We’ve given Steophan the Voight-Kampff test before. How did he do? Let’s try some more questions.
Taken out of context these statements may be correct. But the way you apply shows serious cognitive disconnect. Let’s hope your job involves no interaction with humans and that you don’t have a gun.
Contrast two scenarios.
(1) A young woman is walking down a deserted street at night and a strange man approaches her.
(2) A policeman holds a gun with both hands aimed at the midriff of a probably-innocent motorist and yells at him to produce his driver’s license.
Who is more likely to now attempt abduction, rape or murder? The strange man approaching the woman on the deserted street? Or the frazzled probably-innocent motorist with a loaded gun pointed at him?
Please answer as best you can, Steophan. Don’t worry: replicants *are *permitted to post at SDMB as long as they comply with all rules.
The strange man is unlikely to be any threat whatsoever, and has made no threatening behaviour. It would not be reasonable to perceive a threat from them.
I’m not sure where you are that the cops are stopping probably-innocent people, as they’re required to have reason to stop them. But even disregarding that, the person stopped - unlike the strange man - is interacting with the cop, and so is slightly more likely to be a threat. It’s highly unlikely they will be a threat, but more so than a random stranger.
You really need to look into the actual facts of that case, as revealed at the trial, rather than the sensationalist exaggerations and outright lies in the media. The same applies to most of the cops accused of things, without the full story ever being presented in the media.
Oh my. Maybe it’s too stupid to even take the Voight-Kampff test. :smack:
Here’s a hint, Steophan: Castile was stopped for a defective tail light. Where I come from, murderers on the run from the cops, and therefore afraid of being pulled over, are careful to check their tail lights before they venture out.
Geeezh. If these questions are really this hard for you, go for a walk to clear your head and then THINK before you post; OK?
Exactly, seeing a gun is not enough. There has to be a reasonable fear. Like the one caused by that said gun turning towards you - therefore creating imminent danger for one’s life.
And it shouldn’t be too difficult to handle that situation because no-one here has said that a cop shouldn’t have his gun already drawn, perhaps even pointing to the suspect with the hammer cocked.
You seem to be under impression that only possible solution to a little ( assumed ) hostility is to kill. But it’s perfectly possible to have even a full-blown fight and still have everybody walk away alive.
Well, for once assume that I’m stupid and enlighten me.
But of course you won’t. You just say something beside the point ( and you know that, sadly ) and then ignore all requests to comment the actual thing that was asked. You always do that.
What are you basing your claim that that level of threat is needed before it becomes reasonable? It’s not based on law, the way the law is applied in court, or even on anything approaching common sense. You are allowed to defend yourself before someone attacks you, obviously, else the right would be pretty fucking useless. Yeah, you might be able to shoot back before you bleed out. But that’s not self defence, because you’re dead.
There have been loads of court cases in loads of jurisdictions that make it pretty clear what is allowed in self defence. To repeatedly claim otherwise is ignorance, and at this point, wilful ignorance.
No, he is a bridge-tender. Steophan is a Brit. His opinions on the behavior of American constabulary are entirely worthless. The only skin he might have in the game might be some sort of schadenfreude from watching the US eat itself up from the inside.
You keep saying it is enough if fear is be reasonable and the danger imminent, however imagined it proves to be afterwards.
And every time you fail to demonstrate how it can be so without any weapons or contact or even agitated behaviour. Apparently a person can be walking away but if you can’t see his hands it’s OK to kill him, provided there’s been some perceived unpleasantness.
I think you’re just getting desperate and try to wear us out, so you can claim victory after we’ve given up.
Look at all the cases in this thread where someone has claimed that they kileld in self defence, and upon investigation that claim was upheld. Then you will know what it means.
For example, the police receive a report that someone is waving a gun around and scaring people. When the police approach him, instead of following instructions, he reaches for the gun. That the gun was a fake, and therefore there was no actual threat, is utterly irrelevant. It was legal, and justified, for that cop to shoot Tamir Rice.
There are probably by now hundreds of similar cases in this thread, argued against by idiots with no understanding of the legal or moral right to defend yourself.
This is an inaccurate portrayal of the actual event, and includes information (that he didn’t follow instructions) that is impossible to verify based on the video (which didn’t have sound). And the cops had already been proven to be inaccurate in their prior statements.
But this is all from Steophan, a repeated liar and overall dishonorable poster, so it’s no surprise.