What I meant was he wasn't doing anything that threatened the police arresting him. You understand that killing a restrained man whose lying on the ground flailing around is murder right, even if they theoretically can be considered "resisting arrest"?Originally Posted by LegalLoliLover
I know I get in trouble for calling LLL an authoritarian but my defense is: if the shoe fits.
I happen to disagree that death is warranted if one has the temerity to call a police officer a "stinky poopy head"
Oh, don't get me wrong. I believe that the cops are responsible for murder in this particular case as the victim was already in handcuffs. However, not complying with arrest and expecting the cops to just let you go and not escalate the situation is also naive, especially in this country where civilians can have guns.
Again, in that particular case, qualified immunity would not and should not protect police, given that that incident was slow AF and would not require any "split second" decisions, so if not the individual cops, then the force itself should be held financially accountable. That way, even if the cops keep their jobs, their force would lose so much lawsuit money. That being said, qualified immunity is not common, as you might think:
Also, given that the defendant's lawyer was involuntarily removed, nothing that comes from any following interrogation would be legally admissible in court, making the entire investigation a waste of time for both the prosecution and the defense.
1. And there are those on Twitter who would call centrism "fascism lite", anyway (to which I respond, then 一不做二不休), so you can spare me your hat-fastening.
2. Again, not a matter of warrant or deserving, but an effect of escalation, in general. As for the specific case that you mentioned:
What about then striking him twice:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/cr...gmq-story.html
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/city-i...ltimore-police
Or smashing her face into concrete:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-a4515896.html
Last edited by LegalLoliLover; August 5th, 2020 at 07:10 PM.
So you actually do admit the cops were at fault. Not sure why you keep acting like you're kinda' defending them then. And obviously I'm not saying resisting arrest is a good idea, but saying things like "resisting arrest escalates the situation, possibly to death" as a categorical statement normalizes the idea that getting shot or suffocated is at all a reasonable or proportionate response to a panicked guy flailing around on the street. There were nothing about what Floyd did that inherently lead to the cops killing him, it was purely that they were poorly trained, overly aggressive and likely racist.
And mind you, the police's job is to not escalate situations and avoid using violence except when necessary. These aren't random civilians in an unfamiliar situation, they're experienced officers who have years of training and access to high-powered weaponry. They logically should be held to a higher standard not to take the bait and escalate a situation in response to some crazy guy acting out.
But that's just it. In this country, civilians have access to guns, which are small weapons that can be concealed. Unless a particular cop knows for a fact that the suspect is unarmed, few would risk being a martyr (I don't expect anyone to willingly be a martyr for anything). Similarly, if being assaulted by an unarmed suspect, there is no UI with a meter that shows the exact amount of force needed to subdue the suspect without it counting as "excessive force", as the Baltimore case shows. Again, standing there taking it until the suspect gets their stress or whatever out of their system is no option either.
Last edited by LegalLoliLover; August 5th, 2020 at 08:03 PM.
The point about guns is actually fair enough, but it works the other way too. If in the US citizens are legally allowed to have guns, then just because somebody has one (like Philando Castile) doesn't justify a cop shooting them. But if your argument is just that US gun-culture is messed up and stokes a climate of violence that contributes to police brutality, then you won't find any argument from me.
That aside, acting like the only choice a cop has in that situation is sit there and let themselves get wailed on or brutally beat the offender is pretty ridiculous IMO. These are well-trained, armed men, often in groups, and you're telling me they have no way of taking down some rando civilian without resorting to straight-up murder? Most of the police brutality incidents I've heard of had the egregious parts come after a suspect was already pinned down anyways. Even if it was the suspect's fault at first for escalating the situation, at that point it isn't self-defense but just bloody payback.
Again, in that Baltimore case, the suspect in question struck the officer twice in the head and apparently even tried to run over him. The officer only responded with a single punch, and there are still calls to fire him. If you say that he punched too hard, again, a UI with a power meter doesn't exist in the real world. As for guns, whether or not the US allows civilians to have firearms doesn't really matter to me directly, however, as a general rule, law enforcement is expected to be better armed than the average civilian, so if the average civilian can have [insert level of firepower here], then "the average civilian" should also expect law enforcement to have at least [insert level of firepower here]+1.
Because he thinks murder is a justifiable response to any kind of crime or resistance. Read what he has said in this forum before. He thinks anyone who goes against authority is a criminal, and he obviously doesn't believe that any criminal is worthy of being treated as a human.
That extends to anyone he can classify as "woke" or "communist".
Anyone that crosses him is a maggot. His discourse in here has already made it clear that this choice of words is not a hyperbole.
He'll keep trying to justify it though. Escalating the situation is natural! Anyone could have a gun! If you fear police brutality you are dumb!
Resisting arrest is a crime, though. Now, whether a particular incident counts as resisting arrest is a separate issue. A criminal, by definition, gives up a portion of his rights. Kamerad, at the very least, is a self-professed communist. Yes, the US is a gun country. It's more like saying "if you're not part of the solution, then you're a part of the problem" or "silence is violence" is a self-fulfilling prophecy for me. Anything else you'd like to prophesy about me?
No thanks, engaging in a discussion with you is the last thing I'd want. I was just emphasizing to Royd why it's futile to try to do so.
And yet he was doing so just fine before you butted in. You're like those non-black "activists" who prevent actual black people from engaging in meaningful dialogue with the police because you want to paint them with the broad "jack-booted pig" brush.
https://nypost.com/2020/07/17/cop-re...lm-supporters/
Last edited by LegalLoliLover; August 5th, 2020 at 08:55 PM.
Any crime, in a just society, does not merit a death consequence from authorities unless:
A) The subject has undergone a full trial by peers, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and a death sentence is established for them, or
B) The subject is considered a lethal threat in a believable, justified way, which I'm quite certain doesn't cover cases such as 'unarmed guy flails arms around and freaks out at fully armed cop, is shot'. We all are innocent until otherwise proved, so as long as a subject doesn't actually show evidence they are carrying the means to overcome the law enforcement through superior lethal force, the authority still is not under the right to apply lethal force on them in turn. The presumption and mere suspicion a subject might be packing lethal force doesn't merit lethal response any more than suspicion of a crime by itself without any proof does merit sentencing, or that the presumption that your possession of 'legal loli stuff' would also include 'ILLEGAL loli stuff' earning you the corresponding legal punishment, for instance.
What meaningful dialogue can be had with people like you (LLL) who dress up nonsense in nice language to sound intelligent and humane?
To be fair that asset would make him a remarkable politician.
Take that as you will.
Again, this isn't a case of "merit" or "deserving", but cause: physically resisting arrest and effect: escalating the situation into a violent confrontation. As for possibly carrying guns, as I said to Royd, I was merely pointing out this is less of an issue in countries where guns are more regulated. Heck, in some of those countries, the average cop does not even carry a gun (under the assumption that the average citizen doesn't), only tongs and batons. However, if you allow citizens to carry guns, then you should also expect cops to have at least that much. Or what, do you want cops to be less equipped than the average citizen? Also, great job on the false equivalence there. Not sure how images can instantly kill people. Even that kid who committed suicide after watching Evangelion didn't die that fast.
Carrying guns isn't the problem, the problem is the lack of training and restraint American police have when in tense situations that can reasonably be defused or negotiated without bullets firing. People don't just lose their minds the moment they have a gun, and the police shouldn't act like that's an actual thing.
https://www.12news.com/article/news/...kind/428263454 And it's hilarious that the teacher at the end there appears to be blaming the student for doing nothing more than exposing cult mentality and indoctrination.
If the default solution to a problem about people carrying guns is shooting everyone who MIGHT be carrying a gun then you aren't actually solving the original problem, you are further escalating it. You are triggering an equivalent OR even more widespread counter response in turn, whether justified or not, and sooner than later you are going to misjudge and apply lethal force on people who were not a lethal menace to you in the first place.
Also, the 'false equivalence' defense stops carrying water when it's applied to a point about employing lethal force on an individual who, so far, has not been shown to be armed against a well armed law enforcement force and, one should think, also equiped with the means to enforce non lethal restraining force. For all the intents and purposes of this specific analogy, 'images don't kill people' is as true as 'throwing a tantrum doesn't kill people', because, well, by the point you are applying lethal force to endanger others you have long surpassed the basic definition of merely 'throwing a tantrum'. You've got practically as much chances of killing a well trained armed man with backup by shouting and waving your arms as you've got chances of killing them by showing them your porn, unless your name happens to be Internet Chuck Norris.
Edit: Not to mention that illegal images DO damage vulnerable people when, well, they are taken from actual people. By definition, an illegal image of something like child porn already DID harm a child so it could come to exist.
If they aren't from real people, knock yourself for all I care, but, by your own definition of crime and according punishment, IF that is still illegal in your area regardless, then technically you also should die by the principle that you can't resort to that either, regardless of whether it's subjectively fair or not.
Last edited by OverMaster; August 5th, 2020 at 10:16 PM.
Again, I was just bringing up the gun thing to compare to other countries where gun violence is not nearly as big a problem, despite having all the same other factors that people blame gun violence on. Define tantrum. Physical attacks, even unarmed, should be met with some sort of retaliation. Ideally not lethal, but generally speaking, if you throw a punch, you expect one back. Frankly, if my porn was reciprocated, I wouldn't mind. Please tell me a time where images have killed people faster than guns. I'll wait. Guns kills fast, so cops have to act fast, while there is no situation of images making cops' heads explode, if they don't move fast enough. Now, as for words:
Last edited by LegalLoliLover; August 5th, 2020 at 10:25 PM.
Then also, generally, if you throw a punch, you don't expect a bullet back.Ideally not lethal, but generally speaking, if you throw a punch, you expect one back.
To argue otherwise is to just fall on the side of the lethal response by default.
Posting Permissions
