[wat0n]

@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.

What if the person has a non lethal weapon, and the caller says he's acting aggressively?

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.

Excuse me? You are the one who's speculating nonsense here. I'm correcting you on it and your nonsensical reading of the law.

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.

What makes you believe you would be charged with a crime without a prior inquiry? That is necessary under the law or else a grand jury would not indict.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. In the case where an unarmed person who is in the midst of a mental health episode seems to be acting aggressively but is unarmed, then a mental health worker with a nurse (who is trained to subdue mental health patients without hurting the patient) would suffice.

Having cops there or surveilling nearby would be to invite unnecessary police brutality and killings.

2. The easiest way to correct me would be to provide an example of a cop who was punished for failing to protect someone from physical violence. I continue to wait for such an example.

Meanwhile:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/poli ... otect.html

3. I am assuming that there is evidence against me that is comparable to the evidence we actually have against these seven killer cops. For example, my iwn testimony, body cam footage, et cetera.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. In the case where an unarmed person who is in the midst of a mental health episode seems to be acting aggressively but is unarmed, then a mental health worker with a nurse (who is trained to subdue mental health patients without hurting the patient) would suffice.

Having cops there or surveilling nearby would be to invite unnecessary police brutality and killings.

I didn't say unarmed, I said armed with a nonlethal weapon. I do agree that the police would probably be unnecessary if the guy was not armed at all. But if he was holding e.g. a bat, I would not be so sure.

2. The easiest way to correct me would be to provide an example of a cop who was punished for failing to protect someone from physical violence. I continue to wait for such an example.

Meanwhile:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/poli ... otect.html

The easiest way is to actually do what I did, i.e. show the statute. And it's unlikely the US Constitution would refer to something as specific as dereliction of duty.

3. I am assuming that there is evidence against me that is comparable to the evidence we actually have against these seven killer cops. For example, my iwn testimony, body cam footage, et cetera.

It would depend a lot on the testimony and the camera footage. And in the Taylor case, if you shot a third party while defending yourself from gunfire... Well, it's even less likely you'd be charged at all.

[Wulfschilde]

Oh look, George Floyd bodycam footage has finally leaked and it doesn't fit the narrative at all. Who could have seen this coming?

Word of this will spread, the cop will be acquitted and most of you (if you can actually read this image or watch the video) are humiliated.

Also friendly reminder that 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks, police are not anywhere close to a leading cause of killings of black men.

[Rich]

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

You see again the pathetic fantasy world of the Left. Its just incredible how they have managed to convince themselves that cops are the main source of homicides. Only a tiny fraction of homicides are done by cops. Black people in the US kill more White people, than White people kill Black people. This is the fact that the Left's hysterical "Black Lies Matter" campaign is meant to drown out.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. In the case where a person “armed” (with whatever object they happen to be holding) who is in the midst of a mental health episode seems to be acting aggressively but is not holding an actual weapon, then a mental health worker with a nurse (who is trained to subdue mental health patients without hurting the patient) would suffice.

Having cops there or surveilling nearby would be to invite unnecessary police brutality and killings.

People suffering from mental illness routinely get shot by cops because they were holding something. Is is now a lethal offence to hold an object in front of a cop?

2. Still no example, and since I already showed the case law (of cops not being held responsible for letting women get raped and killed), we can agree that your claim is wrong.

3. No, if I shot into a house with no regard for whoever was in it (like Breonna Taylor’s killers) or killed an innocent person for no rreason like Elijah McClain’s killers, I would be in jail.

This is a double standard fo cops that leads to innocents being killed. Cops should have to follow the law like the rest of us.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. In the case where a person “armed” (with whatever object they happen to be holding) who is in the midst of a mental health episode seems to be acting aggressively but is not holding an actual weapon, then a mental health worker with a nurse (who is trained to subdue mental health patients without hurting the patient) would suffice.

Having cops there or surveilling nearby would be to invite unnecessary police brutality and killings.

People suffering from mental illness routinely get shot by cops because they were holding something. Is is now a lethal offence to hold an object in front of a cop?

What's the probability that a cop will shoot mentally ill persons holding "something"?

2. Still no example, and since I already showed the case law (of cops not being held responsible for letting women get raped and killed), we can agree that your claim is wrong.

Still distorting what the laws read, I see. And yes I did provide an example, which you chose to reject because it doesn't fit your narrative.

3. No, if I shot into a house with no regard for whoever was in it (like Breonna Taylor’s killers) or killed an innocent person for no rreason like Elijah McClain’s killers, I would be in jail.

This is a double standard fo cops that leads to innocents being killed. Cops should have to follow the law like the rest of us.

I said "shoot in self defense" not "shoot for no reason". And yes, it would be a valid defense.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. Between 20% and 25% of police killings involve mentally ill people. People have been killed for holding a shovel, for example.

2. Your “example” was not what I asked for: a cop who was punished for failing to protect someone from physical violence, You provided an example of a cop who was punished for using a traffic computer to stalk women. So I ignored it because it was not relevant.

3. If I did exactly waht Breonna Taylor’s killers did, or exactly what Elijah McClain’s killers did, I would be in jail.

Why should cops be allowed to kill with impunity?

3.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. Between 20% and 25% of police killings involve mentally ill people. People have been killed for holding a shovel, for example.

I'm not asking about what percentage of people killed by the police were mentally ill. I'm asking about what percentage of interactions between the police and mentally ill persons ends up in a police shooting (or killing). These are not the same same thing.

But let's take the shovel example. Let's say mental health workers show up and the mentally ill person is holding the shovel, and uses it to hit these workers who are trying to restrain him. How would they subdue this person without requesting police help?

2. Your “example” was not what I asked for: a cop who was punished for failing to protect someone from physical violence, You provided an example of a cop who was punished for using a traffic computer to stalk women. So I ignored it because it was not relevant.

And I also included an example of a cop who refused to pursue rape charges despite having the physical evidence to do so, and thereby failing to catch what may be a serial rapist.

3. If I did exactly waht Breonna Taylor’s killers did, or exactly what Elijah McClain’s killers did, I would be in jail.

Why should cops be allowed to kill with impunity?

3.

That's far from clear, the case mentioned in that piece is the following:

204 Ga. App. 173 (1992)
419 S.E.2d 74
SMITH
v.
THE STATE.
A92A0592.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Decided May 5, 1992.
Jay P. Wells, for appellant.

John R. Parks, District Attorney, Barbara A. Becraft, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Clarence Thomas was attempting to restrain his brother, Leonard Thomas, who was charging at appellant Danny Smith in retaliation for a remark made several weeks earlier which tended to impugn his character. Smith, who thought Leonard might be armed with a gun, fired one round of birdshot from a 20 gauge shotgun at him. Pellets hit both brothers. Smith was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault. Smith's sole defense at trial was justification. A jury found Smith not guilty of aggravated assault on Leonard Thomas, the intended victim, but guilty of aggravated assault on Clarence Thomas. Smith appeals his conviction.

1. Smith contends that since intent was not shown with respect to the assault upon Clarence Thomas, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Smith argues that since the jury found that the assault on Leonard Thomas was lawful, it necessarily follows that he did not possess the requisite intent to commit an aggravated assault on the bystander.

The theory of transferred intent in criminal law has a long history from Reg. v. Sauders, 2 Plowd. 473, 75 Eng. Reprint 706 (1576), (18 A.L.R. 923) in which it was pointed out that if a man maliciously shoots an arrow at another with intent to kill him and a person to whom he bore no malice is killed by it, this would be murder for the person who shot the arrow with intent to kill, and is the same offense as to such person as if he had killed the person he aimed at. More recently, this court has held: "When an unintended victim is struck down as a result of an unlawful act actually directed against someone else, the law prevents the actor from taking advantage of his own wrong and transfers the original intent from the one against whom it was directed to the one who actually suffered from it. `In legal contemplation, the intent follows the act through to its legitimate results.' [Cit.]" Fussell v. State, 187 Ga. App. 134, 136 (4) (369 SE2d 511) (1988).

Can the principle of transferred intent be applied in a case, however, *174 in which the jury finds that the firing of the shot was justified and therefore lawful? "If, in consequence of an assault upon himself which he did not provoke, the accused shot at his assailant, but missed him and the shot killed a bystander, no guilt would attach to him if the assault upon him was such as would have justified him in killing his assailant." Butler v. State, 92 Ga. 601, 603 (4) (19 S.E. 51) (1893). This principle has been followed in Turner v. State, 209 Ga. 532 (3) (74 SE2d 459) (1953) and Olds v. State, 84 Ga. App. 397 (5) (66 SE2d 396) (1951).

In our case, the jury did find the defendant's actions to be justified. There was no evidence in the record from which one could divine any intent to injure Clarence. Intent being a requisite element of the aggravated assault charge, and no lesser offense (such as reckless conduct) having been charged, we find that there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a conviction as to that offense. Consequently, defendant's conviction must be reversed.

2. Smith also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of criminal charges brought against him in Florida but would not allow him to introduce evidence of his acquittal. In light of our holding in Division 1 above, we need not reach this issue.

Judgment reversed. Carley, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. If you have an argument that depends in the answer to that question, I suggest you do some research. Same with your shovel scenario: please make whatever point you are making.

Cops are 16 times more likely to kill a person with mental illness than the general population. Unless mentally ill people are 16 times more likely to commit physical violence (and your evidence disproves that), there is a problem.

2. And that example also does not ft the requirement of protecting someone from physical harm. It would fit if the criminal was in the midst of raping a woman when the cop refused to stop him (like the example I gave) but that is not what you provided.

3. Since that is nor exactly what the cops did, that is irrelevant.

The pint that you are ignoring is that cops get to kill innocent black people while regular people do not. And this double standard has to end.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. If you have an argument that depends in the answer to that question, I suggest you do some research. Same with your shovel scenario: please make whatever point you are making.

I would say yours does. The first part was a non-sequitur. The shovel scenario is actually interesting because you claimed mental health workers are trained to subdue the mentally ill person. So I'm asking how is it that they would do it.

Cops are 16 times more likely to kill a person with mental illness than the general population. Unless mentally ill people are 16 times more likely to commit physical violence (and your evidence disproves that), there is a problem.

That doesn't mean you should assume having police show up will end up in a police killing

As it was shown earlier, the base probability of an interaction between a civilian and a cop ending in a killing is very, very low.

2. And that example also does not ft the requirement of protecting someone from physical harm. It would fit if the criminal was in the midst of raping a woman when the cop refused to stop him (like the example I gave) but that is not what you provided.

Of course it does, by her negligence she is not only obstructing justice but she's enabling the commission of further offenses. Even worse, the very scenario you mentioned is explicitly forbidden by the dereliction of duty laws.

3. Since that is nor exactly what the cops did, that is irrelevant.

The pint that you are ignoring is that cops get to kill innocent black people while regular people do not. And this double standard has to end.

It's not irrelevant, it shows that killing a innocent bystander in self-defense would not create any liability. The rest is simply a red herring meant to distract from that rather clear fact.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. I have no idea what you are asking or arguing or rebutting.

2. I have no idea what you are asking or arguing or rebutting. Again, not investigating a violent crime is not the same thing as stopping one in progress.

3. Again, you have ignored my point: cops have a double standard that provides a culture of impunity and that directly contradicts the idea of equality under the law.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. I have no idea what you are asking or arguing or rebutting.

You are using the wrong measures to provide your argument. Did you ever take a probability class?

2. I have no idea what you are asking or arguing or rebutting. Again, not investigating a violent crime is not the same thing as stopping one in progress.

The scenario you mentioned is explicitly forbidden in dereliction of duty laws.

3. Again, you have ignored my point: cops have a double standard that provides a culture of impunity and that directly contradicts the idea of equality under the law.

And you ignored my point: Even civilians can get away with killing bystanders if done as part of legitimate defense (such as getting shot).

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. Explain what your argument is clearly. Thank you.

2. What scenario is forbidden? What laws forbid it?

3. Not in the manner in which Elijah McClain and Breonna Taylor were killed. If I stoped and killed a man who just bought an iced tea, I would be in jail.

And there is no reason for cops to enjoy this double standard, and it contradicts the basic tenets of liberal democracy.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. Explain what your argument is clearly. Thank you.

1. Mental health workers lack the training and material means to subdue someone trying to hit them with a shovel
2. The vast majority of interactions between the police and mentally ill persons does not end in a killing, so it's reckless to abandon mental health workers to deal with situations they are not trained to deal with

2. What scenario is forbidden? What laws forbid it?

Not a stopping a crime from being carried out in a cop's presence. I already cited them, it's your responsibility to read them.

3. Not in the manner in which Elijah McClain and Breonna Taylor were killed. If I stoped and killed a man who just bought an iced tea, I would be in jail.

The cops didn't just show up and kill McClain though. He seemingly resisted the cops as soon as they approached him - if someone attacked you for approaching him, you'd have the right to defend yourself, and if you killed him in the process there would at least be an inquiry before any indictments. In the case of Breonna Taylor, the cops were under gunfire and she was killed as a bystander, case law already shows that merely killing an innocent bystander is not illegal if it took place in the context of a valid self-defense so an inquiry on further criminal behavior would also be necessary. As such, no, there is no double standard: Just like the cops have not been charged because the prosecutors are investigating prior to an indictment, civilians would also not be charged right away to allow for further investigation to see if the circumstances do warrant a prosecution.

And there is no reason for cops to enjoy this double standard, and it contradicts the basic tenets of liberal democracy.

Oh so you are a liberal democrat now? So how about you comment on the killing of Hansel Hernandez in Cuba, at the respective thread if you want, and how it contradicts the basic tenets of liberal democracy there?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. Provide evidence that mental health workers cannot subdue someone who is using something that is not a weapon. Thanks. As for the second sentence, it seems like a non sequitur. Whether or not most interactions between cops and mentally ill people end with the unpunished killing of an innocent does not seem to relate to whether or not it is safe for someone (who is specifically trained to deal with people suffering from mental illness) to deal with someone suffering from mental illness.

2. That is not even a complete sentence.

3. Provide evidence that Elijah McClain attacked the four cops.

And if you want to pretend that I could break into someone’s apartment without identifying myself, and then shoot randomly into said house and kill someone who is not shooting at me, and then tell everyone I did that and not end up in jail, go ahead.

And if you wish to pretend that me and three others could stop someone who is breaking no law and try to detain them and then kill them even though our lives are not threatened, and even release video of me doing it, and not end up in jail, go ahead.

Another double standard is presumption of innocence: everyone is presumed to be innocent of a crime, unless they are killed or assaulted by police. In that case, the person is presumed guilty of whatever crime the cops accuse them regardless of evidence.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. Provide evidence that mental health workers cannot subdue someone who is using something that is not a weapon. Thanks.

No, you made the claim that they are trained to do so. And since you mentioned a case in which the guy was using a shovel, show how would they do so while being unarmed.

As for the second sentence, it seems like a non sequitur. Whether or not most interactions between cops and mentally ill people end with the unpunished killing of an innocent does not seem to relate to whether or not it is safe for someone (who is specifically trained to deal with people suffering from mental illness) to deal with someone suffering from mental illness.

That depends on your answer above. You already conceded that if the mentally ill person was holding a firearm, police presence would be required. Let's find out then what would the threshold be.

And yes, it is related if you are assuming the likelihood of a cop killing a mentally ill person is high, and that this justifies leaving mental health workers to their own devices in dealing with situations such as the shovel scenario. The truth is that it is not, and thus you are in no position to assume having police presence in the vicinity is a death sentence of a mentally ill person going through a crisis.

2. That is not even a complete sentence.

Why don't you just read the law?

3. Provide evidence that Elijah McClain attacked the four cops.

That's what the cops claim.

And if you want to pretend that I could break into someone’s apartment without identifying myself, and then shoot randomly into said house and kill someone who is not shooting at me, and then tell everyone I did that and not end up in jail, go ahead.

Why don't you refer to what actually happen, namely, that the cops shot back in the context of a court-allowed no knock warrant?

And if you wish to pretend that me and three others could stop someone who is breaking no law and try to detain them and then kill them even though our lives are not threatened, and even release video of me doing it, and not end up in jail, go ahead.

And here, too, why don't you allow for the idea that maybe the cops were not lying when saying he attacked them first?

Another double standard is presumption of innocence: everyone is presumed to be innocent of a crime, unless they are killed or assaulted by police. In that case, the person is presumed guilty of whatever crime the cops accuse them regardless of evidence.

No one has said they have been presumed guilty, only that there is probable cause. I recall we already went through this and your evident ignorance of what probable cause is.

Do you have other nonsensical claims to make? Will you go to the Cuba thread and comment on the killing of Hansel Hernandez?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. So you were not making an argument that they cannot deal with a man holding a shovel. Okay. Moving on...

No, I never conceded that cops are necessary when dealing with a person who is armed and mentally ill. Instead, I pointed out that cops are essentially useless in that situation right now anyway.

The likelihood of a cop killing an innocent person is probably more likely than a mental health worker being killed by a person suffering from a mental illness.

2. I am no longer going to be addressing this tangent. At this point, I have already learned what I needed to know and you are not providing any new information.

Cops have no obligation to protect anyone, according to the police and US law.

3. Yes, the cops can claim “probable cause” as reason enough to suspend the presumption of innocence and kill someone for walking home from buying iced tea or sleeping in their home.

And if anyone else tried to get out of killing someone in the way these cops did by claiming those conditions we call probable cause, they would be in jail.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. So you were not making an argument that they cannot deal with a man holding a shovel. Okay. Moving on...

You claimed they could, or that it's part of their training. I'm waiting for you to back it up.

No, I never conceded that cops are necessary when dealing with a person who is armed and mentally ill. Instead, I pointed out that cops are essentially useless in that situation right now anyway.

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.

The likelihood of a cop killing an innocent person is probably more likely than a mental health worker being killed by a person suffering from a mental illness.

That's simple speculation.

2. I am no longer going to be addressing this tangent. At this point, I have already learned what I needed to know and you are not providing any new information.

Cops have no obligation to protect anyone, according to the police and US law.

You seem to be pretending that you ever addressed this. No, you did not and I quoted the laws of the matter. Again, a nice example:

2019 Ohio Revised Code
Title [29] XXIX CRIMES - PROCEDURE
Chapter 2921 - OFFENSES AGAINST JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Section 2921.44 - Dereliction of duty.
Universal Citation: Ohio Rev Code § 2921.44 (2019)
(A) No law enforcement officer shall negligently do any of the following:

(1) Fail to serve a lawful warrant without delay;

(2) Fail to prevent or halt the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender, when it is in the law enforcement officer's power to do so alone or with available assistance.

(B) No law enforcement, ministerial, or judicial officer shall negligently fail to perform a lawful duty in a criminal case or proceeding.

(C) No officer, having charge of a detention facility, shall negligently do any of the following:

(1) Allow the detention facility to become littered or unsanitary;

(2) Fail to provide persons confined in the detention facility with adequate food, clothing, bedding, shelter, and medical attention;

(3) Fail to control an unruly prisoner, or to prevent intimidation of or physical harm to a prisoner by another;

(4) Allow a prisoner to escape;

(5) Fail to observe any lawful and reasonable regulation for the management of the detention facility.

(D) No public official of the state shall recklessly create a deficiency, incur a liability, or expend a greater sum than is appropriated by the general assembly for the use in any one year of the department, agency, or institution of the state with which the public official is connected.

(E) No public servant shall recklessly fail to perform a duty expressly imposed by law with respect to the public servant's office, or recklessly do any act expressly forbidden by law with respect to the public servant's office.

(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of dereliction of duty, a misdemeanor of the second degree.

(G) Except as otherwise provided by law, a public servant who is a county treasurer; county auditor; township fiscal officer; city auditor; city treasurer; village fiscal officer; village clerk-treasurer; village clerk; in the case of a municipal corporation having a charter that designates an officer who, by virtue of the charter, has duties and functions similar to those of the city or village officers referred to in this section, the officer so designated by the charter; school district treasurer; fiscal officer of a community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code; treasurer of a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code; or fiscal officer of a college-preparatory boarding school established under Chapter 3328. of the Revised Code and is convicted of or pleads guilty to dereliction of duty is disqualified from holding any public office, employment, or position of trust in this state for four years following the date of conviction or of entry of the plea, and is not entitled to hold any public office until any repayment or restitution required by the court is satisfied.

(H) As used in this section, "public servant" includes the following:

(1) An officer or employee of a contractor as defined in section 9.08 of the Revised Code;

(2) A fiscal officer employed by the operator of a community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code or by the operator of a college-preparatory boarding school established under Chapter 3328. of the Revised Code.

Amended by 130th General Assembly File No. TBD, HB 10, §1, eff. 3/23/2015.

Effective Date: 06-08-2000 .

3. Yes, the cops can claim “probable cause” as reason enough to suspend the presumption of innocence and kill someone for walking home from buying iced tea or sleeping in their home.

And if anyone else tried to get out of killing someone in the way these cops did by claiming those conditions we call probable cause, they would be in jail.

As I said, you clearly have no idea about what probable cause is. Unsurprising, since as the above example shows, you lack the ability to read the law as is.

[Saeko]

Oh look, George Floyd bodycam footage has finally leaked and it doesn't fit the narrative at all. Who could have seen this coming?

So what part of this video do you think justifies Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck for 8:46 seconds?