you're so close to getting it
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Yes he would've been committing a crime, as he would've been in possession of a firearm even though he was not of legal age to do so.
The "deserved to be shot" part is of course another matter.
--Patrick
Dude, even when someone sides with you, you still have to act the fool. I just don't get it.
Because he is just here to ruffle feathers, and start fights. He does not give a shit about any cause he takes up. Eventually he will rage quit after he makes other people mad.
I just don't get it. What a waste of time.
Dave
Staff member
No, I get what he's saying, I just disagree. He's saying that because I support the police in cases without proof against them that I'm wrong. I say that an authority figure like a policeman is to be trusted WAY more than not and that criminals or those who are arrested are largely that way through their own actions. There are legitimate and systemic problems with police forces and institutionalized racism. That's pretty much a proven truth. But individual incidents still need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The alternative - whether pro- or anti-police - is removing the rule of innocent until proven guilty. What Charlie wants is all cases ruled in favor of the perp when that is just as stupidly blind as all cases being ruled in favor of the police.
So I get what he's saying, I just disagree with him on a fundamental level. And that's perfectly fine.
So I get what he's saying, I just disagree with him on a fundamental level. And that's perfectly fine.
Yeah, bolded for emphasis. It's that last bit which blows my mind.
Ah, yes, I forgot where I saw this.
As y'all may know, I work at the (now ONLY) state-run juvenile correctional facility in the state.
Recently, an anonymous letter had been stuck in one of the slats of my equipment locker at work. It had feces smears on it and the lovely epithet:
"GO SHIT YOURSELF FROM BIG BRO SHIT BITCH I KILL YOU DIE."
I'm 90% certain it was this one particular youth who did it, but couldn't confirm.
As y'all may know, I work at the (now ONLY) state-run juvenile correctional facility in the state.
Recently, an anonymous letter had been stuck in one of the slats of my equipment locker at work. It had feces smears on it and the lovely epithet:
"GO SHIT YOURSELF FROM BIG BRO SHIT BITCH I KILL YOU DIE."
I'm 90% certain it was this one particular youth who did it, but couldn't confirm.
GasBandit
Staff member
How are inmates gaining access to your equipment locker?
That's not true, like 90% of people I arrested during my GD stint plead guilty.
Dave
Staff member
I defer to your experience. I was going off of anecdotal evidence from a friend who works at a prison. But you'd certainly know more than I so I am not going to argue.
Oh I'm sure once they go to prison they're no longer guilty.
GasBandit
Staff member
That sounds like a very canadian thing for criminals to do
I dunno when I worked for TDCJ all of the inmates I ever asked said they were guilty
After all this, there are still people suggesting a kid deserved to get drive-by shot down by anyone. Unreal.
If evaluating on a case-by-case basis, wouldn't it make more sense to take a neutral stance when the evidence is unclear?
This calls for an immediate prison-wide shakedown, as well as a redesign of the access paths to the staff areas so that there's a staff-only "airlock" corridor.
... too much Prison Architect?
Dave
Staff member
Nope. In most cases the police won't be stopping someone or arresting without some sort of probable cause. I realize the smaller percentage is problematic at best, but you have to trust the system to some degree or the whole thing breaks down.
No, because that would invalidate the whole tenet of "innocent until proven guilty."
There's a similar tenet: "Trust, but verify."
--Patrick
If the evidence is unclear, assume the authority is right.
If the evidence is unclear, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
These do not correlate, they contradict. I suppose the only way to resolve the contradiction is to make sure the latter doesn't come into play by killing a person before they become a defendant in a court of law.[DOUBLEPOST=1461752849,1461752444][/DOUBLEPOST]The gist I get from this forum is that most people are of the mindset "this is bad, but so long as it doesn't affect my life, it's just the news." And to be fair, maybe I'd be that complacent if it wasn't a personal issue for me.
But it is a personal issue for me. My twin cousins, who I helped raise from when they were 3 to when they moved to Arizona when they turned 12, are half black, half Hispanic. I don't know what I'd do if something like this happened to one of them and it's a genuine fear for me. But I sure as shit know that you assholes and the fucks on the news would be considering how much they deserved it.
Ultimately, it's up to the government to justify it's continued use of it's monopoly on legalized violence, not for the public to justify why they shouldn't.
How do you plead?That sounds like a very canadian thing for criminals to do
"Sorry, your honor"
Alright, 60 hours community service at a Tim Horton's[DOUBLEPOST=1461764049,1461763897][/DOUBLEPOST]
This is the bias that juries have, most of them voting guilty because obviously the accused had to do something to be on trial.
Sadly, we don't have room for it in the living unit, and it has to sit in the front vestibule. I have since taped up the slats on the door.
This is the state of Wisconsin we're talking about.[DOUBLEPOST=1461764629,1461764529][/DOUBLEPOST]
You know I hate that game.
Mostly because it is INCREDIBLY unrealistic - and VERY unprofessional.
So the locker is made out of cheese and horrible government decisions?
No, just the latter.
They actually...don't?
We already assume the authority is right, that's called "bringing charges." The authority believes the accused has done a thing, and so that authority is bringing charges for some reason. We are "trust"-ing that the authority has reason to do so.
And then, once charged, we assume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This is the "verify" stage.
--Patrick
You missed the point a few years ago where we decided that being brought before a court is clearly proof that you're guilty and that the cops should be 100% sure of this. Also, that there's no chance of the police being wrong. Police procedural shows have done as much harm to how people perceive justice and the work of cops as romcoms and porn have to how people perceive relationships. Of course, you wouldn't know about either, they're these sort of "serials" shown on this invention called a "tele-vision"
Unfortunately "he looked at me funny" is now worthy of arrest.
Pssht of course not. I know lots of otherwise normal people who insist on staring at those thing even though the attached console isn't turned on. I just don't get the appeal.Of course, you wouldn't know about either, they're these sort of "serials" shown on this invention called a "tele-vision"
And the system is supposed to end up showing what a douchebag officer Tumblerina was for wasting the government's time with something that trivial, but then again we have people like this getting away with not being arrested, too.
...because L
LZ.--Patrick
Only if he's black and male, though.
I disagree strongly with both statements. Are you sure you're not setting up a straw man argument? If the above was true (and it's not) then I can see how your conclusion might follow, but since neither have any basis in reality then there's really no point.
If one of your cousins takes a realistic toy weapon, removes all signs that it's a toy, goes to a public place, and starts pointing it at people's heads, then I'm going to file it in the "darwin awards" compartment of my brain if they are killed during that action. I wouldn't say they deserved it, but I would believe that they took an unnecessary and deadly risk which had, as one of its possible outcomes, risk of death.
If my answer to this hypothetical thought experiment leads you to believe I'm an asshole, then I humbly accept the title of asshole. I believe it's reasonable to say, "If you point a gun, toy or not, at someone else, you may end up dead."
I wonder, though, if you're calling me an asshole, how do you refer to people that run around with realistic weapons, pointing them at others?
There is a huge difference between "open carry" and "brandishing". Guess which one is illegal, and likely to get you killed?
I don't think Tamir deserved to die. I do think the police could have assessed the situation better. I do think they should have immediately rendered aid once they disarmed Tamir.
To absolve Tamir of all responsibility, though, and claim he had every right to wave his gun around without consequence - well I'd say that someone who holds this belief will probably not fare well in this life.
I hope your cousins know that this behavior is dangerous and risky, and I hope they choose not to do it. If you fear for them, then you might consider teaching them not to do this. If you believe they won't take this risk, then why are you worried about it? There are many, many other forms of discrimination which they assuredly face which won't result in death - it's these things that we, as a society, need to get rid of and attack.
We can spend our time uselessly discussing extraordinary cases like Tamir, but it seems like our time would be better spent attacking the more common and pervasive forms of discrimination and racism. I suspect that if we reduce the smaller forms of discrimination, it would positively affect the bigger, less ordinary situations such as Tamir's.
But what do I know, I'm a Zero Esc Certified Asshole.
He was 12
He didn't look 12 to the person who called 911: "In the 911 call, the man tells the dispatcher that it was possible Tamir was a juvenile. But during his interview with Morgan, he said that he believed Tamir was 20 years old. " He might have been a youth, he might have been 20.
But a 12 year old with a gun is as dangerous - perhaps more under some circumstances - as a 20 year old.
The 911 caller suggested that it could be a toy, but was not certain.
The officer did not have that knowledge, it was not relayed to him, but even if it was he still had to treat the situation as though it were a real gun. I don't think you comprehend this point, but whether the gun was real or a possible toy, the response should always be exactly the same. The only time the response should be different is when the gun is known to be a toy, and even then they must assume it's real because any criminal can paint a real gun's tip orange and pretend it's a toy - until it isn't.
...
But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I hope you work closely with your local police to change their response policy to fit your personal beliefs.
If they had treated the situation as they SHOULD have treated it if it was a real gun, there wouldn't be a problem. They didn't even do that though. Rolling the police car up to a few feet from a potential, but not active, shooter and jumping out and shooting them without any attempts to get them to surrender is not the way to treat such a situation. It's needlessly dangerous to both the suspect and the police officers themselves.