Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

@MagpulPony  
…I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

@Background Pony #59C6  
Is it really hard to keep all your responses to the one comment?
 
It’s coming across as spamming.

@Latecomer  
If you stick a knife in an electrical outlet and die, is it the power companies fault?

@MagpulPony  
No, but a police officer is a person, not a force of nature. (And if the power company could modify outlets to reduce electrocution risk, I would expect them to.)

@Latecomer  
It’s not a force of nature, it’s an artificially provided utility. If a person gets killed while breaking the law, regardless of whether or not the crime fit the punishment in your opinion, the fact remains that they 100% would not have got killed, had they simply not been breaking the law.

@Patachu  

 
 
I’m honestly sick and tired of the US bringing up slavery on every election and due to the Internet, it’s being amped up nowadays. I feel like the rest of the world is more mature about this.
 
 
@Angrybrony  
If one refuses to listen to others and instead, chooses to discredit them through the act of ignorance, they themselves give up their right of having their opinion listened upon. So from now on, I’m just going to ignore you since you can’t be bothered to form an argument.

@MagpulPony  
Well, unless the police mistook them for breaking the law. Or hit them while shooting at the actual suspect. And this is before going into how “breaking the law” can mean some extremely petty things.

@Latecomer  
And people don’t get shot for extremely petty things or a cop thinking they’re breaking the law when they aren’t, they got shot when they choose to fail to comply, and then take it a step further through escalation of the situation. At that point, yes. Then they have accepted possibility of being shot. A decision they themselves made.
 
I remember reading about a reformed burglar who answered people’s questions that they had. One question was whether or not he was ever scared of getting shot by a homeowner of any of the houses he had robbed. He said yes, that did concern him somewhat, but that he would not have faulted the person for shooting or even killing him in that situation.
 
Now there’s a criminal that even gets it.

@Scrabbleman  
well, …here in france the media always used another similar tactic, not using slavery but the holocaust. «Remember what populism did.» And not just impacting the right wing spectrum, but also now even the LFI is on the target (actually it’s a far-left movement. but considered populist or toxic about their opinions on Israel’s actions. both the socialists of the PS and the communist from the PC rejects this party.)  
Irony being, those who use this discourse are for a strong unity between France and Germany.
 

 
@GasMaskGuy98  
Now that’s not a case where the cop didn’t do his work, if the guy raised his hands and his child got shot, that’s not a story of not cooperating or escaping an arrest. Well, that’s horrible.
 
 
@Latecomer  
there’s two things. allegedly breaking the law and being dangerous. Also surrendering will solve things, even if you made a petty crime like speeding or i dunno, leaving a McDonald’s without paying the bill and got caught, or whatever you define as a petty crime. Aggression or destructing property is not a petty crime, neither drug dealing or wandering with a knife/weapon.
 
You get caught? Recall the cop that you have rights and you know them. If you did something wrong you played and you lost, enjoy spending money in a fine or negociate very, very politely.
 

 
If a cop shoots someone who surrender and is not a threat, as GasMaskGuy brought a sad example above, that’s sick and I’ll agree with you, that’s murder.
 
 
@Latecomer  
«(And if the power company could modify outlets to reduce electrocution risk, I would expect them to.) »  
I like this analogy because that’s it. You have dumb people who will manage and work hard into circumventing and pass to all kind of guards and fool-proof systems preventing them to get hurt.
 
Not using safety belt, going to play parkour on a bridge, or playing airsoft on an actual military terrain. It’s not a electric company to change the outlets, it’s you.
 
Normally everyone have GFCE/differential autoswitches that triggers at a few mimliamps escape you don’t even feel it, and I’m on 220 so imagine 110. But people will manage to circumvent this, and that’s none of our business. There are people who will willingly put their life in danger and we can not prevent it or stop them. Maybe building walls on bridge? Running all voltages to be under 50V? Banning all toxic products? Sharp objects? Gardening tools? manually-driven vehicles? Reduce speeds below 20Km/h? Ovens and most kitchen stuff? Make all detergents edible and non-toxic? Eliminate every single animal that is considered harmful or dangerous? And on top of that disarming the police and everyone, making the last law abiding people who have access to guns to be in control? What’s the point.
 
A certain Charles Darwin had a theory about it a couple of centuries ago.

@MagpulPony  
Yes, it’s partly their fault. But neither the cop who chooses to shoot nor the department which makes such it’s policy can abdicate their responsibility.
 
 
@Patachu  
Yes, it’s better to comply. But failing to do so is not a capital offense. A cop should only shoot if a suspect poses an imminent or substantial danger to someone.

@Latecomer  
By your logic, if you can run faster from the cops, you don’t have to fear any legal repercussion.
 
«STOP! STOP RIGHT THERE!»  
«What are you going to do? Shoot me?»  
«Of course not I can’t!»  
«Well, goodbye.»  
«Please! Stop running! You betrayed the law, that’s wrong! Hey are you listening?»  
«I know, don’t worry! He’s insured anyways!»  
cops being like  

@Patachu  
Unless, you know, the cops catch them later? Especially when their identity is known?
 
And really, is someone getting away scott free with some small-time crime a worse outcome than them dying? This isn’t the Hays Code era, you know.

@Latecomer  
it does not works like this, at all, and you know it. Or do you?
 
At this point I wanted to know, where do you live, in which country, which place, so I think we can at least understand how you get such ideas. Or if you had a criminal background or anything, we might all be biased, you and the way you think the world is out thee, and us, also, for assuming you are well aware of the reality.

@Patachu  
I am from the UK (where shooting suspects is not generally even an option for police) and have no criminal or police background.

@Latecomer  

 
This doesn’t even make sense. What does film regulation have to do with… you know what, never mind. This is just sad.

@Background Pony #4146  
It was a joke based on how one of the rules of the Code meant criminals could never be seen getting away with crimes, but always had to receive comeuppance.

@Latecomer  
Anything to say about the hundreds of britannic people getting stabbed or attacked with knives or machetes while disarmed police have no idea what to do?

@Patachu  
That it’s a serious problem, but still doesn’t bring our (population adjusted) murder rate close to America’s.
 
Also, that it has pretty much nothing to do with whether police should always use lethal force to prevent suspects escaping.

@Latecomer
 
«still doesn’t bring our (population adjusted) murder rate close to America’s.»  
What kind of excuse is that.
 
«that it has pretty much nothing to do with whether police should always use lethal force to prevent suspects escaping.»  
Better than doing nothing. I’m all for using it.

@Patachu  
Not much of one, I agree, since you’re not an American - not sure how we compare to France.
 
And how is it better than doing nothing, when the suspect is not a threat?

@Background Pony #BE6A  
DESPITE being only 4.3% of the world population, AMERICANS make up for 20% of all reported COVID-19 deaths.  
202K/961K = 0.2102 (rounded to the nearest 0.01 or the hundredths place).
 
0.2102 * 100 = 21.02%

@Latecomer  
let’s put this simple, if a criminal breaks the law, any criminal, he has to be arrested. if you have the police that’s their role to arrest the criminals and not let them go. If the criminals are free to do whatever thy want, and not fear any repercussion this is no longer a state of right. At this point yes, these people have to keep in mind that they are putting their life in danger and perhaps should not commit crime instead. is it simple and clear enough or are you willing to defend the criminals’ right to run away ?

@Patachu  
The duty of the police is both to enforce the law and to protect the public. That means not using unnescseary force against petty criminals. Sometimes them getting away is the lesser evil.

@Latecomer  
That’s just a recipe for criminals doing literally whatever they want, whenever they want. Which is exactly what we see in San Francisco with steadily escalating daylight robberies, random assaults, and general criminality, all endorsed by the extremist DA.
 
So you end up paying 40% of your earnings to the city, and they use it to bring in squatters to rob you while the police never show up.
 
There’s a great video I’m trying to find of a gang just walking into a pharmacy(?) in SF, shoveling all the high price stuff off the shelves into bags, and walking out with it as the employees just stand there helplessly. That level of brazen, unaccountable criminality isn’t sustainable, either on a business level or a civilization level.
 
Letting “petty criminals” get away with assault, robbery, etc. just keeps escalating until they’re straight up murdering people in public. New York learned this lesson in the 80s, why do you want to force them to learn it all over again?