:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is why you have no right to defend yourself from home invaders until you have checked their ID.
Yuo have argued the opposite, at least be consistent.
And that level of reason, to you, is if there is if they make that claim.
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.
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.
Yeah, I want to fucking jail murderers. You are the peice of shit that wants to see them have a chance to kill another.
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.
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.
I’ve never argued that anyone, cop or otherwise, has the right to plant evidence. That’s absurd.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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?
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?
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.
Police cases over 137-shot barrage unsettled 5 years later.
This happened before the thread was started, but the repercussions are still going on so I figured we should include it.
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.
:eek::mad:
:eek::mad:
But wait; it get’s worse when you know the details:
This guy was like an actual Bad Lieutenant ffs.
:eek:
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.
The injustice caused by an unfair trial is an injustice regardless of the race or job of the accused.