I’m no lawyer but it seems that the issue might be down to proving malice aforethought. Stupidity? Check. Recklessness? Check. Gross negligence? Check.
An Assault and Battery of a high and aggravated nature conviction is a sentence up to 20 years under SC law and seems rather straightforward under the facts of the case.
I think getting shot and/or shot at “cause a substantial risk of death” so the great bodily injury definition is met.
“Let me see your ID…” man goes to the car to get it
“HEY, WHY ARE YOU MOVING SO FAST, WHAT ARE YOU GETTING??”
Blam Blam Blam!
“Let me see your ID…” Man slowly moves to the car to get it “I’m just gonna get my ID, sir, it’s in the car.”
“HEY, WHY ARE YOU MOVING SO SLOWLY? ARE YOU PLANNING SOMETHING? I THINK YOU’RE LYING TO ME AND SECRETLY GOING TO GET A GUN IN THERE.”
Blam Blam Blam!
Exaggerated example? So’s what really happened when you try to explain it to someone, until they realize you’re not bullshitting them.
You’re still failing. The two situations compare dis-favorably.
If you want to avoid disease while engaging in sexual intercourse, using a condom is very effective. But then, getting your wife pregnant is a little problematic. Either way, a condom is a tool that works in a specific way, to mitigate the problem. There are even instructions on the packaging telling you how to use them.
Further, sexual intercourse is generally something that people engage in willingly - just ask republicans - so protecting yourself during a voluntary activity with the use of a tool designed to help is simple common sense. How many people do you know willingly get pulled over and shot at by cops?
There are solutions to the Trigger Happy Cop problem that don’t include rolling a bullet-proof covering down over your body when you have the urge to be caught up in a traffic stop.
Smapti and Shodan, the problem with your advice is that it teaches everyone to not trust cops. it’s a sad comment that most of us (and basically any person of color) think the only way we’ll be safe is if we assume the cop is a lunatic looking for an excuse to shoot us.
And that’s where your comparison to locking your door breaks down. I don’t trust criminals and that’s fine, it’s a healthy fear in society (as long as it’s not taken to extremes). But teaching everyone to distrust and fear cops is the opposite of what we should be teaching. For all the time you spend trying to instruct us on proper behavior around trigger-happy cops, think of how much better it would be for both sides if the effort was put into weeding out these people who are unfit for duty.
There’s a very delicate and difficult to calculate balancing issue when it comes to issues of “victim-blaming”, and I think the biggest difference is one of context. Take these two imaginary conversations:
A: My daughter was raped last night!
B: What clothes was she wearing? How was she acting? Was she drunk? She really should have known better than to do X…
A: OK, freshman women, we’re going to have a discussion here about things you can do to help protect yourself from sexual assault
B: Here are some tips involving how you dress and act and who you associate with and what you have with you that might be helpful
Smapti is making a point which is at some level inarguably true. Clearly there are things of various levels of paranoia that you can do to keep yourself safe when interacting with police officers. What I think is making people bristle is that it seems that that’s ALL Smapti wants to discuss. He heard what happened and his immediate reaction was “well, let’s discuss what that victim could have done better”. Even if he prefaced it with “the cop was wrong”, and he more or less did, it’s the FOCUS on the actions of the victim which make the whole thing seem distasteful. Even if he did not consciously (or even subconsciously) intend it, it feels as if he’s trying to push blame away from the cop onto the victim by emphasizing the discussion of what the victim did and didn’t do, as opposed to the cop.
And of course, that is what you would expect someone who is an apologist to do. And in the particular case of Smapti, I think there’s evidence from previous threads that that’s not an unreasonable label for him. However, I don’t think there’s an easy or objective line to draw there, and there are certainly reasons other than a desire to deflect blame why one might wish to discuss and analyze the actions of someone who has less responsibility for what ended up happening. Sometimes there just isn’t much to say about whoever was more to blame. Sometimes the party who is more to blame is someone who we don’t relate to or feel any responsibility for. So for instance if I had a child and that child got into a fight on the schoolyard, and by any objective analysis the other party was the instigator but my child COULD have acted differently to try to avoid the fight, I might still be more interested in discussing what my child did or did not do because it’s my child.
My point being… what Smapti is saying isn’t WRONG, and trying to correct him as if he is just makes him seem like the smart one in the debate. But that doesn’t mean he’s not being a dick.
Don’t you also stay inside the vehicle too unless instructed to get out? My father once got out during a traffic stop and the officer got rather upset.
That being said, this officer seems to have overreacted
That’s absolutely outrageous. Disgusting. If police really do the job for the sake of the community then they should accept a greater risk upon themselves in order to do that job, and not begin shooting citizens on a if/what/then hypothetical. And that there are people both here and on the comments section in the op link saying its the citizens prerogative to act like robotmen in order to avoid getting shot? More disgusting.
Couldn’t pay me to visit America right now, beautiful country that it is.
That’s the point that keeps getting missed in cases like this or in the Ohio walmart case. Cops, just by virtue of beings cops, assume a certain, HIGHER, level or risk than the general public. And the narrative from cops in these kind of cases or the Mike Brown case is that cops can’t ever, under any circumstances, feel threatened. Or else they’re justified in shooting and/or killing someone. Being under threat is supposed to be part of their job.
Actually, he is wrong. As someone pointed out above, every time something happens, Smapti comes up with a new rule about how this person should have known better than to present a threat to the cop in this particular way. How many rules are untrained, ordinary citizens supposed to know?
What it’s coming down to is a rule that citizens must approach every encounter with a cop, no matter how seemingly ordinary, as if the cop is a raging, out-of-control, psychopath. Watching every twitch of every muscle, seeking explicit permission for every move.
It’s ridiculous. That’s not the kind of society we live in or should live in or want to live in. We’re being asked to anticipate every possible source of fear or panic on the part of the cop. Not only apparent sources, but all reasonable and unreasonable sources.
You’re being an asshole because you hate Smapti and think he’s an asshole; gotcha. I’m sorry to see that you’ve let your emotions get the better of you here, but now that I understand that you’re deliberately not being rational, I know that I can just ignore the rest of your posts in this thread. Thanks for letting me know.
I agree that in most of the police shooting threads, Smapti is an ass, but in this one he is both correct and reasonable.
If you think he’s wrong, next time you get pulled over for speeding, after you come to a stop, reach under your seat and count to three. Or heck, just get outta your car and walk back to the officer; save him the trouble of walking to you. Be sure to post later and let us know what happened.
Awesome, Marley, you’ve refuted something that Smapti didn’t say. Or is Mr. Jones a poster here on the SDMB?
No?
Then why are you taking such umbrage with Smapti’s assessment of Mr. Jones’ actions? Because I gotta say again: he’s correct on this one.
When I get pulled over, I leave my hands on the wheel until the officer is next to me and can see me roll the window down. If I have to reach in to the glove box, I tell him I’m about to do so. I’ve never been shot, not even when I’ve refused them the opportunity to search my vehicle. Don’t give the police an excuse to fuck with you. If they want to, they may, but don’t make it easy for them to do so.
