I just find it hilarious watching people purposefully try to implement gender neutral language in everyday speech (see Trudeau's "peoplekind" remark).
If this were 10 years ago I would wager that you would have used the more colloquial term, mankind.
You are wrong about that. For many years I enjoyed old English literature and picked up some of the words. You are not the first to mention I use archaic words occasionally.
As far as "gender neutral language"...That all started when they allowed women to vote
I work with a guy who was born in the UK, lived in France until he was 5, and then moved to Houston until he was an adult. He also reads like his life depends on it.
Sometimes he talks to me and I just have to remind him that I went to public school and my volume of vocabulary peeked in middle school.
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,902
Re: Is this justice???
Policing laws are different in the UK versus the US, in the UK in most cases Policing is by consent.
Yeah, I think you're right. I've been reading a bit about the US and it seems different but I can't find anything definitive. For a country that takes it's rights so seriously the US sure seems woolly in this regard.
In the UK you can cheerfully ignore an officer but, if whatever you're doing rises to the level of criminal behaviour, they're just going to arrest you anyway. Further, an officer doesn't have to know you are guilty of a crime to arrest you without it being deemed wrongful, they simply need reasonable suspicion.
This does create a difference between perception and reality, though, such that it feels like we have an obligation (and might as well have for practical purposes) when you actually don't. Stop and search is one such example. You're not obligated to submit to stop and search but an officer will arrest you on reasonable suspicion at which point the search can go ahead. Drink Driving stops are similar. You don't have to give a breath sample but you're sure as hell going back to the nick if you don't. With issues of crowd control, you don't have to back up when an officer tells you to but you'll probably be arrested for obstruction if you don't.
There is an important principal at play though. In order to arrest you, an officer does have to have reasonable suspicion and you have recourse if they can't prove that. This theoretically prevents an officer from just throwing their weight around because they've got a cob on.
Does nobody else find it worrying that this is a thing?
Yes! I really, really do. I think the lethal outcomes we keep seeing, especially in but not limited to the US, are rooted in this us against them mentality. It spirals the aggression in every encounter upwards and escalates rather than deescalates it.
On the gender neutral language thing, <shrug> I'll call people whatever they want to be called, it's just respect really, but I do think people who object words like fishermen are just picking the low fruit instead of the important fruit.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
I just find it hilarious watching people purposefully try to implement gender neutral language in everyday speech (see Trudeau's "peoplekind" remark).
If this were 10 years ago I would wager that you would have used the more colloquial term, mankind.
I'm not sure about that interpretation. I believe that humankind is far older than the concepts of woke or politically correct. It's just that, at one time in the US, humankind basically meant white men...and maybe white women could come along...if they keep quiet. I don't believe the word is new, it's just that it's become more inclusive.
However, I may be conflating two different words. "Mankind" is pretty old. It's on the moon, even, but it's older than that. "Humanity" is older, I think. Both of those may have only come about once people started to think about other worlds and other planets, which may not reach back much more than a century.
Yes! I really, really do. I think the lethal outcomes we keep seeing, especially in but not limited to the US, are rooted in this us against them mentality. It spirals the aggression in every encounter upwards and escalates rather than deescalates it.
It's not JUST that, unfortunately. Without trying to start yet another political battle here, the US is by far and away the most heavily armed country in the world. The number of private guns owned per person is not just almost twice that of the next most heavily armed nation, it appears to be well over 100/person:
FunkyDexter - the US is very similar to most of the things you mentioned about the UK.
DUI Check points were outlawed here... But driver license checks aren't. So when you roll down your window, if they smell anything, that's enough to take things further.
One big Issue area - the police here can not ask you for your id unless you're in a car or committed a crime. Often times they'll trick people into getting the ID just to run it and see they have outstanding warrants. In theory, failure to ID is a secondary charge... But the police lie and say you hindered their investigation.
They can't search your car without your permission... BUT, if all of a sudden they say them smell marijuana they can then search without a warrant.
One big Issue area - the police here can not ask you for your id unless you're in a car or committed a crime. Often times they'll trick people into getting the ID just to run it and see they have outstanding warrants. In theory, failure to ID is a secondary charge... But the police lie and say you hindered their investigation.
That’s on a state by state basis, in Louisiana not showing identification is a one way ticket to jail.
I work with a guy who was born in the UK, lived in France until he was 5, and then moved to Houston until he was an adult. He also reads like his life depends on it.
Sometimes he talks to me and I just have to remind him that I went to public school and my volume of vocabulary peeked in middle school.
Nothing about your post other than it remined be of something someone said to me once. I used a word, I think it was plethora, and the person didn't know what it meant. I explained the word and the person asked why I would use a word that nobody knows. I replied I thought it was a common term but I was thinking the person wants me to "dummy down" for him. I'll do that talking to teenagers but not peers.
It's not JUST that, unfortunately. Without trying to start yet another political battle here, the US is by far and away the most heavily armed country in the world. The number of private guns owned per person is not just almost twice that of the next most heavily armed nation, it appears to be well over 100/person:
This was a quick search and I'm not claiming this article as true.
I'd be interested in knowing how this compares to the UK. There's also a lot of other ways an officer can get harmed, but does our lax gun law contribute to a higher risk for officers. Come on, don't make me do my own research. lol
I'm not sure about that interpretation. I believe that humankind is far older than the concepts of woke or politically correct. It's just that, at one time in the US, humankind basically meant white men...and maybe white women could come along...if they keep quiet. I don't believe the word is new, it's just that it's become more inclusive.
However, I may be conflating two different words. "Mankind" is pretty old. It's on the moon, even, but it's older than that. "Humanity" is older, I think. Both of those may have only come about once people started to think about other worlds and other planets, which may not reach back much more than a century.
People also ask
When did humankind become a word?
humankind (n.)
"the human species," 1640s, from human + kind (n.). Originally two words.
Nothing about your post other than it remined be of something someone said to me once. I used a word, I think it was plethora, and the person didn't know what it meant. I explained the word and the person asked why I would use a word that nobody knows. I replied I thought it was a common term but I was thinking the person wants me to "dummy down" for him. I'll do that talking to teenagers but not peers.
There is only one possible response to that: And here it is.
Every time I see/hear the word "plethora" I think of the movie Three Amigos!
Jefe: I have put many beautiful pinatas in the storeroom, each of them filled with little suprises.
El Guapo: Many pinatas?
Jefe: Oh yes, many!
El Guapo: Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, you have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,902
Re: Is this justice???
I didn't mean to imply that the us vs them attitude was the only reason for the lethal outcomes you get over there, just that it was a major contributing factor (though reading back what I actually posted I think Shaggy's was a fair interpretation). I agree your gun culture is probably a bigger factor. In fact, you're gun culture is probably a major contributor to the us vs them attitude, thus having a compounding effect. There's probably a plethora of other factors at play too.
I'd be interested in knowing how this compares to the UK.
Very difficult to answer because, of course, our police (and our civilians, for that matter) aren't typically armed. I could say that our encounters are almost never lethal but it wouldn't be a fair comeback. I can think of a few that turned lethal for the officer but I have to go back years at a time to find a single one (off the top of my head I can only think of two and I'm going back about 30 years just to do that - there are probably more though). I can think of more cases that turned out lethal for the civilian but they're still few and far between. Where they do turn lethal it's generally as a result of bad containment techniques or abuse of them, similar to what happened to George Floyd, rather than shootings. The only shooting I can think of was Menezes (Brazilian plumber was mistaken for an islamic terrorist during the post 9/11 fear). We're not even in the same ball park as the US for lethality.
I guess a more interesting comparison would be how many arrests turn violent and result in serious injury but that would be difficult to do due to subjective definitions of those terms. I reckon we'd still fall way short of you guys though.
How often are police shot in the line of duty?
Be cautious with articles like this, they tug at the heart strings in miss-leading ways. Statistically 42 fatalities a year is insignificant and you've only got to google for cause of death rates to see that. I don't mean to minimise the impact of that on the individual or their families and, while I'm probably more ready to point the finger at bad behaviour from police officers than most people are, I have a deep respect for anyone who will deliberately and consciously put themselves in harms way for the benefit of others. None the less, police officer is far from being the most dangerous career option out there.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
North Carolina Highway Patrol trooper lost control of his squad car, leading to a fatal crash that killed a motorist and another state trooper who happened to be the trooper's brother, authorities said Tuesday.
Statistically 42 fatalities a year is insignificant and you've only got to google for cause of death rates to see that.
I think the 245 number is more relevant when talking about our gun culture or us vs them mentality. Really, that number probably isn't that relevant. How many officers are shot at and how many people do they find with guns in their possession. 42 fatalities is just the worse case gun encounter.
Also, the us vs them and gun culture seems to run through a large segment of our society. Not just criminals and police. It seems crazy to me, I don't understand these people. But that's American, a chicken in every pot and a gun for every hip. lol
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,902
Re: Is this justice???
I think the 245 number is more relevant
I think you could make the argument either way. If you're comparing it other causes of death then use the 42. If you're comparing it to other causes of injury then use the 245. I suspect you'll find similar ratios though I haven't done the maths to check. Either way, I think I agree with your point about us vs them and gun culture.
Speaking of that, I've long held the opinion that it's not really the US's gun laws that are the problem. Other countries, e.g. Switzerland and Canada, have similarly open gun laws but don't see anything like the same levels of gun violence or even gun ownership. I think there's something deep within the US psyche that's at fault. It's like so many people over there think it's still the wild west. If you ain't packin' a pair of 6 shooters and ready to stand off at high noon 'cause some yeller coward insulted your horse you ain't a real man (or wumin, for that matter). I appreciate I'm throwing up a ridiculously over the top stereotype here and I apologise to anyone I offend but I reckon it's a stereotype you'll recognise. You've still got Stand Your Ground laws for crying out loud, they're insane. And the number of people making the argument for vigilantism (the best answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun) is truly scary.
And it's not really about the guns. If you're not quick on the draw with your Smith and Western you're sure deadly with a law suit.
I actually really respect the libertarian instincts I see in the US but there's a really dark side to it too.
And then there's horrible stories like this one:
Yeah, that's horrible and a particularly tragic set of circumstances.
Last edited by FunkyDexter; Jan 5th, 2022 at 02:48 PM.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
Yeah I don't know why we still think guns solve problems. The only thing that comes to mind is, even though we are a very modern country, we are a very young country, also the NRA is a powerful presence here. I don't know if other countries have something similar.
It may also have to do with the Wild West mythos. There's some idea that there were rugged frontiersmen that lived without any assistance from anybody, which was almost entirely nonsense. People often overlook the many things that an economy does for you. Even the ruggedest trapper wasn't mining and smelting their own ore, crafting their own guns, milling their own gunpowder, and so on. They may well have been pouring their own bullets, though. That still happens, it's just all the other pieces that they have to buy before they can do that.
I think you could make the argument either way. If you're comparing it other causes of death then use the 42. If you're comparing it to other causes of injury then use the 245. I suspect you'll find similar ratios though I haven't done the maths to check. Either way, I think I agree with your point about us vs them and gun culture.
Speaking of that, I've long held the opinion that it's not really the US's gun laws that are the problem. Other countries, e.g. Switzerland and Canada, have similarly open gun laws but don't see anything like the same levels of gun violence or even gun ownership. I think there's something deep within the US psyche that's at fault. It's like so many people over there think it's still the wild west. If you ain't packin' a pair of 6 shooters and ready to stand off at high noon 'cause some yeller coward insulted your horse you ain't a real man (or wumin, for that matter). I appreciate I'm throwing up a ridiculously over the top stereotype here and I apologise to anyone I offend but I reckon it's a stereotype you'll recognise. You've still got Stand Your Ground laws for crying out loud, they're insane. And the number of people making the argument for vigilantism (the best answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun) is truly scary.
And it's not really about the guns. If you're not quick on the draw with your Smith and Western you're sure deadly with a law suit.
I actually really respect the libertarian instincts I see in the US but there's a really dark side to it too.
Yeah, that's horrible and a particularly tragic set of circumstances.
People really misunderstand SYG laws. SYG is simply saying that if you're somewhere you have a right to be, and have done nothing illegal, when confronted with situation where lethal force is reasonably neccessary to protect your life or prevent serious injury, you're not required to attempt to run away. Like every other law, there's sometimes problems with police letting people off when they've technically violated it, especially if they're conservative whites, but that's a far deeper problem than the law. Take the one case in Florida... someone much larger had attacked and knocked someone to the ground, and was walking towards him. The victim took out his gun and shot the guy. However, the guy stopped advancing after seeing the gun, and that alone was enough to result in invalidating the right to shoot. Police improperly applied the law, but it wasn't an issue with the law itself. The Zimmerman case did not involve SYG at all; it relied on traditional self defense that would have been lawful in all 50 states. Wisconsin does not even have a SYG law, so that's not why Rittenhouse got off, it was again traditional self defense. It also served the McMichaels in Georgia no good because they were engaged in a crime by running Arbery down.
It's not an insane concept and the myths about the problems it causes far exceed the reality.
And the 'good guy with a gun' thing should be obvious: The police are a 'good guy with a gun'. Are you going to argue you don't need police to stop certain people? What about the egregious abuse by police makes anyone think they're more qualified to handle confrontations with guns? I'd argue their complete impunity and legal immunity makes them even more likely to inappropriate shoot someone.
Finally, we do have one big issue that's contributing to the gun crime disparity vs other countries... if you compare the same demographics to e.g. Canada and Swizterland-- the gun violence rate looking only at non-Hispanic whites to compare against those more racially homogenous countries, the gap is still there but far, far, far smaller. It shrinks further controlling for poverty in that group. I think we can also point to a lot of problems that factor in besides firearm availability itself too (though guns are much more available than Canada, and Switzerland's laws are actually very, very strict)-- the lack of mental health care, for instance, and many other quality of life measures where largely thanks to the unholy alliance of conservatives and neoliberals, the US is far behind every other wealthy Western democracy.
SYG is simply saying that if you're somewhere you have a right to be, and have done nothing illegal, when confronted with situation where lethal force is reasonably necessary to protect your life or prevent serious injury, you're not required to attempt to run away.
To ADD to that a little bit..... "to protect your life" or the life of another person(s).
People don't have to "Run Away" ..... But a smart person that has the option to leave would leave.
1. Shooting at a bad guy and missing.....and killing someone else - BAD DAY.
2. Even if the Grand Jury were to No Bill you, the victims family can drag you through civil court. Just retaining an attorney is expensive.
Something to keep in mind is that SYG isn't universal - not all states have it. Some have the Castle Doctrine instead. It's similar, but works differently and that difference can get people into trouble. There have been some people here in South Carolina that have found out the hard way that we don't have SYG but CD laws -- and yet we have conceal carry and permitted open carry, go figure. And after doing a little bit of reading, it looks like even the CD isn't wholly universal on what constitutes "the castle".
-tg
EDIT - I take that back, turns out SC does have SYG laws now... wasn't always the case. I'd have to research more to find out when they were added to the books.
Last edited by techgnome; Jan 9th, 2022 at 09:07 PM.
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,902
Re: Is this justice???
when confronted with situation where lethal force is reasonably neccessary to protect your life or prevent serious injury, you're not required to attempt to run away.
Or to put it another way, it enshrines the right to use lethal force when other options (including de-escalation which didn't get mentioned) are still available. I think most people in Europe, at least, would argue that lethal force cannot be "reasonably necessary" while running away or de-escalating is an option. Essentially, it removes the burden of proof from a shooter to demonstrate that the threat to their life was actually real and reduces it to the threat being perceived. Self defence laws have always allowed for judicial discretion in this regard but SYG removes that discretion in favour of the shooter. I think the examples you provided were interesting because they do not rest on SYG, they rest on simple self defence and demonstrate that SYG is unnecessary.
I get that there's an attempt to remove the fear of prosecution in a situation where self defence is legitimate but consider what the decision that's being made here is. Should someone's right not to be prosecuted due to their own miss-judgement supersede someone's right not to be killed due to someone else's miss-judgement? (I'd also cast serious doubt that anyone in a genuine self defence situation ever held back for fear of prosecution)
I'm certainly not going to argue against the need for discretionary self defence. I just don't think SYG is necessary for that and has actually resulted in an increase in firearm homicide. They are ideologically, not data, driven and have led to unnecessary death.
The police are a 'good guy with a gun'.
I don't think the police are the issue here (they are an issue, but that's another discussion), it's the vigilantism inherent in the good guy with a gun imagery. Rittenhouse, the McMichaels and Bryan all saw themselves as good guys with guns. Of course, in one case the result was conviction and in the other acquittal but I don't think the legal outcome for the shooter is the important thing. The important thing is that Arbery, Rosenbaum and Huber are all dead and don't need to be. In both cases, good guys with guns felt that crime against property (perceived in the Arbery case) was sufficient justification to load up and truck out.
I'd argue their complete impunity and legal immunity makes them even more likely to inappropriate shoot someone.
Yeah, I'm with you 100% on this. I think you could make the argument that their training should make them less likely to inappropriately shoot someone but there are just too many cases that prove that wrong - they are every bit as fallible (and occasionally malicious) as the rest of us. I think qualified immunity is a major contributor to this problem but I think you hit it more generally with "their complete impunity and legal immunity". It's not just the individual rules like QI, it's the culture. Partly it's the "hard man" culture that tends to prevail in police force locker rooms and partly it's the willingness of the public to quietly leave it unchallenged because we all want to look upon our police forces as heroes.
Finally, we do have one big issue that's contributing to the gun crime disparity vs other countries
I'm not sure I'm following you on this last paragraph. Are you saying that there's something about ethnic groups that pushes gun crime up (I don't think that's what you're saying but it could be read that way), that it's the racial diversity of the US that drives gun crime up (that's an interesting concept that would be worth digging into but I think I'd disagree on the face), are you saying that ethnicity tends to corelate to poverty which in turn tends to corelate to crime (which I'd agree with 100%) or something else? I feel there could be some really interesting discussion to be had on this paragraph but I don't want to dive in prematurely as I'm not sure I understand what the point you were making was.
Last edited by FunkyDexter; Jan 10th, 2022 at 05:16 AM.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
I'm certainly not going to argue against the need for discretionary self defence. I just don't think SYG is necessary for that and has actually resulted in an increase in firearm homicide. They are ideologically, not data, driven and have led to unnecessary death.
I have seen a number of examples of people online saying that they want someone to break into their house so that they can shoot them with impunity under SYG laws. There are undoubtedly more people who feel this way but don't give it voice too. Such people are certainly in the minority but I also think that there are many more who, if they were to find themselves in that situation, would be quite prepared to shoot someone when it wasn't required as retribution rather than in self-defence. I doubt that many of those people could make an argument for burglary being made a capital crime but they would be prepared and possibly very happy to execute someone for it. I've little doubt that the vast majority of such people would call themselves Christian too.
Keep in mind that SYG Laws do not protect you from Civil Action.... The dead person's friends and family can drag you through the civil courts... Just the expense for legal fees to defend against that is a large amount of money. If you lose, then you're really in trouble.... BUT, in theory, there's not a lot of reasons to sue if the person doesn't have much to give.
Also - Never shoot a GangBanger.... Your name and address will be all over the police reports.
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,902
Re: Is this justice???
I have seen a number of examples of people online saying that they want someone to break into their house so that they can shoot them with impunity under SYG laws.
I suspect they're the exceptions but, yeah, they definitely exist. (Although technically if it's a home invasion it's covered by the castle doctrine rather than stand your ground - that doesn't undermine your point though).
What I find truly disturbing was Rittenhouse getting a standing ovation at Americafest. Don't get me wrong, I can see people wanting to express support for the second amendment (though I personally don't) but how do you get yourself into a place where you'll applaud someone who killed 2 people in it's name. At most you find yourself saying "it wasn't your fault" but how the hell do you get to the point where that act is worthy of applause?
Here is some info on getting for ack of better words - INSURANCE if you have a license to carry.
Yeah, I've seen what some of those organisations produce, including the USCCA business card with a bullet pointed list on how to talk to the police such that they will deem a killing to be SYG.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
I suspect they're the exceptions but, yeah, they definitely exist. (Although technically if it's a home invasion it's covered by the castle doctrine rather than stand your ground - that doesn't undermine your point though).
What I find truly disturbing was Rittenhouse getting a standing ovation at Americafest. Don't get me wrong, I can see people wanting to express support for the second amendment (though I personally don't) but how do you get yourself into a place where you'll applaud someone who killed 2 people in it's name. At most you find yourself saying "it wasn't your fault" but how the hell do you get to the point where that act is worthy of applause?
Yeah, I've seen what some of those organisations produce, including the USCCA business card with a bullet pointed list on how to talk to the police such that they will deem a killing to be SYG.
He probably got the right-wing applause because he was standing up to the left-wing rioters.
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,902
Re: Is this justice???
To the point of lethality, though? I mean, I wouldn't be a fan of Aaron Danielson but I'm sure as hell not going to give Michael Reinoehl a round of applause. Killing's not worthy celebration no matter which side of the divide you sit on. I just can't get my head around that mindset at all.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd