Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[Dr.Sid]

You brought up legitimate shootings and tied it to what happens in court, so those are clearly legitimate shootings per your definition of legitimate.

You're right. I sometimes mean 'legitimate' as 'right' and that's not correct. They often have few in common, typically in these cases. I will try to word it better next time.

Certainly cops should be responsible for mistakes they make. On the other hand society tasks them with job, where small mistake means death.

Several aspects must be addressed during the court (and typically is).
Was there intent ? Did the cop actually wanted to shoot the victim ?
Was there negligence or failure to follow protocol ? Did the cop make a mistake before shooting ?
Also was there racial motive, intended or not-intended ?

In Castile case the cop 'simply' made a mistake. IMHO he should be guilty of killing (not murder) and negligence, and certainly not fit for police. He might get preferable treatment based on his service, but only in punishment department.
Jury decided not guilty, saying they were not sure he met palpable negligence requirements.

But that bring another problem. Jury. If society in general is racist, random jury is likely to be racist too. If there was just judge deciding the case, there's a chance he will be above that because of education and experience. Wonder how big of a role that plays.

 

[Suddenly]

For a high-profile bombastic lawyer, such a trial need not be about law. Theater works just as well, sell a story to the jury, you only have to get one to buy it (that's also part of the reason it is so difficult to convict police of crimes even when it does get prosecuted, some people will just never vote to convict a cop of much of anything, they just can't ever bring themselves to do it).

Problem is that the one juror just leads to another trial, one that will come after that hung jury will almost certainly touch off some major unrest. Even if one of these guys gets into the second pool the juror dynamic is going to be seriously hostile to that.

The state really needs to put in the work on jury selection in these cases. Most people who are going to act like that leave a trail on social media that isn't hard to find.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're right. I sometimes mean 'legitimate' as 'right' and that's not correct. They often have few in common, typically in these cases. I will try to word it better next time.

Oh that is fine, the issue was that you tied legitimacy of shootings to the legal outcome. That opens up all

Certainly cops should be responsible for mistakes they make. On the other hand society tasks them with job, where small mistake means death.

In Castile case the cop 'simply' made a mistake. IMHO he should be guilty of killing (not murder) and negligence, and certainly not fit for police. He might get preferable treatment based on his service, but only in punishment department.
Jury decided not guilty, saying they were not sure he met palpable negligence requirements.

The law rarely works that way, it was not negligence because he clearly meant to shoot Philando. His defense was not, "the gun just went off". So he intentionally shot someone, that is either murder or legitimate self defense. Go back to the off duty cop who murdered the guy in his own apartment because of a mistake about what floor she was on.

It might be a low grade of murder but it was not an accident, but an intentional shooting. That is murder.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But that bring another problem. Jury. If society in general is racist, random jury is likely to be racist too. If there was just judge deciding the case, there's a chance he will be above that because of education and experience. Wonder how big of a role that plays.

These cases very rarely make it trial. Cops in general aren't even charged or investigated. We sort of have to fix that before what happens at their trial becomes a problem.

It might (hell probably, hell almost certainly) is a problem, but it's a problem in status we're going to have to fix several other problems before we even get to.

People really have to remember that cops actually being arrested for unlawful shootings is a very new and still very rare thing.

As of 2019 (looking for updated stats, will post if I find them) only 35 police officers nationwide had been convicted in fatal shootings since 2005.

 

[Suddenly]

Certainly cops should be responsible for mistakes they make. On the other hand society tasks them with job, where small mistake means death.

Imagine if the medical profession, where often a small mistake means death, took the same line on personal responsibility for mistakes leading to death that cops take. Instead of being more careful about training and procedure they just circle the wagons and have a red line of silence that prevents them from ever holding each other to task.

Sure, cops have risk to their person. So do doctors dealing with dangerous diseases. A doctor that just gave a lethal injection to a patient the doctor was afraid might infect him would be drummed out of the profession and go to jail.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Ask yourself how many unjustifiable police shootings are acceptable.

Now imagine that you or a loved one are on the list of candidates for an unjustifiable police shooting.

Does that move the needle for you?

Acceptable is zero. But question is what is achievable. And how. I'm not sure.

Better training, and more focus on personal responsibility would be step in right direction. Imho cops should be allowed to shoot when feeling threatened, but they must also know they will carry the consequences if they mess up.
The cases must be instigated, as openly as possible. Race motives must be addressed ASAP. Cop might get special treatment, but not in guilty / not-guilty department. Saying he was guilty sends message about what's right and wrong.

 

[catsmate]

Because we aren't enemies of other predominantly democratic nations.

I do believe that numerous peoples would disagree with your blanket "USA wonderful" bollocks.
Say Costa Rica in '48, Syria in '49, Iran in '53, Guatemala in '53, Indonesia in '57-59 and '65, Laos in '60, Brazil in '61, South Vietnam in '63, Chile in '64 and '70-72, Cambodia in '70.........................

 

[Meadmaker]

Tamir Rice was ******* 12. The police shot him dead for carrying a toy gun. They didn't worry about his "mental development" at that point.

Kyle Wittenhouse was 17, shoots 2 people, walks up to police carrying an assault rifle, and is sent on his way. Now his "mental development" is a big deal we're supposed to care about.

Actually, yes, and I think it illustrates Suddenly's point very well.

I think Suddenly's whole point is that you can't take a 17 year old and expect them to develop independent thinking and critical skills. They just aren't capable. Kyle was encouraged at every step of the way to do what he did. His parents and the police not only sent him on his way, they encouraged him. A seventeen year old kid getting that sort of positive reinforcement will respond, and he did.

Where I might differ with Suddenly is that I can say the same think about a 17 year old selling crack in the 'hood. (Am I behind the times? Should that be meth? Do people still say "dope"?) He is encouraged and lauded by everyone he respects. However, if he ends up before a judge, no one is going to say, "Poor misunderstood kid. He needs rehabilitation."

So, from a pure perspective of justice, I think Kyle Rittenhouse should be treated exactly like a typical 17 year old kid charged with murder. Sadly, for Kyle, that doesn't end well unless he can convince a jury of self-defense. Seems like a tough sell to me, but we have trials for a reason.

It's ironic, but there is a strong element of "society is to blame" here. "Society is to blame" that this privileged white kid grew up to think himself some vigilante hero standing for God and the 2nd Amendment against the lawless hordes, when in reality, he was the lawless horde.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Oh that is fine, the issue was that you tied legitimacy of shootings to the legal outcome. That opens up all

Certainly cops should be responsible for mistakes they make. On the other hand society tasks them with job, where small mistake means death.



The law rarely works that way, it was not negligence because he clearly meant to shoot Philando. His defense was not, "the gun just went off". So he intentionally shot someone, that is either murder or legitimate self defense. Go back to the off duty cop who murdered the guy in his own apartment because of a mistake about what floor she was on.

It might be a low grade of murder but it was not an accident, but an intentional shooting. That is murder.

I mean negligence in sense 'he didn't make sure there's a gun'. In the moment he thought there is a gun, he's not acting on his will, he's shooting because he has to defend himself. He's wrong at that, but that doesn't mean intent. Murder requires intent beforehand, and nothing like that was proven, and AFAIK not even suspected.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Actually, yes, and I think it illustrates Suddenly's point very well.

I think Suddenly's whole point is that you can't take a 17 year old and expect them to develop independent thinking and critical skills. They just aren't capable. Kyle was encouraged at every step of the way to do what he did. His parents and the police not only sent him on his way, they encouraged him. A seventeen year old kid getting that sort of positive reinforcement will respond, and he did.

Where I might differ with Suddenly is that I can say the same think about a 17 year old selling crack in the 'hood. (Am I behind the times? Should that be meth? Do people still say "dope"?) He is encouraged and lauded by everyone he respects. However, if he ends up before a judge, no one is going to say, "Poor misunderstood kid. He needs rehabilitation."

So, from a pure perspective of justice, I think Kyle Rittenhouse should be treated exactly like a typical 17 year old kid charged with murder. Sadly, for Kyle, that doesn't end well unless he can convince a jury of self-defense. Seems like a tough sell to me, but we have trials for a reason.

It's ironic, but there is a strong element of "society is to blame" here. "Society is to blame" that this privileged white kid grew up to think himself some vigilante hero standing for God and the 2nd Amendment against the lawless hordes, when in reality, he was the lawless horde.

And my point is Tamir Rice is dead and in the ground while Kyle Rittenhouse is alive and breathing while we sit here hand-wringing about what to do with him.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Jury trial - they only need to sway one juror with emotion. Get one juror with a psuedo-religious interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. One juror who sees Rittenhouse as a kid in over his head. One juror who thinks he's cute. One juror is all it takes.

For a high-profile bombastic lawyer, such a trial need not be about law. Theater works just as well, sell a story to the jury, you only have to get one to buy it (that's also part of the reason it is so difficult to convict police of crimes even when it does get prosecuted, some people will just never vote to convict a cop of much of anything, they just can't ever bring themselves to do it).

Sure, this is all true, but even then, the lawyer should have criminal defense background. I imagine a criminal defense lawyer is much better at working the jury than some defamation guy.

Someone like Lin Wood is probably more useful before the trial, trying to gin up support in the right wing ecosystem to attract attention and donations to pay what is surely going to be an expensive defense.

It should be noted that there is no evidence that Lin Wood actually won any significant victory in the Covington case. It ended in settlement with a NDA. Legal experts think that any money won was more likely a relatively small sum, given the long-shot odds of the case and the lack of the very specific evidence needed to prevail in a defamation case against the press.

Lin Wood seems to be very good at elevating his own brand, rushing from right wing cause to right wing cause. Whether or not he's a very good lawyer is another question.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Imagine if the medical profession, where often a small mistake means death, took the same line on personal responsibility for mistakes leading to death that cops take. Instead of being more careful about training and procedure they just circle the wagons and have a red line of silence that prevents them from ever holding each other to task.

Sure, cops have risk to their person. So do doctors dealing with dangerous diseases. A doctor that just gave a lethal injection to a patient the doctor was afraid might infect him would be drummed out of the profession and go to jail.

Yes, these are similar. Yet medical personnel does take special treatment (at least here). The fact their job creates situations like this is taken into account. Yet as I said, I think correct way is to say 'guilty' and then use lower sentence, and most likely suspension. The guilty verdict is important for victims and society though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Better training, and more focus on personal responsibility would be step in right direction. Imho cops should be allowed to shoot when feeling threatened, but they must also know they will carry the consequences if they mess up.

That is the problem, people find blacks more threatening in general because of cultural biases. So feeling threatened it the standard then Philando Castile was shot justifiably as the cop was clearly feeling threatened by the idea of a black man with a legal gun.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do believe that numerous peoples would disagree with your blanket "USA wonderful" bollocks.

This may be a hard concept for you to grasp, but a country doesn't have to be wonderful to not be enemies with another country. And your examples don't demonstrate what you think they do.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Murder requires intent beforehand, and nothing like that was proven, and AFAIK not even suspected.

No it does not. That is premeditated murder, all murder requires is an intentional act not premeditation. That is why these cases are murder and not manslaughter where it is a unintended result.

These are not negligent shootings that happen to hit someone, these are intentional actions and so either murder or justifiable self defense.

You want manslaughter look at this shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Akai_Gurley

 

[Ziggurat]

It should be noted that there is no evidence that Lin Wood actually won any significant victory in the Covington case. It ended in settlement with a NDA. Legal experts think that any money won was more likely a relatively small sum, given the long-shot odds of the case and the lack of the very specific evidence needed to prevail in a defamation case against the press.

We don't know what the evidence was. CNN et al. attempted to get the trial thrown out, and it wasn't. That means it went to discovery. So there's a significant possibility that additional evidence did emerge, but has not been made public because of the NDA.

And the press has no better defense than anyone else against defamation claims. Public figures have a much higher burden in proving defamation, and they're the ones we normally think of the press as going after, but this kid wasn't a public figure so that higher threshold doesn't apply.

 

[shuttlt]

And the press has no better defense than anyone else against defamation claims. Public figures have a much higher burden in proving defamation, and they're the ones we normally think of the press as going after, but this kid wasn't a public figure so that higher threshold doesn't apply.

Did they lose the argument that because of the circus around the story he had become a public figure? I'm pretty sure that was being argued.

 

[Suddenly]

Where I might differ with Suddenly is that I can say the same think about a 17 year old selling crack in the 'hood. (Am I behind the times? Should that be meth? Do people still say "dope"?) He is encouraged and lauded by everyone he respects. However, if he ends up before a judge, no one is going to say, "Poor misunderstood kid. He needs rehabilitation."

They really should though, and in some places they do.

Here, he'd probably not be adjudicated delinquent. He'd almost certainly get an improvement period where the state would provide services relevant to his situation and dismiss if he complies.

We have judges and prosecutors that are strong believers of the value of juvenile rehabilitation, which isn't exactly a universal thing.

 

[Suddenly]

And my point is Tamir Rice is dead and in the ground while Kyle Rittenhouse is alive and breathing while we sit here hand-wringing about what to do with him.

This sounds a lot like the reasoning behind the criticism of BLM for not caring enough about street crime.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I mean negligence in sense 'he didn't make sure there's a gun'. In the moment he thought there is a gun, he's not acting on his will, he's shooting because he has to defend himself. He's wrong at that, but that doesn't mean intent. Murder requires intent beforehand, and nothing like that was proven, and AFAIK not even suspected.

Total nonsense.

Murder laws vary state to state, and not all of them require premeditation for the most severe murder charges.

Intentionally firing a gun at someone causing their death is 1st degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin, and probably satisfies some form of murder requirement in every state. There's nothing accidental about a deliberate gunshot wound causing death.

Wisconsin doesn't lay any such premeditation condition on intentional homicide:

Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/i/01

It allows for an affirmative defense of self-defense. It even allows for a mitigating "unreasonable" self defense that bumps it down to 2nd-degree intentional homicide, but there's no requirement for premeditation.