Cop in America doing a bad job, again

we also didn't see video of what she did before the cops video turned on. She might have thrown her gun behind a fence. Good thing she was white or he would have had to shoot her to protect himself from this criminal.
 
You admitted that you'd prefer cops to kill 'criminals' without defining exactly what constitutes a 'criminal'. So either either your statement is blanket enough to conclude that you would also prefer a jaywalker to get killed, or you must define exactly what crimes are deserving of being killed.
Which one is it? This isn't splitting hairs, these are your words, i'm just trying to get a better understanding of it.

That's before you get into the fact that nobody is actually a criminal until they've been convicted of a crime, until that point they are merely a suspect.
Is that splitting hairs? Maybe for the sake of this debate, but in real life, no.

And, it's not up to the police to assume something about a person or their actions - this is where biases kick in, and you open yourself up for a million hypothetical situations.

Putting words in my mouth now too. Dishonest.
 
A bit more context to the Rittenhouse donations...



‘You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank & file police officer supports you.’
 
You admitted that you'd prefer cops to kill 'criminals' without defining exactly what constitutes a 'criminal'. So either either your statement is blanket enough to conclude that you would also prefer a jaywalker to get killed, or you must define exactly what crimes are deserving of being killed.
Which one is it? This isn't splitting hairs, these are your words, i'm just trying to get a better understanding of it.

That's before you get into the fact that nobody is actually a criminal until they've been convicted of a crime, until that point they are merely a suspect.
Is that splitting hairs? Maybe for the sake of this debate, but in real life, no.

And, it's not up to the police to assume something about a person or their actions - this is where biases kick in, and you open yourself up for a million hypothetical situations.

Also this same poster responded to me in the Chauvin thread, talking about how defense lawyers and a proper justice system are cornerstones of our society, and there are lots of people that are wrongly accused/convicted of things. And now here are are, saying he prefers criminals to be killed, but police should always have a proper defense. Absolute joke.
 
Also this same poster responded to me in the Chauvin thread, talking about how defense lawyers and a proper justice system are cornerstones of our society, and there are lots of people that are wrongly accused/convicted of things. And now here are are, saying he prefers criminals to be killed, but police should always have a proper defense. Absolute joke.

It's almost as if you have an inability to comprehend what I post.
 
Sure if you don't try hard to read and understand. I can see why some struggle. Perhaps you can point out inconsistency where you see it instead of making glib comments.
Who said inconsistent.

Incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible - not able to be understood.

That is the very definition of your views on this topic. Preferring an outcome where the police survive over the criminals. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples of consistently incomprehensible views from you
 
Who said inconsistent.

Incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible - not able to be understood.

That is the very definition of your views on this topic. Preferring an outcome where the police survive over the criminals. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples of consistently incomprehensible views from you

I knew you wouldn't bother making a logical argument.
 
There were reports some days ago about them threatening media with arrest over loudspeaker, instructing them to leave. I didn’t really dig into it but it sounded troubling.

They have been dipping their foot in this water for a while now. They arrested, and then the DA charged, a reporting in Iowa this year. She won her case, but I think we are going to see more of this. LE and DA's liked it better when they could operate in anonymity.
 
Yeah but what happened before they laid down? Also why are they outside at that time of night??? Where are their parents?

These questions must be asked. :lol:

Also, you can't put yourself in their shoes. Sometimes a camera looks like a gun when you are improperly using your disco flashlight.
 
Also, you can't put yourself in their shoes. Sometimes a camera looks like a gun when you are improperly using your disco flashlight.

You can't judge their actions in hindsight, but those journalist, they should've had a massive neon sign above them to highlight whom they were..... possibly even printed out selfie photos beforehand and this may not have happened. I mean it's just common sense :lol:
 
16? Jeezus.

You've got to be a heartless prick to think she deserved it.
A 13 year old can kill just as surely as a 30 year old
I will always favor outcomes that see cops survive over criminals or nobody will do the job.
Curious to hear how you differentiate the Ashli Babbitt killing when she was erroneously described as 16 years old v Adam Toledo’s killing.
 
Saying someone deserves to die is different from understanding why somebody did die. In both cases each died from their actions but what they truly deserved was justice. However the law allowed the LEO in each case to protect themselves when facing grave danger.

Do you have a problem with police being able to protect themselves when faced with immediate danger that threatens their life?
 
Saying someone deserves to die is different from understanding why somebody did die. In both cases each died from their actions but what they truly deserved was justice. However the law allowed the LEO in each case to protect themselves when facing grave danger.

Do you have a problem with police being able to protect themselves when faced with immediate danger that threatens their life?

In only one case was the deceased actively disobeying orders when being shot.

Edit: To be clear, neither should be dead.
 
Saying someone deserves to die is different from understanding why somebody did die. In both cases each died from their actions but what they truly deserved was justice. However the law allowed the LEO in each case to protect themselves when facing grave danger.

Do you have a problem with police being able to protect themselves when faced with immediate danger that threatens their life?
No problem at all. Both results were consequences of their actions. I think threat assessment could be improved upon, though.

It’s the difference in exhortations I find curious.
 
Do we both agree that a LEO should be legally allowed to protect themselves when their life is threatened?

If it is actually actively being threatened? Yes. If they think it is being threatened or are scared? Hell no. They don't get to guess.
 
Under no circumstance should Babbitt and Wright ever be compared. One was committing treason while the other was running away. One was abetting others in an attempted coup while ignoring multiple orders to cease, the other ultimately complied with an officer's request but was shot. FFS.
 
Under no circumstance should Babbitt and Wright ever be compared. One was committing treason while the other was running away. One was abetting others in an attempted coup while ignoring multiple orders to cease, the other ultimately complied with and officer's request but was shot. FFS.

I'm on team @MrMarcello but I think you are confusing Wright with Toledo. Wright was struggling and trying to flee. He still should not have been tazed, much less shot though for gods sake.
 
I'm on team @MrMarcello but I think you are confusing Wright with Toledo. Wright was struggling and trying to flee. He still should not have been tazed, much less shot though for gods sake.

Yes, wrong person. Wright definitely was attempting to flee (or whatever) but the circumstances are nowhere near the same as a person taking part in a coup. In fact, treason is punishable by death per 18 USC 2381, and the Secret Serviceman was protecting elected officials. Personally feel every one of those feckers storming the Capital should have been shot on the spot. Try storming a military installation and see how long they last before blasted with M4s and M16s.

There are certainly others that could be compared to Wright but Babbitt is on her own in this realm.
 
Yes, wrong person. Wright definitely was attempting to flee (or whatever) but the circumstances are nowhere near the same as a person taking part in a coup. In fact, treason is punishable by death per 18 USC 2381, and the Secret Serviceman was protecting elected officials. Personally feel every one of those feckers storming the Capital should have been shot on the spot. Try storming a military installation and see how long they last before blasted with M4s and M16s.

There are certainly others that could be compared to Wright but Babbitt is on her own in this realm.

Yep, I'm there with you on @MrMarcello island. Except for the shoot them all part. I have become a pacifist in my old age so I would settle for life.
 
If it is actually actively being threatened? Yes. If they think it is being threatened or are scared? Hell no. They don't get to guess.

What is "actively threatened"? Is that a legal requirement for LEO response or perhaps something you have introduced to help your arguments?

I'm really only interested in the law here. We ask LEOs to "guess" all the time though.
 
Explain please.
The difference between the first quoted post & the second.

I can’t put them to the specific minute, but they seem to be similar response times from when the two incidents were seen in the media. Both posts seemed to come within a couple of hours of seeing the videos.
 
What is "actively threatened"? Is that a legal requirement for LEO response or perhaps something you have introduced to help your arguments?

I'm really only interested in the law here. We ask LEOs to "guess" all the time though.

I'm less concerned about legality and more concerned about people not dying. When I lived in Alabama I could legally shoot you if you came on my property and I claimed I felt threatened. In the US it is basically legal (because less than 1% get convicted) for an LEO to shoot someone. If you are good with letting every single LEO be the arbiter of death than that is a position from which we can find no common ground.

Sticking to just the cases on tap, if the video evidence shows they are not in actual danger at the moment they pull the trigger than they are guilty of manslaughter at the least. I don't give a shit if they "feel" threatened. They do not get to kill us because of their feels, because if their feels govern them then they should find a career elsewhere. As I stated before, we have ceded a portion of our constitutional rights to LEO, but their side of the bargain is that they use them at all times judiciously[.
 
If only you all had the same attitude to guns, you wouldn't be in this mess.

I do, I didn't own a pistol until I was 31 and I had to protect someone besides myself. Saying the "he's no angel" line is such [redacted]. A person doesn't have to be angel, to not die. Again, these cops aren't being drafted into their departments. This was their choice, their job, and they should be held to the highest standard REGARDLESS of their environment.