Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

I've always found that curious. Most European countries have "duty to aid" laws

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So. I guess we can chuck my "protests are going to fizzle" post in the trash after less than one day. Have to admit I didn't think they'd go with martial law this quickly!

[SalmonGod]

They could still be found guilty of a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, which seems to fit the circumstances more closely.

Not impossible, but highly improbable.  The problem is the requirement that the defendant be "negligent."  More specifically, negligence requires that the defendant owe a duty to the victim.  The duty to refrain from engaging in dangerous acts is easy.   For example, when I drive a car I have a duty to other drivers and pedestrians to refrain from speeding the wrong way on a one way street.  This case is not that, though.  In this case, the prosecution wouldn't be claiming a negligent act, but a negligent omission.  The defendants had a duty to the victim to take certain actions and failed to do so.   That is a LOT harder.  No person has a general duty to act.  Period.  It's the baby on the train tracks.  If I recognize that danger and, instead of acting on it, I walk away, I might be a scumbag, but under the law I've done nothing wrong because I am under no obligation to act in someone else's interests.  To overcome that, they would have to argue that, as police officers, they had a special relationship with the victim that created a duty to act.  That's not a new theory.  It's been tried and failed.  The general position the law takes is that an officer's duty is to society as a whole and NOT to any particular individual.  No duty=no negligence.

If I were the prosecutor, I'd argue that taking the victim into custody created a special relationship and, by extension, a duty of care and a duty to act, but there's pitfalls to that, not the least of which is clarifying when such a duty actually starts.

I know this may not be the way the law will see it, but only because it involves police and a black man.

The other 3 officers didn't only fail to act while Derek Chauvin killed Floyd.  Two of the other officers were directly aiding the process by helping to hold Floyd down.  All 3 of them were aiding the process by being a protecting presence for Chauvin as he committed the act.  They were not bystanders to the situation.  They were active participants in what happened.  Even the one who just stood and watched.  Because I'm sure that not a single person is under any illusion that he would have continued to passively stand and watch if Floyd began to show any success in attempting to defend himself, or if any non-police bystanders stepped in to try and help.

Imagine the mafia kidnapped a white women in broad daylight.  A couple dozen people witness the kidnapping or hear her cries for help as they drag her into a nearby building.  Inside the building, one mafia member beats her to death while the other two hold her down.  Witnesses gather around near the door to the building and listen helplessly, too afraid to try and help, as the fourth mafia member stands guard at the door, glaring at the crowd and patting the gun on his hip.  Would only the mafia member who performed the beating face charges?

[scriver]

In Sweden only the beater would, and probably not even him unless it was somehow provable that it was him not any one of the ones inside that murdered her.

(But I'm not saying that's right)

[Iduno]

1.  If a handful of cops lose their shit and shoot some real bullets, this could instantly explode into 4x as fierce an event as it already is.

Cops have already shot 4 protestors to death that I've heard of, and I haven't been looking into the numbers (although they average ~2.5 fatal shootings per day, so...). Most people feel safe enough with society the way it's going that they will defend any atrocity. I'd love to be proven wrong, but people in this country have chosen "guy who wants to use the military to put down protests" and "the guy who wrote the crime bill to make sure cops will get away with anything they do, and also hates non-whites" as the only options they'll recognize.

[Dunamisdeos]

I hadn't heard about any fatal shootings of protesters, could you link that please?

EDIT: Scratch that, a simple google search as availed me. Multiple deaths, some by police, some by local business owners.

[martinuzz]

Today saw a demonstration on the Malieveld in the Hague, organised by the Dutch chapter of Black Lives Matter.
The demonstration was peaceful and without incident. People even stayed 1.5m apart to respect the corona rules.  See photo above the article (it's my newspaper's corona liveblog so maybe by the time you look there will be a completely different photo)
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/live-demonstranten-rustig-verlopen-protest-den-haag-mensen-moeten-zich-gaan-realiseren-dat-er-een-probleem-is-in-de-samenleving~b859be8f/

[SalmonGod]

Individual deaths like that were bound to happen and will keep the rioting anger sustained, but not escalate the general national event.

I was meaning more along the lines of either multiple people gunned down in a single sensational event, or a group of officers all unloading in a reckless manner on an individual in full sight of the public.

[martinuzz]

Heh, compare that photo to the day before, in Amsterdam:  https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/waarom-werd-femke-halsema-overdonderd-door-duizenden-demonstranten-op-de-dam~b7bb193a/

Must be said, the Dam in Amsterdam is much smaller than the Malieveld in the Hague. The mayor of Amsterdam was completely surprised by the sheer amount of people that came to the demonstration.  They had expected a few hundreds, but there were thousands.


Intersting to see in that photo.. There's almost no police amongst the crowd.  In the bottom left half of the photo you can see two police officers (they wear bright yellow).  It means the atmosphere was relaxed and peaceful.

[SalmonGod]

I feel like this should be shared.  I'm not going to link it directly, because I'm pretty sure it would violate forum rules.  So I'll just say...

Rubber bullets are fucking terrifying.  They are no joke.  They're not even really rubber.  They're metal coated in rubber.  I know that general awareness of this is on the rise.  But everyone should know, when police fire rubber bullets indiscriminately at people, it should be condemned in all but the most extreme circumstances.  They should be a weapon for moderately dangerous situations, not a tool for crowd control on non-threatening groups.

I'm bringing this up, because I came across the best illustration of this I've ever seen.  I've seen many images and videos of rubber bullet wounds.  But they usually don't do a good job of illustrating how severe they are.

Look up Leslie Furcron.  She was shot right between the eyes with a rubber bullet by a police sniper on a rooftop.  When I first saw the image, I thought she was dead.  In fact, I thought she had been stabbed with something, until I read the caption.  Thankfully she is alive, but in a medically induced coma and in danger of losing her eye.

Anybody who acts ignorant about the danger protesters put themselves in - show them that picture.

And police KNOW THIS.  They know when they fire rubber bullets at people's faces that they are potentially killing them.  Ponder that when you see stories and videos of police aiming high at people who aren't being a threat to anyone.  Just another fact that puts the "few bad apples" narrative right in its fucking place.

[Iduno]

https://twitter.com/liveinochi/status/1267504585926557696

That'll teach them to stand around quietly.

I feel like this should be shared.  I'm not going to link it directly, because I'm pretty sure it would violate forum rules.  So I'll just say...

Rubber bullets are fucking terrifying.  They are no joke.  They're not even really rubber.  They're metal coated in rubber.  I know that general awareness of this is on the rise.  But everyone should know, when police fire rubber bullets indiscriminately at people, it should be condemned in all but the most extreme circumstances.  They should be a weapon for moderately dangerous situations, not a tool for crowd control on non-threatening groups.

I'm guessing a tear gas container from a grenade launcher doesn't feel good, either. I'm guessing he's got cracked ribs, at least.

https://twitter.com/jusalotofpain/status/1267638427723296768


Edit:

Look up Leslie Furcron.  She was shot right between the eyes with a rubber bullet by a police sniper on a rooftop.  When I first saw the image, I thought she was dead.  In fact, I thought she had been stabbed with something, until I read the caption.  Thankfully she is alive, but in a medically induced coma and in danger of losing her eye.

Wait, that's not the lady from Dallas who got shot by cops because she had been grocery shopping.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[misko27]

My fear of fears is homegrown terrorists detonate a bomb or something at a protest. A Boston Bombing style incident at a protest would inflame things far in excess of what we've already seen.

[SalmonGod]

Wait, that's not the lady from Dallas who got shot by cops because she had been grocery shopping.

No.  In my opinion, its an even more disturbing image, which is why I didn't directly link it.

[Jimmy]

I've always found that curious. Most European countries have "duty to aid" laws

I've always found this a curious loophole too.

Personally, as a trained First Aid provider, we're taught about legal liability. Essentially, in my country of kangaroo land, if you see someone wounded on the ground, you can politely step over their body and whistle a jaunty tune as you stroll into the sunset. However, if you have training and stop to provide aid, you're liable to be sued if you stop unless physically incapable of continuing, even should said person be cadaverlicious.

Therefore, the strategically and legally tactical maneuver is to ignore everything around you, especially as it pertains to wounded bystanders.

[Zangi]

My lawyer says you or your guardian need to sign this document releasing me of all potential liability before I can help you.