Probably too often to hold up to rigorous scrutiny (as being overwhelmingly justified), we see multiple LEOs empty their 15+ round magazines into suspects where the suspect didn’t inarguably pose a credible threat to the officers.
There is no kill like overkill, and ISTM this permeates the culture in the way we’re discussing.
Are you seriously arguing that I needed to spell out from the start that “interrupting a disturbance” makes no sense if the criminal is still right there, able to keep right on keeping right on? You honestly think that’s a moving goalpost, instead of something I’d figured all along was too obvious to mention?
…the flaw in your argument is that we can see that he is fucking dead in the video.
“He’s dead Jim.”
They even talk about the moment he defecated.
He wasn’t running anywhere. He wasn’t getting up. Because he was dead.
That isn’t how living in a society works.
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but there are no guarantees in life. You are allowed to protect yourself. If he gets up and attacks you again (even though there is no evidence he attacked in the first place) you are allowed to protect yourself again. What you aren’t allowed to do is to kill him. You aren’t allowed to take the law into your own hands.
Are you saying it isn’t, or that it shouldn’t be? If the former, we’ll see, as this percolates its way through the legal system; if the latter, I disagree already.
…am I saying “what is” or “what isn’t?” Your question is unclear.
“What you aren’t allowed to do is to kill him.”
[ETA: “That isn’t how living in a society works.”]
Yes. Because what we are discussing in this line that took over the thread is a case where the immediate threat had been suppressed – man is down, man is restrained, yet this person continues to apply force beyond what was necessary for that.
Now, it may be that upon further investigation it is determined that in the heat of the confrontation he was not able to make a good judgement. That’s a fair cop. But it still means that once he achieved the takedown he was wrong to go on to the end.
Will the threat resume, as was, as soon as you release him? Say you’re suppressing an immediate threat; what happens once you stop?
…well if you are allowed to kill him, then your society is obviously just fucked up. And I’ve got exactly zero faith in the American justice system. But where I live? No, lynching is against the law.
…was this before or after he shat himself?
You tell me. Is your before-or-after question meant to signal that there’s a difference, in that “before” means the threat resumes and “after” — doesn’t?
How about you do not release him but you do let him &#^%$ breathe?
…well I mean, he’s dead.
Do you continue to immobilize him after he’s stopped moving, and stopped breathing, and he’s defecated himself, and he’s obviously dead?
Do you stop then? Or do you keep holding on, just in case he MAGICALLY springs back to life and starts (not) throwing garbage again?
At some point in time you guys are just going to have to realize that the pro-lynchers want to kill. It’s mainly about finding the right excuse.
Who can refute a sneer?
This is all getting asymptotically Pitty, so I think I will go chill out a while.
I don’t see that this is going anywhere useful, and so wouldn’t mind taking a break likewise.
Granting your hypothetical about this particular case involving a “crime being committed”, letting him go does not restore the status quo. Is he currently committing a crime? No? Then the situation is different. There is no crime in progress. There’s a guy who was committing a crime minutes ago who is now subdued. Continuing to hold him is no longer required. The criminal behavior has ceased!
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “if I let this guy start breathing, he might get up and start criming all over again!!!”
Well, maybe. Maybe not. But use of force to prevent criming that might happen is a much more dubious moral position.
The judge overseeing the trial of Daniel Penny, the man accused of using a deadly chokehold on Jordan Neely last year on a New York City subway, dismissed a manslaughter charge in the case Friday after jurors said they were deadlocked.
The decision, which came at the request of prosecutors, means jurors will consider only the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide. It carries a maximum sentence of up to four years. Jurors were not told that prosecutors made the request. Penny has pleaded not guilty.
Not Guilty. Just was announced.