Assisted suicide?

[jediphobic]

Again, it's possible my post was a knee jerk reaction. But, if you go back and read your post and others, you might see why I jumped to conclusions.

As for the whittling incident, perhaps I can play devil's advocate if nothing else...

Perhaps the officer didn't have all the information. You saw how short his chance of observing the subject. Perhaps he only observed the weapon, not the wood. We can't say for sure, as the camera doesn't see what he did. (one of the myths covered in that video)

Certainly he was unaware of the subject being deaf. That was certain to influence his perception at that moment. This armed subject was not responding to him.

Ok, done with that for a second. In this case, I'll agree that there is some evidence that the cop was negligent. Whether he actually was guilty of homicide, is a task better left up to an investigation, than to the media, or to us. I'm not saying that police should be unaccountable, only that we live in a specialized society, and we generally depend on experts to make expert decisions.

[Cyberman]

This is purely an observation, but over here if a beat cop is similarly negligent, the worst case scenario is a lawsuit for wrongful arrest. We did have the Jean Charles de Menezes atrocity in 2005, in which criminally shitty surveillance coupled with a controversial shoot-to-kill policy (imposed by Sir Ian Blair after he saw it while on holiday or something) resulted in one dead innocent man, followed initially by shabby attempts at a whitewash. However, cases like that can be counted on the fingers of Abu Hamza's bad hand. If our police were to be armed as a matter of course there would probably be an uprising of some kind.

[Jackalope]

Perhaps the officer didn't have all the information. You saw how short his chance of observing the subject. Perhaps he only observed the weapon, not the wood. We can't say for sure, as the camera doesn't see what he did. (one of the myths covered in that video)

Based on the article, the officer told the other officers that arrived at the scene that he did see that the subject was whittling a piece of wood.

Certainly he was unaware of the subject being deaf. That was certain to influence his perception at that moment. This armed subject was not responding to him.

No doubt about that. I will say that if it turns out that he shot the subject in the back, it'll be a pretty hard sell for a justified shooting.

Ok, done with that for a second. In this case, I'll agree that there is some evidence that the cop was negligent. Whether he actually was guilty of homicide, is a task better left up to an investigation, than to the media, or to us. I'm not saying that police should be unaccountable, only that we live in a specialized society, and we generally depend on experts to make expert decisions.

Yes, we do - which is why the rules for cops aren't the same as for civilians. I'll be watching for news of the investigation as details come out (the incident occurred in my home state of Washington).

Unfortunately, all too often these cases get closed after an internal investigation, which of course does nothing to quell public opinion regarding excessive force. Based on what I've seen so far, I want to see this go to a grand jury - not because I think he's guilty, but to bring a greater sense of legitimacy to the investigation.

[jediphobic]

This is purely an observation, but over here if a beat cop is similarly negligent, the worst case scenario is a lawsuit for wrongful arrest. We did have the Jean Charles de Menezes atrocity in 2005, in which criminally shitty surveillance coupled with a controversial shoot-to-kill policy (imposed by Sir Ian Blair after he saw it while on holiday or something) resulted in one dead innocent man, followed initially by shabby attempts at a whitewash. However, cases like that can be counted on the fingers of Abu Hamza's bad hand. If our police were to be armed as a matter of course there would probably be an uprising of some kind.

Thankfully, it is not impossible for officers to lose their jobs and go to criminal trial over this sort of thing, when warranted.

Just two examples I pulled up with a quick google search:

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Everett-...44127.html

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/20...ouncem.php

One unfortunate part is that sometimes an innocent officer gets tarred with the same brush, just from public outrage. Some are forced to retire, even after being cleared of all charges.

---

Actually, I'm not seeing anything in your posts anymore that I really have any opposition to. We're really coming to the same place from two different directions. You say, "not because I think he's guilty, but to bring a greater sense of legitimacy to the investigation." I'd want to avoid premature judgments from the public, so that the investigation has a chance to mean something, instead being lost in confirmation bias.

[Jackalope]

Thankfully, it is not impossible for officers to lose their jobs and go to criminal trial over this sort of thing, when warranted.

[...]

One unfortunate part is that sometimes an innocent officer gets tarred with the same brush, just from public outrage. Some are forced to retire, even after being cleared of all charges.

Yeah, and those cases are unfortunate. On the other hand, we also have cases where a bad shoot is covered up and the cop returns to the street.

There is the issue of public perception - the process of internal police investigation is probably not as transparent as it ought to be, and there's a lot of feelings that it's rigged in favor of law enforcement. I'm not arguing that this is so - but that it is perceived to be so, and that in and of itself is an issue.

Actually, I'm not seeing anything in your posts anymore that I really have any opposition to. We're really coming to the same place from two different directions. You say, "not because I think he's guilty, but to bring a greater sense of legitimacy to the investigation." I'd want to avoid premature judgments from the public, so that the investigation has a chance to mean something, instead being lost in confirmation bias.

Yeah, we agree, I think. It'd be great if public prejudice could be avoided - it's a hot-button issue and some of that is unavoidable. One contributing factor to public outcry is that investigations of police shootings are typically handled by police and there's understandable suspicion that the process isn't objective (and transparent, as I noted above).

As far as there being cases where officers were adjudicated to have acted wrongly, yes, there certainly are cases where that is the case. However, there also exist jurisdictions where this rarely if ever happens, and there is a public perception of whitewashing.

I do understand that deadly force is unfortunately (for all involved) occasionally necessary. It's also unfortunate that we have cases like this where a judgment call went horribly wrong and an innocent person was injured or killed, due to being unable to respond as a result of a disability.

[The Magic Pudding]

Back to non police assisted suicide.

It's common for ill people who have a means of suicide at hand taking comfort in it, it makes the pain easier to face. They know there's a way out if they can't take it any more.

There are a limited amount of dollars available to spend on health, I'd prefer the spending was approached rationally. Is it worthwhile attempting to save extremely premature babies, should money be spent in a desperate attempt to prolong a single life or to provide a better quality of life to twenty other people?

These are questions that may apply more to countries that supply a free health service rather than to the US.

If I worked for decades and had some money to leave to my children, I'd hate to think it was going to be frittered away keeping me alive an extra month. I think this would be more a problem in the US than in Aus though.

[KichigaiNeko]

Agreed Puddin!

I think I would rather enhance the QUALITY of my life than prolong it. And as morbid a subject as it is I am making sure NOW that my loved ones know just WHAT i want to happen to me should I be in a situation not to make my desires known.

[Faith No More]

I am all for assisted suicide, but I think the practicality of implementing it legally could be really tricky. You could try making it so only terminally ill people would be given the option, but who is to say someone that is doomed to live in immense pain that is not life threatening suffers any less? Besides, we're all going to die someday, so who are we to say that only a terminal illness is a reason to help someone commit suicide?

Then you get into the issue of physical vs. mental pain. Many people with mental pain suffer just as much, and it isn't fair to say that a life of mental pain isn't as difficult to deal with as physical pain. Sure, much of mental pain can largely be managed, but it takes time and effort to do so. Who is to say someone should have to suffer through mental pain just because there is a chance to one day live a pain free life?

I am all for assisted suicide in theory, but I feel legalizing it would bring on a whole host of issues that would be very difficult to work out. I feel that drawing a line on what is acceptable pain to opt out from and what is not would be nearly impossible.

[Jackalope]

These are questions that may apply more to countries that supply a free health service rather than to the US.

At the risk of another thread derail...

Don't think that we don't - it's just done extremely inefficiently in the US (i.e. people without healthcare make use of costly emergency services which are in effect subsidized by those that are able to pay). (That's not to say that access is anywhere near equitable - it isn't, and that is one of major flaws of our system.) The economics aren't the same as it is in countries with universal health care systems, but it's still an issue relevant to the US.

Regarding the other points you raised - I don't really have an answer for that. It is a fact that the vast majority of health care expenses come at the end of one's life, and there's a balance to be struck between extending life for it's own sake and providing a quality of life for the time that one has remaining. It's a difficult value judgement no matter what the underlying economics are.

[The Magic Pudding]

I am all for assisted suicide, but I think the practicality of implementing it legally could be really tricky. You could try making it so only terminally ill people would be given the option, but who is to say someone that is doomed to live in immense pain that is not life threatening suffers any less? Besides, we're all going to die someday, so who are we to say that only a terminal illness is a reason to help someone commit suicide?

Lots of legal things are tricky but we make rules and if they aren't working right we adjust them. Other places pioneer these things and you can look to them to see how it is working.

I don't see why chronic pain shouldn't qualify you for a D pill.

Australia's Northern Territory, a vast sparsely populated area that doesn't have the status of a state introduced euthanasia laws, the federal government driven by christian @!$%%&@ had the laws struck out. We have to suffer at the end of our lives for the benefit of our souls, don't enjoy sex for your soul, waste your Sundays for your soul, be a baby factory for you soul. I can get just a little annoyed when people with minds focused on the next life impose rules on me.

Then you get into the issue of physical vs. mental pain. Many people with mental pain suffer just as much, and it isn't fair to say that a life of mental pain isn't as difficult to deal with as physical pain. Sure, much of mental pain can largely be managed, but it takes time and effort to do so. Who is to say someone should have to suffer through mental pain just because there is a chance to one day live a pain free life?

Well I assume they are mobile, there is always the bottle of bourbon and an outgoing tide option. If they want to spare their family take a fishing rod and bait and it's an accident.

I am all for assisted suicide in theory, but I feel legalizing it would bring on a whole host of issues that would be very difficult to work out.

So does taxing people but we still do it.

I feel that drawing a line on what is acceptable pain to opt out from and what is not would be nearly impossible.

Well why not just leave it to the people suffering the pain?