for a battlefield, not a city street.
Here is one for the "good guy with a gun" files. Ronald Troyke was on a mission to gun down as many cops as he could, and ambushed and murdered Officer Gordon Beesley.
John Hurley was a "good guy with a gun" - a bystander who shot Troyke, preventing him from shooting or killing anyone else.
John Hurley was shot and killed by the police, who were under the impression that he was the original gunman.
The Parkland shooter has plead guilty to seventeen counts of murder and seventeen counts of attempted murder. Penalties for this range from life without parole to death. His attorneys have long tried to get prosecutors to agree to a plea deal where a guilty plea would be entered in exchange for the prosecution not seeking the death penalty. Interestingly this guilty plea was entered without such a deal being in place. My guess is that the shooter's attorneys have concluded that pleading guilty and showing remorse was their best option for saving their client's life given the prosecution's unwillingness to negotiate.
For those with an abrasive sense of humo(u)r - if that is still available, seeing the circumstances -, here is a cartoon from the Tribune de Genève, Switzerland, which I came across today, regarding the Alec Baldwin movie shooting 'mishap': Link
The text says: Woman: 'For once, the victim isn't black!' - Man: 'Must have been blank [= in French: white] cartridges, then!'
I understand that prop guns are actually real guns, perfectly capable of firing live ammunition, but are usually loaded with blanks.
This Twitter thread by a film armorer explains some details of standard film practice and terminology.
First of all, blank guns are real guns. Semi-autos are what we call "blank adapted" but that is purely for the *function* of the gun, not for safety (a projectile could still exit). Revolvers, shotguns, etc we use unmodified
In other words, you can take a revolver from a movie set and load live ammo into it. (We sometimes have demilled props and other variations but blank fire would almost always be real guns)
<snip>
When we say a "prop gun" on a film set we mean a rubber or a replica that does not fire. We do not mean a blank firing gun. We call blank fire guns real guns because as I said, they are real.
Sometimes real guns are used "cold" (unloaded) if either there's no matching prop gun or if they want a closeup (the props are usually not as nice looking in detail), but for wide shots props are fine
Actors can feel & see that a prop is not something that can fire. Also props can be thrown/dropped without damaging the firearm. So lots of reasons to use rubbers/replicas where you can
So at least according to Twitter-person-who-says-she's-a-film-armorer a prop gun refers to a different thing from a blank fire gun. She also goes on to state that, while not having any details about what was happening on the set of Rust, normal film safety best practices (which she details with some thoroughness) should have made this kind of thing impossible. She doesn't go so far as to complete the inference, but I think the rest of us can.
As someone commented over on the twits: one accidental shooting and they want to ban guns, but one hundred deliberate ones and they do nothing.
I'd suggest that the Rust set shooting differs from other intentional (and accidental) shootings insofar as it's touches on the issue of workplace safety. Not so much that it's more important (or less important) than other accidental (or deliberate) shootings, but that it's differently important and involves a set of different (if related) concerns.
A great many of those other shootings have also occurred at people's workplaces, so I'm just going to roll my eyes at that.
I'll roll them right back. There is an obvious fundamental difference between shooting someone when you intended to shoot them, and shooting someone when you didn't intend to shoot them.
Both things are bad, obviously, and both end up with dead people. But they're not the same thing.
Rules about safety at work are intended to prevent accidents. If you get your hand injured in a tool because it doesn't have a safety guard, or it wasn't safely locked off before you started to work on it, then that's a problem with your work practices. If your hand is injured by a tool because your workmate hits you with it, because he's just found out you've been shagging his wife, that's an entirely different sort of problem.
And in this case, it's completely clear that the safety practices in use were woefully inadequate.
There's an article in the LA Times today that quotes a guy who turned down the job of armourer for this movie because he thought the inattention to safety made it an accident waiting to happen.
A great many of those other shootings have also occurred at people's workplaces, so I'm just going to roll my eyes at that.
Yes but @Leorning Cniht was referring to the fact that actors use guns in the work place so there should be tight safety.
A person shooting in a school has brought their own gun. It is not part of the school equipment. Of course the school could have guards with guns.
Where I live they're called school safety officers, and they're armed. The one who recently shot and killed a young woman is being charged with murder.
A person shooting in a school has brought their own gun. It is not part of the school equipment.
When I was at school, I used to shoot, and the guns were part of the school equipment. There were, obviously, tight controls and procedures surrounding their use.
(Yes, I know that's not quite what you meant, but there's a big difference between lying on the floor putting holes in bits of paper, and pointing a gun at people. The sort of procedures you have to safely use a school shooting range aren't so different from the procedures to safely use a school wood / machine shop.)
A person shooting in a school has brought their own gun. It is not part of the school equipment.
When I was at school, I used to shoot, and the guns were part of the school equipment. There were, obviously, tight controls and procedures surrounding their use.
(Yes, I know that's not quite what you meant, but there's a big difference between lying on the floor putting holes in bits of paper, and pointing a gun at people. The sort of procedures you have to safely use a school shooting range aren't so different from the procedures to safely use a school wood / machine shop.)
I hope Rittenhouse goes into full Nick Sandmann mode, and sues the living daylights out of every politician and media pundit who has been lining up since August 26, 2020 to be judge, jury, and executioner of this case before it even went to trial.
I hope Rittenhouse goes into full Nick Sandmann mode, and sues the living daylights out of every politician and media pundit who has been lining up since August 26, 2020 to be judge, jury, and executioner of this case before it even went to trial.
Why do you want a white supremacist to make money?
I hope Rittenhouse goes into full Nick Sandmann mode, and sues the living daylights out of every politician and media pundit who has been lining up since August 26, 2020 to be judge, jury, and executioner of this case before it even went to trial.
Why do you want a white supremacist to make money?
Risky for him anyway - civil trial is in the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, he may well end up in the same position as OJ Simpson.
I hope Rittenhouse goes into full Nick Sandmann mode, and sues the living daylights out of every politician and media pundit who has been lining up since August 26, 2020 to be judge, jury, and executioner of this case before it even went to trial.
Really? I hope he gets sued by the families of his victims.
Why is it you only ever pop up here to cheer for Trump and other white supremacists?
The facts of the case aren't in dispute. Rittenhouse used an illegally obtained firearm and killed two people with it in a vigilante attack, with the collusion of law enforcement officers on the ground.
That the judge and the jury thought that was okay is, to my mind, perverse, but I for one would consider myself extraordinarily lucky I wasn't facing a very long stretch in prison, and in no way would I ever want to chance my arm in a courtroom again.
If he sues people on the basis that they thought he was guilty of murder, then ... yeah. The kid needs to take his winnings off the table.
Why do you want a white supremacist to make money?
On what evidence do you make the allegation that he is a white supremacist? Really? I hope he gets sued by the families of his victims.
I believe the judge made it clear that it is inappropriate to call them ‘victims’ as this prejudges the outcome of the trial. As you have already decided the outcome that is perhaps superfluous. The facts of the case aren't in dispute. Rittenhouse used an illegally obtained firearm and killed two people with it in a vigilante attack, with the collusion of law enforcement officers on the ground.
Your version is very much in dispute. AFAIK the gun was lawfully held and he shot three men who attacked him while he was running away trying to avoid a confrontation. You might note that the judge dismissed the case regarding the firearm at the start of the trial as the prosecution admitted it was legally held.
Comments
Over on the Guilty thread, another police shooting of a teenage black girl has been reported and there's some comments on that about the limited options for a single police officer when dealing with a group of people fighting. In the UK, a group of people fighting is a common part of policing, Friday and Saturday night as the pubs close this wouldn't be unusual and the use of a weapon (maybe a knife, more often something improvised like a broken bottle) also wouldn't be unusual. Dealing with this sort of incident is part of police training, because it happens so often, and it doesn't need the police using a gun, or even a tazer on most occasions. But, also there wouldn't be a single officer responding. I don't think I've ever seen a UK police officer on their own - on the one occasion I've called the police two officers responded (a neighbour had left their door open and there was no answer when I shouted in, after 10 mins to cover the option of he'd started talking to someone while taking the bin in or something I called the non-emergency number for advice - should I go in to see if he was OK - and they sent a car around to do that), a couple of nights ago there was a fire in a neighbours flat (burnt toast!) and the police turned up along with a fire engine, again two officers. When several officers respond to an incident, the options available to deal with that without resorting to using a weapon are significantly greater. Even when a gun is involved, two or more officers gives better view of what's happening and if the use of a gun is justified there are more options for who fires as some angles will have less chance of hitting innocent bystanders than others.
In the UK, traffic officers wouldn't pursue someone unless the other driver is posing a significant threat to other road users - the act of pursuit encourages the fleeing driver to drive even more dangerously. There's a greater reliance on surveillance - a helicopter if available, traffic cameras and other police cars ahead of the suspect. By the time a dangerous driver is stopped there's likely to be several police cars involved in that, again leaving more options.
But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Law enforcement as a profession tends to attract bullies who want to practice their bullying under protection of law. Blacks can be bullies as well as whites.
In the US, this is exactly right.
(And a new video has emerged showing that a second cop car, with two more officers, arrived a few seconds after the first, and the second and third cops were running towards the altercation when the first cop fired his weapon.)
The mind boggles. You'd think a decent person, even if they thought their actions were entirely correct, and that the death of Ms Taylor was an unfortunate consequence of her boyfriend's poor choices, would have some respect for the fact that an innocent person was killed.
...
... Ah yes ...
Sure. The police in our suburb just (and I mean *just* — 5 city blocks from my home is the city boundary) outside Minneapolis are generally a good lot, and helpful to the community; they and their chief see their role less as "law ENFORCEMENT" and more as "public safety". Their counterparts in Minneapolis (again, the two cities border one another) have a well-deserved reputation for racism and brutality.
The problem isn't that there aren't good cops (there are some), it's that the culture of policing in America defaults to "warriors" who exist to "pacify" the streets and "take out" the "bad guys". Armed, of course, with weapons and equipment loaned to them by the US military and suitable for a battlefield, not a city street.
God has a toilet?
John Hurley was a "good guy with a gun" - a bystander who shot Troyke, preventing him from shooting or killing anyone else.
John Hurley was shot and killed by the police, who were under the impression that he was the original gunman.
The text says: Woman: 'For once, the victim isn't black!' - Man: 'Must have been blank [= in French: white] cartridges, then!'
<votive>
Why don't they use toy guns and have Special Effects add the sound and fiery flashes?
Better yet, why don't they ban guns from movies?
Or ban them from society?
Yes, Miss Amanda knows she is a dreamer.
This Twitter thread by a film armorer explains some details of standard film practice and terminology.
So at least according to Twitter-person-who-says-she's-a-film-armorer a prop gun refers to a different thing from a blank fire gun. She also goes on to state that, while not having any details about what was happening on the set of Rust, normal film safety best practices (which she details with some thoroughness) should have made this kind of thing impossible. She doesn't go so far as to complete the inference, but I think the rest of us can.
I'd suggest that the Rust set shooting differs from other intentional (and accidental) shootings insofar as it's touches on the issue of workplace safety. Not so much that it's more important (or less important) than other accidental (or deliberate) shootings, but that it's differently important and involves a set of different (if related) concerns.
I'll roll them right back. There is an obvious fundamental difference between shooting someone when you intended to shoot them, and shooting someone when you didn't intend to shoot them.
Both things are bad, obviously, and both end up with dead people. But they're not the same thing.
Rules about safety at work are intended to prevent accidents. If you get your hand injured in a tool because it doesn't have a safety guard, or it wasn't safely locked off before you started to work on it, then that's a problem with your work practices. If your hand is injured by a tool because your workmate hits you with it, because he's just found out you've been shagging his wife, that's an entirely different sort of problem.
And in this case, it's completely clear that the safety practices in use were woefully inadequate.
Yes but @Leorning Cniht was referring to the fact that actors use guns in the work place so there should be tight safety.
A person shooting in a school has brought their own gun. It is not part of the school equipment. Of course the school could have guards with guns.
Not in any sane place they couldn't.
When I was at school, I used to shoot, and the guns were part of the school equipment. There were, obviously, tight controls and procedures surrounding their use.
(Yes, I know that's not quite what you meant, but there's a big difference between lying on the floor putting holes in bits of paper, and pointing a gun at people. The sort of procedures you have to safely use a school shooting range aren't so different from the procedures to safely use a school wood / machine shop.)
This is not done anymore though
How the hell did the little bastard not end up in juvenile hall, not less prison?
Yes, he’s white.
I note his Mum has a gofundme page for his legal expenses…
Words fail me
Has any group made a martyr of McVeight? Just askin’
Generally the very same "militia" groups that Rittenhouse was trailing around after.
Double jeopardy.
Why do you want a white supremacist to make money?
Risky for him anyway - civil trial is in the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, he may well end up in the same position as OJ Simpson.
Really? I hope he gets sued by the families of his victims.
Why is it you only ever pop up here to cheer for Trump and other white supremacists?
That the judge and the jury thought that was okay is, to my mind, perverse, but I for one would consider myself extraordinarily lucky I wasn't facing a very long stretch in prison, and in no way would I ever want to chance my arm in a courtroom again.
If he sues people on the basis that they thought he was guilty of murder, then ... yeah. The kid needs to take his winnings off the table.
On what evidence do you make the allegation that he is a white supremacist?
Really? I hope he gets sued by the families of his victims.
I believe the judge made it clear that it is inappropriate to call them ‘victims’ as this prejudges the outcome of the trial. As you have already decided the outcome that is perhaps superfluous.
The facts of the case aren't in dispute. Rittenhouse used an illegally obtained firearm and killed two people with it in a vigilante attack, with the collusion of law enforcement officers on the ground.
Your version is very much in dispute. AFAIK the gun was lawfully held and he shot three men who attacked him while he was running away trying to avoid a confrontation. You might note that the judge dismissed the case regarding the firearm at the start of the trial as the prosecution admitted it was legally held.