Printable View
You regret that double jeopardy applies? Do you want to remove that for all suspects or just officers of the law?
As for self-defence, I thought that everyone (public or police) needed to feel threatened for it to apply. Again these are life-or-death split second decisions, I notice that you just completely ignored the fact that hundreds of American officers die on the line of duty defending the public. Guess its easier to ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your agenda.
I want to remove judges that don't know the law. Like I said, it's too late to retry the police officer.
Except this wasn't a split second decision. What's my agenda? Not wanting cops to kill at will?
Why wasn't it a split second decision? The judge thought the officer legitimately felt his life threatened and the suspect had shown he was willing to kill so why is this legally wrong? If he felt his life threatened should he have waited until he was dead before he had a right to defend his life?
As for your agenda, I'm not clear what it is. You (and OG especially) seem to have a hard on for the Police being always in the wrong that's as ludicrous as Lewk's hard on for criminals being killed.
Pfft because it was more like 15 split-second decisions :oQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No Enoch, shush you :noob:
To be honest I don't see Loki as having a hard on for the police being definitely wrong, except in this case (where he has given a reason). And to be honest if all other cops stop shooting yet you think it's safe enough to walk up and stand on the bonnet, it doesn't sound like a split second decision.
Because the officer climbed on top of the car after a whole wave of shots from him and others. There was absolutely no reason to climb on top of the car. And this was not something that he did in an instant. The judge used a standard that's not supported by the law. The cops are not allowed to use lethal force just because they feel threatened. We're talking about freaking cops. They could make a persuasive case to be threatened throughout their entire shift. Does that mean they can turn around and shoot people all the time? This ruling (if applied more broadly) would give cops a blank check to shoot anyone and everyone as long as the cop is wearing a uniform (after all, the cop gets to decide whether he feels threatened or not).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Furthermore, the judge threw out the manslaughter charge because he couldn't be sure that it was precisely this officer who fired the killing shot. That is contrary to case law.
I'm also the one consistently calling for tougher penalties for crimes, including making much more frequent use of the death penalty...
You're going reductio ad absurdum.
Of course if feeling threatened is a defence then it has to be demonstrated that you reasonably felt threatened. Merely being an officer doesn't discount the threat faced.
Since you're so willing to pronounce judgement that not only is the officer in the wrong but the judge is too I'm wondering how much of the evidence in this case you've read? Or witness testimony you've seen etc? Since you know better than both the cop and the judge.
You realize this is how law works, right? If you establish that a cop can use lethal force as a first reaction any time he feels threatened, then that becomes a valid defense. The judge said that as long as the officer felt threatened, he couldn't be convicted. That is highly subjective. It will be very difficult for a prosecution to prove that a police officer didn't feel threatened.
I've read plenty of criticism of this decision. I also know that police officers are killing a thousand Americans a year, and virtually none of them are being punished. We need to make it more difficult for cops to kill people, not less difficult. Any time you create such an easy way out, you're telling police officers that it's ok to shoot first and use their brain second. Or just shoot anyone who looked at you funny. And if the person who looks at you funny is a black male, well, you automatically get a right to feel threatened. :rolleyes:
You are aware of the concept of innocent until proven guilty aren't you? The prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer killed the suspect illegally - with self defence a legal defence. Self defence isn't being created as a defence it has ALWAYS existed.
As for your numbers it seems then that the Police are killing about 5 to 6 suspects per year relative to how many Police die. I wonder how that ratio compares to Eg Israel officers versus Palestininians killed.
How do you figure that? I don't really understand what you mean. But police kill around 1000 people a year in the usa, while about 50 are shot every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Was an estimate from my figure above that an average of 146 US Police Officers die each each. 1000/146 = 6.8
According to the Guardian this compares to for example 12 Israelis killed by Palestinians, while 2314 Palestinians were killed by Israeli's in 2014. A ratio of 192.8 compared to an estimated ratio of 6.8 - if we only want to look at numbers and just simply ignore issues like whether deaths were justified etc
Though even 50 police deaths per year (which is a lot less than reported) would be unacceptable and 50 too many. Would imply on average two officers would have been killed since this thread started (rather than 6 deaths since this thread started which is the average).
Numbers i read were 120ish police deaths, but only 50 of those were shot (compared to 32 the year before). The rest were car accidents and things like heart attacks, so not relevant here. Which is too many, sure.
Unfortunately, self-defense may apply even if you were the one who made the idiotic and murderous decision. See eg. the Trayvon Martin case :o yet another reason why police need to have their worst instincts tempered by better training, better leadership and perhaps a little more fear of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't think training is an issue. Many departments provide training about racism, and that hasn't made a dent in how police departments treat minorities. Ultimately, police officers need to think for that extra second before they decide to take someone's life. Right now, they have no reason to take that extra second.
As for the 120 police officer number, it's biased and absurd. Half the deaths result from traffic accidents, not exactly a surprise given how many people die from those kind of accidents in the country.
Nor a surprise when officers need to deal with morons like the late moron criminal in the start of this thread who was involved in a 100mph high speed chase.
Officer logic: there's a 1% chance the guy is reaching for a gun. If he is reaching for a gun and a I kill him, I did nothing wrong. If he's not reaching for a gun and I kill him, I don't get punished. So why not shoot first and think later?
And since packing heat (buying, owning, or wearing a gun) is a right variable by state....is it any wonder that we have so many disagreements?
A right for middle-aged white guys (and women I suppose). If someone else dares to have one, they make the police feel threatened, which means they sign a de facto death warrant on themselves.
Which doesn't fall into the category of life/liberty/justice for All, huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But Rand tells us that the right of the police to never feel threatened takes precedence over all those pesky constitutional protections.
No Rand says the Police have the right to self-defence and that the US is a fucked up country where hundreds of Police Officers die a year. Rand thinks you should address your fucked up policies by tackling the source of the problem (guns) and not the people who put their lives on the line (literally) with a few Police dying per week on the line of duty. Rand thinks any Police who act irresponsibly or criminally should be prosecuted but the vast bulk of Police (like the vast bulk of every profession) are doing their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Rand wonders why Loki is point blank ignoring the fact that hundreds of Police Officers die in the US every year.
Rand wonders where Loki draws the line if it isn't self-defence? Does an Officer need to join his hundreds of comrades in the morgue before he can defend himself?
By "hundreds", do you mean 120, half of whom die in car accidents? And the fact that 60 die in non-car accidents somehow gives cops the right to assume that they're always under threat, and that whenever they're under threat, they can shoot any brown person they like? I really would like the cop fatality statistics for situations in which cops stop 2 men, neither of whom resist in any meaningful sense.
Why are you excluding car accidents? Do the Police not have to chase fleeing suspects leading to accidents? But even so based on your own statistics that is still an Officer a week dieing in the line of duty. That's way too many. Or do you view it as lower than acceptable losses? How high do you want the figure to go?
Be more understandable if you used the same logic consistently like in Israel, but you don't.
Presumably because car accidents, even when in a chase, have nothing directly to do with shooting a suspect.
Curious if we have stats that separate officer caused accidents from accidents that result from chases or other poor drivers. Our officers are incredibly distracted drivers, with the radio, laptop and whatever other personal devices they may have in their FOV while driving. We just had an officer here drive under a semi cause he ran a stop sign at a busy intersection, and officers blaming the other party when they themselves are the cause of an accident isnt exactly unheard of.
Well some deaths have been caused by cars being used as weapons as opposed to accidents (4 officers died in the US last year through this means).Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Though even excluding 47 US Police Officers died in 2014 from being shot alone, plus however many hundreds got seriously injured from being shot.
In comparison in the UK during 2014 there was a total of zero Police Officers killed from being shot.
Maybe if the US answered the question as to why so many Officers died from being shot when zero were shot here they'd be able to get Officers to be less defensive. But until then I fail to see why an Officer needs to be in the morgue before he can draw his weapon.
Except those don't count as accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyway, I agree that the risk of being shot is relatively high for police officers in the usa. And I don't mind police officers using their weapons when they reasonably feel threatened. Which is something different from 'when they feel they can claim feeling threatened'.
I agree with that. Which is why I've suggested body cameras to be used as evidence. Some seem to think that even when the Police reasonably feel threatened they shouldn't use their weapons.
Depends on the size of the threat, Rand.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade