And the only evidence that he pointed the gun at the police is the testimony of a police officer who was fired from his previous job for lying on police reports.
He then got fired, not for shooting Tamir Rice, but for lying about why he was fired from the previous job.
You’re putting words in my mouth.
See, this is the kind of tactic I have seen reporters use when conducting interviews. Ask a question that insinuates the interviewee made a certain statement when nothing even close to that was said. If the interviewee doesn’t catch it it makes the reporter absent of malice and able to report that the subject said or sort of said something they did not, or at least that they did not deny it. If the subject interviewed does catch it it puts them on the defensive and makes them look like they are backtracking by having to explain exactly what they said.
Either way the tactic is horseshit and it’s why I went a bit off my nut earlier. It happens too often to just be idiocy on behalf of the poster using the tactic, it is intentional used by those whose arguments are failing.
So what DO you mean @pkbites? What makes it so that America is unique in its high police killing citizens rate as opposed to other countries?
Either it’s the police who are uniquely aggressive, or American civilians are uniquely violent. And if you believe American civilians are uniquely violent, the fact that you are entrusted with life and death power to serve and protect them is truly disturbing. I was being charitable by assuming you meant the first option.
Nah. You were trying to put words into my mouth. It’s something I have observed you and others on these boards do. It’s obnoxious.
And assumption is the mother of all screw ups.
And will you answer the question?
I think y’all will find this interesting:
Grounds for appeal?
“Made a mistake but was still responsible” is a reasonable layman’s description of manslaughter.
Certainly it fits with the definition of second degree manslaughter, but makes me wonder about the basis for first degree manslaughter. Going through the statute, in part:
609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:
(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;
Seems not to apply if the jury concluded Potter didn’t intend to draw and fire her pistol, but only did so by mistake.
(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;
I could see that this might apply, but only if the jury felt that even the use of the taser itself was unwarranted and would have amounted to a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense (like assault/battery) even if it had been drawn instead of the gun. Did the jury find her guilty of some form of assault or battery? Did they have the option to? Not that they needed to have the option to, but it would help clarify things if they did. The point is, I read this as saying that in order to find Potter guilty of first degree manslaughter by virtue of a mistake, what she intended to do in lieu of the mistake itself needed to be some form of misdemeanor.
Paragraphs (3) thru (5) of the statute are not applicable.
ETA: It’s not just limited to assault. It could be any misdemeanor. In this case, it seems the misdemeanor alleged was related to the “reckless handling or use of a firearm so as to endanger the safety of another with such force and violence that death or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable.”
So, yeah, the first degree manslaughter conviction also makes sense.
This is why I was amazed that she was convicted of First Degree. I couldn’t see how the facts would fit.
I doubt that American civilians are uniquely prone to violence, but they may be uniquely prone to having guns in their possession. I am sure that part of the problem is that our police are trained to be violent, and have a violent culture. But there may be some cause for that having developed.
That being said, if we could reduce the number of civilians killed by cops by 50%, and the cost was 10% more cops were killed in the line of duty, I’d be enthusiastically in favor.
Why not 50% and 50%? That would be 500 civilians vs 25 cops.
The next time a police officer is killed in the line of duty and the suspect survives I dare you to go to the funeral and tell the cops family this.
And I assume you will be going to the 20 civilian funerals for every one that @puzzlegal attends, explaining to the civilian families that these violent tactics are the only possible way for the police to operate?
The next time police officers murder an unarmed kid in cold blood I dare you to go to the kid’s funeral and tell his family that at least it wasn’t a cop who died. You won’t have to wait as long as Puzzlegal.
I didn’t make such a vulgar suggestion regarding increasing the deaths of public servants to decrease the deaths of criminals.
If they are so enthusiastic about it, let them put their money where their mouth is.
You think 5 additional dead cops to save 500 civilian lives (citation needed that they’re all “criminals”, but even if they are) is “vulgar”?
You have a very strange definition of “serve and protect”.
What fraction of a cop’s life is this girl’s life worth? 1/100th? 1/1000th? Or would an infinite number of innocent girls be worth casting onto the pyre to save a single cop?
It’s not “vulgar”, it’s realistic. It’s showing more respect for the dangers cops do face than just optimistically imagining that we can save civilian lives through less aggressive police tactics without increasing the risk to LEO.
Currently, police tactics are calibrated to a level of violence that protects the cops very well, but results in 1000 civilian deaths each year with only 50 cops killed. It’s that 20:1 ratio that is vulgar.
I won’t pretend that we could save half those civilian lives without placing LEO at somewhat increased risk. How much risk is acceptable to you? If we could (say) change tactics to save 500 civilian lives at the cost of 25 LEO lives, would you really call that a “vulgar” suggestion? Why do only cops’ lives count in your calculus of vulgarity?
Conversely, from your perspective where only cops’ lives count whatever the ratio, would you think it acceptable to double the civilian death count to 2000 per year if that would reduce the LEO mortality rate to zero? Because I can imagine ways to do that. Just drive around in tanks and blast away at people who look suspicious.
For clarity 5 additional officer deaths would be based on Puzzlegal’s original suggestion of 50% fewer civilian deaths for 10% more officer deaths, which is what PKBites apparently thinks is “vulgar”. 25 additional LEO deaths would be Riemann’s amended suggestion of 50% for 50% which I can’t even imagine PK’s reaction to.
Absolutely.
Because you are using the overall number of civilian deaths and not the number of those found to have been unjustified.
In other words, if all 500 hundred of those saved were doing something in which using lethal force against them was justified in your mind it’s still better to let them live while 25 cops die. If you could show that each of those 500 deaths were unjustified you might have an argument, except if those 500 weren’t doing anything wrong how do those additional 25 cops get killed?
Take police officers out of the equation for a moment. Every year thousands of people use lethal force to protect themselves from abusive spouses, burglars, robbers, etc… And many of those uses of force are determined to be justified. By your science it would be better if some of those battered wives and home owners were killed instead of the criminals that were victimizing them.
Your overall argument isn’t “let’s change tactics so less citizens get killed by the police” it’s “let’s change tactics so less citizens get killed by police and more cops get killed”. Take that public, let me know the response you get.