Yes, it pains me more than I can say that this Clemmons was treated so unfairly. :rolleyes: Society failed to give him any of the breaks that common decency would dictate he deserved. :rolleyes: And what’s up with the vicious, Nazi cops, gunning down citizens for sport? :rolleyes:
Whether the cop that gunned down Clemmons was right to do so isn’t the point. Perhaps the cop was acting in his own best self-defense. That remains unclear.
Regardless, people have been cheering that Clemmons was gunned down and denied his due process. People have publicly voiced that they’re glad he’s dead; I guess they are certain beyond any doubt–without seeing any actual evidence–that the cops had the right shooter. In these kinds of emotional situations, it appears that the Constitution is an irrelevant pamphlet to a lot of people.
And here’s Siam Sam displaying his gladness that Clemmons was gunned down and denied his due process. How’s that for a cite?
Is it your position that we should not have due process?
Is your position cops should allow themselves to be gunned down in some warped sense of “fairness”?
False dichotomy.
That’s right.
That’s wrong. Or at least if anyone has been cheering the fact he didn’t get ‘due process’, I haven’t seen it.
That’s correct.
This is right and wrong at the same time. People are certain beyond a doubt that the right guy bit the dust, and they have evidence in the form of Clemmons’ gunshot wound, information from Clemmons’ family, and the officer’s weapon that Clemmons had at the time he was killed.
Context, knorf, context. If Clemmons had turned himself in he’d have gotten the due process you’ve got your panties in such a twist about. He didn’t. He continued to run and then when found, attempted to flee. The police are empowered to fire when a felony suspect flees, especially one who is a suspected multiple-murderer. The policeman who shot him may very well have saved other lives as Clemmons was in a desperate situation, and desperate criminals have a penchant for doing desperate things, like taking hostages, shooting people for their cars or wallets, etc.
Clemmons has no one to blame but himself for what happened, and his Constitutional rights were in no way denied him. When you put the cops in the position of having to shoot you to save the lives of themselves or others, you don’t get your Miranda or any other rights applied first.
This is elementary school stuff.
Not very good, I’m afraid. Cite for Siam Sam displaying gladness that Clemmons was denied his due process?
ETA: I think I’ll add that one reason people are so happy to see that Clemmons got what was comming to him is that it so rarely happens in this country anymore. People like you are always worked up over miscreants’ rights, and you totally ignore the rights of other people to be kept safe and protected from them.
Clearly, I am a worse person than Maurice Clemmons.
Of course not. Whoever suggested that?
Of course not. Whoever suggested that?
False comparison.
So, fleeing from a cop brings a legal death sentence, enforceable immediately. Due process is utterly suspended. Terrific.
Anyway, as I said: I’m not arguing about whether the cop acted correctly. I’m just dismayed that the basic U.S. Constitution guarantee of due process is something a lot of people are perfectly happy to skip in this instance, entirely based on what they think they read or hear in the news.
As for your disingenuous call for a cite, it’s a valid inference based on Siam Sam’s tone of sarcasm.
Fleeing from the cops having been identified as a dangerous murderer, yes.
False comparison.
What you don’t seem to realize is that due process isn’t possible in every circumstance. This was simply a case where due process wasn’t possible and Clemmons himself was the reason for that. As I said before, he could have turned himself in and gotten his due process. Instead, he chose to run, thereby endangering lots of other lives. The officer in Seattle had no choice but to shoot him, and that was Clemmons’ own fault.
And there is nothing in what Siam Sam has said that leads me to infer that he’s happy Clemmons was denied due process, so you’re not stating fact but merely an opinion.
Indeed. Clemmons could have had all the due process he could have possibly wanted, but he himself chose to forgo it.
He could have turned himself in, he could have surrendered. He chose not to. HE forced the issue.
It’s not remotely clear that he forced the issue. Do we really know what the cop said or did?
Anyway, it’s quite clear that many people are happy that he was gunned down and didn’t surrender. That’s been my point all along, not whether the cop behaved correctly.
Identified by who? When was that trial, and since when do cops have the authority to carry out summary executions?
And?