Do you have evidence that they are?
You are a sniveling mongrel. A soft headed jackass with a hollow chest.
I’m waiting for you to try and excuse this part by saying the officer feared for his life because he heard gun shots.
Is that what the officers did? Did they immediately call for an ambulance? Did they immediately call for advice on what to do to stop a child from dying?
One presumes that the detective and FBI agent who arrived four minutes later were not summoned by the Bat-Signal.
Knob must be broken.
Yes, I’m a “soft headed jackass” for not wanting to try to treat a gunshot patient with rudimentary tools and basic knowledge of how to stop bleeding. I mean, it’s not as if a gunshot patient ever died not because of the initial insult, but because of incompetent attempts at treating the wound by people who didn’t know what they were doing.
Well, except for the time that that happened to the President of the United States.
Do you think the Cleveland Police sent an FBI Agent out on a first aid run in response to a call from one of the officers? The Fibbie was already in the general area because of the initial report of a black man with a gun in the area.
I just wanted you to know that if you are trolling then you are a brilliant, brilliant troll. And if you’re not trolling, then I would genuinely and honestly love to meet you in person; I would love to look in your eyes while I talked to you. Would you look different than someone with a soul? You fascinate me.
There’s certainly a moral requirement to do so.
Cinncinati Police Department Procedures
Cleveland Police Department Procedures
Nothing I read was informative to this incident.
It doesn’t matter what type of wound it is. If someone is bleeding, you try to stop the bleeding. It doesn’t matter if they were stabbed, shot, or gored by a moose… you try to staunch the bleeding until the ambulance arrives.
I don’t think anyone here believes that the officers should have tried to fully treat a gunshot wound, but they should have at least attempted basic first aid.
ETA: I’m going to add first aid to the list of things your probably shouldn’t talk about unless you are asking a question.
Because the police are entitled to approach with drawn weapons and use them, some of do actually believe that they should be held to a higher standard. We even have a name for it, the “reasonable officer” standard.
And some of us are still believe that an affirmative defense needs to be proved by the defendant, not disproved by the prosecution. The way it’s been for hundreds of years under Common Law.
CMC fnord!
Can we provide evidence that officers are smarter than a twelve year old with a toy gun? Because at least we know that kid didn’t kill anyone because he felt threatened by a kid with a toy gun.
It’s clearly been smashed a long time ago.
The whole concept of an affirmative defence is immoral. Expecting people to have to prove their innocence is disgusting.
Fortunately, video evidence of someone reaching for what appears to be a gun will allow the officers to do that, but it’s still unacceptable that they should have to do so. Hopefully the trend of removing this burden will continue.
I would like to…
You’re either seeing things that aren’t there, or you are lying through your fucking teeth. If the police said in their report that what he was reaching for was a crowbar, I bet you would claim that, clear as day, you could see “Craftsman” stamped on the side.
Er, immoral? This sort of thinking betrays a basic refusal to understand the law. Imagine that I’ve accused you of doing X and and present testimony and possibly (but not necessarily) other evidence, including possibly conflicting evidence, to establish probable cause to believe you did X. You’re free not to defend yourself and argue otherwise.
In the Brown case, for instance, there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause (even if conflicting evidence) to conclude that Wilson engaged in (at bare minimum) involuntary manslaughter. The GJ chose to in effect declare this wasn’t so, as it’s free to do (just as a prosecutor is always free despite the evidence to refuse to charge someone). Had Wilson been indicted, at trial think of the evidence presented as bricks on one side of a scale. You can leave the bricks put down by the state as unopposed/uncountered and simply argue that the facts as presented as compared to the law means the person must be found not guilty or that it has been “not proved” that the law was violated, or you can present argument and evidence that, for instance, the actions were in self-defense. How is that process “disgusting”?
This isn’t so very complicated, and it certainly isn’t objectively “disgusting”. You might want to explain how you’d expect or desire the process to work if someone (law enforcement or other) killed a loved one or friend of yours where the circumstances amounted to at minimum involuntary manslaughter/criminal negligence.
Are you fucking high?
You don’t have to put on an affirmative defense if you’re on trial for murder. You can just sit back, and when the state is done presenting their case say the defense rests and go immediately to the jury. If they prosecution hasn’t proved each and every element of the crime you are accused of beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury acquits you.
But if you want to assent SELF DEFENSE, you’re not asserting that the facts as alleged by the prosecution never happened. You’re introducing new facts. Like “the black kid reached for his waistband”. If you want to assert that the black kid reached for his waistband and therefore you’re a hero for killing him, then absolutely it is up to you to establish that the dead kid did, in fact, reach for his waistband.
Note that the affirmative defense typically has a different burden of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The typical standard is something like “clear and convincing evidence” or “a preponderance of the evidence”.
If you don’t like the way we do things here in America why don’t you go back to Communist Russia?
Again, depends on the state. Quite a few states where self-defense is NOT affirmative defense. That is, you have to introduce self-defense, and the state has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it wasn’t self-defense.
To be fair, this is optimal outcome. This is how it should/is supposed to work, but note that whether tried by judge or jury, that’s not always how it works. You can have a jury or judge acting as jury deliberately or negligently ignore the evidence and/or the law, whether or not your lawyer is ineffective. It happens with regularity, which is all the more worrisome in light of how few trials actually take place.