Bad Boys II

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2020, 10:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   A taser is made for one use, it can't be used for any other purpose. 

I have some porn videos you need to see.

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2020, 11:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have some porn videos you need to see.

Keep the home videos off the web

[Dill]

(06-28-2020, 10:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say made for one use, I said having one use.  A kitchen knife is made for one use, it can be used for other things.  A taser is made for one use, it can't be used for any other purpose.  It's not that complicated and it's odd that I have to explain this at the minute level you're asking for.

Very difficult to find something "made for one use" that absolutely cannot be used for any other purpose.

I could use a kitchen knife to wedge a door open so it doesn't lock when I leave the house momentarily.

Claiming a taser "can't be used for any other purpose" wouldn't prevent it from wedging the door open as well.  It wouldn't prevent a police officer from jamming it in someone's mouth to choke him or beating him over the head with it.

Legal arguments/discussions frequently come to "minute levels" precisely over questions like this. Legal definitions evolve in response to such minutiae, which lay persons may find "odd," though lawyers understand well enough the difficulties which may follow absence of precision.
 
I don't see how claiming an absolute single use for a taser affects any legal argument in the case of the college students. The taser is used as a taser in combination with other weapons--a handgun, a baton and fists--which resulted in at least one broken bone and multiple contusions.

Perhaps Fred could speak to the legal validity and potential effectiveness of defense arguing that a taser has to be a deadly weapon when Brooks used it because the DA called it such in another case, where it accompanied a swarming attack involving multiple weapons.  Would the defense really want to draw out details of that attack before a jury, in a case where police overreach is the issue? Could the jury effectively be instructed to disregard the swarming, inappropriate response of the officers and focus on the DA's definition?

[BmorePat87]

After protestors entered a gated community to protest in front of the mayor of St. Louis' home, two lawyers stood on their front lawn pointing guns at protestors yelling at them to leave the private street.

One protestor yelled back "then call the cops, you idiot".

Protestors were calling for the mayor's resignation after she went on Facebook live and read the names and addresses of residents who wrote to her asking her to support calls for defunding/reforming the police. They painted "resign" on the road out front of her house.

The couple with the guns claimed that they were told they would be murdered, their house burned, and their dogs killed, though none of the video shows any threats against them. They claimed they were in fear of their lives when a "mob" of 100 people "broke down" the gate to "storm" their community (though video shows the gate was open and undamaged when the protestors entered at a steady pace).

St. Louis may be the best known city for private streets in the US. Prior to zoning regulations in the city, a Prussian developer designed a number of private community with private roads that the residences pay for and hire private security to keep people out. In addition to those communities, St. Louis also closed off over a hundred streets during the 70's to 90's to create cul-de-sacs and reduce through traffic across the city. All in all, there are nearly 400 of these street communities across the city.

A couple pointed guns at protesters in St. Louis as a group marched toward the mayor's home to demand her resignation. https://t.co/5EqDd43QCd pic.twitter.com/KWNaif77ch

— ABC News (@ABC) June 29, 2020

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 02:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: After protestors entered a gated community to protest in front of the mayor of St. Louis' home, two lawyers stood on their front lawn pointing guns at protestors yelling at them to leave the private street.

One protestor yelled back "then call the cops, you idiot".

Protestors were calling for the mayor's resignation after she went on Facebook live and read the names and addresses of residents who wrote to her asking her to support calls for defunding/reforming the police. They painted "resign" on the road out front of her house.

The couple with the guns claimed that they were told they would be murdered, their house burned, and their dogs killed, though none of the video shows any threats against them. They claimed they were in fear of their lives when a "mob" of 100 people "broke down" the gate to "storm" their community (though video shows the gate was open and undamaged when the protestors entered at a steady pace).

St. Louis may be the best known city for private streets in the US. Prior to zoning regulations in the city, a Prussian developer designed a number of private community with private roads that the residences pay for and hire private security to keep people out. In addition to those communities, St. Louis also closed off over a hundred streets during the 70's to 90's to create cul-de-sacs and reduce through traffic across the city. All in all, there are nearly 400 of these street communities across the city.

A couple pointed guns at protesters in St. Louis as a group marched toward the mayor's home to demand her resignation. https://t.co/5EqDd43QCd pic.twitter.com/KWNaif77ch

— ABC News (@ABC) June 29, 2020

I saw a still image of this where the woman had her booger picker on the bang-bang switch while aiming it at protesters. It is lucky no one did get shot. That video shows their muzzle control and trigger discipline leave much to be desired.

i would like to prepare to better defend my home and family from the RICOing ANTIFA but I don't own a pink shirt because they make me look like Kirby, so not sure how to start

— HatWasNeverBriefed (@Popehat) June 29, 2020

[masonbengals fan]

Totally in support of open carry... especially on your own property... but don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. I wouldn't have been out there pointing my gun at anybody but don't think if that mob came thru the gate without invite & was on the edge of my property I wouldn't have got one out of the safe and had it close by just in case.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 02:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: After protestors entered a gated community to protest in front of the mayor of St. Louis' home, two lawyers stood on their front lawn pointing guns at protestors yelling at them to leave the private street.

One protestor yelled back "then call the cops, you idiot".

Protestors were calling for the mayor's resignation after she went on Facebook live and read the names and addresses of residents who wrote to her asking her to support calls for defunding/reforming the police. They painted "resign" on the road out front of her house.

The couple with the guns claimed that they were told they would be murdered, their house burned, and their dogs killed, though none of the video shows any threats against them. They claimed they were in fear of their lives when a "mob" of 100 people "broke down" the gate to "storm" their community (though video shows the gate was open and undamaged when the protestors entered at a steady pace).

St. Louis may be the best known city for private streets in the US. Prior to zoning regulations in the city, a Prussian developer designed a number of private community with private roads that the residences pay for and hire private security to keep people out. In addition to those communities, St. Louis also closed off over a hundred streets during the 70's to 90's to create cul-de-sacs and reduce through traffic across the city. All in all, there are nearly 400 of these street communities across the city.

A couple pointed guns at protesters in St. Louis as a group marched toward the mayor's home to demand her resignation. https://t.co/5EqDd43QCd pic.twitter.com/KWNaif77ch

— ABC News (@ABC) June 29, 2020

I'm all for people exercising their right to protest, but I would be very much in favor of a federal law prohibiting protesting outside of a person's personal residence.  I say personal residence as opposed to official residences such as the White House or Gracie Mansion.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 02:45 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Totally in support of open carry... especially on your own property... but don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. I wouldn't have been out there pointing my gun at anybody but don't think if that mob came thru the gate without invite & was on the edge of my property I wouldn't have got one out of the safe and had it close by just in case.

I can't disagree with you. That being said, I have one at hand, usually, for concealed carry. Well, who am I kidding, with what that mayor did I would probably have been out there with them, probably would've opened the gate for them.

But yeah, what occurred there was reckless on their part. They are lucky no protester was shot. Hell, they are lucky they didn't shoot each other with how terrible their firearm handling was.

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 02:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm all for people exercising their right to protest, but I would be very much in favor of a federal law prohibiting protesting outside of a person's personal residence.  I say personal residence as opposed to official residences such as the White House or Gracie Mansion.  

Eh, that gets sticky, though. Say you live across the street from a government building. Now you have a federal law prohibiting protesting at that government building. If you carve an exception into it, then you have unequal treatment under the law.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 01:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Very difficult to find something "made for one use" that absolutely cannot be used for any other purpose.

We just did, a taser.

Quote:I could use a kitchen knife to wedge a door open so it doesn't lock when I leave the house momentarily.

Sigh.  Let's use a filet knife for an example.  You can chop vegetables with it, not its intended use.  You can butcher an animal carcass with it, not its intended use.  You can stab a person with it, not its intended use.  You can't use a taser for anything other than its intended use.  Your example is silly as any object with enough weight can be used to prop open a door or be used to hit someone over the head.

Quote:Claiming a taser "can't be used for any other purpose" wouldn't prevent it from wedging the door open as well.  It wouldn't prevent a police officer from jamming it in someone's mouth to choke him or beating him over the head with it.

I already addressed this exact point.

Quote:Legal arguments/discussions frequently come to "minute levels" precisely over questions like this. Legal definitions evolve in response to such minutiae, which lay persons may find "odd," though lawyers understand well enough the difficulties which may follow absence of precision.
 
I don't see how claiming an absolute single use for a taser affects any legal argument in the case of the college students. The taser is used as a taser in combination with other weapons--a handgun, a baton and fists--which resulted in at least one broken bone and multiple contusions.

I know you don't get it, hence this circuitous argument.  As for the college student attack the taser was specifically mentioned as the reason for the charges that were filed.

Quote:Perhaps Fred could speak to the legal validity and potential effectiveness of defense arguing that a taser has to be a deadly weapon when Brooks used it because the DA called it such in another case, where it accompanied a swarming attack involving multiple weapons.  Would the defense really want to draw out details of that attack before a jury, in a case where police overreach is the issue? Could the jury effectively be instructed to disregard the swarming, inappropriate response of the officers and focus on the DA's definition?

Perhaps he could.  Perhaps he could also answer his own question from earlier in this thread.  It's interesting that you seek his professional expertise while completely discounting mine in numerous areas.  I wonder why that is?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, that gets sticky, though. Say you live across the street from a government building. Now you have a federal law prohibiting protesting at that government building. If you carve an exception into it, then you have unequal treatment under the law.

In such an instance you are not protesting the person in their residence, they just happen to be across the street from a protest.  Being the target of the protest is the issue, not the presence of a protest.  My main issue with protesting outside someone's home is that you're essentially terrorizing them in their personal residence.  You're also effectively imprisoning them in their residence.  It's the same issue I have with burglary and why I despise how it is treated as a less than severe felony, you're destroying the person's feeling of safety in their home.  I'll take freedom over safety every day, but inside your personal residence everyone should be able to feel safe.  Also, let's be honest, protesting outside someone's home has only one goal, to make that person feel afraid.  

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2020, 02:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm all for people exercising their right to protest, but I would be very much in favor of a federal law prohibiting protesting outside of a person's personal residence.  I say personal residence as opposed to official residences such as the White House or Gracie Mansion.  

In this case, I will fault all of them for being on a private street (assuming St. Louis law considers it trespassing) but in the case of a mayor, if they do not have an official residence like the governor or president, I don't have as much of an issue with it assuming the protest is peaceful and family is not harassed. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2020, 02:45 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Totally in support of open carry... especially on your own property... but don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. I wouldn't have been out there pointing my gun at anybody but don't think if that mob came thru the gate without invite & was on the edge of my property I wouldn't have got one out of the safe and had it close by just in case.

Yea, I can't take issue with legally carrying your gun, especially on your property, but pointing it randomly at people with your hand on the trigger...

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 03:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In such an instance you are not protesting the person in their residence, they just happen to be across the street from a protest.  Being the target of the protest is the issue, not the presence of a protest.  My main issue with protesting outside someone's home is that you're essentially terrorizing them in their personal residence.  You're also effectively imprisoning them in their residence.  It's the same issue I have with burglary and why I despise how it is treated as a less than severe felony, you're destroying the person's feeling of safety in their home.  I'll take freedom over safety every day, but inside your personal residence everyone should be able to feel safe.  Also, let's be honest, protesting outside someone's home has only one goal, to make that person feel afraid.  

Protesting is organized coercion. So I can see that argument.

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2020, 03:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, let's be honest, protesting outside someone's home has only one goal, to make that person feel afraid.  

(06-29-2020, 03:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Protesting is organized coercion. So I can see that argument.

Fair argument, but in the case of an elected official it's hard to draw the line between private and public, especially when the action your protesting is the public official publicly exposing people. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 03:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Fair argument, but in the case of an elected official it's hard to draw the line between private and public, especially when the action your protesting is the public official publicly exposing people. 

This instance does make me ponder the position, for sure. The mayor exposed citizens, and in response the citizens exposed the mayor. Now, the citizens could have attempted to bring a suit against the mayor rather than playing eye-for-an-eye, but that doesn't have the same impact.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 03:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In this case, I will fault all of them for being on a private street (assuming St. Louis law considers it trespassing) but in the case of a mayor, if they do not have an official residence like the governor or president, I don't have as much of an issue with it assuming the protest is peaceful and family is not harassed. 

The family is harassed by having a group of angry protesters right outside their house.  What did the rest of her family do to warrant such an occurrence?

(06-29-2020, 03:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Protesting is organized coercion. So I can see that argument.

Precisely, in any form.  When it's done directly outside your personal residence it ratchets that up tenfold.

(06-29-2020, 03:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Fair argument, but in the case of an elected official it's hard to draw the line between private and public, especially when the action your protesting is the public official publicly exposing people. 

I get what you're saying but I don't think it's hard to draw a line at all.  Just because you're a public employee does not mean you should lose your right to be safe in your home.  They want to protest the mayor, do it outside her place of business.  I get in this instance she doxed people so they felt the need to respond in some sort of kind.  

[Dill]

(06-29-2020, 03:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sigh.  Let's use a filet knife for an example.  You can chop vegetables with it, not its intended use.  You can butcher an animal carcass with it, not its intended use.  You can stab a person with it, not its intended use.  You can't use a taser for anything other than its intended use.  Your example is silly as any object with enough weight can be used to prop open a door or be used to hit someone over the head.

Sure, even a taser.

(06-29-2020, 03:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you don't get it, hence this circuitous argument.  As for the college student attack the taser was specifically mentioned as the reason for the charges that were filed.

Perhaps he could.  Perhaps he could also answer his own question from earlier in this thread.  It's interesting that you seek his professional expertise while completely discounting mine in numerous areas.  I wonder why that is?

In the case of the two college students, the taser was mentioned along with other factors, like pointing a handgun and using a baton.

1. I really don't know what your "expertise" is or its applicable domain. Dino assumed you were a policeman once and you excoriated him for another big "fail." I never argue from authority on this MB. But if you want to, then explain why you think you deserve the authority. What is the profession which grounds your "professional" judgment. Fred's primary job is to read, understand, interpret and apply the law. People pay him for that. Do people pay you to do that? 

2. Even if you are an expert, that doesn't grant you license to make claims you don't have to explain or otherwise support. Fred seems to understand this.  Often there are cases where "experts" disagree. What's a poor layperson supposed to do then? 


Demonstrating expertise is always better than claiming it. If you take questioning your arguments as "discounting" your claim expertise, then you are just asking to substitute the claim for demonstration.

So far, you have not offered an argument which convinces me that a DA calling a taser a "deadly weapon" in one case precludes his defining it as "less than lethal" in another under a different set of circumstances, just because of the previous case. And I mentioned the force continuum precisely because courts don't redefine weapons anew every singe case. There has to be some baseline or standard independent of individual cases, which a court accepts or rejects or otherwise measures according to the specific circumstances of a case.

The argument becomes "circuitous" because "one can't use a taser for anything other than it's intended use" does not does explain why it might be called lethal in one case and less than lethal in another.  And you keep coming back to "intended use" as if it does. If it does, then you have left out a step, some rule or factum which would close the circle of explanation. If you are a professional talking to a layperson, then a professional response would be to bridge the gap.  A non-professional response would be to explain it terms of layperson's character.

At this point, we are still waiting for more info on case. No one knows for sure what will happen, expert or not. I'm happy to wait until we hear more or the trial begins to see how this issue of definitions plays out.

[*bfine32*]

(06-29-2020, 02:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm all for people exercising their right to protest, but I would be very much in favor of a federal law prohibiting protesting outside of a person's personal residence.  I say personal residence as opposed to official residences such as the White House or Gracie Mansion.  

From what I understand these protesters tore down/ bypassed a gate that stated private property. No Trespassing.

IMO, that is an added dynamic to this situation. It the right to peaceful assembly extended to doing so on someone else's property?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, even a taser.

Tiring. 

Quote:In the case of the two college students, the taser was mentioned along with other factors, like pointing a handgun and using a baton.

Incorrect.  The taser use was directly mentioned as the main justification for the types of charges filed.  The defense attorney's for some of the officers are already all over this.

Quote:1. I really don't know what your "expertise" is or its applicable domain. Dino assumed you were a policeman once and you excoriated him for another big "fail." I never argue from authority on this MB. But if you want to, then explain why you think deserve the authority. What is the profession which grounds your "professional" judgment. Fred's primary job is to read, understand, interpret and apply the law. People pay him for that. Do people pay you to do that? 

Then you haven't been paying attention, at all.  I will never directly state what I do or who I work for, especially not in today's climate, and I've given my reasoning for that in the past.  Many people have tried to trip me up with LEO questions, and I've never gottetn them wrong.  Fred, on the other hand, has made blatant errors about the law in his posts.  He did go back later and amend his error, but he still made it.  Also, Fred is a DPD, he is paid to defend people who can't afford a private attorney.  Lastly, LEO's are paid to read, understand, interpret and apply the law as well, far more frequently than a DPD btw.

Quote:2. Even if you are an expert, that doesn't grant you license to make claims you don't have to explain or otherwise support. Fred seems to understand this.  Often there are cases where "experts" disagree. What's a poor layperson supposed to do then? 

Of course it doesn't.

Quote:Demonstrating expertise is always better than claiming it. So far, you have not offered an argument which convinces me that a DA calling a taser a "deadly weapon" in one case precludes his defining it as "less than lethal" in another under a different set of circumstances, just because of the previous case. And I mentioned the force continuum precisely because courts don't redefine weapons anew every singe case. There has to be some baseline or standard independent of individual cases, which a court accepts or rejects or otherwise measures according to the specific circumstances of a case.

I have offered a logical, cogent and consistent argument.  You choose not to agree with it.  I have a feeling if Fred was making the exact same argument you'd find it much more palatable.  I suppose we can sit back and see if i turn out to be right, the same exact way I was 100% correct about all the Freddy Grey officers walking.  Was that demonstrating expertise?  Probably not to your apparently lofty standards.

Quote:The argument becomes "circuitous" because "one can't use a taser for anything other than it's intended use" does not does explain why it might be called less than lethal in one case and lethal in another.  And you keep coming back to that point as if it does. If it does, then you have left out a step, some rule or factum which would close the circle of explanation.

I've addressed this in great detail.  You disagree.  There is really no need for the two of us to discuss this further