[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

[figmentPez]

Pez has a point that the expectation of a standard of care is higher in the case of custody, but I still feel like it would at most end up being a charge of negligent homicide, still not one of murder.

You're right, that it would end up being tried as a negligent homicide, because of the difficulty of getting murder charges to stick against a police officer. That doesn't mean it fails to meet the legal definition of murder, though. Our justice system has many biases, but the bias of a judge or jury should not change how we read the law, and it certainly shouldn't change our discussion of what is morally or ethically right.

If the government rules that pizza is a vegetable, you can damn well be sure I'm going to point out that it's not.

For example, the FCC says that ISPs are not telecommunication companies. Their stance, and current legal power, doesn't make this true. For all that laws are often illogical and self-contradictory in practice, that does not mean that they are true, or that would should accept such a state. If a government declares Pi to be 3 exactly, that doesn't actually change the value of Pi, and any engineer or scientist trying to do work would do well to keep that in mind.

Once again miscommunication in action, really.

I'm fully aware that PatrThom is talking about what a court of law will conclude, but even then he was being disingenuous, and showed no signs of realizing that he was arguing the stance of legal practicality, when Null and I have been explicitly discussing from a stance of morality and ethics.

 

[figmentPez]

Thanks, @Bubble181Their focus seems to be less about how to secure a conviction and more obsessing over how severe the punishment should be.

I have not said a single word about punishment. My emphasis on how we view this wrongful death (and I think we can all agree that this is, conclusively, a wrongful death), is that we need to be aware that this was not a death that was involuntary on behalf of the police officer. This was a death that the police officer wanted to occur, and set up a situation where her death was likely. Even if we can't prove that he had a legal expectation that the death would happen, we know that he is a racist who was pleased by her ending up dead.

I'm not pointing this out to advocate any sort of punishment for the cop. I'm pointing this out as an example of an unacceptable situation that is brushed aside with hands thrown up in defeat. "Can't do anything about it; just the way it is." It won't be until the public rises up and says that murder is murder, no matter the position of authority of the perpetrator, that things will change.

 

[figmentPez]

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that our president has said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."

If the president starts openly shooting people, are we not allowed to call it murder until he's successfully impeached and convicted?

 

[DarkAudit]

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that our president has said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."

If the president starts openly shooting people, are we not allowed to call it murder until he's successfully impeached and convicted?

Turtle would never let it reach the Senate floor.

 

[jwhouk]

We need to impeach the turtle first.

 

[Null]

We need to broil the turtle alive first.

FTFY

 

[@Li3n]

Thanks, @Bubble181 . I appreciate you taking the time to illuminate some of the nuances of what I'm saying, but I'm not sure those involved actually want to understand where I'm coming from.

--Patrick

I think you're also missing the nuance of how it's still murder, even if the cops refuse to charge their own with it, even when they have irrefutable video evidence.

You're right, but it's still wrong!

Post automatically merged: May 8, 2019

Turtle would never let it reach the Senate floor.

Again, i feel the need to point out that it's not him that has the power to do that, its the whole GOP using his position as a shield to avoid voting on this sort of stuff and then pretend TURTLEMAN stopped them, when they could replace him at any time with anyone else.

 

[PatrThom]

I think we can all agree that this is, conclusively, a wrongful death

Oh, most certainly. And the burden of proof in a civil trial is merely "a preponderance of evidence," which is a much lower bar than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It won't be until the public rises up and says that murder is murder, no matter the position of authority of the perpetrator, that things will change.

The second part more than the first, otherwise I'm right there with you.

If the president starts openly shooting people, are we not allowed to call it murder until he's successfully impeached and convicted?

Well, it'd rather obviously be homicide, assuming the evidence didn't get suppressed (Tiananmen-style), but whether it would be ruled justifiable homicide or murder would of course be determined at the trial (if one ever happened). The defense would have an enormously difficult time ahead of them proving the former, especially given Trump's prior public statements (such as the one you mention).

I think you're also missing the nuance of how it's still murder, even if the cops refuse to charge their own with it, even when they have irrefutable video evidence.

I'm not, actually. There was actual, demonstrable malice on the part of the cop, but until and unless the legal definition of "murder" is revised to include... I don't know, "induced(?)" murder, you're going to have a hard time pushing for that charge.

--Patrick

 

[Dei]

Thanks, @Bubble181 . I appreciate you taking the time to illuminate some of the nuances of what I'm saying, but I'm not sure those involved actually want to understand where I'm coming from. Their focus seems to be less about how to secure a conviction and more obsessing over how severe the punishment should be.

--Patrick

But you were also being pedantic again.

 

[figmentPez]

Oh, most certainly. And the burden of proof in a civil trial is merely "a preponderance of evidence," which is a much lower bar than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Once again, I am not talking about legal status. My statement was not about "I hope we can all agree that it has this standing in a civil court." NO! I'm hoping we can all agree that it's a death that should not have happened, from a moral or ethical viewpoint.

For fuck's sake dude. Stop talking about legal theory when we're discussing philosophy.

 

[@Li3n]

I'm not, actually. There was actual, demonstrable malice on the part of the cop, but until and unless the legal definition of "murder" is revised to include... I don't know, "induced(?)" murder, you're going to have a hard time pushing for that charge.

--Patrick

I'm really hoping you're just confused from having multiple conversations going, because i was talking about the video i posted of the cop executing the drunk driver while he was trying to get out of the car, then lying about it on his radio...

And they weren't even going to charge him until the video got leaked (hey, guess that was one of them good cops we keep hearing about, weird how he had to do it in secret), and then he only got sentenced for that involuntary manslaughter you mentioned....

 

[figmentPez]

I'm not, actually. There was actual, demonstrable malice on the part of the cop, but until and unless the legal definition of "murder" is revised to include... I don't know, "induced(?)" murder, you're going to have a hard time pushing for that charge.

You really think that if someone went full-on Saw/Hostel/torture-horror, kidnapped someone, mentally and physically tortured that person, and then handed them a gun and said "kill yourself" that they wouldn't be charged with murder just because they let their victim pull the trigger? Bull, fucking, shit. They would be charged with murder, because they would have knowingly, and with malice aforethought, set up a situation where they had every expectation that their victim would die.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Since no one in here is an acting prosecutor I'm not sure why anyone cares what the other thinks, but y'all are free to keep arguing.

 

[PatrThom]

I'm hoping we can all agree that it's a death that should not have happened, from a moral or ethical viewpoint.

I don't think there was ever a question about this, not even from me. Her death was tragic and she probably died the loneliest of deaths.

I'm really hoping you're just confused from having multiple conversations going, because i was talking about the video i posted of the cop executing the drunk driver while he was trying to get out of the car, then lying about it on his radio...

Yes, I thought you were still talking about the Bland video. It's the one we're all discussing, after all.

You really think that if someone went full-on Saw/Hostel/torture-horror, kidnapped someone, mentally and physically tortured that person, and then handed them a gun and said "kill yourself" that they wouldn't be charged with murder just because they let their victim pull the trigger? Bull, fucking, shit. They would be charged with murder, because they would have knowingly, and with malice aforethought, set up a situation where they had every expectation that their victim would die.

I mean, lawyers tried to get a murder charge to stick to Jack Kevorkian for ages, but the Michigan Supreme Court still said:

there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide in Michigan and [...] the state's statutory ban on this practice is constitutional. The court also reinterpreted common law to say that merely being involved in the events leading up to a suicide, such as providing the means, cannot be prosecuted as murder. Only when the death was the direct and natural result of a defendant's actions is murder the proper charge.

He was tried multiple times, but not convicted until, in one case, he took an active enough role that the prosecution could show his involvement.
And really, in the Hostel/Saw case, there is SO much more unethical/illegal stuff going on than just convincing someone to commit suicide. The prosecutor would probably have multiple life sentences lined up before even getting to the suicide part.

As @Dei notes, I tend toward pedantry, but I'm not an idiot. The abuse of power by cops and other public safety personnel is an actual problem and needs to be addressed, but I don't think the public punishment of bad cops is going to have as much of a long-term effect as it would to make sure bad people don't get to become cops in the first place. But then that brings up other issues, like how do we define "bad," etc.

--Patrick

 

[Null]

You're not an idiot, you're just a pedantic asshole.

 

[PatrThom]

Nah. I'm most definitely not an asshole.
An ass at times, sure. But "asshole" implies I get my rocks off by deliberately making other people unhappy, and that's just not the case.
I sure seem to be good at saying stuff other people don't like, though. Whew! I thought we'd moved past this, @Null , but if I upset you that much, I'll try to avoid having any discussions with you in the future.

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

I mean, lawyers tried to get a murder charge to stick to Jack Kevorkian for ages, but the Michigan Supreme Court still said:

Stop bringing in unrelated cases! Medical euthanasia is not the same as pscyhological abuse with malicious intent. Kevorkian didn't contrive the situations that made his patients want to die. Kevorkian did not seek his patient's death with malicious intent. Motivation matters in court cases.

And really, in the Hostel/Saw case, there is SO much more unethical/illegal stuff going on than just convincing someone to commit suicide.

And that's my point, which appears to have gone completely over your head. The Police officers who had custody of Sandra Bland sought to make her life so miserable that she would kill herself. There was "so much more unethical/illegal stuff going on than just convincing someone to commit suicide", only our system is set up to allow the police to cover that shit up. They are engaging in torture of prisoners, with the intention of having their prisoners end up dead.

 

[@Li3n]

Yes, I thought you were still talking about the Bland video. It's the one we're all discussing, after all.

And, in that context, the fact that a cop who clearly executed someone on video only got sentenced for manslaughter is rather relevant... which is why i brought it up.

 

[Null]

Police shoot three children in the head in the back of car. https://www.ebony.com/news/communit...-v7hkCoz8eWW5WKox7d8ELdKWLN4EU8v88X3jPj-YFqOs

So I guess that's attempted involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Denbrought]

So I guess that's qualified immunity.

FTFY

 

[Eriol]

Police shoot three children in the head in the back of car. https://www.ebony.com/news/communit...-v7hkCoz8eWW5WKox7d8ELdKWLN4EU8v88X3jPj-YFqOs

So I guess that's attempted involuntary manslaughter.

Charge the Father with Child Endangerment:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/children-shot-oklahoma-police-open-fire-alleged-robbery/story?id=62669331

He's a fucking robbery suspect fleeing the police who had his kids in the car.

And try for something slightly less biased than "ebony.com". Why did you think that'd have even a HINT of objectivity on this?

 

[ScytheRexx]

Nothing I have read said he was fleeing the police.

They shot the car as he was driving towards them, with the police in plain clothes.

Usually if someone gets out in the road in front of me I will keep driving towards them as they hopefully would move out of the way. If they don't I would slowly swerve around them. If, as I was approaching said people, they suddenly pulled out fucking guns, yes I might panic and try to run them over, because unless I am psychic I have no way of telling if the police are trying to arrest me or some lunatics are trying to murder me because they didn't like my traffic methods.

If they were uniformed the situation might have been different. We won't know.

 

[Dave]

So he robbed a pizza joint and tried to run over two people. HE put the kids in danger, not the cops. I doubt the police knew the kids were in the car.

And who robs places with their kids, anyway? And the mom crying that her baby was shot? She was in the car as well. MAYBE not be an accessory to an armed robbery with your kids along.

Sorry, not sorry. You guys know my views. I'm normally pretty much on the side of the unarmed getting gassed/shot/etc. but in this case almost all of the fault lies - AS WE KNOW IT RIGHT NOW - with the parents.

edit: D'oh! Reading is apparently NOT fundamental.

 

[Denbrought]

So he robbed a pizza joint and tried to run over two people. HE put the kids in danger, not the cops. I doubt the police knew the kids were in the car.

And who robs places with their kids, anyway? And the mom crying that her baby was shot? She was in the car as well. MAYBE not be an accessory to an armed robbery with your kids along.

The robbery they're accused of was earlier that month, please re-read carefully.

 

[Dave]

I did not read that carefully enough.

Yup. Now I agree with everyone else. This is the fault of the police.

 

[Null]

Charge the Father with Child Endangerment:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/children-shot-oklahoma-police-open-fire-alleged-robbery/story?id=62669331

He's a fucking robbery suspect fleeing the police who had his kids in the car.

And try for something slightly less biased than "ebony.com". Why did you think that'd have even a HINT of objectivity on this?

Because other sources aren't even covering it, [REDACTED]. Stop the personal attacks. - Dave

He wasn't fleeing the police. The police didn't identify themselves as such and were not in uniform. The robbery was weeks prior.

See, what you said makes it sound like he was literally running from the crime scene with his kids and a couple of uniformed cops attempted to detain him. That's not what happened.

But every time the subject comes up, you're on the side of the police, so this bullshit isn't remotely surprising coming from you.

 

[Eriol]

Because other sources aren't even covering it, [REDACTED]. Stop the personal attacks. - Dave

He wasn't fleeing the police. The police didn't identify themselves as such and were not in uniform. The robbery was weeks prior.

See, what you said makes it sound like he was literally running from the crime scene with his kids and a couple of uniformed cops attempted to detain him. That's not what happened.

But every time the subject comes up, you're on the side of the police, so this bullshit isn't remotely surprising coming from you.

Besides all the personal attacks at me (and others) as well, can you please link to a less-biased site than originally with a story of how the takedown went please? That would be helpful.

 

[Null]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...t-hit-children-inside/?utm_term=.91fbe1f6f459

https://www.ksat.com/news/3-children-shot-in-head-face-by-oklahoma-police-mom-says

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...f-her-kids-left-injured-after-police-shooting

https://www.kxii.com/content/news/O...-Co-officer-involved-shooting--509126031.html

I find it interesting that the police claim the suspect reversed the truck at them, but the bulletholes are on the windshield.

 

[Dave]

Not to be a contrarian, but if they jumped out of the way and the truck continued to go in reverse, that's exactly where the shots would hit.

And yeah, the dude was a bad dude, but if I were in my vehicle and some people drew guns on me, I'd probably do the same thing. That's not to say that he wouldn't have done the same thing were they in uniform as he's not a nice guy, but the cops are in the wrong on this one. You ALWAYS have to know your target before you bring in lethal force. They wouldn't shoot into a crowd of people, they wouldn't fire on a busy street. There's no reason to open fire if they aren't aware of who is all in the car.

 

[Eriol]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...t-hit-children-inside/?utm_term=.91fbe1f6f459

https://www.ksat.com/news/3-children-shot-in-head-face-by-oklahoma-police-mom-says

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...f-her-kids-left-injured-after-police-shooting

https://www.kxii.com/content/news/O...-Co-officer-involved-shooting--509126031.html

I find it interesting that the police claim the suspect reversed the truck at them, but the bulletholes are on the windshield.

Glad to get some sources, but none of them say shit about the incident. So we have the mother of the kids' account, who wasn't there, from a site that's "not exactly" unbiased here?

I agree, he didn't bring his kids on a robbery. Good. Beyond that, not enough information. I feel bad for the kids no matter what though.

 

[ScytheRexx]

From new information, he was reversing when the cops tried to stop him. He panicked and kept reversing into the officers as they tried to block him. His car hit one of the officers (though they say none of the officers were badly injured) and continued on past them in reverse, at which point they opened fire on the front of the car.

 

[Null]

Glad to get some sources, but none of them say shit about the incident. So we have the mother of the kids' account, who wasn't there, from a site that's "not exactly" unbiased here?

I agree, he didn't bring his kids on a robbery. Good. Beyond that, not enough information. I feel bad for the kids no matter what though.

From the articles:
Smith, a woman and four unidentified children were in a green pickup when the shooting broke out. Smith was injured, as were three of the children. Authorities have not released the names of the injured children, but OSBI spokeswoman Brook Arbeitman said they were 5 and younger and suffered injuries that weren’t life-threatening.

Olivia Hill identified herself as the woman in the truck and the mother of the four children in an interview with local TV station KXII.

Maybe you should read before you say that she wasn't there.

 

[Tiger Tsang]

Not to be a contrarian, but if they jumped out of the way and the truck continued to go in reverse, that's exactly where the shots would hit.

And yeah, the dude was a bad dude, but if I were in my vehicle and some people drew guns on me, I'd probably do the same thing. That's not to say that he wouldn't have done the same thing were they in uniform as he's not a nice guy, but the cops are in the wrong on this one. You ALWAYS have to know your target before you bring in lethal force. They wouldn't shoot into a crowd of people, they wouldn't fire on a busy street. There's no reason to open fire if they aren't aware of who is all in the car.

 

[Null]

Not to be a contrarian, but if they jumped out of the way and the truck continued to go in reverse, that's exactly where the shots would hit.

And yeah, the dude was a bad dude, but if I were in my vehicle and some people drew guns on me, I'd probably do the same thing. That's not to say that he wouldn't have done the same thing were they in uniform as he's not a nice guy, but the cops are in the wrong on this one. You ALWAYS have to know your target before you bring in lethal force. They wouldn't shoot into a crowd of people, they wouldn't fire on a busy street. There's no reason to open fire if they aren't aware of who is all in the car.

Unless it was a crowd of black people.

 

[PatrThom]

From new information, he was reversing when the cops tried to stop him. He panicked and kept reversing into the officers as they tried to block him. His car hit one of the officers (though they say none of the officers were badly injured) and continued on past them in reverse, at which point they opened fire on the front of the car.

This sounds like a perfectly plausible series of events, given the pictures of the truck on the K12 site.
“My baby is hospitalized with a bullet in his brain.”
“Authorities say three children are hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.”
Also sounds like there’s some discrepancies between everyone’s stories, and that the details probably aren’t all in yet.

—Patrick