|
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 19:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 19:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2017 18:32 Acrofales wrote:On June 17 2017 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2017 17:32 Acrofales wrote:On June 17 2017 10:27 Plansix wrote:
Rape isn't like getting caught in the rain. It's not something you avoid, like the flu or late fees. Someone breaks into my home, no one asks if I had to many windows and was asking for it. Some devil's advocating here: Actually, a friend of mine's house got broken into (in Brazil). And we kinda looked at how he said they got in and figured it was stupidly easy. We advised him to move, because if it was that easy once, it'd be that easy a second time too. After the second time they broke in, he did move. There's obviously traits that make you more or less likely to be a victim, and trying to reduce those traits seems fairly normal behavior. It doesn't mean you're to blame. But I can see how saying you have a gun and then reaching to your waste could get you shot by the overly trigger-happy cops you appear to have over there. So while I think the cop should be locked up for manslaughter, there clearly is a way to reduce your chance of getting shot in this situation, just as my friend could (and eventually did) reduce his chance of being burgled. Just curious, what were you thinking, because not being black would have been his best defense in my eyes. I was actually just the working with the situation here. I think the situation is shit, and should be changed. Cops continuously shooting Innocent black men is an atrocious status quo. But given that it IS the status quo, and if you are an innocent black man, it is better to do whatever you can to prevent getting shot. Generally that will be keeping your hands on the steering wheel and doing exactly as the cop tells you. And if the instructions are contradictory (keep your hands on the steering wheel and hand over your license and registration), make it clear you're going to have to reach into your pocket to get your license, and ask the cop whether that is ok. US Cops should clearly be treated as armed muggers in Brazil: you do exactly what they want and pray they don't shoot you anyway. Most of the time they won't, and when they do they'll probably get away with it. What makes you think that's not what he did? Some may wonder why someone would pay them on top of the extortion and theft. It's almost like the police in America are literally a government sanctioned gang. If I understand correctly your advice is to acquiesce to the gang no matter how egregious the demands in perpetuity, am I correct? No. His advice is : If you are in a traffic stop,
Have you seen the OJ Simpson tv series? It has a scene where Johnnie Cochran goes exactly through this procedure. Whole series is genius. Especially if you aren't American and don't understand all the problems of the black community.
|
I'll agree with that sentiment; as someone with a bit of legal experience, I think The People V. O.J. Simpson is one of the best TV portrayals of race and crime in the US available. It also gets its courtroom and lawyer stuff more right than most.
|
I should mention the cop claimed he thought he was an armed robbery suspect which has it's own procedure (to slightly reduce the danger to civilian and significantly for the officer) that obviously wasn't followed.
|
he had his daughter in the car
|
United States24740 Posts
On June 17 2017 15:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 14:42 micronesia wrote:On June 17 2017 14:31 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 14:29 micronesia wrote:On June 17 2017 14:27 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 14:08 micronesia wrote:On June 17 2017 14:04 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 14:02 micronesia wrote:
Did the (hypothetical) cop really have a decent case? He shot an unarmed man who did nothing wrong. He should be willing to take the bullet in that 1% case where it's actually a gun being pulled out. Guilty of manslaughter. The facts speak for themselves. But it's not going to be 1% a gun, cause there's this weird unlikely light effect that makes it look exactly like a gun. The large majority of the time it's going to be a gun, otherwise the light effect wouldn't be unlikely. The point I want to make is there is absolutely no way to come up with hard and fast rules for determining if what the cop did was legally excusable or not (if he actually thinks he was in danger, there is going to be at least some controversy and the fact can't simply speak for themselves), and to discuss a real case from this perspective is going to make it almost impossible to convince someone who currently is on the other side of the fence that the evidence leans much more heavily towards guilt and some type of conviction. As an aside, Kwark, cops really need to get paid more given your explanation of their responsibilities (note I have no problem with wanting to create a society where cops shooting innocent people is extremely rare) You need to look at the facts to determine whether there's a reasonable way in which the cop can feel threatened. If you start ignoring the facts, there is literally no way a cop can do a wrongful shooting ever, and that kills the whole point of having a discussion. Did you interpret me saying "the facts can't simply speak for themselves" to mean "ignore the facts"? That is not what I meant. Indeed, the facts are the most important part of evaluating what happened and determining what outcome is most appropriate for the officer who shot the unarmed person. Okay so I disagree with your assessment that "if he actually thinks he was in danger, there is going to be at least some controversy". I think you have to ignore the facts at least to some extent to make that assessment. Which facts need to be ignored to make that assessment? It's a general assessment and not generated based on any of the facts of the individual news item you all were discussing. If anything is suspect in the statement, I think I could use a softer word than controversy. Once the cop thinks he is in danger, it becomes difficult and complex to determine if the cop was at fault or more importantly how at fault he was, and this will be a source for disagreement. In a given case, some will think the facts point towards deserving a manslaughter charge, others will think a lesser charge is in order. As long as the issue is being discussed from that perspective instead of the black and white "cop is obviously guilty in this case" or "cop is obviously not guilty in this case" then I think dissenters will be easier to convince that the cop really was out of line in this case. It's not specific facts that you have to ignore, it's situations where the cop genuinely thinks he was in danger, but he clearly wasn't (based on the facts). To claim that the situation is necessarily complex or controversial when the cop thinks it is, you have to ignore the facts in certain situations. I don't think you need to ignore the facts regarding how much danger he was actually in when taking into account the additional fact that he thought he was in danger and realizing this was not simply an angry cop who wanted to execute innocent people. Determining how reasonable or unreasonable the cop's self defense actions were should have a significant impact on what punishment he should receive, but it's only really easy to evaluate if the cop took his action despite not fearing harm because he simply wanted to kill the person.
To give an extreme example just like you did (but probably way more common in America to be honest), what if a cop genuinely feels that black people are very threatening? Doesn't make him shooting an unarmed black person who was minding his own business any more controversial, obviously.
Actually, if we somehow know (i.e., have the 'facts') that the guy really did fear for his life simply because the person he encountered (and eventually shot) was black, and the black person literally did nothing threatening (perhaps, just sat in a chair with hands on his/her lap and looked at the officer until being shot to death, quite an extreme example) then that raises some serious questions and likely will affect the punishment. It will also (hopefully) affect the police force as a whole.
Doesn't make him shooting a black person that comes at him with a gun after having killed five other people wrong either.
Before we start engaging into this deep level where everything is complex and controversial, we need to look at the facts of the case and see if they warrant such effort. In this case they really don't. In reality it takes a great deal of effort to dissect a situation where a cop thought he was in danger. The only case like this where things will be quick and easy to judge and punishments easy to select is when the cop admits he killed the innocent person and didn't feel like was in danger (or simply never makes any self dense type claim).
I do agree though, in this very extreme case it is much less likely people will start arguing about whether or not the cop was 'guilty.' Even so, the discussion about exactly what the courts (and police, and everyone else) should do about it (what is he guilty of?) is not simple at all. How much less time should this cop serve than the one who simply lunched the black person for some reason other than immediate fear of harm?
On June 17 2017 15:43 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'd rather a cop risk being shot than them shooting a civilian on accident, absolutely I'll take that trade off every single time.
I have no problem with the idea of moving towards a more elite police force rather than using some type of swarm tactics with under-trained, underpaid officers, but it rubs me the wrong way how you say you will take that trade-off as though you are a cop and can therefore speak on their behalf about how exactly they risk their lives. I do note it's a risk of a cop being shot so I'll admit that sounds better than a civilian actually being shot, so we don't even disagree but how you put it is just... strange.
|
Well, not gonna argue with Sermo anymore (or respond to his responses from overnight), since he's ignoring our points constantly, and misrepresenting our arguments to blatantly strawman.
|
On June 17 2017 21:50 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 15:43 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'd rather a cop risk being shot than them shooting a civilian on accident, absolutely I'll take that trade off every single time. I have no problem with the idea of moving towards a more elite police force rather than using some type of swarm tactics with under-trained, underpaid officers, but it rubs me the wrong way how you say you will take that trade-off as though you are a cop and can therefore speak on their behalf about how exactly they risk their lives. I do note it's a risk of a cop being shot so I'll admit that sounds better than a civilian actually being shot, so we don't even disagree but how you put it is just... strange.
How much force cops are allowed to use and what they should do in determined situation are defined by society, there is nothing inherently wrong about discussing how much risk they are mandated to take in which situation. Cops are being paid because society (through the government) needs a job done, therefore it's completely reasonable for society to set the standards of their behaviour. If they can't accept the risk of not shooting first, maybe they should look for another job.
|
The #Resistance is legitimately pretty strong, all things considered.
Complaints have been lodged with the District of Columbia and New York City Bar Associations against President Donald Trump’s personal defense attorney Marc Kasowitz, calling for an investigation to determine if he has breached rules of professional conduct.
Separate complaints were filed over the week against Kasowitz by the Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit government watchdog organization, and by attorney Neil Goldfarb, a former board member of the American Civil Liberties Union. They both allege that Kasowitz may have inappropriately counseled other White House staffers while representing the president, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.
www.yahoo.com
|
The absurdity of talking about whether the cop was justified in thinking his life was in danger is that the victim's race is being completely ignored. In an identical situation but with a white guy the cop generally doesn't feel threatened, and doesn't dump 999 shots into an innocent stranger.
This is where micro's hypothetical misses the mark: it's not about how much the wallet looked like a gun, it's about the cop's prior expectations. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a large discrepancy between interactions with black and white civilians.
Think of it in a Bayesian sense (humans aren't really rational in a Bayesian sense, especially when they're scared, but it's a useful approximation). If the cop's prior probability that a black guy is likely to want to kill cops, he's more likely to interpret facts on that assumption. If the black guy says he has a gun, that prior probability is updated to be even higher. If he reaches for his waist it's updated to be even higher. If he pulls out something grayish black and starts to move it in the direction of the officer, it's updated even higher.
Cops are people, and people tend to be pretty risk-averse when it comes to their own deaths, so the perceived probability of someone having means and motive to kill the cop doesn't need to rise very high for him to "defend himself." And that perceived probability started relatively high already, so it doesn't take much.
Kwark might call advice in either direction victim blaming, but I've actually heard that if you're black and you have a legal gun you shouldn't say anything unless/until you have to open the compartment it's in. Because if you didn't mention it, sure, there's a small chance your glove compartment falls open unexpectedly and he sees a gun and shoots you. But if you tell him you have a gun there's a 100% chance he finds that out and is much more likely to interpret anything you do as a threat on his life.
I should clarify that I don't know if this advice is good or not (bolded so no one reads the first bit but not the clarification). I'm white and still have some lingering naive feeling that if you said it with enough of a deescalatory tone and wording you could maybe convince him you're less of a threat.+ Show Spoiler [example] + I'm thinking something like "officer, before we proceed further I just wanted to disclose something so you aren't surprised by it. In my glove compartment there is a small .22 pistol. I can show you proper documentation for it if you like. But if I have to open that compartment I'll move slowly and in plain view to avoid any misunderstandings; please do not be shocked if you see that gun."
|
Hiding the fact that you have a gun from the cop is probably the dumbest thing that you can do. Cops know whether people have concealed carry permits as soon as they pull people over and run the plates.
Anyway, it looks like the root problem with the Castile shooting is that the cop thought that Castile was a suspect from an armed bank robbery. That, combined with Castile likely being sloppy with his hands and the cop being a little bit dumb and edgy, resulted in Castile getting shot. I'm not sure that the shooting arises to criminal conduct (particularly in the light of the applicable criminal statute), but I'm sure that the cop and the police department got slaughtered civilly.
|
On June 17 2017 17:06 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 15:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 17 2017 14:53 KwarK wrote: "how to avoid being raped" idea is so incredibly destructive. It forces victims to examine their own choices and continually ask themselves what they could have done differently to avoid it with self hating shit like "I should have known better" or "I shouldn't have trusted them" when the reality is that it's outside their control.
Rapists would get away with rape a lot less often if victims weren't conditioned to automatically feel shame and treat their victimhood as a mark of personal failure. everything is outside our control. the sun can burn out in an hour. the personal failure thing and its devastating psychological effects are much deeper in children than adults. adults are much better equipped to deal with all forms of trauma. rape is a violent crime. so is murder, multiple torso stabbings, etc... every citizen of Toronto is theoretically free to regularly hang out around parliament//queen at 2 am on Friday night. if i know someone is hanging out there regularly i advise them against it because its a war zone. if someone gets themselves fucked up there ... whether its an aggravated assault. a brutal stabbing, gets shot, or raped.. what are you doing hanging out at Queen//Parliament at 2am on Friday for like the 10th time this summer. can't u find ur acid and LSD someplace else? Furthermore, i advise children to stay away from there at all costs. Wtf are you talking about? The vast majority of rapes are commited by close relations. The victim feeling guilty is an established issue, don't mix up your opinion with facts please.
Yes, and the same people tend to be victims of sexual crimes again and again, while others never experience one. I think there are 2 main reasons for this:
-Rapists sense weakness, hence go for the same people again. Boys and girls being abused as kids actually gets a "mark" they sense.
-The men these people hang out with, and the situations they put themselves in.
Telling someone not to spend the night with a guy they don't want to have sex with is perfectly fine. It is like locking your car, or hiding your wallet on a subway.
|
United States24740 Posts
On June 18 2017 01:44 ChristianS wrote:
The absurdity of talking about whether the cop was justified in thinking his life was in danger is that the victim's race is being completely ignored. In an identical situation but with a white guy the cop generally doesn't feel threatened, and doesn't dump 999 shots into an innocent stranger.
This is where micro's hypothetical misses the mark: it's not about how much the wallet looked like a gun, it's about the cop's prior expectations. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a large discrepancy between interactions with black and white civilians.
When you say "it's about" what do you mean?
The purpose of the hypothetical is to show that just because a driver does not do something obviously wrong like pull a gun on the cop or yell out "I'm going to shoot you right now" and then pull out a banana in a dramatic way does not automatically mean the cop was completely in the wrong for discharging his weapon. It may be appropriate to acquit him of charges for shooting the unarmed person (the extreme example being a wallet that looks exactly like a gun at that moment). How much the wallet 'looks like a gun' helps to determine how reasonable a perceived thread of harm is, which generally is what determines whether self defense was appropriate (things working a bit differently for cops rather than regular citizens I can understand though). Some say it doesn't matter... once you are a cop authorized to use a lethal weapon, you cannot use self defense unless the perceived harm is objectively reasonable. I see it as more of a continuous spectrum, and strongly encourage those being pulled over by cops to keep their hands on the window/sill when not being specifically requested to retrieve something, regardless of what race you are.
Probably linked to my first question, what is your position regarding race and prior expectations, in terms of how police should be punished for shooting unarmed drivers? Cops being afraid of minority drivers and becoming trigger happy is indeed a big problem. The issue is whether or not the driver being a minority is a valid reason for considering the perceived harm to be objectively reasonable. I think most of the people here would say no, but that's also an easy thing to say from the comfort of your own home (just like those who are happy to 'take the shot cop every single time').
edit: I should clarify so I don't give the wrong idea that I'm incredibly racist; the driver being a minority is not justification for shooting him. Is the cop justified in being more worried in general?
|
On June 18 2017 01:53 xDaunt wrote:
Hiding the fact that you have a gun from the cop is probably the dumbest thing that you can do. Cops know whether people have concealed carry permits as soon as they pull people over and run the plates.
Anyway, it looks like the root problem with the Castile shooting is that the cop thought that Castile was a suspect from an armed bank robbery. That, combined with Castile likely being sloppy with his hands and the cop being a little bit dumb and edgy, resulted in Castile getting shot. I'm not sure that the shooting arises to criminal conduct (particularly in the light of the applicable criminal statute), but I'm sure that the cop and the police department got slaughtered civilly.
There are specific legal requirements varying by states about whether you have to disclose you're carrying, only if asked, etc.
CCW is different than open carrying in a state so there are variables there as well. Like I said Castile being black was his biggest problem. If he wasn't black none of this happens.
The cop shouldn't have even been at his window if he thought he was stopping an armed robber. I know you know better than that. "Sloppy hands" is colossally stupid thing to say when trying to blame it on all black people retroactively matching a suspect.
On June 18 2017 03:09 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2017 01:44 ChristianS wrote:
The absurdity of talking about whether the cop was justified in thinking his life was in danger is that the victim's race is being completely ignored. In an identical situation but with a white guy the cop generally doesn't feel threatened, and doesn't dump 999 shots into an innocent stranger.
This is where micro's hypothetical misses the mark: it's not about how much the wallet looked like a gun, it's about the cop's prior expectations. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a large discrepancy between interactions with black and white civilians. When you say "it's about" what do you mean? The purpose of the hypothetical is to show that just because a driver does not do something obviously wrong like pull a gun on the cop or yell out "I'm going to shoot you right now" and then pull out a banana in a dramatic way does not automatically mean the cop was completely in the wrong for discharging his weapon. It may be appropriate to acquit him of charges for shooting the unarmed person (the extreme example being a wallet that looks exactly like a gun at that moment). How much the wallet 'looks like a gun' helps to determine how reasonable a perceived thread of harm is, which generally is what determines whether self defense was appropriate (things working a bit differently for cops rather than regular citizens I can understand though). Some say it doesn't matter... once you are a cop authorized to use a lethal weapon, you cannot use self defense unless the perceived harm is objectively reasonable. I see it as more of a continuous spectrum, and strongly encourage those being pulled over by cops to keep their hands on the window/sill when not being specifically requested to retrieve something, regardless of what race you are. Probably linked to my first question, what is your position regarding race and prior expectations, in terms of how police should be punished for shooting unarmed drivers? Cops being afraid of minority drivers and becoming trigger happy is indeed a big problem. The issue is whether or not the driver being a minority is a valid reason for considering the perceived harm to be objectively reasonable. I think most of the people here would say no, but that's also an easy thing to say from the comfort of your own home (just like those who are happy to 'take the shot cop every single time'). edit: I should clarify so I don't give the wrong idea that I'm incredibly racist; the driver being a minority is not justification for shooting him. Is the cop justified in being more worried in general?
No it's not.
That's how they tell me the justice system works. You're supposed to error on the side of not killing innocent people, if that means getting shot, that means getting shot. Don't like it, get a new job.
|
On June 18 2017 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
No it's not.
That's how they tell me the justice system works. You're supposed to error on the side of not killing innocent people, if that means getting shot, that means getting shot. Don't like it, get a new job.
I'm as strong a police supporter as you'll find, yet I 100% agree with this and have always felt this way. The whole 'with great power comes great responsibility' thing seems applicable.
|
|
|
|
|
This was the strategy that allowed him to recover his mojo in the last few weeks of the election. It should work here as well.
|
On June 18 2017 04:07 LegalLord wrote:This was the strategy that allowed him to recover his mojo in the last few weeks of the election. It should work here as well.
Happy birthday man!
Gogo MK Ultra!
But yeah.... Coup attempt?..., I'm joking, but he already gave them some pretty wide discretion.
|
Hey, at least camp David is a lot cheaper on the SS then his golf clubs.
On June 18 2017 04:07 LegalLord wrote:This was the strategy that allowed him to recover his mojo in the last few weeks of the election. It should work here as well.
Tobad he isn't up against idiot voters but professional investigators this time.
I can see this could be a turning point tho, he can go crazy (tho I would argue status quo) and fire Sessions, Rosenstein and anyone else he thinks got him into this position and appoint someone new who then fires Meuller.
Or he starts following the advise of people who actually know what their doing and Trump starts acting like a professional.
My money is on former, rather then the latter.
|
Chances he's contemplating firing Mueller still?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
