|
twodot posted:So, the proper thing to discuss in this forum is who we should be voting for to change Ohio state or local laws? Like I understand not wanting to be an expert in how the legal system functions, but I don't understand simultaneously wanting to have opinions about how the legal system functions without also understanding and discussing its function. It's unfair to force someone to answer precisely the laws that are broken and in what way to be allowed to say "I watched the video and think what the cop did was bad." Because then you're requiring everyone to be a lawyer, internet or otherwise, to be able to participate. It's not bad to discuss laws, but it's not necessary to be an expert to be in the conversation. It's a tactic used to shut down discussion.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Is it unfair for me to ask you at this point how we should change the standard of criminal liability such that what he did would be criminal? Laws are there to codify morality. It is the job of the citizenry to express, in whatever terms they can come up with, what they deem to be morally just and unjust. It is the job of trained, paid professionals to propose ways to translate those "feelings and biases" into workable laws. It is unreasonable to expect a layperson to do a laywer's job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"I want laws that assuage my feelings and pander to my biases, I don't really care about the details." Having middlemen deal with the details is the entire point of representative democracy you dumb gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Is it unfair for me to ask you at this point how we should change the standard of criminal liability such that what he did would be criminal? The first step would be to hold officers to the same legal standard as civilians in regards to shootings like this, despite Jarmak continuously claiming there's no difference except when there is, but it's not different Edit: For example a good place to start would be the prosecution at grand jury treating this case like any other and not hiring expert witnesses he wouldn't hire for a random joe. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It's unfair to force someone to answer precisely the laws that are broken and in what way to be allowed to say "I watched the video and think what the cop did was bad." Because then you're requiring everyone to be a lawyer, internet or otherwise, to be able to participate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Laws are created by men to do what we want. They, despite what some posters seem to believe, aren't immutable laws of nature that we can only apply and have no agency in changing. If people think that a police officer jumping out of his car and killing an unarmed child is something that should be illegal (and he was clearly scared of that since he lied in his report so maybe it is) we can make that happen. The attitude that changing any law based on police killings is equivalent to a horde of zealots trying to enact mob justice is absurd. Killing a child in the way Rice was murdered should be illegal and it's up to lawyers to write that law. It seems that this is the only topic where to onus is placed on the victims or people that sympathize with them to work in the legal system personally or they just don't understand why civilians just sometimes need to be killed through no fault of their own or the entire justice system breaks down completely. EDIT: Saying you need legal knowledge to participate in a discussion about police abuse is 100% off. The justice system from top to bottom affects people on a daily basis, in some case in life changing or ending ways. You don't need to be a lawyer to know what happened to Rice is wrong and deserves punishment on some level even if it is rehabilitative in nature, the same as any other citizen would receive. What legal discussion is even going to happen here if it's going to just devolve into if it was technically legal or not when that doesn't really matter once the prosecutor rigs the grand jury to fail to indite? Saying that the debate over how we are treated by our justice system is an insular one only allowed by those that could pursue and finance a legal education is outrageous and acting like letting the rubes in on it would result in horrible mob justice is insulting especially when the current setup seems to be resulting in a lot of problems. Regular people should not be writing laws since they are not equipped to do so but they certainly should have some bearing in the morality those laws are encouraging. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Does anyone think that what the officer who shot Rice did should carry no legal penalty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Does anyone think that what the officer who shot Rice did should carry no legal penalty? By legal do you mean criminal/civil or both?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
criminal, but also civil
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
botany posted:Laws are there to codify morality. It is the job of the citizenry to express, in whatever terms they can come up with, what they deem to be morally just and unjust. It is the job of trained, paid professionals to propose ways to translate those "feelings and biases" into workable laws. It is unreasonable to expect a layperson to do a laywer's job. Sharkie posted:Does anyone think that what the officer who shot Rice did should carry no legal penalty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, the law does not codify morality. Laws exist to manage the function of society, the relationship of citizens to the state and each other, and to protect our natural rights. The separation of church and state is an explicit denial of the idea that we should legislate morality. When California passed Prop 8, most people were disgusted, and rightly understood that using the law to enforce moral behavior rather prohibiting harmful behavior was wrong. I'm sure most of us think adultery is immoral, but I think most of us can also understand why it shouldn't be illegal. Being a citizen in a representative democracy means that you don't get to cross your arms and insist that the lawyers and government officials find a way to make the law comport with your feelings of right and wrong without wrestling with the consequences and full effects of what you propose. If you can't find a way to enact your beliefs without criminalizing conduct that should be legal, maybe you should reconsider whether or not your beliefs should be law that applies to all citizens. What are "natural rights"? And what behavior did he do that you think should remain lawful? Shooting people that hold things that look like guns in public?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, the law does not codify morality. Laws exist to manage the function of society, the relationship of citizens to the state and each other, and to protect our natural rights. The separation of church and state is an explicit denial of the idea that we should legislate morality. When California passed Prop 8, most people were disgusted, and rightly understood that using the law to enforce moral behavior rather prohibiting harmful behavior was wrong. I'm sure most of us think adultery is immoral, but I think most of us can also understand why it shouldn't be illegal. Being a citizen in a representative democracy means that you don't get to cross your arms and insist that the lawyers and government officials find a way to make the law comport with your feelings of right and wrong without wrestling with the consequences and full effects of what you propose. If you can't find a way to enact your beliefs without criminalizing conduct that should be legal, maybe you should reconsider whether or not your beliefs should be law that applies to all citizens. The separation of church and state is law because we've agreed it would be wrong for the government to promote one church over others. Butt loving was illegal in many places until recently. Miscegenation was illegal until recently. You're an idiot if you think that laws have nothing to do with morality. Laws are made by people whose decisions are informed by what they think is right and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The separation of church and state is law because we've agreed it would be wrong for the government to promote one church over others. Butt loving was illegal in many places until recently. Miscegenation was illegal until recently. You're an idiot if you think that laws have nothing to do with morality. Laws are made by people whose decisions are informed by what they think is right and wrong. There's TONNNNS of laws still on the books and enforced that only exist for morality's sake. It's a total fool's statement to claim the law isn't about morality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:What are "natural rights"? As to your second question: defending yourself against what you believe to be an imminent, deadly threat. Lemming posted:The separation of church and state is law because we've agreed it would be wrong for the government to promote one church over others. Butt loving was illegal in many places until recently. Miscegenation was illegal until recently. You're an idiot if you think that laws have nothing to do with morality. Laws are made by people whose decisions are informed by what they think is right and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:As to your second question: defending yourself against what you believe to be an imminent, deadly threat. But who is saying that right shouldn't remain? We're saying the cops should be held to the same legal standard as a civilian re: self-defense though. And they are not. quote:So are you arguing for a return to the days of criminalizing sodomy, pornography, and other things that offended the sensibilities of the majority, or just saying it's OK when you do it? This is such a ridiculous strawman. We have laws on the books RIGHT NOW that are about morality. The law is very much about morality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:49
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Natural rights have been a fairly important concept in discussions of law and government for a while now. "Justice" does not exist as a concept outside of morality. You need to rephrase that in order to get a properly amoral vision of law.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:As to your second question: defending yourself against what you believe to be an imminent, deadly threat.  "what you believe" and reality is what ought to be hashed out in criminal trial. Booth thought Lincoln was plotting imminent genocide against the South after America defeated the confederacy but that doesn't make it legal for him to have loving murdered him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Natural rights have been a fairly important concept in discussions of law and government for a while now. Sorry, I mean, what do you think our natural rights are? And if I walk into a Chipotle and see these guys, I should be able to shoot them, right?  edit: what if they're just holding steak knives? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:As to your second question: defending yourself against what you believe to be an imminent, deadly threat. I'll take a page out of your playbook: So you want to eliminate the reasonable person construct from our legal system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
^ if that cop was allowed to kill Rice the way he did without criminal repercussions then I see no reason why not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Most people would agree that those laws were bad and unjust. Are you arguing for a return to the days of criminalizing sodomy, pornography, and other things that offended the sensibilities of the majority, or just saying it's OK when you do it? Yes, they agree now, which is why they were changed. When they were made, people agreed that they were just. Those laws aligned with peoples' morality when they were made. Because laws are based in large part on the morals of the people who make them. Also lol at your sick burn, saying you think being gay is fine and then calling me gay 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Surely not being able to buy booze on a Sunday is because my natural rights and function in society are being protected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Sorry, I mean, what do you think our natural rights are? Why would you have cause to shoot them? Spoke Lee posted:So you want to eliminate the reasonable person construct from our legal system?  Lemming posted:Yes, they agree now, which is why they were changed. When they were made, people agreed that they were just. Those laws aligned with peoples' morality when they were made. Because laws are based in large part on the morals of the people who make them. We're talking about what the law should be and the proper purpose of laws here, not the law as it is actually enacted. Unless you're saying that the will of the majority inherently makes a law just.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why would you have cause to shoot them? If an officer burst through the door at that moment, they would be closer to shooting that officer with a real gun, than Rice ever got with his toy. But the officer was justified with the Black child, but we'd have no cause with some White Men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Life, liberty, property, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, self-defense, personal security, due process, etc. The usual stuff. The point behind that question was, if you wouldn't shoot those two for open carrying, why is it okay to shoot a kid for doing the same thing. 'B...b...but urban feral' isn't a good answer, but it's probably the most accurate one. E: And to bring it back to the discussion at hand, negligent homicide seems appropriate in this case, for both officers but especially the one in the driver's seat. The driver had a job to do, but he did it in such a piss poor manner (offroading through a park and then coming to a stop directly in front of an 'armed' suspect) that someone ended up dying because of his incompetence. E2: That person could have just have easily been his partner, if Tamir Rice actually had been armed and dangerous. goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Sorry, I mean, what do you think our natural rights are? I don't see a problem with shooting them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If an officer burst through the door at that moment, they would be closer to shooting that officer with a real gun, than Rice ever got with his toy. But the officer was justified with the Black child, but we'd have no cause with some White Men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Life, liberty, property, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, self-defense, personal security, due process, etc. The usual stuff. Because I believed them to be a Dead Reckoning posted:imminent, deadly threat. So I should be able to shoot them, right? Dead Reckoning posted:A person simply having a gun isn't an imminent danger. A person moving to draw a gun or raise a rifle is. If either of those two moved to shoulder their rifle, you'd have a much stronger case for killing them in self-defense. The rifle on the right is "drawn." And his finger is a centimeter away from the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A person simply having a gun isn't an imminent danger. A person moving to draw a gun or raise a rifle is. If either of those two moved to shoulder their rifle, you'd have a much stronger case for killing them in self-defense. What if I said they were moving their rifles up? I mean they already have their hands on the guns, which is more than Rice was doing, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A person simply having a gun isn't an imminent danger. A person moving to draw a gun or raise a rifle is. If either of those two moved to shoulder their rifle, you'd have a much stronger case for killing them in self-defense. So you're saying if Rice had already drawn his
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Sorry, I mean, what do you think our natural rights are? Shoot the guy on the right for ruining an SKS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unless I'm mistaken, isn't "did the defendant reasonably believe that the victim posed an imminent danger" the reasonable person standard? He doesn't have to just reasonably believe it, but the belief has to be reasonable. I could genuinely believe something a reasonable person would think is unreasonable. Dead Reckoning posted:A person simply having a gun isn't an imminent danger. A person moving to draw a gun or raise a rifle is. If either of those two moved to shoulder their rifle, you'd have a much stronger case for killing them in self-defense. No, by your standard, it's if I THINK he was moving to draw. Like if I thought he was going to reach down to lift the gun up even though it was him shifting because his sack was stuck to his thigh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
There is law that may punish the officers actions. It all depends on if what he did and believed was not, beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable based on the officers knowledge, training, and experence at the time. The problem is that is hard to pin down exactly what is and is not reasonable. I don't think the law needs to be changed. The law just needs to be more consistently applied. Is the officer guilty of murder? Maybe not, there have been so many competing fact narratives, it is hard to know what he believed at the time and if it ia reasonable (that could be determined by a real investigation). I lean toward guilty, but that may be my own biases at work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So do you think that the law as it existed then was objectively wrong and a bad law? I don't think it was objectively wrong, I think it was subjectively wrong, because everything having to do with humans is subjective. So is justice, which everyone has a different opinion of. Feel free to stop trying to put words in other peoples' mouths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, the law does not codify morality. Laws exist to manage the function of society, the relationship of citizens to the state and each other, and to protect our natural rights. quote:The separation of church and state is an explicit denial of the idea that we should legislate morality. quote:When California passed Prop 8, most people were disgusted, and rightly understood that using the law to enforce moral behavior rather prohibiting harmful behavior was wrong. quote:I'm sure most of us think adultery is immoral, but I think most of us can also understand why it shouldn't be illegal. quote:Being a citizen in a representative democracy means that you don't get to cross your arms and insist that the lawyers and government officials find a way to make the law comport with your feelings of right and wrong without wrestling with the consequences and full effects of what you propose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
It is possible to feel something is wrong without wanting it to be illegal. Kind of crazy that someone has to break that down for people.nm posted:There is law that may punish the officers actions. I'd actually be totally ok with training being the grounds to find a cop not guilty of a crime if it meant that there would then be a legal obligation to immediately alter that training so that it could never serve as a viable defense of that specific action again. So if the the Rice incident was found to be 100% within the realms of current training, it would be forced to change, the PD would be held accountable, and it would be changed significantly enough that no similar situation could use training as an excuse again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
I'm still unsure that training would have taught him to do that. That whole thing seems like it would be a great way to get killed if Rice had had a real gun and a desire to kill a cop. I have reviewed some trainings (other depts in other states for legal reasons) and moat of them seem to emphasize cover and assessing situations (and calling for backup if needed) not being captain fuckstick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
nm posted:being captain fuckstick. Well no they cover that in the DV/SA training.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Shoot the guy on the right for ruining an SKS. I'm curious what did he do to it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
KomradeX posted:I'm curious what did he do to it? He took a neat, inexpensive wood-stocked surplus carbine and covered it in crappy plastic and modified it to use detachable magazines that probably don't even work right. He probably spent more money than the gun is worth turning a Soviet rear echelon rifle into something "tactical".
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 00:49
|
|