Regarding Cops, Guns, Knives and Wallets

A) Suspect has (insert any deadly weapon here). Cops have right to shoot them.
B) Suspect has (insert any non-deadly weapon here). Cops do not have right to shoot them.

The existence of cases of B) DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT invalidate the existence of cases of A).

Translation: Cops are allowed to shoot people that wield deadly weapons, regardless of the existence of wallets or cases of cops shooting people with wallets.

If you attack anyone with a deadly weapon, you forfeit your Rights, and specifically, your right to live.

Have a nice day.

I agree that some cops are far to quick to act. But say you're a cop (I don't think any of us will deny the stress involved), and you're facing a suspect 50ft from you. You've already ordered him to freeze, get on the ground, etc. He not only refuses, but starts reaching behind his back. By the time he's brought whatever it is around, you may only have a fraction of a second to take action if it indeed is a gun.

What should a cop do in this case?

Which has no bearing on what any, individual cop would do.

If you're 50-ft from a suspect, how exactly are you supposed to determine if it's a gun or not? From that distance, it would be very difficult to determine whether something is a gun or a wallet - and that doesn't even take into account if it's nighttime or less than ideal visibility. How many cops have been killed because of hesitation in such a case?

Fire first, and risk shooting a moron that went for his wallet,
or
wait and risk your life.

But what makes it even more complicated is what if the suspect doesn't understand English, and doesn't understand what the cop is saying? He reaches for his wallet, and -bang- he's dead.

At the same time, the cop can't very well simply say "That wouldn't happen to be a gun you're pulling out, would it?" Then again, such a question would depend on the suspect being honest. Again, the cop is screwed either way.

If you attack anyone with a deadly weapon, you forfeit your Rights, and specifically, your right to live.

What is your basis for that statement? Why does "deadly weapon" equal "forfeiture of right to live" rather than "right to freedom" or something similar? What if no cop is nearby--does any ol' bystander have the "right" to kill the attacker?

Please understand that if I'm attacked and have a reasonable expectation of harm or death, I will fight off my attacker by any means at my disposal. But I don't pretend that I'm magically justified to do whatever I feel like doing just because the jerk had a knife. Instead, I accept that my actions (ie., killing him) will have consequences, and I elect to live with those consequences.

If a guy attacks me with a crowbar, for example, and our fight ends with neither of us jailed or dead, am I free to hunt him down five years later and kill him because he forfeited his right to life half a decade earlier?

Where do you see the limit of this forfeiture, or is it permanently irreversible? Even if we agree that the attacker has forfeited his life, why does that give me the "right" to kill him?

You forfiet your right to live at the moment of your attack. Attack ends, your rights return, should you still be alive.
Its called "Self Defense". Its real, its on the lawbooks, and if you need help with the wording, I'm sure you can google it or something.

If you attack me with a deadly weapon of any kind - knife, gun, crowbar - I have to, by law, attempt to flee. If I cannot flee or if attempting to flee would jeapordize my life, I then gain the right to slay you. Period. No questions asked. No repercussions. You die. That is the law, and that is how it should be.

You didn't specify an inability to flee--you simply said that if the attacker has a deadly weapon, he forfeits his right to live, which is a very different proposition. Do you agree?

Circumstances may justify your choice to kill me, but that's hardly a "right to slay" me. You have the right to defend yourself, and that may include killing me, but it's not carte blanche, except in the Wild West or in 21st century Florida.



All of that aside, I love your sig-graphic!

So I don't have a future in writing.
:)

That's the way it is in Florida also, FWIW...

(from a former Florida resident and student of Florida self-defense law)

I thought that was what I was getting at, but upon re-reading I see that it may have come across as jus a tongue-in-cheek zing on Florida rather than a reference to the actual current law.

it's just a lot of people think Florida law allows you to blow somebody away because you are scared of them, which is why I took it that way. Self-defense law is actually pretty much the same in Florida as in any other state.

A different set of laws for cops and civilians?

... arrest you. All kinds of different laws for cops vs civilians.
That is the entire point of having cops.

If I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and someone says "excuse me sir" in a nasty tone of voice, I feel I have a god-given right to ignore him.

If he then comes after me and tries to grab me from behind, I feel I have a right to defend myself.

I think patrol cops are basically worthless. The money should be spent on detection and serving warrants.

No cop has ever grabbed someone from behind, out of the blue, for no reason.
Ever.

People obey laws because they fear getting caught. Police presence deters crime for that very reason.

And please point me to the peer-reviewed scientific study that proves your point about deterrence.

No cop ever walked up behind you and grabbed you for no reason.
Complete bullshit.

How else are they supposed to get your attention when you won't give it to them??

Cop: "Stop."
You: <ignore cop, breaking the law>
Cop: <enforces law, stopping you>

Reason you were stopped: You broke the law by not stopping when commanded to.

Therefore, the cop had a reason to stop you. You just don't like it. But its still a valid reason.

Have a nice day.

No one owns public space and I don't have to listen to anyone just because he puts on a fucking cop suit. I am an AMERICAN, not a fucking slave. What do you consider yourself to be?

You know, the laws we all agree on as a society, which we then all follow?

Cops can stop you and question you.
You have the right to refuse to answer questions without a lawyer present.
The cop can choose to arrest you or let you go, based on evidence at hand.
You then have the right to sue if the evidence was a sham or insufficient and/or if you have a case of discrimination or false arrest.

Pretty amazing how its all covered, eh?

suck the cock of any cop who traipses into his courtroom what you say might be true.

I don't remember signing any agreements, either. We apparently have different ideas of freedom.

Mine is "lets eliminate chaos and live in an orderly society".

So long as a society has so much as a SINGLE law, that society is giving up some measure of pure "freedom" for the sake of safety and order. Its not "give up freedom or not", its "how much do we give up?" that is the question. Giving up my freedom to walk away from a cop that wants to question me is fine, because I am protected from any abuse that can arise from it.

Go on thinking this. You will sleep much better at night. But it isn't true... not in the least.

I don't remember signing any agreements, either. We apparently have different ideas of freedom.

I didn't sign any agreements when I ordered that $80 dinner at the restaurant, so am I entitled to leave after eating it? No--my ordering and accepting of the food is implicit acceptance of the contract of payment for service.

Your choice to remain in this country is your implicit agreement to abide by its laws and to accept the consequences of failing to abide by its laws.

Freedom doesn't mean that you can run roughshod over the enacted laws of society, even if you disagree with them. But you are free: you are free to leave the country, and you are free to work to change the laws.

Any suggestions as to where else I might go? Despite what many think, it's not so easy to get into another country.

If you dislike the law and are unable to leave, then you must live with the law or work to change it. If you are unable to change the law, then you must accept the consequences of obeying or disobeying it.

If you claim otherwise, then you're basically saying that your inability to leave the country grants you the right to disobey every law on the books with impunity.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

but it gives me the moral right. If everyone in US history had taken your attitude there would still be Jim Crow in the South. (And maybe the North too, by now.)

The whole point of civil disobedience is that you're willing to accept the consequences for deliberately disobeying a bullshit law. Otherwise you're just an irrelevant gadfly.

Elsewhere in the thread I have stated that, if attacked, I will defend myself. And if I wind up killing my attacker, then I will accept the legal consequences of my actions even if the killing is "morally" justified.

My stance has been consistent throughout. If your morality drives you to disobey a law, then you must accept the consequences of your action, even if the law is crap.

And if you're content to stand on your moral pedestal, then you can be comforted by the knowledge that your moral disobedience will be recognized once the bullshit law is repealed.

Initially, your position came across as one of petulant defiance, but I see now that it's motivated by a higher purpose, even if we disagree upon the proper course of action. Frankly, you should have explicitly declared your "moral" justification for your actions earlier in the discussion to eliminate unhelpful confusion.

19th century American Transcendentalist proto-hippie Henry David Thoreau once famously noted. "Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we succeed, or shall we transgress them at once?"

somebody just because they are a cop.

Disobeying a lawful order by a cop (Stop!) is a violation of the law.

I'm talking about what's right. The founding fathers are currently spinning in their graves. I weep to see my country ruled by guns and fear.

Your comment about the foundng fathers has no basis in reality! The system as it is today is far more tame and far less likely to result in death than what was in place in the late 18th century.

looking for people to bother. They would've hanged with the horse thieves.

Hyperbolic rhetoric is not condusive to a productive discussion.

You sound a little like an attorney.

"Hyperbolic rhetoric is not condusive to a productive discussion."

jesus, when did rhythm go out of our speech and language.

Anyway, I gotta go. It's been fun talking to you.

:eyes:

People also sometimes obey laws because they think that they're good ideas, or because the underlying principle of some laws matches the person's moral/ethical value system.

If we frame it simply as a fear-of-consequences argument, then we miss a good deal of possible interpretations of a given situation.

Better?
:D

I'm even more worried about the bad people who don't worry about getting caught.

A cop sees someone wielding a gun in public, and there are other people around (or homes nearby). Clearly, there is a chance the person could shoot someone.

The cop should attempt to flee? What is the point of having cops if they can't do their duty to protect people?

Eliminate all police patrols? I honestly hope you don't infer we should do away with police departments altogether. But even if you only have cops responding to calls (and they would have to drive all the way from the police station, since we've eliminated patrols), if they arrive on the scene and some criminal has a gun, the cop is supposed to turn around and leave? Yeah, that would really do a lot of good. You'd have anarchy on the streets, nobody would ever be safe in their own homes.

It's attitudes like this that allows the gopers to claim we're "soft on crime" and "anti-police".

If someone is attacking you with a deadly weapon, you should be able to strike back without "attempting to flee."

I'd like to have the same rights of self-defense as any American, including police officers.

And I think the Hobbesian vision of "anarchy in the streets" is very right-wing, mostly people's goodness or sense of what goes around, comes around is what prevents crime. There are very few people out there who are thinking, "Oooh, I would commit so many murders if it wasn't for those meddling cops." It's simply absurd. Most acts of violence are done irrationally. If you're talking property crime, I think a lot of the burden of protection should shift to the owners.

Label me libertarian on this, I guess.

I thought you were trying to say that cops should follow the same rules as civilians - and flee when confronted with deadly force. Sorry if I came on a little strong there. I do agree, you should be able to meet force with force.

from a cops. Something I have a pretty low tolerance for.

Anyone should be entitled to perform surgery or sell mutual funds or practice law or pilot a 747, licenses, training, and accountability be damned.

The fact that some cops are "bad" doesn't mean that the system of empowering cops to enforce the law is untenable across the board. It is a mistake to reject the system in its entirety because of the actions of a few whom you identify as "morally" incorrect.

What I've seen is rotten to the core. Anyone good in it is a rookie with a poor prognosis for a long career. Remember, Abner Louima was not beaten and sodomized by one cop, but by many, and even those who didn't participate closed ranks to protect those who did. No one can tell me this is the exception, not the rule.

Expanding police powers and declaring a "war on drugs" was the beginning of the end for America. You know, I think I will look into emigrating. This country makes me sick sometimes, maybe most of the time.

Some of my ancestors came from Europe to get away from passports, aristocrats, local armies of mercenaries who would claim your papers were not in order and then impound your property. They fought for a country where this would not be, where people would be lords in their own homes and free on the streets of their cities. What I see is their ultimate failure, all around me.

The "war on drugs" has been a complete farce from the beginning. If only it were as simple as "Just Say No". But instead, we've wasted billions of dollars chasing a hopeless goal. We've imprisoned millions of Americans (and a disproportionate % of minorities).

Imagine if we had taken all the $$$ spent on drug prosecution and imprisonment on stuff like rehabilitation? We would have a much better society if we had even spent a fraction of that amount.

how many fewer wiretaps and paid informants and entrapment schemes and serious jail sentences proceeding from racial profiling stops. Not to mention no drug gangs to justify turning cops into heavily armed and armored apemen with hordes of adoring sheeple lining up to lick their bottoms.

What I've seen is rotten to the core. Anyone good in it is a rookie with a poor prognosis for a long career. Remember, Abner Louima was not beaten and sodomized by one cop, but by many, and even those who didn't participate closed ranks to protect those who did. No one can tell me this is the exception, not the rule.

Given the extremity of your assertion, you'll forgive me if I don't accept you at your word. Show me the evidence that the system is as uniformly corrupt as you claim, or else withdraw that claim. I have no interest in your anecdotal and generally non-specific testimony without supporting evidence.

I personally know a cop who has been shot on two separate occasions while defending civilians. I know another cop who charged into a burning building, with no protective fire-gear, to save a toddler. And I know quite a few cops who have never sodomized anyone with a nightstick. Heck, every cop I know matches that last description.

If I were to cling to your anecdotal pseudo-logic, then I would assert that No one can tell me that these brave and noble people are the exception, not the rule.

It uses the word "reasonable" which means if you fear that fleeing would end up allowing your attacker to get the upper hand, you don't have to flee.

Cops have to protect society, therefore, they are not required to flee when presented with a threat. In fact, they are mandated to specifically face that threat.

However, other than the "flee" part, the rest holds true. If the cops life is in jeapordy, they gain the right to slay their attacker, just like you and me.

Cops and civilians should follow the same rules - including the fleeing part.

I'm not discounting that he has had some very negative encounters with cops, and some cops do have a tendency of treating people differently. For instance, a black youth walking down the street with his pants sagging, wearing a FUBU shirt, and a ballcap on sideways is probably going to get a lot more attention than some white teenager with a collared shirt and nicely pressed slacks. A black man driving a BMW is much more likely to get pulled over than a redneck driving a beat-up Ford Ranger. But that doesn't mean that cops don't provide a valuable service to society.

My bad, carry on.

with killing weapons and one schizophrenic with a knife? Do they disable the man by shooting his arm or do they all open fire? Have mentally ill people give up all their rights to life? Looks like society has flown over the cuckoo's nest for the mad appear more sane and rational.

If they have the option of Tasers and choose to use them, fine.
If they don't and use guns, fine.
If they don't have the option of Tasers and use guns, fine.

Also, the man was not schitzophrenic. The man was "uh.... acting all whacked out on drugs or something." People don't wear little name tags that say "I am schitzophrenic" on them. Duh.

Sorry for the derail, but it seems the more of your posts I read the more confrontational and rude you appear to be. What is wrong with discussing this issues civily without the "duh's"?

his mental health was physically visible at the scene. I mean, DUH, of course it wasnt, they didn't know he was schizto till afterwards. I just can't fathom how people can not understand this.

However, I feel the exact opposite upon my observation of the video. The guy was waving his arms like a bird, the threat he posed didn't look serious. I can't fathom how that many officers can't subdue a guy with a knife with out killing him.

That's not to say that I don't understand why he was shot. I just believe things could have been handled with less loss of life.

If I am going to "Coulda woulda shoulda" this incident, then mine would be:

Why dont all cops in the USA (and I mean ALL) have Tasers?

it's your relative or friend.

B. you ARE wrong

B) The self defense law says I am right. What is your evidence? Oh, you don't have any. Tsk tsk.

existance and forfiet....

what if the suspect is a child?

is it still black and white?

So you would not hesitate on killing a 5 year old if he attempted to attack you with a knife?

This may just be me, but I do not feel my life is really threatened much by a 5 year old with a knife. :shrug:

There is a difference between my right to take the 5 year olds life based on his actions, and what I actually do.
I could choose to spare his life and risk my own by attempting (and likely succeeding) in wresting for the knife.
But by law I am not required to risk my life and wrestle for the knife. By law, I am required to flee, and if unable to flee or if fleeing would itself jeapordize my life, I am entitled to kill my attacker. Again, I don't have to kill them, but I am ALLOWED TO.

Any time a person, even a cop, kills someone that is in the physical act of making an attack with a deadly weapon, its 100% justified automatically, no matter what other options that person or cop had.

That is the point I am making.

are you stating that a cop would be 100% justified in killing a 5 year old with a knife if the 5 year old lunged at him?

If its not illegal, it is publically moral by definition.

If you do not make distinctions between legal and ethical.

It used to be legal to own slaves, did that make it ethical when it was legal?

your stance seems to be "laws are right except when they're wrong".

It is rather difficult for a 5 year old to pose a genuine threat deadly threat to an adult.

Hypothetical? Yes.
All threats are genuine.

Sadly, there have been cases where small children have posed genuine lethal threats, but I just didn't want to go into that area.

I was talking about the typical 5 year old against a typical adult.

Not a racist diss on the original poster, but rather on the kind of argument often made in cases like this.

Check the video. Huge guy, nearly 300 pounds, motions to deputy to come over. Deputy approaches, guy pulls out knife. The two men engage, deputy uses his training, gets the knife away from the guy, pushes him away to create some space in tight quarters, takes out his taser and drops the guy with textbook takedown technique. Deputy safe, hospital folks safe, guy taken into custody.

The deputy should have just plugged the guy though, I guess, because he had forfeited all his rights, specifically his right to live, and it's up to our law enforcement officers to act as judge, jury and executioner.

http://www.katu.com/stories/82108.html

The cop chose to use a Taser because the cop had a taser and had the choice to use it.

A different cop, with less experience and no Taser could have shot the man, and it would be 100% legitimate.

Have a nice day.

Judging by subject-lines, I'd have to think that you're referring to mine, but you also called my argument "technically" correct.

"If a guy attacks me with a crowbar, for example, and our fight ends with neither of us jailed or dead, am I free to hunt him down five years later and kill him because he forfeited his right to life half a decade earlier?

Where do you see the limit of this forfeiture, or is it permanently irreversible? Even if we agree that the attacker has forfeited his life, why does that give me the "right" to kill him?"


That was just silly.

But I don't see why it's ridiculous, exactly.

Perhaps it's a question of framing. If you wish to maintain your position that you are justified in defending yourself against an attacker, and that your defense may include killing your attacker, then you should probably eliminate the word "forfeit" from your argument. "Forfeiting the right to live" suggests a permanent waiving that right, which I gather is not your meaning.

I would frame it like this:

"If I am attacked, with a reasonable fear of death or significant harm and no ability to flee, I am justified in defending myself against my attacker by any means at my disposal until the threat is eliminated."

That way you avoid the "permanent forfeiture" angle, and you also specify that your only choice isn't to kill the person with the knife.

Training and experience are no substitutes for just blazing away, and anyone who questions that is obtuse and ridiculous. Thank God for your prescience, sir!

Stay away from cops.

stay away from weapons.

Much better idea.

Oh yeah, already tried that.

Not that I am advocating a return to the horrors of the Titicut Follies or the mass hospitalization of the mentally disturbed. But we did lock them in institutions once, then we let them all go because mental hospitals were inhumane. They were supposed to receive community based treatment. But that never happened. So now we have lots of mentally disturbed people wandering the streets, living on the streets, etc.

What happened in New Orleans must be viewed in that larger social context.

This reminds me of all those Tookie Wilson threads. It seems like no one ever talked about the social context which made the rise of the Crips and Bloods possible. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

So it CAN be done.

they are running around on the streets, armed with knives. And then we all cry and whine that they get shot.
This guy should have been locked up somewhere. He is schizophrenic, and has a long criminal history. But no, can't do that. Better he tries to kill someone and ends up dead.

Go tell a mentally ill person they can't have any weapons.

I'll wait here for your report.