• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

jhmd2000 said:
Do you think three dudes on a message board need convincing, or is the thousands of black people who will take other black lives this year?
Click to expand...

What's the point of this line of argument? Black people can't complain about being killed by white cops as long as at least some of them kill each other? I don't get it.
 
PhDeac said:
I wish you would apply the same logic to police. More people would be alive if cops waited for the facts.

That's some ridiculous logic to say people need to wait for the facts to understand why the cops didn't.
Click to expand...

What? What facts are the police waiting for? To see if the other person is in fact going to kill them?
 
SCDeac13 said:
What? What facts are the police waiting for? To see if the other person is in fact going to kill them?
Click to expand...

I mean, yes? You're only supposed to use deadly force if your life is in danger so you should wait until you know whether it is or not before you kill someone.
 
MysteryMen said:
I mean, yes? You're only supposed to use deadly force if your life is in danger so you should wait until you know whether it is or not before you kill someone.
Click to expand...

Correct. But it isn't a fact at that point. It is the police officer's belief that their life is in danger. It isn't a fact until the other person shoots, which is too late.
 
MysteryMen said:
What's the point of this line of argument? Black people can't complain about being killed by white cops as long as at least some of them kill each other? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Selective outrage undermines credibility
 
jhmd2000 said:
Selective outrage undermines credibility
Click to expand...

Trumpreactionface.gif
 
SCDeac13 said:
Correct. But it isn't a fact at that point. It is the police officer's belief that their life is in danger. It isn't a fact until the other person shoots, which is too late.
Click to expand...

Well no. You can know that your life is in danger before you actually get killed.
 
Junebug said:
If in fact the jury hangs, because one juror thought there was reasonable doubt and could not be persuaded otherwise, unreasonable though that seems to me having watched the video and reading up on the case. It will be unfortunate, but it's a feature of the jury system.
Click to expand...

Has it been published that one juror thought there was reasonable doubt? I only saw that one juror disagreed with the rest.
 
MysteryMen said:
Are black people cool with black-on-black crime? I'm pretty sure they aren't.
Click to expand...

Black on black crime is like welfare queens and undocumented people voting. They are dog whistles to get dumb white people pissed off.

The reality is you typically commit crimes against people in your own community. You don't hear about white on white crime in the hills of TN or in Little Italy in NYC.
 
WFU71 said:
OK, I'll play along. When would you know that your life is in danger, as opposed to believing your life is in danger?
Click to expand...

If you are in a car that you can roll up a window. lock, with an unarmed person approaching and have a gun in your hand, it's hard to see how a rational person can think their life is truly in danger.
 
WFU71 said:
OK, I'll play along. When would you know that your life is in danger, as opposed to believing your life is in danger?
Click to expand...

Well obviously it's going to be an objective line-drawing test, as it is now. But right now the bar is way too low.

I feel like I've had this conversation a billion times on here, but here goes again:

Cops sign up for the risk of the job, they are paid for it, and they are acting as agents of the state. If somebody is going to have to bear the risk of getting killed, it should be the cops, rather than citizens who it turns out presented no threat. Instead, our current balance puts protecting cops ahead of protecting citizens
 
RJKarl said:
Black on black crime is like welfare queens and undocumented people voting. They are dog whistles to get dumb white people pissed off.

The reality is you typically commit crimes against people in your own community. You don't hear about white on white crime in the hills of TN or in Little Italy in NYC.
Click to expand...

Better than TheReff's posts.
 
PhDeac said:
Has it been published that one juror thought there was reasonable doubt? I only saw that one juror disagreed with the rest.
Click to expand...

Yes. Story on CNN says there is one juror who says he could not vote to convict and would not change his mind. They returned to deliberate on the LIO of manslaughter.

This judge is playing with fire and should have just declared a mistrial. If Slager gets convicted of the LIO it could get reversed on appeal and then he would be able to be retried on manslaughter only. Declare a mistrial now and the state gets a do-over. Not an easy proposition, but the alternative could be lose-lose.
 
Junebug said:
If in fact the jury hangs, because one juror thought there was reasonable doubt and could not be persuaded otherwise, unreasonable though that seems to me having watched the video and reading up on the case. It will be unfortunate, but it's a feature of the jury system.
Click to expand...

Being a cop is an extremely difficult job and jury trials are imperfect, but this case is pretty clear. There's video of the guy fleeing and being shot in the back. If the guy were armed and turned toward the cop, that's a much different situation.

This case, the guy with the switchblade in Chicago, and the OK cop who shot the guy getting out of the car all were caught on video. The defense attorney asked the jury to protect cops. Decent sentiment except people fuck up sometimes and individuals need to be held accountable for their own specific actions.
 
wfumike02 said:
Yes. Story on CNN says there is one juror who says he could not vote to convict and would not change his mind. They returned to deliberate on the LIO of manslaughter.

This judge is playing with fire and should have just declared a mistrial. If Slager gets convicted of the LIO it could get reversed on appeal and then he would be able to be retried on manslaughter only. Declare a mistrial now and the state gets a do-over. Not an easy proposition, but the alternative could be lose-lose.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% with this. After the one juror wrote that note, case should've been over right there. Declare the mistrial and re-try the case.
 
Criminal trials like this are so complicated. It seems like I know half of the witness lists for both the prosecution and the defense. I have tried to avoid getting consumed by this trial so I could get my own cases done, but I can't wait to get the details.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I wish SJWs were as outraged about black on black crime as they are about talking about black on black crime.
Click to expand...

I mean I don't like any killings, but can you not see the fundamental difference between killings done by the state and killings done by private individuals?

The people perpetrating "black on black" crime have no connection to me. Whereas the police are acting in my name and are being paid by my tax dollars. So it's natural for me to care more about what they're doing because I theoretically have power over them to stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top