F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

[myDeaconmyhand]

Why? If someone broke in your house and tried to harm your family, and you were able to shoot the intruder, are you performing life saving measures to keep them alive? And, if you don’t, do you think you should be prosecuted?

Oh dont worry, I totally get it, you don't need to explain to me how you feel about letting people die.

The problem is that calls to Republican hypocrisy don't work... This all makes a lot more sense when you realize that Republicans care more about respect for authority than they care about your life.

 

[BillBrasky]

Why? If someone broke in your house and tried to harm your family, and you were able to shoot the intruder, are you performing life saving measures to keep them alive? And, if you don’t, do you think you should be prosecuted?

Police Officers are first responders first, so yes it is their sworn duty to try and save someone's life, especially if they are the ones that shot them.

Not doing so should be grounds for termination and criminal charges.

 

[PhDeac]

Why? If someone broke in your house and tried to harm your family, and you were able to shoot the intruder, are you performing life saving measures to keep them alive? And, if you don’t, do you think you should be prosecuted?

Wow. Floyd wasn’t trying to harm anybody. At no point was he trying to harm anybody. Police know CPR. Random people don’t.

 

[Les Grossman]

Oh dont worry, I totally get it, you don't need to explain to me how you feel about letting people die.

You do need to explain to me, however, how this response answered my question of why it should invalidate a claim to self-defense

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

It is very...interesting how Less would need to call upon home intrusion violence to invoke fearfulness for his argument. The topic is law enforcement malfeasance, not home defense. Nice try, though.

 

[Les Grossman]

Wow. Floyd wasn’t trying to harm anybody. At no point was he trying to harm anybody. Police know CPR. Random people don’t.

You said shoot someone. Never said anything about Floyd. Neither did I.

Back to what you originally said - even if CPR would save someone’s life after being shot, why should that invalidate a self-defense claim? I’m not saying they should let someone bleed out like an animal in the street, but invalidating a justified self-defense claim after their life was just in danger makes no sense.

 

[TownieDeac]

I was simply trying to defend myself when I kneeled on his neck while another man held his legs and another man held his arms and he slowly choked to death, weaponless, on the pavement begging for his life for nearly ten minutes.

 

[PhDeac]

You said shoot someone. Never said anything about Floyd. Neither did I.

Back to what you originally said - even if CPR would save someone’s life after being shot, why should that invalidate a self-defense claim? I’m not saying they should let someone bleed out like an animal in the street, but invalidating a justified self-defense claim after their life was just in danger makes no sense.

So are cops special heroes who protect and serve or regular schmoes?

 

[Les Grossman]

It is very...interesting how Less would need to call upon home intrusion violence to invoke fearfulness for his argument. The topic is law enforcement malfeasance, not home defense. Nice try, though.

Is it interesting? Its also the most realistic scenario where a civilian will face a circumstance where they are justified in shooting someone. I would hope if an officer shoots someone in the line of duty, it’s because they are faced with the same level of fearfulness.

I’m not discussing malfeasance. I’m responding to an argument Ph made that if a cop shot someone, and they did not perform life saving measures, they should not be able to claim self-defense. I think it’s fair to assume under this hypothetical that the officer was justified to shoot in the first place otherwise it’s a pointless exercise to discuss this issue.

I still don’t even know what you’re arguing.

 

[Les Grossman]

So are cops special heroes who protect and serve or regular schmoes?

Honestly? My opinion...They’re regular schomes. Large majority just have a basic high school diploma. Didn’t exactly light it up in high school, either. They’re in average shape. Average intelligence. Receive fairly minimal training in the academy, and then are sent off with a badge and gun with an immense amount of power. This is a big part of the problem.

 

[Les Grossman]

I was simply trying to defend myself when I kneeled on his neck while another man held his legs and another man held his arms and he slowly choked to death, weaponless, on the pavement begging for his life for nearly ten minutes.

If this post is directed towards me.... please show me where I’ve said anything remotely close to this.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

1) It’s not the only problem legal pedantics acknowledge.

2) Everyone is allowed to “legally do harm” if it’s justified.

the legal standards and precedents determining justification are wrong. This is a moral argument. Not a legal argument.

 

[Kory]

Why? If someone broke in your house and tried to harm your family, and you were able to shoot the intruder, are you performing life saving measures to keep them alive? And, if you don’t, do you think you should be prosecuted?

In this hypothetical, how long are you watching the intruder slowly die/bleed out and you are doing nothing?

I'm honestly not sure, but I don't think the right to self-defense is a right to kill.

 

[Les Grossman]

the legal standards and precedents determining justification are wrong. This is a moral argument. Not a legal argument.

I wouldn’t say they’re all wrong. There can certainly be a debate over some, I do agree.

I get the moral argument about the sanctity of human life and what someone should do v. what they are legally obligated to do. However, any discussion about whether someone should be able to claim self-defense is most certainly a legal argument.

 

[Les Grossman]

In this hypothetical, how long are you watching the intruder slowly die/bleed out and you are doing nothing?

I'm honestly not sure, but I don't think the right to self-defense is a right to kill.

I guess that’s the disconnect. In my opinion, if you make the decision to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger (civilian or cop) it should be with the sole purpose to kill that person because they are posing such an immediate danger to your life.

I can concede, in the officer situation, if the person is still alive, they are most likely in a circumstance surrounded by several other officers where they can now render aid and feel safe. A civilian? I would never fault anyone if they were still so scared or emotional that they didn’t do anything.

 

[PhDeac]

If a regular schmo bear fatally shot someone who broke into their home, they’d probably try to stop the bleeding and call 911.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Prosecuturial minded lawyers are honestly the worst authoritarians to even debate with because there's *nothing* there. Every response is a recitation of a legal document - precident upon precident, with no personal analysis of right and wrong, only a description of a status quo that hasn't been corrected yet.

 

[WakeForestRanger]

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Honestly, when people (black people particularly) learn about a police killing, they have 3 doubts: the first doubt they have is whether or not the dead person deserved to be killed, the 2nd is whether or not the officer will be charged, and the third doubt is whether or not the officer will be found guilty. Our society innately understands that police officers aren't properly held to account for their actions. There's no use pretending that people are curious about the particular legal justifications of police using deadly force. No one ever asks for that explanation, there's just a certain type of professional pedant who gets sexual gratification from gleefully rubbing gross legalese in peoples faces, like watching someone eat nasty food and telling them there's shit in it

 

[Les Grossman]

Prosecuturial minded lawyers are honestly the worst authoritarians to even debate with because there's *nothing* there. Every response is a recitation of a legal document - precident upon precident, with no personal analysis of right and wrong, only a description of a status quo that hasn't been corrected yet.

It’s almost as if you’re having your own argument in your head against an imaginary person and not reading anything I am saying, or have said, on this thread.