No comment

[Skybird]

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/ne...say/495518001/

[Aktungbby]

SIMPLY APPALLING! It's Kitty Genovese Syndrome; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese I myself as an old Boy Scout, alarm agent, over the road trucker, scuba diver(two near drownings averted), yachtsman (two radio-call for distress'd vessels this year alone) or current patrol officer, render assistance at all times: the difference between a millennial and an aged baby-boomer I 'spect. A complete first aid kit is in the trunk of all my cars along with a decent fire extinguisher...although one engine fire was conveniently handled with the victim's own kool-aide! I simply won't let another Kitty Genovese episode occur in my presence; the ubiquitous cell-phone and 911 renders anything less a chargeable moral offense imho! Occasionally U can make a palpable difference: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2412132&postcount=788

[Skybird]

Kitty Genovese, standard introductory lecture at university for everbyody attending courses in social psychology. At least back in my time. Recently, the way the story got told so far, has been put into doubt a bit. I doubt that after this long time the correct verison of narration can be found out, however.

However, there is a difference between the bystander effect, and the displayed behaviour of the teens here.

In case of Kitty Genovese, the people did not react due to several psychological interpretations of their motives, from believing that somebody else would call the police anyway so one miust not do it oneself, to believeing that one would be physically unsuited to interfere with a physically strong attacker.

In case of these teens here now they did not help in order to get a nice motive for their cellphone video, which they actively rated as more important than the life of the person drowning. The death of the other was actively desired for - and for very low, antisocial motives. Lacking interest of any sorts was not what made these teens doing what they did: they simply were bored and found the death of a man entertaining. They even mocked him and laughed about him. That is not a lack of interest to care for somebody in need, but an active interest - an interest in seeing the man dying.

This borders the mindset of active intentional murder, in my book. and this wouold be the charges thrsy would need to face if I would have a say in the matter.

Unfortunately, the bureaucratization of the law seems to allow them to escape consequences without being held responsible.

Its a growing problem here in Germany. Accidents on the Autobahn, and bystanders blocking police and rescuers from getting forward to the scene.

More and more people are seriously deranged in their heads, and moral values.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Skybird

from believing that somebody else would call the police anyway so one miust not do it oneself, to believeing that one would be physically unsuited to interfere with a physically strong attacker.

Well that's not the only problem it seems..... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/18/we-are-utterly-devastated-family-demands-answers-after-minneapolis-police-shoot-and-kill-woman-who-called-911/?utm_term=.fcaae7f5d78e IE: call 911.....then run away! EDIT: the police chief, a woman, has resigned at the request of the mayor....also a woman

The two officers were driving through an alley near the home of Justine Damond, 40, after she called 911 late Saturday to report a possible assault, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the state agency investigating the shooting. The officer who was driving the patrol car told investigators that right after the loud noise, Damond approached the car on his side. The officer who was in the passenger seat then fatally shot Damond through the driver’s side window, Mohamed Noor reached over and shot Justine Damond, 40, multiple times from the passenger seat of his squad car while she spoke to his colleague on the drivers side in a back alley behind her upscale Minneapolis home. according to investigators. His partner must surely have an earache! if not night-blindness from the muzzle blast!

[Catfish]

Seriously what is wrong with the police over there? Too much incidents lately

[Jimbuna]

The world is mad a tells ya, totally mad

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Seriously what is wrong with the police over there? Too much incidents lately

This is an extremely complex issue and one that can't be completely explained in a blog post.

One of the many factors, in my opinion, is the Militarization of our police force. We have our police wearing military type uniforms, using military type ranks, and using military weapons, and using military type tactics. This combined with a consequentialism doctrine leads to such problems.

The police are not the military and the military are not the police.

In the military, uniforms, ranks and the tactics encourages a "us against them" attitude where the "enemy" is dehumanized. The military even uses terminology like "collateral damage" "Human effects" and "acceptable losses": All these serve to help isolate, to some extent, the emotions about killing people. These are all necessary for the military as the job of the military is to kill people and destroy stuff in furtherance of national policy.

But not the police. But if you make the police like the military (the militarization of the police) one can't be surprised if the police start acting like the military, That is what we have today.

The police have a "us against them" attitude where the US is the police and the THEM is the citizens. There may be justifications for this attitude and probably are, but the resulting conduct should not be encouraged. There is also a consequentialism attitude with many of our police forces.

As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy. Christopher Dawson

If your plan to protect the citizens involves killing citizens, you might want to rethink your plan.

My solution starts with demilitarization of the police

1. Put the police in police uniforms. These uniforms should be appropriate to their job, but they should not resemble military uniforms

2. Remove military rank from police officers. Use a more civilian rank

3. Equip the police with police weapons, not military weapons. The police need the appropriate weapons, but the police do not need APCs and machine guns. Fully automatic weapons are useful when all the bad guys are in that direction and all the good guys are in the other direction -- a situation that probably seldom occurs with the police. The concept of "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses" should not be a paradigm to the police.

4. The most important point, in my opinion -- We need to develop specialized weapons for the police. One of the jobs of the police is to neutralize a threat. It is an important job. One way to neutralize a threat is to shoot holes in to them and kill them.... but is that the only way? I think not... not in the 21st century.

I would be willing to pay more in taxes to fund research into non-lethal weapons development. Clearly the TASER has limitations, so let's not just stop there. We have smart people who can work on this.

A live suspect is always better then a dead one....from a citizen's viewpoint. The police/DA may feel differently as a dead suspect can't testify.

5. We need to, in an appropriate manner, start holding police accountable for their actions. If a police officer violates policy, there needs to be a personal accountability. Other professions have personal accountability, why not the police. This does not mean going from one extreme of practical immunity to the other extreme of complete liability. There needs to be a middle position where the police are protected while following policy but at the same time have a personal liability when they violate the policy.

A few months ago, I was reading about what I thought was a pretty cool idea. The police using small drones to assist with traffic stops.

This article (which I can't find the source, unfortunately) described how the police, after pulling over a car, could use a small drone to approach the car, with an on board camera/sensor and would be able to physically deliver the driver's license and registration back to the officer who is still in the car. This helps isolate the police officer from what is potentially one of the more hazardous aspects of their job -- checking the ID of the person. While the officer can run the plates, that only IDs the vehicle and who owns it. Running the plate does not give the officer any information about who may be driving it and exposes the officer by putting the officer in a vulnerable position of approaching a vehicle with unknown persons in it.

I thought using the drone (air or ground) sounded like a clever idea.

I don't think we would ever get to the point where the officer would never have to approach the vehicle, but we might.

The bottom line is that the police AND civilians need to be protected. No one is claiming that the police have to be defenseless, but the other extreme of shooting first needs to end.

The police using lethal force against a suspect needs to be the action of last resort. Often I feel that it may be closer to the top of the action choices with some police officers.


A very complicated issue, but one that I feel we can solve if we have a national level commitment.

If we put a fraction of the research efforts/money that we spend on developing new weapons into developing new police tools, we, as a nation, can solve this problem.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/ne...say/495518001/

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

SIMPLY APPALLING! It's Kitty Genovese Syndrome; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese I myself as an old Boy Scout, alarm agent, over the road trucker, scuba diver(two near drownings averted), yachtsman (two radio-call for distress'd vessels this year alone) or current patrol officer, render assistance at all times: the difference between a millennial and an aged baby-boomer I 'spect. A complete first aid kit is in the trunk of all my cars along with a decent fire extinguisher...although one engine fire was conveniently handled with the victim's own kool-aide! I simply won't let another Kitty Genovese episode occur in my presence; the ubiquitous cell-phone and 911 renders anything less a chargeable moral offense imho! Occasionally U can make a palpable difference: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2412132&postcount=788

YIPES! Upon further review and a 'reconnect' with my roots:

Good Samaritan statutes in the states of Minnesota and Vermont do require a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance to a person in need. This assistance may be to call 9-1-1. Violation of the duty-to-assist subdivision is a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota and may warrant a fine of up to $100 in Vermont. At least five other states, including California and Nevada, have seriously considered adding duty-to-assist subdivisions to their good Samaritan statutes. New York's law provides immunity for those who assist in an emergency. The public policy behind the law is:

The furnishing of medical assistance in an emergency is a matter of vital concern affecting the public health, safety and welfare. Prehospital emergency medical care, the provision of prompt and effective communication among ambulances and hospitals[,] and safe and effective care and transportation of the sick and injured are essential public health services.

Florida also only provides immunity from liability, but with no misdemeanor requirement not to provide such assistance. 48 other states need to reexamine their Good Samaritan laws imho. In the drowning matter of the OP:

8/07/2017: Now, there are efforts to craft new legislation to more directly address the circumstances of the Dunn case.
Two state senators and a state representative are working on the issue.
Florida state Sen. Debbie Mayfield, a Republican from Rockledge, Fla., said they "are endeavoring to assure that the legislation will be clearly written, in a manner not to compel individuals to put themselves in danger, as our goal is to avoid any unintended consequences."
Mayfield said the goal of this bill will be to compel a bystander to "provide reasonable assistance" to someone, when knowingly in the presence of an individual who is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm, "to the extent that he or she is able and can."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/07/florida-seeks-good-samaritan-legislation/544907001/ @ Skybird: Germany is much like Minnesota

In Germany, failure to provide first aid to a person in need is punishable under § 323c of its criminal penal code. However, any help one provides cannot and will not be prosecuted even if it made the situation worse or did not fulfill specific first aid criteria. People are thus encouraged to help in any way possible, even if the attempt is not successful.Moreover, people providing first aid are covered by the German Statutory Accident Insurance in case they suffer injury, losses, or damages.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/ne...say/495518001/

The militarization of the police had nothing to do with this ^.

[Catfish]

No comment.. again.
In german:

http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2...st_zon.link.sf

[Skybird]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-u...s-to-employees

No comment.

[Catfish]

^ It's for your convenience. What could possibly go wrong?

People use Facebook on a daily basis, writing everything they think and feel and worse into those public pages, some publishing credit card information. Implants of the future can do that for you, so you don't have to type it all in.

Walking credit cards. Maybe a lobotomy would make things even easier

[Skybird]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40848372

No comment.