Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11651  
Old 10-20-2017, 07:57 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
You are ignorant of double jeopardy. You should not use legal terminology when discussing a specific legal matter when you do not know what the term means.
I know what it means. I am saying that subjecting someone to multiple trials because the correct verdict isn't reached should be a violation of double jeopardy.

The prosecution failed to prove guilt at any of the first three trials. They should only ever get one attempt. In my opinion, obviously.
  #11652  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:01 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
In this case, the part of the justice system that was poorly functioning was the existence of people like yourself on the jury, that would not convict a cop no matter what the evidence was against them. That it took 4 trials before someone like you stopped fucking with our justice system is a travesty, but it is only a travesty that there are people that worship cops so much that they refuse to condemn them, no matter what.
Firstly, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are a cop, the same principle should apply to everybody. And secondly, the real travesty is that, despite several people who heard all the evidence and considered that it did not prove his guilt, he has still been convicted. Finally, as I'm sure you are aware, juries are carefully selected to remove people with biases for or against the defendant - or at least, they are if the prosecution and defence are doing their jobs. If the prosecution failed to do so, they shouldn't get a second chance.
  #11653  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:24 PM
Typo Negative Typo Negative is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 16,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Firstly, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are a cop, the same principle should apply to everybody. And secondly, the real travesty is that, despite several people who heard all the evidence and considered that it did not prove his guilt, he has still been convicted.
Several. Out of 36.
__________________
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command.
Very often, that individual is crazy.
-- Dave Berry, "25 Things I Have Learned in 50 Years"
  #11654  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:35 PM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 19,886
nm

Last edited by Muffin; 10-20-2017 at 08:36 PM.
  #11655  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:42 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
Several. Out of 36.
Yes, exactly. One would be sufficient to show reasonable doubt of guilt, but there were many more.
  #11656  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:14 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Yes, exactly. One would be sufficient to show reasonable doubt of guilt, but there were many more.
If you could guarantee absolute impartiality, sure. Like others have said, a single person on a jury like you would be certain the cop did no wrong and vote not guilty every time, no matter the evidence. Until you can eliminate the possibility of rogue jurors, declaring a mistrial and starting over is the best course of action.
  #11657  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:19 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Firstly, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are a cop, the same principle should apply to everybody. And secondly, the real travesty is that, despite several people who heard all the evidence and considered that it did not prove his guilt, he has still been convicted. Finally, as I'm sure you are aware, juries are carefully selected to remove people with biases for or against the defendant - or at least, they are if the prosecution and defence are doing their jobs. If the prosecution failed to do so, they shouldn't get a second chance.
If you were called to be a juror in a trial involving a cop, would you admit that you would refuse to convict him, regardless of what evidence was presented?
  #11658  
Old 10-21-2017, 06:40 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If you were called to be a juror in a trial involving a cop, would you admit that you would refuse to convict him, regardless of what evidence was presented?
No. Were I a juror, I'd do my best to make a decision based on the facts presented to me, and the law as explained by the judge. I would give any defendant all the benefit of the doubt, as I would be legally and morally required to do. Which would probably mean that I'd be more likely than not to find any defendant not guilty, although it's hard to say for sure never having been in that situation. All of which would also probably mean the prosecution would try to have me removed as a juror.

Would you, or others who post in this thread, admit that you are biased against cops, and would convict them even if the evidence didn't show they broke the law? Because that is what has been called for probably hundreds of times now.
  #11659  
Old 10-21-2017, 06:58 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No. Were I a juror, I'd do my best to make a decision based on the facts presented to me, and the law as explained by the judge. I would give any defendant all the benefit of the doubt, as I would be legally and morally required to do. Which would probably mean that I'd be more likely than not to find any defendant not guilty, although it's hard to say for sure never having been in that situation. All of which would also probably mean the prosecution would try to have me removed as a juror.

Would you, or others who post in this thread, admit that you are biased against cops, and would convict them even if the evidence didn't show they broke the law? Because that is what has been called for probably hundreds of times now.
If asked, I would admit that I would hold the cop in no higher nor lower regard than anyone else that sat in the defendant's chair.

The defense may want to get rid of me for that reason, but if they are able to present a sufficient defense that I would find myself with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, I would not vote to convict.

In this mistrials, there has been one juror who, regardless of any evidence given, refused to convict. It's a bit frustrating.

In this case, you can't even use the excuse that he is a cop and has a dangerous job. He wasn't on duty at the time that he killed his daughter's boyfriend. Most cops who kill, even in cases where the killing is not justified, did not begin the encounter with the desire to kill. In this case, he did. There was no self defense here, it was simply murder.

The fact that he was a cop, even though not on duty at the time, is why there were cop worshippers in the jury that refused to look at evidence, and instead just bask in the knowledge that they were helping a cop to get away with murder.

The final trial had no problem convincing the jury, the evidence was overwhelming. The only reason for the mistrials is because the guy was a cop, and there managed to be, out of 12 people, one that just refused to admit that a cop could do wrong, just like you.
  #11660  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:27 PM
Kinthalis Kinthalis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If asked, I would admit that I would hold the cop in no higher nor lower regard than anyone else that sat in the defendant's chair.

The defense may want to get rid of me for that reason, but if they are able to present a sufficient defense that I would find myself with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, I would not vote to convict.

In this mistrials, there has been one juror who, regardless of any evidence given, refused to convict. It's a bit frustrating.

In this case, you can't even use the excuse that he is a cop and has a dangerous job. He wasn't on duty at the time that he killed his daughter's boyfriend. Most cops who kill, even in cases where the killing is not justified, did not begin the encounter with the desire to kill. In this case, he did. There was no self defense here, it was simply murder.

The fact that he was a cop, even though not on duty at the time, is why there were cop worshippers in the jury that refused to look at evidence, and instead just bask in the knowledge that they were helping a cop to get away with murder.

The final trial had no problem convincing the jury, the evidence was overwhelming. The only reason for the mistrials is because the guy was a cop, and there managed to be, out of 12 people, one that just refused to admit that a cop could do wrong, just like you.
To be fair I doubt this had much to do with the guy being a cop, and a lot more to do with the young man being black.

This country is racist as fuck.

Last edited by Kinthalis; 10-21-2017 at 08:27 PM.
  #11661  
Old 10-21-2017, 09:23 PM
Wolf333 Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No. Were I a juror, I'd do my best to make a decision based on the facts presented to me, and the law as explained by the judge. I would give any defendant all the benefit of the doubt, as I would be legally and morally required to do. Which would probably mean that I'd be more likely than not to find any defendant not guilty, although it's hard to say for sure never having been in that situation. All of which would also probably mean the prosecution would try to have me removed as a juror.

Would you, or others who post in this thread, admit that you are biased against cops, and would convict them even if the evidence didn't show they broke the law? Because that is what has been called for probably hundreds of times now.
What is the victim was a thug playing loud music?
  #11662  
Old 10-21-2017, 10:00 PM
LongTimeLurker LongTimeLurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinthalis View Post
To be fair I doubt this had much to do with the guy being a cop, and a lot more to do with the young man being black.

This country is racist as fuck.
Truth.
  #11663  
Old 10-21-2017, 10:22 PM
Happy Fun Ball Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No. Were I a juror, I'd do my best to make a decision based on the facts presented to me, and the law as explained by the judge. I would give any defendant all the benefit of the doubt, as I would be legally and morally required to do. Which would probably mean that I'd be more likely than not to find any defendant not guilty, although it's hard to say for sure never having been in that situation. All of which would also probably mean the prosecution would try to have me removed as a juror.

Would you, or others who post in this thread, admit that you are biased against cops, and would convict them even if the evidence didn't show they broke the law? Because that is what has been called for probably hundreds of times now.
I don't believe you. You have stated several times in his thread that if a cop is afraid for his life you are OK with him gunning somebody down, but if a black man is afraid for his life and runs, he is a criminal that deserves to die. I don't think you are truly impartial.
  #11664  
Old 10-22-2017, 12:15 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
I know what it means. I am saying that subjecting someone to multiple trials because the correct verdict isn't reached should be a violation of double jeopardy.

The prosecution failed to prove guilt at any of the first three trials. They should only ever get one attempt. In my opinion, obviously.
Eleven (out of 12) good men and true determined that he was "guilty beyond any reasonable doubt." If this sounds like acquittal to you, I suggest you re-read your dictionaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
Bottom line: learn what the fuck you talking about before opening you yap like a drip drip drip of a syphilitic prick.
While I do agree with your sentiments, if Steophan is a male humanoid(*), then your use of 'prick' may be sexist. AFAICT, in the politically-correct era only women can be described as 'prick.' You are free, I guess, to call Steophan a 'whore' or 'slut.'

* - For a while I assumed Steophan was a mis-programmed bot. But an AI bot would learn over time, while Steophbot just seems to get stupider and stupider.
  #11665  
Old 10-22-2017, 01:01 AM
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 11,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
While I do agree with your sentiments, if Steophan is a male humanoid(*), then your use of 'prick' may be sexist.
You realize that Muffin was going for meter and assonant rhyme there, right? Because, if I recall my HS Sex-Ed correctly, urethral discharge is not a typical symptom of syphilis, but it scans better than other options.
  #11666  
Old 10-22-2017, 01:28 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,711
Good point. I'll take meter and assonant rhyme over political correctness any day.

I'm glad you called attention to Muffin's poetic prowess. (If there's sufficient clamoring for it, I'll post my own meager attempt at a Villanelle in Trump's honor. )
  #11667  
Old 10-22-2017, 04:44 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Interesting that everyone is focussing on one of the trials where it was an 11-1 split, rather than the one where it was a 6-6 split. That completely destroys the narrative that it was a lone holdout, rather than serious problems with the evidence.
  #11668  
Old 10-22-2017, 04:51 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Fun Ball View Post
I don't believe you. You have stated several times in his thread that if a cop is afraid for his life you are OK with him gunning somebody down, but if a black man is afraid for his life and runs, he is a criminal that deserves to die. I don't think you are truly impartial.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what I've written. Anyone, regardless of race or profession, should have the right to defend themselves if their life is being threatened. People also have the right to defend others - so, if an armed man is running away from you after having fired at you and missed, obviously you have the right to shoot him to protect others.

This is not about cops, or about race. It's about the right to self defence, and the right to be presumed innocent of a crime until proven otherwise. Killing someone in self defence, or in defence of another, is not a crime, and should not be treated as one. There should be strong evidence that it was not self defence before any accusation of criminality is made.
  #11669  
Old 10-22-2017, 05:11 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,643
Why are we still feeding the troll?
  #11670  
Old 10-22-2017, 11:31 AM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 19,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
You realize that Muffin was going for meter and assonant rhyme there, right? Because, if I recall my HS Sex-Ed correctly, urethral discharge is not a typical symptom of syphilis, but it scans better than other options.
Yup. The phrase is from a song:

Some die of drinking water, Some die of drinking beer.
Some die of constipation, And some of diarrhea.
But of all the world’s diseases, There is none that can compare.
With the drip, drip,drip of the syphilitic prick, Of the British Grenadier.

Last edited by Muffin; 10-22-2017 at 11:31 AM.
  #11671  
Old 10-22-2017, 12:44 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You have fundamentally misunderstood what I've written. Anyone, regardless of race or profession, should have the right to defend themselves if their life is being threatened.
Unless the person threatening you is a cop. Or, of course, if your home is invaded by criminals, you need to ask them for ID before shooting them, ot make sure that they are not a cop serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong house.
Quote:
People also have the right to defend others - so, if an armed man is running away from you after having fired at you and missed, obviously you have the right to shoot him to protect others.
And if an unarmed man is running from you, obviously you have the right to shoot him, and plant evidence to make it look like he was a threat to others.
Quote:
This is not about cops, or about race. It's about the right to self defence, and the right to be presumed innocent of a crime until proven otherwise. Killing someone in self defence, or in defence of another, is not a crime, and should not be treated as one. There should be strong evidence that it was not self defence before any accusation of criminality is made.
Like a complete lack of weapon on the dead body? Cameras showing that the cop was the aggressor and escalator in the situation?

In your world, I could walk up to you on the street, shoot you in the head, and no one could convict me, because I would claim that I thought I saw you make a gesture that I perceived as threatening, and there would be no way to prove that I didn't think that I saw a gesture that I percieved as threatening.
  #11672  
Old 10-22-2017, 12:53 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Unless the person threatening you is a cop. Or, of course, if your home is invaded by criminals, you need to ask them for ID before shooting them, ot make sure that they are not a cop serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong house.

And if an unarmed man is running from you, obviously you have the right to shoot him, and plant evidence to make it look like he was a threat to others.


Like a complete lack of weapon on the dead body? Cameras showing that the cop was the aggressor and escalator in the situation?

In your world, I could walk up to you on the street, shoot you in the head, and no one could convict me, because I would claim that I thought I saw you make a gesture that I perceived as threatening, and there would be no way to prove that I didn't think that I saw a gesture that I percieved as threatening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Why are we still feeding the troll?
  #11673  
Old 10-22-2017, 01:05 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post


Is that a question, or a complaint?

It's the pit, whatever. If he likes eating shit, then I'll keep feeding him shit.

You don't have to watch, I understand. It's not pleasant, even in schadenfreude to watch such disgusting actions as he enjoys, but well, if someone is volunteering to be shat upon, who am I (or you) to argue?
  #11674  
Old 10-22-2017, 03:48 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Unless the person threatening you is a cop. Or, of course, if your home is invaded by criminals, you need to ask them for ID before shooting them, ot make sure that they are not a cop serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong house.
Whether they are a cop is irrelevant, if they are threatening you. However, like many people here, you confuse cops doing their jobs with being threatening. You don't, under any circumstances, have the right to shoot a cop who is doing their job - including serving a no-knock warrant.

Quote:
And if an unarmed man is running from you, obviously you have the right to shoot him, and plant evidence to make it look like he was a threat to others.
No, you don't have that right, cop or otherwise. If the state can prove that no-one could reasonably have considered him a threat, then find the shooter guilty.

Quote:
Like a complete lack of weapon on the dead body? Cameras showing that the cop was the aggressor and escalator in the situation?
You are allowed to shoot, and kill, someone if you falsely but reasonably believe they are a serious, imminent threat to you. You are in many states (and morally, everywhere) innocent of murder unless it can be proven that they could not reasonably have been considered a threat.

Quote:
In your world, I could walk up to you on the street, shoot you in the head, and no one could convict me, because I would claim that I thought I saw you make a gesture that I perceived as threatening, and there would be no way to prove that I didn't think that I saw a gesture that I percieved as threatening.
Wrong. To claim that means you haven't bothered to read my posts, find out how the law works, or look at the practicalities of the criminal justice system. The most important part of the latter being that very few people will claim self defence, as it means admitting to the killing. If you shoot someone in a dark alley with no one watching, you are not going to admit the killing unless you're a fucking idiot, you'll provide evidence that suggests you were miles away.

The only way your position makes sense is if you don't want people to be able to kill ins self defence, which is a despicable position, and only justified if you think that stronger people should be able to do whatever the fuck they like.
  #11675  
Old 10-22-2017, 03:50 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post


Is that a question, or a complaint?

It's the pit, whatever. If he likes eating shit, then I'll keep feeding him shit.

You don't have to watch, I understand. It's not pleasant, even in schadenfreude to watch such disgusting actions as he enjoys, but well, if someone is volunteering to be shat upon, who am I (or you) to argue?
The only disgusting things here are people who love to see innocent people jailed, and people punished for defending their own lives or the lives of others. You know what a cop who saves people's lives by shooting a fleeing criminal is? They are a fucking hero. That could be you or your loved ones he's saved, and you want to fucking jail him. You are scum.
  #11676  
Old 10-22-2017, 04:17 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Whether they are a cop is irrelevant, if they are threatening you. However, like many people here, you confuse cops doing their jobs with being threatening. You don't, under any circumstances, have the right to shoot a cop who is doing their job - including serving a no-knock warrant.
Which is why you have no right to defend yourself from home invaders until you have checked their ID.
Quote:
No, you don't have that right, cop or otherwise. If the state can prove that no-one could reasonably have considered him a threat, then find the shooter guilty.
Yuo have argued the opposite, at least be consistent.
Quote:

You are allowed to shoot, and kill, someone if you falsely but reasonably believe they are a serious, imminent threat to you. You are in many states (and morally, everywhere) innocent of murder unless it can be proven that they could not reasonably have been considered a threat.
And that level of reason, to you, is if there is if they make that claim.
Quote:


Wrong. To claim that means you haven't bothered to read my posts, find out how the law works, or look at the practicalities of the criminal justice system. The most important part of the latter being that very few people will claim self defence, as it means admitting to the killing. If you shoot someone in a dark alley with no one watching, you are not going to admit the killing unless you're a fucking idiot, you'll provide evidence that suggests you were miles away.
No, that means that I have had the unfortunate pleasure of having read your posts. You have defended self-defense on the flimsiest of circumstances. You defended a guy who killed someone because his radio was too loud.

If you consider that to be a reasonable use of self defense, then yes, any form of murder can be justified that way.

The reason that people don't claim self defense is becuase you currently need to prove that, and if you are not a cop, or at least white with a black victim, juries aren't going to believe you. In your world, juries would believe you. There literally is no other requirement for you other than the shooter claims that they perceived that they were in danger.
Quote:

The only way your position makes sense is if you don't want people to be able to kill ins self defence, which is a despicable position, and only justified if you think that stronger people should be able to do whatever the fuck they like.
It could also make sense if I want some sort of evidence that the shooter was in danger, rather than just taking their word for it. It would make even more sense if there is not evidence that the shooter was not in danger, and that the shooter lied about the circumstances of the shooting, but you still take their word for it.

The only way your position makes sense if if you want anyone to be able to claim any killing was self defense, which is a very dangerous proposition, and only justified if you think that unethical people should be able to do whatever the fuck they like.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephoan
The only disgusting things here are people who love to see innocent people jailed, and people punished for defending their own lives or the lives of others. You know what a cop who saves people's lives by shooting a fleeing criminal is? They are a fucking hero. That could be you or your loved ones he's saved, and you want to fucking jail him. You are scum.
Who's life was saved here?

Yeah, I want to fucking jail murderers. You are the peice of shit that wants to see them have a chance to kill another.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-22-2017 at 04:18 PM.
  #11677  
Old 10-22-2017, 06:35 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,037
Just as a reminder for those engaging with Steophan, he's an incredibly lazy liar. He'll make uncited accusations and utterly refuse to back them up, insisting that they're true without any support at all. Not sure if it's productive engaging with a liar like him.
  #11678  
Old 10-22-2017, 07:03 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Just as a reminder for those engaging with Steophan, he's an incredibly lazy liar. He'll make uncited accusations and utterly refuse to back them up, insisting that they're true without any support at all. Not sure if it's productive engaging with a liar like him.
True, and I do not feel as though there is really a point anyway. If it really feels as though it takes away from this pit thread, I can agree to ignore as well.

But, you know, it's life, and there are alot of people who piss me off on a regular basis, alot of people who shit on me and expect me to take it. I am not vindictive, and there are none who I would volunteer to shit upon in return.

But if someone volunteers themselves to be my punching bag, a catharsis that allows me to get off my chest things that I can't with anyone I hold any respect for, then I don't really see it as an ethical issue to take the free hits.

I don't expect to change any minds, especially not his, but I do feel as though I've gotten a bit of steam out of the system after I explain to him, once again, how stupid he is, and yes, a liar too. That's what the pit is for in the first place, isn't it?

In any case, if you feel as though engaging with this lying piece of shit troll does detract meaningfully from our ongoing shock thread on how those who are given power and authority abuse it to damage their communities, I can agree to throw him on ignore and find another way to get my daily dose of catharsis.
  #11679  
Old 10-22-2017, 09:12 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Which is why you have no right to defend yourself from home invaders until you have checked their ID.
False. You have the right to defend yourself against people who enter your home without permission. That doesn't apply to cops doing their job, as they have permission. It's not difficult to tell the difference between a swat team and a burglar.

Quote:
Yuo have argued the opposite, at least be consistent.
I've never argued that anyone, cop or otherwise, has the right to plant evidence. That's absurd.

Quote:
And that level of reason, to you, is if there is if they make that claim.
I'm honestly not sure what this sentence means. I think you are saying that I would automatically believe any claim of self defence. If so, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that, as a potential juror, whether I believe it is irrelevant - all that matters is whether it can be proven false.

Quote:
No, that means that I have had the unfortunate pleasure of having read your posts. You have defended self-defense on the flimsiest of circumstances. You defended a guy who killed someone because his radio was too loud.

If you consider that to be a reasonable use of self defense, then yes, any form of murder can be justified that way.
That's not what happened, the killing wasn't because of the volume of the radio. No one claimed that, not the killer, not the friends of the victim, and not the lawyers on either side. What was claimed is that he killed because he was threatened after asking them to turn down the radio.

I also said in that case that the conviction for attempted murder, as he shot at the car driving away, was absolutely correct. Which people should bear in mind when they claim that I'm saying it's OK to shoot someone who's fleeing.

Quote:
The reason that people don't claim self defense is becuase you currently need to prove that, and if you are not a cop, or at least white with a black victim, juries aren't going to believe you. In your world, juries would believe you. There literally is no other requirement for you other than the shooter claims that they perceived that they were in danger.
They don't have to prove it, at least in many states, and more are adopting such laws. And as I said, it doesn't matter what I believe happened, it matters whether they can be proven not to have killed in self defence. That's how it should be, because killing in self defence is not just legally allowed, but morally justified. If someone claims to have killed in self defence, there should be pretty strong evidence that they are lying before they are even charged.

Quote:
It could also make sense if I want some sort of evidence that the shooter was in danger, rather than just taking their word for it. It would make even more sense if there is not evidence that the shooter was not in danger, and that the shooter lied about the circumstances of the shooting, but you still take their word for it.

The only way your position makes sense if if you want anyone to be able to claim any killing was self defense, which is a very dangerous proposition, and only justified if you think that unethical people should be able to do whatever the fuck they like.
A fundamental principle of justice is that people do not have to prove their innocence. That cannot be negotiable if you want a just system.

If someone claims they killed someone in self defence, without proof that they did not they are no more guilty of murder than you or I, and it would be just as much a travesty of justice to punish them for it as it would to punish someone who was nowhere near the scene.

This may well allow some people to get away with murder. So what? That's a tiny price to pay to allow everyone to protect themselves without fear of legal punishment.




Quote:
Who's life was saved here?

Yeah, I want to fucking jail murderers. You are the peice of shit that wants to see them have a chance to kill another.
He's jailed, despite not actually being a murderer. You should be happy with that.

And as I said, some people going free to kill again is a tiny price to pay for a system that protects everybody. I'd rather risk being murdered by a freed killer than risk falsely being imprisoned by an arbitrary court system, and so would anyone with the slightest bit of sense.
  #11680  
Old 10-23-2017, 03:08 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
False. You have the right to defend yourself against people who enter your home without permission. That doesn't apply to cops doing their job, as they have permission. It's not difficult to tell the difference between a swat team and a burglar.
It may be hard for me to hold off a swat team, armed with just my 5 shotguns, four Glocks and a couple of butt stocks, but a more reasonable threat is a single rogue cop. A rogue cop without a warrant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You gun-nuts are so proud of your Amendments and the need for arms to protect from tyranny. Yet you're going to bow down to every guy with a badge, doing a no-knock without asking to see his warrant? Really??
  #11681  
Old 10-23-2017, 03:38 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
False. You have the right to defend yourself against people who enter your home without permission. That doesn't apply to cops doing their job, as they have permission. It's not difficult to tell the difference between a swat team and a burglar.
Would you be willing to bet everything you own (I'd say your life, as that is what is literally at stake here, but neither murder nor imprisonment is allowed even when contractually obligated) on getting this right in ten consecutive attempts at random times?
  #11682  
Old 10-23-2017, 08:25 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Would you be willing to bet everything you own (I'd say your life, as that is what is literally at stake here, but neither murder nor imprisonment is allowed even when contractually obligated) on getting this right in ten consecutive attempts at random times?
What a ridiculous argument. This is something that never happens to most people, let alone ten times. What possible situation could occur where SWAT teams wrongly enter my house ten times in a row?
  #11683  
Old 10-23-2017, 08:26 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yet you're going to bow down to every guy with a badge, doing a no-knock without asking to see his warrant? Really??
I mean, that's the whole point of a no-knock... If you disagree with them, that's a political issue, and doesn't give you the right to shoot a cop who's there legally.
  #11684  
Old 10-23-2017, 08:31 AM
kayaker kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
I mean, that's the whole point of a no-knock... If you disagree with them, that's a political issue, and doesn't give you the right to shoot a cop who's there legally.
Is he there legally if the address on the warrant doesn't match the house that is being forcibly entered?
  #11685  
Old 10-23-2017, 09:04 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
What a ridiculous argument. This is something that never happens to most people, let alone ten times. What possible situation could occur where SWAT teams wrongly enter my house ten times in a row?
10 is just a reasonable sample size to ensure that should it really come to it, you're prepared and won't make a mistake. Although if we take a person getting it right 50% of the time (i.e. chance) as a null hypothesis, 5 would be enough to ensure that someone getting it right each time would have P<0.05. So okay, would you be willing to bet everything you own on being able to get it right 5/5 times?
  #11686  
Old 10-23-2017, 12:35 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
10 is just a reasonable sample size to ensure that should it really come to it, you're prepared and won't make a mistake. Although if we take a person getting it right 50% of the time (i.e. chance) as a null hypothesis, 5 would be enough to ensure that someone getting it right each time would have P<0.05. So okay, would you be willing to bet everything you own on being able to get it right 5/5 times?
Your question is literally "would I recognise a cop". Yes, yes I would.
  #11687  
Old 10-23-2017, 12:50 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,349
Police cases over 137-shot barrage unsettled 5 years later.
Quote:
Nearly five years after two unarmed black suspects died in a 137-shot barrage of Cleveland police gunfire, five officers fired for their roles are set to return to duty this week after an arbitrator reinstated their jobs.

Meanwhile, discipline and criminal charges against some officers involved in the case remain unsettled, lingering in what a union leader and a defense attorney describe as an unfair limbo.

Five supervisors accused of dereliction of duty are on restricted duty while waiting to see whether those charges are re-filed in a different court, and dozens of patrol officers disciplined for their roles in the chase await an arbitrator’s decision on whether to rescind that discipline.

Driver Timothy Russell and passenger Malissa Williams were killed in a suburban school parking lot in November 2012 after a chase that reached speeds of 100 mph and involved more than 60 police cars and 100 officers. The shootings drew international attention for the ferociousness of the police gunfire and questions about how and why it even happened.
This happened before the thread was started, but the repercussions are still going on so I figured we should include it.
  #11688  
Old 10-23-2017, 02:19 PM
Crazy Canuck Crazy Canuck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
It's not difficult to tell the difference between a swat team and a burglar.
This is false, due to the phenomenon called flash blindness, which I have pointed out to you earlier in this thread with a cite and everything, you fucking liar.
  #11689  
Old 10-23-2017, 03:09 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,349
I can't even begin to describe how terrible this one is

Wichita, Kansas for this.
Quote:
Rose McIntyre says she wonders whether her refusal to grant regular sexual favors to a white detective prompted him to retaliate against her black son, who spent 23 years in a Kansas prison for a double murder he didn’t commit.

“I do believe that if I had complied with his request for me to become his ‘woman,’ that my son would likely not be in prison,” she said in a 2014 affidavit.

Her son, Lamonte McIntyre, 41, walked out of a court hearing on Oct. 13 a free man after Wyandotte County District Attorney Mark Dupree asked that charges from the 1994 murders be dismissed because of “manifest injustice.”
Quote:
Documents made public during an 8-year effort to exonerate Lamonte McIntyre allege homicide detective Roger Golubski used his power to prey for decades on African-American women, including Rose McIntyre. They also accuse the prosecutor in the case, Terra Morehead, of intimidating witnesses who told her McIntyre was not the killer. And they say the presiding judge, Wyandotte County District Judge J. Dexter Burdette, had a romantic relationship with the prosecutor before the trial that neither disclosed at the time.

None of them has faced discipline. Golubski rose through the ranks to detective and captain. He retired from law enforcement last year. Morehead is now a federal prosecutor in Kansas City. Burdette is still on the bench.


But wait; it get's worse when you know the details:
Quote:
Lamonte McIntyre was 17 when he was given two life sentences for the 1994 murders of Doniel Quinn, 21, and Donald Ewing, 34. They were shot in broad daylight as they sat in a car in a drug-infested neighborhood of Kansas City. No physical evidence linked him to the crime, and he didn’t know the victims.

When police showed eyewitnesses a photo lineup of five people to identify the shooter, three of those photos were Rose McIntyre’s relatives — her two sons and a nephew.
Quote:
At the trial, two planned eyewitnesses to the murders told Morehead when they saw Lamonte McIntyre in person that she had the wrong man, according to court filings. Niko Quinn signed an affidavit that she lied on the stand because Morehead threatened to have her arrested and have her children taken away if she did not testify. Morehead sent the other witness, her mother Josephine Quinn, away without calling her to testify. Those exculpatory statements were not disclosed at the time to Lamonte McIntyre’s defense lawyers.
Quote:
Rose McIntyre recounted in her affidavit that Golubski coerced her into a sexual act in his office in the late 1980s and then harassed her for weeks, often calling her two or three times a day, before she moved and changed her phone number.

“He had total power, and I was terrified that he would try to force me again to provide sexual favors,” she said in the affidavit. “I also knew that there was no one I could complain to, as Golubski was known to be very powerful in the community and in the police department.”
Quote:
Golubski was so involved with black female prostitutes and drug addicts that he fathered children with some of them, according to an affidavit from retired police officer Ruby Ellington, a 25-year Kansas City police department employee.

“Roger Golubski’s involvement with them was no secret,” Ellington said. “It was simply accepted as part of what Roger Golubski was able to do without repercussion.”
This guy was like an actual Bad Lieutenant ffs.
Quote:
Kansas City Police Chief Terry Zeigler said in an emailed statement that the FBI looked into Golubski’s conduct and could not find any incidents within the statute of limitations, which is five years for such allegations. They consider the matter closed. Zeigler added that he worked with Golubski and “never saw anything that caused me concern.”


So Mr. McIntyre lost more of his life than he had when he was incarcerated, while those who wronged him have only prospered. I feel like I hear about that last bit happening too often lately.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 10-23-2017 at 03:10 PM. Reason: more not most
  #11690  
Old 10-23-2017, 04:41 PM
Kinthalis Kinthalis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Wichita, Kansas for this.

But wait; it get's worse when you know the details:This guy was like an actual Bad Lieutenant ffs.

So Mr. McIntyre lost more of his life than he had when he was incarcerated, while those who wronged him have only prospered. I feel like I hear about that last bit happening too often lately.
Jesus fucking christ. This kind of shit happens and yet we have the board's shit sack, Steophan, bemoaning the terrible injustice suffered by the racist murdering fuck hole who executed his daughter's boyfriend, for two whole pages.

Last edited by Kinthalis; 10-23-2017 at 04:42 PM.
  #11691  
Old 10-23-2017, 06:57 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinthalis View Post
Jesus fucking christ. This kind of shit happens and yet we have the board's shit sack, Steophan, bemoaning the terrible injustice suffered by the racist murdering fuck hole who executed his daughter's boyfriend, for two whole pages.
The injustice caused by an unfair trial is an injustice regardless of the race or job of the accused.
  #11692  
Old 10-23-2017, 07:01 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Fun Ball View Post
I don't believe you. You have stated several times in his thread that if a cop is afraid for his life you are OK with him gunning somebody down, but if a black man is afraid for his life and runs, he is a criminal that deserves to die. I don't think you are truly impartial.
Ditto. I smell bullshit too.
  #11693  
Old 10-23-2017, 07:03 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
.... A rogue cop without a warrant.



You gun-nuts are so proud of your Amendments and the need for arms to protect from tyranny. Yet you're going to bow down to every guy with a badge, doing a no-knock without asking to see his warrant? Really??
Ironic, isn't it.
  #11694  
Old 10-23-2017, 07:10 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinthalis View Post
Jesus fucking christ. This kind of shit happens and yet we have the board's shit sack, Steophan, bemoaning the terrible injustice suffered by the racist murdering fuck hole who executed his daughter's boyfriend, for two whole pages.
This sort of thing makes me think that sometimes vendetta, straight up revenge, is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it can be the only justice a person is ever gonna have.

Wanna know why some groups have at some times turned to vigilantism and vendetta? THIS is exactly why.

As for that "racist murdering fuck hole who executed his daughter's boyfriend", is it too much to hope his state still has the death penalty? And will use it??
  #11695  
Old 10-24-2017, 08:59 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
This sort of thing makes me think that sometimes vendetta, straight up revenge, is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it can be the only justice a person is ever gonna have.

Wanna know why some groups have at some times turned to vigilantism and vendetta? THIS is exactly why.

As for that "racist murdering fuck hole who executed his daughter's boyfriend", is it too much to hope his state still has the death penalty? And will use it??
You are a sick fuck.
  #11696  
Old 10-24-2017, 09:47 AM
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,208
Video of cell extraction of 20 protesting inmates in LA jail 2008

The video was only recently released.
Quote:
The deputies involved used tasers and force to remove the inmates from single-man cells after the inmates refused to cooperate with orders in protest over previous alleged beatings. Sheriff’s officials said the protesting inmates broke toilets and sinks and flooded their cells. Four teams were formed to forcibly extract each inmate from the cells over six hours. Of the 20 inmates, 19 ended up hospitalized.

Warning: Viewers may find imagery in video disturbing.
  #11697  
Old 10-24-2017, 02:49 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You are a sick fuck.
No, you are the sick fuck here, you twisted bastard.
  #11698  
Old 10-24-2017, 05:57 PM
Typo Negative Typo Negative is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 16,278
OK, those conservatives complaining of jack-booted thuggery, here it is.

ICE Arrested a Man in Oregon Without a Warrant.

No warrant. No probable cause.

Quote:
“I have reason to believe you are not in the country legally,” the agent replies.
The agents never state what that reason might be, other than the color of his skin.

Agents refuse to give their names.
Quote:
At one point, the agent says, “We don’t need to introduce ourselves by our names.”
Here is cop-speak for 'someone screwed the pooch'

Quote:
An ICE public affairs officer, Yasmeen Pitts O’Keefe, said later that Mr. Bolanos was released from custody pending further investigation. She said in a statement that the matter had been referred to the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General.

“The agency is reviewing this incident,” Ms. Pitts O’Keefe said. She did not reply to a request for further comment on Monday.
__________________
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command.
Very often, that individual is crazy.
-- Dave Berry, "25 Things I Have Learned in 50 Years"
  #11699  
Old 10-24-2017, 07:07 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
OK, those conservatives complaining of jack-booted thuggery, here it is.

ICE Arrested a Man in Oregon Without a Warrant.

No warrant. No probable cause.



The agents never state what that reason might be, other than the color of his skin.

Agents refuse to give their names.


Here is cop-speak for 'someone screwed the pooch'
21st century America: where you show your papers or nameless officials handcuff you and take you away.



This is part of what we are, folks. How long until the roundups of the first 'undesirables' begins?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 10-24-2017 at 07:08 PM.
  #11700  
Old 10-24-2017, 07:38 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You are a sick fuck.
Doper feels that man who murdered another person should be punished, and he's the sick fuck? You're 17 kinds of fucked in the head, you know that?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017