Multiple police shot in Dallas protest

[Ziggurat]

if the police killed a suspect when he posed no "immediate threat", how could there be no basis for murder or manslaughter?

He did pose an immediate threat, so this isn't really a relevant question.

Nessie was consistent when replying that the responsible party should be arrested.

Nessie has been consistently wrong.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But why not an arrest of one or more cops? When I previously asked this question you said there was no basis, but if the police killed a suspect when he posed no "immediate threat", how could there be no basis for murder or manslaughter? How is that possible? Nessie was consistent when replying that the responsible party should be arrested.

Different requirements between criminal and civil court.

 

[Blue Mountain]

He did pose an immediate threat, so this isn't really a relevant question.

How "immediate" was the threat? Apparently he fired some shots from his contained position. But right now I have no idea how "contained" he was. He was apparently in a stairwell, so just where did those shots go? Were they harmless, in that the bullets had nowhere to go except up and down the stairs? (Which admittedly would make arresting him quite difficult.) Or was the stairwell open to the outside, meaning the shots could be directed much further afield?

Frankly, unless you and Nessie have access to information that I haven't seen, the argument over the police's use of the bomb is more philosophical than evidence based. In that vein I agree with Nessie: killing the shooter using a remove controlled bomb amounts to summary execution.

If you have information that the shooter posed a direct risk to the public and the police from his contained position, please present it and I'll re-assess my position.

 

[trustbutverify]

He did pose an immediate threat, so this isn't really a relevant question.

I agree he posed an immediate threat, but BTC doesn't. It doesn't make sense to me how you could simultaneously hold the opinions that the police killed a man who posed no immediate threat, but shouldn't be arrested on felony charges for doing so. That's what I was questioning him about.

Nessie has been consistently wrong.

Maybe or maybe not, but at least her/his views don't contradict each other.

 

[Ziggurat]

How "immediate" was the threat?

He said he had placed IED's at unknown locations. That is a very immediate threat.

If you have information that the shooter posed a direct risk to the public and the police from his contained position, please present it and I'll re-assess my position.

See my above video link for where the police chief talks about the standoff.

 

[Ziggurat]

I agree he posed an immediate threat, but BTC doesn't. It doesn't make sense to me how you could simultaneously hold the opinions that the police killed a man who posed no immediate threat, but shouldn't be arrested on felony charges for doing so. That's what I was questioning him about.

I agree with that.

Maybe or maybe not, but at least her/his views don't contradict each other.

Actually, they do, or they did. Nessie claimed that the police shouldn't have attacked because there was no immediate threat, but then when I pointed out about the risk of explosives, Nessie claimed that the police shouldn't have attacked because of the immediate threat.

 

[trustbutverify]

Different requirements between criminal and civil court.

Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying the circumstances don't support the assertion that the shooter posed no immediate threat at the time of his death beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I agree he posed an immediate threat, but BTC doesn't. It doesn't make sense to me how you could simultaneously hold the opinions that the police killed a man who posed no immediate threat, but shouldn't be arrested on felony charges for doing so. That's what I was questioning him about.


Maybe or maybe not, but at least her/his views don't contradict each other.

Wait what? I don't think they violated deadly force. I have been arguing that what we know so far that there is a chance for a violation to occur under those circumstances. I don't want the family to sue because they will win, I want them to sue because a loss for them advances my agenda.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying the circumstances don't support the assertion that the shooter posed no immediate threat at the time of his death beyond a reasonable doubt?

I'm saying I don't know if it did or not, I would like to find out, and a civil case could do that.

 

[BStrong]

There is not differentiation in tactics in Scotland for criminals who go on a rampage killing and terrorists. There is also no difference in the duty of the police to bring them to court. I suspect the same is true for the USA. Johnson was a mass shooter and the USA has lots of them. The tactics would be the same if Johnson had just been shooting at people in the crowd.

Why are you differentiating between Johnson and say James Holmes? When Holmes was arrested he told police about the explosives he had rigged, allowing them to act with minimal risk.

You answered your own question.

 

[trustbutverify]

I'm saying I don't know if it did or not, I would like to find out, and a civil case could do that.

Isn't that what a criminal investigation and trial are supposed to determine?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Isn't that what a criminal investigation and trial are supposed to determine?

Criminal investigation needs at least a suspicion of a crime. It isn't fact finding.

 

[theprestige]

Criminal investigation needs at least a suspicion of a crime. It isn't fact finding.

Why not just file an FOIA request for the information? You could do it yourself, even, and not be dependent on other people advancing your agenda for you.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why not just file an FOIA request for the information? You could do it yourself, even, and not be dependent on other people advancing your agenda for you.

As mentioned a few pages back, I do want a judge to adjudicate it and contribute to the case law.

 

[Nessie]

You're objecting to me drawing conclusions about your motives, but you had no trouble doing that yourself with regard to the police.




And then you follow that complaint up with a straw man of your own. I said nothing about always. But I think that in this case, they had access to a LOT more information than you, information which was critical to the decision-making process, and so your second-guessing their decision doesn't hold any water with me.

That all applies to you as well.

It's cute that you think police anywhere else in the world wouldn't be allowed to use deadly force under similar circumstances.

They would not in Scotland, contain and negotiate and only use force if he is trying to shoot his way back out.

I don't doubt that, but that would be true even if they captured the shooter alive.

Not if they had negotiated him out and got him treatment for his injuries so he survived. Doing that instead of what has happened in various incidents would mean no reason to protest.

 

[trustbutverify]

Criminal investigation needs at least a suspicion of a crime. It isn't fact finding.

You don't even suspect the shooter represented no immediate threat at the time of his death?

Really?

 

[Nessie]

He did pose an immediate threat, so this isn't really a relevant question.



Nessie has been consistently wrong.

He did not pose an immediate threat. He was contained, injured and when he did exchange fire no one was hit, so the police clearly had good cover. The police blew him up rather than re-start negotiating.

The police's and your mess with us and die attitude perpetuates the violence.

 

[Nessie]

You answered your own question.

How? Holmes assisted the police with regards to his explosives. Johnson could not because he had been killed. Both went on killing sprees that result in similar policing tactics to end.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You don't even suspect the shooter represented no immediate threat at the time of his death?

Really?

You mean. Legally? I don't know enough to speculate. Personally? I think they should have shot him before attempting a negotiation.

 

[BStrong]

How? Holmes assisted the police with regards to his explosives. Johnson could not because he had been killed. Both went on killing sprees that result in similar policing tactics to end.

Degenerate 1 surrendered, degenerate 2 didn't.