Finally! You're coming around to the correct, American Way[sup]TM[/sup] of thinking! Bravo!
Oklahoma - Police kill 5 year-old child
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
(Insert title here)
"Why? Why? Why?"
No answer has satisfied you so far. You are unwilling to explain your dissatisfaction. What purpose is there in trying to answer you again?
Seems like you're answering your own question.
Would you assert that each of these accidents every day is the same? If we observe each of these accidents, will they all have the same meaning to us?
The ordinary citizen, while bearing common responsibilities when handling a gun, does not bear the responsibilities that come with wearing a badge. When one asks to wear a police badge, one is assuming additional responsibilities.
So, no. It probably would not be quite as big a deal. Think about a couple of incidents I tend to recall whenever gun control policy is the subject of discussion; let's compare how outrageous each is:
Both incidents were considered accidents. No matter how stupid the intoxicated man might seem, he is still an ordinary citizen with nothing special distinguishing him from anyone else handling a gun. Any number of people have been this stupid, and the vast majority have gotten through without hurting or killing anyone. And while it helps fuel some people's anger to point out the intoxication, the truth is that the guy was just too freaking stupid.
The manufacturer's representative, however, gets paid to handle and discharge firearms. It would seem that if you're going to pay someone to shoot a firearm, one necessary prerequisite is that said individual should know how to handle a firearm. Comparatively, if you're going to pay someone to drive a car, shouldn't they at least know how to drive?
Now consider the story from Oklahoma as it has come to us:
Culpable negligence considers what any reasonable person should have done, just as the intoxicated man ought to have checked the chamber when cleaning his weapon. Officers are paid to perform duties that include the carrying and discharging of firearms; much like the manufacturer's representative, they ought to know how to handle the things. That knowledge includes the idea of doing what any reasonable person should have done, which includes making sure area behind the target is clear. Additionally, and I don't recall anyone challenging this point, such specialization ought to have suggested that a .40 caliber handgun was not the ideal weapon for shooting at a snake suspended from a bird feeder. Now add to that the obligations of a police badge; these are people whose job it is to protect the wellbeing of everyday citizens. Police officers volunteer for jobs that do not afford the same kind of blunt stupidity that plagues everyday citizens. Given what such stupidity can cost, people ought to and do consider whether or not
What you suggest includes the outcome that people ought not worry about whether or not those charged with protecting the citizens are capable of doing so, and whether or not those people are endangering the citizens. The police aren't like everyday citizens insofar as if you see one committing a crime or endangering people, you haven't the same discretion to intervene as with anyone else.
Would you suggest that the people have no right to be confident that their institutions are fulfilling the social contract?
Lastly, I would suggest that that, despite your insistence that this is simply about sensationalism, the discussion has involved people's considerations of law, crime and punishment, personal responsibility, the role of institutions in the social contract, stereotypes, and the value of human life, at least.
To reduce this discussion to mere sensationalism would be curiously narrow, except for the fact that the proposition fits your modus operandi. So it's not so much curiously narrow as it is, at best, simply narrow. Bitterly narrow? Maybe, but it's not like we get much in terms of honest consideration from you. So for once, just for a lark, could you please open up your mind and conscience a little to consider that there's more to the story and discussion than what you insist there must be in order to stoke your holy disgust at the perception of other people's hypocrisy?
Baron Max said:
"Why? Why? Why?"
No answer has satisfied you so far. You are unwilling to explain your dissatisfaction. What purpose is there in trying to answer you again?
Seems like you're answering your own question.
Would you assert that each of these accidents every day is the same? If we observe each of these accidents, will they all have the same meaning to us?
The ordinary citizen, while bearing common responsibilities when handling a gun, does not bear the responsibilities that come with wearing a badge. When one asks to wear a police badge, one is assuming additional responsibilities.
So, no. It probably would not be quite as big a deal. Think about a couple of incidents I tend to recall whenever gun control policy is the subject of discussion; let's compare how outrageous each is:
(1) An intoxicated man cleaning his gun forgets to clear the chamber; the accidental discharge sends a round through the wall, where it strikes and kills an infant sleeping in the next-door flat.
(2) A representative of a gun manufacturer, demonstrating a product for the police, accidentally discharges the weapon. The round travels over a quarter of a mile, ricochets off the side of a schoolhouse, and strikes a teacher who happens to have a distressed child in her arms.
(2) A representative of a gun manufacturer, demonstrating a product for the police, accidentally discharges the weapon. The round travels over a quarter of a mile, ricochets off the side of a schoolhouse, and strikes a teacher who happens to have a distressed child in her arms.
Both incidents were considered accidents. No matter how stupid the intoxicated man might seem, he is still an ordinary citizen with nothing special distinguishing him from anyone else handling a gun. Any number of people have been this stupid, and the vast majority have gotten through without hurting or killing anyone. And while it helps fuel some people's anger to point out the intoxication, the truth is that the guy was just too freaking stupid.
The manufacturer's representative, however, gets paid to handle and discharge firearms. It would seem that if you're going to pay someone to shoot a firearm, one necessary prerequisite is that said individual should know how to handle a firearm. Comparatively, if you're going to pay someone to drive a car, shouldn't they at least know how to drive?
Now consider the story from Oklahoma as it has come to us:
Witness sees snake hanging from neighbor's bird feeder; neighbor is not home so witness calls police. Department lacks animal control specialist; officers are dispatched to the scene. After attempting to knock snake out of birdhouse with lawn tool, police decide, to shoot it. Supervisor approves shooting. Survey of area behind target consists entirely of asking witness, "What's back there?" Nobody checks to see if anyone is in the area. Rookie officer attempts to shoot snake with .40 caliber handgun, misses. Fires a second time, strikes five year-old boy.
Culpable negligence considers what any reasonable person should have done, just as the intoxicated man ought to have checked the chamber when cleaning his weapon. Officers are paid to perform duties that include the carrying and discharging of firearms; much like the manufacturer's representative, they ought to know how to handle the things. That knowledge includes the idea of doing what any reasonable person should have done, which includes making sure area behind the target is clear. Additionally, and I don't recall anyone challenging this point, such specialization ought to have suggested that a .40 caliber handgun was not the ideal weapon for shooting at a snake suspended from a bird feeder. Now add to that the obligations of a police badge; these are people whose job it is to protect the wellbeing of everyday citizens. Police officers volunteer for jobs that do not afford the same kind of blunt stupidity that plagues everyday citizens. Given what such stupidity can cost, people ought to and do consider whether or not
What you suggest includes the outcome that people ought not worry about whether or not those charged with protecting the citizens are capable of doing so, and whether or not those people are endangering the citizens. The police aren't like everyday citizens insofar as if you see one committing a crime or endangering people, you haven't the same discretion to intervene as with anyone else.
Would you suggest that the people have no right to be confident that their institutions are fulfilling the social contract?
Lastly, I would suggest that that, despite your insistence that this is simply about sensationalism, the discussion has involved people's considerations of law, crime and punishment, personal responsibility, the role of institutions in the social contract, stereotypes, and the value of human life, at least.
To reduce this discussion to mere sensationalism would be curiously narrow, except for the fact that the proposition fits your modus operandi. So it's not so much curiously narrow as it is, at best, simply narrow. Bitterly narrow? Maybe, but it's not like we get much in terms of honest consideration from you. So for once, just for a lark, could you please open up your mind and conscience a little to consider that there's more to the story and discussion than what you insist there must be in order to stoke your holy disgust at the perception of other people's hypocrisy?
Basic violation of rule four of gunhandling: Know what's beyond the target.
(Just for the tallybook, the other three are:
1. Handle every firearm as if it were loaded.
2. Point firearm only at that which one intends to shoot.
3. Keep finger off trigger until shot is being fired.)
Also basic violation of police work: Kill your own snakes.
Since when did it become the government's problem to remove unwanted or dangerous animals from private citizen's property? This is what comes from the constant liberal brainwashing of "You can't do that - the government has to do it for you!"
************************
The officer involved will never be free from this. Even if the department and courts declare "Just one of those things...", the officer will carry this every day of his life. He'll probably resign shortly.
The family involved will never forget this. In time, they'll get past it, but won't ever forget. Hopefully they'll forgive it - otherwise they'll carry a poison forever as well.
This is really tragic.
(Just for the tallybook, the other three are:
1. Handle every firearm as if it were loaded.
2. Point firearm only at that which one intends to shoot.
3. Keep finger off trigger until shot is being fired.)
Also basic violation of police work: Kill your own snakes.
Since when did it become the government's problem to remove unwanted or dangerous animals from private citizen's property? This is what comes from the constant liberal brainwashing of "You can't do that - the government has to do it for you!"
************************
The officer involved will never be free from this. Even if the department and courts declare "Just one of those things...", the officer will carry this every day of his life. He'll probably resign shortly.
The family involved will never forget this. In time, they'll get past it, but won't ever forget. Hopefully they'll forgive it - otherwise they'll carry a poison forever as well.
This is really tragic.
So you don't believe in equal justice under the law?
So once again, you don't believe in equal justice under the law?
Now suppose I said something similar about blacks and whites ...and that I didn't believe in equal justice under the law. What would you say in response to that, Tiassa?
Baron Max