If the only evidence was two conflicting eyewitness accounts then there shouldn’t have been an indictment, and probably wouldn’t have been one.
I’d be amazed if it was unique. I have, quite literally, no idea how common it is. And - this is important - neither do you, as the evidence doesn’t exist to show how common it is.
[citation needed]
Sure, if you unflinchingly accept Slager’s account. I don’t find his credibility level to be all that high, myself. Besides, at the moment Scott was fatally and repeatedly shot, he was 15 feet away and running, posing an imminent danger to no one, let alone Slager.
No, my assertion isn’t bizarre - it follows naturally from your assertion that the idea that police should consider options other than lethal is “fucking ridiculous”, especially since Scott wasn’t posing an imminent danger to anyone. I reiterate my point from post 2939:
At what point, if any, does it stop being “fucking ridiculous” to hesitate to go lethal? I’m happy to give you the first one, and in hindsight, there should be one entry before that one, saying:
[quote]
[ul][li] “If a suspect fires a gun at police, it is not reasonable to expect they they wait until they are hit before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.”[/ul][/li][/quote]
As far as I can tell, your arguments are based on the worst-case scenarios of the suspect having a gun (and shooting at police) or having a gun (and pointing it at police), with no real recognition that these encounters are really quite rare. It’s certainly not descriptive of the Scott shooting.
I consider you as having conceded the point, if that’s the best reply you can muster.
Well, you’ve got a leg up on Smapti, who seemed to think the idea was Loch-Nessian in its rarity.
Personally, I think the better solution and the one with the greatest chance of long-term success is to broadly legalize drugs. Bodycams might be useful, but it has to be coupled with an unflinching desire to discipline/fire/prosecute police officers who overstep.
No one’s mentioned in this thread that NYPD had to punish, by breaking his leg, top athlete Thabo Sefolosha for celebrating in a bar ?
He was allegedly violating police orders and, anyway, cops aren’t to blame: public acceptance of Caitlyn Jenner has degraded Americans’ capacity to distinguish good from evil.
Still it might be amusing to hear other views from NYPD supporters.
I agree that the shooting of Scott was not justified.
At the point where a reasonable person cannot reasonably believe that their life is in immediate danger. “He’s running away from me, I better shoot him” is not self-defense. “This guy is throwing punches at me, I better shoot him” is self-defense. “This guy just put his hand somewhere I can’t see it after I told him to freeze, I better shoot him” is conditionally justifiable as self-defense.
We have evidence of it happening once in a country where hundreds of millions of police-civilian interactions happen every year. That’s rather “Loch-Nessian”.
Per your source, second paragraph onward;
Whatever the facts of the situation were, it’s clear that “the police broke his leg to punish him for celebrating” is not an accurate description of them, and your breathless hyperbole does nothing in your favor.
You said, and I quote:
By naming one case, I met that challenge. Are you moving the goalposts now?
The goalposts remain where they have been. You have yet to name a case that consisted of “Oh, look, someone is running away from a traffic stop. Better shoot him 5 or 6 times in the back, just to be safe.”
But it wasn’t morally acceptable at the time, or at least not necessarily beyond the confines of the plantation. Many contemporary writers and public figures railed against such cruelty. This is no more of an excuse than it would be for Nazis during the Holocaust – murdering Jews was perhaps legally and morally acceptable within small confines of Nazi-controlled camps and military facilities, but that doesn’t mean we can’t judge them.
I think they are inseparable – if criminals are mistreated, then innocent people will be as well.
Fine with me, and not contrary to anything I’ve said.
It depends on the nature of the restraint. Further, I’m not sure if someone who can’t breathe is physically capable of not trying to move such that they can breathe. If enough weight is on my chest to stop me from breathing, I seriously doubt that in any circumstances I would be capable of making the choice to not try and move the weight off my chest.
There are multiple inconsistencies in the statements of the officers. Most alarmingly, in my mind, is the assertion that they got out of the car and told Rice three times to put his hands up, when the video shows that they shot him before the car even came to a halt.
Depending on the details of the negligence, perhaps not, though in my mind if this is so then the law should be changed, and people are right to protest it.
This proper research has, in the past, heavily relied on the statements and writings of black people. For example – police statistics from the 1920s Alabama can’t tell us an accurate picture of police treatment of black people, since there’s no way that Alabama police kept accurate records with regards to the treatment of black people. We’ll get a much, much better picture of what really happened by speaking to black people from that area who were alive then (or reading the writings of such people).
This has occurred. There’s lots of writings and analysis on this.
Not exactly, but we have a lot of information – and more than enough, in my view, to conclude that it’s a significant problem and is directly related to past institutional mistreatment of black people (which was also, often, committed by police).
Black people can tell us a lot about why these things are happening – often the perpetrators tell them to their face (or other things). I’m not saying this is the only source of what happened and why, but for issues of mistreatment of black people, black people have been by far the best and most accurate source of information.
I can go by history to make a preliminary judgment – in the past, when black people said (collectively) that they were being mistreated and the police (or other authority figures) said they weren’t, then the black people (collectively) were always right. This happened over and over again in American history – black people said that they were mistreated by slave owners, and they were right – slave-owners said they were treated fairly and reasonably, and they were wrong. Black people said they were mistreated by the population (and groups like the KKK), including the police, during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and up until the 60s and 70s – police (like sheriff Jim Clark) said that black people were not being mistreated; black people were right and the police were wrong. This has been the case for a long, long time, and when you look at collective opinions (and I’m only talking about the issues of mistreatment of black people), the opinions and statements of black people were right and the opinions and statements of those who said black people were not mistreated were wrong.
I’m fine with this, but through most of American history (with regards to the treatment of black people collectively) the truth came from one side, as a rule. We can expand this – Native Americans were the best source by far for the truth about treatment of Native American people; Irish Americans were the best source for the truth about their treatment; Jews around the world were the best source for the truth about their treatment…
Not based on statements alone – but there are often witnesses and other evidence.
Obviously they do differ, at least in some cases. They differed enormously in 1850, very largely in 1900 and 1950, and they still differ in many cases today. We’re far from truly equal treatment by the law and by society, even if we’re much, much closer today then in the past. In the past the difference between the law and justice was the Pacific Ocean – now, perhaps, it’s as wide as the Red Sea. Still quite large, but much, much smaller than before.
Then why did you say “I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.”? What did you mean by that? How is it a leading question to ask you to clarify and specify that statement?
You said that it’s not the first time black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment. I’m asking you for an example of when black people, collectively, have been dishonest or inaccurate. That’s an entirely reasonable follow up question to your assertion that they have been dishonest and inaccurate before.
My opinion is that it’s rare and getting rarer, but that’s a gut feeling rather than anything I could back up.
I fully agree with you about legalising drugs, for this and many other reasons. Not least safety of the users, who will be getting a tested, predictable substance, and for the taxpayer in general, who will be getting money from drug users rather than spending shitloads to punish them, and to deal with the sickness and social issues that come from it being illegal.
As for the unflinching desire to punish bad cops, I think in practice a lot will depend on what the videos actually show, whether they show mostly acceptable behaviour from the police or mostly bad behaviour. Either way, whether the cameras force previously bad cops to behave better, or if they lead to the punishment of those who continue to break the law, it will be a massive gain. I linked to a couple of (seemingly) well researched articles earlier about the effects of body cams, and they seemed to support the idea that cops wearing them behave better.
-Scott was running.
-This was after a traffic stop.
-Slager shot eight rounds, hitting Scott five times in the back.
-If Slager wasn’t sufficiently safe when Scott was merely running away, I assume he was safe enough when Scott lay dead or dying on the ground.
Your objection is trivial. Your implied concession stands, as far as I’m concerned.
You’ve demonstrated plenty of times already that you’re perfectly willing to ignore any facts that stand in the way of what you’ve chosen to believe, so I guess it’s not surprising that you’re doing so here as well.
Now, can you find a case that actually consists of someone being shot 5 or 6 times in the back “just to be sure”, or not?
I look forward to the statistical effects, but I have misgivings that the heavily-entrenched “war on drugs” mentality and pervasive racism in the United States will go away easily, to the point where the U.S.'s rate of police shootings is only an uncomfortable multiple of other G7 countries, instead of a grotesque one.
Well, I guess I could ask for support of that “plenty” claim. I suggest five examples in the last six months would be a sufficient demonstration of “plenty”, but feel free to propose an alternate metric. My posting history is open to you, knock yourself out.
I’m sure Slager was sure after Scott was dead.
When? In plantation times? In feudal days? In the Roman Empire? At what point did it become wrong? To say it was always wrong is to misunderstand the nature of morality, in my opinion. Morality is not fixed and eternal, it changes with society. Much of what we do now - and I mean the many things that we would agree are perfectly fine, not the things we disagree on - will be considered horrific in the future, and many were in the past. That doesn’t mean we are hideous, immoral people.
I don’t think that follows at all. It may be true, but it’s not inevitable by any means.
That may be true, but it doesn’t follow from that that the police were wrong to keep restraining him. If his actions were indistinguishable from those of someone resisting because they wanted to fight, not because they couldn’t breathe, then there is no fault.
As we know the evidence will be revealed at or before the trial, I’m completely reserving judgement on this until I know more. I will say, though, that even if the statement was false, intentionally or otherwise, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been self defence.
The standard for criminal responsibility is higher than that for civil, and not just in terms of burden of proof.
You will get a picture of their opinions and beliefs of what happened. That may be the only evidence available (it isn’t in this particular instance, but I’ll deal with that in a minute), but just because it’s the only or the best evidence doesn’t mean that one should conclude that it’s necessarily true. This is an issue in the study of history in general, that very often we only have one side of the story, or less even than that.
This isn’t to say that you’re wrong about what happened 100 years ago, as there is a great deal of other evidence, in terms of newspaper reports, accounts from people of all races, photos, and plenty of other things.
I’m not going to say your wrong here, but it does seem to me that you are begging the question. You are saying that black people are the most reliable source why, exactly? Has other evidence been found later that backs up their claims and debunks other claims? My understanding of the climate in the South 100 years ago is that many white people were openly and proudly racist, isn’t that around the time that the second wave of the KKK was at its most powerful?
Or are you claiming that white people treated blacks even worse than they boasted about, and that black people’s claims to that effect have been substantiated?
The KKK claimed not to mistreat black people? That’s their whole reason for existing… There’s no lack of off the record statements, and after the fact statements, by white people admitting (or bragging) that they mistreated black people.
Correct. My point is that, 50 or 100 years ago, vast numbers of white people either did mistreat black people because they were black, or saw nothing wrong with people doing that. Nowadays, vast numbers of people condemn treating people in any way differently because of the colour of their skin, and someone who did so (and could be shown to have done so) would be at minimum shunned by a lot of people, quite possibly fired from their job, and possibly locked up. This is a huge change, and one that is (to my knowledge) unprecedented in history, and for you to brush it off as “more of the same” is silly.
The Nazis openly claimed that their aim was to rid the world of Jews, and throughout history pogroms have been public and legal. The idea that the way they were treated was some big secret is simply not true. Same with Manifest Destiny and the Native Americans, same with many other groups. I’m not so sure about Irish Americans, but I know that the way the Irish in England were treated until well into my lifetime was no secret. I believe that’s gotten better in the last two decades (source - an old Irish guy I used to know until he passed away a few years ago).
What laws, in America or the UK, apply differently to blacks and whites?
I did not assert that they’ve ever been dishonest or accurate. You asked if I thought this was the first time they’ve been dishonest about their treatment, and I answered no. That you asked this leading question, and continue to misconstrue my answer in the worst possible way, is my problem here. And it’s why I’ll ask again, have you stopped beating your wife?
That’s a rather disturbing conclusion to draw, akin to torturing someone with a blowtorch and continuing to apply the torch any time they try to move away from the torch, when moving away from the torch is a perfectly natural and understandable reaction, and in fact it’s holding perfectly still while being blowtorched that is unnatural and unexpected.
It would only be an appropriate comparison if torturing someone with a blowtorch was not only legal, but a proportionate response to their own, illegal, actions. It depends on whether the original restraint was proportionate. If so, it’s not reasonable to expect them to stop restraining him while he continues to struggle.
Oh, I don’t buy that; it’s like saying torture is okay if the person deserved it.
The problem is the blurring of lines between “he is struggling to resist being arrested” and “he is struggling to stay alive”. If the police are not required to make (or or not capable of making) this distinction, then there’s a problem.