Regardless of what the apologists wish to believe, there is a very well established principle in both civil and criminal law known as “eggshell skull rule” of “you take your victim as you find him”.
Nonsense. But again, I am thoroughly entertained by your desire to craft the cop=racist=bad narrative you crave. Again, and I think for the last time: it is fair to say that Michael Brown was killed by the cop. It is not fair to say that the cops killed Eric Garner. The procedures they used on him are used every day without death occurring. If Garner wasn’t obese and asthmatic, he’d still be alive.
Your hopeless bias on this issue is neon-evident in your laughable assessment that of the two statements I asked you about, you chose the one you did. You really should re-examine that. How you can choose the one you did as more accurate is simply astonishing. But hey, who cares about logic and fairness when you’re fighting the good fight, right?
Unless you come to the point that you feel reality is better served by you changing your answer, there’s really no point in continuing this. Alternatively, perhaps you can start a new thread about “Which statement is more concise?”
Try to keep track of your own bullshit, you disingenuous sack of nothing useful.
No, the procedures they used are NOT used every day. They did NOT follow standard procedures. You never answered my questions about that, remember?
They left someone in obvious respiratory distress in a prone position, despite being trained about the risks of doing so, and witnessing his distress and subsequent non responsiveness. That he was obese just increases* their* culpability, because they were trained to know that obese individuals are an especially high risk for positional asphyxia.
The NYPD produced a video about this very thing several years ago and has offered it to other PDs. It will be a major point in the civil settlement.
They killed him. Call it recklessness, call it negligence, call it stupidity (it is well known they assign the dimmest bulbs to the Staten Island precincts), but they killed him.
Nope. Cops are mostly great. My cousin’s a cop. It’s entirely possible to say, like Terr does, that the cops killed Garner and the cops behaved appropriately and should not be sanctioned. Killing does not = murder, not necessarily. You can believe the cops did the right thing and still believe the cops killed Garner. Like Terr.
You’re totally wrong about me and what I’m saying. It’s really not that hard. The cops took him to the ground and he died. When a group of people take down a fat, sick man to the ground, sometimes the fat sick man dies. Sometimes taking him to the ground kills him. This doesn’t make it racist, bad, evil, or murder. It just makes it killing. Just like if it were muggers.
Whether or not they use it every day is immaterial. I know they didn’t intend to kill Garner. The cops didn’t want Garner to die. If they thought he would die, they probably would have taken different actions.
But they killed him, by mistake. If a fat old man who was asthmatic wasn’t fat, old, and asthmatic, muggers throwing him to the ground probably wouldn’t kill him. But if they throw him to the ground and he dies, they killed him.
I don’t know why you’re insistent that I’m trying to prove the cops are bad. I don’t know if they are. They may have acted appropriately. Killing is not always against the law. Sometimes it’s an accident, sometimes it’s self-defense. But they killed him, just like the muggers who throw people down sometimes kill fat old men by mistake.
Re-examined, and I chose the most accurate one. Even more accurate would have been A + B – the cops killed him, and his health problems contributed to his death. His health problems contributed to how easy it was to kill him.
I’ve answered all your questions. You haven’t answered mine. Even if you don’t think it applies, why not answer? What are you afraid of? If muggers accost a fat old man, they try to take his wallet, he resists and they throw him to the ground, and he dies, did the muggers kill the fat old man?
What are you afraid of? Why is this question so scary? If you say “yes” it doesn’t mean the cops are bad. It doesn’t mean the cops behaved wrongly. It just means that they took actions that resulted in someone’s death. That’s what killing is. Sometimes cops kill people, and sometimes (maybe usually) it’s appropriate. Sometimes cops kill people by accident, even though their actions are entirely appropriate. “The cops killed Garner” doesn’t mean “the cops are racist”, “the cops are bad”, “the cops are murderers”.
You and Terr can go cuddle up in a hammock in the Caribbean. I’m happy for you two. Your agreement with him, or his with you, may be a moment to memorialize, but it adds zip to how persuasive I find your position.
Then you need mental help. It’s complete and utter nonsense. There is no possibility that the one you chose is the more accurate one. The other ascribes blame 1) to the cops and 2) health factors. Health factors you agreed were present. (Unless you’re ready to start weaseling on your weaselly “possibly/probably” answer.) So, now that you’ve reassessed your answer, it is now bullshit x 2.
:rolleyes: If you think question based on a spectacularly inapt analogy frightens me in some way, well, good for you.
Look, I have zero problem stating as fact that a cop killed someone. I am fully aware that it may be murder, it may be completely justified, and it may be an accident. Watch this:
Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown.
See, that was easy. And if one of his stray bullets had hit a little kid in a playground and killed him, I’d have no problem saying that Darren Wilson killed the little kid. Similarly, I have no problem stating that the cops killed Tamir Rice. So you can disabuse yourself of the notion that I’m unable or unwilling to state factual information about cops killing people. But this incident is different. Their was not one thing that caused the death of Garner. It was a confluence of things.
But you go right ahead contorting reality in order to get your jollies by saying that the cops killed Garner.
It demonstrates that this has nothing to do with motives. One can believe the cops killed Garner, as Terr does, and believe that this says nothing about whether the cops’ actions were appropriate or not. This question has nothing to do with racism, or the evilness of cops, or police behavior in general. It’s not about my beliefs on police, which are generally quite positive. They’re mostly good and decent people.
You cut out the “A + B” part, I noticed, which (you’ll probably ignore) makes the exact same point. A is more accurate than B, but A + B is more accurate (due to completeness) than both.
Then answer it – answer my question about the hypothetical muggers throwing a fat old man to the ground, and him dying.
Again, this “confluence of things” strangeness means that when muggers throw fat old men to the ground, and the fat old men die, then (according to the “confluence of things” argument) the muggers didn’t kill the fat old men. I find that very, very hard to understand.
If completeness is a metric you value, then the answer you chose of the two is even more stupefyingly unsupportable. Unfuckingbelievable.
Yes. But facts like this are no fun and are studiously ignored, in favor of repeating tired tropes to play “annoy the liberals”. Better to latch onto some semantic nitpick or prey on a weak analogy and continue to yank chains. That’s what the* known career assholes* do on this board, and for some reason we keep throwing them more chains to yank.
Let’s watch this get ignored yet again…
I’ll ask again, very kindly – will you answer my question about the muggers and the fat old man?