I pit the cops who openly applauded police abuse today

The BBQ Pit
341

We don’t know if he was reaching for anything. Yet you stated it as a fact (or near fact or whatever – I still don’t understand the distinction, or how it’s okay to state non-facts as facts for any reason).

Irrelevant to anything I’ve said.

You’ve said multiple things that we don’t know are true – that Rice threatened the cops, that they gave him instructions that he disobeyed, that he reached for the gun/toy/whatever, that the cops were in fear and that fear was reasonable, etc.

Show, specifically, where I’ve done any of this. I’ve attacked your exact words and nothing more.

Another false statement. They were not indicted. That is not the same thing as “innocent”.

God you’re careless, even after all these admonitions and unknown things that you’ve stated as true and been criticized for. Maybe you’re just incapable of being careful with the things you say.

No I can’t. Too many facts are unknown – what did they say? What did Rice do? What motivated them to drive so close? Etc. If you think you can “easily say” that they were, then your standard of evidence apparently goes no further than “the cops said so [even though some of their statements contradicted those of witnesses] and that’s it”.

I don’t know if the cops are innocent. They have not been convicted of any crime. I seriously doubt that Rice threatened them – a child deciding to threaten cops rushing at him sounds as inconceivable as the cops deciding in advance that today’s the day they kill a black child. It’s possible that Rice reached for the toy (it’s not at all clear in the video), but if so, I don’t know if that was because he was told to, or because he thought (possibly incorrectly) that’s what the cops wanted him to do (i.e. grab it and drop it), or because he thought it was a game, or some other reason. I’m saying I don’t know because I literally don’t know. How could I answer any differently?

If I have to lean one way or the other, I’d lean towards the position of municipal judge Ronald Adrine, who believed there was enough evidence to indict them. But IANAL, and this opinion is unrelated and irrelevant to everything I’ve said in this thread.

342

Take it any damn way you want.

And that asshole who killed Tamir Rice HAD been fired from another police department as being totally unfit.

Cleveland officer who killed Tamir Rice had been deemed unfit for duty

Cleveland cop who shot 12-year-old slammed for ‘immaturity’ in past job

Timothy Loehmann, Cop Who Shot Tamir Rice, Deemed Unfit For Policing 2 Years Ago

Oh yeah, we have a “new outrage of the day” now because another incompetent asshole murdered a woman who had CALLED THEM, while she was talking to his partner.

Justine Damond called police to report a possible crime occurring near her house. Officers arrived, and Noor, at some point, and for an as yet unknown reason, allegedly fired his gun, striking Damond in the abdomen and ultimately killing her.
When she was shot, Damond was standing, in her pajamas, talking to an officer on the driver’s side of the squad car. Noor, in the passenger’s seat, allegedly fired, shooting Damond through the driver’s side door, three sources with knowledge of the incident told The Star Tribune.

343

In the US, self-defense requires an affirmative showing. It’s not a presumption. If you are going to try to rely on a legal definition of self-defense, you have to rely on the whole hog, not the just the chitterlings.

344

This is actually untrue. It was an airsoft gun, which are toy guns. It wasn’t an air pistol, which is another name for a BB gun or pellet gun. It’s true that it was modified by removing the orange tip, which is another clue that it’s a toy. Air pistols (BB guns) are not sold with those tips.

Anyway, the ironic thing to me with this whole exchange is that you’re stepping up to protect cops from another country. UK cops are much more reasonable and kill far, far, far fewer people that US cops. It’s like you have recreational outrage in favor of American cops. I have no idea why you feel like you have to defend the bad apples from a police force from another country.

As SteveG1 points out, the cop who shot Rice was, in fact, a bad apple, as determined by other police forces.

345

Whether it’s a toy gun or actual firearm is irrelevant.

And are you really so naive that you think criminals are painting orange tips on their guns?

And I don’t understand people from another country w/ no knowledge of our laws & LE procedures criticize American LE (like BPD).

346

Depends on the state, but it’s becoming increasingly common to actually presume people’s innocence. The best recent example would be George Zimmerman. Hopefully, all of them, and other countries, will move towards not forcing victims of assaults to prove their innocence.

347

None of those things are wrong for the police to do. Uh…depending on the circumstances. Certainly each of those things has been used to infringe on the rights of someone whom the police regard as “other.”

A requirement to identify yourself has occasionally been abused to intimidate and to create “watch lists” for the purpose of violating civil rights. Not always, not usually…but it certainly has been.

Restraining a suspect can be done in right ways and wrong ways (see “chokeholds”).

Moving people back to a “safe distance” is sometimes used to isolate protest away from legal public areas, and has certainly at times been used to shut down the free speech of people the cops don’t agree with. I’ve personally seen this one used pretty frequently. It’s even attempted when it doesn’t work – I’ve seen cops and security personnel tell protesters to move off land the protesters know darned well they’re allowed on because it’s in their permit, and I’ve seen the protesters refuse to leave, and then the police and security people give up. They do so because they weren’t interested in actual safety, nor are they going to prevail in a court fight, but it was worth a shot to see if they could bluff the protesters into giving up constitutionally-protected rights.

When the police and authorities are casually trying to curtail people’s rights in situations they’re not even strongly interested in, when it’s more of a reflex than a decision, why is it a surprise people come to see them as inimical, as enemies of freedom?

348

Airsoft guns (as the name pretty clearly states) are low-powered airguns. They are not toys, and they can injure people, which is why those that use them for sport wear protective equipment.

Anyone giving one to a child as a toy would be horrifically irresponsible. For those following along, that’s not an accusation directed at anyone, I have no idea where Rice got his one.

349

So you don’t accept the presumption of innocence. That shows that your opinion on anything to do with legal matters can safely be ignored.

As for the rest of your post, you are once again asking questions I’ve repeatedly answered, because you don’t like the answers, and refusing to actually state your position, just vaguely hint at it so you can claim I’m intentionally misinterpreting you.

350

It’s relevant because Steophan said it wasn’t a toy. I don’t understand your second question – is there a missing word? Is BPD supposed to be BPC? If so, I think he’s an American living in Germany, but I’m not planning on checking every poster for consistency.

351

Presumption of innocence and presumption of self-defense are not the same thing. The only time there is a presumption of the fear aspect, as far as I know, is the Castle Doctrine. This was not the case for George Zimmerman.

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, stand your ground laws as in Florida enable someone to receive immunity from prosecution (which is not exactly like an affirmative defense, since it occurs before the trial. I should have looked that up), but the onus is on them to provide evidence that they were acting in self-defense and had a reasonable fear. It is not a presumption that they are acting in self-defense, but a lack of a duty to retreat.

If I have this wrong, I await correction.

352

Airsoft guns are toys for older kids. There exist toys that can injure people – a rubber band shooter can injure someone. Kids use protective equipment when they play baseball – would it be horrific to give a kid a baseball bat? That can injure someone as well.

Lots of people give airsoft guns to children – who do you think uses them? Adults use BB guns, pellet guns, or actual guns. Adults don’t use airsoft guns.

From what I recall, Rice got the one he had from a friend – it was a friend’s airsoft gun that he had.

I still don’t understand your desire to defend the police in a foreign country. It’s just weird – you have zero insight into what it’s like to be hassled by American police, you don’t see them walking around with rifles, handguns, tasers, batons. And, you really have no idea what it’s like to be basically repressed by American police if you’re African American.

353

I will read the reply and, if corrected, acknowledge it. But otherwise I can’t see continuing in this thread beyond this clarification.

Because it’s ooky.

354

LOL…BPD s/b BPC (Budget Player Cadet).

And that second sentence should have read “Are you really so naive as to think that criminals aren’t painting the tips of their guns orange?”

Never had my morning coffee today!

355

Why do you keep up with the straw men? You asked if they were innocent, not if they should be presumed innocent by the legal system if they are tried. I agree with the concept of presumption of innocence in terms of the legal system; this is different than asserting, factually, someone who has not been tried as innocent.

There were plenty of lynchers and racist murderers who were not convicted of murder. Nonetheless, they were not innocent (in the broad sense of the word), even if they were found not guilty, or not tried to begin with. Not every question is about the legal system or “legal matters”.

So sorry for pointing out that many of the things you asserted factually you couldn’t possibly know.

Hopefully you’ll do better, even if you don’t want to admit to the rest of us that you might have screwed up.

356

Got it. I’m sure some criminals are doing that. BPC is, I think, American.

Anyway, I’m not sure why I contributed to this hijack. Back to the OP:

Boo to those cops who applaud police abuse. Yay for the various government and police departments who said that Trump is basically an idiot for pushing police brutality. Bullshit to the Trump administration who claims it was all a joke.

And with that, I bid you adieu.

357

This one is.

It wasn’t you that pointed out the factual error I made in this thread, and I’m not the one claiming to know better than those who properly investigated these cases.

I willingly admitted when it was shown that I screwed up. Embarrassing as it was to do so, I’m actually glad of it now, because it shows that your claim that I can’t admit that I’m wrong to be false. Like so many other of your claims.

So, how about you practice what you preach, clearly state your positions without hiding behind claims that things for which we have evidence for are unknowable, and admit that you’re wrong about many things, not least the nature of innocence when it comes to crime.

358

The standard, in Florida at least, is that they have to provide some evidence that it was self defence, such as their testimony under oath that it was.

In practice, if the defendant doesn’t claim self defence, the state doesn’t have to disprove it, it’s not an automatic requirement. Most defendants don’t claim it, as that means admitting to killing someone, which is usually a bad idea in a murder trial.

This was discussed at great length, both here and elsewhere, at the time of Zimmerman’s trial.

359

Was the fear that Jeronimo Yanez had when he shot and killed Philando Castile justified?

Keep in mind:

  • If Castile had meant to shoot Yanez, he probably wouldn’t have told him about the gun
  • There was no evidence that Castile was reaching for the gun beyond the paranoid fantasies of Yanez
  • Yanez had explicitly commanded Castile to produce ID (which one might expect to be found in a pocket)
  • In the US, we have the fundamental right to bear arms. You are allowed to own and carry a gun. It would imply quite firmly that this right includes the right to own and carry a gun without immediately getting shot for doing so.

Also, keep in mind that the Jury was denied access to evidence they asked for, such as the interview transcripts from after Yanez shot Castile.

To put it bluntly, if the law allows for this to be treated as self-defense, then the law is disgustingly broken and needs to be changed.

Hypothetical: what if Castile had seen Yanez reaching for his gun, and decided that the correct response was, in self-defense, to disarm the officer? Say, he saw Yanez reach for his firearm, and responded by throwing open the door, knocking Yanez down, and training his own firearm on him. Would that have been justified self-defense?

Given what happened afterwards, he absolutely would have been morally justified, and given what we know about shootings at police stops and Yanez’s demeanor, Castile was probably in a similar amount of danger at that moment to Yanez was, even not knowing how things were going to end.

I think given the facts on the ground, Castile’s case for assaulting Yanez in self-defense is actually stronger than Yanez’s case for shooting Castile in self-defense.

Now how do you think that would have gone in court?

Stupid question, really. There’s no such thing as justified self-defense against a cop. Castile either would have been killed on the spot by Yanez’s backup, or would have faced almost certain persecution.

What we have here is one standard for self-defense for cops (“I thought he was reaching for his gun after I told him to produce ID, so I shot him on the spot”) and one for civilians (“They broke into my home in the middle of the night unannounced, I thought I was being robbed, I shot and killed one of them, and am now facing the death penalty”).

Expat living in Munich, with lots of friends and family back in the states. My outrage at these policies is not strictly recreational.

360

You admitted it once, IIRC, but not when you said Rice reached for the gun,