|
ActusRhesus posted:You sound angry. Calm down. The fact is, when you rely on things like the lapointe case you undermine your credibility. You clearly aren't looking for true understanding of the actual issues in play. Don't do this. The zeroing in on one portion of an argument in a vain attempt to not have to address the rest is so draining to read.
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
-Troika- posted:"People should ignore the most important part of my argument being wrong and not point it out in any way". Do you realize how retarded that sounds? That would if that was an honest interpretation. However dismissing hundreds of other cases by using one case is a transparent way of weaseling out of an actual debate, let alone one that doesn't make the " most important part" wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/nB1E0oAAc-w?t=1m26s
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
I wonder if he'll mention all that evidence of the mental instability of Loehmann from his fellow officers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
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. I think there is room for debate there too unfortunately. Even in an ideal world it seems like Jarmak thinks Loehmann didn't do something he should potentially face prison time for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
How about a sensor on the waist of a cops underwear and pants and another on their shoes. Whenever their pants and underwear are pulled to within 8 inches of their shoes the camera shuts off. If they want to shoot someone without evidence they are going to have to do it porky pig style. edit: Plus if we get cell phone vids of police misconduct they will look even worse with their pants around their ankles. Spoke Lee fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Well we have footage of an actual indefensible murder by a police officer and we've been talking about everything but that so I guess mission accomplished. Or can we agree that feeling cops being able to not file a report without facing the same repercussions as a non-government employee for not informing your employer about the job activities performed while on the clock when asked is not the same as wanting to strip cops of their 5th amendment rights. If we said cops should automatically be convicted or held in contempt for not filing a report you would have a better argument. But since no one said that it looks like a distraction.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 03:42
|
|