|
VitalSigns posted:It blows my mind that you're in the other thread arguing for the second amendment and your right to carry firearm, yet here you are just fine with the government killing someone for doing absolutely nothing illegal or threatening aside from carrying a firearm* Seriously the proliferation of guns in this country is pretty great. It not only allows scared white people to arm up to absurd degrees and cry about their freedom, it also creates the illusion that every minority is heavily armed allowing police (and some citizens) to claim that they thought anyone they kill is armed and thus a deadly threat. We go through this every time. The shoot was a "good shoot" -Why was it good? Because they feared for their lives and have a right to defend themselves -Why were they afraid? They were in a confrontational situation with someone that MAY have been armed with a deadly weapon -Why were they in that situation? Because they confronted the person in the middle of the night/jumped out of a car/snuck up behind them and yelled at them to turn around at gun point/saw them with a toy gun in a walmart/yanked them out of their car/saw him walking with an anime costume -Why did they have to do that in that way and couldn't wait for backup? ???????????????????????? There's really no way to convince these people that maybe these chain of events that always resolve the same way could be avoided altogether and that's what people angry at this problem that seems to happen over and over and over always gets brushed off as an inevitable result of people not "doing what the officer said" or "looking aggressive" are complaining about. I've realize we live in a horrible reality where prosecutors will support police that literally murder children in broad daylight then lie about it in their official reports and we can't really do much about it but it would be nice if we could at least start the discussion at stopping these events from happening in the first place. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Oct 13, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Jarmak posted: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. They don't have a duty to roll up on a kid and put bullets in him before asking a question or making a demand he could comply with. Heck, they even could have used the loudspeakers in their car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted: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. It is when you're trying to claim that police are subject to the same laws and legal processes as civilians and this cop is basically getting prosecutors to defend him
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:It is when you're trying to claim that police are subject to the same laws and legal processes as civilians and this cop is basically getting prosecutors to defend him No, it's not, for the reason I already stated
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, it's not, for the reason I already stated Really? Do self-defense cases often get expert witnesses on grand jury? I did Grand Jury for 3 months and the only expert witnesses I saw were there to support indictment but I am sure it's just a weird coincidence in this case that they both support not indicting Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
In the mind of a cop, everyone is revolver ocelot, capable of drawing and delivering perfectly-aimed fire in the blink of an eye.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Really? Do self-defense cases often get expert witnesses on grand jury? I just told you this is a completely different situation then a normal civilian self defense case, so you're arguing with me that "no it's different"? Were you just unable to adapt when I took a different direction with my argument then "no civilians get the same treatment" or can you just not able to keep your own arguments straight?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I just told you this is a completely different situation then a normal civilian self defense case, so you're arguing with me that "no it's different"? Were you just unable to adapt when I took a different direction with my argument then "no civilians get the same treatment" or can you just not able to keep your own arguments straight? You're right, it is completely different. Police should be held to a much higher standard than other civilians. We give police a lot of power, and the consequences for violating the public's trust by abusing that power should be incredibly high. We absolutely should be looking at a pair of officers who rolled up too close to an unarmed 12 year old to the point where they thought they were in mortal danger and shot before taking any action to deescalate the situation. We should further look at cops who falsify reports and throw the goddamned book at them (in most industries, professionals who falsify data are fired at best, imprisoned at worst). In no way should a prosecutor be going to bat for them in a grand jury proceeding. Indict them just as you would a ham sandwich, and then let the trial sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I just told you this is a completely different situation then a normal civilian self defense case, so you're arguing with me that "no it's different"? Were you just unable to adapt when I took a different direction with my argument then "no civilians get the same treatment" or can you just not able to keep your own arguments straight? Your duplicity is appalling. Which is it? Do we treat officers like citizens or do we hold them to a higher standard? If officers get all the same benefits of a citizen, why is a prosecutor hiring expert witnesses for the defense of the accused, and why do police get a pass on creating the situation that led to a child's death, or on the bald faced lying on their reports? Yes they're paid to confront potential dangers to society, but they are NOT paid to manufacture a dangerous situation. The point you keep failing to address is the very situation that the police claimed put them in fear of their lives can be traced back to every choice the officers made in how they engaged the suspect. And yet in your white washed world, that's ok because the prosecutors office is contorting itself to avoid charging the police officers. You're either hosed up in the head or you're trolling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Your duplicity is appalling. Which is it? Do we treat officers like citizens or do we hold them to a higher standard? It's interesting to see the difference between Tamir Rice's Murderer and now convicted Ex officer Michael Slager sitting in jail. A question to anyone thinking that officer Timothy Loehmann's treatment is fine, does this mean you think there was a rush to justice in Slager's case? In my opinion the way they arrested Slager and denied bail to a man who murdered someone & cover it up seems to be the perfect way to respond to any officer trusted in upholding the law, ends up killing someone and lying about what happened. I'm baffled as to why anyone would think the same shouldn't be done to Loehmann.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted: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. I did define: assuming everything you've said about this situation is true, that the cop stupidly blundered into a confrontation and then legitimately feared for his life, when Tamir Rice saw the cop's big dumb eyes widen in terror and the cop went for his gun, does Rice have a lawful right to reasonably act in self defense and kill the cop using his toy gun/the kung-fu/magic/whatever? Just answer the question, once he saw the fear and the cop go for his gun, did Rice have the right to defend himself or was it his duty to stand there and be executed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:
Can a lawyer comment on if this was a prosecutor presenting an affirmative defense or a procedural hurdle regarding indictment
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:the cops have a duty to confront that person. It's not remotely the same situation. You and others keep repeating that cops are required to put themselves at risk of harm to defend the public but this is simply untrue. In fact, the same people insisting this also defend unlimited self defense, castle doctrine and stand your ground laws on the basis that police are NOT required to respond to a crime in progress or put themselves at risk to defend the public. There was no legal compulsion, and I guarantee you no department policy, that compelled/required these cops to immediately confront this child in this manner and even the experts that describe this as a reasonable shoot agree. The cops could have kept a distance and used the car loudspeaker to demand compliance. In fact, even if the cops had remained at a safe distance and some crazy person ran directly at a dangerous suspect and died in a hail of gunfire from a legit threat, the cops would bear no legal responsibility to have put themselves in danger to prevent that from happening. Certain groups in American have created this cultural mythos of condoning violent police behavior that is simply alien to much of the developed world, yet they are absolutely convinced that there is no viable alternative and thus cops are mandated from on high to be as confrontational and violent as possible in the pursuit of crime. I mean, look at people in this very thread that suggest a person has forfeited their very life if they so much as commit the pettiest of crimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Cops shot an unarmed black kid? They have a duty to violently confront him, nothing they could do! Cops stood by and watched while their cop buddy shot up his wife, then continued to stand by while he want back and delivered the coup de grace? Well he was their friend, it would be insane to impose a duty to confront him!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
At my job, if I dealt with a kid who I thought had a weapon by throwing him and breaking his loving neck, I would be arrested almost immediately. I think cops should be held to similar standards to me, given that with the kids at my job I am not always in danger - in fact, most of the time I am not - but I am in danger a hell of a lot more often than the average person at their job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Cops shot an unarmed black kid? They have a duty to violently confront him, nothing they could do! Why you might be a sociopath if you think that the police should have stopped their friend from murdering his wife in front of them! The attitude that police are mindless drones that have to react to certain situations with deadly force (of course in other situations it's understandable why they don't) is part of the problem. The justice system likes to pretend it is this amoral environment like nature where rules are heartless but fair to everyone and is a force for order. However it's really clear that is created by people with prejudices like any other man made system and it blatantly treats people differently depending on who they are all the way from the cops on the street to the judges that issue sentences to the politicians that write the laws. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I did define: assuming everything you've said about this situation is true, that the cop stupidly blundered into a confrontation and then legitimately feared for his life, when Tamir Rice saw the cop's big dumb eyes widen in terror and the cop went for his gun, does Rice have a lawful right to reasonably act in self defense and kill the cop using his toy gun/the kung-fu/magic/whatever? Not only did you not define poo poo you just completely changed the hypothetical by putting the cop's gun in his holster not his hand and declaring having Rice's reaction be based on the officer's "wide eyes". You also slowed down the entire encounter so that Rice has time to think about his response. I know you don't actually care about the details of these cases and just want someone to pay a pound of flesh, but the fact you can't even construct a consistent hypothetical when given the power of fiat is loving staggering. To attempt to answer your question, no, in this circumstance I don't think there's a path to self defense. There are situations where there are but the details of the encounter are extremely important. Raerlynn posted:Your duplicity is appalling. Which is it? Do we treat officers like citizens or do we hold them to a higher standard? It's not duplicitous, it's the same law but the circumstances are different, police officers do not have a duty to retreat. Also, again, it's not the police on trial, it's one man, and not the man who made the decision to drive up close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
This is a pretty good article and worth reading http://investigations.myajc.com/overtheline/#prosecuted?ecmp=AJC_internallink_AJCtoMyAJC_euharlee quote:The AJC/Channel 2 investigation found that: quote:Georgia stands alone in one respect, the AJC and Channel 2 found: It is the only state in the nation that permits police officers facing possible criminal indictment to be inside the grand jury room for the entire proceeding and to make an unchallenged statement at the end, a special privilege that does not extend to private citizens. quote:By the time a second officer arrived, Hudson had Folds on the ground and was on his back, yelling at him to show his hands. The second officer had holstered his gun and was drawing his Taser to subdue Folds when Hudson shot Folds in the back of the head. On the incident where 17 year old Christopher Roupe answered a knock at the door and the officer promptly shot him in the chest: quote:OFFICER CLEARED quote:Neither Mann nor Greene believe the video prejudiced the Bartow grand jury and they don’t think they drew any conclusions about the Roupe case from seeing it. quote:Children cried for weeks and were scared to go outside to play. They couldn’t believe a police officer would just walk up and shoot their friend. Just officers doing their sworn duty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
^^^ Nah dude cops are subject to the same laws and use the same legal channels that civilians do, it's just the circumstances are always different and you're a loving idiot I guess? Jarmak posted:I just told you this is a completely different situation then a normal civilian self defense case, so you're arguing with me that "no it's different"? Were you just unable to adapt when I took a different direction with my argument then "no civilians get the same treatment" or can you just not able to keep your own arguments straight? No, I'm just laughing at your assertion that civilians and police have the same laws and legal channels when you're also claiming the situations are TOTALLY DIFFERENT and that it's literally impossible to legally be in the same situation as the cop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
double
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:^^^ nailed it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
This one is like a Laurel and Hardy movie except with more 100% more kids getting shot. http://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/mommy_am_i_gonna_die_cop_shoots_4_year_old_after_aiming_for_family_dog_when_injured_mom_called_911_for_help/ Also I'm really glad I don't have the kind of broken brain that prohibits me from feeling empathy for a dead 12 year old at the hands of My Authority Figures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Gropiemon posted:This one is like a Laurel and Hardy movie except with more 100% more kids getting shot. What the gently caress is going on with Ohio? Is it just the black hole of the bad cop universe, sucking every crazed, insane police officer into it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Gropiemon posted:This one is like a Laurel and Hardy movie except with more 100% more kids getting shot. Can't wait to hear how this was a "good shoot" by legal experts. I wonder if there is some police trainer video where a cop is torn to shreds by a golden retriever since they are seriously scared as poo poo of family dogs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Gropiemon posted:This one is like a Laurel and Hardy movie except with more 100% more kids getting shot. Isn't usually a crime to fail to render aid and leave the scene after you shoot someone? quote:“Officer Thomas then told my sister to stop yelling at him and walked back to his vehicle. Officer Thomas never said sorry, never said it was an accident, never said that he called for help or was going to call for help, never asked if Ava was ok, and never asked if he could check on Ava. Officer Thomas went back to his vehicle and started to pull away. My neighbors have even verified that he started pulling away before any help was there. Officer Thomas shot Ava and left knowing he shot Ava and not knowing the condition she was in.” Or is this yet again one of those times where my obligations as a car driver are more strenuous then a police officer's obligation to the innocent bystander they just shot? fake edit: lol he was "really bothered" by shooting the girl, but not enough to check on her or call an ambulance. quote:The officer fired once, missing the animal but striking the girl in the right leg. It was unclear whether the girl was hit directly or by a ricochet. The officer has not been identified.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not only did you not define poo poo you just completely changed the hypothetical by putting the cop's gun in his holster not his hand and declaring having Rice's reaction be based on the officer's "wide eyes". You also slowed down the entire encounter so that Rice has time to think about his response. This is pathetic. Given your narrative of the encounter, at any point would Rice have been justified in using force to defend himself, that's all the question is. Are you misunderstanding me on purpose. Jarmak posted:To attempt to answer your question, no, in this circumstance I don't think there's a path to self defense. There are situations where there are but the details of the encounter are extremely important. Why not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Maybe black people can't feel fear, so any claim they might have of being in fear for their lives is automatically false.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
No its because civilians aren't subject to the same laws as cops, except when it's convenient for a pro-cop argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
radical meme posted:What the gently caress is going on with Ohio? Is it just the black hole of the bad cop universe, sucking every crazed, insane police officer into it? Nah, there's plenty to go around. Like the fine peace officers who applied a taser to Matthew Ajibade's testicles while he was strapped to a restraining chair, on the night they beat him to death in custody back in January. e: In fairness to the Georgia sheriff's department involved they fired nine officers over this and three of those involved currently face criminal charges. Which is a lot more responsibility than I've ever heard of being shown regarding, say, the Chicago PD's torture black sites. 1994 Toyota Celica fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is pathetic. Given your narrative of the encounter, at any point would Rice have been justified in using force to defend himself, that's all the question is. Are you misunderstanding me on purpose. Given my narrative of the encounter it would have been physically impossible for Rice to use force to defend himself and how you modify the hypothetical to give him the opportunity to use force makes a really big loving difference because the answer to the hypothetical you're attempting to propose is "it depends". I understand exactly what you're saying but you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about so its seemingly impossible to squeeze the relevant details out of your because you have seemingly no comprehension of what they are. Or at the very least I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that its because you don't know what you're talking about and not that you're trying to be elusive with pertinent details in order to play gotcha games. After giving the matter some more thought I don't think you can get away with a lethal self defense claim against a police officer unless you can make a case that you reasonably believed the officer was acting unlawfully and/or was out to specifically kill/harm you, both because a duress defense doesn't generally allow you to kill an innocent person to save yourself (I know this wouldn't actually be a duress defense I'm just borrowing the reasoning) and because I can't imagine a situation where you have time to act in self defense but not time to show compliance/surrender. The first arguement isn't ironclad because unlike a case of duress the source of the threat is also the innocent person and I'm not aware of any case law that covers it, but the second part is pretty conclusive outside of some really wild hypothetical which would have to be tried individually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Given my narrative of the encounter it would have been physically impossible for Rice to use force to defend himself and how you modify the hypothetical to give him the opportunity to use force makes a really big loving difference because the answer to the hypothetical you're attempting to propose is "it depends". I understand exactly what you're saying but you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about so its seemingly impossible to squeeze the relevant details out of your because you have seemingly no comprehension of what they are. Or at the very least I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that its because you don't know what you're talking about and not that you're trying to be elusive with pertinent details in order to play gotcha games. It's a thought experiment dude, I'm not changing anything. It doesn't matter if he physically had no time to beat the cop to death with a toy, the question is if he had been able to defend himself (maybe with mutant powers) would he have had the right. Jarmak posted:After giving the matter some more thought I don't think you can get away with a lethal self defense claim against a police officer unless you can make a case that you reasonably believed the officer was acting unlawfully and/or was out to specifically kill/harm you, both because a duress defense doesn't generally allow you to kill an innocent person to save yourself (I know this wouldn't actually be a duress defense I'm just borrowing the reasoning) and because I can't imagine a situation where you have time to act in self defense but not time to show compliance/surrender. The first arguement isn't ironclad because unlike a case of duress the source of the threat is also the innocent person and I'm not aware of any case law that covers it, but the second part is pretty conclusive outside of some really wild hypothetical which would have to be tried individually. Why do you demand that the victim take time to surrender in hopes the cop won't kill him, but the cop (who had plenty of time to approach the situation however he wished and give the kid a chance to comply and orders with which to comply) isn't expected to at all? You say "oh well the cop was using poor tactics but because of that he was in fear of his life it doesn't matter what happened before that split-second", but that applies to Rice too. Maybe not instantly dropping to the ground and licking the pavement was poor tactics, but in the split second when the cop decided to kill him it seems like Rice has a reasonable fear for his life, and given that the cop is going before a grand jury to determine if he acted lawfully, seems like a reasonable person in Rice's position could easily believe the cop was acting unlawfully.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
That was a lot of talk from certain pro-cop people where "stupidity" on the part of the dead person maybe didn't warrant a death sentence but certainly meant that it was their fault and they could have prevented it if they had just been smarter. Weird how legally when a cop is stupid it gives them leniency when they end up killing a person that is both unarmed and not breaking the law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's a thought experiment dude, I'm not changing anything. It doesn't matter if he physically had no time to beat the cop to death with a toy, the question is if he had been able to defend himself (maybe with mutant powers) would he have had the right. Pulling a weapon takes more time then surrendering, so there's no reason why it should be acceptable to use lethal force against a cop who's acting lawfully because surrendering is not only the more effective way to stop the threat of being mistakenly shot, but its also the path that doesn't resulting in killing an innocent person. The cop doesn't have this option because in this hypothetical he reasonably believes that Rice is trying to shoot him, whereas Rice only has reason to believe the cop is trying to stop a threat against his person. And I already said if you could make the argument that Rice reasonably believed that the cop was acting outside of the law then you'd have a case so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up as a counter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:At my job, if I dealt with a kid who I thought had a weapon by throwing him and breaking his loving neck, I would be arrested almost immediately. Hell as a nurse, we have a duty to protect people who want to harm themselves and if someone swings at me or fihts me, i cant hit them back at all. Its the job i signed up for, but if we make even the most small errors, our asses would be in the street.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Hell as a nurse, we have a duty to protect people who want to harm themselves and if someone swings at me or fihts me, i cant hit them back at all. Its the job i signed up for, but if we make even the most small errors, our asses would be in the street. Don't you know, nurses and doctors use drugs and pain to get compliance out of people all the time! You're a fool if you don't make things extra painful for someone who took a swing at you! Or administer a paralytic so they'll stop complaining while you "forget" about anesthetic!* *This is a real opinion held by some posters on SA
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
You mean the law that they are both subject to in exactly the same way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Pulling a weapon takes more time then surrendering, so there's no reason why it should be acceptable to use lethal force against a cop who's acting lawfully because surrendering is not only the more effective way to stop the threat of being mistakenly shot, but its also the path that doesn't resulting in killing an innocent person. The cop doesn't have this option because in this hypothetical he reasonably believes that Rice is trying to shoot him, whereas Rice only has reason to believe the cop is trying to stop a threat against his person. The cop didn't even give him an order or a chance to surrender. Why is it any less reasonable for Rice to believe a man who pulls a gun on him intends to kill him no matter what he does than for the cop to believe that someone who maybe has a gun intends to kill him no matter what he does? Because one guy has a shiny badge and blue clothes doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me, cops are just as capable of committing murder as any other human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Maybe railroading every encounter and situation into "Comply or Die" isn't the most prudent thing for officers to do so often. Trying to lean on a vague, questionable state of 'surrendered' also is pretty bullshit. Is a twitching body on its stomach and face, arms pulled painfully behind the back not surrendered enough? Better keep tazing/beating/yelling/threatening until that darn adrenaline stops pumping. Is he reaching for their shirt/pants/off-to-the-side/air? Better shoot just in case there could quantum-physically in some universe if you squint and the sun was just right, could maybe be weapon somewhere in the area. Justified. Life was in potential danger. It is plain hosed up an officer just as to -present- any situation as "life or death, split second decision, too bad' in order to legitly justify their aggressive bullshit behavior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The cop didn't even give him an order or a chance to surrender. Hey look it took you exactly ONE post to start complaining about the minutia of the hypothetical that I repeatedly tried to make you lock down because it made a big difference in my answer! This is exactly why twice on this page alone I've pointed out that if you change the fact pattern to allow Rice time to act in self defense it changes the situation and you have to explain exactly how you've changed it to allow for the possibility. Berk Berkly posted:Maybe railroading every encounter and situation into "Comply or Die" isn't the most prudent thing for officers to do so often. I agree, but I don't think not taking the most prudent course of action deserves a murder charge, it deserves a civil judgement against the department. Especially when you take into consideration the police are not a hive mind and you don't get to criminal culpability on the shooter based on negligent actions of other cops. You can absolutely hold the department as a whole responsible in civil court for its failings as an institution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:
This sounds like how a civilian shooter claiming self-defense would be treated, your statement about the same laws applying checks out 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:58
|
|