Idiot of the Day

[superaielman]

(potentially contraversial views warning, I guess. Serious subject matter for IotD topic standards)

I know there's high schools in Vancouver where the gender ratio is 62%-38%

I'm highly skeptical of this claim, as I've taught at every high school in the city and haven't seen evidence of this. (And it's something I keep track of, because I notice the fact that there are more girls in the higher-level math classes and more boys in the lower-level, in general.) Can you PM me your source for this? I doubt anyone else cares about specific Vancouver high schools, so. <.<

Still, that's distracting from the main issue. I'm not sure how I feel about parents choosing to abort based on a child's gender but if you twisted my arm I'd say ultimately it's their decision (and if people are choosing not to have girls, maybe we should treat the problem rather than the symptom, that being the way girls are viewed in e.g. Chinese society). And regardless of how I feel, a doctor should not be able to lie to a patient out of his own beliefs or press his or her own beliefs on patients; my father (who is a doctor) and my brother (who is a few steps from being one) were both pretty much appalled at this thought. It's part of the profession. This would include, I think, the belief that abortions should not happen for (reason x). The law (Canadian law anyway) is pretty clear that justification isn't needed to be provided.

Agree with this strongly. No matter what your role as a healthcare provider, you should not ever lie to your patient. This law fails from the economics side of it as well to me in a bad way (Ordering medically unneeded tests! Score!. The techs and machinery for tests like these are not cheap).  You're creating a situation where an often desperate woman can't trust her doctor thanks to a law that isn't based on medical needs, but the author's own moral beliefs.

[metroid composite]

(and if people are choosing not to have girls, maybe we should treat the problem rather than the symptom, that being the way girls are viewed in e.g. Chinese society)

Well sure, there's a lot of societal problems with how women are viewed in even western societies, even if most westerners will draw the line before abortion.  I've had several female friends in managerial positions who had problems with underlings that assumed they were not competent, that would consequently go around the chain of command and talk to the supervisor and not her, even a case where the underlings thought she slept her way to the top (and she definitely didn't).

How exactly do you go about changing society's perception, though?  We can legislate people not to discriminate, but we can't legislate how people feel.

And regardless of how I feel, a doctor should not be able to lie to a patient out of his own beliefs or press his or her own beliefs on patients

Sure, I'll agree.  However, I'll note that there's a difference between the doctor lying based on personal judgment, and a doctor saying "we're legally not allowed to tell you the gender."  The latter is not a lie, nor is it intentionally trying to deceive the patient the way saying nothing when there is something that could be said is a deception--since in the latter case the patient doesn't even know if there's an element they should be worried about.

This law fails from the economics side of it as well to me in a bad way (Ordering medically unneeded tests! Score!. The techs and machinery for tests like these are not cheap).

That I definitely agree with.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Super raises an excellent point on the cost of the tests I hadn't even considered.

However, I'll note that there's a difference between the doctor lying based on personal judgment, and a doctor saying "we're legally not allowed to tell you the gender." 

The Manitoba law that makes it illegal for doctors to tell a potential mother the sex of her child is... reasonable, though not one I would support personally. That's not what this is, though: it's effectively a law that makes it legal for the doctor to lie, e.g. telling the mother the child will be a boy when he or she knows it will actually be a girl. And I would find such a law appalling just as I do this.

How exactly do you go about changing society's perception, though?  We can legislate people not to discriminate, but we can't legislate how people feel.

Well yeah if it were that easy we'd have done it already. Still, with anti-discrimination laws you have to decide to draw a line somewhere. In general, they aren't very effective at changing perceptions, just sometimes the symptoms are so egregious (e.g. a woman being passed over for a job for which she is more qualified just because she is female) that they need to be legislated against while the long-term fixes are slower in coming (but certainly are coming; as much as things now could be better, they're a hell of a lot better than a generation ago). On the other hand I don't feel parents choosing the gender of their child to be especially egregious.

[superaielman]

An ultrasound without health insurance costs 200~ dollars, with the figures I'm seeing quoted. It is a nasty monetary incentive to avoid abortion when you already consider that it is an option of last resort.  The entire thing pretty much fails across the board to me, but the waste of resources here at a time when we are trying to improve our healthcare systems pisses me off royally.  The Oklahoma law is worse, as it puts the doctor in the position of having to goddamn play morality police with his patient, who is trying to make an extremely difficult choice.

This isn't to say that abortion doesn't have a profound social impact, even ignoring the obvious morality questions. Look at Russia's not so awesome 45% abortion rate (Legal abortions only) and negative population growth.  But I'm getting afield. This law is stupid.

[metroid composite]

An ultrasound without health insurance costs 200~ dollars without insurance, with the figures I'm seeing quoted.

Hmm...*does some research* seems I've had some misconceptions: for some reason I'd thought Abortions costed $700 and there were laws against insurance companies covering them in the US.  A quick google search clams more like $250-$500 for the cost of the abortion, and many states have laws requiring abortions to be covered.  So...I was either wrong or out of date, and yeah an extra $200 is actually a pretty sizeable increase.

[Grefter]

This isn't to say that abortion doesn't have a profound social impact, even ignoring the obvious morality questions. Look at Russia's not so awesome 45% abortion rate (Legal abortions only) and negative population growth. 

You say that like it is a bad thing.

And this isn't just them playing morality police.  This is some straight up Ministry of Love shit right here.

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus.

That isn't telling people how they should think or informing your patient.  That is straight up emotional blackmail in a highly vulnerable point in a person's life.  Fuck these people, fuck their rhetoric and fuck their propaganda.  I am disgusted by the kinds of shit these people are willing to do to try and prove a point.

Also lawl small government.

[superaielman]

This isn't to say that abortion doesn't have a profound social impact, even ignoring the obvious morality questions. Look at Russia's not so awesome 45% abortion rate (Legal abortions only) and negative population growth. 

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Considering the fertility rate in the country, it is a bad thing. Russia and the eastern bloc is already having serious problems thanks to this.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

If more old people would die, we wouldn't be screwed either way we go.

[Taishyr]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20005157-504083.html
http://www.freep.com/article/20100517/NEWS01/100517037/1003/Fieger-The-shot-was-fired-from-outside-Aiyana-home

......

it's moments like this where i completely give up. I absolutely hate fucking society, period. this is the sort of shit that will be skimmed past after six months max, just like so many other tragedies just like it.

and "the gun went off"? really? pardon my ignorance of guns, but i thought you had about ten different safeguards to make sure a gun could not just "go off", and that a very decent amount of force and thus intent would have to go off to kill -a sleeping child-.

fuck humanity straight in their collective ass.

edit:

to step back from the immediate events is to see what happens in communities who internalize the corporate military worldview that some people are expendable. the way we function as an economy that places profit first is that it’s normal for people in uniform to throw bombs into the home of civilians and shoot children.

an economy that valued people first could never justify those tactics.

source: http://adriennemareebrown.net/blog/?p=1423

this is about all I have to say on this matter, or any of these matters. and yeah, I'm sorry, it does return to cost, it does return to economics, it does return to "most cost-effective results" and not "most human-effective results". so.

[NotMiki]

If you want to say that accountability and perhaps punishment for the cop who shot her doesn't add up to justice, then there's no justice in this case, in the same way there never is when someone gets hurt or killed, because injury and death only go one way.  In fact, if those don't add up to justice, then there is never justice, because justice doesn't turn back the clock, just tries its best to make it seem like it does.

I dunno.  A lot of what we do is most effective in ways other than ones that preserve human life.  Human life would best be preserved by all cars having limiters that prevented you from driving them at over 15 miles an hour.  That'd definitely cut down on fatal accidents.  Hell, the best way to preserve your life is to do your very best to never leave your house.  Safer that way.  But we value the quality of our lives over these risks of death both to ourselves and to others.  At least, anyone who's ever driven over the speed limit does.

[Shale]

The thing is, that punishment's never going to go beyond the hypothetical.

[NotMiki]

Keep track of it, Shale.  Find out for yourself.  Maybe you're right, and either way it may take years to know, but if it's important to know, follow up on it.

I guess what I mean is, the way we look at this tragedy is through the lens of popular perception.  Cops don't care about black people.  Cops can get away with anything.  America is a shoot-first culture.  We're obsessed with our 15 minutes of fame, and when the cameras are on we do our best to be notices, and damn the consequences.  We have all that rattling around in our heads, and when we see this tragedy, these are the thoughts we respond with.  But if we never check, never bother to find out, in a sense we're giving in to that shallowness.

[Shale]

Thanks to this site getting me (morbidly) interested in the topic, I've been following stories on accidental police shootings for a few years now. I honestly can't remember a single case when a uniformed police officer shoots an innocent person - acting on official business or not, although that certainly doesn't hurt - and faces any discipline stronger than suspension without pay. I may be misremembering the "without pay" part. As a bonus, if police get shot under the exact same circumstances, the shooter will face the death penalty.

(Or, you can just refer to that story from last year where police shot an unarmed fireman in court and the only thing that happened was that the fireman was charged with battery)

Edit: No, that's not true. The shooters in the Kathryn Johnston case got jail time.

[NotMiki]

Wow.  Good for you.

[Shale]

(And yes, obviously, I will be keeping track of it. Would be very happy to be wrong, don't expect it'll come up.)

[metroid composite]

This is why I will never ever own a gun or be a cop, because if handling a gun is anything like, say, programming, eventually I'm going to have some ridiculous dumb-blond derp moment (like this).  Thing is, you can't just go quickly fix gun mistakes like you can quickly fix code.

The risk of stuff like this is why you couldn't pay me to be a cop.  Having something like that eating at my conscience is just not worth the risk.  As a result, I can somewhat understand cops who shoot people usually getting off somewhat light (like suspended without pay).  I mean, the risk to moral conscience is one thing...but imagine being a parent of two kids--would you really do a job where if you get too jumpy once ever during your career that you'd get thrown in jail?

Perhaps some people would, actually--perhaps some people would be cocky enough to think they'll never screw up.  But then again, is it a good idea to recruit super arrogant people who think they can't screw up?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying there aren't legitimate cases of police brutality.  I'm just not sure "more punishment" is ideal considering the bigger picture.

[Cotigo]

There's an enormous fucking difference between "more punishment" and "Any punishment at all".  Suspension without pay for shooting an innocent when it's your fucking duty to protect and serve is not a proper reprimand.  Perhaps if SOME trigger-happy/jumpy cops faced some consequences for their actions there'd be fewer cops.  Fuck their kids--the system doesn't spare to any meaningful degree the kids of people that are mistakenly murdered, So your logic is utterly fucking flawed, MC.

[Grefter]

If you are going to look for a case of excessive force here you would be looking at throwing a flashbang into a building with multiple people in it when you are going after a single suspect.

That is all I am going to say on this matter.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

and "the gun went off"? really? pardon my ignorance of guns, but i thought you had about ten different safeguards to make sure a gun could not just "go off", and that a very decent amount of force and thus intent would have to go off to kill -a sleeping child-.

All guns sold in the United States have to pass drop-testing to make sure they can't just go off accidentally if you drop them. You know, like they do in movies but never in real life. The safety on the police-issue standard Beretta is a mechanism that blocks the pin from impacting the cartridge, making it impossible to fire with the safety on. You'd need to have decided to aim a loaded, prepared gun at something, which is the same decision as deciding to kill that thing.

[Cotigo]

Say what you will about the man, but if there's anything I'm willing to trust Rob on, it's bird law gun knowledge.

Also, holy shit actually READ the fucking link Tai posted.  Jesus CHRIST, MC, you're advocating that punishment isn't the right course of action?  Fuck that.  You should damn well know the risks of what you do when you sign up for the job, and know the consequences of your fucking actions.  The problem is that there AREN'T any goddamn consequences for police with itchy trigger fingers--maybe if these assholes had to face some goddamn jail time or a loss of their career when they kill someone they would BE LESS FUCKING INCLINED TO HAVE ITCHY TRIGGER FINGERS.

Can you tell that I don't like cops very much?  And this stupid ass double standard applied to them is a good 75% of why.

[Shale]

You'd need to have decided to aim a loaded, prepared gun at something, which is the same decision as deciding to kill that thing.

From the victims' testimony, he pointed the gun at the wall of an occupied house, which is...I'm pretty sure that breaks gun safety rules they don't even have yet.

[NotMiki]

Cases like this, we need to differentiate between making choices that are wrong in hindsight and ones that are wrong at the time of their making because they create an unacceptable risk.  Only the latter kind of mistake is what we should punish.  Not every cop who shoots a 7-year-old girl deserves punishment.  It's possible for that to happen without the cop doing anything morally wrong at all in some circumstances, and if they haven't done anything morally wrong, they don't deserve to be punished, no matter the consequences.  But look at the facts in this case and it's clear as day this was a choice that was morally unacceptable, and the cops deserve severe punishment for it that reflects the gravity of their culpability.

In NY, by the way, killing someone by shooting at a house you know to be occupied for no justifiable reason is reckless homicide, which is Manslaughter in the 2nd Degree, a grade C felony with no minimum sentence and a maximum sentence of 15 years.  Police have a special defense for the use of force while making an arrest, but it does not apply to reckless conduct that injures an innocent party.  See NYPL 15.05(3), 125.15(1), 35.30(1)(a), 35.35(2) if you want the details.

[metroid composite]

Cases like this, we need to differentiate between making choices that are wrong in hindsight and ones that are wrong at the time of their making because they create an unacceptable risk.  Only the latter kind of mistake is what we should punish.  Not every cop who shoots a 7-year-old girl deserves punishment.  It's possible for that to happen without the cop doing anything morally wrong at all in some circumstances, and if they haven't done anything morally wrong, they don't deserve to be punished, no matter the consequences.

Sure, I'll agree with that.

But look at the facts in this case and it's clear as day this was a choice that was morally unacceptable, and the cops deserve severe punishment for it that reflects the gravity of their culpability.

And now we run across my mistrust of the media and news circus.  The lawyer says he has a tape that proves the gunshot was fired from outside of the house.  The police say they were investigating the tapes from the TV cameras to figure out what happened, and based on their surprise in their response to the lawyer's claim, they do not have a video that shows the moment of the shooting even though they have the film from the TV cameras that were rolling the whole time.  Furthermore, you'd have to be pretty gutsy to try and falsify a claim of when the shot happened when you know everything was caught on camera--so if the cop did shoot from outside, why claim otherwise?  Similarly, based on the first article, there were neighbors there trying to talk down the police, who reported on things the police did--and yet the quotes of said neighbors make no mention of the shooting outside the house (surely they would have noticed that?)

There's a lot of pieces of this story that aren't adding up right now.  And there's perfectly good reason to expect a spin--the media, of course, sells more if they play up a police brutality story.  And the lawyer in the case similarly has much to gain by making this sound as bad as possible.  So...no, I don't feel I have enough information to judge exactly what happened in this case.  And, while I'm sure I'll disappoint NotMiki and Shale by saying this, I also don't feel I want to go on an internet search to dredge up as many additional sources as possible--this just encourages the media by telling them "hey, police brutality sells--do more stories like that."  I do, however, fully intend to boycott any reality TV police shows (although, to be fair, that's nothing new--even when I was young I felt a bit morally uneasy about the show COPS).

[NotMiki]

I agree that the news media tends to fit these stories into simple narratives that people believe (as They Might be Giants once sang, "wrong ideas that appeal to you") and I try to resist that when I see it, but there's no version of this story, taking the facts as favorably to the police as possible, that doesn't add up to unjustifiably reckless behavior by the police.  There was a flash-bang grenade used, a policeman's gun went off, accidentally or otherwise, and a girl died because it was pointed at her head.

You don't need to believe the girl's family's lawyer, and you don't need to believe the cops.  Believe what those adversarial parties can agree on, though.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

And now we run across my mistrust of the media and news circus.  The lawyer says he has a tape that proves the gunshot was fired from outside of the house. 

So it's manslaughter and criminal negligence instead of outright murder, but the fact of the matter is you don't even put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to kill something with it, which is of course exactly what happened. Trigger guards are there to prevent people from accidentally firing because they were startled and holding a weapon, not just so you can spin it on your finger.