|
Radish posted: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. And this is precisely why my mother wouldn't let me entertain the thought of playing with cap guns, let alone be outside with one, because some idiot with more bullets than brains could have lit my then-8-year-old rear end up because "dark skin + gun = THREAT I MUST TERMINATE WITH EXTREAM BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM *reload* BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM *click* *click*"
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Jarmak posted: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. That is because you seem to be conflating the concept of morals and morality with ethos or religion, whereas moral just means "determination of right or wrong" and morality is simply a collection of morals. Motivation or rational basis is not required in the definition. In fact, he even states his idea was rooted in utility, which is a very, very concrete moral basis anyway. So the creation of law is automatically the imposition of morality because it is the imposition of a social right or wrong. And Dead Reckonings presentation of minimal government a la Libertarianism is most definitely an ethos. So the discussion over morals and morality is irrelevant as the claim is already a stronger one than simple moral determination anyway. It is like watching centrists argue that they are free from "ideology."
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted: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. Indeed. And many of the "special rights" people attack were common for all unionized employees. I get really defensive when people go after union rights, regardless of who they defend, because it is a constant battle being waged by the right against labor. For a while cops were aeen as untouchable, but I think the right is seeing a path. 20 years ago schoolteachers were untouchable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
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. There are jurisdictions where the elements of self-defense require you to (1) not be the instigator of the dangerous situation, or (2) if you are to have made a reasonable effort to deescalate it. I prefer this style of self-defense law personally because I think it is a depraved disregard for human life when someone careens up to someone in a car, or busts into abandoned property where people or sleeping, or jumps out at someone in an alley way, gets scared and then shoots his way out of the scary situation his own recklessness created, and jailtime should be the consequence. It is absolutely possible to put Loehmann in jail for what he did without criminalizing all self-defense ever, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. And despite all Jarmak's pearl-clutching about mean ol liberals who want a pound of flesh, this has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with wanting laws that demand people who use deadly force act with prudence and regard for human life and take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary deaths. Police should be trained in this manner and the law should be enforced against those who disregard their training and kill someone, because we should deter that behavior. E: Oh and by the by, your schtick of pretending sending Loehmann to jail requires dismantling all self-defense is doubly disingenuous because the reasonableness of a self-defense claim is a question of fact for a jury to decide, and the court system is perfectly capable of functioning when one jury accepts one self-defense claim finds not guilty while another jury rejects a different one and finds guilty. I don't think what he did was reasonable even under Ohio's laws because I don't think a gun in someone's waistband in an open carry state is an imminent enough threat to require blowing a child away without even trying to order him to surrender, you've already got your gun pointed at the kid: a loving child is not going to outdraw you and riddle you with bullets before you squeeze the trigger. If police can manage to point weapons at people who are holding weapons and yell at them to drop it, this cop could certainly have managed that for a little boy who didn't even have the weapon in hand. But that's a question for the jury and just because I think what he did was unreasonable doesn't mean I'm your favorite strawman wanting to get rid of self-defense as a concept. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
If anyone's followed the case from the super-inconclusive "Serial" podcast, the producer posted an interesting update today. A cell phone technician testified that AT&T records placed the suspect at the park where the main prosecution witness said he helped the suspect bury the body, and his testimony seemed to be pretty important to the conviction. That technician says he can no longer stand by his testimony, because the phone records he was given to analyze did not include the cover sheet (which Baltimore homicide had, but apparently didn't give to him) that has a disclaimer said that cell towers are good for locating people on outgoing calls, but not incoming (the calls in question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted: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? I still want an answer to this, considering the adultery argument you tried to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Jesus, I want to just c/p the whole of Leviathan into this thread like it was John Galt's speech.archangelwar posted:That is because you seem to be conflating the concept of morals and morality with ethos or religion, whereas moral just means "determination of right or wrong" and morality is simply a collection of morals. Motivation or rational basis is not required in the definition. In fact, he even states his idea was rooted in utility, which is a very, very concrete moral basis anyway. So the creation of law is automatically the imposition of morality because it is the imposition of a social right or wrong. And Dead Reckonings presentation of minimal government a la Libertarianism is most definitely an ethos. A Fancy Bloke posted:I still want an answer to this, considering the adultery argument you tried to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is how the word morality is used in common conversation. Trying to push up your glasses and say, "well technically any determination of a course of action requires preferring one course over others and therefore is a construction of 'good' and 'bad'" is completely at odds with both the way people use the word "morals" in conversation and the way people were using it in this thread. Please, tell me more about how people in this thread are taking a sentence out of its context to flog a petty point home that completely contradicts how it's being used in the context of said sentence. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Jesus, I want to just c/p the whole of Leviathan into this thread like it was John Galt's speech. Its pretty telling you'd pick Leviathan rather than a work of Locke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Has the Devin Guilford incident (headlight arrest turns into fatal shooting) already been discussed to death in here? I wanted to read up on people's discussions over it someplace other than lovely news website comment sections. Just wasn't sure how far back in this thread to look.
khy fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
khy posted:Has the Devin Guilford incident (headlight arrest turns into fatal shooting) already been discussed to death in here? I wanted to read up on people's discussions over it someplace other than lovely news website comment sections. Just wasn't sure how far back in this thread to look. it was a while ago, it got derailed after whether or not it's legal to flash your headlights and how there's no evidence Guilford charged the officer. It's really not worth the read or effort to find.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There are jurisdictions where the elements of self-defense require you to (1) not be the instigator of the dangerous situation, or (2) if you are to have made a reasonable effort to deescalate it. khy posted:Has the Devin Guilford incident (headlight arrest turns into fatal shooting) already been discussed to death in here? I wanted to read up on people's discussions over it someplace other than lovely news website comment sections. Just wasn't sure how far back in this thread to look. "He beat up a cop on the side of the road and was killed when the cop was afraid he was going to be knocked out." "But a child is dead! Nothing can excuse that!"/"The video doesn't show anything, the cop is making it up, LALALALA"/"The police have an obligation to not get into situations where someone might assault them and leave them no choice but to use deadly force to defend themselves." (Surprisingly topical, that last one.) Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
I keep checking this thread regularly just to remind myself that there are actual people on this planet devoting their free time to defend child murderers. Did you guys discuss the case where a mom shouted at a patrol cop for help because her daughter cut her leg? The cop got close, decided to shoot the family dog before approaching, missed, hit the kid in the leg and then escaped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
He was in fear for his life, all actions are permitted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
I know I've mentioned this before, but about 15 years ago a friend of mine was sitting on her couch in the living room with her Great Dane when a sheriff's deputy walked in unannounced and shot at the dog 3 times, striking it twice. It died about 3 hours later. This was because the house had a silent alarm and the code had been changed by her parents without her knowledge, so she entered the old code, which triggered the alarm. The deputy walked in, did not announce himself, saw the dog (which was a big stupid Great Dane that wouldn't hurt a fly) and immediately unholstered and blasted it (she was trying to restrain it on the couch, and probably could have). It was very traumatic. He never apologized and told her she was lucky that she didn't get hit. People who look for excuses to instantly shoot dogs are not good people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
The ACLU is suing a Circuit Court judge in Missouri, saying he removed a grand jury foreman at the behest of Prosecutor Bob McColloch because the foreman was an ACLU attorney. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-of-state-law/
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The police have an obligation to not get into situations where someone might assault them and leave them no choice but to use deadly force to defend themselves." (Surprisingly topical, that last one.) Just so I don't get accused of misinterpreting you, did you just dismiss the idea that cops should make the effort to not escalate a situation to the point where it becomes 'him or me'? Of course there are numerous situations where it happens no matter what they do or could have done, but specifically the concept that trying first to de-escalate a situation should be SOP? PostNouveau posted:The ACLU is suing a Circuit Court judge in Missouri, saying he removed a grand jury foreman at the behest of Prosecutor Bob McColloch because the foreman was an ACLU attorney. The entire concept of grand juries needs to be thrown out or seriously overhauled. If, as has been stated before, a juries job is only to decide on the facts and law then any killing should go to trial by default. If the basic facts are "This person was killed by this other person and the evidence shows within reason that it was most likely him" then it should go to a jury to decide if it was homicide/murde or accidental/self defense automatically. Maybe if there's no clear evidence, just a "we THINK it was him" ok but if it's clear person A killed person B a jury should be the ones deciding if it was homicide to murder or not, not a DA and his secret group of buddies especially since it's fairly clear certain groups do not get indicted by orders of magnitude less than others. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I know I've mentioned this before, but about 15 years ago a friend of mine was sitting on her couch in the living room with her Great Dane when a sheriff's deputy walked in unannounced and shot at the dog 3 times, striking it twice. It died about 3 hours later. If he never got convicted of a crime for doing that, then he did nothing wrong! And if he did nothing wrong then there is no point complaining or trying to change anything. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Just so I don't get accused of misinterpreting you, did you just dismiss the idea that cops should make the effort to not escalate a situation to the point where it becomes 'him or me'? Toasticle posted:The entire concept of grand juries needs to be thrown out or seriously overhauled. If, as has been stated before, a juries job is only to decide on the facts and law then any killing should go to trial by default. If the basic facts are "This person was killed by this other person and the evidence shows within reason that it was most likely him" then it should go to a jury to decide if it was homicide/murde or accidental/self defense automatically. Maybe if there's no clear evidence, just a "we THINK it was him" ok but if it's clear person A killed person B a jury should be the ones deciding if it was homicide to murder or not, not a DA and his secret group of buddies especially since it's fairly clear certain groups do not get indicted by orders of magnitude less than others.  no. Juries decide matters of fact, not matters of law. Not all killing is unlawful. People shouldn't have to defend themselves in court if there is insufficient evidence to support a charge or no reason to believe their conduct was unlawful. Also, unless I'm mistaken, a jury that determines whether or not it appears a crime has been committed is a grand jury, no?
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:The ACLU is suing a Circuit Court judge in Missouri, saying he removed a grand jury foreman at the behest of Prosecutor Bob McColloch because the foreman was an ACLU attorney. Attorney's of any stripe are very frequently removed because both sides are wary of the amount of influence they could wield over the other jurors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Attorney's of any stripe are very frequently removed because both sides are wary of the amount of influence they could wield over the other jurors. I have no doubt that's why he was actually removed, but the article is pretty clear that the Missouri law provides for a much more limited set of circumstances to remove a Grand Juror, that were apparently not met in this case. Edit: The concern that he would wield anti-prosecutor influence, which is the check and balance reason for the Grand Jury to exist. The system is even more laughable if the prosecutor can dismiss people who would actually perform the function of being a reasonableness check on the prosecutor. Devor fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Ah, so that is a "no" then? You know people can scroll up and read your posts, right? I was just hoping you'd be intellectually honest enough to confirm but LOL at that idea Dead Reckoning posted:
Well unless they are a cop, then it becomes a matter of hiring "expert witnesses" who coincidentally all side with the cop's version of events.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm saying that the police have no legal obligation to deescalate a situation at any point as long as they're engaged in the lawful performance of their duties. I think I found the problem with american policing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If a prisoner refuses to get on the ground, or allow themselves to be handcuffed, or return to their cell after being told, sheriffs are going to have to use force to make them comply. This is inherently an escalation, but it is necessary for their duties, because we don't live in a world where everyone can be reasoned into following lawful instructions, nor is it the job of the police to allow people to follow the law when they're good and ready. It would have been awesome if Tamir Rice had had any of these opportunities, unfortunately he was shot before he had the opportunity to comply with any lawful instructions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Ah, so that is a "no" then? You know people can scroll up and read your posts, right? I was just hoping you'd be intellectually honest enough to confirm but LOL at that idea Jarmak posted: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. Sharkie posted:It would have been awesome if Tamir Rice had had any of these opportunities, unfortunately he was shot before he had the opportunity to comply with any lawful instructions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He wasn't killed for failing to follow instructions, he was killed because the cop thought he was pulling a gun on him (so he says.) There is a video of it. Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhVewrqGFRw Feel free to explain it to everyone's satisfaction. e: I'll help, skip to the end for what you're referring to. Tamir Rice is the short, child-sized individual that walks into frame from the left in the beginning. hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I think his "point" is that while the officer manufactured the entire situation, he still felt there was a gun being pulled in the 2 second span between rolling up and unloading his weapon so it's okay. The cop has no responsibility at all to not create such a situation. Also note the same posted said that the white boys with rifles and one with his finger on the actual trigger posed no threat and that really should tell you all you need to know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:There is a video of it. If you forget the fact that the people in the video are real it looks like something out of a comedy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Like I don't know what possible situation couldn't be excused with "I felt threatened" if this one allows the officer to not even be indicted. Jumping out of a car and killing a child with a toy in a open carry state before he has a chance to even react is so beyond the pale you'd think it was a thought experiment to ask someone just how much of a ridiculous scenario he would defend but it's reality. I didn't think we'd top the absurdity of John Crawford's killer being let off (training was to blame/well they believed he was pointing his toy at other customers based on one 911 call but of course we aren't going to change the training or think about people making fake emergency calls...) but here we are.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:If you forget the fact that the people in the video are real it looks like something out of a comedy. Yeah, it should really include his 14 year old sister who was aggressively detained while rushing to her dying younger brother to dispel that notion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Yeah, it should really include his 14 year old sister who was aggressively detained while rushing to her dying younger brother to dispel that notion. Well after seeing that the boy was unarmed we don't know if his sister was the one with the real dangerous object.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Radish posted:Well after seeing that the boy was unarmed we don't know if his sister was the one with the real dangerous object. Gosh, you know, you're right. Let's instead discuss whether law has anything to do with morality, or hell, literature, than whether a 12 year-old was gunned down with a toy within seconds, and then his slightly older sister was arrested and forced to watch her younger brother die while restrained in a cop car. It's not like some painfully deciphered existing statutes and a woefully imbalanced justice system have anything to do with it. Them gunslinging, V8 riding cowboys did the best they could with the limitations they have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Gosh, you know, you're right. Let's instead discuss whether law has anything to do with morality, or hell, literature, than whether a 12 year-old was gunned down with a toy within seconds, and then his slightly older sister was arrested and forced to watch her younger brother die while restrained in a cop car. I really think when we are at the point where dead unarmed children doing nothing illegal or threatening (and then manhandling the sister that watched it happen and is trying to help him) is just what we have to accept in order to keep our system of justice moving along, polite discussions about how technically legal the action was or not are pretty grotesque. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
I've read dystopian fiction that was less hosed up than the current reality in the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm saying that the police have no legal obligation to deescalate a situation at any point as long as they're engaged in the lawful performance of their duties. I'm going to isolate this part also. What a lot of people are arguing in this thread is precisely that if there is currently no legal obligation not to escalate, then there should be, that the status quo that yields these frequent seemingly needless killings by police is unsatisfactory and if the legal burden on the police to not create such situations if not absolutely necessary should be increased. Looking at the big picture, do you feel that incidents like the Tamir Rice killing, the Eric Garner killing, Sandra Bland's jailing and death, the white teenage kid in Michigan who died after flashing his high beams, that the overall big picture of this kind of event is fine and nothing really needs changing except these poor people who got shot need to act less stupidly or whatever? Do you seriously feel nothing needs to change in terms of police behavior and the legal burden on police in such cases? And if you do think something needs to change, what are your ideas if any? A number of ideas have been stated in this thread and other places. Some or many might not be feasible but I think there is a problem and it needs tackling, from multiple approaches if need be. -mandatory bodycam video of encounters with civilians, without the ability of the police department to alter or destroy the video and strict penalties for tampering with the cameras or video and strict policy on how the video is to be handled and used -Remove the process of investigating and indicting police killings or brutality incidents to someone independent of the police being investigated, i.e. not a DA who is affiliated and works closely with those police (such as the S.C. investigative body). The extremely low probability of being prosecuted even in the event of a "bad shoot" in my opinion must contribute heavily to the cavalier attitude by many police towards the lives of the people they interact with. -Change the doctrine in police training away from the top or only priority being the officer returning home safely, much more prioritty should be given towards protecting civilians from needless violence at the hands of police. -Change training doctrine and policy to put a high priority on avoiding escalation to situations where physical vioence is likely unless absolutely necessary. The simple question for Jarmak, Dead Reckoning and company is "do you find the status quo with respect to police killings and violence against civilians to be satisfactory or do you feel strongly that there must be change?" And if so, what changes? I'm personally in favor of all of the changes I listed above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Attorney's of any stripe are very frequently removed because both sides are wary of the amount of influence they could wield over the other jurors. Not after they are empaneled and grand juries are different than regular juries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Radish posted:I really think when we are at the point where dead unarmed children doing nothing illegal or threatening (and then manhandling the sister that watched it happen and is trying to help him) is just what we have to accept in order to keep our system of justice moving along, polite discussions about how technically legal the action was or not are pretty grotesque. See, everyone? This is how civil discourse reaches it's inevitable conclusion and resolves all those issues in such a way that we discover all is working as it should. Also given my non-violent and extremely low-level of miscreant behavior to the point of no one dreaming to prosecute me, I should be dead right now. I was after all, once accosted in a park by an arson investigator as a not-quite-teen once. Lucky for me he took at least a minute to determine I wasn't dangerous before opening fire. "No, sir, those are socks in my pocket and I did not have any involvement in the intentional explosion of the port-a-potty down the street, I was merely curious and did not want to ruin my socks chasing a fire-truck". That is..strangely..a true story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:it was a while ago, it got derailed after whether or not it's legal to flash your headlights and how there's no evidence Guilford charged the officer. It's really not worth the read or effort to find. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
nm posted:Not after they are empaneled and grand juries are different than regular juries. In Missouri grand jury disqualifications are explicitly the same as petit jury. Given that the guy was involved in suits directly against the prosecuting attorney, a strike for cause would be totally normal. After they're empaneled is weird, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:See, everyone? This is how civil discourse reaches it's inevitable conclusion and resolves all those issues in such a way that we discover all is working as it should. I hosed up my sentence and meant the fact we are in this situation where that happens at all is grotesque as well. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 01:36
|
|