|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 16 2021 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? In Norway, police basically don't do car chases, because the potential for collateral damage almost always outweighs the potential for damage caused by the driver escaping. Rather they get the car descriptions + driver description if possible, find the car in question, use dogs to locate where the driver ran off to. (I mean, if people try to drive away from cops it's almost always a stolen car, and they do end up parking it somewhere). Same logic applies to situations like these. De-escalation tactics do involve sometimes temporarily letting someone go.
That's also the policy in some jurisdictions in the US. Although it's typically for if there is some traffic violation like speeding or rolling through a stop sign and the perpetrator takes off. I don't think if they have a known fugitive with a warrant for their arrest that they just let them drive away.
Since you replied to this discussion I am curious on what you think is the appropriate punishment for the cop lady that shot Daunte Wright. Since 2 things I know about you are that you tend to believe that imprisoning people should not be for retribution and should instead be for rehabilitation and the betterment of society. Since cop lady clearly made a mistake and did not intend to kill that guy I don't know if there is much of an argument for "rehabilitation" as her risk for committing further crimes is virtually 0% if you bar her from ever owning or working with a gun. However, you also have strong views against use of force by police. The vast majority in this thread seem to think cop lady should go to jail, I think myself and JimmiC are the only "nays" so far.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On April 16 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 05:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? In your view, what's wrong with apprehending him later? If you let a fleeing suspect flee then aren't they just going to flee everytime and never be caught? The warrant they were trying to arrest him on was literally for fleeing police (and an unlicensed firearm). So he already fled the first time they tried to arrest him, this encounter was the 2nd time they tried to arrest him and the argument is just let him go and try on the 3rd time or the 4th time, or the 5th time? Isn't that just evidence for my point that he can just flee everytime if you're going to let him get away? The whole "you have his information, license plate, description etc. you can just catch him the next time." This entire encounter was "the next time."
With a measly two police cars you can stop someone from driving away.
Or you could just draw whatever weapon goes in your right hand and let him have it.
|
On April 16 2021 05:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? In Norway, police basically don't do car chases, because the potential for collateral damage almost always outweighs the potential for damage caused by the driver escaping. Rather they get the car descriptions + driver description if possible, find the car in question, use dogs to locate where the driver ran off to. (I mean, if people try to drive away from cops it's almost always a stolen car, and they do end up parking it somewhere). Same logic applies to situations like these. De-escalation tactics do involve sometimes temporarily letting someone go. That's also the policy in some jurisdictions in the US. Although it's typically for if there is some traffic violation like speeding or rolling through a stop sign and the perpetrator takes off. I don't think if they have a known fugitive with a warrant for their arrest that they just let them drive away. Since you replied to this discussion I am curious on what you think is the appropriate punishment for the cop lady that shot Daunte Wright. Since 2 things I know about you are that you tend to believe that imprisoning people should not be for retribution and should instead be for rehabilitation and the betterment of society. Since cop lady clearly made a mistake and did not intend to kill that guy I don't know if there is much of an argument for "rehabilitation" as her risk for committing further crimes is virtually 0% if you bar her from ever owning or working with a gun. However, you also have strong views against use of force by police. The vast majority in this thread seem to think cop lady should go to jail, I think myself and JimmiC are the only "nays" so far.
As far as I understand the rules that was a clear case of Involuntary Manslaughter (from what I know) and should be treated as such. Thus it should go to court for judgement according to the rules in that region. If the rules in that region are too strict or not I don't know. It varies a lot.
In this specific case being barred from owning arms in the future or working as a police is the minimal punishment. Most likely it should also include some further punishments since the police is in a position of trust that was broken here. Sadly the case should be treated stricter since a deterrence is required in the occupation. From a pure moral standpoint there should be no prison sentence involved.
The police department should also be looked into. What rules are in place that allows this to be caused? Is the training relevant and extensive enough? What are the hiring practices? The systemic errors that caused this needs closing more than the specific case needs actions taken. A relevant question could be if the police even need to carry side arms at all.
|
|
|
On April 16 2021 05:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 05:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? In your view, what's wrong with apprehending him later? If you let a fleeing suspect flee then aren't they just going to flee everytime and never be caught? The warrant they were trying to arrest him on was literally for fleeing police (and an unlicensed firearm). So he already fled the first time they tried to arrest him, this encounter was the 2nd time they tried to arrest him and the argument is just let him go and try on the 3rd time or the 4th time, or the 5th time? Isn't that just evidence for my point that he can just flee everytime if you're going to let him get away? The whole "you have his information, license plate, description etc. you can just catch him the next time." This entire encounter was "the next time." With a measly two police cars you can stop someone from driving away. Or you could just draw whatever weapon goes in your right hand and let him have it.
So your response to my objection to letting someone drive away is to say they could have used their police vehicles to not let him drive away? Eh... okay. I'm fine with that as well?
|
On April 16 2021 05:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? In Norway, police basically don't do car chases, because the potential for collateral damage almost always outweighs the potential for damage caused by the driver escaping. Rather they get the car descriptions + driver description if possible, find the car in question, use dogs to locate where the driver ran off to. (I mean, if people try to drive away from cops it's almost always a stolen car, and they do end up parking it somewhere). Same logic applies to situations like these. De-escalation tactics do involve sometimes temporarily letting someone go. That's also the policy in some jurisdictions in the US. Although it's typically for if there is some traffic violation like speeding or rolling through a stop sign and the perpetrator takes off. I don't think if they have a known fugitive with a warrant for their arrest that they just let them drive away. Since you replied to this discussion I am curious on what you think is the appropriate punishment for the cop lady that shot Daunte Wright. Since 2 things I know about you are that you tend to believe that imprisoning people should not be for retribution and should instead be for rehabilitation and the betterment of society. Since cop lady clearly made a mistake and did not intend to kill that guy I don't know if there is much of an argument for "rehabilitation" as her risk for committing further crimes is virtually 0% if you bar her from ever owning or working with a gun. However, you also have strong views against use of force by police. The vast majority in this thread seem to think cop lady should go to jail, I think myself and JimmiC are the only "nays" so far.
Well the thought is that the part that is "punishment" in Norway, is meant as a deterrent not as a retribution. So if you kill someone because of negligence, you are still going to jail. E.g. you drive someone over because you are texting on your phone. The length of the punishment is still way shorter than crimes performed by choice.
When it comes to apprehending suspects, without anyone having a significant risk of injury, there are several ways of doing it. After all, that is what every other well developed country is doing. However, the police needs to be trained for the tactics. Most countries invest into that training.
Just saw a body cam video of a LEO arresting a demented old lady which have problems with understanding speech, dislocating her shoulder, fracturing her humerus, and spraining her wrist. All because she had walked out of Walmart with groceries for 13$ that she had forgotten to pay for. Before she was found by the police two blocks from her house, she had returned the goods, but were not allowed to pay for it. After apprehending her, they placed her in a cell for 6 hours before releasing her, allowing her to go to hospital. No repercussions for the police officers. That isn't just bad training of the officers, that is heavy negligence from the police department, not creating a deterrent for that to never happen again.
youtube link to the bodycam
|
On April 16 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 05:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? In your view, what's wrong with apprehending him later? If you let a fleeing suspect flee then aren't they just going to flee everytime and never be caught? The warrant they were trying to arrest him on was literally for fleeing police (and an unlicensed firearm). So he already fled the first time they tried to arrest him, this encounter was the 2nd time they tried to arrest him and the argument is just let him go and try on the 3rd time or the 4th time, or the 5th time? Isn't that just evidence for my point that he can just flee everytime if you're going to let him get away? The whole "you have his information, license plate, description etc. you can just catch him the next time." This entire encounter was "the next time." And it doesn't occur to you to think why no one countries has a problem with criminals simply running away all the time and yet they don't have to shoot people in the back?
These are problems the entire world has solved but somehow for America they are a problem that cannot be overcome?
|
I happen to own a Glock 17, it's an incredibly reliable and easy to use/clean handgun that puts up with basically anything a user can throw at it, which is why they are standard issue for so many police departments. I've also handled a taser that I believe is similar to the ones issued to police as part of a courthouse safety course I took part in when I worked there. The officer charged with second degree manslaughter for killing Daunte Wright is going to have an incredibly hard time proving that she legitimately mistook her Glock for a taser, they feel very different in the hand, the Glock is pounds heavier, and the triggers don't feel anything remotely like one another.
She's also going to have a hard time showing that she believed that Wright was acting in a manner dangerous enough to justify use of deadly force given that she's also claiming she intended to use a less deadly method of stopping him. Even if she drops that claim and focuses solely on maintaining that he was legitimately dangerous enough to justify being shot with a gun, she was recorded saying "taser, taser, taser!" and "I shot him" with a clear air of surprise. At a minimum, its clear it was a really bad mistake, which might be enough to constitute "culpable negligence" as required for the charge.
|
On April 16 2021 06:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 05:49 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? In Norway, police basically don't do car chases, because the potential for collateral damage almost always outweighs the potential for damage caused by the driver escaping. Rather they get the car descriptions + driver description if possible, find the car in question, use dogs to locate where the driver ran off to. (I mean, if people try to drive away from cops it's almost always a stolen car, and they do end up parking it somewhere). Same logic applies to situations like these. De-escalation tactics do involve sometimes temporarily letting someone go. That's also the policy in some jurisdictions in the US. Although it's typically for if there is some traffic violation like speeding or rolling through a stop sign and the perpetrator takes off. I don't think if they have a known fugitive with a warrant for their arrest that they just let them drive away. Since you replied to this discussion I am curious on what you think is the appropriate punishment for the cop lady that shot Daunte Wright. Since 2 things I know about you are that you tend to believe that imprisoning people should not be for retribution and should instead be for rehabilitation and the betterment of society. Since cop lady clearly made a mistake and did not intend to kill that guy I don't know if there is much of an argument for "rehabilitation" as her risk for committing further crimes is virtually 0% if you bar her from ever owning or working with a gun. However, you also have strong views against use of force by police. The vast majority in this thread seem to think cop lady should go to jail, I think myself and JimmiC are the only "nays" so far. Keep in mind our nays our very different. Mine is because I wouldn't put any one in jail just to punish them for almost anything. To me the purpose of incarceration should be risk mitigation (making sure this person does not do it again) and rehabilitation. I don't think that US jail accomplishes either thing and in fact would be more likely to do the opposite. I do think she was wrong and under US law she should go to jail. I do not think that killing someone for resisting arrest is justifiable homicide like you. With the video and so on some sort of manslaughter charge as there does not seem to be intent or malice.
JimmiC, the guy that misinterprets my posts more than any other on this site, lol. I've literally stated multiple times now that I think the cop should lose her job and never be permitted to be a police officer or carry a gun again. If my argument was that this was a justified shooting why would I want her PUNISHED AT ALL? You don't punish people for doing justifiable things.
Btw I saw you just made a big reply to my post on the last page. I'm probably not going to respond, but I will tell you the reason I am not going to respond and again it's for misinterpreting my words and a more blatant example could not be made.
On April 16 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:
...Multiple things had to go wrong for him to die, and that doesn't mean it's his "fault" for resisting arrest...
Part of your response to my post containing this sentence is...
On April 16 2021 05:45 JimmiC wrote:
...You are victim blaming, you are saying it is the persons fault that he got shot...
That's just too aggravating and it's basically every conversation with you. Saying that I said the shooting was a justifiable homicide, again complete falsehood, saying that I placed the blame on Daunte Wright for getting shot, again, complete falsehood. It's too exhausting trying to refute the things you say that I say especially when I've literally just said the exact opposite in the very post you are replying to.
|
|
|
On April 16 2021 06:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 06:32 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 06:14 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2021 05:49 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? In Norway, police basically don't do car chases, because the potential for collateral damage almost always outweighs the potential for damage caused by the driver escaping. Rather they get the car descriptions + driver description if possible, find the car in question, use dogs to locate where the driver ran off to. (I mean, if people try to drive away from cops it's almost always a stolen car, and they do end up parking it somewhere). Same logic applies to situations like these. De-escalation tactics do involve sometimes temporarily letting someone go. That's also the policy in some jurisdictions in the US. Although it's typically for if there is some traffic violation like speeding or rolling through a stop sign and the perpetrator takes off. I don't think if they have a known fugitive with a warrant for their arrest that they just let them drive away. Since you replied to this discussion I am curious on what you think is the appropriate punishment for the cop lady that shot Daunte Wright. Since 2 things I know about you are that you tend to believe that imprisoning people should not be for retribution and should instead be for rehabilitation and the betterment of society. Since cop lady clearly made a mistake and did not intend to kill that guy I don't know if there is much of an argument for "rehabilitation" as her risk for committing further crimes is virtually 0% if you bar her from ever owning or working with a gun. However, you also have strong views against use of force by police. The vast majority in this thread seem to think cop lady should go to jail, I think myself and JimmiC are the only "nays" so far. Keep in mind our nays our very different. Mine is because I wouldn't put any one in jail just to punish them for almost anything. To me the purpose of incarceration should be risk mitigation (making sure this person does not do it again) and rehabilitation. I don't think that US jail accomplishes either thing and in fact would be more likely to do the opposite. I do think she was wrong and under US law she should go to jail. I do not think that killing someone for resisting arrest is justifiable homicide like you. With the video and so on some sort of manslaughter charge as there does not seem to be intent or malice. JimmiC, the guy that misinterprets my posts more than any other on this site, lol. I've literally stated multiple times now that I think the cop should lose her job and never be permitted to be a police officer or carry a gun again. If my argument was that this was a justified shooting why would I want her PUNISHED AT ALL? You don't punish people for doing justifiable things. Btw I saw you just made a big reply to my post on the last page. I'm probably not going to respond, but I will tell you the reason I am not going to respond and again it's for misinterpreting my words and a more blatant example could not be made. On April 16 2021 05:38 BlackJack wrote:
...Multiple things had to go wrong for him to die, and that doesn't mean it's his "fault" for resisting arrest... Part of your response to my post containing this sentence is... On April 16 2021 05:45 JimmiC wrote:
...You are victim blaming, you are saying it is the persons fault that he got shot... That's just too aggravating and it's basically every conversation with you. Saying that I said the shooting was a justifiable homicide, again complete falsehood, saying that I placed the blame on Daunte Wright for, again complete falsehood. It's too exhausting trying to refute the things you say that I say especially when I've literally just said the exact opposite in the very post you are replying to. I do understand that you think that she should lose her job and not be able to work in police again. So you are right that justified was not the exact word I should have used. Maybe greatly mitigated her culpability. The further statements that you pulled out of context were related to your future statements that made around how the police should use deadly force if someone is going to get away otherwise they will always get away (paraphrasing but I quoted it exactly previously.) I'm not misinterpreting you I am disagreeing with your logic. To use your analogy I think the thief who steals from the car is just as guilty whether or not your valuables were visible. And I believe it is good practice to not leave your valuables visible in your car.
Once again, I literally never said that police should use deadly force to stop someone getting away. I said not even anything even remotely similar to that. Funny how even if I choose not to respond to you you still start making up more shit that I didn't say lol
|
On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him?
This was your argument. You didn't say it explicitly, but it was heavily implied.
|
|
|
On April 16 2021 06:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 04:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2021 03:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If you want to stop PDs from fighting prosecutors, cut their funding. You can't give up on the problem because "we need these people". There are more people that can apply for the job.
BJ: You're either trolling or you're missing the point entirely. The cop should have never pulled the gun because their life wasn't in clear and immediate danger. Resisting arrest doesn't give the cop the right to draw a weapon. It doesn't give the cop any more authority to make a life or death decision. They had the body cameras. They had the license plate. They had more than enough evidence to seek him out later and arrest him.
That was gross negligence and the cop deserves jail time. It's that simple. Looking for ways to scapegoat the victim and give the officer the benefit of doubt is simply irresponsible and tells me you condone the murder by cop narrative that is prevalent. You're explaining away a murder to the least common denominator. Are you actually arguing that they should have just allowed him to flee and "seek him out later and arrest him." Wouldn't he just flee/resist again the next time they found him? This was your argument. You didn't say it explicitly, but it was heavily implied.
What? Is this a response to the exchange I just had with JimmiC? In other words are you saying that this is a post in which I implied deadly force should be used to prevent someone from fleeing? What the fuck?
|
On April 16 2021 06:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 06:23 farvacola wrote:
I happen to own a Glock 17, it's an incredibly reliable and easy to use/clean handgun that puts up with basically anything a user can throw at it, which is why they are standard issue for so many police departments. I've also handled a taser that I believe is similar to the ones issued to police as part of a courthouse safety course I took part in when I worked there. The officer charged with second degree manslaughter for killing Daunte Wright is going to have an incredibly hard time proving that she legitimately mistook her glock for a taser, they feel incredibly different in the hand, the Glock is pounds heavier, and the triggers don't feel anything remotely like one another.
She's also going to have a hard time showing that she believed that Wright was acting in a manner dangerous enough to justify use of deadly force given that she's also claiming she intended to use a less deadly method of stopping him. Even if she drops that claim and focuses solely on maintaining that he was legitimately dangerous enough to justify being shot with a gun, she was recorded saying "taser, taser, taser!" and "I shot him" with a clear air of surprise. At a minimum, its clear it was a really bad mistake, which might be enough to constitute "culpable negligence" as required for the charge. As a left leaning person and knowing all about the stats around gun ownership and personal safety, why do you choose to own one? Is it around that the risk is acceptable for pleasure that the activity gives? (I don't know how to word this better but I'm trying to get at like I know that hockey is dangerous, especially the kind I really like that involves hitting and fights and yet I do it anyway because I feel the risk is worth the reward I get in fitness and enjoyment. I mitigate that risk through training, equipment and so on but I do understand it would still be safer to not play). Or is it around perceived safety? Or is it around something to do with the 2nd amendment? Also, would you be in favor of a ban on personal ownership of handguns and assault rifles or not? I used to own a 22 rifle when I was younger and used it to shoot gophers and other pets at my uncles and grandparents farm so I'm not completely unfamiliar with guns, I grew up around a lot of rifles and was probably like 6 years old when I started shooting my first BB gun. My questions are just because almost no progressives around here own handguns and the only people who I know that own them only use them for target shooting and have them in a lock box, within a safe, separate for their ammo making them functionally useless for personal protection. Whereas it seems pretty common in the US and I struggle to wrap my head around the rationale.
These are fine questions, I own two handguns and may pick up a long gun or two at some point as well. I own firearms for two primary reasons. The first is that shooting guns accurately is really fucking difficult, so difficult that the slow process of improvement can be very rewarding. I'm right on the edge of being good enough to compete with my range gun, so its very much a sporting thing that is directly tied to why I once thought my low Master's league Zerg cheese skills meant I should practice SC2 day and night :D
The second is that I have very strong views about gun control and those are strengthened and come from a place of more authority when I myself have competence with firearms. For instance, I know how hard it is to be accurate with a handgun such that I can say with certainty that 99% of people who own firearms for self-defense are fooling themselves. As the stats show, the most appreciable changes in circumstance that results from firearm ownership are increased risk of accidents, increased risk of suicide, and increased risk of assailants using one's firearms against them. This would be incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent much time at ranges, people can barely hit targets 5 and 10 yards in front of them with steel frame range handguns far more accurate than polymer guns like Glocks and M&P Shields. The self-defense arguments are laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
What in the hell...........
Since when are the only two options LET HIM FLEE OR SHOOT HIM?
What kind of stupid results-oriented thinking is this? You realize the shooting was accidental, right? By sheer fact that unfortunate series of events happened they were supposed to let him flee at the beginning because they could have predicted that the dimwit cop was going to mistake her taser for her gun or something? That's such a ridiculously irrational line of thinking.
So ZerOCool is saying they should have let him flee instead of shooting him? Not only did he not explicitly say this but it doesn't even make sense in the context that the lady didn't even intend to shoot him! But if this ridiculous hypothetical is actually what ZerOCool was saying and my response of "don't let a criminal flee" made it sound to you like "shoot the criminal instead of letting him flee." Then let me say it as plainly as possible: No you shouldn't shoot fleeing criminals to keep them from getting away.
|
On April 16 2021 07:39 BlackJack wrote:
What in the hell...........
Since when are the only two options LET HIM FLEE OR SHOOT HIM?
What kind of stupid results-oriented thinking is this? You realize the shooting was accidental, right? By sheer fact that unfortunate series of events happened they were supposed to let him flee at the beginning because they could have predicted that the dimwit cop was going to mistake her taser for her gun or something? That's such a ridiculously irrational line of thinking.
So ZerOCool is saying they should have let him flee instead of shooting him? Not only did he not explicitly say this but it doesn't even make sense in the context that the lady didn't even intend to shoot him! But if this ridiculous hypothetical is actually what ZerOCool was saying and my response of "don't let a criminal flee" made it sound to you like "shoot the criminal instead of letting him flee." Then let me say it as plainly as possible: No you shouldn't shoot fleeing criminals to keep them from getting away.
What is your argument then?
|
On April 16 2021 07:39 BlackJack wrote:
What in the hell...........
Since when are the only two options LET HIM FLEE OR SHOOT HIM?
What kind of stupid results-oriented thinking is this? You realize the shooting was accidental, right? By sheer fact that unfortunate series of events happened they were supposed to let him flee at the beginning because they could have predicted that the dimwit cop was going to mistake her taser for her gun or something? That's such a ridiculously irrational line of thinking.
So ZerOCool is saying they should have let him flee instead of shooting him? Not only did he not explicitly say this but it doesn't even make sense in the context that the lady didn't even intend to shoot him! But if this ridiculous hypothetical is actually what ZerOCool was saying and my response of "don't let a criminal flee" made it sound to you like "shoot the criminal instead of letting him flee." Then let me say it as plainly as possible: No you shouldn't shoot fleeing criminals to keep them from getting away.
I did say that it was an option that was preferable to trying to detain Daunte Wright. I also stated that the office should never have drawn her weapon/taser if her life wasn't in immediate threat of harm. That she "accidentally" shot someone and just because they were surprised they did it or feel remorse about it afterwards is beyond the fact. She killed someone due to negligence. And that negligence should result in a punishment. Manslaughter 2 is appropriate in this case.
Should Daunte Wright have fled? No. But I can't argue more than that because I don't know what he was thinking. Should that officer have pulled a taser/gun on him? Absolutely not. There was no need whatsoever. He resists, gets in the car, and leaves. So what? Do some detective/police work and find him afterwards.
But if you agree with the majority that he shouldn't have been shot, that the officer was negligent in her discharging the weapon and killing Daunte Wright, what are you arguing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
