Biden says "We should train cops to shoot unarmed people in the leg..."

[President Biden 5,898]

Rubber bullets have been used as a means of crowd control forever. They don’t penetrate the skin but hurt enough to make you back away.

 

Sorry but this just ain’t problematic lmao. You all act lime police can walk into a situation, unarmed, and be fine. 

[djBuffoon 12,235]

5 hours ago, Chic said:

The insanity of this statement almost makes me want to laugh. It’s like it can’t be real.

He has EVERY opportunity to look better than Trump right now and maybe win the election but he seems hellbent on opening his mouth in the worst possible manner to jeopardize his own chances

This. Is there no one who can get through to him? Literally, all he has to do is not **** this up.

[Not The Real Gaga 7,582]

2 minutes ago, President Biden said:

Rubber bullets have been used as a means of crowd control forever. They don’t penetrate the skin but hurt enough to make you back away.

 

Sorry but this just ain’t problematic lmao. You all act lime police can walk into a situation, unarmed, and be fine. 

You're an American, right? Excuse me for my ignorance, but as an European citizen, I feel like the aspect of the right to keep and bear firearms in the USA is missing in the debates on police brutality. Doesn't that make the situations between police officers and citizens - in general - more hostile, because sometimes it isn't clear if someone is carrying a gun or not? Isn't that part of the problem as well? What is your view on that?

In my country, police officers are way more friendly and I feel like the relationship between citizens and officers is based on trust and peace here - force is only used in escalated situations.

(I know it's hasn't anything to do with this particalur case per se, so I'm sorry if this is not the right time to discuss, but I feel like there are more aspects part of the problem). 

[Rio 5,088]

I kinda see what he's getting at it, I guess he thinks he means well but this is problematic AF. Unarmed people shouldn't be shot regardless. This does not happen in the UK & Australia.

We need to use this BLM uprise to get gun laws changed too. Because it's so ****ed. You do not need guns, other countries do without them fine. Here in the UK, only some officers carry firearms. Not every single one. It's just unwarranted and un-****ing-needed most of the time.

[Rio 5,088]

27 minutes ago, President Biden said:

Rubber bullets have been used as a means of crowd control forever. They don’t penetrate the skin but hurt enough to make you back away.

 

Sorry but this just ain’t problematic lmao. You all act lime police can walk into a situation, unarmed, and be fine. 

They're still acting barbarically as ****. Breaking down their own windows, holding guns up to kids, shooting black people and kneeling on their necks until they die. The list goes on. You made a good point, but justification unfortunately isn't needed right now. Need to focus on forcing change out of the system.

[uo111 5,282]

30 minutes ago, President Biden said:

Rubber bullets have been used as a means of crowd control forever. They don’t penetrate the skin but hurt enough to make you back away.

 

Sorry but this just ain’t problematic lmao. You all act lime police can walk into a situation, unarmed, and be fine. 

Okay let's have the cops shoot you in the eye with a rubber bullet while you are standing around doing nothing and see if you think it's okay for them to shoot you for... standing around doing nothing.

[auburn 1,072]

Yall let Bernie go FOR this???? 

[HEARTSTOP 3,154]

6 hours ago, berlinforme said:

As everything he says, it's poorly phrased (and he shouldn't be the candidate anyway). BUT context is king, what he meant is that if cops have to keep someone from attacking/escaping, they should shoot in the leg instead of any vital organs.

Still a shitty solution as you need time and concentration to aim well, especially with moving targets. I think they should heavily disarm their cops and give them tasers instead

I agree with heavy disarming. Problem is they are trigger happy anyway, so they will still kill by other means (knee on neck, beat up, or tase until the person stops moving which, if you're being shocked, is impossible unless you are dead - yes I've seen videos of American police killing unnarmed people with tasers).

[MJHolland 12,725]

His point is that all cops are trained that if they pull out a gun, they HAVE to shoot to kill. 
 

For legal liability reason, they CANNOT shoot to pacify. They HAVE to shoot to kill. Which is disgusting. And SHOULD change. 
 

But yes, they should be trained not to shoot at all. 
 

#defundthepolice 

[berlinforme 5,385]

10 minutes ago, HEARTSTOP said:

I agree with heavy disarming. Problem is they are trigger happy anyway, so they will still kill by other means (knee on neck, beat up, or tase until the person stops moving which, if you're being shocked, is impossible unless you are dead - yes I've seen videos of American police killing unnarmed people with tasers).

You're totally right, the main problem is still the awful training police officers get in the US. Can only speak for Germany, but here it's 3+ years of training opposed to about half a year in the US. And I still believe that this is the minimum time, people who are supposed to enforce law and order should receive

[GipJo 2,912]

If US doesn't change the right to hold a gun (which will never gonna happen), mass killing or hatred killing will always be there with American.

[Buddy 5,686]

1 hour ago, ImTired said:

You peppered your commentary with so many tired, stale buzz words, it's less fact and more Trumpian nonsense. But you keep being loud and ineffectual. Us "senile corporate democrats" still have your back. Come join us. You know, if you are really interested in governing and not just megaphone-ing rancid platitudes for the feelz. 

I said senile Democratic establishment, hun, which you are not apart of. When I say establishment, I'm referring to Washington and the media, not the common voter. You've slandered me as rancid, Trumpian, and a "Burnout" supporter with a vapid agenda, but haven't actually said anything that attempts to dispute my points. 

It's really brave of you to accuse progressives of spewing platitudes in defense of Decorum Democrats... y'know, the people who now praise war-criminal Bush because he presented himself "presidential" in one video.

Progressive convictions may have become cliche to you, but at least we speak on policy. All Decorum Democrats speak on is table manners, Trump being bad (which accomplishes nothing because, well, we been knew), and how much they long to go back to Obama cuz he "made them feel good" (which comes across as a giant **** you to the millions who's lives remained undignified under that administration)

I am interested in governing as a progressive and only registered Democrat in 2019 to support the movement electorally. Had it not been for progressives, I would not be involved in electoral politics at all. I've decided to remain Democrat to vote in progressives who run as (D) locally, but I am not a Democrat. 

As a Californian, I have the privilege of sitting out presidential politics if I so choose, which is why I won't be voting Biden November 3rd. That is my decision and mine alone and I refuse to judge or shame anyone for coming to a different conclusion.

[PartySick 172,448]

41 minutes ago, Not The Real Gaga said:

I feel like the aspect of the right to keep and bear firearms in the USA is missing in the debates on police brutality. Doesn't that make the situations between police officers and citizens - in general - more hostile, because sometimes it isn't clear if someone is carrying a gun or not?

I don't think that's remotely close to the real issue. Gun control 100% needs to be ramped up but the issue with the police is they aren't trained long enough, screened for behavior issues well enough (like, no "I peaked in high school and now I have something to prove" guys should be cops), and the police in the US have access to military tools.

There's literally regular cops going around the US with military grade rifles, full arsenals in the trunks of their car, literal tanks, etc.

That's why Trump siccing the military on citizens won't change anything. The police are already outfitted well enough to take out a small country

Now just imagine what happens when a bunch of insecure twats are outfitted like soldiers and told to enforce the law. The possibility that a citizen has a gun isn't even in the equation there imo.

[PutUrPawsUp 200]

AAAAAAAmericaaaaaaaa!!!

Baby steps!!!!

Could you just vote Trump out first????

Anyone is better than Trump

[Seeka 12,372]

2 hours ago, xoxo Craig said:

Yeah but you can't buy a gun or even import it into the country. Its illegal. It'll get stopped at customs. So the liklihood of someone getting a gun is very very low... even if its an illegal gun. We haven't had a 'mass shooting' since 1996, and since then, there has been a real clamp down on guns. Even knives. You have to be of a certain age to buy knives here. 

The US should take notes imo. Get rid of guns entirely and then you wouldn't have shootings evey other week

It's really not that simple. 

Well it is but the process isn't. 

Guns are built into our culture at this point. It is taught one isn't safe without a gun (which is a lie.) and we have romanticized, glamourized guns in media. 

It would be a long as process to permanently remove guns. Since just sudden removal would probably cause riots worse than the ones we're seeing now. 

Gun control reform would have to pass. Then slowly, more and more gun control until the point guns are basically outright banned. This needs to combined with taking down gun shows (again, a slow process, as people would riot if something happens suddenly) and probably some efforts from Hollywood to remove the glamour of guns and focus more on the truth. There's some things I am missing. 

But this is a long process. I think at least 50 years? That's if we're lucky? I'm thinking it would take more like 100 years. Mostly because as much as America likes to proclaim that people have power, it's more like our proxies, representatives have power. And some of us didn't like our proxies.