|
|
Let's start a riot?!?!
 Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 16:41:14
Woah.
https://www.knoxnews.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/
Quote: At least 85,000 law enforcement officers across the USA have been investigated or disciplined for misconduct over the past decade, an investigation by USA TODAY Network found. Quote: Obtained from thousands of state agencies, prosecutors, police departments and sheriffs, the records detail at least 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct, much of it previously unreported. The records obtained include more than 110,000 internal affairs investigations by hundreds of individual departments and more than 30,000 officers who were decertified by 44 state oversight agencies.
Just a few bad apples though
because reading articles is hard!!!
Quote:
Most misconduct involves routine infractions, but the records reveal tens of thousands of cases of serious misconduct and abuse. They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers.
Dishonesty is a frequent problem. The records document at least 2,227 instances of perjury, tampering with evidence or witnesses or falsifying reports. There were 418 reports of officers obstructing investigations, most often when they or someone they knew were targets.
Less than 10% of officers in most police forces get investigated for misconduct. Yet some officers are consistently under investigation. Nearly 2,500 have been investigated on 10 or more charges. Twenty faced 100 or more allegations yet kept their badge for years.
highlighted the key words that show you fell for a framing device like a moron. almost every single case in that database is an ACCUSATION. do you have any earthly idea of how INSANELY frequently people lie about their arresting officer thinking they might get off? its almost a guarantee in some areas.
Now onto the integrity of the database itself, and its inherent flaws
1. of the 85,000, only 30,000 of them were found to have merit, and were subsequently punished. the other 55,000 were found to be bogus or dropped.
2. It includes Corrections officers - E.G. Probation officers,Prison Guards, Juvinile Detention Guards Etc - these are not the same as police officers.
3. It includes Non officers, like private eyes, state law enforcement officials (i.e. non-cops), and the like that were given some degree of law enforcement authority, but not associated with any police precinct. This accounts for 1/5th of the accusations that led to dismissal or suspension
Quote: Name: Aaron S Abbott
State: Missouri
Agency: Not identified
See the state's complete public record. 4. of the 30,000 officers that had their licenses revoked or permanently removed (this is an important distinction), only roughly 10,000 of them were permanent dismissals - E.G. they committed a felony in the course of policing. the remaining 20,000 were Suspensions, Which the reason for suspension is not listed. These could be anything from a cop on cop locker brawl, to punching in early/late to actual misdemeanor crime.
5. OF those permanent revocations, 2000 of them were from NON POLICE AGENCIES.
So in actuality - 8000 cops, over eight years, have committed crimes worthy of permanent firing. The average police force size nation wide is roughly 1.1-1.3 million. the last data i could find available was 1.09 m in 2012 with a yearly growth of about 1~2%, so a loose guess is that 1.1 is a low ball estimation for our 2020 policing size.
This translates into .007 of the police force has committed a felony level crime. Over eight years. the yearly average of infractions is 0.0009 of cops per year. This number also included the Correctional type officers as a FYI. The database does not have the officer category available in a crunchable format for me to extract them effectively so they were left in. this means that the number is potentially even lower than what ive listed.
you quite literally have a 99.99% effective police force by their own data.
Any words now that we've established you took this clickbait hook line and sinker?
Oh now cute, you actually trust police records. You know, the guys who plant evidence and falsify records then get their boss's to cover their ***. It doesn't matter the ratio of good vs bad, the moment the leadership supports and protects the bad it becomes a 100% bad ratio.
I say fire them all, start from scratch. This kind of systemic corruption can't be fixed from within.
Oh i dont disagree with you that the data is bunk. this is data collected and agregated by a third party rather than the police themselves. i've already pointed out the inherent flaws in the data, and i wouldnt trust it regardless because the people who built the database clearly know literally *** about data aggregation and analysis.
i do disagree about starting from scratch tho. Reform is absolutely the way. Soul crushingly hard reform. deleting the police will lead to even more corruption and issues than we have today- end of story.
On the political aspect of it: i'll clue you into why the D's are so behind the concept of delete the police: Its one of the last intercity republican bastions. like 90% of police officers identify as republicans or conservatives. It's the same strategy the left has used since forever - brand the right as intolerable, and chase them out of any position of power that they can, so their echo chamber becomes absolute. i mean was it a mystery as to why this is mostly only happening in democratic cities?
Unfortunately there is on possibility for meaningful reform with a complete dissolution of the leadership within every Police Department in the USA. We're not talking about changing regulations or laws, we're talking about culture. The Police across the USA are infected with a toxic culture of "Us vs Them" with every Police Officer looking out for every other Police Officer. This toxic culture has been in place for decades, this isn't a new thing. The only reason we know about it now is cell phone cameras are everywhere and the first thing everyone does now when they see the police is start recording. Police Officers will lie, cheat, steal or kill as need be to get what they want.
That's not a LEO that's a gang member with a nice uniform. They have become the very thing they tasked to defeat. So when the Departments and DA's Officers are run by gangsters, does anyone seriously expect them to make any change that they can't backdoor out of?
 Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 16:47:28
i'm sorry but that is not how it works. If you shoot anything at a cop, even if you are fleeing, it remains self defense. he literally shot a tazer at the cops as he was running. have you not watched this video? hes running and turns backwards while running and shoots at them. the cop discards his tazer the second he shoots, and pulls his weapon and fires in under a second. it looks like he actually even hit the cop since the cop staggered into the car as he fired.
You misunderstand me; I'm not arguing the legality of it (which is still dubious). I'm arguing what's going to happen in a courtroom, where any prosecutor who isn't an idiot is going to point out that a trained police officer couldn't do anything to control a fleeing drunk - who almost certainly felt like his life was in danger - that didn't involve shooting him IN THE BACK. Unless that jury is twelve cops, no one is going to look kindly on that.
If I'm the cop I aim for a plea deal to negligent homicide; if I'm the DA, I take it. Crowds won't like it but it's as good as either side is likely to do. Zero chance this guy gets his job back, though; you're out of your mind if you think that'll happen. Other cities? Maybe. Not Atlanta.
i still cant help but assume you HAVEN'T watched the video if you still think he was 'just' shot in the back, or that any prosecutor would gloss over that exculpatory fact? He is running- and turns his body while still running, and shoots at the cop, who then returned fire in under one second. this is why the bullets struck him in the back. You are NOT fleeing if you are shooting at the cops. that is a legal fact. you are considered to be an active aggressor if you are shooting while fleeing.
I can even provide you the legal standards as to why you are wrong in this case so you know im not just talking out of my ***:
E.G. the case of Grahm V Connor - the US Supreme court held that any case of an officer shooting must be viewed through the information the officer has at hand when firing his weapon, rather than through hindsight- that any shooting in response to that information, is justified.
E.G. the case of Tenessee v Garner - the US Supreme court case held that an officer is legally allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect if there is belief that there will be harm committed to the officer or another person in the event of that fleeing. E.G. a person shoots a store clerk, and flees- the officer shooting him is justified.
these two cases provide the legal defense for shooting a suspect who is fleeing and shooting at an officer in the course of that fleeing.
Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15018
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-06-15 16:53:33
Well, I for one can't wait for more riots and protests outside the Whitehouse on an issue that should be addressed by a City and State that the Whitehouse has no control over.
[+]
By volkom 2020-06-15 16:57:54
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything?
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 16:59:06
Looks like Rayshard Brooks got shot twice in the back, DA is saying charges could come as soon as this week.
of course he was shot in the back? did you watch the Security camera footage?
The guy is running from the cops, and then turns and shoots the tazer at the cop, who discarded his own tazer and shot him within the second of the dude aiming the tazer.
there is literally no instance in which this was not a justified shooting. they are literally charging this cop because of politics and not wanting the peasantry to burn atlanta to the ground.
This video covers both the cellphone video, and security footage where you can clearly see him discharge the tazer at the cop. being shot in the back does not matter in this instance, and if it did, then you could just shoot at cops while running away willy nilly and they couldnt do ***for fear of hitting you in the back.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Actually it does matter ... a lot. The law is quite clear on the issue, someone running away from you is no longer considered a threat and shooting them is considered murder. What you just said is that the law that applies to us lowly civilians shouldn't apply to the great and mighty Police Officers.
What I'm referring to is the doctrine of justified homicide and self defense. If someone is attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on myself, I am justified in using deadly force to prevent that. If that person stops attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on me or has already inflict that harm on someone else, I am not allowed to kill them after the fact. This is a fundamental element in castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.
If someone is attempting to rob a civilian at gun point, shots and misses then turns to run away, that civilian can not pull a pistol and shot them in the back. That would be murder two at a minimum.
Now swap civilian with "officer" and nothing should change. Unless of course the law really doesn't apply to the Police, I mean they can do stuff like plant evidence and still keep their job.
no thats not how it works. if you shoot at someone in the process of fleeing, you are no longer fleeing - that is a fact. If it wasn't, you could just run from a cop shooting over your shoulder and theyd never be able to shoot back at you. do you think that is realistic or logical or inline with the law at all?
You don't fundamentally understand the law of justified homicide it seems.
Yes if they turn their back to you, regardless it's no longer justified homocide. Your feelings don't matter, your occupation doesn't matter, the person's race doesn't matter, the person's criminal history doesn't matter, the moment they turn their back it's over with.
When-can-police-fire-on-fleeing-suspects
Quote: After winding through lower courts for a decade, Garner’s case eventually led to a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in 1985.
The justices ruled 6-3 that shooting fleeing suspects who are not an imminent threat violates the person’s constitutional rights. They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders. And they added that officers should, if possible, shout out a warning before firing.
I mean it's the Supreme Court, who are they to tell LEO's what they can and can't do. I guess you think LEO's don't need to follow Supreme Court rulings either, after all Judges are just mere Civilians anyway and not the great Arbitrators of Justice that Police Officers are.
Quote: Prosecutors in the East Pittsburgh case did not believe Rosfeld had reasonable grounds to consider 17-year-old Antwon Rose Jr. a threat. The teen was a passenger in a car that was suspected of involvement in a drive-by shooting. Witnesses say Rose put out his hand to emphasize to the officer that he did not have a gun before jumping out of the car and running away.
So you can expect another riot in Atlanta soon.
And if you think this is bad, oh boy it hasn't even really started. If the Police don't get their ***together quickly, which I don't suspect they will, I expect full on police killings to become common. As in a couple dozen to a hundred masked people show up and shoot every police officer in a station, then burn the station down. It will keep escalating until there is open warfare by the population against the police.
If that sounds horrific, it's the natural escalation against something the population views as a threat, namely the police's unrestricted use of violence to solve all problems.
I hope the hell it doesn't get that bad, that politicians and leaders figure out that the only way to prevent open warfare is to severely curtail the police's access to violence.
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-06-15 17:00:47
[+]
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:00:59
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything?
i cant help but think this equates to Rolling a 20 on your atheltics check, in which you basically can do whatever the *** you want at that point.
[+]
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:02:41
Looks like Rayshard Brooks got shot twice in the back, DA is saying charges could come as soon as this week.
of course he was shot in the back? did you watch the Security camera footage?
The guy is running from the cops, and then turns and shoots the tazer at the cop, who discarded his own tazer and shot him within the second of the dude aiming the tazer.
there is literally no instance in which this was not a justified shooting. they are literally charging this cop because of politics and not wanting the peasantry to burn atlanta to the ground.
This video covers both the cellphone video, and security footage where you can clearly see him discharge the tazer at the cop. being shot in the back does not matter in this instance, and if it did, then you could just shoot at cops while running away willy nilly and they couldnt do ***for fear of hitting you in the back.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Actually it does matter ... a lot. The law is quite clear on the issue, someone running away from you is no longer considered a threat and shooting them is considered murder. What you just said is that the law that applies to us lowly civilians shouldn't apply to the great and mighty Police Officers.
What I'm referring to is the doctrine of justified homicide and self defense. If someone is attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on myself, I am justified in using deadly force to prevent that. If that person stops attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on me or has already inflict that harm on someone else, I am not allowed to kill them after the fact. This is a fundamental element in castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.
If someone is attempting to rob a civilian at gun point, shots and misses then turns to run away, that civilian can not pull a pistol and shot them in the back. That would be murder two at a minimum.
Now swap civilian with "officer" and nothing should change. Unless of course the law really doesn't apply to the Police, I mean they can do stuff like plant evidence and still keep their job.
no thats not how it works. if you shoot at someone in the process of fleeing, you are no longer fleeing - that is a fact. If it wasn't, you could just run from a cop shooting over your shoulder and theyd never be able to shoot back at you. do you think that is realistic or logical or inline with the law at all?
You don't fundamentally understand the law of justified homicide it seems.
Yes if they turn their back to you, regardless it's no longer justified homocide. Your feelings don't matter, your occupation doesn't matter, the person's race doesn't matter, the person's criminal history doesn't matter, the moment they turn their back it's over with.
When-can-police-fire-on-fleeing-suspects
Quote: After winding through lower courts for a decade, Garner’s case eventually led to a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in 1985.
The justices ruled 6-3 that shooting fleeing suspects who are not an imminent threat violates the person’s constitutional rights. They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders. And they added that officers should, if possible, shout out a warning before firing.
I mean it's the Supreme Court, who are they to tell LEO's what they can and can't do. I guess you think LEO's don't need to follow Supreme Court rulings either, after all Judges are just mere Civilians anyway and not the great Arbitrators of Justice that Police Officers are.
Quote: Prosecutors in the East Pittsburgh case did not believe Rosfeld had reasonable grounds to consider 17-year-old Antwon Rose Jr. a threat. The teen was a passenger in a car that was suspected of involvement in a drive-by shooting. Witnesses say Rose put out his hand to emphasize to the officer that he did not have a gun before jumping out of the car and running away.
So you can expect another riot in Atlanta soon.
And if you think this is bad, oh boy it hasn't even really started. If the Police don't get their ***together quickly, which I don't suspect they will, I expect full on police killings to become common. As in a couple dozen to a hundred masked people show up and shoot every police officer in a station, then burn the station down. It will keep escalating until there is open warfare by the population against the police.
If that sounds horrific, it's the natural escalation against something the population views as a threat, namely the police's unrestricted use of violence to solve all problems.
I hope the hell it doesn't get that bad, that politicians and leaders figure out that the only way to prevent open warfare is to severely curtail the police's access to violence.
im sorry, but you are wrong for the reasons in my previous post providing the legal justification. you are not considered to be fleeing if you are firing a weapon in the course of that flight.
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:05:07
i mean you literally just provided the same legal standard that justifies this shooting
Quote: They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders. And they added that officers should, if possible, shout out a warning before firing.
Firing a LETHAL WEAPON, at an officer during that flight, qualifies without question.
"But hide, tazers arent lethal weapons"
incorrect. tazers are classified as 'less lethal',rather than 'less than lethal'. Tazers can and do kill.
[+]
Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15018
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-06-15 17:05:09
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything? Yup! The Get out of Jail Free card, proceed directly to go. Collect $200.00.
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything?
i cant help but think this equates to Rolling a 20 on your atheltics check, in which you basically can do whatever the *** you want at that point. Would also work.
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 17:06:58
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything?
Depends on who you ask, there is the law and then there is how the laws being applied.
The law states you can't shoot a fleeing suspect as it violates that suspects Constitutional right to due process. Police are not judge, jury and executioner, no matter how much they thing they are. There is a little wiggle room in there for when a suspect is armed and dangerous.
That wiggle room is what Police have been abusing with the whole "feared for my life", it's the magic words their taught to say immediately in all reports. A Police Officer would say they were "afraid for their life" if they shot a twelve year old with a toy gun.
Police Chiefs and DA's aren't keen to charging Police Officers anyway and therefor frequently ignore it when they use excessive force, leading to the belief among Police that they can shoot anyone by just saying "fear for their life".
Well now we got riots, burnings and more people hunting police officers.
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:08:17
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything?
Depends on who you ask, there is the law and then there is how the laws being applied.
The law states you can't shoot a fleeing suspect as it violates that suspects Constitutional right to due process. Police are not judge, jury and executioner, no matter how much they thing they are. There is a little wiggle room in there for when a suspect is armed and dangerous.
That wiggle room is what Police have been abusing with the whole "feared for my life", it's the magic words their taught to say immediately in all reports. A Police Officer would say they were "afraid for their life" if they shot a twelve year old with a toy gun.
Police Chiefs and DA's aren't keen to charging Police Officers anyway and therefor frequently ignore it when they use excessive force, leading to the belief among Police that they can shoot anyone by just saying "fear for their life".
Well now we got riots, burnings and more people hunting police officers.
in this case you are wrong. the man fired a lethal weapon at the police officer while running. the law is perfectly clear that the officer is justified in this shooting.
Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15018
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-06-15 17:08:24
Well now we got riots, burnings and more people hunting police officers. Don't forget the renaming of streets!
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 17:08:37
Looks like Rayshard Brooks got shot twice in the back, DA is saying charges could come as soon as this week.
of course he was shot in the back? did you watch the Security camera footage?
The guy is running from the cops, and then turns and shoots the tazer at the cop, who discarded his own tazer and shot him within the second of the dude aiming the tazer.
there is literally no instance in which this was not a justified shooting. they are literally charging this cop because of politics and not wanting the peasantry to burn atlanta to the ground.
This video covers both the cellphone video, and security footage where you can clearly see him discharge the tazer at the cop. being shot in the back does not matter in this instance, and if it did, then you could just shoot at cops while running away willy nilly and they couldnt do ***for fear of hitting you in the back.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Actually it does matter ... a lot. The law is quite clear on the issue, someone running away from you is no longer considered a threat and shooting them is considered murder. What you just said is that the law that applies to us lowly civilians shouldn't apply to the great and mighty Police Officers.
What I'm referring to is the doctrine of justified homicide and self defense. If someone is attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on myself, I am justified in using deadly force to prevent that. If that person stops attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on me or has already inflict that harm on someone else, I am not allowed to kill them after the fact. This is a fundamental element in castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.
If someone is attempting to rob a civilian at gun point, shots and misses then turns to run away, that civilian can not pull a pistol and shot them in the back. That would be murder two at a minimum.
Now swap civilian with "officer" and nothing should change. Unless of course the law really doesn't apply to the Police, I mean they can do stuff like plant evidence and still keep their job.
no thats not how it works. if you shoot at someone in the process of fleeing, you are no longer fleeing - that is a fact. If it wasn't, you could just run from a cop shooting over your shoulder and theyd never be able to shoot back at you. do you think that is realistic or logical or inline with the law at all?
You don't fundamentally understand the law of justified homicide it seems.
Yes if they turn their back to you, regardless it's no longer justified homocide. Your feelings don't matter, your occupation doesn't matter, the person's race doesn't matter, the person's criminal history doesn't matter, the moment they turn their back it's over with.
When-can-police-fire-on-fleeing-suspects
Quote: After winding through lower courts for a decade, Garner’s case eventually led to a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in 1985.
The justices ruled 6-3 that shooting fleeing suspects who are not an imminent threat violates the person’s constitutional rights. They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders. And they added that officers should, if possible, shout out a warning before firing.
I mean it's the Supreme Court, who are they to tell LEO's what they can and can't do. I guess you think LEO's don't need to follow Supreme Court rulings either, after all Judges are just mere Civilians anyway and not the great Arbitrators of Justice that Police Officers are.
Quote: Prosecutors in the East Pittsburgh case did not believe Rosfeld had reasonable grounds to consider 17-year-old Antwon Rose Jr. a threat. The teen was a passenger in a car that was suspected of involvement in a drive-by shooting. Witnesses say Rose put out his hand to emphasize to the officer that he did not have a gun before jumping out of the car and running away.
So you can expect another riot in Atlanta soon.
And if you think this is bad, oh boy it hasn't even really started. If the Police don't get their ***together quickly, which I don't suspect they will, I expect full on police killings to become common. As in a couple dozen to a hundred masked people show up and shoot every police officer in a station, then burn the station down. It will keep escalating until there is open warfare by the population against the police.
If that sounds horrific, it's the natural escalation against something the population views as a threat, namely the police's unrestricted use of violence to solve all problems.
I hope the hell it doesn't get that bad, that politicians and leaders figure out that the only way to prevent open warfare is to severely curtail the police's access to violence.
im sorry, but you are wrong for the reasons in my previous post providing the legal justification. you are not considered to be fleeing if you are firing a weapon in the course of that flight.
Sorry I take the Supreme Court over you on this one.
i mean you literally just provided the same legal standard that justifies this shooting
Quote: They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders. And they added that officers should, if possible, shout out a warning before firing.
Firing a LETHAL WEAPON, at an officer during that flight, qualifies without question.
"But hide, tazers arent lethal weapons"
incorrect. tazers are classified as 'less lethal',rather than 'less than lethal'. Tazers can and do kill.
And that won't hold up in a jury either.
But hey aren't Police Officers above the jury anyway? Why don't they just state they "afraid for their lives" and shoot the Jurors?
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 17:09:38
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything?
Depends on who you ask, there is the law and then there is how the laws being applied.
The law states you can't shoot a fleeing suspect as it violates that suspects Constitutional right to due process. Police are not judge, jury and executioner, no matter how much they thing they are. There is a little wiggle room in there for when a suspect is armed and dangerous.
That wiggle room is what Police have been abusing with the whole "feared for my life", it's the magic words their taught to say immediately in all reports. A Police Officer would say they were "afraid for their life" if they shot a twelve year old with a toy gun.
Police Chiefs and DA's aren't keen to charging Police Officers anyway and therefor frequently ignore it when they use excessive force, leading to the belief among Police that they can shoot anyone by just saying "fear for their life".
Well now we got riots, burnings and more people hunting police officers.
in this case you are wrong. the man fired a lethal weapon at the police officer while running. the law is perfectly clear that the officer is justified in this shooting.
Nope case laws says otherwise.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. That's how the lefts echo chamber got formed to begin with.
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:13:26
Sorry I take the Supreme Court over you on this one.
are you being serious? i just pointed out that the justification on this IS THE SAME EXACT SUPREME COURT RULING YOU CITED.
i mean you literally just provided the same legal standard that justifies this shooting
Quote: They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders. And they added that officers should, if possible, shout out a warning before firing.
Firing a LETHAL WEAPON, at an officer during that flight, qualifies without question.
"But hide, tazers arent lethal weapons"
incorrect. tazers are classified as 'less lethal',rather than 'less than lethal'. Tazers can and do kill.
And that won't hold up in a jury either.
But hey aren't Police Officers above the jury anyway? Why don't they just state they "afraid for their lives" and shoot the Jurors?
Absolutely it will. Tazers are legally classified as a Lethal force option due to their capacity to kill.
nobody said that cops were above the jury; The entire argument being made is that the cop acted in accordance to the written law.
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 17:13:39
I mean, you can hurt someone with a pen and they saw a pen is mightier then a sword, and we all know a sword is a lethal weapon. So it's justified for a Police Officer to kill anyone holding a pen.
How about a butter knife, I mean if you sharpen it or just use a bit of extra force you can hurt or even kill someone with it. Guess that means Police Officers can shoot and kill anyone holding butter knifes now.
See anything can be twisted into "lethal weapon" and "fear for life". It's why we have these things called juries, they are the ones that need convincing. And as of now any goodwill towards Police has vanished, every juror is going to go in viewing the LEO no differently then a local thug.
By volkom 2020-06-15 17:14:50
YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15018
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-06-15 17:15:33
i cant help but think this equates to Rolling a 20 on your atheltics check, in which you basically can do whatever the *** you want at that point. This makes me think of how that Encounter would have gone in D&D.
DM: You wake up in your cart awaiting rapid nutrients, two guards asking for your identification. What do you do?
PC: I fight them
DM: *sighs* ...ok roll for initiative...
*steps later*
DM: you break out from a grapple, what do you do?
PC: I grab their thunder stick and run away
DM: Now you know that can trigger an attack of opportunity right?
PC: I'M RUNNING AND I'LL USE THEIR THUNDERSTICK AT THEM!!
DM: *face in his hands*
Yikes this sounds bad, I feel scummy for writing it...
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:15:43
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything?
Depends on who you ask, there is the law and then there is how the laws being applied.
The law states you can't shoot a fleeing suspect as it violates that suspects Constitutional right to due process. Police are not judge, jury and executioner, no matter how much they thing they are. There is a little wiggle room in there for when a suspect is armed and dangerous.
That wiggle room is what Police have been abusing with the whole "feared for my life", it's the magic words their taught to say immediately in all reports. A Police Officer would say they were "afraid for their life" if they shot a twelve year old with a toy gun.
Police Chiefs and DA's aren't keen to charging Police Officers anyway and therefor frequently ignore it when they use excessive force, leading to the belief among Police that they can shoot anyone by just saying "fear for their life".
Well now we got riots, burnings and more people hunting police officers.
in this case you are wrong. the man fired a lethal weapon at the police officer while running. the law is perfectly clear that the officer is justified in this shooting.
Nope case laws says otherwise.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. That's how the lefts echo chamber got formed to begin with.
you are literally just making things up now to fit your narrative.
the law literally says - if there is reason to believe the officer is under direct threat from the fleeing suspect.
The man LITERALLY SHOT A TAZER AT HIM.
TAZERS ARE LEGALLY CLASSIFIED AS LETHAL WEAPONS.
im not going based on reporting. im going on the actual security camera footage that shows the entire process of events.
you are unequivocally wrong.
[+]
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 17:16:33
Sorry I take the Supreme Court over you on this one.
are you being serious? i just pointed out that the justification on this IS THE SAME EXACT SUPREME COURT RULING YOU CITED.
i mean you literally just provided the same legal standard that justifies this shooting
Quote: They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders. And they added that officers should, if possible, shout out a warning before firing.
Firing a LETHAL WEAPON, at an officer during that flight, qualifies without question.
"But hide, tazers arent lethal weapons"
incorrect. tazers are classified as 'less lethal',rather than 'less than lethal'. Tazers can and do kill.
And that won't hold up in a jury either.
But hey aren't Police Officers above the jury anyway? Why don't they just state they "afraid for their lives" and shoot the Jurors?
Absolutely it will. Tazers are legally classified as a Lethal force option due to their capacity to kill.
nobody said that cops were above the jury; The entire argument being made is that the cop acted in accordance to the written law.
No you twisted the words to support your preexisting belief instead of reading them as written.
All written words can be selectively twisted and rearranged to support any belief a person has. There is an entire multi-billion dollar industry devoted to doing exactly that, we call it entertainment news.
The words, as written, are pretty clear that you can't shoot people in the back. And a person doesn't shoot backwards. Unless your now stating that a drunken man is some sort of crack shot capable of doing Black Widow like gymastics.
Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15018
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-06-15 17:18:33
The words, as written, are pretty clear that you can't shoot people in the back. And a person doesn't shoot backwards. Unless your now stating that a drunken man is some sort of crack shot capable of doing Black Widow like gymastics. Devils advocate time: What if a running suspect, fires a firearm under their arm, over their head, whatever, directly backwards without turning around? Likelihood of hitting a target very low. But what then? Curious.
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 17:19:26
is there going to be some magical line drawn in the sand where if you can out maneuver from being handcuffed and arrested, ignore being tazered and flee then cops can't do anything?
Depends on who you ask, there is the law and then there is how the laws being applied.
The law states you can't shoot a fleeing suspect as it violates that suspects Constitutional right to due process. Police are not judge, jury and executioner, no matter how much they thing they are. There is a little wiggle room in there for when a suspect is armed and dangerous.
That wiggle room is what Police have been abusing with the whole "feared for my life", it's the magic words their taught to say immediately in all reports. A Police Officer would say they were "afraid for their life" if they shot a twelve year old with a toy gun.
Police Chiefs and DA's aren't keen to charging Police Officers anyway and therefor frequently ignore it when they use excessive force, leading to the belief among Police that they can shoot anyone by just saying "fear for their life".
Well now we got riots, burnings and more people hunting police officers.
in this case you are wrong. the man fired a lethal weapon at the police officer while running. the law is perfectly clear that the officer is justified in this shooting.
Nope case laws says otherwise.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. That's how the lefts echo chamber got formed to begin with.
you are literally just making things up now to fit your narrative.
the law literally says - if there is reason to believe the officer is under direct threat from the fleeing suspect.
The man LITERALLY SHOT A TAZER AT HIM.
TAZERS ARE LEGALLY CLASSIFIED AS LETHAL WEAPONS.
im not going based on reporting. im going on the actual security camera footage that shows the entire process of events.
you are unequivocally wrong.
Your just "supporting the Police".
Suspect takes a tazer, fires tazer, turns to run, Police open fire.
If they were going to shoot him they should of done it the moment he pointed the tazer, not after he missed and was running away.
And your words mean nothing to a jury, the Prosecution would just show the video and it would be game over now. Instead the cop who shot the gun is going to plea deal. In the past they would of just high fived and called it a day.
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:20:50
No you twisted the words to support your preexisting belief instead of reading them as written.
Where. prove it. What have i twisted. Cite it right now or *** off.
ll written words can be selectively twisted and rearranged to support any belief a person has. There is an entire multi-billion dollar industry devoted to doing exactly that, we call it entertainment news.
AGAIN. Prove it Or shut up.
The words, as written, are pretty clear that you can't shoot people in the back. And a person doesn't shoot backwards. Unless your now stating that a drunken man is some sort of crack shot capable of doing Black Widow like gymastics.
are you quite literally being serious? you think it is impossible to aim a gun behind yourself when running? Are you being serious?
you can LITERALLY SEE HIM TURN WHILE RUNNING AWAY, AND SHOOT BACKWARDS. It is on camera. it is irrefutable that he did EXACTLY THIS. Theres even a flashlight on the tazer where you can CLEARLY SEE HIM DO THIS.
[+]
Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15018
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-06-15 17:21:43
Heya, take a 5 min break, a breather, and maybe a snickers.
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 17:24:47
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »The words, as written, are pretty clear that you can't shoot people in the back. And a person doesn't shoot backwards. Unless your now stating that a drunken man is some sort of crack shot capable of doing Black Widow like gymastics. Devils advocate time: What if a running suspect, fires a firearm under their arm, over their head, whatever, directly backwards without turning around? Likelihood of hitting a target very low. But what then? Curious.
If they had the firearm on them and were in the process of shooting in random directions, then a valid argument can be made for them "being dangerous". In this case the homicide is justified because it's done in order to protect the public at large.
If the man had a gun this would be a very different situation, if the man had a knife and was running towards the police this would be a very different situation. The man instead had discharged a tazer and was in the process of running away. Ergo that Supreme Court decision kicks in and the Officer in question, who threw away their own taser and pulled a pistol, deprived the suspect of their Constitutional right to Due process by executing them.
Yes it's going to be argued that it was an execution, the alleged crime would be "firing taser at police". If this was anyone other then a Police Officer they would be done for, but because it's a Police Officer it's hard to find a Prosecutor who wants to charge them.
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:24:54
Your just "supporting the Police".
Suspect takes a tazer, fires tazer, turns to run, Police open fire. .
Incorrect. This is not the order of events.
The Suspect Beats the cop in the face with his fists, AND the tazer
The suspect then Frees himself from the police
The suspect then RUNS AWAY
The cop Chases him Tazer drawn - NOT HIS GUN.
The Suspect reaches a red car, Turns, And Shoots at the officer.
The officer drops his tazer the second he shoots at the officer,
The officer draws his gun
The officer Shoots him as he stumbles into the car having likely been hit by said tazer.
This is quite literally IRREFUTABLY what happened. There is BIRDS EYE VIEW OF THE ENTIRE ALTERCATION FROM THE WENDYS SECURITY CAMERA.
If they were going to shoot him they should of done it the moment he pointed the tazer, not after he missed and was running away.
Watch the video or shut up, because you clearly havent.
And your words mean nothing to a jury, the Prosecution would just show the video and it would be game over now. Instead the cop who shot the gun is going to plea deal. In the past they would of just high fived and called it a day.
mark my words - hell walk. the legal precedent is there, and the video is irrefutable.
[+]
Carbuncle.Skulloneix
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15018
By Carbuncle.Skulloneix 2020-06-15 17:29:21
Watch the video or shut up, because you clearly havent. Hideka, you sound like the very thing you swore to destroy.meme.
Seriously tho, take a chill pill, you are better than this. Don't sink to the level the "Left" side lives at. You two are capable of civil disagreement.
[+]
Asura.Saevel
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9910
By Asura.Saevel 2020-06-15 17:29:48
Quote: The Suspect reaches a red car, Turns, And Shoots at the officer.
The officer drops his tazer the second he shoots at the officer,
The officer draws his gun
The officer Shoots him as he stumbles into the car having likely been hit by said tazer.
Normally I stop talking to fanatics but here.
The officer either did or did not shot the suspect in the back. In your fantasy version of events the officer would of struck the suspect center mass.
Yet somehow bullet holes magically appeared in the suspects back. Guess the teleported right.
Dude was an idiot, Officer was waiting for an excuse to pull the pistol.
Cerberus.Hideka
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 742
By Cerberus.Hideka 2020-06-15 17:31:41
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »Watch the video or shut up, because you clearly havent. Hideka, you sound like the very thing you swore to destroy.meme.
Seriously tho, take a chill pill, you are better than this. Don't sink to the level the "Left" side lives at. You two are capable of civil disagreement.
i get heated when people blatantly lie, even when presented cold hard irrefutable evidence that they are wrong. that he was provided actual footage that proved his interpretation of events was unequivocally wrong, and he refused to watch it even when presented direct evidence that he is wrong, is absolutely infuriating.
[+]
So yea been out of the loop, has the rebellion began?
Is sublime gonna make a 2020 edition? What cities are popping off? What was the "last straw"?
Stay tuned for more excitement in 2020....
Edit: diverting the latest corona shenanigans from random thoughts.
|
|
