The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

1312 incidents of [Police Brutality] and counting

2456766

Posts

  • WhiteZinfandelWhiteZinfandel Your insides Let me show you themRegistered User regular
    Butler wrote: »
    How many months of freedom did Daunte Wright lose? I think the sentence this cop got was a fucking steal.

    Given his pending aggravated robbery charge, the warrant for his arrest on a separate case also involving a pistol, the accusation against him of shooting a young man in the head, his repeatedly fleeing the police, his willingness to drive high without a license, his willingness to get into a car chase with the police, and the fact that he was stupid enough to make incriminating videos of himself underage drinking and playing with a pistol at the scene of said aggravated robbery charge... I'm going to guess six.

    Daunte Wright is dead. He has been robbed of the freedom to be alive, which is the most fundamental freedom and the freedom AZ was referring to.

    But you already knew that. I've read quite a few of your posts over the years, you're a literate person, there's nothing wrong with your reading comprehension. You made a conscious choice to misinterpret AbsoluteZero's question as "how much of Daunte's life was he going to spend outside of prison anyway?" so that you could do a Top 10 Reasons Daunte Wright Was No Angel countdown, and then reach up your arse and around your head to yank out the figure of six months.

    I'm not going to get through to you and I'm not trying to. Why would I? You are a racist and you argue in bad faith. I only hope more people will realise this and stop replying to you.

    Butler, while I've undoubtedly read as many or more posts of yours over the years, I remember nothing of them. I have no lasting impression of you. Your enmity is as one-sided as it is unfounded.

    It would have been fairly appropriate to make an apples-to-apples comparison of time lost via imprisonment after the conversation's focus on the length of Potter's sentence, but I didn't do that. I considered both lifespan and freedom from incarceration. Assuming even half the accusations against him were valid, Wright's lifestyle was inordinately careless and violent. People who repeatedly commit crimes with guns and consistently resist arrest tend not to live very long, much less live long outside of incarceration. Did I pull that specific number out of my ass? Yes, of course. No answer to AZ's question could be arrived at by any other means. Your distaste and misunderstanding notwithstanding, I think it's entirely fair to give a straight answer to a rhetorical question in a way that highlights the flawed assumption behind it.

    Isn't the "No Angel" rhetorical device, which I never said, (interestingly Wright's own aunt Kelly Bryant went further in describing him as "far from an angel" though she still loved him "no matter what he did wrong") generally applied to people who got into some minor hooliganism as a way to say that they deserved their fate? Because neither of those things apply here. Daunte Wright had pending legal and civil cases related to two separate firearms offenses at the time of his death and another two have been filed against his estate since he died. Between multiple cases of alleged armed robbery and one of allegedly shooting a 16 year old boy in the head, permanently disabling him, I should think he's outside of the territory where "no angel" is an unfair descriptor. Even so, Daunte Wright didn't deserve to die. This is my own personal article of faith that I should have spelled out earlier, but I guess I'm doing so now. Nobody, but nobody, deserves to die. Everybody deserves all the good things in life. In an ideal world, we would all have full lives and every opportunity to be our best selves even after we make bad decisions. Sadly, that's not possible. Further, it's not particularly relevant to use-of-force policy. What people "deserve" is not and should not be a significant determining factor when it comes to police use-of-force. What amount of force police are justified in using should be almost entirely predicated on how necessary that force is to prevent harm. Unintentional use of deadly force, as in the Kim Potter case: unacceptable. Intentional use of deadly force: if it's the only reliable way to stop a bad actor (or perhaps even a non bad actor) from immediately or in the predictably near future causing others GBH/death, of course it should be permitted.

    In the very first paragraph I wrote in this thread, I listed the factors relevant to why Potter would arguably have been justified in intentionally shooting Wright. I didn't put in a single thing that wasn't immediately relevant to the cops' assessment of how much danger Wright posed to others and how to handle him. All of it and the subsequent claims I made came from articles on news sites. I'm not going to go hard on linking sources until someone requests I do so, but I want it to be clear that I did some actual reading and said nothing negative about his character that wasn't directly applicable to the practical reasons cops should/shouldn't shoot. I didn't get into any of the other stuff until I answered AZ's question, and for no other purpose than answering AZ's question. Your accusation of me doing a "No Angel" thing is hogwash. I'll note that posters prior to my interjection were omitting any of the circumstances around the shooting and even referring to Wright as an "innocent," which is downright misleading.

    By the way, I have a hard time taking your accusation of racism seriously. I had the impression it's a generally held belief on these forums (including by me) that everybody is inescapably, unconsciously racist to some degree. When I judge people, I try to do so on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. If that's not good enough for you, bite me. The bad faith thing is hazily defined and conveniently not falsifiable so all I'm going to say to that is "no."

  • GrisloGrislo Registered User regular

    Isn't the "No Angel" rhetorical device, which I never said, (interestingly Wright's own aunt Kelly Bryant went further in describing him as "far from an angel"...

    "I didn't do that, so let me just include one in a parenthesis in the same sentence where I deny doing it" is next level, well done.

    This post was sponsored by Tom Cruise.
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Double points for then actually doing it outside of parentheses.

    The accusation isn't leveled against people accused of any specific crime. It's leveled against people who died at the hands of police in situations that in no way justify it to suggest that this was actually justice and not tragedy, while ignoring that society has intentionally removed police from the actual service of justice by two degrees for exactly this reason.

  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    I would like to clarify that I don't advocate for "eye for an eye" style justice, but I do think the punishment should fit the crime and in this case it does not.

    And let's be clear, she's not getting off easy because of some type of criminal justice reform to reign in long sentences. She's getting off easy because she's white and she's a cop.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    "He was no angel," while something that is often said verbatim, is also how one summarizes citing the criminal history of someone in order to excuse police brutality up to and including the police extrajudicially killing them is a well-worn tactic utilized by those who wish to excuse and/or defend the inequality and bias inherent in the system.

    Someone having an outstanding warrant does not mean that police should be given leniency when they kill an unarmed person. Someone having a criminal record does not mean that they deserve to be beaten and murdered and those who beat and murdered them be allowed to go unpunished. So very often, there is no way that the police officers could be aware of, in the moment, the history of an individual when they abuse them and shoot them. But - and let me be very clear on this - it should not matter even if they were.

    One's civil rights do not cease to apply when convicted of a felony. No, don't play any cute sematical games with me about "Uh but they lose the right to vote," etc. You know goddamn well what rights I'm talking about. The right to a fair and speedy trial. The right to an attorney. The right to not be shot in the street, in your car, in your own goddamn home, and for those who do shoot you to be held accountable for it.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    At the end of the day Potter made a serious error that can't go unanswered. Merely ending her career in law enforcement and taking away her ability to own a firearm ever again would be unacceptably lenient, but I don't think the actual sentence is.

    Maybe, unless you compare the actual sentence to, y'know, other sentences for ostensibly lesser offenses.

    Five years for casting a provisional ballot while on parole, because you were incorrectly told you could do so.

    Twelve years for attempting to sell $31 worth of pot - a first offense.

    I could go on, but I feel the point has already been made.

    Those are quite fucked. Don't you think excessively long sentences are an issue in America? Two wrongs don't make a right.

    Well you've missed the point entirely if you think that I'm advocating for an excessively long sentence for this former police officer killing someone.

    Excuse me for assuming. If I've missed the point, it's because you haven't actually made one. Also, I don't think you're advocating for an excessively long sentence. I don't think you've advocated for anything at all so far in this thread. You're welcome to do so.

    Nah, the point being made is that white supremecy means cops upholding white supremecy gets lighter sentences than other people. The fact you refuse to acknowledge or at least recognize that point isn't on DarkPrimus, it's all on you

    Nope. I do appreciate you spelling it out, but you're wrong. DP couldn't be bothered to make a point. All he said was that Potter's sentence was lenient compared to certain other wildly excessive sentences, which... yeah, duh. All non-excessive sentences are lenient in comparison to excessive sentences. That's axiomatic. The implication I guessed he was attempting to make (since his apparent discomfort with ever stating a thesis means I have to guess) was that he felt Potter's sentence should be more like those aforementioned wildly excessive sentences. Is that so unreasonable an interpretation? There was nothing about white supremacy in his post, nothing about Potter upholding white supremacy, and nothing about her being rewarded for it. Y'all seem to hold as an article of faith that white supremacy is at play every time anything bad happens between cops and black people. I don't share that paradigm. If he'd said what you did, I would have nodded along. He didn't.
    How many months of freedom did Daunte Wright lose? I think the sentence this cop got was a fucking steal.

    Given his pending aggravated robbery charge, the warrant for his arrest on a separate case also involving a pistol, the accusation against him of shooting a young man in the head, his repeatedly fleeing the police, his willingness to drive high without a license, his willingness to get into a car chase with the police, and the fact that he was stupid enough to make incriminating videos of himself underage drinking and playing with a pistol at the scene of said aggravated robbery charge... I'm going to guess six.

    Again, the fact you can't or refuse to see the obvious is entirely on you. I recommend doing some introspection about why you present yourself as a racist goose on these forums.

  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    (Felons also shouldn't lose the right to vote, but that's another topic)

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The problem is that if the consequence is only fair for the white supremacists, nothing changes.

    Equality under Law. If they want fair sentences, everyone should get fair sentences. Otherwise it's just out and out oppression.

    Yup. There's a reason to call for changes to the judicial system, across arrests/prosecutions (what a black or brown person will be arrested/prosecuted for is often harsher than a similar crime by a white person), sentencing, and the treatment and reformation of prisoners.

    Happy to discuss that. But until things get changed on a grand scale, no, the middle aged, middle class white people shouldn't be the first ones getting it, because they're the only ones getting it. 10% of the maximum sentence, 20% of the average, is ridiculously lenient, given how the law treats other people.

    And I'll stand by my position that as a law enforcement officer, and a field training officer at that, she should be held to a higher standard than a regular member of the public. Not a lower one.

    I still don't understand how it's possible for anyone to buy that she thought she had the taser in her hand until she pulled the trigger. It beggars belief.

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    spool32 wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The problem is that if the consequence is only fair for the white supremacists, nothing changes.

    Equality under Law. If they want fair sentences, everyone should get fair sentences. Otherwise it's just out and out oppression.

    Yup. There's a reason to call for changes to the judicial system, across arrests/prosecutions (what a black or brown person will be arrested/prosecuted for is often harsher than a similar crime by a white person), sentencing, and the treatment and reformation of prisoners.

    Happy to discuss that. But until things get changed on a grand scale, no, the middle aged, middle class white people shouldn't be the first ones getting it, because they're the only ones getting it. 10% of the maximum sentence, 20% of the average, is ridiculously lenient, given how the law treats other people.

    And I'll stand by my position that as a law enforcement officer, and a field training officer at that, she should be held to a higher standard than a regular member of the public. Not a lower one.

    I still don't understand how it's possible for anyone to buy that she thought she had the taser in her hand until she pulled the trigger. It beggars belief.
    It’s not unreasonable. The grip is designed to have the same feel as a glock. The idea being that if it feels the same, the same muscle memory will be used so there won’t need to be a ton of extra expensive training.

    That being said the holster draw is different and the weapon looks very different. But adrenaline is a hell of a drug. And how a person responds depends on how they were innoculated against stress. If they were never innoculated against stress their response will be unpredictable.

    zepherin on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The problem is that if the consequence is only fair for the white supremacists, nothing changes.

    Equality under Law. If they want fair sentences, everyone should get fair sentences. Otherwise it's just out and out oppression.

    Yup. There's a reason to call for changes to the judicial system, across arrests/prosecutions (what a black or brown person will be arrested/prosecuted for is often harsher than a similar crime by a white person), sentencing, and the treatment and reformation of prisoners.

    Happy to discuss that. But until things get changed on a grand scale, no, the middle aged, middle class white people shouldn't be the first ones getting it, because they're the only ones getting it. 10% of the maximum sentence, 20% of the average, is ridiculously lenient, given how the law treats other people.

    And I'll stand by my position that as a law enforcement officer, and a field training officer at that, she should be held to a higher standard than a regular member of the public. Not a lower one.

    I still don't understand how it's possible for anyone to buy that she thought she had the taser in her hand until she pulled the trigger. It beggars belief.
    It’s not unreasonable. The grip is designed to have the same feel as a glock. The idea being that if it feels the same, the same muscle memory will be used so there won’t need to be a ton of extra expensive training.

    It's been a while and I don't want to rehash, but don't you holster it on a different side of your body? And don't the sights look totally different? And isn't the weight dramatically different?

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The problem is that if the consequence is only fair for the white supremacists, nothing changes.

    Equality under Law. If they want fair sentences, everyone should get fair sentences. Otherwise it's just out and out oppression.

    Yup. There's a reason to call for changes to the judicial system, across arrests/prosecutions (what a black or brown person will be arrested/prosecuted for is often harsher than a similar crime by a white person), sentencing, and the treatment and reformation of prisoners.

    Happy to discuss that. But until things get changed on a grand scale, no, the middle aged, middle class white people shouldn't be the first ones getting it, because they're the only ones getting it. 10% of the maximum sentence, 20% of the average, is ridiculously lenient, given how the law treats other people.

    And I'll stand by my position that as a law enforcement officer, and a field training officer at that, she should be held to a higher standard than a regular member of the public. Not a lower one.

    I still don't understand how it's possible for anyone to buy that she thought she had the taser in her hand until she pulled the trigger. It beggars belief.
    It’s not unreasonable. The grip is designed to have the same feel as a glock. The idea being that if it feels the same, the same muscle memory will be used so there won’t need to be a ton of extra expensive training.

    It's been a while and I don't want to rehash, but don't you holster it on a different side of your body? And don't the sights look totally different? And isn't the weight dramatically different?
    Yes. I made an edit to that effect but it looks like it wasn’t picked up in your response.

  • edited February 2022
    This content has been removed.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Psychologically speaking, it would be fascinating to put a bunch of street cops into a simulation where they have to tase or shoot. Pure speculation, but I bet shooting is practiced so much more than tasing that errors of "shot but meant to tase" will be much more common than "tased but meant to shoot".

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Psychologically speaking, it would be fascinating to put a bunch of street cops into a simulation where they have to tase or shoot. Pure speculation, but I bet shooting is practiced so much more than tasing that errors of "shot but meant to tase" will be much more common than "tased but meant to shoot".
    From what I can google there are 3 easy to find cases of shot instead of tased. I couldn’t find 1 the other way around.

  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The problem is that if the consequence is only fair for the white supremacists, nothing changes.

    Equality under Law. If they want fair sentences, everyone should get fair sentences. Otherwise it's just out and out oppression.

    Yup. There's a reason to call for changes to the judicial system, across arrests/prosecutions (what a black or brown person will be arrested/prosecuted for is often harsher than a similar crime by a white person), sentencing, and the treatment and reformation of prisoners.

    Happy to discuss that. But until things get changed on a grand scale, no, the middle aged, middle class white people shouldn't be the first ones getting it, because they're the only ones getting it. 10% of the maximum sentence, 20% of the average, is ridiculously lenient, given how the law treats other people.

    And I'll stand by my position that as a law enforcement officer, and a field training officer at that, she should be held to a higher standard than a regular member of the public. Not a lower one.

    I still don't understand how it's possible for anyone to buy that she thought she had the taser in her hand until she pulled the trigger. It beggars belief.

    I can empathize here, but at the same time "improbably incompetent" and "cop" seem to go hand-in-hand.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    At this point, "improbably incompetent" seems to be a personality requirement for being a cop in America.

  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    Well, they specifically brainwash cops to live in abject terror that every civilian interaction could launch into deadly fight at any moment, so obviously cops are going to freak out and grab the wrong weapon.

    Especially when a suspect is menacingly running away unarmed.

  • see317see317 Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Psychologically speaking, it would be fascinating to put a bunch of street cops into a simulation where they have to tase or shoot. Pure speculation, but I bet shooting is practiced so much more than tasing that errors of "shot but meant to tase" will be much more common than "tased but meant to shoot".
    From what I can google there are 3 easy to find cases of shot instead of tased. I couldn’t find 1 the other way around.

    Well, once you tase the guy you meant to shoot, it's easy enough to shoot them with the real gun.
    It's a bit harder to hide the other way around.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    There is also the fact that if the perp has a gun or knife(as in legitimate reason to shoot), tasing them would incapacitate them, rendering the need to shoot unnecessary. Or what see317 said.

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    There is also the fact that if the perp has a gun or knife(as in legitimate reason to shoot), tasing them would incapacitate them, rendering the need to shoot unnecessary. Or what see317 said.
    Tasers are 100% effective, 50% of the time. Pepper spray/balls are effective 85% of the time.

  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    There is also the fact that if the perp has a gun or knife(as in legitimate reason to shoot), tasing them would incapacitate them, rendering the need to shoot unnecessary. Or what see317 said.

    Be careful here. "Has a gun in their possession" is not a legitimate reason to kill someone. Police should be trying to de-escalate, not make things more deadly.

    "Someone died" is a failure

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited February 2022
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    There is also the fact that if the perp has a gun or knife(as in legitimate reason to shoot), tasing them would incapacitate them, rendering the need to shoot unnecessary. Or what see317 said.

    Perp explicitly defines the person being murder as guilty of a crime or moral wrongdoing.

    maybe, don't adopt cop jargon intended to vilify anyone they a have a confrontation with when generally talking about people who have not even formally been accused of a crime.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • This content has been removed.

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    I was not putting forward any such thought experiment. I was stating that BIPOC do not de facto enjoy the same Second Amendment rights as white people do.

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    I was not putting forward any such thought experiment. I was stating that BIPOC do not de facto enjoy the same Second Amendment rights as white people do.

    Yes, I'm aware. I'm just saying it raises the question on the legal side.

    I'm also aware that the only answer the courts would ever give is "totally okay, because we say so".

    Polaritie on
    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    I was not putting forward any such thought experiment. I was stating that BIPOC do not de facto enjoy the same Second Amendment rights as white people do.

    I've been saying for years now that Americans do not, in practice, have a right to bear arms as the presence of a gun is routinely used by cops as justification for lethal force.

    If a cop can legally execute anyone that is armed, then no, no one in that jurisdiction has a right to bear arms, no matter how many examples of people bearing guns you can bring forth.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    Nova_C wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    I was not putting forward any such thought experiment. I was stating that BIPOC do not de facto enjoy the same Second Amendment rights as white people do.

    I've been saying for years now that Americans do not, in practice, have a right to bear arms as the presence of a gun is routinely used by cops as justification for lethal force.

    If a cop can legally execute anyone that is armed, then no, no one in that jurisdiction has a right to bear arms, no matter how many examples of people bearing guns you can bring forth.

    The police manage to take armed white men into custody alive just fine, even after engaging in shootouts with them.

    Their choice of who to deploy summary lethal force against is not equally given.

    DarkPrimus on
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    I was not putting forward any such thought experiment. I was stating that BIPOC do not de facto enjoy the same Second Amendment rights as white people do.

    I've been saying for years now that Americans do not, in practice, have a right to bear arms as the presence of a gun is routinely used by cops as justification for lethal force.

    If a cop can legally execute anyone that is armed, then no, no one in that jurisdiction has a right to bear arms, no matter how many examples of people bearing guns you can bring forth.

    The police manage to take armed white men into custody alive just fine, even after engaging in shootouts with them.

    Their choice of who to deploy summary lethal force against is not equally given.

    Which is of course itself a violation of the constitution, but they've never let that stop them (and certain hacks on SCOTUS are perfectly fine with it).

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    Rittenhouse case makes explicit that possession of a firearm doesn't inherently imply a threat. Not that it would matter, "I saw a gun so I fired" is perfectly fine for a cop. Hell, Philando Castile proves that they can shoot you because they goddamn fucking hear about a gun nearby.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    Rittenhouse case makes explicit that possession of a firearm doesn't inherently imply a threat. Not that it would matter, "I saw a gun so I fired" is perfectly fine for a cop. Hell, Philando Castile proves that they can shoot you because they goddamn fucking hear about a gun nearby.

    Trials don't set legal precedent.

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    Rittenhouse case makes explicit that possession of a firearm doesn't inherently imply a threat. Not that it would matter, "I saw a gun so I fired" is perfectly fine for a cop. Hell, Philando Castile proves that they can shoot you because they goddamn fucking hear about a gun nearby.

    Trials don't set legal precedent.

    What does?

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited February 2022
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When police feel obligated to use deadly force against anyone visibly non-White because they think that a gun is present in the general vicinity of that person, I think there is an argument there that BIPOC in America do not, in practice, have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Hmm. That's an interesting thought experiment. Possession of a gun can't justify lethal force because that would be a violation of the second amendment? Sadly, this isn't a world in which this makes the various hacks heads explode.

    Rittenhouse case makes explicit that possession of a firearm doesn't inherently imply a threat. Not that it would matter, "I saw a gun so I fired" is perfectly fine for a cop. Hell, Philando Castile proves that they can shoot you because they goddamn fucking hear about a gun nearby.

    Trials don't set legal precedent.

    What does?

    Finding by judges, and particularly those on appeals courts.

    But that formal capital P precedent.

    The general habit of juries, judges and prosecutors taking a light hand when it comes to white, male cops isn't Legal Precedence, it's systemic racism.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    The cop union head that was stealing money from the cop union was charged today in the southern district of New York.

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Civil asset forfeiture for me, not for thee!

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    The cop union head that was stealing money from the cop union was charged today in the southern district of New York.


    That is old school travel and expense account scam. It’s nice to see the classics making a come back. Per diem mostly killed that one off.

    zepherin on
  • This content has been removed.

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Federal charges mean they can never work in law enforcement again, so that's something I guess.

  • This content has been removed.

Sign In or Register to comment.