|
nm posted: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. That would be a good reason for him to be charged with a crime then and possibly convicted, imo. Oh you ended up killing an unarmed civilian and what you did doesn't even mesh with your training? You are personally held responsible. Done.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
nm posted:There is law that may punish the officers actions. nm, would the fact that 911 did not inform the officers of that it was a fake gun (or even a possibility thereof) weigh heavily on the training and belief aspects
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, lets have two people argue about something they agree on for pages because they are using different terms because it is rude for the law talking guy to explain that they agree. Got it. That is not what is happening and almost never is what's happening. As always there are two discussions. The legal side arguing that at the moment of the killng of Tamir Rice the cop did nothing I legal. Then there is the the non legal side desperately trying to have the discussion that the events leading up to that moment are the problem and had either of the cops in that car done anything else besides pull up 5 feet from him and blow him away before a 12 year old brain can even process what is happening should be a factor. But legal side as in almost every case only focuses on the final moments and the legalality of the last minutes or seconds of the situation. Schizophrenic lady died because they were trying to restrain a struggling feces flinging woman, ignoring that a schizophrenic was kept in solitary for 5 days. Headlight kid was legally shot because he attacked the cop, ignore that it was most likely because a teenager was dragged forcefully out of the car, tazed and wrestled with and could reasonably be said to be scared shitless by the time he hit the cop. Arguing the legal aspects of ONLY the final killing while waving aside the events that led to those final moments is the constant theme of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted: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". So this guy is an idiot dork is what you're saying, as if it wasn't obvious by the picture already KomradeX fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:nm, would the fact that 911 did not inform the officers of that it was a fake gun (or even a possibility thereof) weigh heavily on the training and belief aspects One would think it could only hurt their case. If they knew it was a toy gun, then ambushing the kid is at least safe if nonsensical. That the cops did that while under the belief they were dealing with a real gun just means they were knowingly putting lives at risk for no discernible reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:nm, would the fact that 911 did not inform the officers of that it was a fake gun (or even a possibility thereof) weigh heavily on the training and belief aspects Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:The rifle on the right is "drawn." And his finger is a centimeter away from the trigger. Trabisnikof posted:So you're saying if Rice had already drawn his botany posted:There are no natural rights. Laws are there to codify morality.  Yeah, I don't think you and I are going to see eye to eye on this one. That's probably beyond the scope of this thread though. If the majority had felt that gay marriage was a moral wrong, would that have made Prop 8 a good law? If you think adultery is wrong, but don't think it should be against the law, how can you say that law is meant to codify morality?Toasticle posted:As always there are two discussions. The legal side arguing that at the moment of the killng of Tamir Rice the cop did nothing I legal. Then there is the the non legal side desperately trying to have the discussion that the events leading up to that moment are the problem and had either of the cops in that car done anything else besides pull up 5 feet from him and blow him away before a 12 year old brain can even process what is happening should be a factor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
A 12-year old kid was murdered. Two cops were involved. One left a previous job because that department determined he was not mentally stable enough to cut it as a cop. The other had brutality charges levied against him & the city paid out money to the victim. Both lied in their reports. Neither officer was interviewed by their own department. A municipal judge ruled that there seemed to be enough evidence for charges. But, as ever, we'll go round & round about it in this thread. The lack of any sort of empathy or expression of concern about the victim by the police dick-riders (not just this case) is nearly as stunning to me as the cases themselves. And it's pretty telling when someone sees a picture of two people in public carrying rifles and immediately parses that they're simply open-carry "nerds". I shudder to think what the description given for Tamir Rice might be. A 12-year old was murdered. And some of you seem like really pathetic pieces-of-poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So this guy is an idiot dork is what you're saying, as if it wasn't obvious by the picture already He's the goober that puts $2500 rims, a Malaysian knockoff turbo, and a big plastic wing on his hand-me-down Subaru Legacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:A 12-year old was murdered. Yes but the cop didn't yell "I am going to shoot you because I fear for my life as you are a So it's cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The law doesn't consider whether, with the benefit of hindsight and perfect knowledge, there was a way for the defendant to avoid the situation, or even whether there may have been a better way for the defendant to handle it given what he knew at the time. Actually yes it does if it can be found that the person took action that was criminally negligent. And some of us would include actions taken by police that are contrary to policy, contrary to accepted practice of deescalation, and are shown to create a pattern of unacceptable loss of life to be criminally negligent. I am the first to admit that this isn't always current interpretation, but I would assert that it is a poor interpretation that produces poor results and it needs to be challenged through both the judicial system and if necessary additional legislation. And the way that you do that is by actually indicting and prosecuting individuals and attacking the laws that shelter them from the consequences of their actions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
If the majority felt like gay marriage was morally wrong, the law would seem good to them which it obviously did since they voted for it. They clearly didn't think gay marriage was a "natural right." You can think adultery is wrong, but making it illegal would be more wrong. And then the laws would align with your morals that adultery is bad but making it illegal would be more bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
quote:If you think adultery is wrong, but don't think it should be against the law, how can you say that law is meant to codify morality? Because the question of appropriate punishment is a moral question. "It is bad to gently caress people behind your partner's back" is a moral stance, as is "you shouldn't go to jail for adultery".
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Aside from some unfortunate fashion choices in the 70s, it's very rare to see a rifle in a holster. Going by the picture and context, your belief that two open carry dorks represented an imminent threat would not be reasonable. The man on the right can go from the position he is currently in to actively shooting in under a second. Trigger discipline is great, but it doesn't stop intentional trigger pulls, which he is in position to switch to right away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning are you trying to argue that if literally anything is wrong but not illegal, then the law doesn't codify morality? You know that's bonkers, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Why would anyone want to live in a society where a person can just start shooting anyone they see making furtive movements around their waistline? I mean, hey, that random
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
I've seen that position ironically support in real life and throughout these gunthreads. Hell someone just said they don't want to see the Rice's killer charged criminally because they don't want actions like his to be discouraged. It really is kill or be killed in the land of the free 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Mavric posted:I've seen that position ironically support in real life and throughout these gunthreads. Hell someone just said they don't want to see the Rice's killer charged criminally because they don't want actions like his to be discouraged. It really is kill or be killed in the land of the free Yes, that's exactly what I was posting in response to. The only reason I can imagine saying this is how it should work is if the person is actually secretly against people having all these guns, in which case showing them what a terrible society they'd have might be worth sounding like a monster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
We live in a society where children with toys and people moving hands around their waists are more THREATENING than people actively carrying rifles with poor trigger discipline. I mean come on those guy are obviously just gun nerds, not like this child here. He's obviously a cop killer just look at him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I really feel that, for online at least, it's more about spitefulness. People who internally admit that it's a bad idea to have jackasses with hideously poor trigger discipline in fast food, will immediately defend their presence because liberals are attacking it. Similarly, liberals are mad about the Tamir Rice shooting, so there must be something good about it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Mavric posted:I've seen that position ironically support in real life and throughout these gunthreads. Hell someone just said they don't want to see the Rice's killer charged criminally because they don't want actions like his to be discouraged. It really is kill or be killed in the land of the free The real problem in re-writing self-defense laws is that it is really hard to write a law that covers all circumstances effectively. And as a criminal attorney, I canbtell you that basically every law written after some tragedy designed to prevent that from happening again has been a disaster. In California, it got us 3 strikes, just to name one. Lots of drug laws too. Especially as if the arguements about the officer's actions are correct are true. The problem is proving that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and hopefully no one is arguing to do away with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Whether the proper purpose of law is to codify morality or to simply protect people and engineer society is an extremely contentious subject and arguing whether one or the other "is" the case is rather silly seeing as the creation of our laws spans hundreds of years and many many people who didn't all agree with position. Arguing over why one philosophy or the other is the way the law "should" be is very interesting though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Amoral explanations for most of criminal law make absolutely zero sense, though. They end up inevitably falling back on moral principles in order to justify themselves.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
nm posted:The real problem in re-writing self-defense laws is that it is really hard to write a law that covers all circumstances effectively. And as a criminal attorney, I canbtell you that basically every law written after some tragedy designed to prevent that from happening again has been a disaster. In California, it got us 3 strikes, just to name one. Lots of drug laws too. I think a lot of people would have accepted if a jury found him not guilty, rather than the DA doing everything possible to keep a jury away from the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
But if what the policeman did is right and lawful, then again, why can't anyone shoot anyone who does "suspicious, furtive movements" near their guns in an open carry state? Anyone could want you dead at any moment and if they have a gun they're 2 seconds away from shooting you. And if concealed carry is allowed then pretty much anyone could be a threat to your life, even if you don't see a gun on them. Is that really better than finding a way to stop cops from shooting children?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
nm posted:re-writing self-defense laws Yeah I know I agree. Nothing here needs to be re-written though, only a deranged death worshiping american can look at Rice being gunned down like that and claim the officer's fear for his own safety was reasonable. But I guess that's a question for the jury... oh wait it'll never get there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:But if what the policeman did is right and lawful, then again, why can't anyone shoot anyone who does "suspicious, furtive movements" near their guns in an open carry state? I believe the pro-cop response is that if someone else told you they had been waving it around, you then in fact could. But baring the 3rd party, it is magically not ok.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I believe the pro-cop response is that if someone else told you they had been waving it around, you then in fact could. But baring the 3rd party, it is magically not ok. Then what happened to the person who told them he was waving a gun and ultimately got him shot? IIRC the original caller said the gun is probably not real, but then the person who got the call didn't give that information, what happened to that person?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Then what happened to the person who told them he was waving a gun and ultimately got him shot? IIRC the original caller said the gun is probably not real, but then the person who got the call didn't give that information, what happened to that person? What do you think we should do to the dispatcher that failed to communicate that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What do you think we should do to the dispatcher that failed to communicate that? Depends on how well they knew the policemen they called on the kid I guess. I mean if they didn't know the cops were really that dumb then it's hardly their fault. But back to the cops themselves, I think there should be some kind of law against forcing a situation where suddenly you're supposedly in fear for your life and may start shooting. Depending on the case the potential punishment could be light or heavy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
If all it takes for a child to be deemed a "reasonable lethal threat" is that he has a toy gun, then they should be illegal to sell for their own safety. Of course we all know the reality is that the kid was black which is why the officer's fear was "reasonable" but it's impolite to discuss this so we all have to pretend that a child with a toy is scary while openly carrying adults are not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
nm posted:The real problem in re-writing self-defense laws is that it is really hard to write a law that covers all circumstances effectively. And as a criminal attorney, I canbtell you that basically every law written after some tragedy designed to prevent that from happening again has been a disaster. In California, it got us 3 strikes, just to name one. Lots of drug laws too. Self defense laws only need to be re-written if they are honestly allowing people to kill other people who literally pose no actual threat because they "were scared", even though they initiated the confrontation in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Self defense laws only need to be re-written if they are honestly allowing people to kill other people who literally pose no actual threat because they "were scared", even though they initiated the confrontation in the first place. What in your mind counts as initiating a confrontation? The issue here is not that the police initiated the confrontation (which is kind of thier job in many cases), it is that they did it in a profoundly stupid manner. If they had done the same thing, except did not shoot intially, but Rice drew a firearm and they shot him after that, no one would care that they "initiated" the situation. The question is whether they reasonably feared GBI/death. Initiating in this manner doesn't really matter in non-police situations too. If there is a burglar on my property, I confront him to try to scare him off, and he draws a knife, I can defend myself. The deciding factor is whether I reasonably feared for my life. People do stupid poo poo all the time, and thier failure to act exactly as they should have shouldn't prevent them from defending themselves against deadly force.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
nm posted:What in your mind counts as initiating a confrontation? By initiating a confrontation, I don't really mean initiating contact. Obviously police have to actually get into contact with people as part of their job. By confrontation I specifically mean the situation where the cop feels the need to draw their weapon, or any situation where the cop feels they are now in immediate danger. Were they in danger 30 seconds earlier when they were dozens of yards away in their vehicle? What options were available to them besides pulling up within feet of an alleged gunman and rapidly deploying, yelling commands with their weapons drawn? In my opinion, if it can be shown they had any other option for confronting Rice and they chose not to take it, then they should be held criminally accountable for his death, most specifically because he was not actually armed with a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Amoral explanations for most of criminal law make absolutely zero sense, though. They end up inevitably falling back on moral principles in order to justify themselves. No, not at all. Although going half way and basically treating rights as moral principles is a common philosophy, especially among the natural rights crowd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:39
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, not at all. Although going half way and basically treating rights as moral principles is a common philosophy, especially among the natural rights crowd. Okay. Explain why murder is and, more importantly, should be illegal without falling back on moral principles.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. Explain why murder is and, more importantly, should be illegal without falling back on moral principles. Do you want to live in a society where people are free to kill you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:00
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you want to live in a society where people are free to kill you? That's a moral principle. Try again.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's a moral principle. Try again. no its not, not wanting to get stabbed on the way home from the market is not remotely a moral principle. edit: this is also a really stupid argument to try to prove seeing as legal systems as we know them today originated as amoral social engineering, the idea of codifying morality didn't come until later. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
For the chipotle open carry goober analogy to work, I would have to see the goobers, kick open the door while making a loud noise, and if they do so much as twitch, interpret it as a threat and open fire. The fact that people naturally twitch when loud noises are present in their vicinity is beside the point, as is the fact that I burst in on them essentially begging them to jump so I could ventilate them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:02
|
|
