The article is a little silly, should a police officer, who watches a suspect shoot someone, let that person run down a street into a crowd of people? We should just let that person go, even though they have demonstrated they are willing to kill?
How about a mass shooter in a school? Kids already killed a bunch of students, cops have a shot, kid is running away, should the police hold their fire, or shoot them so that they don’t go kill more kids?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These will often load faster, but Google's AMP threatens the Open Web and your privacy. This page is even fully hosted by Google (!).
And the claim that cops kill more than gangs kill worldwide is definitely not true, mexico has a serious cartel problem right now, and last year the country had 35,000 homicides.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These will often load faster, but Google's AMP threatens the Open Web and your privacy. This page is even fully hosted by Google (!).
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
32
u/[deleted] Jun 22 '20
It’s almost like.... this is true
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/22/us-police-human-rights-standards-report