Double plus upvote concur agree and right fucking ON!
So, wait. Let me make sure I understand your position:
If you - as an ordinary civilian- walk onto a playground and see a child on a swing who has a “gun,” your default assumption is that it is not a toy, but a real gun. You feel it is reasonable to assume that you are now in justifiable fear for your own (or others’) safety, and you shoot the child. You believe that you have acted in self defense?
A child…on a playground…is (obviously) playing with a real gun, so he can be justifiably gunned down.
Is that your position?
I believe Smapti’s position in that case would be the Weaver stance.
Yes, obviously. The presumption of innocence, the need for the State to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt are absolute fundamentals of justice. To deny that to someone who’s been forced to kill to protect themselves is abhorrent.
Yes. Am I obliged to wait until after the armed child has shot me before I’m allowed to defend myself?
And yet another thread has been Smaptied.
That’s because Smapti is a troll and also probably insane, there’s no point in engaging with him.
If it was a four year old white child would you feel the need to blow his brains out?
And you forget that this thread is about law enforcement, which already has a huge amount of institutional and societal power over the rest of the population. I think the approach needs to differ at least somewhat in that case, or the consequences are, I believe, self evident.
Considering that Smapti is on record for asserting that he would not free slaves at little/no risk to himself if he had the opportunity, and for asserting that “I was only following orders” is a valid and reasonable defense for atrocities, and has said that MLK Jr.'s civil disobedience was wrong, and has said that the only fucking morally correct actions for a slave in the pre-1860s US was to [must suppress vomit] obey their master, and believes that it’s fucking morally acceptable to not tell authorities about a bomb on a plane if one has that knowledge, and has made many other similarly morally reprehensible statements, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if his answer is “yes”. Based on his posts, Smapti is pretty much anti-human, and represents the part of human nature that has allowed the worst atrocities in human history to occur.
Smapti: Would you fire left to right, right to left, or what?
White cops persecuting innocent blacks is, of course, nothing new for America. I was reminded of that on my drive home just now listening to this documentary. Definitely worth a listen even for those already familiar with the story of Rubin Carter.
I never said I would “feel the need” to do such a thing; only that I would be justified in doing so if I felt I had to.
I’d suggest that requiring cops to wear body cams would sufficiently reduce the likelihood of them being able to lie about the circumstances and be believed. I’d rather that than say that they don’t have the right to defend themselves, or the right to be presumed innocent.
I think there is a correct answer here and that is “No, it is never justified to shoot a four year old.”
Where I think we part company is that you assume that you and the police are never obligated to assume the slightest bit of risk. “He might hit me” is not an acceptable excuse for the use of deadly force, nor is “he might have a gun” or “that gun might be real”.
The standard is, as I’m sure you know by now, “am I at risk of imminent death or serious injury”. A standard that is amply met when someone is reaching for a gun.
Yeah, I know. But I can’t help it ! Everytime he posts, this is the soundbite that loops in my head, and I feel the need to map the edges of the rabbit hole. For science. And entertainment.
[QUOTE=Steophan]
I’d suggest that requiring cops to wear body cams would sufficiently reduce the likelihood of them being able to lie about the circumstances and be believed.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s what was said about dashcams too. Thing is, these things seem awfully fickle and turn off at the drop of a hat (or a baton), and the tapes very brittle. And sometimes, even when those tapes exist and show clear misconduct, it takes an outside journalist to mayyybe try and locate them and have a look at them before a victim gets railroaded. Black victim, natch. The state prosecutor musta had a brain fart, forgot to ask ? :dubious:
Which is a separate issue to whether cops should have the same right to self defence as anyone else.
Non sequitur. Nice try, though.
Not at all. I was replying to a claim that cops should be treated differently to other people when it came to self defence, when you decided to claim that the police might manipulate evidence. That has nothing to do with what fundamental rights they should have.