The New Age of Consent

Miscellaneous
#1

I came up with a theory regarding lethal force used by police departments that city council could pass. I don’t agree with it because I would rather be protected by a trained professional and without 2A rights being taken away from citizens of this does pass.
But I feel this might be the future that BLM is moving towards. Which btw, 15 unarmed black men were deceased with lethal force last year by police officers. (I believe everyone has a right to defend themselves)

So, what do you think of this…

Do you suppose the future of deadly force will be in part that the victim will need to give the dispatcher consent to use deadly force and take shared responsibility of the officers action for protection? While being liable and sharing consequences?

#2

If the victom isn’t already unconscious and of sound mind and not already dead, right?

2 Likes
#3

What do you mean by “victim”? If you build your house on stolen land, and refuse to peacefully leave when a person-who-matters demands it - then you started it! The victim is the perp, the violence is the silence, 2+2=5.

You don’t need new theories about where Marxists are moving towards. It’s all chronicled.

2 Likes
#4

That is a fact. All of this has happened before.

1 Like
#5

Extrapolate that out and then no one can actually own anything…it’s a chicken or egg argument with no real end or beginning used to self describe as a victim.

1 Like
#6

Yep, and you can find a description of a place like this in the Bible. In Sodom and Gomorrah anyone who had anything of value was quickly and viciously robbed. That’s the ultimate destination the “fellow travelers” want to take us.

3 Likes
#7

Nope. That’s a sure fire way to see officers dead. I’ve been in combat and “peace keeping” and specifically in that exact position where we’re calling in for permission to return fire. While we waited, my guys are being used as target practice and 1 took a round that eventually killed him. Waiting for any outside group to “decide” whether to use lethal force will only get our police murdered and the criminals will know that. What’s to stop some gangbanger from unloading his firearm at police in that first 30 seconds and then give up? In his eye’s, he has the opportunity to take out as many cops as he could before they can even fire back. Heck, they could walk up and shoot a cop waiting for a decision on whether to fire back. It’s just a recipe for disaster.

Instead, we need to trust that police and their training are the most effective choice we have. We train them to react accordingly and we need to support and trust them that they are doing so. Some jerk-off behind a desk in the comfort of an office isn’t in the officer’s shoes being shot at begging to shoot back.

3 Likes
#8

In answer to your question…

NO.
No consent and liability.

How about this, those who are interacting with law enforcement, being detained or questioned, stopped, behave, follow police directives, and orders, and go home alive…
Take Personal Responsibility for your own actions and choices.

And, how many white unarmed men were deceased last year from lethal force from police officers?

Your statement automatically sets up a racist idea, and one with only one side, and tries to make it a racist and lethal issue all based on race and law.

What do you mean by putting in parenthesis, you believe everyone has a right to defend themselves? Are you trying to say those ‘unarmed’ black men fought back against the police out of ‘self defense’?

1 Like
#9

How many unarmed black men were deceased with medical malpractice last year by hack doctors?

Hint - WAY more than 15. What do we conclude from that?

2 Likes
#10

If you’re unarmed & do something stupid & wind up getting shot by leo whose fault is that. Run, hide, reach for your pocket, fight.

#11

I am concerned that in the future, police will have to get approval to use deadly force before they can engage.

#12

I think Democrat run major cities, city council members who want to defund the police and protect criminals, regarding deadly force was just my theory.

The caller would share some responsibilities of deadly force actions that police officers could act upon. The criminal charges from the judicial court and civil lawsuits in civil court.

That is what I’m saying. But other posters are not understanding why this may be the future in dealing with domestic violence calls or calls that involve any type of disturbance ,intoxication or drug related home calls.

Cities are paying 1-13 million dollar settlements. They’re insurance will be getting tired of making these payouts. That’s besides the fact.
I believe that the police officer responding will have to wait for deadly force and consent by the owner who made the initial 911 call. That question would be asked by the dispatcher on the first phone. This is Because the use of deadly force is constantly being challenged and questioned.

Again to those posted above who are not completely understanding what a thought or theory is. RELAX

#13

So, if someone is a victim of a crime, they call 911, the police respond and the criminal fights the police, draws a weapon and is shot… the ‘VICTIM’ is accountable? That is so wrong.
The CRIMINAL is accountable for their actions.

2 Likes
#14

I’m not saying that I like my theory. I don’t. But this could very well be a future proposal. Does it make sense , no. But look a Minneapolis. They are defunding the police as we speak in the millions.
The city does not want to defend the actions of its own police force. The basic idea that criminals are in fact criminals are being challenged with the thought process of critical race theory. Taking blame off the criminal and placing it on the police and their victim. The criminal is no longer to blame but the system.

Again, it was a loose idea that I had by myself because anything that can happen will happen. And I was thinking of how things can get worse for us all.

#15

You really expect me to believe that it’s not your fault that junior has been doing drugs since elementary school, then he droped out, joined a gang, and now he is unemployed and has to sell dope and smoke pole to get his next fix… come on…

#16

Yes, the victim asked for the criminal to attack him or her.

#17

For the sake of argument, let’s say we want to make policing more of a community concern, rather than rely on ancient Roman urban cohort concept, a.k.a. police. So, you put more of a responsibility for any death on the community where the death occurred, alright. But with the responsibility comes power. You want taxation, give representation, right?

What are we talking about. Can a community a member of which suffered property damage, theft, assault, or Heavens forbid, rape or murder - demand compensation or limb for limb kind of punishment against the criminal’s family? Why not?

How about situation when criminals from community A prey on community B on a more or less consistent basis. Can community B send a deterrent signal to community A?

This is not without precedent. This is how elders in a Pakistani village recently dealt with violent rapes, I read about it in the news.

Would you prefer the model of “more community responsibility - more community power” over “society delegates monopoly on violence to the police” model? I firmly believe the model where criminals loot, rape, murder and then the society handles them with kids gloves is bogus and quickly collapses.

1 Like
#18

Well now that explains why they are so far ahead of us in terms of civil rights, social development, and standards of living. Quick spin me around and send me backwards to be just like that!!!

1 Like
#19

Let me break it down for the simple minds.
I have a fear of this proponent with the over reaction of what’s going on.
If the police officer makes a bad call and a suspect is killed, the caller will be equally responsible in court with the police officer and share the judgement. That’s if these extremist city council members get their world.

#20

What a wonderful experiment in social progress! Let’s see how it turns out!

I studied scientific method in school, and could propose, strictly academically, a couple of theories:

  • the victim provokes the criminal. The criminal may be deprived of social status, so they steal. Or, they maybe “involuntary celibate”, so they rape. Or, horrible things were perpetuated against their ancestors, and they must compensate with acts of sadistic cruelty against privileged ones.

  • American society is inherently bad, it needs to be destroyed completely, language, culture and history, and recreated from scratch, per great philosophers of the 20th century from Russia, Germany and China

  • critical race theory is garbage, toxic mix of anti-social hate and pure lunacy.

Please peer-review and tell me which seems right.

Like in Sodom and Gomorrah?

1 Like