Some fires did something (Kenosha WI)

[Mister Moose]

Right here you assign a higher duty to take risk.

I don't even know what this means. Higher than whose duty? Higher than what? All I meant by the piece you quoted was that police have a dangerous job, and one that entails risk. If they are not willing to undertake that risk, they should not be police. The same could be said of firefighters, soldiers, and many other occupations. Having a risky job does not give you a license to shoot people.

You said police should be willing to die every time they stop a car or arrest someone, if they are not, they should not become police. That is asking them to assume an elevated risk, "being willing to die" that an ordinary man would not assume. Yes the job has different risks than a insurance salesman, but when you state the police "should be willing to die" you elevate the risk the officer should bear above that of the ordinary man. Should the ordinary man in the car being stopped also be willing to die, any more so than the officer?

Put another way, the officer bears the higher job risk of the driver in the car being a criminal, the officer bears the higher job risk of the driver intending to do harm. The officer does not have to bear a higher threshold in his own self defense should the driver 1) resist arrest 2) refuse commands that lower the officers risk and 3) reach for a concealed storage area. I'm surprised I have to spell this out in such detail.

This is where you are confusing issues. There's a continuum of things a police officer can do in response to facts that suggest he needs to exercise reasonable caution. ... If you were paying attention to that ABA article, you would have realized that it is discussing a case where a police officer was found guilty of murder in a shooting where the suspect had a knife and was walking away from police officers. Not all that dissimilar to the Blake case.

What actions are you suggesting the officer do in the .6 seconds the suspect reaches for a concealed storage area (after resisting arrest and refusing orders to de-escalate and reduce the officers risk)? Please list them all.

How is walking away at a distance at all similar to reaching to a concealed storage area when within arms length of the officer? You need to explain that before you can claim any similarity.

[easyrider16]

Okay well at this point I'm going to say that I will stand by what I've already said, and I think it speaks for itself. You disagree and we'll just have to live with that. I don't think it's productive to really discuss this with you any further.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[ME2VTSkier]

Open carry laws have to be some of the dumbest, most redneck bullsh!t we have in this country. Sure, we'll just let any jackass with a hard on for guns walk around our cities and towns with loaded assault rifles. WTF? Lunacy. Even in the Wild West, sheriffs made gunslingers surrender their weapons before entering city limits. Yet here we are a century later letting idiots walk around in crowded areas with much more dangerous weapons. It's asinine.

The more experience I get, the more I realize we need to exercise some serious regulation on gun ownership. You should need a license and that license should require a mental evaluation, criminal background check, an in-person interview, a qualification exam, and regular annual training. There should also be a way to report irresponsible gun owners to police so their licenses can be reevaluated and revoked if the person is found to be acting irresponsibly or seems unstable.

As long as first, they place the same requirements on allowing people to reproduce!

[ME2VTSkier]

Right here you assign a higher duty to take risk.

I don't even know what this means. Higher than whose duty? Higher than what? All I meant by the piece you quoted was that police have a dangerous job, and one that entails risk. If they are not willing to undertake that risk, they should not be police. The same could be said of firefighters, soldiers, and many other occupations. Having a risky job does not give you a license to shoot people.

You seriously don't know what that means? You should really stop while before you reveal how ignorant you really are.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:50 am

Mister Moose wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:03 pm
You think the police should be willing to die every time they stop a car or arrest someone?

If they are not, they should not become police.

You really think cops should be willing to die on EVERY car stop. Heck every cop in the country would be dead in a few weeks if that really were to happen. You have to really think a bit harder on your opinions.

[easyrider16]

Right here you assign a higher duty to take risk.

I don't even know what this means. Higher than whose duty? Higher than what? All I meant by the piece you quoted was that police have a dangerous job, and one that entails risk. If they are not willing to undertake that risk, they should not be police. The same could be said of firefighters, soldiers, and many other occupations. Having a risky job does not give you a license to shoot people.

You seriously don't know what that means? You should really stop while before you reveal how ignorant you really are.

Thanks for the ad hominem. No, I think moose was trying to put words in my mouth here. He was focusing on the risk a police officer has to take and comparing that to the risk a suspect faces, but that doesn't really factor into an analysis of whether the use of force is justified. That analysis turns on whether the officer is legitimately in fear of his life (or serious bodily injury) or there is danger to another's life (or serious bodily injury). You don't get there by discussing who's risk is higher. It's not part of the analysis.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:50 am

Mister Moose wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:03 pm
You think the police should be willing to die every time they stop a car or arrest someone?

If they are not, they should not become police.

You really think cops should be willing to die on EVERY car stop. Heck every cop in the country would be dead in a few weeks if that really were to happen. You have to really think a bit harder on your opinions.

Well this is just a silly argument, and not at all what I said. Allow me to repeat myself. Police have a dangerous job. There is a risk on every stop that they will be subject to violence. If they are not comfortable with that, they should not be police. Just as fireman should not be fireman if they are not willing to run into a burning building. The fact that their job entails risk, however, does not give them a license to shoot people. As I said above, there is a specific legal analysis for when the use of deadly force is justified. My suspicion is that you are the one who is ignorant as to what that analysis entails. I've tried to explain it here and cited the law earlier in the thread. Feel free to read the case law and be educated.

[Bubba]

Feel free to read the case law and be educated.

Getting educated on a subject gets in the way of simply having opinions, a serious violation of KillingtonZone protocols.

[Mister Moose]

Right here you assign a higher duty to take risk.

I don't even know what this means. Higher than whose duty? Higher than what? All I meant by the piece you quoted was that police have a dangerous job, and one that entails risk. If they are not willing to undertake that risk, they should not be police. The same could be said of firefighters, soldiers, and many other occupations. Having a risky job does not give you a license to shoot people.

You seriously don't know what that means? You should really stop while before you reveal how ignorant you really are.

Thanks for the ad hominem. No, I think moose was trying to put words in my mouth here. He was focusing on the risk a police officer has to take and comparing that to the risk a suspect faces, but that doesn't really factor into an analysis of whether the use of force is justified. That analysis turns on whether the officer is legitimately in fear of his life (or serious bodily injury) or there is danger to another's life (or serious bodily injury). You don't get there by discussing who's risk is higher. It's not part of the analysis.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:50 am

Mister Moose wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:03 pm
You think the police should be willing to die every time they stop a car or arrest someone?

If they are not, they should not become police.

You really think cops should be willing to die on EVERY car stop. Heck every cop in the country would be dead in a few weeks if that really were to happen. You have to really think a bit harder on your opinions.

Well this is just a silly argument, and not at all what I said. Allow me to repeat myself. Police have a dangerous job. There is a risk on every stop that they will be subject to violence. If they are not comfortable with that, they should not be police. Just as fireman should not be fireman if they are not willing to run into a burning building. The fact that their job entails risk, however, does not give them a license to shoot people. As I said above, there is a specific legal analysis for when the use of deadly force is justified. My suspicion is that you are the one who is ignorant as to what that analysis entails. I've tried to explain it here and cited the law earlier in the thread. Feel free to read the case law and be educated.

You have not dealt with the difference between ordinary risk of the job (officer approaches an unknown person on a traffic stop) and unreasonable risk (officer must wait to see a weapon on a sudden threatening movement from someone already deemed to be a threat). Just as firemen don't "run into a burning building". They walk, as a team, after assessing the situation, properly equipping themselves, establishing communication and back up plans.

And I think you're wrong on the use of force. Police are specifically licensed to use force in the course of their job. They have powers you or I do not have. Deadly force is a subset of that license, although it will be subject to an investigation every time.

[easyrider16]

I have addressed it in the posts above where I talked about the continuum of things an officer can do to manage risk. I also never said police use of force is measured by the same standard as the average joe. You're so busy trying to win an argument that you're not even really reading what I'm writing. I'm done repeating myself. Much of the relevant case law is referenced in this thread. Go read it for yourself.

[Mister Moose]

I have addressed it in the posts above where I talked about the continuum of things an officer can do to manage risk. I also never said police use of force is measured by the same standard as the average joe. You're so busy trying to win an argument that you're not even really reading what I'm writing. I'm done repeating myself. Much of the relevant case law is referenced in this thread. Go read it for yourself.

I'm addressing your position that an officer at all times has to wait to see a weapon before shooting. You followed that up with a comment on how police should be willing to die on every traffic stop. I did read and didn't see any relevant case law regarding your assertion. Did I miss something on that subject?

[easyrider16]

You are not correctly stating my position or my comments. I never said "an officer at all times has to wait to see a weapon before shooting." Nor did I say police should be willing to die on every traffic stop. I only said they shouldn't be police if they aren't willing to undertake the risks of the profession.

You keep saying the case law I cited to was not relevant. You are wrong. I pointed you to an ABA article, as in the American Bar Association, titled, "What is the legal standard for deadly force in a shooting by police?" It cited to all those cases. You either didn't read the article or misunderstood it.

Here's the link again: https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanew ... -force-in/

[asher2789]

The other issue that I think people need to understand is that police are not allowed to shoot someone for running away and/or not following an order. Here's what the Supreme Court said about it: “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Obviously the details matter. A single officer responding to a scene alone is going to have much more justification for resorting to deadly force than an incident where the suspect is outnumbered by police, as was the case in Kenosha and many other similar cases.

LOL, you're funny.

Cops don't have to wait for the bad guys to pull out their gun and shot first. That's not how use of force works. This isn't f*** Star Wars you neckbeard.

good thing the supreme court isnt a neckbearded pro-fascist loser like you. if the cops are SO SCARED FOR THEIR LIVES then pick another career xxxxxxxx

[yiddle on da fiddle]

In hindsight?...Momma should have seen what a profound waste it was...even putting you on the tit....