The rock/cop thing reminds me of the part at the beginning of Fallout 2 when you're just going through the wastes for the first time and you run across some totally unarmed villagers and some Enclave soldiers in power armor
And the Enclave just unleashes miniguns on them
I have no idea if the comparison is apt since those villagers had no rocks, but I have a feeling the cops could possibly have done something besides opening fire
The rock/cop thing reminds me of the part at the beginning of Fallout 2 when you're just going through the wastes for the first time and you run across some totally unarmed villagers and some Enclave soldiers in power armor
And the Enclave just unleashes miniguns on them
I have no idea if the comparison is apt since those villagers had no rocks, but I have a feeling the cops could possibly have done something besides opening fire
How? All he had is a sidearm. He has three options:
He can ditch the arrest, in which case fire all the cops because they all must ditch the arrest when you pelt them with rocks. Sounds great, I'll never have to get a ticket again, by the way give me your money and your wife looks cute. Don't call the cops, I got a rock, he'll have to run. So no, cops need to continue with arrests even under danger.
He can sit there and get pelted with rocks and possibly get maimed or killed. If you like this option then you're OK with killing cops and are saying you actively prefer law enforcement to be killed then stop criminals. Which is a possible stance, but that's what your stance turns into.
Or he can... fire back with his side arm and probably maim/kill his attacker. It's a shitty situation, but that's what happens.
For me I'd like police to do their job and not have to be chased off from any crime scene or arrest because "oh noes, they might kill a person". I'm not for cops just sitting their getting killed and maimed because self defense might kill someone. And I'm actually completely OK with cops taking someones life in the event of prosecuting an arrest provided it's in self defense or to protect other people.
And since he only had a side arm, wasn't in riot gear, was dealing with multiple suspects of which at least one (that we know of) was attacking him with a deadly weapon, I'm fine with him defending himself even though the outcome was a death.
And I'm not going to say "zomg he just wanted to kill zee messcins cause dey took yer jobz, it's all about race" because I'm not a pedantic little jerk with a case of the bleeding hears and superiority complex.
It sucks that he was in that situation come and the outcome sucks for a lot of people. But hey, that's more of a call to question how that situation was allowed to happen rather then why it ended up the way it did.
You mean that majority that doesn't actually exist here, and is entirely a fantasy of yours?
You can say 2 + 2 = 5 all you want to, but its not true.
D&D is not the balanced hall of civil discourse some of you seem so dead set on defending it as. If you want to pretend there isn't a definite liberal bias around here, don't expect me to play along.
How? All he had is a sidearm. He has three options:
He can ditch the arrest, in which case fire all the cops because they all must ditch the arrest when you pelt them with rocks. Sounds great, I'll never have to get a ticket again, by the way give me your money and your wife looks cute. Don't call the cops, I got a rock, he'll have to run. So no, cops need to continue with arrests even under danger.
He can sit there and get pelted with rocks and possibly get maimed or killed. If you like this option then you're OK with killing cops and are saying you actively prefer law enforcement to be killed then stop criminals. Which is a possible stance, but that's what your stance turns into.
Or he can... fire back with his side arm and probably maim/kill his attacker. It's a shitty situation, but that's what happens. call to question how that situation was allowed to happen rather then why it ended up the way it did.
Man, this is a stupid way to look at the situation.
I mean, here is basically the question that cop was faced with: is it worth shooting the 15 year old to (possibly) arrest the person you are chasing?
The only way it possibly makes sense to answer yes is in some fantasyland where people crossing the border are being defended by battalions of rock-throwing teenagers. In this particular case it would have been a much better solution for the police to remove themselves and the person they were pursuing from the position, pursue and arrest the child, or just withdraw completely.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
How? All he had is a sidearm. He has three options:
He can ditch the arrest, in which case fire all the cops because they all must ditch the arrest when you pelt them with rocks. Sounds great, I'll never have to get a ticket again, by the way give me your money and your wife looks cute. Don't call the cops, I got a rock, he'll have to run. So no, cops need to continue with arrests even under danger.
He can sit there and get pelted with rocks and possibly get maimed or killed. If you like this option then you're OK with killing cops and are saying you actively prefer law enforcement to be killed then stop criminals. Which is a possible stance, but that's what your stance turns into.
Or he can... fire back with his side arm and probably maim/kill his attacker. It's a shitty situation, but that's what happens. call to question how that situation was allowed to happen rather then why it ended up the way it did.
Man, this is a stupid way to look at the situation.
I mean, here is basically the question that cop was faced with: is it worth shooting the 15 year old to (possibly) arrest the person you are chasing?
The only way it possibly makes sense to answer yes is in some fantasyland where people crossing the border are being defended by battalions of rock-throwing teenagers. In this particular case it would have been a much better solution for the police to remove themselves and the person they were pursuing from the position, pursue and arrest the child, or just withdraw completely.
Jesus, way to ignore the last 50 or so posts in this thread as if all this had not been beaten to death and explained already.
That being said, I would assume there was no intention to outright kill the officer with a rock, since there would have been much more efficient ways to harm a BP agent. If the rock-chuckers were thinking "I am David", then they would be getting what's coming to them.
The rule I was taught in criminal law is that you are assumed to intend the natural results of your actions. If you throw a large enough rock at a person, you are assumed to have the intent of causing great bodily harm or death, as that is a natural consequence of your action.
On the other hand, if a person throws a rock at another with enough force to injure, but not enough force to cause death, it can be assumed only that he intended only to cause the person an injury, but not to cause his death.
The whole issue is whether rock throwing constitutes deadly force. Typically deadly force is force which a person knows or should know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm. Serious bodily harm usually refers to those injuries that create a substantial risk of death or that cause serious, permanent disfigurement or prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any body part or organ.
While it may be theoretically possible for a person to kill another or cause him serious bodily harm by throwing a rock, I doubt that it creates a substantial risk of doing so. If you consider a scenario where the boy was arrested instead of killed (he'd probably have to be in the U.S.) for the same actions, if he was criminally tried as an adult, the offenses he could be convicted of would be criminal assault and criminal battery, as opposed to attempted murder.
When you don't have a deadly weapon or dangerous instrumentality, as is the case here, the question as to whether the perpetrator was using deadly force can become a highly factual inquiry that depends on that specific scenario. For example a mob gathered around someone at fairly close range, stoning that person to death is clearly deadly force. Of course, that's not what we have here. As none of us were there, and the news articles haven't been very detailed, all we can do is speculate. However, I do think it is significant to the analysis that no border patrol officer was actually injured at all in the incident. There have also been reports that the boy was standing across the border with his hands in the air when he was shot. So it seems really unlikely that the officer was in fear of his life when he shot the boy, and much more likely he's a depraved asshole.
I feel pretty comfortable ignoring 50 posts worth of monday morning quarterbacking from people posting in the comforting glow of a computer monitor with no situational experience, yes
edit: and it doesn't really alter the point I was making, anyway.
You mean that majority that doesn't actually exist here, and is entirely a fantasy of yours?
You can say 2 + 2 = 5 all you want to, but its not true.
D&D is not the balanced hall of civil discourse some of you seem so dead set on defending it as. If you want to pretend there isn't a definite liberal bias around here, don't expect me to play along.
The joke goes that reality has a liberal bias, but yeah there's definitely a demographic overlap between gamer forums and liberals... so what? Neither McDermott nor I are exactly Heritage Foundation material, and we haven't been calling for the pig to be spitted. Yet. Even with my inherent predisposition towards condemning authority figures like him, it's possible for me to imagine a scenario consistent with the facts wherein this officer is innocent of any wrongdoing. Regardless of whether or not he was truly morally in the wrong I suspect what he did wasn't actually illegal, and that there is good reason for the law to be as apparently brutal as it is.
Try not to get too caught up in the liberal/conservative divide; certainly many posters have a worldview that is largely consistent with one or the other stereotype, but nobody on this board is a perfect representative of one category or the other. That is to say, there are no True Scotsmen around here, I hope.
And yes, I still want to pass control of the means of production into the hands of the proletariat, but what does that have to do with my opinion of border patrolmen getting hit by rocks?
I feel pretty comfortable ignoring 50 posts worth of monday morning quarterbacking from people posting in the comforting glow of a computer monitor with no situational experience, yes
edit: and it doesn't really alter the point I was making, anyway.
Fixed that for you.
And yeah, it does.
then by all means, feel free to respond
I don't see how your edit really changes the character of my post, either
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The joke goes that reality has a liberal bias, but yeah there's definitely a demographic overlap between gamer forums and liberals... so what? Neither McDermott nor I are exactly Heritage Foundation material, and we haven't been calling for the pig to be spitted. Yet. Even with my inherent predisposition towards condemning authority figures like him, it's possible for me to imagine a scenario consistent with the facts wherein this officer is innocent of any wrongdoing. Regardless of whether or not he was truly morally in the wrong I suspect what he did wasn't actually illegal, and that there is good reason for the law to be as apparently brutal as it is.
Try not to get too caught up in the liberal/conservative divide; certainly many posters have a worldview that is largely consistent with one or the other stereotype, but nobody on this board is a perfect representative of one category or the other. That is to say, there are no True Scotsmen around here, I hope.
And yes, I still want to pass control of the means of production into the hands of the proletariat, but what does that have to do with my opinion of border patrolmen getting hit by rocks?
You did read where Lucid denied the existence of a liberal bias here, right? And I'm pretty familiar with this going beyond a lib/con divide, being a registered Dem myself.
So yeah, I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to the many posters here who's main addition to the argument is to run in and dogpile on whoever is arguing the minority position.
I feel pretty comfortable ignoring 50 posts worth of monday morning quarterbacking from people posting in the comforting glow of a computer monitor with no situational experience, yes
edit: and it doesn't really alter the point I was making, anyway.
Fixed that for you.
And yeah, it does.
then by all means, feel free to respond
I don't see how your edit really changes the character of my post, either
I'd rather not, since I doubt its going to do much good at this point. The agent can't follow the kid into Mexico, doesn't have a "duty to retreat", its not like a rock that hits him in the head that was thrown to "scare him away" is somehow less dangerous than one thrown to kill him, how he was supposed to know the intent of the people throwing rocks, etc etc etc. All have been brought up before and blithely ignored.
And actually, it does. There's quite a few people who are very critical of the agent's reaction (reverting to his training) who would more than likely curl up into a fetal position or have a panic meltdown if they were ripped from their living rooms and placed in a similar life or death decision.
I feel pretty comfortable ignoring 50 posts worth of monday morning quarterbacking from people posting in the comforting glow of a computer monitor with no situational experience, yes
edit: and it doesn't really alter the point I was making, anyway.
Fixed that for you.
And yeah, it does.
then by all means, feel free to respond
I don't see how your edit really changes the character of my post, either
I'd rather not, since I doubt its going to do much good at this point. The agent can't follow the kid into Mexico, doesn't have a "duty to retreat", its not like a rock that hits him in the head that was thrown to "scare him away" is somehow less dangerous than one thrown to kill him, how he was supposed to know the intent of the people throwing rocks, etc etc etc. All have been brought up before and blithely ignored.
And actually, it does. There's quite a few people who are very critical of the agent's reaction (reverting to his training) who would more than likely curl up into a fetal position or have a panic meltdown if they were ripped from their living rooms and placed in a similar life or death decision.
At the point at which the officer comes under attack, he has several options: he could ignore the attacker and continue pursuit, open fire on the attacker, or withdraw. The latter two are both equally effective ways of guaranteeing his own safety, so the only question is whether continuing pursuit is a goal worth shooting a third party over.
The only way opening fire would be worthwhile is, as I said, in some world where illegal border crossers are systematically being aided by rockthrowing teenagers and a systematic response is necessary. That isn't the world we live in, and even if it were, just shooting all of those teenagers is not the response we would want.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You'd have to be an idiot to miss the fact that D&D is to the left of mainstream US politics. Then again, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to miss the fact that US is to the right of everywhere else (except a couple shitholes whose leaders wear funny hats). And you'd just have to be a fucking silly goose to make 'liberal bias' your cause célèbre as many posters have in the past and probably will continue to do in the future.
Seriously, this is an argument about rocks and whether you think they're deadly enough. Or something. I don't even know. Whatever it is, I'm having trouble connecting it back to whether one supports a planned economy or laissez-faire environment or abortion or gay marriage or anything to do with the retarded dichotomy that dominates politics in the US.
I feel pretty comfortable ignoring 50 posts worth of monday morning quarterbacking from people posting in the comforting glow of a computer monitor with no situational experience, yes
edit: and it doesn't really alter the point I was making, anyway.
Fixed that for you.
And yeah, it does.
then by all means, feel free to respond
I don't see how your edit really changes the character of my post, either
I'd rather not, since I doubt its going to do much good at this point. The agent can't follow the kid into Mexico, doesn't have a "duty to retreat", its not like a rock that hits him in the head that was thrown to "scare him away" is somehow less dangerous than one thrown to kill him, how he was supposed to know the intent of the people throwing rocks, etc etc etc. All have been brought up before and blithely ignored.
And actually, it does. There's quite a few people who are very critical of the agent's reaction (reverting to his training) who would more than likely curl up into a fetal position or have a panic meltdown if they were ripped from their living rooms and placed in a similar life or death decision.
At the point at which the officer comes under attack, he has several options: he could ignore the attacker and continue pursuit, open fire on the attacker, or withdraw. The latter two are both equally effective ways of guaranteeing his own safety, so the only question is whether continuing pursuit is a goal worth shooting a third party over.
The only way opening fire would be worthwhile is, as I said, in some world where illegal border crossers are systematically being aided by rockthrowing teenagers and a systematic response is necessary. That isn't the world we live in, and even if it were, just shooting all of those teenagers is not the response we would want.
People don't routinely assault cops with any sort of weapon because that will land you at minimal tasered, possibly bloodied on the ground (ie multiple tackle take down) or shot.
If we create a situation where people know that assaulting cops does not end badly, and hey, might get your buddy out of an arrest then there is a great reason to assault officers, even with weapons. Because it means you get off free and you know they won't fight back.
This is why law enforcement has to follow through on arrests and must not back down when attacked. If you have a police force that opts back off each time rocks or thrown then there is no point in having cops at all.
I don't like cops, I hate tickets, and I hate a lot of their stupid antics. But they have a job to do. I don't want the cops, should I need one, to be driven off each time somebody throws a rock at them. And if I ever need a cop, and I hope I never do, I sure as hell wouldn't want him to be chased off rather then come help me. The result of this is that cops must be able to, and SHOULD, respond with deadly force when attacked with it.
There really isn't any way around this without making a completely ineffective police force. And I doubt anybody of us would be happy with that.
so the only question is whether continuing pursuit is a goal worth shooting a third party over.
Definitely not the only question. Here's another one: what happens when kids throw rocks at you to make you go away, and you go away? To make it easier, let's go with multiple choice. Are they:
A) More likely to throw rocks at officers in the future Less likely to throw rocks at officers in the future
I feel pretty comfortable ignoring 50 posts worth of monday morning quarterbacking from people posting in the comforting glow of a computer monitor with no situational experience, yes
edit: and it doesn't really alter the point I was making, anyway.
Fixed that for you.
And yeah, it does.
Seriously, can we skip the lame posts of "You guys are just hiding behind computer monitors! I've been out there, man, and until you've seen your buddy taken down by a big rock you don't know what it's like!" ?
No one cares if you are or were a police officer / in the army / in the airforce / king of Nigeria. It's the internet, people make shit up, and this is D&D, where argument from authority means nothing.
You mean that majority that doesn't actually exist here, and is entirely a fantasy of yours?
I see you've chosen choice C: sophist twat. An entirely expected choice.
You'd have to be an idiot to miss the fact that D&D is to the left of mainstream US politics. Then again, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to miss the fact that US is to the right of everywhere else (except a couple shitholes whose leaders wear funny hats). And you'd just have to be a fucking silly goose to make 'liberal bias' your cause célèbre as many posters have in the past and probably will continue to do in the future.
Seriously, this is an argument about rocks and whether you think they're deadly enough. Or something. I don't even know. Whatever it is, I'm having trouble connecting it back to whether one supports a planned economy or laissez-faire environment or abortion or gay marriage or anything to do with the retarded dichotomy that dominates politics in the US.
What the fuck are you trying to say? That because the US tends to drift right and have plenty of echo chambers for retarded right wingers that its okay for D&D to be an echo chamber for retarded left wingers? That's not sarcasm, its a real question because I don't think I'm reading you right but that's sure as hell what it sounds like.
Its not a "cause celebre" to point out that someone is merely engaging in group think and isn't adding anything to the discussion, as if this was a popularity contest and the side with the most people behind it "wins".
And honestly, this seems to be an argument between people who have been there, and people who haven't, and that shows. I gotta agree with your second paragraph though, because fuckall if I know what too much of this has to do with the issues you threw out in said paragraph.
Edit: Sorry for the "fuck" above, but man you're kinda making me scratch my head here.
ntsf, have you ever been intentionally hit in the head with rocks, 2x4s, etc?
I would say that the people doing it generally are not trying to kill you (although as pointed out, theres a remote chance they may), but sometimes emotions cloud their judgment. You don't use the opportunity to respond with lethal force, even if your blood is fucking boiling and the guys within arms reach.
Policemen can't be mind readers. That's not a fair standard to hold them to. If someone was throwing rocks at the back of my head, at that point it's not a matter of their intent, it's a matter of rocks being thrown at my head, which is potentially deadly and lethal. The situation doesn't change if the target is a police officer.
I mean, it pains me to say it, but even as tragic as a police officer shooting and killing a 15 year old kid can be, if you pick up a rock and throw it at someone's head, and that person has a gun, uh...what do you expect to happen?
It's not about boiling with rage, it's about defending yourself. A rock can be a deadly weapon. You don't have to be hit in the head, back or front, or even hit hard, for a rock to cause permanent or deadly damage.
As much as I am against use of lethal force when it's not warranted and believe in proper levels of escalation, I also don't think it is a police officer's duty to retreat when faced with any or all opposition, or to allow himself to get maimed or killed.
Seriously, can we skip the lame posts of "You guys are just hiding behind computer monitors! I've been out there, man, and until you've seen your buddy taken down by a big rock you don't know what it's like!" ?
No one cares if you are or were a police officer / in the army / in the airforce / king of Nigeria. It's the internet, people make shit up, and this is D&D, where argument from authority means nothing.
Because I didn't sign some sort of form that said I would relegate my life experience to A) gamestop employee or liberal arts student when making a point around here.
If you have an issue with that, maybe you need to change your life so you can argue more effectively, not run behind argument from authority every time someone brings up something you have no experience with outside of a wiki link.
ntsf, have you ever been intentionally hit in the head with rocks, 2x4s, etc?
I would say that the people doing it generally are not trying to kill you (although as pointed out, theres a remote chance they may), but sometimes emotions cloud their judgment. You don't use the opportunity to respond with lethal force, even if your blood is fucking boiling and the guys within arms reach.
Policemen can't be mind readers. That's not a fair standard to hold them to. If someone was throwing rocks at the back of my head, at that point it's not a matter of their intent, it's a matter of rocks being thrown at my head, which is potentially deadly and lethal. The situation doesn't change if the target is a police officer.
I mean, it pains me to say it, but even as tragic as a police officer shooting and killing a 15 year old kid can be, if you pick up a rock and throw it at someone's head, and that person has a gun, uh...what do you expect to happen?
It's not about boiling with rage, it's about defending yourself. A rock can be a deadly weapon. You don't have to be hit in the head, back or front, or even hit hard, for a rock to cause permanent or deadly damage.
As much as I am against use of lethal force when it's not warranted and believe in proper levels of escalation, I also don't think it is a police officer's duty to retreat when faced with any or all opposition, or to allow himself to get maimed or killed.
The legal definition of deadly weapons is usually limited to guns, swords, knives (and then usually only knives of a certain length), etc.
I've never heard of "rock" defined as a deadly weapon.
That being said, it is possible to exert "deadly force" with something that is not a deadly weapon.
For force to constitute deadly force, however, it has to create a substantial risk, not merely a possibility. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it seems very unlikely given the few facts that we know that the boy threw rocks in a manner sufficient to create a substantial risk.
Seriously, can we skip the lame posts of "You guys are just hiding behind computer monitors! I've been out there, man, and until you've seen your buddy taken down by a big rock you don't know what it's like!" ?
No one cares if you are or were a police officer / in the army / in the airforce / king of Nigeria. It's the internet, people make shit up, and this is D&D, where argument from authority means nothing.
Because I didn't sign some sort of form that said I would relegate my life experience to A) gamestop employee or liberal arts student when making a point around here.
If you have an issue with that, maybe you need to change your life so you can argue more effectively, not run behind argument from authority every time someone brings up something you have no experience with outside of a wiki link.
And we didn't sign a form promising not to call you moronic when you refuse to support your assertions because you've "been there." You have to argue on merit of your arguments, not authority.
On that note, let me announce that mice are Hitler's ghost. I know this because I work with mice. I've "been there," and you can't argue because you haven't.
Seriously, can we skip the lame posts of "You guys are just hiding behind computer monitors! I've been out there, man, and until you've seen your buddy taken down by a big rock you don't know what it's like!" ?
No one cares if you are or were a police officer / in the army / in the airforce / king of Nigeria. It's the internet, people make shit up, and this is D&D, where argument from authority means nothing.
Because I didn't sign some sort of form that said I would relegate my life experience to A) gamestop employee or liberal arts student when making a point around here.
If you have an issue with that, maybe you need to change your life so you can argue more effectively, not run behind argument from authority every time someone brings up something you have no experience with outside of a wiki link.
OK, I guess you... don't know what debate means. You know there's a whole other forum for people to run around being retards while whining about the things they don't like, right? I point it out because it seems like it'd be more your style.
This is D&D. Ad hominem (implying everyone is a gamestop employee / liberal arts student / 'sophist twat' / coward hiding behind a computer) doesn't get you anywhere. Nor does an argument of "I know better than you do but my brain just can't make my hands type out sensible arguments so all I can really say is that I know better than you do and you'd better take my word for it or I'll get angry."
Regarding the bolded: oh brother, take your own advice.
Posts
Only one cop and what would you suggest?
How? All he had is a sidearm. He has three options:
He can ditch the arrest, in which case fire all the cops because they all must ditch the arrest when you pelt them with rocks. Sounds great, I'll never have to get a ticket again, by the way give me your money and your wife looks cute. Don't call the cops, I got a rock, he'll have to run. So no, cops need to continue with arrests even under danger.
He can sit there and get pelted with rocks and possibly get maimed or killed. If you like this option then you're OK with killing cops and are saying you actively prefer law enforcement to be killed then stop criminals. Which is a possible stance, but that's what your stance turns into.
Or he can... fire back with his side arm and probably maim/kill his attacker. It's a shitty situation, but that's what happens.
For me I'd like police to do their job and not have to be chased off from any crime scene or arrest because "oh noes, they might kill a person". I'm not for cops just sitting their getting killed and maimed because self defense might kill someone. And I'm actually completely OK with cops taking someones life in the event of prosecuting an arrest provided it's in self defense or to protect other people.
And since he only had a side arm, wasn't in riot gear, was dealing with multiple suspects of which at least one (that we know of) was attacking him with a deadly weapon, I'm fine with him defending himself even though the outcome was a death.
And I'm not going to say "zomg he just wanted to kill zee messcins cause dey took yer jobz, it's all about race" because I'm not a pedantic little jerk with a case of the bleeding hears and superiority complex.
It sucks that he was in that situation come and the outcome sucks for a lot of people. But hey, that's more of a call to question how that situation was allowed to happen rather then why it ended up the way it did.
You can say 2 + 2 = 5 all you want to, but its not true.
D&D is not the balanced hall of civil discourse some of you seem so dead set on defending it as. If you want to pretend there isn't a definite liberal bias around here, don't expect me to play along.
You're rambling out accusations of people calling you out for being racist.
Man, this is a stupid way to look at the situation.
I mean, here is basically the question that cop was faced with: is it worth shooting the 15 year old to (possibly) arrest the person you are chasing?
The only way it possibly makes sense to answer yes is in some fantasyland where people crossing the border are being defended by battalions of rock-throwing teenagers. In this particular case it would have been a much better solution for the police to remove themselves and the person they were pursuing from the position, pursue and arrest the child, or just withdraw completely.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Jesus, way to ignore the last 50 or so posts in this thread as if all this had not been beaten to death and explained already.
edit: and it doesn't really alter the point I was making, anyway.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Until then, I'm with nstf.
On the other hand, if a person throws a rock at another with enough force to injure, but not enough force to cause death, it can be assumed only that he intended only to cause the person an injury, but not to cause his death.
The whole issue is whether rock throwing constitutes deadly force. Typically deadly force is force which a person knows or should know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm. Serious bodily harm usually refers to those injuries that create a substantial risk of death or that cause serious, permanent disfigurement or prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any body part or organ.
While it may be theoretically possible for a person to kill another or cause him serious bodily harm by throwing a rock, I doubt that it creates a substantial risk of doing so. If you consider a scenario where the boy was arrested instead of killed (he'd probably have to be in the U.S.) for the same actions, if he was criminally tried as an adult, the offenses he could be convicted of would be criminal assault and criminal battery, as opposed to attempted murder.
When you don't have a deadly weapon or dangerous instrumentality, as is the case here, the question as to whether the perpetrator was using deadly force can become a highly factual inquiry that depends on that specific scenario. For example a mob gathered around someone at fairly close range, stoning that person to death is clearly deadly force. Of course, that's not what we have here. As none of us were there, and the news articles haven't been very detailed, all we can do is speculate. However, I do think it is significant to the analysis that no border patrol officer was actually injured at all in the incident. There have also been reports that the boy was standing across the border with his hands in the air when he was shot. So it seems really unlikely that the officer was in fear of his life when he shot the boy, and much more likely he's a depraved asshole.
Fixed that for you.
And yeah, it does.
The joke goes that reality has a liberal bias, but yeah there's definitely a demographic overlap between gamer forums and liberals... so what? Neither McDermott nor I are exactly Heritage Foundation material, and we haven't been calling for the pig to be spitted. Yet. Even with my inherent predisposition towards condemning authority figures like him, it's possible for me to imagine a scenario consistent with the facts wherein this officer is innocent of any wrongdoing. Regardless of whether or not he was truly morally in the wrong I suspect what he did wasn't actually illegal, and that there is good reason for the law to be as apparently brutal as it is.
Try not to get too caught up in the liberal/conservative divide; certainly many posters have a worldview that is largely consistent with one or the other stereotype, but nobody on this board is a perfect representative of one category or the other. That is to say, there are no True Scotsmen around here, I hope.
And yes, I still want to pass control of the means of production into the hands of the proletariat, but what does that have to do with my opinion of border patrolmen getting hit by rocks?
then by all means, feel free to respond
I don't see how your edit really changes the character of my post, either
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You did read where Lucid denied the existence of a liberal bias here, right? And I'm pretty familiar with this going beyond a lib/con divide, being a registered Dem myself.
So yeah, I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to the many posters here who's main addition to the argument is to run in and dogpile on whoever is arguing the minority position.
I'd rather not, since I doubt its going to do much good at this point. The agent can't follow the kid into Mexico, doesn't have a "duty to retreat", its not like a rock that hits him in the head that was thrown to "scare him away" is somehow less dangerous than one thrown to kill him, how he was supposed to know the intent of the people throwing rocks, etc etc etc. All have been brought up before and blithely ignored.
And actually, it does. There's quite a few people who are very critical of the agent's reaction (reverting to his training) who would more than likely curl up into a fetal position or have a panic meltdown if they were ripped from their living rooms and placed in a similar life or death decision.
At the point at which the officer comes under attack, he has several options: he could ignore the attacker and continue pursuit, open fire on the attacker, or withdraw. The latter two are both equally effective ways of guaranteeing his own safety, so the only question is whether continuing pursuit is a goal worth shooting a third party over.
The only way opening fire would be worthwhile is, as I said, in some world where illegal border crossers are systematically being aided by rockthrowing teenagers and a systematic response is necessary. That isn't the world we live in, and even if it were, just shooting all of those teenagers is not the response we would want.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Seriously, this is an argument about rocks and whether you think they're deadly enough. Or something. I don't even know. Whatever it is, I'm having trouble connecting it back to whether one supports a planned economy or laissez-faire environment or abortion or gay marriage or anything to do with the retarded dichotomy that dominates politics in the US.
People don't routinely assault cops with any sort of weapon because that will land you at minimal tasered, possibly bloodied on the ground (ie multiple tackle take down) or shot.
If we create a situation where people know that assaulting cops does not end badly, and hey, might get your buddy out of an arrest then there is a great reason to assault officers, even with weapons. Because it means you get off free and you know they won't fight back.
This is why law enforcement has to follow through on arrests and must not back down when attacked. If you have a police force that opts back off each time rocks or thrown then there is no point in having cops at all.
I don't like cops, I hate tickets, and I hate a lot of their stupid antics. But they have a job to do. I don't want the cops, should I need one, to be driven off each time somebody throws a rock at them. And if I ever need a cop, and I hope I never do, I sure as hell wouldn't want him to be chased off rather then come help me. The result of this is that cops must be able to, and SHOULD, respond with deadly force when attacked with it.
There really isn't any way around this without making a completely ineffective police force. And I doubt anybody of us would be happy with that.
Definitely not the only question. Here's another one: what happens when kids throw rocks at you to make you go away, and you go away? To make it easier, let's go with multiple choice. Are they:
A) More likely to throw rocks at officers in the future
Seriously, can we skip the lame posts of "You guys are just hiding behind computer monitors! I've been out there, man, and until you've seen your buddy taken down by a big rock you don't know what it's like!" ?
No one cares if you are or were a police officer / in the army / in the airforce / king of Nigeria. It's the internet, people make shit up, and this is D&D, where argument from authority means nothing.
I see you've chosen choice C: sophist twat. An entirely expected choice.
What the fuck are you trying to say? That because the US tends to drift right and have plenty of echo chambers for retarded right wingers that its okay for D&D to be an echo chamber for retarded left wingers? That's not sarcasm, its a real question because I don't think I'm reading you right but that's sure as hell what it sounds like.
Its not a "cause celebre" to point out that someone is merely engaging in group think and isn't adding anything to the discussion, as if this was a popularity contest and the side with the most people behind it "wins".
And honestly, this seems to be an argument between people who have been there, and people who haven't, and that shows. I gotta agree with your second paragraph though, because fuckall if I know what too much of this has to do with the issues you threw out in said paragraph.
Edit: Sorry for the "fuck" above, but man you're kinda making me scratch my head here.
Policemen can't be mind readers. That's not a fair standard to hold them to. If someone was throwing rocks at the back of my head, at that point it's not a matter of their intent, it's a matter of rocks being thrown at my head, which is potentially deadly and lethal. The situation doesn't change if the target is a police officer.
I mean, it pains me to say it, but even as tragic as a police officer shooting and killing a 15 year old kid can be, if you pick up a rock and throw it at someone's head, and that person has a gun, uh...what do you expect to happen?
It's not about boiling with rage, it's about defending yourself. A rock can be a deadly weapon. You don't have to be hit in the head, back or front, or even hit hard, for a rock to cause permanent or deadly damage.
As much as I am against use of lethal force when it's not warranted and believe in proper levels of escalation, I also don't think it is a police officer's duty to retreat when faced with any or all opposition, or to allow himself to get maimed or killed.
Because I didn't sign some sort of form that said I would relegate my life experience to A) gamestop employee or
If you have an issue with that, maybe you need to change your life so you can argue more effectively, not run behind argument from authority every time someone brings up something you have no experience with outside of a wiki link.
The legal definition of deadly weapons is usually limited to guns, swords, knives (and then usually only knives of a certain length), etc.
I've never heard of "rock" defined as a deadly weapon.
That being said, it is possible to exert "deadly force" with something that is not a deadly weapon.
For force to constitute deadly force, however, it has to create a substantial risk, not merely a possibility. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it seems very unlikely given the few facts that we know that the boy threw rocks in a manner sufficient to create a substantial risk.
And we didn't sign a form promising not to call you moronic when you refuse to support your assertions because you've "been there." You have to argue on merit of your arguments, not authority.
On that note, let me announce that mice are Hitler's ghost. I know this because I work with mice. I've "been there," and you can't argue because you haven't.
OK, I guess you... don't know what debate means. You know there's a whole other forum for people to run around being retards while whining about the things they don't like, right? I point it out because it seems like it'd be more your style.
This is D&D. Ad hominem (implying everyone is a gamestop employee / liberal arts student / 'sophist twat' / coward hiding behind a computer) doesn't get you anywhere. Nor does an argument of "I know better than you do but my brain just can't make my hands type out sensible arguments so all I can really say is that I know better than you do and you'd better take my word for it or I'll get angry."
Regarding the bolded: oh brother, take your own advice.