|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops?
The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept
On June 17 2017 11:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:45 Sermokala wrote:
Telling women that don't worry about people getting raped we got the rapist in prision now is just telling them that someone else is going to get raped so that you can punish the guy who raped them. Any other approach tells women that if they don't want to be raped then they should voluntarily abdicate their rights within society. It strips their rights away by telling them that the protection of the law is contingent upon them not acting in the same ways a man would. That's the problem with victim blaming. It places the duty of self censorship of action upon the potential victim rather than the perpetrator and it should be called out whenever and wherever it surfaces its ugly head. Furthermore the lesson "don't walk home alone if you don't want to be raped" is essentially "let some other girl be the one who gets raped tonight". The responsibility for committing an action has to be placed on the individual who chose to commit that action. Basic personal responsibility shit. You pull a trigger, you get held to account. And a prosecutor throwing the case doesn't count as being held to account, before you repeat your argument that he was.
Stop being shitty we both know you're better then this kwark. An ultimatium for your position is beneath you. Having a posision of "lets concentrate on the rape in society more then the rapists. Isn't telling women to abdicate their rights. I'm not victim blaming I'm discovering why they were made a victim and trying to find a way to not make more victims.
Don't try anything to not get raped just accept that its going to happen and go about your life normally to prepare yourself for getting raped because we don't care about actually stooping you from getting raped because it might infringe on your rights to prevent your rape from happening.
|
You haven't remotely established that Sermo.
our claim is that it's actually murder; and in many places it would be; and indeed I'd say by the laws of the United States in that jurisdiction it also is murder.
They get off crimes because people choose not to punish them when they break the law.
And we're tryintg to change the system; part of our whole point is to CHANGE THE SYSTEM so they don't get off for their immoral conduct.
holding people accountable is LITERALLY what FIXES the system.
You reduce murders, by CONVICTING people of murder and punishing them. how can you not get that basic point?
|
Clearly the law must be changed. No reasonable person looks at that verdict and thinks that is a good outcome for police or citizens. Being scared is not justification for leather force by agents of the state.
|
On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops? The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept
Unjustified killing is kinda not a reasonable mistake, is it. If that is, nothing is unreasonable bar "accidentally on purpose slashing throats of people filming police violence".
|
On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops? The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept
and we disagree that this was a reasonable error. we consider it an unreasonable error, as we've pointed out dozens of times and you've ignored. you're not a particularly good arbiter of reasonability; and you certainly shouldn't be if you personally know the offender.
you really need to consider how it looks from the point of view of those who do not consider it a reasonable error.
|
On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops? The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept
Hearing non-threatening words and seeing a non-threatening gesture and free associating them into "omg threat" isn't reasonable. To claim that it is is certainly radical.
|
The protests have started. I won't be surprise if they turn violent. I remember King and "he kept trying to stand".
|
On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops? The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept
It is not reasonable to be afraid for your life if someone tells you they have a gun specifically so you won't be startled should you find they have one.
People making nonstop excuses for police brutality are exactly why they get away with it. Keep that in mind.
|
Another interesting viewpoint is that by not holding police accountable, you open it up for people to take justice in their own hands.
Vigilantism isn't anything new in the US, and it certainly won't help if you justify murder by "i'm a pussy and made a mistake, sorry tho". This has so many more implications than just a murder going unpunished.
The protests have started. I won't be surprise if they turn violent. I remember King and "he kept trying to stand".
Wouldn't surprise me either. And while i know it's stupid to go violent, i can't help but wonder if it isn't a little bit justified.
|
On June 17 2017 11:55 zlefin wrote:
sermo ->
try this,
start from the premise: what the officer did was wrong, and should be punished.
Now see that he was not punished.
part of your problem is your COMKPLETELY ignoring our point that the officer should be punished; and holding it to be an incontrovertible fact that what the officer did is proper, despite their being ample room for the contrary viewpoint (especially considering there are numerous countries in the world where the officer would be convicted for what he did).
and I say you're advocating making the system worse because you are. holding people accountable is a basic function of society. you are advocating NOT holding people accountable. you are giving an officer free reign to kill anyone for a pathetically low standard of evidence; which it should be noted, if any regular citizen did, they would be convicted of murder.
ask yourself this: if it were a regular citizen doing the shooting, and not a cop, would he have been convicted of murder? and should he have been convicted of murder?
What the officer did was wrong. Why did the officer do a wrong thing? Should we hold that person accountable for doing that wrong thing? Thats called seeing if the person is guilty of a crime or not. Thats called deciding if it was murder or just killing someone. Its called Justice.
You want the person to be punished I want Justice. So we want different things I guess. Holding people acountable for their crimes doesn't make sense when they make that crime under a broken system. You would rail against the drug war and be on my side on this issue.
A regular citizen wouldn't have made a traffic stop and wouldn't have a reasonable fear for their life. Police arn't regular citizens we give them a badge and a gun and except everything to be fine and them not to make mistakes or care about their lives now?
|
What the officer did was wrong. Why did the officer do a wrong thing? Should we hold that person accountable for doing that wrong thing?
.. ahm, yes? What the fuck?
A regular citizen wouldn't have made a traffic stop and wouldn't have a reasonable fear for their life.
You mean like the SC shooting 2014 for example, right? Where a regular citizen complied with the officer and got shot by a rabid fucktard?
|
On June 17 2017 12:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:55 zlefin wrote:
sermo ->
try this,
start from the premise: what the officer did was wrong, and should be punished.
Now see that he was not punished.
part of your problem is your COMKPLETELY ignoring our point that the officer should be punished; and holding it to be an incontrovertible fact that what the officer did is proper, despite their being ample room for the contrary viewpoint (especially considering there are numerous countries in the world where the officer would be convicted for what he did).
and I say you're advocating making the system worse because you are. holding people accountable is a basic function of society. you are advocating NOT holding people accountable. you are giving an officer free reign to kill anyone for a pathetically low standard of evidence; which it should be noted, if any regular citizen did, they would be convicted of murder.
ask yourself this: if it were a regular citizen doing the shooting, and not a cop, would he have been convicted of murder? and should he have been convicted of murder? What the officer did was wrong. Why did the officer do a wrong thing? Should we hold that person accountable for doing that wrong thing? Thats called seeing if the person is guilty of a crime or not. Thats called deciding if it was murder or just killing someone. Its called Justice. You want the person to be punished I want Justice. So we want different things I guess. Holding people acountable for their crimes doesn't make sense when they make that crime under a broken system. You would rail against the drug war and be on my side on this issue. A regular citizen wouldn't have made a traffic stop and wouldn't have a reasonable fear for their life. Police arn't regular citizens we give them a badge and a gun and except everything to be fine and them not to make mistakes or care about their lives now?
I want Justice, you are the one who is advocating injustice, over and over. You're saying noone should be punished for committing murder. you just have a crappy sense of justice and are completely ignoring our points to argue a falsity.
shame on you, stop wastin gthe threads tim with your nonsense. You are not arguing, since you are ignoring the points we make and simply restating your own, no matter how thoroughly they have been countered.
I've tried to be reasonable, but you are persisting in being unreasonable.
The officer did not have a reasonable fear for his life.
you don't get to argu eby completely ignoring the other side's points and counterpoints. we have dealt with the points you have raised, you have not dealt with ours.
|
On June 17 2017 12:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:55 zlefin wrote:
sermo ->
try this,
start from the premise: what the officer did was wrong, and should be punished.
Now see that he was not punished.
part of your problem is your COMKPLETELY ignoring our point that the officer should be punished; and holding it to be an incontrovertible fact that what the officer did is proper, despite their being ample room for the contrary viewpoint (especially considering there are numerous countries in the world where the officer would be convicted for what he did).
and I say you're advocating making the system worse because you are. holding people accountable is a basic function of society. you are advocating NOT holding people accountable. you are giving an officer free reign to kill anyone for a pathetically low standard of evidence; which it should be noted, if any regular citizen did, they would be convicted of murder.
ask yourself this: if it were a regular citizen doing the shooting, and not a cop, would he have been convicted of murder? and should he have been convicted of murder? What the officer did was wrong. Why did the officer do a wrong thing? Should we hold that person accountable for doing that wrong thing? Thats called seeing if the person is guilty of a crime or not. Thats called deciding if it was murder or just killing someone. Its called Justice. You want the person to be punished I want Justice. So we want different things I guess. Holding people acountable for their crimes doesn't make sense when they make that crime under a broken system. You would rail against the drug war and be on my side on this issue. A regular citizen wouldn't have made a traffic stop and wouldn't have a reasonable fear for their life. Police arn't regular citizens we give them a badge and a gun and except everything to be fine and them not to make mistakes or care about their lives now?
Not even a little bit. I don't even know how you go from 1) officer did wrong thing >> 2) do we hold them accountable? As if that's not an obvious question with an equally obvious answer.
If you do the wrong thing, you need to be held accountable. Being a police officer does not put you above the law. Stop making excuses.
|
On June 17 2017 12:09 Sermokala wrote:...
A regular citizen wouldn't have made a traffic stop and wouldn't have a reasonable fear for their life. Police arn't regular citizens we give them a badge and a gun and except everything to be fine and them not to make mistakes or care about their lives now?
.,.
I expect a police officer to be sufficiently competent to complete a traffic stop without shooting an innocent person. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation to me.
|
On June 17 2017 12:02 zlefin wrote:
You haven't remotely established that Sermo.
our claim is that it's actually murder; and in many places it would be; and indeed I'd say by the laws of the United States in that jurisdiction it also is murder.
They get off crimes because people choose not to punish them when they break the law.
And we're tryintg to change the system; part of our whole point is to CHANGE THE SYSTEM so they don't get off for their immoral conduct.
holding people accountable is LITERALLY what FIXES the system.
You reduce murders, by CONVICTING people of murder and punishing them. how can you not get that basic point?
My claim is that its not murder. In many places it would be but this is a special circumstance so we're arguing about it. Holding people accountable doesn't fix the system. Fixing the system fixes the system. Holding people acountable will create more people to hold accountable.
On June 17 2017 12:02 Plansix wrote:
Clearly the law must be changed. No reasonable person looks at that verdict and thinks that is a good outcome for police or citizens. Being scared is not justification for leather force by agents of the state.
So you expect agents of the state to wait to be shot at before defending themselves. Good logic.
On June 17 2017 12:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops? The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept Unjustified killing is kinda not a reasonable mistake, is it. If that is, nothing is unreasonable bar "accidentally on purpose slashing throats of people filming police violence".
See above also.
On June 17 2017 12:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops? The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept Hearing non-threatening words and seeing a non-threatening gesture and free associating them into "omg threat" isn't reasonable. To claim that it is is certainly radical.
reaching for your waist while telling someone you have a gun is a threatening gesture and free asociating seeing something move into being the thing they just said is reasonable.
On June 17 2017 12:07 Plansix wrote:
The protests have started. I won't be surprise if they turn violent. I remember King and "he kept trying to stand".
Its minnesota It won't turn violent.
|
So you expect agents of the state to wait to be shot at before defending themselves. Good logic.
By that logic every single person carrying a weapon is free game, because you can always claim "i was so scared". Do you even follow your own arguments?
I'm not sure why you persistently try to argue that cops need more leniency than civilians when it comes to, lets call it like it is, manslaughter.
reaching for your waist while telling someone you have a gun is a threatening gesture and free asociating seeing something move into being the thing they just said is reasonable.
No, it isn't. He literally announced that he has a gun. He had every single advantage, because the guy was sitting in his car on the drivers seat. Not to mention he's fucking threatening the mother of the four year old in the back on top, you can hear that he's close to a mental breakdown.
If it's your friend or whatever, you should honestly tell him that he's not fit for duty. No other country would employ a cop like this. I suggest you watch the video.
|
On June 17 2017 12:16 Sermokala wrote:
My claim is that its not murder. In many places it would be but this is a special circumstance so we're arguing about it. Holding people accountable doesn't fix the system. Fixing the system fixes the system. Holding people acountable will create more people to hold accountable.
I would say that holding police officers accountable for shooting innocent civilians will not "fix the system" on its own, but it is a necessary part of "fixing the system".
Do you disagree with that statement?
|
On June 17 2017 12:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:02 zlefin wrote:
You haven't remotely established that Sermo.
our claim is that it's actually murder; and in many places it would be; and indeed I'd say by the laws of the United States in that jurisdiction it also is murder.
They get off crimes because people choose not to punish them when they break the law.
And we're tryintg to change the system; part of our whole point is to CHANGE THE SYSTEM so they don't get off for their immoral conduct.
holding people accountable is LITERALLY what FIXES the system.
You reduce murders, by CONVICTING people of murder and punishing them. how can you not get that basic point? My claim is that its not murder. In many places it would be but this is a special circumstance so we're arguing about it. Holding people accountable doesn't fix the system. Fixing the system fixes the system. Holding people acountable will create more people to hold accountable.
I don't think you understand what makes the system broken in the first place, and what perpetuates it.
|
On June 17 2017 12:12 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:55 zlefin wrote:
sermo ->
try this,
start from the premise: what the officer did was wrong, and should be punished.
Now see that he was not punished.
part of your problem is your COMKPLETELY ignoring our point that the officer should be punished; and holding it to be an incontrovertible fact that what the officer did is proper, despite their being ample room for the contrary viewpoint (especially considering there are numerous countries in the world where the officer would be convicted for what he did).
and I say you're advocating making the system worse because you are. holding people accountable is a basic function of society. you are advocating NOT holding people accountable. you are giving an officer free reign to kill anyone for a pathetically low standard of evidence; which it should be noted, if any regular citizen did, they would be convicted of murder.
ask yourself this: if it were a regular citizen doing the shooting, and not a cop, would he have been convicted of murder? and should he have been convicted of murder? What the officer did was wrong. Why did the officer do a wrong thing? Should we hold that person accountable for doing that wrong thing? Thats called seeing if the person is guilty of a crime or not. Thats called deciding if it was murder or just killing someone. Its called Justice. You want the person to be punished I want Justice. So we want different things I guess. Holding people acountable for their crimes doesn't make sense when they make that crime under a broken system. You would rail against the drug war and be on my side on this issue. A regular citizen wouldn't have made a traffic stop and wouldn't have a reasonable fear for their life. Police arn't regular citizens we give them a badge and a gun and except everything to be fine and them not to make mistakes or care about their lives now? I want Justice, you are the one who is advocating injustice, over and over. You're saying noone should be punished for committing murder. you just have a crappy sense of justice and are completely ignoring our points to argue a falsity. shame on you, stop wastin gthe threads tim with your nonsense. You are not arguing, since you are ignoring the points we make and simply restating your own, no matter how thoroughly they have been countered. I've tried to be reasonable, but you are persisting in being unreasonable. The officer did not have a reasonable fear for his life. you don't get to argu eby completely ignoring the other side's points and counterpoints. we have dealt with the points you have raised, you have not dealt with ours.
Your advocating for punishing someone who killed someone reguardless beacuse "hes a cop and should be held to a higher standard". Thats the definition of bring arbitrary beacuse you judge it to be murder. I'm not saying peole shouldn't be punished for murder I'm saying people shouldn't be punished for killing someone in the line of duty. I'm not ignoreing the other sides points and I've delt with them just fine.
On June 17 2017 12:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:55 zlefin wrote:
sermo ->
try this,
start from the premise: what the officer did was wrong, and should be punished.
Now see that he was not punished.
part of your problem is your COMKPLETELY ignoring our point that the officer should be punished; and holding it to be an incontrovertible fact that what the officer did is proper, despite their being ample room for the contrary viewpoint (especially considering there are numerous countries in the world where the officer would be convicted for what he did).
and I say you're advocating making the system worse because you are. holding people accountable is a basic function of society. you are advocating NOT holding people accountable. you are giving an officer free reign to kill anyone for a pathetically low standard of evidence; which it should be noted, if any regular citizen did, they would be convicted of murder.
ask yourself this: if it were a regular citizen doing the shooting, and not a cop, would he have been convicted of murder? and should he have been convicted of murder? What the officer did was wrong. Why did the officer do a wrong thing? Should we hold that person accountable for doing that wrong thing? Thats called seeing if the person is guilty of a crime or not. Thats called deciding if it was murder or just killing someone. Its called Justice. You want the person to be punished I want Justice. So we want different things I guess. Holding people acountable for their crimes doesn't make sense when they make that crime under a broken system. You would rail against the drug war and be on my side on this issue. A regular citizen wouldn't have made a traffic stop and wouldn't have a reasonable fear for their life. Police arn't regular citizens we give them a badge and a gun and except everything to be fine and them not to make mistakes or care about their lives now? Not even a little bit. I don't even know how you go from 1) officer did wrong thing >> 2) do we hold them accountable? As if that's not an obvious question with an equally obvious answer. If you do the wrong thing, you need to be held accountable. Being a police officer does not put you above the law. Stop making excuses.
Justice is deciding if what someone did is a crime that should be punished or not. Its why there is a difference between manslaughter and murder. Just doing something wrong isn't justification for punishment in itself.
On June 17 2017 12:13 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:09 Sermokala wrote:...
A regular citizen wouldn't have made a traffic stop and wouldn't have a reasonable fear for their life. Police arn't regular citizens we give them a badge and a gun and except everything to be fine and them not to make mistakes or care about their lives now?
.,. I expect a police officer to be sufficiently competent to complete a traffic stop without shooting an innocent person. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation to me.
and I expect the same which is why this isn't something that happenes every single day. People make mistakes and people die. What we do about that is up to us.
On June 17 2017 12:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:16 Sermokala wrote:
reaching for your waist while telling someone you have a gun is a threatening gesture and free asociating seeing something move into being the thing they just said is reasonable. Reaching for your waist after someone told you to pull out your wallet is not a threatening gesture. Telling a police officer you have a gun is not a threatening sentence. Those two, combined together, don't form a threatening situation. To get confused by those benign events and cause someone's life to end because of that confusion is not reasonable by any definition. Like, we're actually having this discussion. This is a thing that's happening in my life right now.
reaching for your waist for your wallet is the same motion as reaching for your gun in your waist. Telling a cop you have a gun is a threatening gesture. What would qualify as a threatening gesture for you?
|
On June 17 2017 12:16 Sermokala wrote:
reaching for your waist while telling someone you have a gun is a threatening gesture and free asociating seeing something move into being the thing they just said is reasonable.
Reaching for your waist after someone told you to pull out your wallet is not a threatening gesture. Telling a police officer you have a gun is not a threatening sentence. Those two, combined together, don't form a threatening situation. To get confused by those benign events and cause someone's life to end because of that confusion is not reasonable by any definition.
Like, we're actually having this discussion. This is a thing that's happening in my life right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
