African-American Asphyxiated by Police in Minneapolis - Page 177 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15110942
@wat0n

1. You continue to confuse armed violence with unarmed violence.

2. Feel free to quote whatever text you are referring to and explain how it supports an argument.

3. Three cops shot at Breonna Taylor after breaking into her home. Three. And the four cops who killed Elijah McClain.
#15110947
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. You continue to confuse armed violence with unarmed violence.


I don't, I simply don't assume it's somehow magically impossible for mentally ill people to be carrying weapons and even use them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Feel free to quote whatever text you are referring to and explain how it supports an argument.


Already did so, feel free to check the relevant post.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Three cops shot at Breonna Taylor after breaking into her home. Three. And the four cops who killed Elijah McClain.


And those three cops were placed on administrative leave, meaning they cannot go around shooting people claiming they do so as part of their police duties.
#15111094
@wat0n

1. Since I never claimed that “ it's somehow magically impossible for mentally ill people to be carrying weapons and even use them“, and since my argument does not assume that as a premse, this is an irrelevant criticism.

2, I have no idea what your argument is, so I am not going to look back through your previous posts to find you evidence for you. If you wish to repeat an argument, please do so.

3. But they are walking around free. And they can carry guns. And if they hapen to kill a black person for whatever reason, they will still enjoy the impunity that cops enjoy when they kill black people. The administrative leave does not change that.
#15111098
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. Since I never claimed that “ it's somehow magically impossible for mentally ill people to be carrying weapons and even use them“, and since my argument does not assume that as a premse, this is an irrelevant criticism.


Should mental health workers who face such a situation be allowed to request police backup?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2, I have no idea what your argument is, so I am not going to look back through your previous posts to find you evidence for you. If you wish to repeat an argument, please do so.


Oh you do have an idea of what my argument is, the actual problem is that you can't admit you have no response to it so you prefer to play dumb. Unfortunately for you the law doesn't lie and I already cited it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. But they are walking around free. And they can carry guns. And if they hapen to kill a black person for whatever reason, they will still enjoy the impunity that cops enjoy when they kill black people. The administrative leave does not change that.


No, they don't "enjoy the impunity cops enjoy", firstly because it doesn't exist, secondly because they were suspended so they cannot claim to be fulfilling any duties if they do so while being suspended. I don't know what the gun carry laws are in Louisville but I assume they would also need a permit to carry while suspended.
#15111114
@wat0n

1. Of course.

2. Again, you can accuse me of whatever you want, but that does not change the fact that you are not being clear as to what your argument is.

3. You can assume whatever you want. And yes, a culture of impunity exists, or else Elijah McClain’s killers and Breonna Taylor’s killers would have been punished.
#15111115
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. Of course.


Then surely you can then be ok with having cops nearby so they can arrive more quickly? This is keeping in mind that these first responders would be responding to what is already a 911 emergency, and may in some cases have the caller herself saying the person is armed.

The rest of the points have already been dealt with: It's not about assumptions, but simply following the relevant laws in each, including due process and the presumption of innocence (aka letting the courts do their job).
#15111117
@wat0n

1. No, the whole point is to exclude cops as much as possible since they are the ones who are killing people.

The mental health workers do not kill people. The people suffering from mental illness do not kill people. the cops do. Why should I invite cops to be there when they can come as soon as someone dials 911?

2. And since I have no idea what your argument is, I cannot address it.

3, Please explain how Elijah McClain was afforded presumption of innocence. Also explain how cops enagged in due process before killing Breonna Taylor.

And this does not change the fact that all these killers are out walking the streets right now, and most of then still enjoy the culture of impunity that keeps cops from being held accountable when they kill black people.
#15111133
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. No, the whole point is to exclude cops as much as possible since they are the ones who are killing people.

The mental health workers do not kill people. The people suffering from mental illness do not kill people. the cops do. Why should I invite cops to be there when they can come as soon as someone dials 911?


Because you know that, in this particular case, the healthcare workers are risking their lives. How do you know that? Because the 911 caller is already warning the mentally ill person is armed.

As for the rest, I also addressed all of those claims and I am under no obligation to do so again as if we hadn't been through this argument, if you have nothing new to add.
#15111137
1. Since I never claimed that “ it's somehow magically impossible for mentally ill people to be carrying weapons and even use them“, and since my argument does not assume that as a premse, this is an irrelevant criticism.


Make no mistake all. A great many mentally ill people in the US are heavily armed. I see them in the clinic every day. I had a conversation with one of them this very morning. He had two knives, nunchaku, and a 25 cal pistol. Crazy as a loon. This guy could waltz into any gun show and arm himself to the hilt. Or jut hit yard sales until he found a gun.

It is a national disgrace and has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment and everything to do with really stupid people. Mostly republicans.
#15111153
@wat0n

1. I have no idea why you are now moving the goalposts to solely discussing the situations where mentally ill people are armed.

This is why I asked for evidence that GUN violence was more likely than in the general population. You did not provide the evidence.

If you are now focusing solely on the unlikely scenario where an armed person (who also happens to have a mental illness) is somehow doing something that requires a 911 call, and you are assuming that I am arguing that a mental helath worker should ho out aline in that particular scenario, even though there is no reaon to think that the mental health issue is the problem.

In that particular scenario that you are now focusing on, mental health is not the issue. The issue is the armed person who is doing something that apparently requires emergency responders.

To be honest, I have no good argument for police abolition when it comes to armed aggressors, except to point out that cops do not necessarily stop (nor are they legally obligated to stop) violence anyway.

But if you are focusing on that unlikely scenario, you are conceding that cops are not necessary in the majority of situations involving mental illness.

2. You have still not clarified your argument, so I am going to assume you have no interest in supporting whatever it was.

If you were still arguing that cops can be charged for dereliction of duty for allowing a person to be targeted with physical violence by an assailant, I asked for an example and you never provided one.

3. So we agree that the cops and the legal system have decided that for now, the killers of Elijah McClain and Breonna Taylor are free to walk the streets, and that most still enjoy police impunity for any subsequent shootings of innocent black people, and that only one cop was fired and even that was more political than any real punishment for Ms. Taylor’s killing.
#15111157
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. I have no idea why you are now moving the goalposts to solely discussing the situations where mentally ill people are armed.


I haven't moved the goalposts: Again, and this is the last time I'll repeat it, I was referring to the case in which mental health workers may be unable to subdue the person. For instance, because the person has a gun.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is why I asked for evidence that GUN violence was more likely than in the general population. You did not provide the evidence.


There is no reason to limit it to guns either. It would also hold if they were carrying a knife, for instance.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are now focusing solely on the unlikely scenario where an armed person (who also happens to have a mental illness) is somehow doing something that requires a 911 call, and you are assuming that I am arguing that a mental helath worker should ho out aline in that particular scenario, even though there is no reaon to think that the mental health issue is the problem.

In that particular scenario that you are now focusing on, mental health is not the issue. The issue is the armed person who is doing something that apparently requires emergency responders.

To be honest, I have no good argument for police abolition when it comes to armed aggressors, except to point out that cops do not necessarily stop (nor are they legally obligated to stop) violence anyway.

But if you are focusing on that unlikely scenario, you are conceding that cops are not necessary in the majority of situations involving mental illness.


Certainly not, which is why I suggested they should be nearby rather than intervene if it's unnecessary. And yes, cops would probably be necessary in that kind of situation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. You have still not clarified your argument, so I am going to assume you have no interest in supporting whatever it was.

If you were still arguing that cops can be charged for dereliction of duty for allowing a person to be targeted with physical violence by an assailant, I asked for an example and you never provided one.


Why don't you explain how else would the laws be interpreted then? I actually showed a case that is more roundabout than the scenario you mention (a detective who negligently didn't pursue sexual assault cases despite having the evidence to do so), let alone a flagrant violation of the statute on the matter like the one you described.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. So we agree that the cops and the legal system have decided that for now, the killers of Elijah McClain and Breonna Taylor are free to walk the streets, and that most still enjoy police impunity for any subsequent shootings of innocent black people, and that only one cop was fired and even that was more political than any real punishment for Ms. Taylor’s killing.


The legal system hasn't decided anything because they haven't been charged.
#15111221
@wat0n

1. But if you are focusing on that unlikely scenario, you are conceding that cops are not necessary in the majority of situations involving mental illness.

Again, the point is to limit cop involvement as much as possible in order to safe lives.

2. I already posted the law, the court cases, and the statements by judges and lawyers taht clearly shows that cops do not have an obligation to protect the public.

But I can provide even more evidence:


    The leading case on the subject is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of App. 1981), in which three women who were being held hostage by two men twice managed to telephone police and request their help. The police never came, and the three women were beaten, robbed, and raped during the following 14 hours.

    The women sued the police, but the appellate court held that the “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” The women had argued that, since they had twice-alerted police to the crimes being committed, the police had a duty to protect them. But the court ruled in favor of the police, following the “well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.”

    In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the only duties of care required by the Constitution are those extended to individuals who are restrained by the government and therefore unable to protect themselves. This includes prisoners and involuntarily committed mental patients.

https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/ ... red-serve/

3. The fact that they have not been charged is exactly why they are free to walk around and kill again. Thank you for explaining why I am correct.
#15111224
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. But if you are focusing on that unlikely scenario, you are conceding that cops are not necessary in the majority of situations involving mental illness.

Again, the point is to limit cop involvement as much as possible in order to safe lives.


No issues with that, and I said so from the beginning :|

The only thing cops would be expected to do most of the time is to stay nearby, out of the mentally ill person's sight, ready to intervene if the medical workers requested so. They can conceivably not afford to wait 10 or 20 minutes to get them dispatched if their lives are in danger.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. I already posted the law, the court cases, and the statements by judges and lawyers taht clearly shows that cops do not have an obligation to protect the public.

But I can provide even more evidence:


    The leading case on the subject is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of App. 1981), in which three women who were being held hostage by two men twice managed to telephone police and request their help. The police never came, and the three women were beaten, robbed, and raped during the following 14 hours.

    The women sued the police, but the appellate court held that the “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” The women had argued that, since they had twice-alerted police to the crimes being committed, the police had a duty to protect them. But the court ruled in favor of the police, following the “well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.”

    In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the only duties of care required by the Constitution are those extended to individuals who are restrained by the government and therefore unable to protect themselves. This includes prisoners and involuntarily committed mental patients.

https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/ ... red-serve/


You already provided those two examples, and (again) there is a difference between negligent nonfeasance (such as refusing to stop a crime being flagrantly committed in a cop's presence, mentioned in the first ruling), failing to protect individuals in a "special relationship" with the cops (such as the police giving directions to this person that end up with the individual being victimized by a crime or the relationship between people under police custody and the cops, such as prisoners - also mentioned by the court in the first ruling) and failing to protect the "general" security of the community (such as, for instance, not having the police properly deployed to deal with crime hotspots or taking too long to arrive after a 911 call). The latter does not create a liability for the police (or else, for instance, you would have the right to sue the police if they took too long to arrive to a crime scene when calling 911 - but if this was the case, couldn't you also sue a fire department if they take too long to arrive to put a fire down or couldn't you sue a hospital if their ambulance takes too long to arrive?)

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. The fact that they have not been charged is exactly why they are free to walk around and kill again. Thank you for explaining why I am correct.


Yet they are not being charged because they are still being investigated. Presumably, you would complain if BIPOCs were charged and put in jail without bail if there was no evidence provided to that effect, wouldn't you? :|
#15111230
@wat0n

1. No, there is no good reason to gave cops standing by, and one very good reason not to: so that the cops do not kill anyone.

2. So we agree that the cops have no duty to protect the general public, and so if the cop lets the mental health sufferer kill someone, the cop is not at fault. And if the cop kills the mental health sufferer for any reason at all, the cop is still not at fault. Since the point is saving lives, the cops are less than useless.

3. BIPOC people are charged and put in jail without evidence. They are also killed without evidence. Like Elijah MCClain and Breonna Taylor. And there is evidence that the cops killed Elijah McClain and Breonna Taylor, so your attempt to insult me by accusing me of ignoring due process is wrong as well as being a personal attack.
#15111234
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. No, there is no good reason to gave cops standing by, and one very good reason not to: so that the cops do not kill anyone.


Why? Again, if mental health workers are known to be risking their lives by answering a 911 call, why should the cops simply not be present (not even nearby) and why should they potentially wait for several minutes for backup to arrive? Because it hurts your feelings?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. So we agree that the cops have no duty to protect the general public, and so if the cop lets the mental health sufferer kill someone, the cop is not at fault. And if the cop kills the mental health sufferer for any reason at all, the cop is still not at fault. Since the point is saving lives, the cops are less than useless.


No, we don't agree with it. You are once again distorting my argument because you have none.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. BIPOC people are charged and put in jail without evidence. They are also killed without evidence. Like Elijah MCClain and Breonna Taylor. And there is evidence that the cops killed Elijah McClain and Breonna Taylor, so your attempt to insult me by accusing me of ignoring due process is wrong as well as being a personal attack.


No, that's exactly what you are doing. And no, people are not charged without evidence either, that's exactly what grand juries are for.
#15111237
@wat0n

1. I disagree with the premise that “mental health workers are known to be risking their lives by answering a 911 call”, so there is no reason for cops to be present. And the reasons to avoid cop presence has nothing to do with my feelings, but is due to the fact that hundreds of people with mental illness are killed each year by cops, and the goal is to eliminate these killings.

2. My argument is simple: cops have no obligation to protect anyone. So if you tell cops to go protect mental health workers and the workers are killed, the cop did nothing wrong according to the police and the law. And if the cop kills the mental health sufferer, the cop did nothing wrong according to the police and the law.

Neither of these people are in police custody and the cop is not causing a dangerous situation, so the laws we already looked at would excuse the cop from any punishment.

3. I never accused you of ignoring due process or advocating for such. Now, we know with 100% certainty that thise four cops killed Elijah McClain, and the other three killed Breonna Taylor. There is no debate about that. Their own testimony is evidence enough for that. And when there is evidence of one person (or several people) intentionally killing another person who was not threatening them at the time, the killers are usually charged with a crime and put in jail to await trial. That is due process, That is how the (systemically racist) system is supposed to work.

The cops who killed Breonna Taylor and Elijah McClain are NOT in jail awaiting trial or charged with crimes. That is also supposedly “due process” and how the system works.

And this double standard that cops enjoy is somehow not a real thing that has become a culture of impunity, according to you.

I do not think cops should be above the law and enjoy this double standard.
#15111241
Having Police when they are needed to de escalate a situation between law abiding taxpaying legal citizens is necessary and is provided by tax dollars as an everyday convenience for law abiding taxpaying legal citizens. The criminals in America (Those that Habitually break the law) need to be rounded up and removed from America's Republic (the society that is made up of law abiding, tax paying, legal American Citizens) Fentanyl Kings and Queens living in HUD Ghettos destroying themselves and their tax payer provided communities are a disgrace to all of America. Sanctuary cities are the same stupid train of thought that allows Democrats to waste Billions of tax dollars for interests that are of Communist origins. Never Vote for an Antifa Loving, BLM Supporting, Police Defunding, Leftist Democrat this Century.
#15111244
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. I disagree with the premise that “mental health workers are known to be risking their lives by answering a 911 call”, so there is no reason for cops to be present. And the reasons to avoid cop presence has nothing to do with my feelings, but is due to the fact that hundreds of people with mental illness are killed each year by cops, and the goal is to eliminate these killings.


Why would you disagree with that? And again, how about you stop misrepresenting the meaning of "cops should be nearby, outside of the mentally ill person's sight, to answer requests for aid by mental health workers"?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. My argument is simple: cops have no obligation to protect anyone. So if you tell cops to go protect mental health workers and the workers are killed, the cop did nothing wrong according to the police and the law. And if the cop kills the mental health sufferer, the cop did nothing wrong according to the police and the law.

Neither of these people are in police custody and the cop is not causing a dangerous situation, so the laws we already looked at would excuse the cop from any punishment.


If the cops didn't protect mental health workers, there would definitely be violations of labor law and also of the "special relationship" provisions.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. I never accused you of ignoring due process or advocating for such. Now, we know with 100% certainty that thise four cops killed Elijah McClain, and the other three killed Breonna Taylor. There is no debate about that. Their own testimony is evidence enough for that. And when there is evidence of one person (or several people) intentionally killing another person who was not threatening them at the time, the killers are usually charged with a crime and put in jail to await trial. That is due process, That is how the (systemically racist) system is supposed to work.

The cops who killed Breonna Taylor and Elijah McClain are NOT in jail awaiting trial or charged with crimes. That is also supposedly “due process” and how the system works.

And this double standard that cops enjoy is somehow not a real thing that has become a culture of impunity, according to you.

I do not think cops should be above the law and enjoy this double standard.


The obvious difference (of course) is that both incidents happened in the course of the legitimate fulfillment of their duties. Also, if a civilian argued to have killed someone in legitimate defense it's unlikely that there confession would lead to an indictment and jail.
#15111263
@wat0n

1. In the vast majority of cases, mental health sufferers are not being aggressive or require a 911 call. You seem to be focusing on a slim minority of cases (i.e. those that pose such a violent threat that nurses trained in subduing mental health sufferers would be unable to deal with them) and using those to argue that police should be present even when this is not the case.

But in the vast majority of cases (i.e. those that do not fit your narrow scope) cops are not only unnecessary but actually pose the greatest threat to life.

In the scenario I propose, any person having a mental health episode who is not walking around with a lethal weapon would be dealt with by professionals who are trained to help these people. You seem to think that I am arguing that mental health professionals would be called for people who are walking around with a lethal weapon just because the person seems to be having a mental health issue. That is not what I am arguing.

2. Your speculations about what would happen in your hypothetical scenario are not relevant. We are talking about what the law actually says right now. And that says that cops have no obligation to protect anyone.

3. Yes, that is the explanation given by cops and lawyers as to why the cops are allowed to kill innocent black people and then walk around free and armed and able to kill more innocent black people.

And if I were walking around doing my job and killed someone like the cops killed Elijah McClain (because of said job), I wiuld still be fired and charged w8th a crime. But cops have a double standard that provides a culture of impunity and that directly contradicts the idea of equality under the law.
  • 1
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • 182
Red States vs. Blue States

Stop playing the Belorussian trick (i.e. someone […]

It looks like the entire controversy cited here b[…]

Election 2020

Don The Con ran up a $1,000,000,000,000 federal d[…]

Fair enough. I was going for the renegade. It sa[…]