(06-17-2020, 03:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Certainly embarrassing that Brooks manhandled two police officers and wrested a weapon of intermediate force (classified with pepper spray and impact weapons) away from them and then "fired" it in flight.   A jury might wonder if shame and anger factored into Rolfe's "split second decision."

(06-17-2020, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The officers knew that the victim had no viable weapon.  He was no threat as he ran away.  Deadly force was not authorized in that situation.

Quote:The officers shot Brooks in the back and also shot into the car where passengers were still seated.  

Quote:SSF is a perfect example of how a LEO can not see the truth and will do anything to defend the actions of a fellow LEO.  He sees no crime when a law enforcement officer kicks a helpless defendant lying on the ground.  He even thinks the officer should get his job back.

Any cop who supports a "bad apple" is a bad apple himself.

(06-18-2020, 12:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Still some loose ends to tie up here:


LOL you mean congrats to my friend's "stupid" command for telling soldiers to "make a more difficult shot attempt." IDF soliders know very well they can "miss the target and hit something behind." They make a good reference point for understanding the difference between using police to police civilians of one's own community and using military to police civilians who are not of one's own community, resulting in different calculations of applicable force.

Quote:Except for the bolded, which is just bad guesswork, "ignorant" IDF commanders (not to mention 80% of the people on this message board) are already familiar with the above information.  I'll wager most still don't see legs shots as only "slightly" less lethal.

Quote:The point of the last two statements is that police officers aren't supposed to use a weapon of "deadly force" for anything but saving their own lives or bystanders'. If an unarmed person is resisting arrest, police can use their baton, pepper spray and tasers to manage that. But they can't just shoot a guy in the leg to settle him down. Even police reformers don't encourage limb shots on those who attack police, for fear it will loosen restrictions on when and where lethal weapons may be used.

Quote:The paragraph as a whole addresses the question many have when comparing police-caused deaths between countries.  E.g., British police are also frequently attacked by people wielding knives and pipes and other potentially deadly weapons, but somehow neutralize them without killing them. In the US, many see "no-choice" but to simply shoot the knife and pipe-wielders. Those who raise questions about this normality are typically scolded for "monday-morning quarterbacking" from their armchairs about an officer who had to make a "split second decision."  It is this bland acceptance of no other alternative that puzzles our friends from countries with high levels of police accountability.

Quote:Hoping you won't continue claiming you HAVE to post rationales for aiming "center-mass" because "ignorance" is the only reason people don't accept your take on appropriate force.

Quote:Time to consider more closely why we have so many "regrettable accidents" and shootings of unarmed people, including those fleeing the scene.

(06-23-2020, 09:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am simply in awe of your using the IDF as a paragon of restraint given the near daily condemnation of their violent responses to Palestinian protest.  Honestly, in that context the rest of this paragraph is absolutely laughable.

(06-23-2020, 09:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it is only slightly less lethal.  Having zero expertise in this area, absolutely zero, you'll have to bow to superior knowledge in this instance.  I clearly delineated why it is only slightly less lethal, you countered with absolutely nothing of substance.  Maybe you started to slip when I took my break from this place?  You normally do a better job.

(06-23-2020, 09:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:The paragraph as a whole addresses the question many have when comparing police-caused deaths between countries.  E.g., British police are also frequently attacked by people wielding knives and pipes and other potentially deadly weapons, but somehow neutralize them without killing them. In the US, many see "no-choice" but to simply shoot the knife and pipe-wielders. Those who raise questions about this normality are typically scolded for "monday-morning quarterbacking" from their armchairs about an officer who had to make a "split second decision."  It is this bland acceptance of no other alternative that puzzles our friends from countries with high levels of police accountability.

The state of UK policing is so tragically comic that using them as an example only proves how little you have in your arsenal on this topic.  Violent crime is soaring in the UK and the police are largely impotent in dealing with it.  The UK model of policing is dying, it has to, or its law abiding citizens will continue to pay the price.

(06-23-2020, 09:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did he intentionally shoot into an occupied car? 

(06-23-2020, 09:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Also, you will tend to his someone in the back when they are firing over their shoulder at you while running away.

(06-23-2020, 09:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it is only slightly less lethal.  Having zero expertise in this area, absolutely zero, you'll have to bow to superior knowledge in this instance.  I clearly delineated why it is only slightly less lethal, you countered with absolutely nothing of substance.  Maybe you started to slip when I took my break from this place?  You normally do a better job.

(06-24-2020, 04:46 AM)Dill Wrote: Data should help us sort this out, so here's a paragraph from a 2018 study of in the Journal of the American Medical Association on the relation of lethality and caliber size, which also indicates lethality in relation to wound location.

The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6324289/#zoi180063r3.

The distributions of wound locations differed in the expected way. For individuals with a single wound, 84 of 134 (62.7%) were peripheral (legs, arms, or shoulders) for nonfatal cases, compared with only 1 of 64 (1.6%) for fatal cases. For individuals with multiple wounds, the most serious wound was peripheral in 18 of 50 nonfatal shootings (36.0%) compared with 1 of 119 fatal shootings (0.8%). (The ranking used to determine seriousness was based only on location, with head and neck most serious; then chest, back, and abdomen; then arms, shoulders, and legs.

To emphasize--in a sample of 134 single-wound, non-fatal shootings, a rather large proportion (62.7%) were peripheral (arms, shoulders, legs). In 64 cases of fatal wounding with one shot, it appears only one was the result of peripheral wounding.   So in this total sample of 198 single-wound shootings, only one was fatal AND peripheral.  What should one conclude from the high rate of survival of peripheral wounds? Or about the "slightly less" lethality of leg shots?  Could you argue that 1 is only "slightly" less than 84?  

This is why the military of every nation is very concerned about armor protection for the head and body, much less so legs and arms, as wounds there are more generally treatable (even on the battlefield) and survivable.

(06-23-2020, 12:29 PM)Dill Wrote: I think art is supposed to do a lot of things.

A lot of artists, though, would say JUST being offensive is not enough to qualify something as art.

(06-24-2020, 09:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No it also takes talent, unlike peeing in a jar and putting a crucifix in it.  But I've always been of the opinion that if I can come close to replicating something, it ain't art. 

(06-24-2020, 09:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Often the idea is more key to the art than just making it.

Lots of guys can replicate Jimi Hendrix solos, but they did not create them.

(06-24-2020, 09:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No it also takes talent, unlike peeing in a jar and putting a crucifix in it.  But I've always been of the opinion that if I can come close to replicating something, it ain't art. 

(06-24-2020, 04:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I have never used the IDF as a paragon of constraint. However could you get there when I make a point IDF soldiers and their command know full well they can hit people behind their initial targets? They use lethal weapons for non-lethal purposes. They are mentioned as evidence that your "aim-for-body-mass" mantra is simply not universal, and to introduce an external point of ROE comparison.


You claim superior knowledge here, and I guess the descriptions of what happens when bullets strike extremities are supposed to establish that. But you really had no particular reason to believe that I, or the majority of people on this MB, don't already know about arteries and bone splinters etc. And your guess about the conditions under which IDF soldiers actually shoot civilians indicates a willingness to claim more than you really "know" and shape it to your thesis.

I'm surprised you're now going to double down on your claim leg wounds are only "slightly" less lethal, further asserting that I have offered nothing of substance to suggest that shots to the legs, which hold no vital organs and receive tourniquets easily, are rather less likely to be lethal than shots to the torso--body mass--which houses the heart, liver lungs, spine and some very large veins and arteries, none easily accessible to pressure bandages and tourniquets. I'd say "zero expertise" is required to understand where lethal wounds are more likely to occur.

Data should help us sort this out, so here's a paragraph from a 2018 study of in the Journal of the American Medical Association on the relation of lethality and caliber size, which also indicates lethality in relation to wound location.

The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6324289/#zoi180063r3.

The distributions of wound locations differed in the expected way. For individuals with a single wound, 84 of 134 (62.7%) were peripheral (legs, arms, or shoulders) for nonfatal cases, compared with only 1 of 64 (1.6%) for fatal cases. For individuals with multiple wounds, the most serious wound was peripheral in 18 of 50 nonfatal shootings (36.0%) compared with 1 of 119 fatal shootings (0.8%). (The ranking used to determine seriousness was based only on location, with head and neck most serious; then chest, back, and abdomen; then arms, shoulders, and legs.

To emphasize--in a sample of 134 single-wound, non-fatal shootings, a rather large proportion (62.7%) were peripheral (arms, shoulders, legs). In 64 cases of fatal wounding with one shot, it appears only one was the result of peripheral wounding.   So in this total sample of 198 single-wound shootings, only one was fatal AND peripheral.  What should one conclude from the high rate of survival of peripheral wounds? Or about the "slightly less" lethality of leg shots?  Could you argue that 1 is only "slightly" less than 84?  

This is why the military of every nation is very concerned about armor protection for the head and body, much less so legs and arms, as wounds there are more generally treatable (even on the battlefield) and survivable.

(06-24-2020, 10:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: As you focus on this one item I get the feeling your responses are more about being offended than what "art" is.

I'm not a fan of Warhol...I don't see how some of his stuff is popular as "art".  And that's just soup cans.

I wasn't a fan of the urine crucifix either.

But art will find its audience or it will fail.  Whether that is sculpture, music, painting, etc.

That's art.

(06-24-2020, 10:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's just one that comes readily to mind.  Nobody was concerned that I can recall that it offended millions. at least in the art world. I have no problem with removing the statue if that's what they want to do, but it puts a lie to the art world's previous statements.  This is an art museum, not a public square or courthouse.  Is it because it was on the front steps?

And yes partially I am offended by stupid things being art.  

(06-24-2020, 10:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's just one that comes readily to mind.  Nobody was concerned that I can recall that it offended millions. at least in the art world. I have no problem with removing the statue if that's what they want to do, but it puts a lie to the art world's previous statements.  This is an art museum, not a public square or courthouse. Is it because it was on the front steps?

And yes partially I am offended by stupid things being art.  

(06-24-2020, 10:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: To be clear millions were offended by the urine crucifix but since it didn't get destroyed people shouldn't destroy something else that people are offended about.  And we are comparing a art exhibit that 99% of would never have known about it wasn't the for the protests to public statues.

And you can be offended obviously but that doesn't define art.

I find all kinds of "art" stupid and I have friends that make/made it...lol.  I just don't get offended by it.  :)

(06-24-2020, 10:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had to actually look up what this was that you kept referencing. Interesting piece of art.

(06-24-2020, 11:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Super duper interesting.  Put a crucifix in a tank of urine and take a picture.  

(06-24-2020, 11:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interesting is a word I use a lot with art; it frustrates the hell out of my wife. She loves art museums and dragging me through them. Problem is that, to me, most art is just...interesting. I am not a deep thinker when it comes to artistic expression. I like science.