|
Sjs00 posted:Eh I can see the similarities Please elaborate.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Sjs00 posted:Well if the similarities aren't immediately obvious then they must be subjective and coincidental rather than factual and definite. I have no idea. If you are, with a straight face, arguing that these cases are similar because "man kill man", then it's probably your legal understanding that needs some refinement.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
beejay posted:I just tuned in early and before the jury came in this morning they were talking about it. The judge said they have already had several witnesses give their opinion on excessive force and going forward they should not do that. They also cannot discuss any training that Chauvin himself did not receive. I'm sure they will find a creative way to have the police chief say that excessive force was used without it being a solicited opinion. This is pretty okay too, since it's obvious now that "he did it against our policies and his training" is a well established fact, and hammering a point repeatedly might sour jurors against it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:It's America, he might have zero drugs in his system and the cop might still go free. Who do you think you are dunking on? Or who do you think you are appearing so righteous to? This is a silly way to completely not-answer his question. Look where you are and what website. Read the room. Hey guys socialism is so much cooler than what we have right now!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I assume you do not perform pulse oximetry on a dead person. Person can have carbon monoxide poisoning and be alive In addition you can hit up a recently died dude up with some saturation meters because showing up to the scene, you might not know how dead they are. Very recent dead isn’t necessary something you can tell in a blink of an eye.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
SchnorkIes posted:I feel like all these murder 2/3 etc laws in various states exist specifically so that you can feel good about letting basically anyone off the hook. So vague, so hard to pin down if you weren't there. See Rittenhouse also No? The act of killing is perhaps one of the most complicated legal things. A sane country would have an extremely granular and multifacted approach to determing premeditation, culpability, responsibility, and other aspects if it would make any sense. American justice system is pretty bad but this isn’t a place to criticize it at. You killing a person in traffic isn’t the same as your mom killing a person in self defence which is not the same as police officer klling justifiably which is not the same as a contract killer flying to another city to kill someone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
The case being brought up, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia, isn't as slamdunk own as many of you think. The police in most countries have no inherent responsibility to protect anyone, and neither do the fire services or EMS. The point here is that the police can not be liable for crime that is occuring because it creates an unreasonable standard. If they fail to be everywhere at once, they're at fault. The cop not doing his job on this particular court case would be resolved administratively in the department, punishing and firing him. We also can not hold fire departments responsible when they don't make it to the accident scene on time. Lots of european countries have "duty to rescue" or "duty to render aid" somehow codified in their laws, but they all specify "within means that are reasonable at that time", and thus they absolve the police and fire from the DUTY to protect all citizens.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
SchnorkIes posted:SHE WAS A SECOND AWAY FROM STRIKING is something we'll never know bc she was murdered by a racist cop. She was waving a knife in someone's face, an hour into an incident where she was holding off multiple attackers, and that's all we know right now. At this point it would also be reasonable to ask if there is a situation where police can use force according to you?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:In other countries, how are situations like this handled? I genuinely have no frame of reference after years of coproganda, and as a result, the police officer opening fire on an person assaulting someone while holding a knife seems like the only option to me. Shoot reactively in self defence or defence of others? Center mass, multiple times. Shoot proactively in not immediate threat? Leg or lower limb aimed shot in lots of european countries. Knifeman walking towards you and you start running out of room and space? Leg shot. Knifeman charging at someone? Center mass. She’d pretty much get the same treatment in most european countries too except britain where they’d face no firearms. If the firearm equipped cops of britain would be there, she’d probably get shot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:I'm not a lawyer but I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation. Courts have ruled that police don't have a obligation to any specific individual in any circumstance, but instead have an obligation to the public at large. Essentially they can't be sued for failing to prevent every single crime that occurs in their jurisdiction. Instead there needs to be some sort of circumstance to create an obligation between the police and a specific person. Yeah and it keeps trotted out repeatedly. Cops are lovely no doubt, but they have no duty towards an individual, same as fire service doesn’t. It’s a misreading of the court case, and basically every country has the same standard to the police.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
It isn’t about right or wrong. The shooting and deadly force aren’t ”justice”, they’re simply emergency acts to stop another act. Not judgements of guilt. You have a conservative approach here, where the use of force by public servants has some sort of "justice-o-meter". They don't, and they sure as gently caress shouldn't. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Apr 22, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:No? This is how I am? Shooting nazis in war: ok Shooting surrendering nazis in war: not ok Shooting a nazi war criminal who is arrested at his house: not ok Shooting a nazi war criminal who whips out a pistol when the police close in, and aims at the cops: ok It is not ”not some of the time”. It is literally all the time the same thing. Lethal Force by the government should only be used to stop immediate danger to life. Any other time, alternative solutions should be used, unless the situation devolves into life-death, where using lethal force becomes ok for that fraction of a time again. There’s no judgement. A dude steals a candy bar, but then tried to shoot the cop who asks him ”oi wots this then”. You can return fire, that’s fine. A dude who killed fifteen people but isn’t resisting arrest? No, you can’t kill him or shoot him. -new thread ok done-
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Couldn't this be changed with legislation? We should not burden public agencies with duty to individuls by law. We should punish cops who don’t do their jobs, absolutely. But ”police have to help people or city gets sued” either requires a cop in every house or empty coffers. Administratively, the police, like fire, should do their best with whatever resources. And they should be held accountable by the city or public entity if they deliberately do not do a good job. It's not the fault of fire services that the building burns down, even if they don't make it there on time. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Apr 22, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I don't think it's wrong to think there's potentially a point where it crosses over an unfortunate tragedy into negligence. And the cops should be fired and the mayors should do something about it. I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that. Having that legal requirement would not change that, it would just bankrupt the town or be unenforceable in any reasonable manner. Like, if your fire department just doesn't roll out when bells ring because they didn't feel like it, you have issues that need to be fixed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Generally this is the sort of thing government departments have insurance for so, not really. Insurance companies don't generally like to pay out so they have motive to push departments to adopt practices that will make them less likely to do the thing insurance companies would have to pay out for. The ideal result is basically "city governments decide they would rather pay lower premiums rather than higher premiums and adopt whatever policies the insurance companies currently think are least likely to result in a payout." Solving issues by litigation and insurance is a pretty american thing. You can't sue doctors for millions in Europe, yet the health care is better. I don't disagree with you as much as I think that it is a completely wrong avenue to try to fix it. Because I believe it doesn't fix it, but only alleviates.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
The other cops beside chauvin don’t get a lot of visibility for their trials.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 04:28
|
|