Our Protectors??

"

Brotherhawk wrote:

The moment you go against what is being said to you, you deserve whatever is coming.

That you would even think that, shows me just how little you can be trusted with any authority.

"

Brotherhawk wrote:

Personally I feel that if a police officer tells you to do something, you do it. No exceptions. The moment you go against what is being said to you, you deserve whatever is coming.

Sure the officer could have done things differently like shoot the tires or engine block, but TBH he did what he thought was best at the time.

Also, the comments about the car moving sideways... Have you ever tried standing right next to a car when it's pulling a tight turn? You get knocked over.

From what I have seen in many states, if not all, it is a crime to not comply with any lawful command from a police officer. If the command is unlawful, that's a different matter, and one that can be litigated.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

Brotherhawk wrote:

The moment you go against what is being said to you, you deserve whatever is coming.

That you would even think that, shows me just how little you can be trusted with any authority.

I worded that wrong completely. I'm not saying that this guy deserved to die, I'm more trying to say that if you go against what a police officer is telling you to do, then nothing good will come of it.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

From what I have seen in many states, if not all, it is a crime to not comply with any lawful command from a police officer.

This is how it is where I live.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

Einkil wrote:

If he had not ran he would not have been shot.

Running away from danger should not be a death sentence. It is a biologically encoded INSTINCT. To expect every human to do as they are told and not run is ridiculous.

"

Einkil wrote:

For the argument "the car can't move sideways so he was in no danger!"; the entire car is a deadly weapon not just the front.

Deadly weapons. Let us define them. Anything which can puncture the skin has the potential to cut your throat. Likewise anything which can be broken into pieces which can puncture the skin. Which includes virtually every solid object in the universe. But for those solids which not included in the 'piercing' category; they can still be lodged into your windpipe. So EVERY solid object in the entirity of the cosmos is a deadly weapon.
But lets not stop there, liquids may be harnessed to cause combustion. Or corrosion. Or perhaps are toxic. Or perhaps can be combined to create any of the above. Which includes a vast number of liquids. But even those liquids which dont fall into the previous 'deadly weapon' category can still be used to drown you. Making every liquid in the entire universe a deadly weapon.
Likewise, every gas in the universe can also be used to sufficate you with the exception of molecular oxygen (which can be used to ignite your clothes and hair making it also a 'deadly weapon').
Plasma, the most common state of matter in the universe, is obviously a 'deadly weapon'.
So every single bit of matter in the entire known universe can concievable be considered a 'deadly weapon'. 'deadly weapons' are so ubiquitous that it is not even a meaningful term.

My very hands are 'deadly weapons'.

Let us hope that possession of 'deadly weapons' will never be reason enough alone for capital punishment. Or we are all screwed.

Firstly, there was no danger until he ran unless you consider jail-time danger so your argument is void in that regard. If you're talking about assumed danger, this applies to the police officer as well, and instead of flight he chose fight so by your own logic he officer is not at fault

On to the second point, owning or weilding a deadly weapon is in itself not a crime. However, if you are wielding that deadly weapon and, inadvertently or not, harm someone with it you are liable for assault with a deadly weapon. If you create a situation in which this can be done against an officer of the law they have the right to respond in kind.
I also enjoy how you talk a bout defining deadly weapon and then you come up with your own definition, claiming it is "ubiquitous". What you don't seem to understand is the laymen definition has no meaning. The definition to be used is the legal definition and deadly weapon is defined as follows:
n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons"

Under legal definition the car would be a deadly weapon. Your fists would not. There are of course unique cases where the legal definition can be extended to include human body parts, much like the aids situation. However this is on a case-to-case basis and has no bearing on the normalcy of a human body part is not a deadly weapon. Thus why getting into a fist fight and punching someone is just "assault" and not "assault with a deadly weapon"

"

Einkil wrote:

be a deadly weapon. Your fists would not.

I assure you my hands are quite deadly. Now some highly educated person might try to convince me they are not considered deadly weapons. But that would merely be an arguement over the semantics as it is applied to the vocabulary of a small subset of the populace which truly holds no real truth.

Iv had more guns pointed at my head than i can even remember. So i assume when the shit gets real, others agree with me.

You can try to slither this way and that way to try and rationalize all aspects of the law. To twist and hide all its many many contradictions and double standards into something more 'pleasant'. But in this instance, this man is a murderer. If justice was to be truly served, every person involved in this exoneration would be jailed along side the countless number of human beings they were involved in convicting.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

Einkil wrote:

be a deadly weapon. Your fists would not.

I assure you my hands are quite deadly. Now some highly educated person might try to convince me they are not considered deadly weapons. But that would merely be an arguement over the semantics as it is applied to the vocabulary of a small subset of the populace which truly holds no real truth.

Iv had more guns pointed at my head than i can even remember. So i assume when the shit gets real, others agree with me.

You can try to slither this way and that way to try and rationalize all aspects of the law. To twist and hide all its many many contradictions and double standards into something more 'pleasant'. But in this instance, this man is a murderer. If justice was to be truly served, every person involved in this exoneration would be jailed along side the countless number of human beings they were involved in convicting.

When you are discussing lawful discourse you must use lawful definitions. If he is to be proven a murderer it must be done so through debate used in a manner similar to how it is done in the court where he would be tried. You have yet to prove to me that he is guilty of murder with any of your arguments as they seem to have no coherent lawful backing to them. Thusly all I can say is this: That's just like your opinion man.

"

Einkil1 wrote:

When you are discussing lawful discourse you must use lawful definitions.

What is law but the enforcement of violations of the common good. To get lost in the tradition and lose sight of this is to no longer be of value to society and instead perpetuate a corrupted oppressive regime.

"

Einkil1 wrote:

You have yet to prove to me that he is guilty of murder with any of your arguments as they seem to have no coherent lawful backing to them. Thusly all I can say is this: That's just like your opinion man.

I thought it was so obvious that it did not need to be pointed out. But regardless of my 'arguments' , you are not the judge.

I find the pig GUILTY of manslaughter. 2 years in prison with 50 years suspended on the condition he never carry a weapon or initiate assault.

I find the pigs bosses GUILTY of criminal negligence. 3 months jail time.

I find the pigs trainers GUILTY of criminal negligence. 9 months jail time.

I find the snakes involved in the exoneration of the pig to be GUILTY of corruption and obstruction of justice. 6 years in maximum security prison.

This is a tough one. The guy is about to run from police which can get ugly. But, I do not understand the tactics these police officers are using. You have the guys information, you have an army of people in the area, why the hell would you try to tackle his car?

Why do you drive to within 12 feet of what you expect is an armed person, and jump out of a still moving car, and then feel like you need to immediately open fire, like in Cleveland.


There is a police force for a reason, this is not a die hard movie or lethal weapon, featuring super villains. There are so many tools at the disposal of law enforcement to punish people doing bad stuff. Why only use super hero action flick method? There is a time and a place to spring into action, but making the situation bad with bad thinking isn't that time and place.
You don't get to be impatient with the process and just shoot people because you are impatient with the process and use bad tactics. This is what people are trying to say. Buying dope from an undercover cop does not deserve capital punishment. Even if you try to tackle their car and then feel threatened by the fact you tried to tackle a car. It is hard to say 'well he just had a bad day at work' but that is what happened, but somebody lost their life because he made a bad decision at work.

Let go by the force at the very least for dangerous tactics and just not using his head, but that isn't exactly justice, but it is tough job, especially if you go to jail for life for bad day on the job, but he did take a life for basically no reason.

It honestly just sounds like you have an issue with the police.

"

Einkil1 wrote:

You have yet to prove to me that he is guilty of murder with any of your arguments as they seem to have no coherent lawful backing to them. Thusly all I can say is this: That's just like your opinion man.

This.

/out

I assume that response is not towards me. I have no problem with the idea of police, and in fact, realize police are there for the protection of the criminal from mob rule as much as he is there to protect people from crime.

I do have a problem with police making terrible decisions, like jumping in front of a moving car, and then firing their weapon because they were 'threatened'. He clearly could have prevented the car from backing out in the first place with his vehicle. He could have used the information from the video / other officer to track the people to a residence and serve them a summons or citation there. He could have pursued the guy in a car chase. There were many options that did not require a gun or putting himself directly in front of a moving vehicle. For him to make a terrible decision, and then take somebodies' life is not acceptable, especially for something as minor as buying some pot from a sting officer.