Slow down, cowboy. Let’s begin with your 1998 article (you’re correct, I got the date wrong, but more recent it is, the more valid my point is, and that point is that: the article clearly says that the right a guard had in the past to kill prisoners is being restricted.) To wit:
That’s the lede of the article, the first three paragraphs, you know, the part where the writer summarizes the main point of the article? How does “State prison officials… are revising their policy to sharply restrict the use of deadly force” support your case? Run your explanation for that by me first before you go on with your other evidence. Thanks, champ. When you’re done with that, explain the part about how “the new policy will forbid state guards from firing” means that they can fire at prisoners? And then tell me how the third quoted paragraph is any different from the laws that apply outside the prison walls.
Where did I state that the law in California allowed the use of deadly force on escaping prisoners?
Are you too lazy to keep reading, or what? Three paragraphs is your limit?
The article pointed out that all the other inmates killed during the time in question, at other prisons, were all killed while trying to escape, and pointed out that in the California case, none of them had the potentially exculpatory justifications of wielding a deadly weapon or trying to escape.
What the fuck is your problem that I provide three entire cites detailing law and precedent that specifically allows escaping inmates to be killed in certain circumstances, and you can’t focus on anything other than the first article which, at best, shows that California doesn’t have that same policy?
Again, I’ll ask slowly: what, the fuck, is wrong, with you?
Where have I stated any such thing about California’s laws? Are you too fucking lazy to read all the others? Is this a case of “oooh, shiny!” and you can’t process different information once you glom onto one soundbyte?
Speaking of which, are you too fucked up to admit that not only were you wrong about the date of the first cite, but you simply invented a second cite? Why, do you think, you felt a need to lie in such a manner? And while you’re at it and thinking about why you’re a liar, why do you think it is that although I cited and quoted state statutes and legal precedent, you’re ignored all of that while inventing a cite that didn’t actually exist?
I’m still trying to absorb the problem I have in the very first three paragraphs of your very first cite (of which I made an inconsequential typo in its date that I’ve already acknowledged making innocently. Twice, now.) That problem (have I mentioned that it was in the three lede paragraphs of your first cite? Well, it was) has to do with the fact that all three paragraphs contradict the point I understand you’re trying to make, and supports the one I’m trying to make. Namely, that, as society advances, prison guards are being sharply restricted in the use of deadly force against prisoners.
If you can somehow satisfy me that those three paragraphs should be completely disregarded as if I’d never read them, I am fully prepared to slog on through the rest of your argument. But when I get such a powerful disconnect, I’m a little reluctant to give you more rope. Show me why I should disregard the first three full paragraphs you cited, or at least why I should interpret them as if my mind were wired backwards.
Except, of course, that all of the contemporary or more recent cites I provided, including one from last year, all confirm that various states and legal precedent allow the killing of inmates under certain situations, with escape being specifically enumerated as one of those circumstances.
And, yet again, you acknowledge a problem in the date of one cite, but ignore the fact that you fabricated a second one and are ignoring three ones that actually exist. Because you can’t get past the first three paragraphs of an infotainment article which I cited merely to make you aware that there had been numerous killings of escaping prisoners around the nation. Of course, all the other cites which directly and exhaustively talk about the uses of deadly force… you deliberately ignore. With patently obvious bullshit, obfuscatory rhetoric to boot. What, legal precedent and statutes disappear because California reworked its penal code a decade ago? You’re incapable of addressing the law because some staffers on a paper, a decade ago, wrote a gloss for the issue they were discussing?
Your rationalization for your stupidity and intellectual dishonesty is beneath you.
I no longer care what exactly your fucking damage is, because I have had my tolerance for bullshit and intellectual dishonesty exhausted.
Further, you’re full of shit and I’m tired of dealing with your dishonest bullshit.
Fuck you.
You don’t think too good, do you? You don’t have to disregard them, but you can’t claim they’re universal when they’re clearly about one specific prison system.
Did you ever take a class where you studied syllogisms? Did you pass?
[hijack]I’m a former Longhorn myself. I can still recall the looks of surprise on my New England friends’ faces when I told them that UT “security” were actually State Police officers, as compared to the rent-a-cops that most of them were familiar with. Hard core, fo’ sho’. [/hijack]
So basically, you’re saying that while you are incarcerated, you will be supervised by guards who have the authority to physically subdue you, or even kill you, should your level of misbehavior require it according to their rules and procedures.
PRR proves in the original thread that he’s delusional as well as dishonest and an all-around jerk:
I’ve come to believe that he’s genuinely mentally ill. Late yesterday he apparently took his meds or something because (although he’s still disingenuous) note the sudden change in tone of his posts.
No, he’s just a troll. FinnAgain pointed out that his posts fit the exact definition of trolling as listed by a moderator in another thread, and the bridge-dweller in question is trying to skip a little closer to the line so as to avoid a warning.
He hasn’t improved any - note how assiduously he is avoiding the multiple cites all showing that he is completely wrong - but he is being more cautious until he is sure that he is going to be allowed to get away with trolling.
Maybe he is hard up for cash, and wants Liberal to pay him to go away.
I don’t know - sometimes it’s fun to feed the trolls, sometimes it isn’t.
PRR resorts to what Dilbert calls Bizarre Absolution. He takes somebody’s opinion ridiculously far out of context and uses it as a scare tactic to win points.
Like when somebody says they’re in favor of gun control. The Bizarre Absolutist will interpret that as that person wanting to leave our nation totally defenseless and at the mercy of terrorists, with no means of protecting our loved ones and our God-given freedoms. PRR takes Scumpup’s aside about prison guards (the original topic was spanking) and turns it into a frightening endorsement of allowing police to summarilly execute anybody they want to, regardless or circumstance.
Then, when shown that Scum DID actually qualify his statement with “under certain conditions,” demands that he explain himself, as if Scum’s the one who writes the 700-page manuals on how prison guards should deal with unruly prisoners. Never does it occur to him that a prison guard might actually want to defend himself or try to prevent the escape of dangerous inmates. It’s Scum’s fault for not spelling that out.
I was busy beating the ever loving fuck out of my children and only have a couple minutes before the puppy gets home from the groomers for its daily kicking…
Thank you for reminding people of the history of this diversion: the original topic was indeed, as you correctly note, spanking. The brilliant logican Scumpup attempted the use of lethal analogy, which is not recommended for those untrained or unskilled in its uses, and tried to argue that there was some point of similarity between a parent’s right to violence in maintaining an orderly household and prison guard’s right to a well-run prison, both of which can only exist in Scumpup’'s weird, sadistic, comic-book universe (that I’m glad I dont live in and, for Scumpup’s sake, am glad he doesn’t live in either, except within the workings of that mess he calls a brain) by keeping the constant threat of punishment in the minds of children (in one part of the analogy) and prisoners (in the other part).
The huge problem with this analogy entered when he claim that part of the punishment for prisoners was the threat of death. I’m aware that being a prisoner is more dangerous than putting your PJs on night or drinking your chocolate milk, and I didn;t mean to imply the prisoners enjoyed the same carefree existence as, say Hugh Hefner or (in **Scumpup’s **cartoon mentality) Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark. Of course they have a higher mortality rate than the average person, as do high-wire artists and soldiers. But the threat of death at the hands of a prison guard is in no way a part of their punishment. A prisoner who doesn’t attempt escape will not be shot attempting to escape, but if he does, you know what? He is being killed not as any part of the punishment to which he ws sentenced, but as a result of the new crime he has chosen to commit: escaping from prison. If he holds someone hostage with a smuggled gun, guess what? Same thing.
Except for the minuscule number of people whose punishment is capital, physical punishment in this country is prohibited by law. Any physical punishment that is legal (i.e., not deemed “cruel and unusual”), such as being shot while holding a gun on a hostage, is the result of his new crime, not as a part of the original sentence. Prisoners who obey the rules applicable to prison don’t get killed by prison guards, certainly not legally.
Is prison a dangerous place? Of course it is. But prisoners who get punished by physical means have legal recourse, everywhere I know of in this country, other than inside Scumpup’s feverish and sadistic imagination. Violence is wrong, it is illegal (apart from capital punishment, which is not meted out by prison guards), and Scumpup’s twisted analogy remains as ludicrous as it ever was.
Jumping Jesus Krishna on a cracker, you’ve been caught out on this 500 times over and you are still trying to distort what I said. There’s something really wrong with you to stubbornly keep telling the same lie over and over to people who know you are lying. You’re broken, prr.
Earlier you demanded that Scum explain what conditions made it permissible for prison guards to use excessive force. Now you’ve just answered your own question.
You claim that Scum derailed the topic by mentioning prison guards. You’re the one who kept the topic off track, went into excessive drama over it, and then waffled on it repeatedly.
Not only did you dig your own grave in a colossal mound of shit, but you reached out and clawed the shit back in to bury yourself. Just give it up dude.
Apart from the fact that, you know, their job consists of holding people against their will as punishment. It’s the bit that separates “inmate” from “guest.” Apart from that minor bit-- I know, so nitpicky! but there you have it-- apart from that minor bit, you’re absolutely right. And it is also totally irrelevant to the point, which was: people in a position of power over you ultimately back it all up with force. That’s it. Simple, isn’t it? Hard to believe it is a point of contention. But here we are, talking about it like no one ever opened their eyes in public or turned on the television.
