You admitted one mistake (sort of). What about when you said that Rice reached for the gun, or that the cops felt fear for their lives, and that fear was reasonable? You don’t know those things are true.
As for my position, I’d be happy to state it. Feel free to ask. I might answer “I don’t know” when I don’t know the answer.
Oops, sorry 'bout the near-duplicate – not sure how that happened.
Of course people don’t have to claim self-defense. I don’t even understand the point of this post. I don’t know if you don’t understand the terms you use or if you don’t care.
Of course, I also don’t understand why I’m in this conversation, so I will remedy that.
I’m curious how the police knew what the tip of the gun looked like when it was tucked into Rice’s waistband.
I’m also curious how the same person can repeatedly assert that Action A happened and also repeatedly assert that it’s not possible to know whether Action A happened.
They were acting on a tip off.
A defendant doesn’t have to prove self defence, merely claim it, and then the state must disprove it to convict.
If they don’t claim it, the state doesn’t have to disprove it.
All those things fit the evidence we have. I’m not interested in your solipsism, if we can’t deduce things from evidence we can’t know anything, which is a useless standard.
It is true though that if he was reaching for his gun then the fear was reasonable. As we have decent evidence that he was, the sensible conclusion is that all of those things are probably true.
At this point, with the evidence available, “don’t know” is nothing more than an evasion. Drop the solipsism and say what you think happened. Remember that there are different standards of proof required in different circumstances.
The claims of the police about the orders they gave don’t fit the timing in the video, and they contradict the reports of eyewitnesses. The claim that Rice reached for whatever was in his waist is possible, and isn’t contradicted by the video, but he may have reached for it because he thought that’s what the cops wanted him to do – that also fits the evidence we have (except for the statements of cops whose accuracy should be considered highly suspect based on the above contradictions). That he reached for it in order to “threaten the cops” is as outlandish and ridiculous as the hypothesis that the cops conspired to kill a black child because they wanted to kill black children.
I have no interest in solipsism either. Some things are indeed knowable. But not everything, including many of the things you’ve asserted about this case. In addition, some of the things might be knowable, but we don’t yet have such evidence to know them.
Again, no interest in solipsism.
I think the cops got a call, made an incredibly poor (and incredibly and perhaps negligently dangerous) decision to drive extremely close to Rice, and within a second or two of stopping their car, got out and shot Rice. Then the cops made reports that (in part) were contradicted by witnesses, and (again, in part) don’t appear to fit the timing of the video.
And then you made assertions about things, like that Rice threatened anyone, or that the cops gave him any orders (much less told him to “drop it” 3 times, as they claim) that either don’t fit the facts or have no evidence for them beyond the claims of the cops, as factual. Making negative and evidence-less statements about a dead child is both incredibly callous and cruel and makes you look foolish or delusional, in my opinion. It hurts your argument, which might be entirely reasonable if it didn’t contain such evidence-free (and callous/cruel) assertions about things that we don’t and can’t know right now.
No, the law should - indeed must, if it’s to protect the innocent - allow anyone to claim they killed in self defence, and the state to be required to disprove that claim. If the state doesn’t meet that burden, the law is working correctly if there is no conviction.
[quote]
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?[/qupte]
No, of course he wouldn’t. The police are, pretty much uniquely, allowed to threaten force, or actually use it, to get people to comply. The use is of course restricted to certain circumstances, but the time to determine whether it was legitimate is in court.
You don’t think, you feel. That’s your problem. It’s not impossible for someone to be allowed to defend themselves against a cop, but it can’t be the case if the cop is doing normal police work.
He would have probably been convicted and locked up. The police are allowed to threaten you, or use force, if necessary.
Not when the cop is doing normal police work, no. I hope you mean “prosecution”, though, else you’re a paranoid conspiracy nut.
No, the standards are the same. Cops aren’t allowed to shoot other cops who are investigating them, and civilians have the same right to self defence as cops.
You can’t seriously believe it’s acceptable to shoot cops who are following a warrant, surely? There’s an argument to be made if it were officers operating illegally, in that case it could be self defence, but it would be foolish to recommend that as it would be difficult to know.
Your outrage may not be recreational, but it’s based on an irrational hatred of law and order.
Of course the cops gave him orders, they didn’t just drive up silently and shoot him. There’s no way you can believe that, there’s no evidence that they did that, and it’s such an extraordinary claim that they didn’t that it would require extraordinary evidence.
And I have not claimed he reached for the gun in order to threaten the cops. He reached for the gun, which *did *threaten the cops (or at least, the cops claim it threatened, and it would threaten and reasonable person). Why he did it is absolutely irrelevant.
I am making no callous or cruel claims about Rice, I’m not making a value judgement about him at all. If you really think caring about the facts of the case, rather than saying “oh no, a beautiful child has died, someone must pay!!!” is callous, well, fair enough I guess. It’s a sad part of the modern world that snowflakes care more about feelings than facts. To bring this thread briefly back on topic, that’s how Trump managed to get elected, and why his ridiculous statements get so much traction.
I didn’t say they were silent… but now it’s just about your feelings, not about evidence? For one thing, we have the video, which doesn’t provide enough time to say what the cops reported that they ordered. For another, we have several witnesses, none of whom heard the cops give the orders/warning they say they gave. They might have shouted something, but based on the evidence they didn’t say what they reported that they said.
So I’m going by the evidence, and you’re going by your feelings that “of course…” blah blah blah. Yeah, I’m unconvinced by the feelings of Steophan as opposed to the actual evidence of the case.
No, it might reasonably cause someone to feel threatened, but that is different than actually being threatened. Feelings and real actions are different things.
You also, again, said that “he reached for the gun”. That’s not something that you know to be true. The evidence does not show that this is any more likely than that he did something else. Further, considering the cops’ inaccuracy with their reporting, it’s entirely possible that whatever movement Rice took was in an effort to comply with the cops’ request, in which case any fear they had would not be reasonable. Maybe this happened, or maybe not, but you’re definitively saying that something happened for which we don’t have good reason to believe.
No, you say you’re caring about the facts, but what you really care about are your feelings about cops. Your feelings about cops are less than convincing to me.
Correction: he resigned while the firing process was ongoing.
However, he was in the process of being fired for emotional instability.
He was fired from the Cleveland PD because he lied on his application.
So, an emotionally unstable proven liar claimed he was in fear for his life. Got it.
He also (probably) lied in his statement about this particular incident.
If you were being honest, you’d admit that it wasn’t a toy. If you think it was, I really hope you don’t have kids.
Everything you’ve written here is false, irrelevant, meaningless, or some combination of the above. I’ve explained why in multiple posts, and instead of responding to them you continue to make ridiculous claims, and ignore what I say. And, amusingly, claim it’s me that looks bad because of it.
Right back at you! Keep up with the straw men. They burn easy, don’t they?
And done.
Plus the video shows he shot damn near immediately upon arriving.
But back to the OP… Trump called for “street justice” and encouraged police brutality and excessive force. And these guys CHEERED for it.
It’s simply indefensible and inexcusable and no amount of bullshit, strawmen, or MORE bullshit will ever change that.
Glad you understand. He may well not have been fit to be a police officer, but that doesn’t affect his right to defend himself.
I fucking give up. You disgust me.