|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yes, because it's the only just way to discuss it. 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. The only relevant question should be whether what the defendant did was reasonable and lawful. You can say that what happened to Rice was wrong, and that the officer and the department bear moral responsibility, but the minute you say individuals should face jail time or other legal consequences, you have to be willing to engage that from a legal perspective. The problem always becomes only focusing on the moment of the killing. And bullshit that's the only way the law sees it, otherwise you'd have a woman who shot her husband who had been abusing her for months or years would just be locked up for because if you only look at the facts surrounding the shooting and nothing else it's murder. Looking back at multiple times the husband being arrested for abuse and constant calls to the police and it becomes self defense. Since it's my favorite go to, headlight kid. Yup, he attacked the cop. Looking only at the seconds before his death it's a justified shooting. But I doubt anyone would think the kid would have swung at the cop had he not been forcefully dragged from the car, wrestled and tazed before hand. Nobody can name something different that should have been done in the seconds before his death because it was the events that lead to those final seconds that resulted in his death. I am fully willing to agree the blame for Tamir Rice does not fall only on cop who cries at the gun range, the entire chain of events from not taking away the badge of someone who had supervisors flat out say he can't handle stressful situations and don't think he can be taught to, sending him and someone with multiple accusations of brutality to investigate a kid, not informing them that some THOUGHT it was a gun all contributed to the final outcome. I do think him falling out of the car guns blazing should be punished but the entire system failed. So when people want things changed they can't name a single law or event because almost every single case is a long chain of events that while each maybe technically legal or following protocols obviously something is wrong because they keep ending with people dying that shouldn't have.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:55 |
|
Jarmak posted:no its not, not wanting to get stabbed on the way home from the market is not remotely a moral principle. Nope. It's a moral position to believe that getting stabbed is wrong. It's pretty close to a universal position, but it still involves matters of right and wrong. Furthermore, suggesting that Hammurabi's code had no moral argumentation behind it is risible, but not so much as suggesting it's necessary to "socially engineer" people to get them not to murder each other, and it's seriously disturbing that you believe that.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:The problem always becomes only focusing on the moment of the killing. And bullshit that's the only way the law sees it, otherwise you'd have a woman who shot her husband who had been abusing her for months or years would just be locked up for because if you only look at the facts surrounding the shooting and nothing else it's murder. Looking back at multiple times the husband being arrested for abuse and constant calls to the police and it becomes self defense. You know that happens, right? The battery syndrome case law isn't accepted everywhere and even where it is, there's a lot of pushback on it. It's taken sustained effort by a lot of people to change the default assumption that you look at the instantaneous circumstances, not the wider circumstances, and it was first brought in by literally arguing that the abuse was so pervasive that it literally robbed the victim of their reason - it was effectively a species of insanity defense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Nope. It's a moral position to believe that getting stabbed is wrong. It's pretty close to a universal position, but it still involves matters of right and wrong. I never said getting stabbed is wrong. I said I don't want to get stabbed, because it loving sucks. That is a position of self interest. The first legal systems were an attempt to end the cycles of violence of the vendetta system by providing a system of dispute resolution. Hammurabi's codes are first written law, not the first legal system, but even they are mostly focused on the very same thing. Before enforcement of things like "don't murder people" was mostly done on the basis of the fact the victim's family would take revenge on you or your's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:07
|
|
Jarmak posted:I never said getting stabbed is wrong. I said I don't want to get stabbed, because it loving sucks. That is a position of self interest. If you want to take the position that Epicurean morals didn't exist at all, you can do it in a classics journal, not here. Because, you see, the implicit arguments you are making were part of Epicureanism's moral system- pain is bad, etc. Furthermore, the very fact that legal systems being invented is something we can trace instead of being 100,000+ years old indicates that they have been nonessential for most of human existence, so saying that they exist to "socially engineer" rather than acting as a system that emerged as a consequence of human societies developing to a greater size than that of one or two extended families is a fairly idiotic statement, because it supposes a prehistoric orgy of death that is invisible in the archaeological and paleontological record. So keep trying.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you want to take the position that Epicurean morals didn't exist at all, you can do it in a classics journal, not here. Because, you see, the implicit arguments you are making were part of Epicureanism's moral system- pain is bad, etc. Yeah, the vendetta system largely kept the prehistoric orgy of death to a minimum, I already addressed that. Also I'm having a hard time believing you can in good faith being having such a hosed up understanding of Epicurean morals but gently caress it, I'll bite. If I make a pizza that tastes delicious and brings me pleasure that is morally good under a Epicurean perspective, it doesn't mean that making the pizza was a moral decision, I was just loving hungry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I never said getting stabbed is wrong. I said I don't want to get stabbed, because it loving sucks. That is a position of self interest. Except your position is not "I don't want to get stabbed." It is "people should not be allowed to stab other people." Unless your actual position is that anti-stabbing law should only apply to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:40
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah, the vendetta system largely kept the prehistoric orgy of death to a minimum, I already addressed that. I don't think there's much to go on here- you believe in an authoritarian state as necessary because we are inherently murderous and bloodthirsty, I consider this nonsense from an empirical perspective, and we won't agree without extensive evidence that doesn't exist. However, the whole point of Epicureanism is that the seeking of pleasure, (in a particular definition of pleasure) and avoidance of pain are moral actions. You appear to have some insane definition of morality that you use to consider yourself amoral, or as most people would put it, monstrous.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Except your position is not "I don't want to get stabbed." It is "people should not be allowed to stab other people." Unless your actual position is that anti-stabbing law should only apply to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Or perhaps I recognize that other people would also prefer not to be stabbed, and we agree to some sort of mutual contract, in which I agree to not stab them and they agree not to stab me. There ought to be a word for this. a moral system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't think there's much to go on here- you believe in an authoritarian state as necessary because we are inherently murderous and bloodthirsty, I consider this nonsense from an empirical perspective, and we won't agree without extensive evidence that doesn't exist. Most of history and all of the stuff that happened before history but wasn't recorded? E: People like Mahatma Gandhi are revered because they are outliers, not because they are an average human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You know that happens, right? The battery syndrome case law isn't accepted everywhere and even where it is, there's a lot of pushback on it. It's taken sustained effort by a lot of people to change the default assumption that you look at the instantaneous circumstances, not the wider circumstances, and it was first brought in by literally arguing that the abuse was so pervasive that it literally robbed the victim of their reason - it was effectively a species of insanity defense. This is exactly my point. When people talk about something needing to change they aren't or can't just point to a single law as if that's what would fix it. And it's frustrating to have the debate intentially shifted to arguing the legal aspects of only the event itself and trying to not look at the entire from start to finish, much less things that happened before it like how the gently caress did the cop who shot Rice still have a badge when most if not all previous supervisors flat out said he couldn't do the job. I would even agree that sometimes trying to drop all the blame on the cop isn't completely fair. Guy who planted the tazer yes, but some are a cumulative problem of multiple systemic problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:a moral system? That would imply that I gave a poo poo about their desire to remain unstabbed, or thought they deserved to remain unstabbed, rather than seeing greater utility in not having to be constantly be on guard against people trying to shank me than in being able to shank people when I want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Yes, the laws making sodomy illegal were just about the utility to society that stems from nobody doing it in the butt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Or perhaps I recognize that other people would also prefer not to be stabbed, and we agree to some sort of mutual contract, in which I agree to not stab them and they agree not to stab me. There ought to be a word for this. So you have decided that stabbing is wrong and created a system that would help enforce proper behavior?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:So you have decided that stabbing is wrong and created a system that would help enforce proper behavior? No, he didn't say anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, he didn't say anything like that. Yeah its not wrong, its called non-good! And instead of proper we call it not-stabby!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, he didn't say anything like that. So if someone were to stab you, that would be correct and/or proper?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:So you have decided that stabbing is wrong and created a system that would help enforce proper behavior? That would imply that I gave a poo poo about their desire to remain unstabbed, or thought they deserved to remain unstabbed, rather than seeing greater utility in not having to be constantly be on guard against people trying to shank me than in being able to stab people when I want. Lemming posted:Yes, the laws making sodomy illegal were just about the utility to society that stems from nobody doing it in the butt. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That would imply that I gave a poo poo about their desire to remain unstabbed, or thought they deserved to remain unstabbed, rather than seeing greater utility in not having to be constantly be on guard against people trying to shank me than in being able to stab people when I want. No it doesn't. Stabbing is either right or wrong, and stabby behavior is either proper or improper. Neither of these positions require you to give a poo poo outside of proscribing or encouraging behavior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:No it doesn't. Stabbing is either right or wrong, and stabby behavior is either proper or improper. Neither of these positions require you to give a poo poo outside of proscribing or encouraging behavior. No see, only stabbing me is bad. Stabbing anyone else? who care! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No see, only stabbing me is bad. Stabbing anyone else? who care! Then I applied a "utility judgement" which is totally different than "moral calculus" because I do not know words.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:No it doesn't. Stabbing is either right or wrong, and stabby behavior is either proper or improper. Neither of these positions require you to give a poo poo outside of proscribing or encouraging behavior. Triticum Guzzler posted:a man falls through the earth and into parisian catacombs. taking a torch from the wall he spies row upon row of skeletons. grasping the nearest by the shoulders, he shakes it madly, yelling "my nigga have u heard of the social contract"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That would imply that I gave a poo poo about their desire to remain unstabbed, or thought they deserved to remain unstabbed, rather than seeing greater utility in not having to be constantly be on guard against people trying to shank me than in being able to stab people when I want. This is a completely different argument than you've been making, which is 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. Because laws certainly do codify morality. Saying that you don't want them to is reasonable, though. But that's not what you've been arguing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Where in this social contract does it state that mentally unstable cops can murder black children for playing cowboys and indians?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Well, in more topical news. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/nyregion/new-york-police-officer-is-convicted-of-lying-about-photographers-arrest.html quote:A New York police officer who arrested a photographer on assignment for The New York Times on a Bronx street in 2012 was convicted on Thursday of falsifying a record to justify the arrest. Lol that the cop seriously tried to claim with a straight face that he just "mistook" ambient light for "repeatedly discharging his camera’s flash in his face", but at least this one DA and a judge didn't buy the BS. Of course, he was indicted in 2013 and still getting paid until just now...pretty nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Lemming posted:This is a completely different argument than you've been making, which is
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This entire discussion has been about the proper purpose of laws and what the law ought to be. Everyone but you understands this. What the hell is wrong with you? Is this some Borat-level troll? The discussion started because you accused someone of being a barbarian because he felt that the cop getting off scott free after killing an unarmed child was wrong. Unfortunately for you, his sentiment of feeling like someone did something wrong and the law should have lined up in such a way that the guy who did something wrong broke a law, is how laws are created or changed in America; we feel a certain way about something, based largely on our morals, then vote for the people who promise to make the rules line up with how we feel. I'm not surprised that you don't really understand what's going on, because we've somehow gotten to the point where your buddy Jarmak had to clarify that you never actually said "stabbing is wrong" so how can laws and morals have anything to do with each other 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Of course, he was indicted in 2013 and still getting paid until just now...pretty nice. I don't think I disagree with paying him until the verdict is delivered. Remove him from the streets, place on paid leave, sure; but I don't like the precedent that you get fired for being accused of wrongdoing. There's possibly a complaint to be leveled that the wheels of justice took too long reaching their conclusion, but that's a separate issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:I don't think I disagree with paying him until the verdict is delivered. Remove him from the streets, place on paid leave, sure; but I don't like the precedent that you get fired for being accused of wrongdoing. There's possibly a complaint to be leveled that the wheels of justice took too long reaching their conclusion, but that's a separate issue. Precedent??? People in this country are fired every single day for even the faintest hint of wrongdoing. I don't agree with it; but let's not act like it's not something that already occurs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah, but it's bad when they're fired when they might not have actually done anything wrong. Crab bucket and all that, just because cops have a good thing and other people don't doesn't mean you should take it away from them, it means everyone should have it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yeah, but it's bad when they're fired when they might not have actually done anything wrong. Crab bucket and all that, just because cops have a good thing and other people don't doesn't mean you should take it away from them, it means everyone should have it. A NYPD investigation found he lied on a report. Regardless of it is a crime or not, shouldn't that be a fireable offense? I think employers should be able to fire employees who lie even if it isn't a criminal lie. Especially when those employees are in positions of public trust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yeah, but it's bad when they're fired when they might not have actually done anything wrong. Crab bucket and all that, just because cops have a good thing and other people don't doesn't mean you should take it away from them, it means everyone should have it. As I said: I don't agree with it. But the concept isn't new or precedent-setting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:As I said: I don't agree with it. But the concept isn't new or precedent-setting. I still think lying to your employer is a classic case for firing an employee. Doubly so when that employee is in a position of trust or authority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Going by the picture and context, your belief that two open carry dorks represented an imminent threat would not be reasonable. Why not? He's walking around a chipotle, holding a rifle, ready to shoot people. What if he flinches or makes an angry face at me or moves the gun slightly? Should I have to wait until he's already attacked in order to defend myself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
They probably could have fired him, but just didn't. I agree that they should have, though. I'd be worried about giving them too much authority in internal investigations to be able to fire people, though, because then they could just railroad someone if they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The discussion started because you accused someone of being a barbarian because he felt that the cop getting off scott free after killing an unarmed child was wrong. Unfortunately for you, his sentiment of feeling like someone did something wrong and the law should have lined up in such a way that the guy who did something wrong broke a law, is how laws are created or changed in America; we feel a certain way about something, based largely on our morals, then vote for the people who promise to make the rules line up with how we feel. I'm not surprised that you don't really understand what's going on, because we've somehow gotten to the point where your buddy Jarmak had to clarify that you never actually said "stabbing is wrong" so how can laws and morals have anything to do with each other Holy poo poo you're loving stupid, the conversation moved past that like a page ago. Laws certainly can codify morality, we're on to you idiots now trying to argue there can be no possible way to justify criminal law besides the codification of morality. It's like understanding that two different frameworks can reach the same conclusion is too much to handle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It's like understanding that two different frameworks can reach the same conclusion is too much to handle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They probably could have fired him, but just didn't. I agree that they should have, though. I'd be worried about giving them too much authority in internal investigations to be able to fire people, though, because then they could just railroad someone if they wanted. Derail, but everyone should look at the protections the police unions offer and want that for themselves. It never bothers me when the police union guys go to the media and poo poo talk the brass or prosecutors who go after cops because that's their duty to their union members. It's hilarious when they go too far off the deep end, but it's like having a defense attorney, they'll say whatever they need to to defend their client.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Precedent??? People in this country are fired every single day for even the faintest hint of wrongdoing. I don't agree with it; but let's not act like it's not something that already occurs. Fair enough. I worded it poorly. Lemming and PostNouveau both restated what I wanted to say, and I think they did a better job of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 03:53
|
|