I'm still waiting for what you think should be done about it. You seem eager to unleash big brother and just jail people without jury trials.Originally Posted by Loki
Also the "people killed by cops" number is completely meaningless. I want violent criminals to be killed by cops. Like the Bernie bro that tried to assassinate our elected officials, I'm pretty glad he died.
The solution is for you and all those like you to stop treating a badge like it's supposed to provide immunity to prosecution. When it's in the abstract you talk a semi-decent game but when it comes to practice, to actual events, that disappears and you demonstrate that in the real world you don't think it's possible for anything police (or prison guards, etc) have done to constitute a crime. Even when they literally boil people alive.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Same thing that was done in the South. Wait for societal change or a revolution. Too much resistance for any alternative (from people like you).
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, not anyone. Mostly brown people. And Rand isn't one.
Hope is the denial of reality
Please demonstrate how we know for certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer did not think his life was in danger because the jury apparently disagreed, as did the video.
You're moving the goal post. "Thinking you're in danger" is a very different beast from "actually being in danger".
And again, this allows cops to shoot anyone without consequence because they can just state: "Oh, I thought I was in danger!"
Oh, and the video showed the complete opposite of what you're claiming.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No they're the exact same thing. Is a Police Officer allowed to shoot if he's in danger? Yes. How does a Police Officer know if he's in danger? It can only be because he thinks that he is. How do you square being allowed to shoot if you're in danger with not being allowed to shoot if you think you're in danger? Do you expect the Officer in that split second life or death situation to file a 15 page risk assessment report before pulling the trigger?
Which is the law today and why it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction. The way to deal with this is to find a way to prove that the officer beyond a reasonable doubt did not think they were in imminent danger.And again, this allows cops to shoot anyone without consequence because they can just state: "Oh, I thought I was in danger!"
The link says the officer is shown in the video saying he thought he was going for his gun.Oh, and the video showed the complete opposite of what you're claiming.
So this was all done in seven seconds. Seven seconds elapsed between Castile saying he has a gun, the officer putting his hands on his own holster after being told that, then the suspect reaching for something while the officer repeatedly shouts "don't reach for it" "don't pull it out" "don't pull it out!" and fires all of the fatal bullets. The final bullet being fired during that seven second window. Not minutes of deliberation but a snap action within seven seconds.9:05:52-9:05:55 — Castile tells Yanez: "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Castile interrupts to say "OK" and places right hand on holstered gun.
9:05:55-9:06:02 — Yanez says, "OK, don't reach for it, then." Castile says, "I'm ... I'm ... (inaudible) reaching ... Yanez interrupts to say, "Don't pull it out." Castile says: "I'm not pulling it out." His girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, says, "He's not pulling it out." Yanez shouts: "Don't pull it out!" Yanez draws his gun with right hand while reaching inside driver's window with left. Yanez removes left arm from car, fires seven shots, the last at 9:06:02.
I'm not sure what I'd do in that situation but I'd think if I was in the suspects position and I'd been pulled over and said that I had a gun and was told not to reach for it that I would keep my hands damn still and make no sudden movements until told to do so. Not sure why he chose to say that then start reaching for his pocket.
The jury are disagreeing in virtually every single case because the cops aren't beyond a reasonable doubt making lots of bad shoots where they didn't think they were acting in self defence. You're the one being dense because you're starting with a guilty until proven innocent mentality despite our rule of law being the exact opposite.
They really aren't and you promptly demonstrate that. One thing leading to another is, by definition, two different things, not the same thing.
There is not now nor will there ever be a way to prove a negative regarding a person's thoughts in a single moment in time. The way to deal with this is for cops to stop thinking they're in imminent danger when they're not in any danger whatsoever, particularly not every damned time they encounter someone black.Which is the law today and why it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction. The way to deal with this is to find a way to prove that the officer beyond a reasonable doubt did not think they were in imminent danger.
And it shows another officer telling him that the victim WASN'T going for his gun, even before the attacking officer pulled out his own pistol, much less fired seven shots.The link says the officer is shown in the video saying he thought he was going for his gun.
Like the jury for the Rodney King beating? Or any of the dozens of examples when it was certainly clear there was no kind of self defense involved? The juries are disagreeing with the idea that cops can ever be convicted for attacking African Americans.The jury are disagreeing in virtually every single case because the cops aren't making beyond a reasonable doubt lots of bad shoots where they didn't think they were acting in self defence.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Sorry but I fail to see a differential. How is an officer allowed to shoot if he is in danger but not allowed to shoot if he thinks he is in danger? How do you draw a legal distinction that works in a court of law?
People's actions are determined by the information they have at the time, not perfect information. If someone honestly and in good faith thinks they're in danger then if they're allowed to shoot if they are in danger then how can their taking what they think is a legitimate shot possibly murder? Murder requires intent and there is no intent if they thought they were in danger. How can the mens rea test of murder be passed if the officer thought he was in danger and thus allowed to shoot?
Agreed. Which is why it's quite difficult to get a conviction.There is not now nor will there ever be a way to prove a negative regarding a person's thoughts in a single moment in time.
Entirely agreed, but not seen any of the people engaging in hysteria providing ways to reduce the imminent danger the Police regularly face so that they don't mistakenly think that they are in danger when they're not. People are naturally risk averse and perceive threats worse than they are, it is self-defence and evolutionarily makes sense. If the Police weren't so regularly in grave danger they wouldn't be so worried that they were. How many officers have been injured or killed by suspects? How many friends and colleagues do officers know who were killed or injured by suspects?The way to deal with this is for cops to stop thinking they're in imminent danger when they're not in any danger whatsoever, particularly not every damned time they encounter someone black.
Yes within a split seven seconds while the officer was concentrating on a suspect who was reaching into his pockets after declaring he has a gun. While the officer was himself repeatedly shouting to stop before he pulled the trigger in that seven seconds. Don't even know if the officer who fired heard and comprehended him in that time.And it shows another officer telling him that the victim WASN'T going for his gun, even before the attacking officer pulled out his own pistol, much less fired seven shots.
There's a reason people instinctively reach for a 25 year old case, because such clear abuses are rare that they become memorably when they happen.Like the jury for the Rodney King beating? Or any of the dozens of examples when it was certainly clear there was no kind of self defense involved? The juries are disagreeing with the idea that cops can ever be convicted for attacking African Americans.
The jury disagrees in virtually every single freaking case. You can't be that dense.
Hope is the denial of reality
Here's a transcript of what happened in that video:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...stile-shooting
Also, there's also the other police officer at the scene who was standing at the opposite side of the car, stating: "He's not pulling it out."9:05 p.m. — Castile's vehicle comes to a stop.
9:05:15-9:05:22 — Yanez approaches vehicle on driver's side.
9:05:22-9:05:38: — Yanez leans at driver's side window, greets Castile, tells him of brake light problem.
9:05:33 — Officer Joseph Kauser approaches vehicle on passenger side, stands near rear door.
9:05:38 — Yanez asks for driver's license and proof of insurance.
9:05:48 — Castile provides proof of insurance.
9:05:49-9:05:52 — Yanez glances at card, tucks it into outer pocket.
9:05:52-9:05:55 — Castile tells Yanez: "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Castile interrupts to say "OK" and places right hand on holstered gun.
9:05:55-9:06:02 — Yanez says, "OK, don't reach for it, then." Castile says, "I'm ... I'm ... (inaudible) reaching ... Yanez interrupts to say, "Don't pull it out." Castile says: "I'm not pulling it out." His girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, says, "He's not pulling it out." Yanez shouts: "Don't pull it out!" Yanez draws his gun with right hand while reaching inside driver's window with left. Yanez removes left arm from car, fires seven shots, the last at 9:06:02.
9:06:03 — Reynolds yells: "You just killed my boyfriend!"
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Fuzzy an officer doesn't know for sure if he is in imminent danger. He could be or he could not be. The sad fact is that police officers die in the line of duty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrMWoikwMgU
If criminals would cooperate things would go easier. The fact that pieces of shit are allowed to run and then don't get an automatic 10 year mandatory sentencing for doing so is what causes a lot of these issues. There should be ZERO tolerance for high speed chases. There should be ZERO tolerance for resisting arrest. We start making it difficult for criminals to get away with this you'll see far fewer people try to pull things which means far fewer times cops make a bad call. Its a matter of numbers and %s.
Yes, as do others. And more people are gunned down just trying to go about their lives. Too many of them at the hands of trigger-happy police officers. We're more at threat from them than they are from us these days (at least if "we" are black). And that's not acceptable. Someone who actually gave a damn about either security OR freedom would think that tragic as it is, it is better for a cop to die in the line of duty than for an innocent to be gunned down by the coercive power of their own government.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The equation is murkier than that and you know it.
In many, many cases we are dealing with a *criminal* who gets shot while doing something they shouldn't have been doing. Obviously you can point to examples of bad shoots but by far the majority of the cases a police officer uses a gun it was justified. This is why anti-police liberals throw out the number of people shot by police... hello???? This is meaningless. The only number that should matter are the ones that are 'bad shoots.' IE that in hindsight the officer should not have fired. I couldn't give a shit if it the number of people killed by cop went up 100x as long as it was actually justified.
Do I have sympathy for the person resisting arrest getting shot? No. Do I have sympathy for the person fleeing the police getting shot? No. Do I have sympathy for the completely innocent person that moved too quickly/suddenly. Hell yes. Those deaths need to be minimized. And the BEST way to do that is to ensure criminals are off the street,s that there is zero tolerance for resisting arrest/fleeing arrest. Add in body cams for the small minority of bad apples in the bunch and you have a recipe for minimizing innocent lives AND police lives being lost.
Wait are you suggesting reasonable doubt should go to the prosecution rather than the defendant? Since when was that ever part of our system?
No there are many ways to improve things, many of which I have suggested.And of course you don't see anything wrong with insisting on a standard which you just admitted is completely impossible to meet for things to improve.
Possibly why I didn't use the word "CONSTANT". They are however too regularly in imminent danger which is the word I actually used.THEY'RE NOT IN CONSTANT IMMINENT DANGER! I don't have to provide a way to reduce than when this perception of yours is complete make-believe.
Not necessarily. In a life or death situation where you are concentrating on someone who you worry is reaching for a gun then it is entirely reasonable to be concentrating on that for those split seconds.If he didn't then that, again, is ON HIM. HIS NEGLIGENCE. HIS FAULT. HIS CRIMINAL CULPABILITY.
Fair point.Actually, I reached for that one because you're across the pond and I know better than to expect you to be familiar with anything else useful.
I'd like to see a source for that, last time we ran the numbers that was not true. They were more at risk than black people were.
What percentage of black people are getting killed by the Police who shouldn't be? And what percentage of the Police are getting killed that shouldn't be?
No I don't agree with that. Nor can I think of any liberal philosopher off the top of my head that has been so flippant at the idea of the cops being expected to die in the line of duty.Someone who actually gave a damn about either security OR freedom would think that tragic as it is, it is better for a cop to die in the line of duty than for an innocent to be gunned down by the coercive power of their own government.
How many cops lives are worth one innocent life to you? Is it better that ten cops die in the line of duty than one innocent be gunned down? 100? 1000?
They have to apply reason. Not all shootings require conviction for 1st degree murder to secure conviction on a wrongful death. A conviction on an officers part that he was facing imminent danger when he wasn't in such danger can itself be grounds for destroying reasonable doubt when it comes to something like reckless endangerment or criminal negligence which would secure a manslaughter charge of one flavor or another. Self-defense is a mens rea defense and while a "guilty mind" is a requirement in many crimes, it is not a standard in ALL crimes.
Your "source" included all police deaths, including those who died in off-duty car crashes while on their way to the supermarket. Most police deaths are not caused by suspects.I'd like to see a source for that, last time we ran the numbers that was not true. They were more at risk than black people were.
I didn't say we should be flippant. I said the ratio should be in favor of the people the police are supposed to be protecting.No I don't agree with that. Nor can I think of any liberal philosopher off the top of my head that has been so flippant at the idea of the cops being expected to die in the line of duty.
How many cops lives are worth one innocent life to you? Is it better that ten cops die in the line of duty than one innocent be gunned down? 100? 1000?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
What utter nonsense.
The BEST way to minimize "bad" shootings--both in absolute and relative terms--is to discourage your trigger-happy and careless cops from trying to solve almost all problems, esp. those involving black men, using guns or other forms of lethal violence, while also helping them develop the necessary skills and strategies required to identify and implement alternative and less lethal methods. You discourage criminally reckless police behaviour by, among other means, successfully prosecuting or otherwise sanctioning cops for unnecessary killings, not by making excuses for their failures. "Bad shootings" represent the price you've chosen to pay in order to get a police force chock full of violent, racist and occasionally murderous asshats--or just a bunch of people who're like you. They are a direct consequence of training cops to be indifferent to the value of human life. If you want to address the problem effectively you'll have to find an alternative to extrajudicial killings for your daily entertainment.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So we should take each police officer at his word? As long as they claim to be in danger, they have free reign to shoot any black man they want?
Hope is the denial of reality
No. I'm in favor of body cams. Their wide spread use, and penalties for officers who turn them off for anything but appropriate reasons. I'm in favor of third parties auditing the use of said body cams BEFORE events take place. It shouldn't be about taking the police officer at their word when there is hard evidence. NOTE: Just because something is a bad shoot doesn't mean I automatically want criminal charges. There are varying degrees of fucktardery.
I made that argument several times now. The idiots simply don't get the problems inherent to this particular defense of this cop.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
We had a camera in this case. We had a second police officer not feeling threatened. What more do you want?
Hope is the denial of reality
One also has to ask the question; how come American police officers so often shoot to kill?
Also I definetely agree with Fuzzy when he says it's better that t a police officer is shot than that an innocent individual is killed by a police officer. Not only has the police officer accepted that there are risks connected to accepting a function in the state security forces; putting that officers interests over those of the innocent citizen's is a severe breach of the social contract on the basis of which the state is entitled to use force at all.
Congratulations America
It's what they're specifically trained to do. If you're going to take the shot, you make it count because you shouldn't be trying to make a shot at all unless it's absolutely necessary to preserve life. I can empathize with that standard. The problem is they're following the training protocol without honoring its appropriate use corollary.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 06-19-2017 at 06:05 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Basic gun training 101 - always aim for center mass.
“There’s a group you would expect would be losing their goddamned minds about this: the NRA,”
-regrading the silence of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's almost as if their main reason for wanting guns isn't to fight an oppressive government (see their sucking up to Putin) but to ward off an attack from African Americans.
Hope is the denial of reality
Er, the NRA is hardly a monolithic organization, Loki. Its main reason for wanting guns are as varied as the reasons of its membership for wanting guns. Reasons which include self-defense, hunting and other sporting purposes, collectors wanting to increase the size of their collections, and yes, having the means to oppose an oppressive government. Their membership includes both police officers and African Americans.
That being said, I personally believe it to be outrageous that they haven't had more to say about the Castile case.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-20-2017 at 05:51 PM.
Talking about its leadership. Though it is chosen by the members. So maybe choose better.
Hope is the denial of reality
I would be very interested in your sources for your assertion of the singular views of the NRA's leadership, and the reasons they support the second amendment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a66_story.html
Incidentally, here's an interesting piece on the origin of open carry:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-south/407809
Last edited by Loki; 06-21-2017 at 12:58 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote