Would police brutality fall if we began charging officers with manslaughter?

No idea what this has to do with police not being allowed to commit manslaughter?

 

Yep. How is a 300lb weightlifter tossing me around like a rag doll in a fight not justification to use lethal force especially if I'm losing?

 

Is he trying to kill you? Or just get away from you?

 

If he's tossing me around like a rag doll, why should that matter?

 

Because one would justify using lethal force, the other would not.

 

In both cases I would be justified to use lethal force. I don't know, in the moment that I'm being tossed around like a rag doll, whether he plans on fleeing or finishing me off. As long as he's actively a threat, I have the right to use any amount of force, up to and including lethal force, to stop him from tossing around like a rag doll.

 

I'm sorry, but Bo is simply more credible than you. And you know it's true.


You hide behind your anonymity, whereas Bo refuses to.

 

If you're looking for logic or some kind of constitutional protection against the cops, you might want to consider that they and the government don't agree.

Sorry, but that ship sailed quite awhile ago. As I wrote previously, it's all completely unconstitutional and immoral, but cops don't care. They'll kill you and walk, and they know that. They won't change and the entire justice system is going to back them up.

As for blacks complaining about that, it's nonsense. We all suffer because of the police. They just think it might make whites feel guilty. The reality is that cops can kill us anytime they want, and nothing will ever be done. Oh sure, the apologists will point to one or two cases back in the day where this didn't happen, but I assure you, that was just internal politics.

The reality is that if cops tow the line, they'll never be prosecuted for killing us in cold blood. They can shoot you or I dead for no reason at all, and go home to a christmas dinner, along with getting a paid vacation while their fellow cops try to figure out a reason for why the cop should be released, and why you should be fitted for a to tag.

Cops are the scum of the earth.

 

Well the don't take my word for it. Here's how police are trained to approach a vehicke during a traffic stop.

https://www.policeone.com/police-pr...rinciples-for-conducting-a-safe-traffic-stop/

Here's how police are trained to respond during a shooting.

https://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/videos/430432519-Reality-Training-Distance-and-cover/

And here's how police are trained on reactionary gap.

https://www.policeone.com/police-tr...onary-gap-Reminders-on-threats-and-distances/

And you don't? Am I expected to believe @Raffishragabash is your actual name?

 

No, only in one situation.

No, you don’t.

 

Had he done so he would have been subjected to an infinitude of attacks from the hate filled far right.

But yes, as Chief Operating Officer of the USA he should boldly take a stand as he is responsible for what goes on here, not overseas. This contrary to the mythic beliefs of some who feel he is to be policeman for the world but is to avoid all such domestic issues.

As always, the easy way to fix the problem is to disarm the government and to arm the people as in the 2d Amendment. If right wingers were as principled as they pretend to be, they would agree 100% with that.

 

None of this matters, when cops go out into the field and perfect a culture unlike the training. Tamir Rice Michael Brown Sandra Bland Walter Scott Philando Castille the list goes on and on, of instances, where cops of TODAY refused to do what's at your new links here. Yes and refused to do what Bo proposed which 70's-80's cops used to do.

 

No, in both.

Evidence?

 

Balto, the fact that an officer has shot someone simply isn't enough evidence to arrest him for a crime. After all, police officers are charged with the dangerous duty of stopping crimes in progress and arresting criminals, some of whom may be extremely dangerous. That's why we give them guns in the first place, so that they may use them in a legally justifiable manner.

You may not be aware of this, but it is extremely common in the U.S. for one citizen to shoot another, and there is no arrest and no charges to the shooter. Examples may be the shop owner who shoots an armed robber, the homeowner who shoots someone who is breaking into their home, or the woman who shoots a man who intends to rape her. These things happen in the U.S. all the time, and police make no arrest.

And the reason is that homicide is not necessarily illegal. The mere fact that someone shoots someone else dead is not probable cause to believe that the shooter committed a crime. The related evidence must show that the shooting was unlawful and unjustifiable to make an arrest. Hence, many civilians are not arrested for shootings, nor are they ever charged with anything.

And since police officers are charged with the very dangerous duties that they are, the shootings they get involved in are investigated carefully before charges are brought against them, if warranted. The vast majority of officer-involved shootings are entirely justified. And if the officer acts with malice, illegally, or with gross negligence, all of that should be able to be proven in the investigation.

It would do absolutely no good - in fact, it would be a gross abuse of good people - to immediately lock up every officer that gets involved in a shooting.

Seth

 

You were disputing the claim that cops are trained to observe their surroundings and take their time. Time, Distance, and Cover, right? I show you articles illustrating that police are in fact being trained on those things and now here you are moving the goalposts to where police are ignoring the training given, which isn't true.

We've already covered this.

Brown walked up to the car, punched the officer, tried to grab his gun, ran off, the officer gave chase, and then Brown turned around and charged him. A justified shoot through and through.

She committed suicide in a jail cell by hanging herself. How is that related to cops needing the training you suggest?

The officer who shot him was tried and I believe convicted.

While the officer was overreacting, Castile continued to reach when the officer told him not to even to the point of the officer grabbing his arm.

Do you have evidence that the cops of the 70's and 80's shot less unarmed people than cops of today? I'm asking for statistics which you refuse to give.

 

Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. You're forgetting that for every Castille, there are millions of police interactions where the officers follow procedure almost in texbook form.

 

No. One is self defense. The other is manslaughter.

Evidence of what? The law? You can’t kill an unarmed person, if they aren’t trying to kill you, or cause serious bodily harm to you. Resisting you or attempting to flee is not constitutional grounds to take a life.

 

You're forgetting, officers who actually followed procedures and avoided shooting-via-assumption, they are NOT the problem.

 

Again, where's your evidence? There are plenty of cases of both law enforcememt and civilians defending themselves with lethal firce under less extreme circumstances and being found justified.

Let me ask you, what do you picture when I say "300 lb weightlifter tossing me around like a rag doll and I'm losing badly"?

 

If you're going to respond to me, please quote me. Either way, that's not what you said. You said cops are refusing to abide by the training you suggest. That implies that it's most or a large portion of officers who are ignoring this specific training.

 

This is the NAWALT nonsense. Not ALL cops do that, so what the hell?

Sorry big boy, but they cover up for each other. They're ALL like that. Just that many play along because that's how they get paid.

At the end of the day they're ALL like that.

 

Let me propose a hypothetical for all the scumbag cops out there, and their scumbag enthusiasts.

Let's say that a cop pulls somebody over for a broken taillight. Usually just a "fix it bro" type of deal. However, there's a warrant out for that person's arrest.

Will you or your scumbag ilk arrest that person?

If so, you're a scumbag! You don't know what that guy did, but you do know there is a warrant for that person's arrest, so regardless of anything you know, you'll arrest him and throw him in a jail cell.

You're all guilty by association, you scumbags!!!!!

 

Which has nothing to do with the fact one is actually justified, and the other is not.

Depends. Again, are you a cop and is he merely trying to get away, or kill you?

 

Don't argue with the cops on the side of the road. DO lawyer up. Don't answer a single question. You may beat the rap, but only in rare circumstances will you beat the ride. I beat the ride once, but only when I pointed out to the cop in question that the warrant he was trying to execute on me was for a black male with the same name when I was clearly a white male. And I got lucky with that, in that I happened to see his computer screen and noticed the discrepancy. I probably should have let him arrest me, would likely have resulted in a nice settlement.

Regardless, if they tell you to put your hands up, put your hands up. If they tell you to get on the ground, do so. If they say turn around and put your hands behind your back, do it. The courtroom is the place to make your case, not, at the risk of being repetitive, the side of the road.