|
Trabisnikof posted:murder, you can never ever reasonably shoot a cop Yeah but I want him to answer it anyway. Does he come right out and say that there's no legal way to defend yourself from a cop who decides to attack you no matter how unreasonable his belief that you're a threat? Or does he go for the slightly less ridiculous situation and say Rice would have been justified in shooting too because reasonable self-defense is so broad that it can apply to both parties, and is reduced to whoever shoots first, a system that rewards a jumpy trigger finger and punishes discretion.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:are we going with the actual meaning of murder or the definition which includes traffic accidents? How about the definition of murder that includes criminally negligent homicide? Since you're speaking so confidently, surely you're aware that you can be charged with second-murder for causing a deadly traffic accident. It's absurd that a cop can be the one that creates a dangerous situation, then defend killing someone as a result of the very situation he just created as a reasonable action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How about the definition of murder that includes criminally negligent homicide? Since you're speaking so confidently, surely you're aware that you can be charged with second-murder for causing a deadly traffic accident. You're talking about reckless not simply negligent and you need also prove separately that the defendant had a gross indifference to human life, though it varies a bit state to state. We're not talking the goon definition of reckless and indifferent in the "he could have handled that better so the situation never occurred" sense, we're talking "drunkenly plowed his car down a crowded sidewalk going double the speed limit". Basically something so reckless and indifferent and likely to cause death that the intent of the actor isn't really different from malice. VitalSigns posted:Yeah but I want him to answer it anyway. Is the cop's use of force reasonable and lawful (despite being in error) or are we talking about one of your imaginary cops that's just strolling around looking to get his killing black people fix for the night?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Which is why I said before this is a case where both officers should be fired and the department hit with a massive wrongful death suit. But the police shouldn't go to jail for their willful neglect. Also you don't see the cynical problem with that kind of thinking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:But the police shouldn't go to jail for their willful neglect. Do you not understand that there is a difference between civil and criminal culpability?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
WATCH: Cops Taser kneeling black councilman in Texas town where Sandra Bland was arrested http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/watch-cops-taser-kneeling-black-councilman-in-texas-town-where-sandra-bland-was-arrested/ Video shows Jonathan Miller, a city councilman in Prairie View, speaking to police who were questioning three of his fraternity brothers Thursday night outside their home, reported KHOU-TV. The men had gone outside to practice a step routine for a homecoming event at Prairie View A&M, and police approached as one of the students was changing shoes near a car. “There’s been drug activity, little girls and little guys in the car doing whatever, so when we see this, we come investigate,” says Officer Goodie on video recorded by a body camera. Miller approaches to ask police about their investigation as a friend started recording his own video of the encounter. The councilman tells officers that he is the homeowner, and police say they didn’t know that when they arrived. “OK, that’s fine, I’m not trying to be combative or anything,” Miller says, and Officer Goodie says she’s not, either. Then a second officer, Officer Kelley, orders Miller to step away from the potential crime scene. It is only a crime scene because the police wanted to make it one. Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWmNMyQI__o Hooded Reptile fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're talking about reckless not simply negligent and you need also prove separately that the defendant had a gross indifference to human life, though it varies a bit state to state. We're not talking the goon definition of reckless and indifferent in the "he could have handled that better so the situation never occurred" sense, we're talking "drunkenly plowed his car down a crowded sidewalk going double the speed limit". Basically something so reckless and indifferent and likely to cause death that the intent of the actor isn't really different from malice. You mean like rolling up to a few feet from someone you were informed is armed, effectively creating a situation where any movement by the person would "force" you to kill them because you have given yourself no other options? How is that anything but depraved negligence, if you're going to define it as a reckless action likely to result in someone's death. You seem to keep ignoring the part where the cop created the situation in the first place, and skipping ahead to where he "reasonably" feared for his life in the situation he recklessly created.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you not understand that there is a difference between civil and criminal culpability? I understand it just fine. Do you not understand that your statement that they shouldn't go to jail for their role in the shooting death of a child, but instead pursue a "massive wrongful death suit" would sit poorly to people who believe you can't put a price on a human life? I mean, you tell me Kalman, how much is a child's life worth? How much should the city pay out to make it alright that two armed men setup a situation where the outcome was the death of a child? Or maybe, just maybe, there's a gap between what is legally right and morally right that glib words and money aren't covering up anymore?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Haha, Dale Cox is the guy who got Glenn Ford out. He's not the prosecutor who stacked the jury to get a conviction, buttttttt he is a lawyer and a prosecutor to boot, so he can't help but say horrendous but technically legally correct things that make him look like a huge prick. Dale Cox posted:I am sorry that Louisiana has adopted lethal injection as the form of implementing the death penalty, Mr. Crawford deserves as much physical suffering as it is humanly possible to endure before he dies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:I understand it just fine. Do you not understand that your statement that they shouldn't go to jail for their role in the shooting death of a child, but instead pursue a "massive wrongful death suit" would sit poorly to people who believe you can't put a price on a human life? Even though I'm not the one who posted what you responded to, I'll answer. How much? I don't know. I'm sure there's actuarial tables for it, and I'm sure that no matter what the number is it isn't actually going to compensate for the death. That said, I also don't think that whether the cops are criminally guilty or not has anything to do with that question, and when you aren't busy hating cops, I'm pretty sure you'd agree with me because as far as I recall you aren't a big fan of punitive prison sentences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I am not talking about whether dispatch alerted them to the fact that the gun was a toy, I am talking about the actions the cops took prior to and after the shooting incident that are acknowledged in the report but excluded from the determination of the opinion, such as the chosen point at which the police arrived automatically putting the officer in a position of danger, the officer choosing to escalate the situation rather than find a better approach or retreat, the following coverup, etc. These actions, in my mind, speak to the "reasonableness" of the shooting due entirely to the fact that the dangerous situation was entirely manufactured by the cops. They aren't (e: legally) relevant to the (e: legal) reasonableness of the decision to shoot. That's why they are ignored (e: in a report focused on legality.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What if Rice had actually had a real gun and shot the cops before they could shoot him when he saw them go for it. Would that be reasonable self-defense or murder. Charged with homicide, he could attempt to claim self defense though I suspect he'd lose. There's a court decision that makes clear that right exists, iirc. (It's a stupid right. I personally feel we'd be better off adopting the no self help rule from eviction law with respect to resisting putatively unlawful acts by police, but that's not currently the case.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They aren't (e: legally) relevant to the (e: legal) reasonableness of the decision to shoot. That's why they are ignored (e: in a report focused on legality.) And this is where I would disagree with the current legal interpretation, as a shoot by a officer should only be deemed reasonable if demonstrated that the officer followed proper protocol, exhausted options of deescalation, or had assessed an immediate need to prevent harm to civilians in the course of attempting the preceding. I am perfectly OK holding police to a very high standard in the use of deadly force.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You mean like rolling up to a few feet from someone you were informed is armed, effectively creating a situation where any movement by the person would "force" you to kill them because you have given yourself no other options? How is that anything but depraved negligence, if you're going to define it as a reckless action likely to result in someone's death. No, creating a situation where you don't have any good deescalation options if someone decides to pull a gun on you (which is the standard you have to apply because under this theory you're assuming the officer believed he was having a gun pulled on him)* does not constitute reckless and depraved action. Both because the person pulling the gun is the actual proximate cause of that situation and because even if you treat the person with the gun as lacking any agency whatsoever that's like saying approaching a twelve year old in the park is as likely to result in that child pulling a gun as it is you'd hit a pedestrian while careening drunkenly down a crowded city sidewalk . Its not even loving close. *If you're operating under the assumption that the cop had a reasonable belief that the kid had a real gun that you have to analyze it under the framework that it was a real gun. If you don't think the cop believed it was real that's a whole different argument and the above doesn't apply. The duty to act as an individual so as not to be criminally liable is not the same thing as the duty of the police department police department. Under the theory you're advancing you could convict someone of depraved heart murder if they kill someone in legitimate DnD -approved self defense because they "shouldn't have been walking down that alley dressed like that". It is perfectly reasonable to hold a police department civilly liable for things like giving a badge to someone who clearly wasn't qualified, or not having policies in place that prevent this chain of events. The only other thing you could argue is some sort of voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self defense, by claiming his belief of threat wasn't reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:And this is where I would disagree with the current legal interpretation, as a shoot by a officer should only be deemed reasonable if demonstrated that the officer followed proper protocol, exhausted options of deescalation, or had assessed an immediate need to prevent harm to civilians in the course of attempting the preceding. I am perfectly OK holding police to a very high standard in the use of deadly force. That would require new statutes to be written, right now police are charged with the same crime with the same elements as any civilian would be. I disagree that holding people criminally liable for not making the ideal decision on every level during a potentially life and death event is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That would require new statutes to be written, right now police are charged with the same crime with the same elements as any civilian would be. I disagree that holding people criminally liable for not making the ideal decision on every level during a potentially life and death event is a good thing. I understand that my view may not align with current statute and admitted as such. However, pretending that the police in this case did not make ideal decisions during a potentially life and death event is ignoring the fact that they made less than ideal decisions before they had determined there was a life and death event, and they are in a unique position of control over such circumstances and this was a violation of the trust given that they will properly exercise that control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, creating a situation where you don't have any good deescalation options if someone decides to pull a gun on you (which is the standard you have to apply because under this theory you're assuming the officer believed he was having a gun pulled on him)* does not constitute reckless and depraved action. Both because the person pulling the gun is the actual proximate cause of that situation and because even if you treat the person with the gun as lacking any agency whatsoever that's like saying approaching a twelve year old in the park is as likely to result in that child pulling a gun as it is you'd hit a pedestrian while careening drunkenly down a crowded city sidewalk . Its not even loving close. If we're working under the assumption the cop truly believed the child had a real gun, then it was obviously reckless and stupid to drive his car almost right up to the supposedly dangerous gun-wielding child. What limits are we allowing cops to do incredibly dangerous and reckless things without holding them criminally accountable? Is being extremely stupid just the perfect, iron-clad defense? Lemming fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If we're working under the assumption the cop truly believed the child had a real gun, then it was obviously reckless and stupid to drive his car almost right up to the supposedly dangerous gun-wielding child. What limits are we allowing cops to do incredibly dangerous and reckless things without holding them accountable? Is being extremely stupid just the perfect, iron-clad defense? Would you rather approach someone armed in a vehicle or on foot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Cole posted:Would you rather approach someone armed in a vehicle or on foot? Why approach when you can operate from a distance? Even the reports that state the shoot is reasonable claim that driving close and leaving the vehicle with weapon drawn was a mistake that forced the officer into a bad circumstance with limited options.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Have you even watched the video? They off-road into a park and stop just feet away from the kid, then the cop kills the child while falling out of the car, then does a lovely combat roll to cower behind the vehicle. Are you seriously defending the way the cops handled this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If we're working under the assumption the cop truly believed the child had a real gun, then it was obviously reckless and stupid to drive his car almost right up to the supposedly dangerous gun-wielding child. What limits are we allowing cops to do incredibly dangerous and reckless things without holding them criminally accountable? Is being extremely stupid just the perfect, iron-clad defense? I meant when they saw it not prior to driving up but lets say for sake of argument that they believed he had a real gun when they drove up. You're basically saying if you do something foolish enough to let someone corner you with a gun not only is it your fault that the other person has put you in fear of your life, but letting yourself become a victim of a crime is a qualifying event for depraved heart murder. archangelwar posted:I understand that my view may not align with current statute and admitted as such. However, pretending that the police in this case did not make ideal decisions during a potentially life and death event is ignoring the fact that they made less than ideal decisions before they had determined there was a life and death event, and they are in a unique position of control over such circumstances and this was a violation of the trust given that they will properly exercise that control. I don't like the idea of criminalizing what amounts to bad tactics, especially if you're talking about holding someone culpable for murder for violating a department policy. Your talking about giving your employer the unilateral ability to define your actions as murder when you're a victim of an armed attack because you didn't follow a policy that same employer is free to arbitrarily set. I think civil penalties are the appropriate remedy here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, creating a situation where you don't have any good deescalation options if someone decides to pull a gun on you (which is the standard you have to apply because under this theory you're assuming the officer believed he was having a gun pulled on him)* does not constitute reckless and depraved action. Both because the person pulling the gun is the actual proximate cause of that situation and because even if you treat the person with the gun as lacking any agency whatsoever that's like saying approaching a twelve year old in the park is as likely to result in that child pulling a gun as it is you'd hit a pedestrian while careening drunkenly down a crowded city sidewalk . Its not even loving close. You have to be trolling at this point. It's clear enough that the officer believed there was a real gun present. Yet under those circumstances, a trained police officer inserted himself into a situation just a few feet from a child he believed was armed. How many ways can that story end? Forget pulling a gun, if you're working under the assumption that it was not reckless for the officer to have created the situation, the slightest twitch from that kid makes his shooting "justifiable". Alternatively, not reacting to the slightest movement with deadly force would have risked the officer getting shot under the circumstances he believed he was rushing in under. Only the most ideal and unlikely outcome of the situation, that is that a child would react in a perfectly calm and logical manner when surprised by a car careening towards him and a man jumping out of it, ends with no one getting shot. This has nothing to do with agency, the officer created a situation where there was not enough time for anyone involved to make any sort of reasoned decision. And still, you're claiming that the officer - who was again, since it's worth repeating, actually trained in the use of force and escalation - did not recklessly create a situation in which someone dying was an obvious and predictable outcome. It's hard to come up with a scenario that is more clearly an example of negligent homicide. One of the classic examples of depraved negligence resulting in a murder charge is a game of Russian roulette. Frankly, that's less likely to lead to someone's death than the situation that cop created. Even driving drunk down a sidewalk, which you keep bringing up, is probably less likely to end with someone dying than the situation this cop created. Jarmak posted:I meant when they saw it not prior to driving up but lets say for sake of argument that they believed he had a real gun when they drove up. You're basically saying if you do something foolish enough to let someone corner you with a gun not only is it your fault that the other person has put you in fear of your life, but letting yourself become a victim of a crime is a qualifying event for depraved heart murder. This would be a completely different situation if the kid had approached the cop. That is not what happened. The cop created the situation entirely of his own accord. You keep talking about the shooting as if it is unrelated to the circumstances that preceded it. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You have to be trolling at this point. It's clear enough that the officer believed there was a real gun present. Yet under those circumstances, a trained police officer inserted himself into a situation just a few feet from a child he believed was armed. How many ways can that story end? Forget pulling a gun, if you're working under the assumption that it was not reckless for the officer to have created the situation, the slightest twitch from that kid makes his shooting "justifiable". Alternatively, not reacting to the slightest movement with deadly force would have risked the officer getting shot under the circumstances he believed he was rushing in under. Only the most ideal and unlikely outcome of the situation, that is that a child would react in a perfectly calm and logical manner when surprised by a car careening towards him and a man jumping out of it, ends with no one getting shot. This has nothing to do with agency, the officer created a situation where there was not enough time for anyone involved to make any sort of reasoned decision. And still, you're claiming that the officer - who was again, since it's worth repeating, actually trained in the use of force and escalation - did not recklessly create a situation in which someone dying was an obvious and predictable outcome. It's hard to come up with a scenario that is more clearly an example of negligent homicide. Negligent homicide is not depraved heart murder, its involuntary manslaughter. You're trying to take a watered down layman's definition of negligence and use it to show that something was reckless, that the cop recognized it as reckless, that the cop recognized that the recklessness was likely to lead to death, and then intentional chose to do it anyways knowing that it would likely result in death. "That 12 year old is going to pull a gun if I get out of the car too close to him" does not qualify, at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't like the idea of criminalizing what amounts to bad tactics, especially if you're talking about holding someone culpable for murder for violating a department policy. Negligent homicide is a thing and you are essentially stating that police are immune to criminal liability in anything other than premeditated murder because of the capacity in which they operate. You have distilled down "negligent and reckless behavior that results in the loss of human life" into "bad tactics" which can only be generously described as a callous statement. quote:Your talking about giving your employer the unilateral ability to define your actions as murder when you're a victim of an armed attack because you didn't follow a policy that same employer is free to arbitrarily set. I think civil penalties are the appropriate remedy here. But that is not what is being discussed. Police should be and are notified and trained in procedure on department policy on how to engage in many situations. That is basically the purpose of their entire existence as an operation force and why they are entrusted by the public to enforce law, or else we would be just as well served with a civilian vigilante lynch mob. If this were a citizen listening to a police scanner who decided to take matters into his own hands and drive on the kid, jump out of his car and shoot, would we be having the same conversation? I hold the police to a higher standard because they should be trained, and they should execute according to their training to the best of their ability. Negligence and recklessness on their part, in my opinion, is worse than that of a civilian due to this trust. And civilians can be and are absolutely held criminally accountable for negligence that results in death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I meant when they saw it not prior to driving up but lets say for sake of argument that they believed he had a real gun when they drove up. You're basically saying if you do something foolish enough to let someone corner you with a gun not only is it your fault that the other person has put you in fear of your life, but letting yourself become a victim of a crime is a qualifying event for depraved heart murder. Other way around. If you're stupid enough to corner yourself when you are a police officer (who should be armed, armored, and with backup in a situation like that) such that you feel justified in killing someone, then that should be criminal. Someone else shouldn't have to die because you're too goddamned stupid to figure out how to approach a situation reasonably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Negligent homicide is not depraved heart murder, its involuntary manslaughter. "That 12 year old I believe to know is armed may react unpredictably when I ambush him" is an entirely different statement than "That 12 year old is going to pull a gun if I get out of the car too close to him". The former results in someone's death as easily, and is an entirely predicable outcome of the circumstances the cop created. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Other way around. If you're stupid enough to corner yourself when you are a police officer (who should be armed, armored, and with backup in a situation like that) such that you feel justified in killing someone, then that should be criminal. Someone else shouldn't have to die because you're too goddamned stupid to figure out how to approach a situation reasonably. Two problems with that: the other person in the situation has agency, and the duties of the police require them to "create" situations where they make close contact with possibly armed people on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
The department said a lot of bullshit after the fact as usual, but there's not much to be said about the killing of Tamir Rice. He pointed a realistic-looking toy gun up and down the street. Now maybe if they were some kind of super martyr cops they might have taken their lives into their hands and approached him without their guns drawn, but that's an unrealistic expectation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Two problems with that: the other person in the situation has agency, and the duties of the police require them to "create" situations where they make close contact with possibly armed people on a regular basis. Bullshit. Rice had a matter of seconds to react to police pulling up and shooting him and was never issued any orders to comply with. While it's true that there's never an absolutely safe way to approach an unknown and potentially dangerous situation, there are good ways to approach situations like that and bad ways to approach situations like that. If the police use bad methods of engagement that require them to kill someone, then they should be punished for it. They hosed up and killed an unarmed 12-year old. loving up badly like that should have repercussions. The police are professionals and should be held to professional standards. If you gently caress up, you get punished. If you gently caress up badly enough, you lose your job or go to jail (especially if you hurt someone).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The department said a lot of bullshit after the fact as usual, but there's not much to be said about the killing of Tamir Rice. He pointed a realistic-looking toy gun up and down the street. Now maybe if they were some kind of super martyr cops they might have taken their lives into their hands and approached him without their guns drawn, but that's an unrealistic expectation. Oh, yeah, in any moral sense the officers bear some of the responsibility for his death, but trying to re-write our laws around corner cases in order to make sure we never get a result that feels wrong is a fool's errand more likely to hurt the most vulnerable than bring down the powerful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh, yeah, in any moral sense the officers bear some of the responsibility for his death, but trying to re-write our laws around corner cases in order to make sure we never get a result that feels wrong is a fool's errand more likely to hurt the most vulnerable than bring down the powerful. Yes, the corner cases of hundreds of people dying every year to being killed by the police. Tragic and completely unavoidable. I mean, we could try to do something about it, but what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I meant when they saw it not prior to driving up but lets say for sake of argument that they believed he had a real gun when they drove up. You're basically saying if you do something foolish enough to let someone corner you with a gun not only is it your fault that the other person has put you in fear of your life, but letting yourself become a victim of a crime is a qualifying event for depraved heart murder. One of the reasons the "experts" say it was a Good Shoot is that they were told "guy with a gun" and not that the caller thought it was probably fake, so yes, they drove right up to someone believing he had a real gun. I'm saying that being a loving idiot shouldn't be a defense that lets you get away with killing a kid. The justification is that he was in fear for his life. The cops entirely fabricated that situation that made them afraid by being completely negligent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
For what it's worth I couldn't find any cases where a cop was shot by a child so I don't see how it's reasonable to assume that it's a real gun and the kid wanted to shoot him and it wasn't the far more likely scenario of a child carrying a toy gun and being startled when he almost gets run over by a car when he's standing on the grass in a park. Edit: I lied I found one where a 6 year old pulled the trigger on his thigh holster because he had a gun with no safety lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Even though I'm not the one who posted what you responded to, I'll answer. How much? I don't know. I'm sure there's actuarial tables for it, and I'm sure that no matter what the number is it isn't actually going to compensate for the death. In most western nations its about 45.000 -to 60.000 per quality adjusted life year. So for a 12 year old kid that has a life expectancy of 75 years and an expected normal quality of life this would be approximately 2.835.000 dollars. Mind you, the 45.000 number is the normal, non flahsy public health number. Flashy causes, such as terrorism, get to spend way more per life year. Basically, the country should have spent 3 million dollars on preventing this kid from being shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Two problems with that: the other person in the situation has agency, and the duties of the police require them to "create" situations where they make close contact with possibly armed people on a regular basis. Two problems with that: A pre-teen making a split-second decision after being ambushed doesn't have agency in any meaningful sense of that word, and the duties of the police in no way compelled them to make close contact with a what they believed to be an armed person in this case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Is the cop's use of force reasonable and lawful (despite being in error) or are we talking about one of your imaginary cops that's just strolling around looking to get his killing black people fix for the night? This exact fact pattern that existed according to you, a cop pulls up next to Rice, Rice sees the childlike fear and stupidity in his eyes and the cop goes for his gun. If Rice could have somehow killed him first, would that be reasonable and lawful self-defense. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:In most western nations its about 45.000 -to 60.000 per quality adjusted life year. So for a 12 year old kid that has a life expectancy of 75 years and an expected normal quality of life this would be approximately 2.835.000 dollars. Mind you, the 45.000 number is the normal, non flahsy public health number. Flashy causes, such as terrorism, get to spend way more per life year. Basically, the country should have spent 3 million dollars on preventing this kid from being shot. Preventing cops from murdering people makes them feel sad, that money is better spent on defending cops in court after they do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Two problems with that: A pre-teen making a split-second decision after being ambushed doesn't have agency in any meaningful sense of that word, and the duties of the police in no way compelled them to make close contact with a what they believed to be an armed person in this case. This is what I keep coming back to. Rice barely got a chance to react to the situation at all before he was shot, and the reason for that is entirely due to the poor tactics used by the police. The police made virtually every decision in the encounter, so there's really not much Rice could have done to get a different outcome. I think (hope?) most of the disagreement at this point is whether the shooter is criminally liable or merely civilly liable for the poor decisions made. Edit: v yeah, that, too. v Grundulum fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That would require new statutes to be written, right now police are charged with the same crime with the same elements as any civilian would be. I loving guarantee that if I, as a civilian, rolled up on Tamir Rice and shot him, firstly it wouldn't take over a year to bring it to grand jury, and secondly, the prosecutor would not be contacting "expert witnesses" to see if it really was self defence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This exact fact pattern that existed according to you, a cop pulls up next to Rice, Rice sees the childlike fear and stupidity in his eyes and the cop goes for his gun. If Rice could have somehow killed him first, would that be reasonable and lawful self-defense. No, gently caress you, if you want me to answer a hypothetical then you loving define it. Don't point to a situation we don't agree on in the first place and then say " but different" when the exact way it's different has tremendous bearing on the answer. Grundulum posted:This is what I keep coming back to. Rice barely got a chance to react to the situation at all before he was shot, and the reason for that is entirely due to the poor tactics used by the police. The police made virtually every decision in the encounter, so there's really not much Rice could have done to get a different outcome. I think (hope?) most of the disagreement at this point is whether the shooter is criminally liable or merely civilly liable for the poor decisions made. What do you mean "the police"? It's a single man we're talking about charging with murder and he didn't make the decision to roll up so close on Rice either. Besides that, whether a mistake constitutes a crime goes to the reasonableness of the mistake, not whether the victim had a chance to avoid the consequences of it by acting differently. A Fancy Bloke posted:I loving guarantee that if I, as a civilian, rolled up on Tamir Rice and shot him, firstly it wouldn't take over a year to bring it to grand jury, and secondly, the prosecutor would not be contacting "expert witnesses" to see if it really was self defence. You as a civilian have a duty to retreat from a kid waving a gun around in the park, the cops have a duty to confront that person. It's not remotely the same situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 12:53
|
|