US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4201

On May 17 2024 19:42 Elroi wrote:

Well, would he ever have been convicted in the first place if that were the case?

On May 17 2024 20:08 Simberto wrote:


You think an antifa guy shooting up white christian people in texas would have an easier time in court than a good old white boy, veteran who had served his country, who shoots some good-for nothing black guy who was probably looting anyways?

On May 18 2024 16:04 oBlade wrote:
What was the point?

On May 19 2024 18:46 BlackJack wrote:
There are some nutty DAs out there bringing some nutty charges against people that I think would deserve a pardon. One example is the story of Jose Alba:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPpqCd3ZjaQ&ab_channel=CBSNewYork

Essentially a bodega worker gets attacked by a larger younger man. To defend himself he pulls out a knife and stabs the attacker. The attacker died and the police and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg arrest the clerk and charge him with 2nd degree murder. He was hauled off to Riker's island on $250,000 bail before the charges were dropped due to public pressure. I've seen several more cases like this one, some in Canada and some in American cities. I honestly don't think there exists a jury that would convict law-abiding citizens defending their life against someone attacking them, but if there were, and if I were governor/President I'd absolutely give them a pardon.

On May 19 2024 22:45 KwarK wrote:
It depends a lot on the fact pattern to me. If someone is actively robbing you then the threat to your life is current. They’re saying “give me the money and maybe I won’t hurt you”. You can shoot them then. If 15 seconds later they’ve finished robbing you and are leaving with your money then shooting them in the back is not justified.

On May 19 2024 23:26 WombaT wrote:

Aye I’d broadly agree with that. If I recall correctly it was the latter scenario that occurred in the rather famous Tony Martin case over here.

Adrenaline and fear in a threatening scenario, especially if you’re physically at a big advantage don’t tend to lend themselves to proportionality. It’s not like you can guarantee the other person isn’t going to kill you.

On May 20 2024 00:25 KwarK wrote:
I’m also broadly speaking fine with disproportionate force if there is a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm or death. If someone is coming at you with their fists and you can reasonably believe that after overpowering you they mean to kill you (abusive former partner who has made such threats for example) and what you have to hand is a flamethrower then I’m good with the usage of that. The idea that we have some sort of tier list of weapons and that the defender must restrict themselves to something within the attacking tier +3 is absurd to me.

The clear exception to that, for me, are the police. The police enter most confrontations on a voluntary basis (they can choose to press the issue or not at their discretion) and have an entire suite of tools that somehow includes tanks and drone missile strikes. If they find themselves using wildly disproportionate deadly force then they have likely made a mistake. As public servants their use of force should be far, far more strictly policed than the rest of us. This bullshit where they insert themselves into a situation, panic, and shoot randoms is nuts.

On May 20 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:


I’m not sure I understand your point about police entering most confrontations on a voluntary basis. I would say the vast vast majority of confrontations that result in deadly force are from the police simply doing their job to protect the public. I would hope that the police have some duty to confront these threats and it’s not done on a voluntary basis.

On May 20 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:


I’m not sure I understand your point about police entering most confrontations on a voluntary basis. I would say the vast vast majority of confrontations that result in deadly force are from the police simply doing their job to protect the public. I would hope that the police have some duty to confront these threats and it’s not done on a voluntary basis.

On May 20 2024 05:41 KwarK wrote:

As has been pointed out, police largely choose whether to insert themselves into a situation. They have no obligation to insert themselves into situations. The case in which it was ruled there was no legal duty to protect there were some wonen being raped in a home invasion while another was hiding. The hiding women called the cops. When they showed up she called out to them, revealing herself. The cops asked the home invaders if they were raping anyone but the home invaders cleverly said “no” which fooled the cops. The home invaders then abducted all the occupants. The women felt the police had failed them in that situation but the courts found that there is no duty to protect and therefore no failure to perform that duty.

They’re also generally a proactive rather than reactive organization. They’re not an occupying force facing a hostile population, they’re not dealing with ambushes or IEDs or snipers.

The police hold the initiative. They get to choose what to respond to a call with. How much to bring to a raid. What kind of raid to do. If there’s a fleeing car with a baby in it they get to choose whether to engage in a high speed chase in which they attempt to deliberately crash that car or whether to monitor it and show up after it stops. They get to choose whether they knock on a door and speak like reasonable people or whether they show up at 2am demanding compliance while shouting different orders. They get to choose whether to bring a bulldozer and tear down someone’s house because a fugitive won’t leave or whether just waiting a bit is better.

The police basically lack every excuse available to the rest of us. The rest of us are typically acted upon and have to react as best we can without the benefit of training, equipment, preparation, and a militarized gang at our back. There’s not much room for choice in a purely reactionary scenario. The police have to explain their choices, why they felt the need to make a stop at the pet store and execute every puppy etc.

On May 20 2024 06:47 BlackJack wrote:


There's also the Parkland school resource officer who was disgraced and prosecuted for his inaction of not entering the school to confront the school shooter. Even without prosecution, they could still lose their careers if they aren't performing their job, so I don't think it's fair to strictly call it "voluntary" whether they confront a public threat.

If the police kicked in the front door of the woman being raped my last thought would be "Well they didn't have to do that. They could have ignored her pleas and gone down to the donut shop instead, so they deserve extra scrutiny for whatever happens next."

I believe the vast majority of cases involving deadly force involve the police making a good faith attempt to protect law abiding citizens from an ongoing threat. I doubt many people would choose to confront dangerous people with weapons if they could draw a paycheck by just doing nothing.

On May 20 2024 08:01 KwarK wrote:

Police officer is a very safe job. It’s being around police officers that is unsafe. In most jobs you’re not allowed to execute members of the public for noncompliance for example. Police officers are. We hold pizza delivery drivers to a far higher level of scrutiny, despite their job being way more dangerous. If a delivery driver going to a rough neighbourhood spits in the food then they’ll be fired. If a police officer going to a rough neighbourhood executes a random citizen for answering the door with a legally owned holstered firearm then they won’t be.

The reality is that our police force simply can’t attain the high level of training and professionalism of the pizza delivery industry and actively fight any attempt to hold them accountable to that standard.

On May 20 2024 08:55 BlackJack wrote:


Do pizza delivery drivers need to be trained to not spit in someone's food? I'm not sure I understand that point. There are all kind of professions that can cause injuries and deaths to people. A surgeon can amputate the wrong leg from someone and continue to practice medicine and their job is way safer than a police officer or a pizza delivery person. I'm not sure we can draw any straight lines on training, professionalism, or level of scrutiny based on someone doing an entirely different job maliciously spitting in someone's food.

Are you citing a specific example of the police executing someone with a holstered firearm for answering the door and not losing their job?