The Police Murder of Tyre Nichols - Page 7 - 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

#15263710
wat0n wrote:But you did make the decision the moment you were at the street, looked around and crossed. That would fall into the legal definition of premeditation.


But you are arguing that any belief about getting away with it is premeditation of a crime. You are arguing that I am premeditating jaywalking even if I never do it.

The public doesn't make the decision to prosecute, though.


Exactly.

This is why they felt comfortable making up excuses for the public in front of cameras.

You're assuming no police killings are justified, when in reality it has to be determined in a case-by-case basis as it happens in any homicide investigation. Self-defense is indeed an acceptable justification to kill someone else.

For example, no one in his right mind would say this police killing in Naperville, IL last year was anything else but self-defense:



In the case of Tyre Nichols, it is clear the beating that killed him was unjustified also from the bodycam footage.


No, I am not arguing that.

Again, if you want to feel comfortable with hundreds of police killings each year, feel free justifying that to yourself.
#15263711
Pants-of-dog wrote:But you are arguing that any belief about getting away with it is premeditation of a crime. You are arguing that I am premeditating jaywalking even if I never do it.


Not really. The only thing I'm saying is that your narrative implies they premeditated the beating because they thought they could get away with it. I don't think it was premeditated, and their behavior suggests they know what they'd done was wrong and could get them into trouble.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly.

This is why they felt comfortable making up excuses for the public in front of cameras.


I would not really say that's who those excuses were directed to. I'd say it was directed to the prosecution and also to themselves, to sleep well at night.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I am not arguing that.

Again, if you want to feel comfortable with hundreds of police killings each year, feel free justifying that to yourself.


The statistics you cited count both justified and unjustified killings.
#15263715
wat0n wrote:Not really. The only thing I'm saying is that your narrative implies they premeditated the beating because they thought they could get away with it. I don't think it was premeditated, and their behavior suggests they know what they'd done was wrong and could get them into trouble.


But merely musing about their belief that they could get away with it does not fit the kegal definition of premeditation.

I would not really say that's who those excuses were directed to. I'd say it was directed to the prosecution and also to themselves, to sleep well at night.


Really? They showed themselves making up an excuse in front of cameras and you think this means they thought everyone would accept their excuse? That makes no sense.

The statistics you cited count both justified and unjustified killings.


If that is how you want to justify these hundreds of unnecessary killings, feel free. I will probably not agree that they can be justified, since other developed countries also do not have nearly as many “justified” killings.

Obviously, US society has some sort of other structural problems causing these killings.
#15263719
Pants-of-dog wrote:But merely musing about their belief that they could get away with it does not fit the kegal definition of premeditation.


If their belief was relevant in deciding to beat him as they did, it would indeed be premeditation.

I think you're giving them way too much credit. To me, it seems they beat him because he tried to run after being pulled over for "reckless driving" (which was actually not reckless).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Really? They showed themselves making up an excuse in front of cameras and you think this means they thought everyone would accept their excuse? That makes no sense.


They thought they needed an excuse, however shitty it was.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If that is how you want to justify these hundreds of unnecessary killings, feel free. I will probably not agree that they can be justified, since other developed countries also do not have nearly as many “justified” killings.

Obviously, US society has some sort of other structural problems causing these killings.


How do you know whether they are justified or not? This has to be analyzed on a case by case basis. Bodycam footage allows us to do just that, for the first time ever.
#15263720
Pants-of-dog wrote:


But merely musing about their belief that they could get away with it does not fit the legal definition of premeditation.





Not sure there is a point if you're expecting him to wake up.. he's trolling...
#15263722
late wrote:Not sure there is a point if you're expecting him to wake up.. he's trolling...


Please explain how was the beating premeditated and how come the prosecutor did not decide to charge them for first degree murder.

Thanks.
#15263724
wat0n wrote:If their belief was relevant in deciding to beat him as they did, it would indeed be premeditation.

I think you're giving them way too much credit. To me, it seems they beat him because he tried to run after being pulled over for "reckless driving" (which was actually not reckless).


There was no premeditation.

Musing about getting away with it while committing the crime does not fit the legal definition of premeditation.

They thought they needed an excuse, however shitty it was.


For who?

Again, you are arguing that they were trying to trick the prosecutors by coming up with an excuse on camera, knowing that prosecutors would see the footage.

This is extremely illogical.

How do you know whether they are justified or not? This has to be analyzed on a case by case basis. Bodycam footage allows us to do just that, for the first time ever.


Again, you are the one who wants to justify these killings to yourself.
#15263727
Pants-of-dog wrote:There was no premeditation.

Musing about getting away with it while committing the crime does not fit the legal definition of premeditation.


Oh so they didn't beat him because they thought they could get away with it after all?

That was your explanation initially.

Pants-of-dog wrote:For who?


Prosecutors, above all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you are arguing that they were trying to trick the prosecutors by coming up with an excuse on camera, knowing that prosecutors would see the footage.

This is extremely illogical.


And you think that would not apply to the public at large?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you are the one who wants to justify these killings to yourself.


Or maybe because some are, unless you think a person doesn't have a right to defend himself from a guy trying to slash him with a hatchet :roll:
#15263728
wat0n wrote:Oh so they didn't beat him because they thought they could get away with it after all?

That was your explanation initially.


Yes, that was the role that systemic racism played. This is still not premeditation.

Prosecutors, above all.


Right, You are arguing that the cops were trying to trick the prosecutors by admitting their trick on camera for the prosecutors.

And you think that would not apply to the public at large?


So you agree that your idea is extremely illogical and makes no sense as an explanation for the behaviour of the murdering cops.

Or maybe because some are, unless you think a person doesn't have a right to defend himself from a guy trying to slash him with a hatchet :roll:


This whole thing where you need to justify these killings to yourself is your own thing. I am ignoring this tangent from now on.

I will simply note that you agree that developed countries do not have the same structural problems as the Us does when it comes to causes of violence between cops and civilians.
#15263730
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, that was the role that systemic racism played. This is still not premeditation.


If they beat Nichols up thinking beforehand they could get away with it, then it is premeditation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Right, You are arguing that the cops were trying to trick the prosecutors by admitting their trick on camera for the prosecutors.


They didn't admit anything, though. They just were like "he reached for my gun, did you see it" "yes, he did", but the videos from the incident say otherwise.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you agree that your idea is extremely illogical and makes no sense as an explanation for the behaviour of the murdering cops.


It is a shitty plan, but you mentioned that they had been recorded talking about the beating after and I saw it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This whole thing where you need to justify these killings to yourself is your own thing. I am ignoring this tangent from now on.

I will simply note that you agree that developed countries do not have the same structural problems as the Us does when it comes to causes of violence between cops and civilians.


We all have a right to defend ourselves from someone trying to hack us to death. That includes cops.

See? Bodycams are great because they allow us to analyze each incident on its own merits and not base ourselves on prejudices :)
#15263731
wat0n wrote:If they beat Nichols up thinking beforehand they could get away with it, then it is premeditation.


They probably did not think about it.

They probably instead just kept going with the violence and abuse after they got carried away because they had done so before with other black people and it was fine those previous times.

It was a habit, if you want to look at it that way.

They didn't admit anything, though. They just were like "he reached for my gun, did you see it" "yes, he did", but the videos from the incident say otherwise.

It is a shitty plan, but you mentioned that they had been recorded talking about the beating after and I saw it.


So now you are agreeing that they agreed on a story in front of the cameras that showed the story was bogus.

Either they did not know they were being recorded, or they thought systemic racism would get them off the hook or they ate so stupid as to not understand basic logic.
#15263734
Pants-of-dog wrote:They probably did not think about it.

They probably instead just kept going with the violence and abuse after they got carried away because they had done so before with other black people and it was fine those previous times.

It was a habit, if you want to look at it that way.


Possible, but even then it wouldn't explain things fully. Firstly, it means they are not as calculating as you make them be. And secondly, in that event they wouldn't have felt the need to make some excuse up.

I think they probably did indeed get carried away but didn't really think about the consequences. They probably got angry that they had to pursue Tyre Nichols, and would have done so to anyone under the same circumstances.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So now you are agreeing that they agreed on a story in front of the cameras that showed the story was bogus.


I never said the opposite. The question is, why did they do it?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Either they did not know they were being recorded, or they thought systemic racism would get them off the hook or they ate so stupid as to not understand basic logic.


Well, if they got carried away then they may as well go for the bullshit excuse. They arguably don't really lose much, I don't know if that would be used against them for sentencing.

It's also possible they started with that simply to sleep better at night...
#15263737
wat0n wrote:Possible, but even then it wouldn't explain things fully. Firstly, it means they are not as calculating as you make them be.


Since I never argued they were calculating and premeditating their crime, this is not a criticism of my argument.

And secondly, in that event they wouldn't have felt the need to make some excuse up.


You just said they did not make up an excuse, and merely conferred on what story they were going to tell others.

You keep saying they were making an excuse. What exactly did they do and say?

I think they probably did indeed get carried away but didn't really think about the consequences. They probably got angry that they had to pursue Tyre Nichols, and would have done so to anyone under the same circumstances.


And why did they not think about the consequences?

They would have thought about the consequences if Mr. Nichols had been white.

I never said the opposite. The question is, why did they do it?


Why did they do what?

Well, if they got carried away then they may as well go for the bullshit excuse. They arguably don't really lose much, I don't know if that would be used against them for sentencing.

It's also possible they started with that simply to sleep better at night...


Since you ignored my point, I am dropping this tangent. I do not feel like parsing this into a clear argument. If you would like me to address this, please clarify whatever point you are making.
#15263740
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I never argued they were calculating and premeditating their crime, this is not a criticism of my argument.


As I said, it's very much implied even in this softened version.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You just said they did not make up an excuse, and merely conferred on what story they were going to tell others.

You keep saying they were making an excuse. What exactly did they do and say?


They claimed he reached for one of their guns, aka making up a story - which works as an excuse.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And why did they not think about the consequences?

They would have thought about the consequences if Mr. Nichols had been white.


Probably because, as you said, they got carried away. I don't think you can know what would have happened had Nichols been white, but even if he had been white he wouldn't have been the first one to get beaten by a cop who got carried away.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why did they do what?


If you listen to some ex cops who've seen the footage, to have some way out.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you ignored my point, I am dropping this tangent. I do not feel like parsing this into a clear argument. If you would like me to address this, please clarify whatever point you are making.


My point is, it wasn't irrational to try to make something up at that point. What was irrational was the beating itself, not the excuse after. The latter was poorly planned, the former not planned at all.
#15263741
wat0n wrote:As I said, it's very much implied even in this softened version.

They claimed he reached for one of their guns, aka making up a story - which works as an excuse.


So, one of them said that Mr. Nichols was reaching for his gun.

That is the entirety of the actions that you consider “making up an excuse”?

Probably because, as you said, they got carried away. I don't think you can know what would have happened had Nichols been white, but even if he had been white he wouldn't have been the first one to get beaten by a cop who got carried away.


We do know that Mr. Nichols is significantly more likely to have not been killed had he been white.

If you listen to some ex cops who've seen the footage, to have some way out.

My point is, it wasn't irrational to try to make something up at that point. What was irrational was the beating itself, not the excuse after. The latter was poorly planned, the former not planned at all.


Sure.

This does not contradict my argument about systemic racism.
#15263742
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, one of them said that Mr. Nichols was reaching for his gun.

That is the entirety of the actions that you consider “making up an excuse”?


Yes, and that kind of thing (if it had happened) would justify the use of force. Why? Do you know of any other?

The reckless driving allegation wouldn't work, as it wouldn't by itself justify a beating.

Pants-of-dog wrote:We do know that Mr. Nichols is significantly more likely to have not been killed had he been white.


Under these circumstances? I don't think we know that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.

This does not contradict my argument about systemic racism.


It does however provide a coherent account of these cops' state of mind. I highly doubt they were thinking about race in this incident.
#15263743
wat0n wrote:Yes, and that kind of thing (if it had happened) would justify the use of force. Why? Do you know of any other?

The reckless driving allegation wouldn't work, as it wouldn't by itself justify a beating.


When you describe this as “making up an excuse”, what do you mean by that?

Under these circumstances? I don't think we know that.


There are many studies showing that black people are far more likely to die at the hands of cops than white people in the USA.

It does however provide a coherent account of these cops' state of mind. I highly doubt they were thinking about race in this incident.


Sure.

This does not contradict my claim about systemic racism.
#15263744
Pants-of-dog wrote:When you describe this as “making up an excuse”, what do you mean by that?


Wouldn't taking the gun of one of the cops justify a violent response?

Pants-of-dog wrote:There are many studies showing that black people are far more likely to die at the hands of cops than white people in the USA.


So? Those studies don't even distinguish between proper and improper use of force.

Others don't even consider what happens in cases where the encounter doesn't end with death i.e. the vast majority of police encounters.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.

This does not contradict my claim about systemic racism.


I beg to disagree, indeed, you said as much.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 24

Leslie woman gets to the point. Lol. https:[…]

I'm surprised to see the genocide supporters (lik[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong???[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]