+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Bad Boys II (/Thread-Bad-Boys-II)
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: So you are explaining your "mistake" with reference to the character of Fulton County DA, not your understanding of how Federal/Georgia law might or should apply to the circumstances of Brooks' shooting?
If the problem is really the DA's character and not your understanding of the law, then I'd like to know why you assumed that shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back should lead to dismissal of charges against Rolfe and reinstatement of his job.
The DA wrong, why? And please, not just some impressions. If you are not "wholly ignorant in this subject," identify the legal precedents which should govern the shooting of Brooks and the firing of Rolfe, and his subsequent arrest.
Then explain how or where the DA has has applied the law "fraudulently."
The DA charged officers who used a taser against two college students with a charge that requires a deadly weapon to be used to incur. It's not that complicated, if your'e not a simpleton.
That's a very off-center response. In the case I am referring to, a deadly weapon is used and results in a death.
You haven't answered any of my above questions. You've not identified a single legal precedent at play in the Brooks' case nor explained it's application.
I'm sure it's not that complicated "if you're not a simpleton." But demonstrating superior knowledge is better than just claiming it, isn't it?
Why should a cop who shoots a fleeing suspect in the back not only avoid charges but get his job back after suspension--assuming the DA is not "a fraud"? How should a DA align that behavior with the law?
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Unlike you I work for a living and can't spend every second here.
But since you asked.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559
Crime figures: Violent crime recorded by police rises by 19%
From the same article.
![[Image: _105323980_ncsew_violence_sep_udtitle-nc.png]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/410/cpsprodpb/22E4/production/_105323980_ncsew_violence_sep_udtitle-nc.png)
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill: Granting, as Fred does, that rifles are more deadly than handguns, what reason is there to believe leg shots with a rifle are only "slightly" less lethal? Is this based on some data set you are familiar with? Have you witnessed lots of leg vs center mass shots with rifles? Why shouldn't ratio of lethality between body and leg shots from rifles remain roughly similar to that of handguns, even as overall lethality increases? We are going from a 1-to-84 ratio to what, 4-to-81? 10-to-75? 41-to-44?
You're absolutely right, Fred said firle rounds are more lethal than handgun rounds, except he didn't, at all.
In post #1157 Fred writes: "High powered rifle rounds are obviously much more lethal than handguns, but because of the lack of major organs in your legs you are much less likely to die from a would to the leg instead of the head or body."
Denying Fred said what he said doesn't refute his further point about the lesser lethality of leg shots. You are just dodging the question of ratios.
(06-26-2020, 12:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: fredtoast Wrote: I never said anything about pistols or rifles. All I said was that s scientific study has been posted that shows gunshots to limbs are not as deadly as gunshot wounds to the torso.
And you have NOTHING to prove it is any different with rifles.
Oh no, Fred just said rifle rounds are no more deadly than pistol rounds. Someone looks stupid. Or to satisfy GMDabo, "obtuse".
Fred mentioned a scientific study which shows gunshots to limbs are "less deadly" than gunshots to the torso. That study does not establish limb wounds are "only slightly" less deadly.
He then "just said' you have offered no proof that rifle shots to limbs are "only slightly" less deadly than rifle shots to the torso. And he is right. You have not. Breaking bones and cut arteries certainly make a wound more deadly, but they don't make leg wounds "only slightly less" lethal than torso wounds. No case until you can explain what "slightly" means here.
Your response is 1) to assert Fred said something he didn't, 2) personal attack (projection), and 3) emoticons.
The whole "Fred said rifle rounds are no more deadly" is just a "twisty McTwister" strawman argument.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Until we get that, then going forward we'll have to assume that "slightly less" is just a guess on your part, dressed by mention of rifle calibers you suppose no one else has heard of to show how much you know.
Not a guess at all, I've explained why thigh shots are only slightly less lethal, you choose to ignore it while you dance in a circle with your little buddies. I know it makes you feel better, it doesn't make you any less wrong.
You're the one who brought up that paragon of restraint, the IDF, and leg shots. Own it clown.
Indeed I am the one who brought up the IDF, in part as a counter to your claim that no one who "knows guns" would ever tell anyone to shoot for anything but "center mass." Yet there is the IDF calling leg shots. My "paragon of constraint" was policing in the UK.
And no, you have not explained why rifle shots are only "slightly" less lethal. You just reported what everyone already knows about greater shock to flesh from a rifle slug. Then CLAIMED thigh shots were therefore only "slightly" less lethal than torso shots.
To point out why your report-on-what-everyone-already-knows is inadequate is not to ignore it. And it is inadequate on at least two counts:
1) As already stated, it is easier to apply tourniquets to extremities than the torso. And there are no vital organs in them. That is why soldiers often survive severe wounds to the extremities--even legs sheered off at the thigh breaking the bone and severing ALL arteries and veins. But they never survive a torso sheered in half. So its hard to understand how anyone would define "slightly less" here, or even see a (legitimate) reason to make such a claim and then double down on it with everything including personal attack and anything but data.
2) Data constructing a ratio might make your case, but you don't seem to have it, or don't know how to get it an use to replace your impression.
You have had ample opportunity to meet these objections without merely repeating claims under question, attacking strawmen, and lapsing into crude, nervous discharge.
(06-26-2020, 12:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do apologize to Fred, GM and Dill. While I realize smelling each others farts and congratulating each other on their bold richness is probably very satisfying, simply agreeing with each other in a pathetic attempt to lend credence to your arguments is not sufficient to claim victory. Keep dancing in circles though, I find it entertaining.
I do have one request, please tell me again that rifle rounds are no more dangerous than pistol rounds and then say you never said that. Pretty please with sugar on top.
RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 06:15 AM)Dill Wrote: Indeed I am the one who brought up the IDF, in part as a counter to your claim that no one who "knows guns" would ever tell anyone to shoot for anything but "center mass." Yet there is the IDF calling leg shots. My "paragon of constraint" was policing in the UK.
And no, you have not explained why rifle shots are only "slightly" less lethal. You just reported what everyone already knows about greater shock to flesh from a rifle slug. Then CLAIMED thigh shots were therefore only "slightly" less lethal than torso shots.
To point out why your report-on-what-everyone-already-knows is inadequate is not to ignore it. And it is inadequate on at least two counts:
1) As already stated, it is easier to apply tourniquets to extremities than the torso. And there are no vital organs in them. That is why soldiers often survive severe wounds to the extremities--even legs sheered off at the thigh breaking the bone and severing ALL arteries and veins. But they never survive a torso sheered in half. So its hard to understand how anyone would define "slightly less" here, or even see a (legitimate) reason to make such a claim and then double down on it with everything including personal attack and anything but data.
2) Data constructing a ratio might make your case, but you don't seem to have it, or don't know how to get it an use to replace your impression.
You have had ample opportunity to meet these objections without merely repeating claims under question, attacking strawmen, and lapsing into crude, nervous discharge.
I'm sorry Dill. I dared say I don't know something but that I wouldn't write off someone else as obtuse simply for providing alternative sources and references. Naturally that drags you into the "fart smeller" stage of debate with him.
I would like to remind everyone that this particular thread was started to discuss those few bad apples and how they rarely are held accountable and often the systems that created the situation are never addressed let alone changed.
While I am fascinated with the back and forth about gun play and the proper way to shoot people I'd personally rather it be in another thread before people who "know" get it shut down because they won't share anything other than personal experiences and insults.
I have driven a car for 35 years...I don't know as much about them as an engineer or professional driver. If I was an an officer for 35 years I would have lots of personal experiences and training over that time but I would not know as much as other people. And it's that desire to keep learning and keep getting better that I think some people lack once they get convinced they "know" better than everyone else.
RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-26-2020
Qualified immunity is one of the biggest hurdles to police reform and I'm sad to say I didn't really know a lot about it until recently.
Prison guards who kept an inmate in two cells covered in "massive amounts" of human feces and raw sewage received qualified immunity. https://t.co/yP9tzTbOBg
— reason (@reason) June 25, 2020
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 08:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: I would like to remind everyone that this particular thread was started to discuss those few bad apples and how they rarely are held accountable and often the systems that created the situation are never addressed let alone changed.
While I am fascinated with the back and forth about gun play and the proper way to shoot people I'd personally rather it be in another thread before people who "know" get it shut down because they won't share anything other than personal experiences and insults.
For my part, I'm still down with that, following the Brooks trial and its potential relation to police reform.
I too don't want to see a good thread locked down, so shifting some points of discussion to another thread seems a good strategy.
Will do my best to honor this deescalation.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-25-2020, 08:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But yeah the GOP really pointed the finger at the Dems.
As proven by the clip you provided which only mentioned ONE policy issue (Republicans not bannning chokeholds in bill) and devoted the other 99% to nothing more than blaming Democrats and playing party politics.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The DA charged officers who used a taser against two college students with a charge that requires a deadly weapon to be used to incur. It's not that complicated, if your'e not a simpleton.
The taser in the Brooks case had already been discharged and was no longer "a dangerous weapon" at the time the police shot him in the back. The police knew it had been discharged and was no longer a threat.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote:Then you must be a simpleton.
The taser in the Brooks case had already been discharged and was no longer "a dangerous weapon" at the time the police shot him in the back. The police knew it had been discharged and was no longer a threat.
Hey, we want to de-escalate. Resist the temptation to respond in kind.
Just keep making legal points.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 08:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Qualified immunity is one of the biggest hurdles to police reform and I'm sad to say I didn't really know a lot about it until recently.
Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith writes in his opinion that Taylor's case meets the threshold for an Eighth Amendment violation. He cites two court precedents—[i]McCord v. Maggio (1991) and Gates v. Cook (1994)—that affirm a prisoner is not to be subjected to egregiously unsanitary living conditions. Gates, the judge writes, further supports Taylor's claims that the guards acted with deliberate indifference, which Smith notes is "no small hurdle."
[/i]
But in a poignant demonstration of how qualified immunity works in practice, Smith then transitions to explaining why the guards deserve protection from civil liability: "The law wasn't clearly established. Taylor stayed in his extremely dirty cells for only six days," Smith writes. "Though the law was clear that prisoners couldn't be housed in cells teeming with human waste for months on end, we hadn't previously held that a time period so short violated the Constitution. That dooms Taylor's claim."
Put more plainly, the guards cannot be held liable, but not because their alleged conduct didn't infringe on Taylor's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. It did—current case law confirms as much. Taylor cannot sue the guards for violating his constitutional rights—which the Court agrees happened—because the length of time Taylor spent in those filthy conditions has not been carved out with razor-like precision in previous case law.
People will say--if you don't like living in feces, don't commit a crime.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Hey, we want to de-escalate. Resist the temptation to respond in kind.
Just keep making legal points.
Noted and edited.
Rep,
RE: Bad Boys II - masonbengals fan - 06-26-2020
Wisconsin version of mob rule.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-violence-erupted-over-arrest-of-activist-with-felony-conviction-history-of-controversial-social-media-posts
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The taser in the Brooks case had already been discharged and was no longer "a dangerous weapon" at the time the police shot him in the back. The police knew it had been discharged and was no longer a threat.
Was it a taser that has two charges? Many carried by officers do, and if it was then there was potentially a second charge available.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 01:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Was it a taser that has two charges? Many carried by officers do, and if it was then there was potentially a second charge available.
In the press conference announcing the charges the DA made the specific point about the officers knowing that the taser was no longer a threat. I think it was a key fact he took into consideration.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 01:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Was it a taser that has two charges? Many carried by officers do, and if it was then there was potentially a second charge available.
Like this? https://vimeo.com/user14167195/review/172776544/0427889bcb.
Apparently the Atlanta police Dept. does have them, and that has been factored into the charges against Rolfe.
Atlanta police use-of-force policy violated multiple times in fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks: Prosecutor
https://abcnews.go.com/US/atlanta-police-force-policy-violated-multiple-times-fatal/story?id=71295429
... before shooting Brooks, Rolfe fired his stun gun twice at the fleeing man in another violation of department rules.
"The Atlanta policy says you cannot fire a Taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly can't fire a handgun at someone who is running away," Howard said.
Howard said that at the time Rolfe aimed and fired at Brooks' back from 18 feet, 3 inches away, "Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks' possession was fired twice and presented no danger to him."
RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 05:59 AM)Dill Wrote: From the same article.
So as long as it's lower than past levels a nearly 20% increase in violent crime is nothing to worry about? Your logic seems a bit flawed here.
Also, I'd kindly point out that altering posts when quoting them is against the ToS, so kindly either rectify your having done so in multiple posts in this thread or remove them entirely. I thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The taser in the Brooks case had already been discharged and was no longer "a dangerous weapon" at the time the police shot him in the back. The police knew it had been discharged and was no longer a threat.
Ahh, so now Fred knows exactly what the officer knew at the time of the shooting. Was the taser not a multiple shot taser, most of them are now? If so how can you know that the officer knew that it was empty? Also, do we know for a fact that it was empty or are you assuming this?
Unfortunately for your position on this, the Fulton County DA already established that he believes a taser is a deadly weapon, by dint of the charges he filed in the college kids incident. If you use a deadly weapon on a police officer the police officer is permitted to respond with their own deadly weapon. Additionally, using a deadly weapon against a police officer would go a long way towards establishing that you are a dangerous person.
In this instance your beef should be with the DA, who poisoned a legitimate case, involving the abuse of those college kids, to score political points in this instance. Exactly like Mosby in Baltimore and expect similar results.
As a defense attorney you should actually be all over this. The fact that you aren't lends me to conclude that you are also blinded by ideology in this instance and aren't looking at this from a legal perspective. Defense counsel in the tasing of the college students asks for dismissal of the charges of assault with a deadly weapon as the Fulton County DA has publicly stated that a taser is not a deadly weapon, therefore eliminating the ability to effectively charge the officers with using a deadly weapon. Not only did he use those words, verbatim, but his charging the officer in this shooting with murder absolutely rules out the possibility, legally speaking, that the officer was not warranted in using deadly force. So expect the officers in the tasing of the college students to get off, when they shouldn't.
Then the defense counsel in the shooting case will rightfully point out that the same DA charged police officers with using a deadly weapon when they used their tasers. Again, use of deadly force means police get to respond with deadly force. The Fulton DA poisoned both cases so he could score political points and attempt to quell protests. Either he did it intentionally to ensure all the involved officers are acquitted or he's incompetent. The parallel with the Freddy Grey case is stark, proescutor bungles charges in an attempt to score political points and quell an angry mob. You should expect similar results in the trial phase as well.
RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 01:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In the press conference announcing the charges the DA made the specific point about the officers knowing that the taser was no longer a threat. I think it was a key fact he took into consideration.
Unless he flat out admitted this when debriefed on the shooting I don't know how they can legally prove this.
(06-26-2020, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Like this? https://vimeo.com/user14167195/review/172776544/0427889bcb.
Apparently the Atlanta police Dept. does have them, and that has been factored into the charges against Rolfe.
Atlanta police use-of-force policy violated multiple times in fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks: Prosecutor
https://abcnews.go.com/US/atlanta-police-force-policy-violated-multiple-times-fatal/story?id=71295429
... before shooting Brooks, Rolfe fired his stun gun twice at the fleeing man in another violation of department rules.
"The Atlanta policy says you cannot fire a Taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly can't fire a handgun at someone who is running away," Howard said.
Howard said that at the time Rolfe aimed and fired at Brooks' back from 18 feet, 3 inches away, "Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks' possession was fired twice and presented no danger to him."
The underlined and enlarged is a patently false statement, legally. More evidence that Howard is grossly incompetent. Don't take my word for it, Fred has pointed this out multiple time in this thread.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 03:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Unless he flat out admitted this when debriefed on the shooting I don't know how they can legally prove this.
I am assuming the video will clearly show the taser being fired twice.
(06-26-2020, 03:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The underlined and enlarged is a patently false statement, legally. More evidence that Howard is grossly incompetent. Don't take my word for it, Fred has pointed this out multiple time in this thread.
I agree this is a false statement. You can use deadly force on a violent criminal who is a threat to others safety.
But unlike SSF I don't let my personal opiinion of the DA effect my opinion on the case. Instead I base my opinions on what I see of the facts and the law. In this case I don't think the officers were justified in using deadly force.
My opinion of what I think will happen to these officers is not just based on the law. It is based on my experience with juries. juries really don't care that much about the technical nuances of the law. Instead they want to do what they think is right. Even if a lawyer was able to convince a few jurors that the officers were justified or maybe just the victims of a "poor decision made in a split second under great pressure" they will most likely get convicted when the jurors see the video of the officer kicking Booker's body on the ground and standing on him refusing to render aid as he bled out.