- 03 Jun 2020 18:22
#15097169
Look at the underlined. This is where your argument fails. There should be clear limits on "what means are necessary". Here is why. The argument is not that some means to disburse the looters/rioters should not be used. The argument is about what means should be used. There are actions by the police that are simply too much. A looter, for example, should not be shot. Police should not use excessive force in affecting an arrest. We have seen, in the news and on this very thread, myriad examples of excessive or unnecessary force.
I have no doubt that police face infuriating situations frequently. When train them and arm them to go into the community we are making a bargain with them. We are saying, "Here is deadly force AND the ability to arrest/detain and jail someone pending trial, based solely upon your informed opinion." This is enormous power. Police are trained and should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us when it comes to maintaining their temper, their good judgement and adherence to the training they have been given.
Now @Pants-of-dog You may be quite right that the district attorney who charged these policemen has implanted a poison pill in the charges. IF, as you say, choke holds are not illegal it may offer a shred of defense for the cops. However. I think we are mistaking. This was not a "choke hold". A choke hold is quite a specific thing. This was three men kneeling on a restrained suspect for a prolonged period of time while a fourth watched. No reasonable person could conclude that this was necessary force.
The key to police use of force as determined by court after court is that the force should end when the threat ends. No doubt the police with assert a little known thing called "qualified immunity". I won't go into that here but suffice it to say that they probably won't prevail in this regard because they are not fighting a fourth amendment complaint and the video clearly shows reckless disregard.
But again POD. This case will go to trial or be plead out. Almost certainly the later. Will the third degree murder charge hold? I doubt it. But the lesser charge will probably stand. And the DA can always throw in a negligent homicide charge just to seal the officer's fate. IF the DA does NOT add that charge I will freely admit to you that the choice of charges appears to be a poison pill.
@wat0n Peaceful protests should be allowed to proceed as usual. But if the protest turns into a riot, then it will need to be dispersed using whatever means necessary, and if the government doesn't do it, then people who are hit by looters and arsonists (let alone people who are attacked by these and the rioters) will do so on their own. And yes it's already began.
Look at the underlined. This is where your argument fails. There should be clear limits on "what means are necessary". Here is why. The argument is not that some means to disburse the looters/rioters should not be used. The argument is about what means should be used. There are actions by the police that are simply too much. A looter, for example, should not be shot. Police should not use excessive force in affecting an arrest. We have seen, in the news and on this very thread, myriad examples of excessive or unnecessary force.
I have no doubt that police face infuriating situations frequently. When train them and arm them to go into the community we are making a bargain with them. We are saying, "Here is deadly force AND the ability to arrest/detain and jail someone pending trial, based solely upon your informed opinion." This is enormous power. Police are trained and should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us when it comes to maintaining their temper, their good judgement and adherence to the training they have been given.
Now @Pants-of-dog You may be quite right that the district attorney who charged these policemen has implanted a poison pill in the charges. IF, as you say, choke holds are not illegal it may offer a shred of defense for the cops. However. I think we are mistaking. This was not a "choke hold". A choke hold is quite a specific thing. This was three men kneeling on a restrained suspect for a prolonged period of time while a fourth watched. No reasonable person could conclude that this was necessary force.
The key to police use of force as determined by court after court is that the force should end when the threat ends. No doubt the police with assert a little known thing called "qualified immunity". I won't go into that here but suffice it to say that they probably won't prevail in this regard because they are not fighting a fourth amendment complaint and the video clearly shows reckless disregard.
But again POD. This case will go to trial or be plead out. Almost certainly the later. Will the third degree murder charge hold? I doubt it. But the lesser charge will probably stand. And the DA can always throw in a negligent homicide charge just to seal the officer's fate. IF the DA does NOT add that charge I will freely admit to you that the choice of charges appears to be a poison pill.
To believe in God is impossible not to believe in Him is absurd.
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire