SFPD shoot and kill unarmed 19 yr old

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.

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.

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?

Shoot at the cops and you goin down. They weren't just savin' themselves, There was da public aroun.

  On 7/22/2011 at 2:03 AM, Kcinsu said:

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...

  On 7/22/2011 at 1:54 AM, delet... said:

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...

  On 7/21/2011 at 9:11 PM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

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.

  On 7/22/2011 at 1:44 AM, lumpenprol said:

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...

Holy shit now they are saying he shot himself

http://mobile.sfist.com/2011/07/21/police_now_claim_kenneth_harding_sh.php

wat?

It's like an M. Kkight Shamalangidingidongo "movie"

oh my.

langa ling dongo, +1 for chenGOD ;-] haha

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.

  On 7/22/2011 at 7:14 AM, impotentwhitecapitalist said:

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').

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

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...

well this is odd:

  Quote

"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."

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.

Yes but by putting it all together the truth is in there.

If he ran through a crowded area where are the witnesses?

  On 7/24/2011 at 12:43 AM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

If he ran through a crowded area where are the witnesses?

on his side trying to cause trouble?

  On 7/22/2011 at 12:43 AM, chenGOD said:

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.

  On 7/22/2011 at 12:43 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 7/21/2011 at 9:02 PM, Bread said:

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.

  On 7/22/2011 at 12:43 AM, chenGOD said:

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 7/22/2011 at 12:43 AM, chenGOD said:

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.

  On 7/22/2011 at 12:43 AM, chenGOD said:

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.

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?