Print

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

[martinuzz]

Bumber, with all due respect, you show remarkably little interest in the value of a human life (especially considering this was just a child).
Maybe go talk to a shrink or something. Your reasoning is a (indirect) threat to the life of those around you.

[nenjin]

I'll reiterate: The cop doesn't know that the gun has been dropped.

And what do we do when we don't actually know what's going on kids?

o P e N f I r E! Better a 90% chance of dead kid than a ?% chance of a dead cop amirite?

[nenjin]

Have some more law and order.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/virginia-man-isaiah-brown-shot-by-sheriffs-deputy-after-calling-911-for-help/2649178/

The same deputy who gave him a ride home returned to the scene after a 9/11 call, shot him _10 times_, and now police won't release the body cam footage or even state why the officer opened fire. It's "immediately been turned over to a special prosecutor for review."

Can't wait to hear Bumber play this one off.

[None]

'Bout all I can reckon (or hope) is that it's being withheld for now to gather an impartial jury, assuming some legal action is to follow, and that standard procedure is to empty the magazine when opening fire on someone.

Doesn't excuse the fact that, y'know, why would the same deputy open fire on the guy he drove home like literally what the fuck. Word on the internets is that the call was related to an argument between the now dead man and his brother about returning to get his car so it wouldn't be towed, which really just raises more eyebrows.

Regrettably, 'wait and see' and hope we get the footage is probably the best anyone can do, but it definitely deserves scrutiny.

[Iduno]

'Bout all I can reckon (or hope) is that it's being withheld for now to gather an impartial jury, assuming some legal action is to follow, and that standard procedure is to empty the magazine when opening fire on someone.

Doesn't excuse the fact that, y'know, why would the same deputy open fire on the guy he drove home like literally what the fuck. Word on the internets is that the call was related to an argument between the now dead man and his brother about returning to get his car so it wouldn't be towed, which really just raises more eyebrows.

Regrettably, 'wait and see' and hope we get the footage is probably the best anyone can do, but it definitely deserves scrutiny.

I think it's more "we just had to actually enforce the law against an officer, try not to make the papers for a week or we'll have to do it again".

Considering police claim there were 18 days last year they didn't kill anyone, we all know that a full week wasn't going to happen.

[SOLDIER First]

Regardless of your actual position, Bumber is making completely intelligible and reasonable points. This sort of strawman is frankly trolling.

a strawman is used during debate to avoid attacking the opponent's argument. i'm not debating bumber, i am making fun of them because i do not respect them or their argument. to justify the murder of a child by an ostensibly highly trained and qualified professional is utterly laughable and i do not consider anyone who would do so worthy of being my opponent in any sort of debate.

[anewaname]

Stillman knew about his bodycam. If Stillman intended murder, he would have done it as soon as the kid started to turn towards Stillman, before the hands started moving up.

The funny thing about watching video footage from a bodycam, is that it looks different if you watch it while running a 50 meter dash, and at that moment when you stop running but your heart is still pushing out the bloodflow needed for running, your ability to clearly see would be reduced further and it would be easy to miss something important.

I would like to see the bodycam footage showing the police encountering Ruben Roman, who started the shooting that night, and heard what the police were saying. That might clarify what Stillman knew when he started chasing the child... the child with the gun.

[Bumber]

19 seconds of wrongly assuming that the kid posed a threat.  At least a second of premeditating murder.

At best we coud say that the cop didn't know if the kid was a theat or not.  So that might (at best) make it murder two.

Self defence can't fly when there is no immediately life threatening situation.

If someone has a gun, they're a potential threat. If a sensible person would believe that their life was in imminent danger, then shooting first is justifiable use of lethal force, not murder.

The idea that you can "premeditate" something in a second is frankly ridiculous on its face. That's not even enough time to thoughtfully "meditate" an action. The officer also only fired a single shot to the chest, and attempted to keep him alive afterwards.

Bumber, with all due respect, you show remarkably little interest in the value of a human life (especially considering this was just a child).
Maybe go talk to a shrink or something. Your reasoning is a (indirect) threat to the life of those around you.

Don't presume to know the value I place on human life. The child was hanging around with a gang member at 2am and carrying a gun. The loss of life is tragic, but the officer isn't the one that put a gun in the kid's hand.

i am making fun of them because i do not respect them or their argument. to justify the murder of a child by an ostensibly highly trained and qualified professional is utterly laughable and i do not consider anyone who would do so worthy of being my opponent in any sort of debate.

The feeling is mutual. I much doubt you're even capable of logical debate, instead spewing emotion rather than searching for the actual facts of an incident.

Can't wait to hear Bumber play this one off.

You'll have to wait until we get the body cam footage. IIRC, the police department claimed they need a court order to release it. The laws differ by state.

[feelotraveller]

If someone has a gun, they're a potential threat. If a sensible person would believe that their life was in imminent danger, then shooting first is justifiable use of lethal force, not murder.

So I'm hearing that you think the kid should have shot first?  And that the police don't have a duty of public care, wtf?

Equating that officer with a 'sensible person' whose 'life is in imminent danger' is high farce.

The idea that you can "premeditate" something in a second is frankly ridiculous on its face. That's not even enough time to thoughtfully "meditate" an action.

If the officer arrived at the scene with the intention of shooting the kid (perhaps conditional on gun possession) and then carries through on that action, yes.  A full second is more than enough to time to question whether it is appropriate to shoot or not.

Hanging out with a gang member at 2am and carrying a gun is not a reason for summary execution.

[Frumple]

Stateside cops have largely not been found to have a duty of public care, no, last I noticed. For what that's worth. Courts usually look at kind of thing and decide in the favor of the cop throwing folks under a bus. It's somewhere in that general constellation of messes that let them lie to you with more or less absolute impunity under most circumstances. They're not there to help you in particular, by and large.

... and if that sounds like absolute horseshit to you, well. Welcome to the state of US law enforcement. It's pretty damn horseshit!

[feelotraveller]

Oh yeah, i get that a lot of policing in the US is abusive policing.  Still there's that troublesome 'protect and serve' moniker. 

Which is to say that there are other regimes of policing that inflict far less carnage - and these generally invoke a duty of public care (i.e., to protect and serve  ).

It's true that the abhorrent form of policing does not exist in a vaccum and gets support from the courts and politicians, no less than the attitudes of (at least some members of) the general public... 

[Frumple]

Yeah, protect and serve is propaganda nonsense, not practical, enforced, policy. At least in the US.

Plenty of other countries do, indeed, have less murderous cops. Lot of reasons for that, personally I'm coming around to the position most police just can't be trusted with a gun and the general public would be well served if we just disarmed most of the blighters. Wouldn't fix everything, not by a long shot, but it sure is a lot harder to shoot someone if you're not toting a gun around.

[Rolan7]

A cop lives in my townhouse lot, and someone else drives with a year-expired license plate.  But the cop doesn't do anything about that.  My brother (who used to be training for law enforcement) explained it as cops knowing not to [poop] where they eat.  The cop knows better than to make enemies of his neighbors.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk on why cops should come from the communities they police.  And another example of how they choose who to harass police.  I'd say it's arbitrary but they often have very clear reasons for targeting certain people.

[JoshuaFH]

A cop lives in my townhouse lot, and someone else drives with a year-expired license plate.  But the cop doesn't do anything about that.  My brother (who used to be training for law enforcement) explained it as cops knowing not to [poop] where they eat.  The cop knows better than to make enemies of his neighbors.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk on why cops should come from the communities they police.  And another example of how they choose who to harass police.  I'd say it's arbitrary but they often have very clear reasons for targeting certain people.

That doesn't sound like a very convincing argument. That the application of law be impartial and objective, as opposed to arbitrary, is one of the ideals of having laws in the first place. That the cop in question looks the other way for his neighbors, just to avoid personal conflict, is only a good arrangement for the guy with the expired license plate, and it's not good for the rest of society to have the law enforced inconsistently, for any reason. Yeah it's a petty, small offense, but I'm just talking about ideals.

Now, I wouldn't say that out-of-town cops that don't give a shit about the local residents is any better, but it theoretically allows for impartiality, even if that's not how it turns out due to the idiotic ethos permeating both cop culture and American culture at large.

[Rolan7]

Mmn, objective law enforcement is... an ideal, I guess.  We'd certainly need to change the laws if we ever got close to that, since the current system is based around cops ignoring most crime.  That's just how it's designed.  They almost always have a legal excuse to stop someone, but they're expected to have some other, *real* reason to do so.  Obviously this leads to abuse, because it's based on racism classism gut feelings.

These issues of "othering" become much worse when the cops live away from where they patrol.  It's not (just) about them facing social consequences for abusing their power (though that's how sheriffs, as elected officials, are designed).  It's also about them seeing their charges as fellow people, not others.