lumpenprol Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 My main takeaway from this is to be reminded how evil guns are. They create such a climate of fear, such an imbalance in how people relate to each other. I don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment, neither cops nor civvies should be allowed to carry them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Same with tazers, cops shouldn't carry them. Should go back to hiring large people for the force and dump women and shortarses, that can't do the epic bouncer work required without these pretty nasty extras, like the tazer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcinsu Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 the only argument I'm concerned with in this case, is: did the guy fire at the police? if he did, I have no outrage. if he didn't then there are obviously huge problems with this... but until I get facts either way, I'm not going to make up my mind. why come to a conclusion based on nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Shoot at the cops and you goin down. They weren't just savin' themselves, There was da public aroun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest enxyme Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 the only argument I'm concerned with in this case, is: did the guy fire at the police? if he did, I have no outrage. if he didn't then there are obviously huge problems with this... but until I get facts either way, I'm not going to make up my mind. why come to a conclusion based on nothing? Even if he did fire at the cops they should have tried to stop the bleeding or other rescue procedures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest enxyme Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Same with tazers, cops shouldn't carry them. Should go back to hiring large people for the force and dump women and shortarses, that can't do the epic bouncer work required without these pretty nasty extras, like the tazer. Perhaps not now... But non-lethal weapons are the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 if someone shoots at a cop, is it ok for them to put 9 bullets in him? as far as i know, it is standard procedure for multiple cops to shoot at a suspect. that way, if the person dies, they don't know exactly who killed them and said police don't have that on their conscious for the rest of their life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest enxyme Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 My main takeaway from this is to be reminded how evil guns are. They create such a climate of fear, such an imbalance in how people relate to each other. I don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment, neither cops nor civvies should be allowed to carry them. I agree... Non lethal weapons are the way to go to keep the public safe... And then hopefully ween ourselves off those too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Holy shit now they are saying he shot himself http://mobile.sfist.com/2011/07/21/police_now_claim_kenneth_harding_sh.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 wat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 It's like an M. Kkight Shamalangidingidongo "movie" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcinsu Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 oh my. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 langa ling dongo, +1 for chenGOD ;-] haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertsk8er419 Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share Posted July 22, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2JJcpwYjbI SFPD SHOOT MAN FOR FARE EVASION MEDIA AND POLICE CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER CAUSING CONFUSION TO MINIMIZE PUBLIC OUTRAGE share this video and repost it. the truth needs to be known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2JJcpwYjbI SFPD SHOOT MAN FOR FARE EVASION MEDIA AND POLICE CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER CAUSING CONFUSION TO MINIMIZE PUBLIC OUTRAGE share this video and repost it. the truth needs to be known. That doesn't mean that the police haven't been bamboozled by FUDD (non-offending gun handed in "oh great now we can check this in as evidence") and that there isn't still a gun floating around in the shrubbery. But if they are using that as an evidence vid, you din need to slow that qit down. It's clearly not a gun at any speed. I still haven't watched the original vid. So it was kind'ov a 'real' confrontation when i saw just that clip of locals RE: protestdatapoint. Made it come alive, for those not used to dleedrunklingo(my normal conversation is to be found somewhere, thaez still lookin'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 good old local news gets it wrong again so they didnt find a gun on the scene, interesting. but what about the link i posted above stating that the bullet in his head was not from a police issue gun? could that be more police lies? desperate if so. heading to the castro to riot right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 so now it seems that they are saying he was shot once in the leg by police, fell and accidentally shot himself in the neck/head. so where did the shot 9 times thing come from? but they are also still using the video above to say that someone took the gun away, which clearly the video doesn't show. so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 well this is odd: "It should be noted that the firearm recovered early on in this investigation is of .45 caliber. It is not consistent with the .380/9mm evidence recovered from Harding’s body and could not have fired the shot that wounded Harding. The Police Department believes that the weapon used by Harding is still outstanding and requests assistance from the public in recovering this firearm as well as the cell phone and bullet casings that were removed from the scene." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertsk8er419 Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 every article is going to say something different to justify the actions of the SFPD based on all the factors at play by using legal jargon to create further confusion. it's all useless tripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Yes but by putting it all together the truth is in there. If he ran through a crowded area where are the witnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 If he ran through a crowded area where are the witnesses? on his side trying to cause trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Your understanding of Eagleman needs some work - cause he even says himself that while there might not be a "reasonable individual" his work is geared to improving rehabilitation of offenders - he still holds with the idea of responsibility. Actually if you listen to this recent podcast from around half-way through with Eagleman, he starts talking about how "blameworthiness" is irrelevant: http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/category/decision-making - I quote: "so in the end when a brain is standing in front of the judge's bench, it doesn't matter for us to say, well, to what extent are you blameworthy?... asking the question of blameworthiness isn't worth our time" - and then he goes on to say how environmental factors can influence brain development e.g. factors inside the womb, drug addiction, childhood experiences etc. and then emphasises concentrating on rehabilitation. Listen from about 30 minutes onwards. Earlier in the podcast he talks about how there are so many subcortical processes that we are completely unconscious of which inevitably contribute towards decision making - just basically reinforcing my prior arguments which you seem to have disregarded. He does address that genetics brings about propensities )of course I understand and agree with this, as behaviour is tied undeniably to our biological processes, there's no escaping this) but the reason I place high regard for the environment is because it is the only thing that we can change for better outcomes in society. I've given your responses more thought chengod and your human agency argument is extremely flimsy - almost philosophical I'll be sure to pass that on to the thousands and thousands of sociologists/anthropologists/psychologists/neuroscientists who support the idea of agency. I want to see some science and not some flimsy "human agency" argument without physical references being identified. You certainly sound like an apologist when you say "I blame the environment, society, external stimuli etc." Your thesis is that we are nothing more than automatons, responding to stimuli in a predestined way. We do have some capacity for conscious thought but remember that conscious thought is closely tied to the actions of unconscious thoughts, specifically subcortical activities as well. Look up things like implicit memories, how the amygdala (emotional response component in the brain) functions - quite a lot of unconscious activities occur in these realms which have some bearing on conscious actions. On the other hand - we learn to reason when we learn language - because with those tools we can have internal discourse - in socializing us, society provides us with the very tools necessary to achieve agency. Your presumption that only people who have an "education" can think critically is begging the question - you start with the assumption that only people who are educated can reason critically, therefore lack of education means this individual could not think critically. However, obviously there are people who are not educated can think critically. Yes - of course language is a crucial factor but our "language machine" in the brain [so to speak] can be unconsciously influenced. When someone says the sentence "That is THE way it is" - do they know what they are implying here? The word "THE" implies only one outcome/direction - when actually such a train of thought is a logical fallacy because there are many WAYS and not just ONE way, but through critical thought one can decipher this and can overcome this by bringing such meanings of words into "conscious" thought. No one really thinks critically about how they use their words. They just have various inputs from the culture they are embedded and go through life without analysing their discourse. Again - it comes back to environment shaping a lot of this and where do we draw the line on responsibility for one's discourse/language machine if they have never really been shown critical, analaytical tools/processes? Just going back to that podcast I posted of Eagleman, he describes how critical thinking skills can get us to overcome certain situations so that we have more control over our behaviour and thoughts - listen to around the start of that podcast when he goes into a bit more depth. He gives the example of sensationalised newspaper articles which create emotional responses that are irrational if not looked at from a more critical perspective. Your mistake is equating human agency with free will. Agency (as I said earlier) simply means that humans make choices (decisions) and enact them on the world. Yes, how people come to make those choices is certainly influenced by their environment, social networks, SES and so on, but to deny the act of agency denies historical cases of "rags to riches". But when you argue for human agency (and I agree we of course make decisions which the brain allows in this physical world, no one can deny this), are you arguing for the notion of full "responsibility" when it comes to criminal choices therefore punishment should be enacted upon the criminal? < Because I counter this argument by not condoning punishment and concentrating more on rehabilitative processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Eagleman at about 16:00 And if your argument is that prison as a correctional facility is fucked up, you will find no objection from this corner. I don't know if you think that I believe that the environment plays no effect on our growing/development process then you are mistaken. I'd like to see some "science" for your ideas on environment affecting human development. I find it ironic that you are an avid follower of the zeitgeist movement, which is based solely on sociology (a social, non-quantifiable science) and yet you will not make one iota of effort to understand the idea of human agency. I pose this question to you - upon the discovery of some new physical phenomenon - how do we (as humans) name and describe that beyond using new choices in language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.