You are ignoring that the fear must be reasonable.
No, they are facts. In ordinary life, we don’t require proof beyond reasonable doubt for facts, that’s only the case in criminal trials. As usual, you know exactly what I mean, as it’s clear from what I say, and are resorting to semantic games - ones that aren’t even correct - instead of actually refuting what I say.
Everything we call a fact, apart from bare logical or mathematical truths, is deduced or inferred. Am I to infer from your statement that you are an extreme solipsist, in which case debate is pointless? Or are you just playing more word games?
Either you believe the cops, or you believe something else happened, or you don’t know what happened. If it’s the first or last case, you should be pleased that there was no murder trial, as you don’t believe it was murder. As you don’t, I can only assume you believe that something else happened.
That, or you are wholly incapable of logical thought.
I consider that syllogism false, and it does not reflect anything I have claimed.
You are missing one necessary condition - that the feeling of being threatened was reasonable, and are wrong about one of the facts you claim - Tamir Rice did not possess a toy gun, he had an Airsoft pistol modified to look like a real gun.
I feel you are full of shit.
Therefore you are full of shit.
If you agree that the cops were not reasonable to pull up so close to him, then you would agree that it is reasonable that he would be startled, and not have much time to comprehend, much less follow police orders in the amount of time allotted him.
So, what would be reasonable would have been for Rice to fear for his life, as the cops were threatening him, briefly, before they killed him, if his gun had been real, then you would support him having shot those cops dead, right, as that would be the reasonable thing to do.
Reasonable for the cops to be in fear for their life, not so much. And even if you want to make the argument that after startling someone and giving them 2 seconds to respond to your commands it is then reasonable to fear for your life and shoot, (which is not really a reasonable position to take) then it is more than reasonable to fault the police for putting themselves into that situation.
What would not be reasonable would be to claim that Rice in any way threatened the cops.
It does seem as though cops are not only alienating the communities they are being paid to patrol, but also making their own jobs much more dangerous. By killing people who posed no actual threat, you are telling people who have encounters with cops that they really just need to shoot first. If anything they do will be taken as a threat and get them killed, then the only way out alive is to actually be a threat and kill. Cops say “better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.” I am not sure why that is only true of cops, and for civilians, it is the opposite.
The cops are escalating this violence, and between vengeance for slain friends and family, and proactive defense against the state sanctioned armed thugs that are terrorizing your neighborhood, reacting in the ways that these cops do when they feel threatened by a 12 year old with a toy gun is actually making their job more dangerous. TBH, if I had a friend or family member killed by a cop while committing no crime or presenting an actual threat, and the justice system completely fails to provide resolution, then taking justice into my own hands would seem to be the only “reasonable” path.
You are advocating for allowing cops to commit extrajudicial killings and abuse, and get away with it. That way does not lead to ponies, that is the path to vigilantism.
I agree with this, and have said so many times, both in this thread and others
I’ve never claimed cause and effect works backwards… I am claiming that if someone is in fear for their life, and that fear is reasonable, then they were threatened. No matter who or what does the threatening, and whether or not they intend to, or are even capable of intent. There is no backwards causation, it happens at the time of the alleged threat. Either it puts them in fear for their life, or it doesn’t. Either that fear is reasonable, or it isn’t.
That we can’t know whether or not it’s reasonable to be in fear of a particular action or event until a later date when the evidence is examined by reasonable people doesn’t mean that causation is working backwards. The fear happens at the time of the event, not afterwards.
No, you are bending over backwards to claim that the fear is reasonable in situations where it is not.
The cases that we are talking about, there is no reasonable reason to have fear for your life. Castille presented no threat. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, and was following the officer’s instructions to the best of his ability. That the cop was a coward who shit himself when he heard that the black guy in front of him owned a gun does not make that fear reasonable.
When you have complete control over a situation. When you have the choice of how to approach a suspect, then when you choose to approach the subject in the most reckless way possible to put yourself into a potentially dangerous position, then it is not a reasonable fear.
When someone is running away from you, and you shoot them in the back and then plant your taser on them to make it look like you had something to fear, that is not a reasonable fear.
There’s nothing close to even a preponderance of evidence for your assertions about Rice threatening the cops.
The evidence is that the cops said it happened a certain way (I don’t think even they said Rice threatened them – just that he moved in a way that they interpreted as going for a gun). That’s it. The video may or may not be consistent with it, since it’s so poor quality (though the incredibly short time between getting out of the car and shooting Rice makes me skeptical that there was time for the cops to give an order to Rice). It’s a fact, for example, that the cops gave contradicting statements to those of witnesses about how many times Loehmann shouted “show me your hands” or whether they even gave any instructions at all (it seems impossible that he had time to shout it 3 times, as he said, between getting out of the car and shooting Rice).
What the hell are you talking about? Where have I provided a judgment on the trial? I’m only talking about your words.
Stop with the straw man bullshit. I thought you were capable of discussing this reasonably, as we have had such discussions in the past. So far you’re proving me wrong, both with the assertions of fact (or near fact) for things that are, at best, relying wholly on the uncorroborated words of the cops involved, and for insisting my positions are things that I haven’t stated. Plus the assigning of motives to the child for no reason, and with no evidence, whatsoever.
All I’m asking is that you be accurate and specific. You’ve been inaccurate about the facts of the case, in stating things that cannot be known as facts, and you’ve been inaccurate about my positions. Why not just be accurate and specific?
I don’t know exactly what happened. I’m not making a judgment on the trial. You don’t know what happened either. Nonetheless, you’re saying things about Rice that we don’t know are true, factually, near factually, or really anything more than a guess. This doesn’t mean that the cops should have been convicted – I’m not making a judgment on that. I’m just judging you – you shouldn’t be saying things about dead children, especially negative things, when there’s no reason beyond accepting the reports of cops who contradicted themselves to do so (and even with that, then inflating that evidence to make judgments that their fear was reasonable and they were in their right minds).
No. It’s not like the cops appeared out of thin air, and he had no time to realise that they were the police. And you don’t get to disobey the cops because you’re scared - you do what they say and, if it’s wrong, challenge it in court later. Unless it’s obviously and egregiously wrong, such as cops raping suspects.
I truly don’t understand people who say it’s not reasonable to feel threatened by someone reaching for what appears to be a gun. If it happened the way the cops claimed, it would be unreasonable not to be scared. Which doesn’t mean they should have shot him, just that they were not wrong to.
Civilians have the same self defence rights as the police.
Ah, you’re in favour of lynch mobs, if you approve of the target. How tasteful.
No, I am advocating for allowing cops to defend themselves against those who threaten their lives. That way leads to a functional justice system.
Ant cops who are proven to commit extrajudicial killings should be punished. Unlike you, though, I require that it be proved.
We don’t know, not even close, whether the cops were actually in fear of their lives, and whether that fear was reasonable. We don’t know and we can’t know.
I don’t know, and neither do you, whether the cops actually gave clear instructions to Rice before shooting him. There’s no audio, and the cops contradicted witness reports on what instructions they gave Rice. That fact should make you skeptical of the accuracy of their reports.
Finally you get it. Unless we know they were not, it was self defence. Presumption of innocence, and all that. Something disturbingly few people here believe in.
And how do you know that it is wrong? They give a lawful order, you have to follow it. And a lawful order is an order that an officer says is lawful.
And it’s not just suspect that cops rape, it is often times the people that called them for assistance.
I truly don’t’ understand why you keep lying about this. Prove that he was reaching for a gun. Prove that it appeared he was reaching for a gun.
Oh, the officer said so, that’s fine. The officers never lie. They never make up stories to cover their cowardly actions.
Except against the police.
Why do you lie about what I say? Do you get some sort of pleasure out of lying, or is it just that it is all you are able to do.
I said that in a situation where my family or friend had been killed, and the justice system gives a blind eye, I, as an individual may feel the urge to take matters into my own hands.
I am pointing out that the cops are creating this situation, not that I approve of it.
I really don’t understand why you insist on lying about what I say in every post, I really don’t. It’s not even that good of a lie. My words are right there, and your lies about what they say are right next to them. You should at least let some time go by before you make such malicious lies, so that it is at least necessary to scroll a bit to discover that you are incapable of honesty.
No, you are advocating that police shoot and kill anyone they perceive as a threat, even if there is no threat.
And there you go lying again. Why only “ant cops”, by the way, most cops are human, shouldn’t they be punished too?
I would also like to have cops who kill put up before a fair jury, a fair judge, with a prosecutor who is not their friend. When the prosecutor pulls his punches, when the prosecutor doesn’t contest sketchy defensive arguments, when the prosecutor plays the defense in the grand jury, then acquittals are only showing the flaws in our justice system, they are not showing that the cops did no wrong.
No, that judgment was not made by the grand jury. Why do you keep up with this inaccurate crap? It doesn’t help your argument. It’s so damn easy to not say false things – I just don’t get why you keep saying things that are factually wrong.
We don’t know Rice was reaching for the toy gun. Again, why do you keep repeating this stuff? Why are you saying things like this when we’ll never know if it’s true?
Nothing to do with anything I’ve said. Along with stopping saying inaccurate things, please stop straw-manning my arguments.
It’s really not hard, and it’s really entirely reasonable, to do what I’m asking you to do. Why are you resisting so much? What’s wrong with being careful and accurate and not saying things are true when we have no idea if they’re true?
Obviously. The police, unlike other people, are allowed to threaten suspects to get them to comply. That’s necessary.
Is there some sort of weird software on this board that keeps deleting the word “reasonable” from my posts? Either that, or you and several others are ignoring it, rather than argue why people - cops or otherwise - shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves from what they reasonably believe is an imminent, lethal threat.
something something quarry
There’s no need to show they did no wrong, they are presumed innocent, and remain so until proven guilty.
I’d be all for no longer electing judges and prosecutors, though. That would help solve the problems you mention. But that can’t happen retroactively, and won’t make cops who’ve been acquitted magically guilty.
I know I said I was done here, but I just want to say one thing…
If I did nothing and you shot me anyway because you were “mistakenly” or “delusionally” afraid of me, my cell phone, or the booger on my finger, you better pray you kill me outright.
We know he wasn’t reaching for a toy gun, as no toy gun was found anywhere near the scene. An air pistol modified to look like a real gun was, however.
And it remains the case that anyone with any sense would have felt threatened by someone reaching for such a gun. That statement is not conditional on any particular person doing so.
The one thing I said that was not true in this thread I’ve acknowledged. It had nothing to do with this case.
I’ve not straw manned your arguments, indeed it would be hard to do so because you are trying very hard not to actually make any. What you are doing is repeatedly misinterpreting my statements, ignoring my clarifications, and refusing to state a position of your own.
The cops are innocent in any matter relating to Rice’s death. That’s an observable fact, as they have not been convicted of any crime.
Whether they were, in fact, in reasonable fear of his actions is in the strictest sense unknowable, but not being a solipsist, I can easily look at the evidence and say that they were. So can you or anyone else, if you choose.
Anyway, here’s your chance. State your positions. Are the cops innocent? Did Rice threaten them? Ideally, show the evidence, and don’t weasel out of it by saying you don’t know. I don’t believe for a second you think the evidence is exactly 50-50.
Well yeah, it’s not impossible that there could be a situation where two people could reasonably think the other is a threat. If I’m delusional, only you would have reason to feel threatened, so there’d not even be a question about your right to defend yourself.
Was this meant to be some sort of gotcha, or just some pathetic macho posturing?
Also, not being delusional, I won’t be praying any time soon.