Has BLM gone too far?

Author: BearMan

Posts

Total: 153
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Where does it say anything about the back?
That specific detail is from a convoy security gunner deployed to Iraq,


The quoted portion of the handbook that I provided made it perfectly clear that you can't shoot someone simply because they're running and carrying an AK-47.

Carrying a loaded firearm is not illegal in the united states.

Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The correct number.
Laughable. There are already cops mass retiring because of the lack of proper funding.

It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.
This could be applied to any case lol.

I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.
It’s the law of the land whether you like it or not.

Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".
Clearly not true because a lot of cops have been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.

If that same standard were applied GENERALLY, nobody could ever be charged for a speeding ticket if "they didn't see the sign".

It rewards incompetence (specifically ignorance).  If you didn't know it was illegal, then you can't be charged.  Imagine what a utopia that would be.

I thought it was perfectly legal to shoot a woman through a locked living-room window, while she was sitting in her own home, playing video games with her family.

CIVIL RIGHTS YOU SAY??
Being a cop is nothing like speeding. That’s a false equivalency fallacy. The job of a cop is difficult and they protect us day and night while you sleep peacefully at night. Unjustified killings are never ok. The death of George Floyd was not ok because he violated protocol even if he thought he was doing the right thing.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The quoted portion of the handbook that I provided made it perfectly clear that you can't shoot someone simply because they're running and carrying an AK-47.

Carrying a loaded firearm is not illegal in the united states.

Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.
I never said they could. They can only shoot if the weapon moves if the perpetrator suddenly moves to grab it and point it at a soldier. Rayshard Brooks would’ve been fine if he never turned around aimed and fired the weapon.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5

Laughable. There are already cops mass retiring because of the lack of proper funding.
It's called supply and demand.

Perhaps we should privatize them.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.
This could be applied to any case lol.
And it does.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.
It’s the law of the land whether you like it or not.
Law is codified mob rule.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".
Clearly not true because a lot of cops have been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.
Clearly true because a lot of cops have had charges dropped by prosecutors who refuse to take cases against them or placed on "administrative leave" or received reduced or suspended sentences.

The precious few who are actually held accountable are only in "trouble" because of community outrage.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
It's called supply and demand.

Perhaps we should privatize them.
I already showed crime is increasing without them lol. Now you want to hire new cops who have zero experience and are more likely to be killed or kill?

And it does.
So what’s your point? Judges and the community can be swayed by anything if it’s persuadable.

Law is codified mob rule.
So you’re an anarchist? Makes sense lol

Clearly true because a lot of cops have had charges dropped by prosecutors who refuse to take cases against them or placed on "administrative leave" or received reduced or suspended sentences.

The precious few who are actually held accountable are only in "trouble" because of community outrage.
You just proved my point. Qualified immunity isn’t absolute immunity. If you want to bring a case you Can but it’s your job to convince the jury that you yourself wouldn’t have done what that cop did if you were the cop in the scenario. Where ever the jury is convinced and cop gets convicted whether that be in the case of George Floyd or in the case of an Oklahoma cop. Being a cop is hard dude. You see stuff that you can’t forget. You go to work everyday knowing you May never Come back to see your wife and kids. It’s arguably one of the hardest jobs that even doesn’t pay as much.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.
I never said they could.
Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect".  Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.

They can only shoot if the weapon moves if the perpetrator suddenly moves to grab it and point it at a soldier.
Are you switching between police and soldiers now?

Rayshard Brooks would’ve been fine if he never turned around aimed and fired the weapon.
Brooks scuffled with the officers, got hold of Brosnan's taser, punched Rolfe, and ran. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks half-turned and fired the taser toward Rolfe, who then shot Brooks twice from behind while a third shot struck an occupied car. Brooks died after surgery.

Footage of the incident, recorded from the officers' bodycams, a witness's phone and the restaurant's security system, was widely broadcast. Police chief Erika Shields resigned one day later; that same day, Rolfe was fired and Brosnan was placed on administrative duty.

Based on these videos and witness reports, prosecutors claimed that after Brooks was shot, Rolfe kicked Brooks and Brosnan stood on his shoulder. Rolfe was charged with felony murder and ten other offenses; Brosnan with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath. [LINK]

In the EOF handbook, it's called "proportional force".  You can't kill someone (by shooting them in the back while they're fleeing) who fires a (non lethal) taser at you.

Community Outrage > Qualified Immunity
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Perhaps you posted the wrong link.

From YOUR LINK,

Members of the NYPD’s anti-crime unit were reassigned to uniformed patrol duties on Monday — part of what Police Commissioner Dermot Shea called a “seismic” shift affecting some 600 cops.

SO, they were not "fired" or "defunded" they simply put on UNIFORMS.

By all accounts this INCREASED the number of UNIFORMED police officers by about 600.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
And it does.
So what’s your point? Judges and the community can be swayed by anything if it’s persuadable.
Judges are not objective arbitrators.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Law is codified mob rule.
So you’re an anarchist? Makes sense lol
I'm stating a fact.

American law is based on a collection of British Common Laws which were created as regional community standards.

Laws change as community standards change.

That's why we no longer follow Jim Crow.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
You just proved my point. Qualified immunity isn’t absolute immunity. If you want to bring a case you Can but it’s your job to convince the jury that you yourself wouldn’t have done what that cop did if you were the cop in the scenario.
JUSTICE =/= "I WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING"
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Being a cop is hard dude.
So is being a soldier.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect".  Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.
That’s defense isn’t going to work on George Floyd killer because it’s not absolute immunity.

Are you switching between police and soldiers now?
Rules of Engagement in a foreign nation are different depending on the nation. Domestically opinions of other nations don’t matter.

Brooks scuffled with the officers, got hold of Brosnan's taser, punched Rolfe, and ran. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks half-turned and fired the taser toward Rolfe, who then shot Brooks twice from behind while a third shot struck an occupied car. Brooks died after surgery.
Thanks for proving my point. Under Georgia state law a taser is classified as a deadly weapon. The officer had every right to shoot after he fired that weapon because it’s a split second decision.

In the EOF handbook, it's called "proportional force". You can't kill someone (by shooting them in the back while they're fleeing) who fires a (non lethal) taser at you.
They fired a deadly weapon under Georgia law. Escalation of Force began when Brooks scuffled with the cops and in doing so injured police officers. At that point he was a threat to police officers. Still the cops didn’t shoot him until after he turned and shot the taser. Like what more do you want lol. You can’t convince a jury that you weren’t  fearing for your life lol. One of the cops had a concussion if I recall correctly.

Members of the NYPD’s anti-crime unit were reassigned to uniformed patrol duties on Monday — part of what Police Commissioner Dermot Shea called a “seismic” shift affecting some 600 cops.
And why did that happen? Defunding efforts by Mayor Bill de Blasio. Defunding doesn’t mean getting rid of cops, it means getting rid of their resources they need to fight crime which Bill de Blasio clearly did.

Judges are not objective arbitrators.
That’s why you have a jury and a judge. It’s the job of the prosecuter to prove that the cop was not fearful of his life. Prove that and you win which is what’s happening in the George Floyd case.

I'm stating a fact.

American law is based on a collection of British Common Laws which were created as regional community standards.

Laws change as community standards change.

That's why we no longer follow Jim Crow.
Sure but as I said, it’s the law of the land right now. The Supreme Court recently announced they wouldn’t be hearing another qualified immunity case. Whether you like it or not it’s the law and it’s the obligation of the judges to follow it.

JUSTICE =/= "I WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING"
That’s how it works. It’s the burden of the prosecutor to prove and convince the jury why the cop wasn’t fearful of his life. There’s nothing more to it.

So is being a soldier.
Once again, I said that jurisdiction is different in foreign nations and there’s nothing stopping a soldier from shooting a member of the Taliban who shot at them and is not running from, if you want to create an analogy with the Rayshard Brooks case. If anything a soldier would’ve shot him the second he started to run because the Taliban attacked him.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect".  Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.
That’s defense isn’t going to work on George Floyd killer because it’s not absolute immunity.
We shouldn't have to rely in the press and community outrage in order to hold police responsible for their errors in judgement.

What you seem to be missing is that most cases are NOT broadcast on international news.

And in these cases, the police are overwhelmingly awarded Qualified Immunity.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Are you switching between police and soldiers now?
Rules of Engagement in a foreign nation are different depending on the nation. Domestically opinions of other nations don’t matter.
Can we at least agree that CIVIL RIGHTS should give domestic citizens MORE protection than foreigners in an active WARZONE?

Isn't this just "common sense"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Thanks for proving my point. Under Georgia state law a taser is classified as a deadly weapon. The officer had every right to shoot after he fired that weapon because it’s a split second decision.
In a famous "fleeing felon case" of Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

This means, says Banzhaf, that even if someone who has committed a serious felony would forever escape if the police did not shot him as he fled, they may not use such deadly force unless it appears that he is likely to harm police officers or a member of the public if he is not stepped then and there.

So while the fact that a Taser may not be regarded as a "deadly weapon" in Georgia would certainly undercut any argument by the shooter that he had reason to fear serious bodily injury from its use, the same would probably be true if Brooks had a small knife but was far enough away that he did not pose a significant risk to the officer.

While it is possible for a Taser to cause serious injury or even death, such consequences are very rare.  Indeed, says Banzhaf, some police departments require new officers to be shot with a Taser themselves so that they will know what it feels like, and the effect it is likely to have on a suspect.  TV reporters have also demonstrated its effects by being short with it on air. [LINK]

NOT TO MENTION, the taser only had one cartridge, so after it was fired and missed, there was zero threat and therefore no longer a "deadly weapon" by any standard. [LINK]
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
We shouldn't have to rely in the press and community outrage in order to hold police responsible for their errors in judgement.
You don’t. You rely on a court with a jury and a judge. That’s how the justice system works.

What you seem to be missing is that most cases are NOT broadcast on international news.

And in these cases, the police are overwhelmingly awarded Qualified Immunity.
Then the prosecutor is at fault for not even bringing the case forward. Just because it’s not popularized doesn’t mean a cop can’t be convicted.

Can we at least agree that CIVIL RIGHTS should give domestic citizens MORE protection than foreigners in an active WARZONE?

Isn't this just "common sense"?
I never disagreed with this lol. Rayshard Brooks got himself killed by resisting arrest, punching a cop, stealing a cop’s taser and shooting it at the cop. He would’ve been fine if he accepted arrest. There’s nothing more to it.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Still the cops didn’t shoot him until after he turned and shot the taser.
AT WHICH POINT THE TASER WAS JUST A USELESS LUMP OF PLASTIC.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
In a famous "fleeing felon case" of Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. 
Once again you price my point. A taser can cause serious physical injury. The man gave the cop a concussion for Christ’s sake lol.

NOT TO MENTION, the taser only had one cartridge, so after it was fired and missed, there was zero threat and therefore no longer a "deadly weapon" by any standard.
Him actively firing the taser was the threat. If the dude only had a single bullet in his gun he still would’ve been shot lol. The ammo is irrelevant to fact that Brooks shot a deadly weapon at a cop and injured the cops beforehand.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Then the prosecutor is at fault for not even bringing the case forward. Just because it’s not popularized doesn’t mean a cop can’t be convicted.
Judges and juries almost always give police the benefit of the doubt.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
AT WHICH POINT THE TASER WAS JUST A USELESS LUMP OF PLASTIC.
It was an escalation of force and an active attack on the cops. What the cops did was an act of self-defense.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Judges and juries almost always give police the benefit of the doubt.
They should because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Him actively firing the taser was the threat. If the dude only had a single bullet in his gun he still would’ve been shot lol. The ammo is irrelevant to fact that Brooks shot a deadly weapon at a cop and injured the cops beforehand.
The District Attorney pressing charges against Atlanta Police Officer Garret Rolfe, who shot a suspect who tried to use a taser on him while attempting to escape, recently charged other officers with “aggravated assault” for using a Taser in another incident. [LINK]

Notice they were not charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" or "attempted murder".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
It was an escalation of force and an active attack on the cops. What the cops did was an act of self-defense.
They grabbed the taser after having it placed point-blank against their leg (I call that "self-defense").

THEN RAN AWAY.

The police had all of their information.

They could have easily issued a warrant.

They had they guy's vehicle.

The guy was drunk and belligerent.

Random drunk guy without a car is not an imminent threat to anyone.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Him actively firing the taser was the threat.
The gunshots were several seconds AFTER the taser fired it's ONLY cartridge.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you happen to know anyone who did something stupid while intoxicated?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
They should because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
Why not give every citizen Qualified Immunity?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
What the cops did was an act of self-defense.
Shooting someone who is running away from you is NOT self-defense.