[QUOTE=Apache249;48356466]The sad reality of the matter is that when you choose to resist in any way, you are voluntarily putting your priority of life below that of everyone else.
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
Actually it has everything to do with it. He wasn't shot for resisting, but he wouldn't even have been in that situation if he hadn't resisted. He made a conscious decision to resist, therefore putting his own life in danger. You could say that the officer made the conscious decision to endanger the man's life by drawing his weapon, but then you'd be excusing the man of his own actions, suggesting that it's okay to resist, when it isn't.[/QUOTE]
Seems pretty reasonable to ready a weapon given (A) the guy was acting shifty, (B) the guy is apparently attempting to run, (C) the guy might think his chances of getting away would be better if the cop wasn't in a position to chase him (not hard to hide a gun near the shifter).
Of course, running, in of itself isn't a valid reason for shooting the person; but the chain of events led to situation (supposedly) where there was a valid reason for shooting, in my opinion at least.
I don't think the person intended to end up dragging the cop along, and I don't think the cop initiated that stop with the "hope" of being able to kill someone, but that's what ended up happening, and I do believe the person made the conscious decision to run.
Honestly though, I find it remarkable how retarded people apparently are given:
[quote]More than 89% [of pursuits in CA between 2002 and 2014] were for vehicle-code violations, including speeding, vehicle theft, reckless driving, and 4,898 instances of a missing license plate or an expired registration[/quote]
[QUOTE=Billy-Bobfred;48356210]Ok guys, we all have to accept that arguing with flareon is like talking to a brick walls, and gystine or whatever is just as dense too. I'd say they are very dedicated trolls.[/QUOTE]
I'm a troll for standing up against police brutality?
Or maybe what is retarded is the fact that officers feel the need to escalate a situation and put lives at risk over the most trivial things? Like.. shooting someone for escaping? Or engaging in a high speed chase over a missing license plate.
Can yall please stop saying, "Well maybe criminals should follow the law!" that goes without saying. What we are protesting is the DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF FORCE. People shouldn't steal or rape either, but that doesn't mean I am okay with chopping people's hands off or stoning them to death. The punishment should fit the crime and execution on the spot is not appropriate.
[quote=HowIreadApache]Actually it has everything to do with it. He wasn't stoned for rape, but he wouldn't even have been in that situation if he hadn't raped. He made a conscious decision to rape, therefore putting his own life in danger. You could say that the officer made the conscious decision to endanger the man's life by raising a stone, but then you'd be excusing the man of his own actions, suggesting that it's okay to rape, when it isn't.
[/quote]
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;48356617]Funny, if you search this thread for indictment there is only one person saying it was completely justified and should have no punishment. Pretty sure no one is saying shooting the gun was the right decision, it was just a reflex due to circumstance.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna disagree dude. Most people in this thread are not, "I understand why he did it but he should still be punished." they are, "I understand why he did it, so he shouldn't be punished for it." Even if he was doing was completely legal (im pretty sure it wasn't), future officers should be trained differently so that this isn't the gut reaction/reflex to these situations in the future.
[QUOTE=Olanov;48356375]Resisting arrest should not automatically equal capital punishment on the spot.[/QUOTE]
This wasn't a case of just resisting arrest, it involved the driver of his vehicle refusing direction and then starting up his vehicle and driving off with the officer half inside his car.
[QUOTE=RobBrown4PM;48357066]This wasn't a case of just resisting arrest, it involved the driver of his vehicle refusing direction and then starting up his vehicle and driving off with the officer half inside his car.[/QUOTE]
Refusing Direction shouldn't equal the death penalty either.
And the officer should BACK UP if he thinks hes being dragged, not continue to hold onto the vehicle so he can shoot the driver in the face.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48356418]that's why there are almost no highspeed chases in the other civilized countries of the world[/QUOTE]
I live in Canada and plenty happen up here.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357076]Refusing Direction shouldn't equal the death penalty either.
And the officer should BACK UP if he thinks hes being dragged, not continue to hold onto the vehicle so he can shoot the driver in the face.[/QUOTE]
Because you think the cop set out that day with the intention of getting himself in a position where he would be able to shoot someone?
What makes you guys think the cop was stuck in the car.
It didn't go from 0-100 in a second and the cop had plenty of time to step back and get to safety.
Instead he decided he should just shoot the suspect to save himself some time.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48357099]Because you think the cop set out that day with the intention of getting himself in a position where he would be able to shoot someone?[/QUOTE]
Who gives a shit what he intended?? His reflexes decided that it was an appropriate time to use lethal force. It wasn't. If the laws say it was, we need to change the laws because Debose losing his life was senseless.
Whatever legal term you wanna throw at it (voluntary manslaughter, maybe, although some research into the State of Ohio's definition of murder may mean he could be convincted on that), the point is that his training put him in the position where he thought use of lethal force was appropriate - and thats fucked up.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357076]Refusing Direction shouldn't equal the death penalty either.
And the officer should BACK UP if he thinks hes being dragged, not continue to hold onto the vehicle so he can shoot the driver in the face.[/QUOTE]
Clearly no one should be shot for refusing direction, that is not what I said though. The reason the guy was shot was because he drove off with a cop half way into his vehicle. Now in regards to the officer backing off that would be silly. Police are trained to prevent crime from occurring and upholding the law. Allowing a person who is obviously agitated and willing to ignore the law and the safety of atleast one officer to drive off in a 2,000 pound motor vehicle in a crowded area where there are a great many people would be absolutely assanine.
[url]http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/08/01/uc-cops-stepped-traffic-tickets/31004329/[/url]
[quote=News Story at link]UC cops have issued more traffic tickets so far this year than in all of 2014, and more than three times as many tickets as in 2012, according to an Enquirer analysis of data from UC researchers.
The recent emphasis on traffic has hit black motorists especially hard: They got more tickets than whites and were arrested more often as a result of traffic stops.
Ray Tensing, the white police officer who shot and killed Samuel DuBose in a July 19 traffic stop, gave 81 percent of the tickets he wrote this year to blacks. UC officers overall gave 62 percent of their tickets to blacks.
“This is troubling,” said Al Gerhardstein, a Cincinnati lawyer who has sued UC police in two fatalities involving Tasers. “We can’t have a policing philosophy that says certain kinds of people aren’t welcome near the campus.”[/quote]
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RobBrown4PM;48357135]Clearly no one should be shot for refusing direction, that is not what I said though. The reason the guy was shot was because he drove off with a cop half way into his vehicle. Now in regards to the officer backing off that would be silly. Police are trained to prevent crime from occurring and upholding the law. Allowing a person who is obviously agitated and willing to ignore the law and the safety of atleast one officer to drive off in a 2,000 pound motor vehicle in a crowded area where there are a great many people would be absolutely assanine.[/QUOTE]
No, shooting him to death would be absolutely asinine. Following him, or even letting him go since the reason he pulled him over was chicken-shit would be preferable.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357131]Who gives a shit what he intended?? His reflexes decided that it was an appropriate time to use lethal force. It wasn't. If the laws say it was, we need to change the laws because Debose losing his life was senseless.
Whatever legal term you wanna throw at it (voluntary manslaughter, maybe, although some research into the State of Ohio's definition of murder may mean he could be convincted on that), the point is that his training put him in the position where he thought use of lethal force was appropriate - and thats fucked up.[/QUOTE]
I'm not throwing up legal terms. The way you word your sentences imply that shooting the person is what he wanted to do, instead of the shooting being the result of a bad heat of the moment decision.
That's an awfully large assumption for you to make based on the available evidence, you know, unless you're biased and trying to spout rhetoric....
The cop could just let him off with a warning and none of this would happen.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357146][url]http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/08/01/uc-cops-stepped-traffic-tickets/31004329/[/url]
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
No, shooting him to death would be absolutely asinine. Following him, or even letting him go since the reason he pulled him over was chicken-shit would be preferable.[/QUOTE]
'Asinine' would be setting the precedent that as long as you don't comply, you'll get off scot-free and we're not going to chase you.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48357168]I'm not throwing up legal terms. The way you word your sentences imply that shooting the person is what he wanted to do, instead of the shooting being the result of a bad heat of the moment decision.
That's an awfully large assumption for you to make based on the available evidence, you know, unless you're biased and trying to spout rhetoric....[/QUOTE]
Listen, he knew what he was doing when he shot him. He knew he was going to kill him, thats why he fired.
It wasn't an accident like he tripped and whaddya know? The bullet flied! Call it what you will - his training, his reflexes, his personal biases, whatever. He made a decision to shoot an unarmed man and we should call it like it is. I don't pretend to know exactly why he did it and I don't care. I imagine it has something to do with his training, which is why I'm arguing we need to reform policing in this country.
[QUOTE=Apache249;48357192]'Asinine' would be setting the precedent that as long as you don't comply, you'll get off scot-free and we're not going to chase you.[/QUOTE]
Your right, so to make sure we don't have that precedent we should use lethal force in situations where it shouldn't apply so we can use fear to force the populace into following the law - and if they break any of it we should kill them :saxout:
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
debuose could have been arrested at a later date, or a later time.. or never since the reason he was stopped was absolute bullshit.
but nah, kill him now! come on dude.
[QUOTE=gastyne;48357177]The cop could just let him off with a warning and none of this would happen.[/QUOTE]
We should apply that same logic to all laws.
"You hid $200,000,000 from the IRS, well we will just give you a warning so nothing happens."
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357223]Listen, he knew what he was doing when he shot him. He knew he was going to kill him, thats why he fired.
It wasn't an accident like he tripped and whaddya know? The bullet flied! Call it what you will - his training, his reflexes, his personal biases, whatever. He made a decision to shoot an unarmed man and we should call it like it is. [B]I don't pretend to know exactly why he did it and I don't care.[/B] I imagine it has something to do with his training, which is why I'm arguing we need to reform policing in this country.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why your argument will always fail on every level. If you refuse to acknowledge the nuance in the situation, then your argument isn't about what actually happened, but what you think happened in your mind.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48357228]
Which is why your argument will always fail on every level. If you refuse to acknowledge the nuance in the situation, then your argument isn't about what actually happened, but what you think happened in your mind.[/QUOTE]
How am I missing nuance? First you fault me for having some idea about what was going on in his head then im faulted for admitting im not omniscient?
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48357228]We should apply that same logic to all laws.
"You hid $200,000,000 from the IRS, well we will just give you a warning so nothing happens."
[/QUOTE]
False equivlance. Talk about missing nuance much? He was pulled over for chickenshit reasoning and he lost his life.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357259]How am I missing nuance? First you fault me for having some idea about what was going on in his head then im faulted for admitting im not omniscient?
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
False equivlance. Talk about missing nuance much? He was pulled over for chickenshit reasoning and he lost his life.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he chose to run for 'chickenshit reasoning' and effectively ended his own life.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48357228]We should apply that same logic to all laws.
"You hid $200,000,000 from the IRS, well we will just give you a warning so nothing happens."[/QUOTE]
Because driving without a front license plate is about as sever of a crime as tax fraud?
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Apache249;48357274]Yeah, he chose to run for 'chickenshit reasoning' and effectively ended his own life.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying he deserved to get shot because he resisted arrest and attempted to flee from the cop?
[QUOTE=gastyne;48357281]
Are you implying he deserved to get shot because he resisted arrest and attempted to flee from the cop?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Apache249;48357274]Yeah, he chose to run for 'chickenshit reasoning' and effectively ended his own life.[/QUOTE]
Yep, lol, thats exactly what hes saying
Fun fact, Apache is also for:
-Cutting off your hand if you steal
-Death by stoning for sexual violence
-Drawing and Quartering for offending the King
I mean to Apache's credit if we didn't have these things what would make people follow the law? Gotta scare the populace.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357146]No, shooting him to death would be absolutely asinine. Following him, or even letting him go since the reason he pulled him over was chicken-shit would be preferable.[/QUOTE]
It isn't the police's job to decide what laws to enforce. And is an odd law, but it's still a law (he had the plate, is it that hard to put it on the front of the car?), but that just makes the person opting to run all the more worrying. Why run over something that simple.
[QUOTE=gastyne;48357177]The cop could just let him off with a warning and none of this would happen.[/QUOTE]
He couldn't even produce a drivers license; a cop isn't just going to stop someone, go "yo, get a front plate" and let them go. They are going to make sure they have a license and proof of insurance as required by law, and they will also check the registration. That might have very well ended with a warning if everything was in order, but we'll never know because rather than wait and see the guy booked it.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357259]How am I missing nuance? First you fault me for having some idea about what was going on in his head then im faulted for admitting im not omniscient?
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
False equivlance. Talk about missing nuance much? He was pulled over for chickenshit reasoning and he lost his life.[/QUOTE]
You are faulted for knowing you're not omniscient, but you're making arguments as if you know what you don't know. You word your arguments to imply a motivation, yet when you're called out on it, you say "it doesn't matter" and move the goal posts. You're the one being inconsistent with your arguments trying to twist everything to suit the bias you walked into this thread with.
[QUOTE=gastyne;48357281]Because driving without a front license plate is about as sever of a crime as tax fraud?[/QUOTE]
In this case, yes, they are the same. Neither of them are a crime with a victim, and both have the potential to escalate to violence. If one crime doesn't matter, what makes other crimes matter?
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357310]Yep, lol, thats exactly what hes saying
Fun fact, Apache is also for:
-Cutting off your hand if you steal
-Death by stoning for sexual violence
-Drawing and Quartering for offending the King
I mean to Apache's credit if we didn't have these things what would make people follow the law? Gotta scare the populace.[/QUOTE]
Nice strawman.
[QUOTE=gastyne;48357281]Are you implying he deserved to get shot because he resisted arrest and attempted to flee from the cop?[/QUOTE]
He didn't deserve to get shot. I would love for this to have ended peacefully or to have not happened at all. But this is not an ideal world. At the end of the day, an officer has to do his/her job and policing isn't easy. I can't feel too sorry for anyone who makes it any harder for them.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48357353]You are faulted for knowing you're not omniscient, but you're making arguments as if you know what you don't know. You word your arguments to imply a motivation, yet when you're called out on it, you say "it doesn't matter" and move the goal posts. You're the one being inconsistent with your arguments trying to twist everything to suit the bias you walked into this thread with. [/quote]
I am biased because I saw the video and made a moral judgement about the events. I am not moving the goal posts.
I've been saying that he probably did what he did because of his training given what I know that officers can use lethal force whenever they feel threatened - that it doesn't matter if they are actually threatened but how you feel.
How i've been inconsistent I don't know. Explain? From post 1 i've been saying we need to reform policing to stop tragedies like this from happening in the future.
[quote]
In this case, yes, they are the same. Neither of them are a crime with a victim, and both have the potential to escalate to violence. If one crime doesn't matter, what makes other crimes matter?[/QUOTE]
How is tax evasion a victimless crime? What the hell? lol
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48357353]
Nice strawman.[/QUOTE]
Not actually saying he is defending those things (maybe my sarcasm was too subtle), I'm saying that his logic is begging the question which is: IS THE PUNISHMENT FITTING THE CRIME? We keep saying: "He didn't deserve to get shot!" and he keeps saying, "He shouldn't have run." Like.. yes, he shouldn't have run, but did he deserve to be shot?
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357374]Not actually saying he is defending those things (maybe my sarcasm was too subtle), I'm saying that his logic is begging the question which is: IS THE PUNISHMENT FITTING THE CRIME? We keep saying: "He didn't deserve to get shot!" and he keeps saying, "He shouldn't have run." Like.. yes, he shouldn't have run, but did he deserve to be shot?[/QUOTE]
The officer shooting wasn't a "punishment". It was something when happened in a high stress situation the span of a few seconds, not something that a jury has the luxury of deliberating over for however long they needed to come to an agreement.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357374]I am biased because I saw the video and made a moral judgement about the events. I am not moving the goal posts.
I've been saying that he probably did what he did because of his training given what I know that officers can use lethal force whenever they feel threatened - that it doesn't matter if they are actually threatened but how you feel.
How i've been inconsistent I don't know. Explain? From post 1 i've been saying we need to reform policing to stop tragedies like this from happening in the future.[/QUOTE]
Claiming to know why he did what he did:
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357223][B]Listen, he knew what he was doing when he shot him. He knew he was going to kill him, thats why he fired.
It wasn't an accident like he tripped and whaddya know? The bullet flied! Call it what you will - his training, his reflexes, his personal biases, whatever. He made a decision to shoot an unarmed man and we should call it like it is.[/B] I don't pretend to know exactly why he did it and I don't care. I imagine it has something to do with his training, which is why I'm arguing we need to reform policing in this country.[/QUOTE]
Saying his intent doesn't matter literally a few posts before that:
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357131]Who gives a shit what he intended?? His reflexes decided that it was an appropriate time to use lethal force. It wasn't. If the laws say it was, we need to change the laws because Debose losing his life was senseless.
Whatever legal term you wanna throw at it (voluntary manslaughter, maybe, although some research into the State of Ohio's definition of murder may mean he could be convincted on that), the point is that his training put him in the position where he thought use of lethal force was appropriate - and thats fucked up.[/QUOTE]
In your head, his intent only matters if his intent can be painted in a way which fits with your argument. That makes you inconsistent and illogical.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357374]How is tax evasion a victimless crime? What the hell? lol[/QUOTE]
Tax evasion doesn't hurt anyone, as much as driving without front plates and without a license on you doesn't hurt anyone.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357374]Not actually saying he is defending those things, I'm saying that his logic is begging the question which is: IS THE PUNISHMENT FITTING THE CRIME? We keep saying: "He didn't deserve to get shot!" and he keeps saying, "He shouldn't have run." Like.. yes, he shouldn't have run, but did he deserve to be shot?[/QUOTE]
It's the literal definition of strawman. You took his argument to ridiculous proportions, then criticized the outcome. You can't argue your way out of that. It's black and white what you did there was strawman his argument. Case closed.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357374]Not actually saying he is defending those things (maybe my sarcasm was too subtle), I'm saying that his logic is begging the question which is: IS THE PUNISHMENT FITTING THE CRIME? We keep saying: "He didn't deserve to get shot!" and he keeps saying, "He shouldn't have run." Like.. yes, he shouldn't have run, but did he deserve to be shot?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Apache249;48357362]He didn't deserve to get shot. I would love for this to have ended peacefully or to have not happened at all. But this is not an ideal world. At the end of the day, an officer has to do his/her job and policing isn't easy. I can't feel too sorry for anyone who makes it any harder for them.[/QUOTE]
SilenceIKillYou, how you look at those quote and say I flip flopped is beyond me.
Tax evasion hurts people because money which would be distributed to social programs and to the betterment of society is not ... because you've evaded. Tax evasion at the absurd number you put (what was it? 20 million or something) would aso have a more profound impact. I can't believe I even have to explan this to you.
the question is does the punishment fit the crime .. lmfao. people don't wanna talk about that but it is literally the crux of the debate and all I am going for.
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[quote]At the end of the day, an officer has to do his/her job and policing isn't easy. I can't feel too sorry for anyone who makes it any harder for them.[/quote]
Hey Apache can you clarify this last bit?
1.) what do you mean that you don't feel sorry for him?
2.) In making things harder for the officer, would you say it was wrong of the officer to use lethal force?
3.) Would you say we should train officers not to use lethal force in these scenarios?
[QUOTE=Flameon;48357031]
Can yall please stop saying, "Well maybe criminals should follow the law!" that goes without saying. What we are protesting is the DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF FORCE. [B]People shouldn't steal or rape either, but that doesn't mean I am okay with chopping people's hands off or stoning them to death.[/B] The punishment should fit the crime and execution on the spot is not appropriate.
[/QUOTE]
This is done after the crime has been happened. You would have to stone someone or chop his hands off if you were to catch it happening.
[QUOTE=LaTrefle;48357549]This is done after the crime has been happened. You would have to stone someone or chop his hands off if you were to catch it happening.[/QUOTE]
Fair! I still don't think i'd be in favor of this for the reason that the punishment doesn't fit the crime..
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
