Multiple police shot in Dallas protest

[Nessie]

That is, in your opinion. The law has a different view.

What law are you referring to?

 

[Nessie]

I'm assuming you would support the arrest of the officers responsible for murder or manslaughter, correct?

I say that the officer who approved of and ordered the bomb should be charged.

 

[Nessie]

No I'm not. There are relevant circumstances here besides the fact that he was a murder suspect.

Not if you pay even a modicum of attention.

You have argued that in this case is was acceptable for the police to kill Johnson. I want to know what other circumstances you would approve of the police killing rather than arresting the suspect?

As far as I can tell, you don't believe any amount of time would ever be enough. Your objection to 2 hours as insufficient is meaningless if you cannot say what would be sufficient, and you have consistently failed to do that.

Wrong, I have said that if negotiations were still happening at the time of writing, which was two days later, they should go on. If they were still negotiating right now then I would say they should keep going. I would never say, times up, kill him.

 

[cullennz]

The way I see it, he was contained and they should have waited out till he came off whatever he was on.

24 hours. See how it's going

 

[Cylinder]

As far as I can tell, you don't believe any amount of time would ever be enough. Your objection to 2 hours as insufficient is meaningless if you cannot say what would be sufficient, and you have consistently failed to do that.

Measuring it by a shot clock rather than by circumstance is what's meaningless. There is simply no meaningful answer to that question.

 

[Cylinder]

What law are you referring to?

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have argued that in this case is was acceptable for the police to kill Johnson. I want to know what other circumstances you would approve of the police killing rather than arresting the suspect?

I've already made that clear.

Wrong, I have said that if negotiations were still happening at the time of writing, which was two days later, they should go on. If they were still negotiating right now then I would say they should keep going. I would never say, times up, kill him.

Which means that your claim it wasn't enough time was a lie, because the amount of time isn't relevant to you.

But I am curious about what you think "negotiation" even means, and why you're convinced that negotiations were still going on when the police acted. From what I've read, negotiations had already ended, because of his refusal to try to negotiate.

 

[cullennz]

I've already made that clear.



Which means that your claim it wasn't enough time was a lie, because the amount of time isn't relevant to you.

But I am curious about what you think "negotiation" even means, and why you're convinced that negotiations were still going on when the police acted. From what I've read, negotiations had already ended, because of his refusal to try to negotiate.

So as soon as someone stops talking it's die time?

 

[Cylinder]

So as soon as someone stops talking it's die time?

That's just silly.

It's die time when the police reasonably determine that the risk of escape manifests a significant threat of death or serious injury to police or the public and likewise determine that lethal force is necessary to effect arrest.

 

[cullennz]

That's just silly.

It's die time when the police reasonably determine that the risk of escape manifests a significant threat of death or serious injury to police or the public and likewise determine that lethal force is necessary to effect arrest.

From all the accounts I have read he was contained

 

[Cylinder]

From all the accounts I have read he was contained

Did you know that there were at least two persons who had sheltered in that building - neither known to police - one of which was not found until the following day?

Let's assume for sake of this argument that this idiot escaped. Would a person be reasonable in the belief that there was a significant risk he would continue his shooting spree? If not, what makes that belief unreasonable using only information available at the time.

 

[cullennz]

Did you know that there were at least two persons who had sheltered in that building - neither known to police - one of which was not found until the following day?

Let's assume for sake of this argument that this idiot escaped. Would a person be reasonable in the belief that there was a significant risk he would continue his shooting spree? If not, what makes that belief unreasonable using only information available at the time.

You are assuming he would escape when he was contained with hundreds of armed cops all surrounding him

 

[Cylinder]

You are assuming he would escape when he was contained with hundreds of armed cops all surrounding him

I certainly am not assuming he would have escaped. I personally assess that as low potential risk. The question assumes it arguendo. It's a determination the police would have had to make in order to determine what amount of force was permissible by law.

 

[cullennz]

I certainly am not assuming he would have escaped. I personally assess that as low potential risk. The question assumes it arguendo. It's a determination the police would have had to make in order to determine what amount of force was permissible by law.

Permissible rather than necessary?

 

[Cylinder]

Permissible rather than necessary?

No, I think deadly force was clearly necessary. I think the potential risk of escape was low but intolerable. I think the risk of further actions in situ was unknown but intolerable. I think the risk to police in physically seizing this idiot was near certainty and intolerable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Permissible rather than necessary?

Of course permissible and not necessary. Under US law, police actions are almost always a matter of permissible and not necessary. They have no legal obligation to protect you, for example.

 

[cullennz]

No, I think deadly force was clearly necessary. I think the potential risk of escape was low but intolerable. I think the risk of further actions in situ was unknown but intolerable. I think the risk to police in physically seizing this idiot was near certainty and intolerable.

There were 100s of armed cops surrounding him

 

[Nessie]

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Eh? That needs explaining and examples to show it has been applied in real life.

 

[Nessie]

I've already made that clear.

Where?

Which means that your claim it wasn't enough time was a lie, because the amount of time isn't relevant to you.

Play on words, 2 hours was not enough. They should have gone on till he came out shooting, gave up, passed out.

But I am curious about what you think "negotiation" even means, and why you're convinced that negotiations were still going on when the police acted. From what I've read, negotiations had already ended, because of his refusal to try to negotiate.

The negotiations had hardly got going. Johnson was not making it easy for the police, but there was still a dialogue of forms. Rather than being patient the police got fed up, gave up and decided to blow him up.

Which takes us right back to trigger happy, excessively violent police over whom the original protest was about.

 

[Nessie]

Did you know that there were at least two persons who had sheltered in that building - neither known to police - one of which was not found until the following day?

Let's assume for sake of this argument that this idiot escaped. Would a person be reasonable in the belief that there was a significant risk he would continue his shooting spree? If not, what makes that belief unreasonable using only information available at the time.

Lets discuss the situation as it actually was. Jonhson had been shot twice, was clearly delusional and contained by police. He was no risk to the public. That you are having to make up scenarios means what happened is not defensible.