+- 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 - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 03:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was waiting for someone other than me to bring this up. The use of force continuum, in practice, states you use a level of force one level higher than that used against you. There are always exceptions, but that's the general policy. In this instance how the NIJ categorizes taser use is immaterial, as they aren't the ones prosecuting cases with wildly conflicting, and contradictory, charges.
Well it is "material" as a baseline from which police (including Atlanta police), prosecutors and the public can judge interpretation of force levels. That's why it is a good reference point for discussions of use of force.
(06-27-2020, 03:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:A police baton could kill someone, but it is generally not classified as a lethal weapon. The Atlanta DA charged police who used a taser on two college students with aggravated assault, which implies use of a lethal weapon or use of one with intent to cause grievous harm.
Incorrect, it does not imply use of deadly force, it explicitly states it. The penal code section under which those officers are charged specifically states that the use of deadly force has been used in the commission of the offense. There is no wiggle room in this regard.
?? Not sure what "it" refers to in your sentence--a police baton, the taser, legal classification, assault charge, an implied reference to a statute? I am going with the latter.
I don't see how your statement contradicts anything I have said. I didn't say the statute itself 'only' implies use of a lethal weapon without stating it. If a police officer tried to kill someone with a baton, then for that case the baton could be construed as a lethal weapon. We know from the "immaterial" force continuum that batons are not generally regarded as lethal weapons. Charging that officer with aggravated assault would then "imply" that the weapon in this case was used with lethal in tent. "Wiggle room" will appear whenever something not generally classified as a lethal weapon is used as one.
(06-27-2020, 03:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:In charging police for combining tazing with violent beating, it is not clear he was classifying all tasers and uses of tasers as lethal force.
A rather ambiguous term, "violent beating". I'll use the CA standard, because that's what I know. The closest analogy to the charges against the college student officers would be 245(a)(1) PC, assault with a deadly weapon. It is worth noting that even this charge is a "wobbler" in CA, meaning it can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor (although it is very rare for it to be charged as a misdemeanor). In order to align with your line of thinking the officers involved would have to had engaged in assaultive conduct, outside of the taser use, that clearly put the student's life in jeopardy. The most common example is kicking someone in the head (I'd point out that I've dealt with people who took their shoes off before kicking someone in the head as they believed that would prevent them from being charged with ADW assault). If not then the sole use of the taser provided the grounds for the ADW assault case. If this is so then the case against the Brooks shooter cannot, by legal definition, be murder. If deadly force is used against an LEO then they have the legal right, even obligation, to respond in kind. It is this point right here where the Fulton County DA digs a hole he will not be able to extricate himself from.
Yes, the officers involved would have to have engaged in assualtive conduct outside of the taser use. That's why the DA combined the taser use with serious beating to arrive at the aggravated assault charge. And that's why I say that in ONE case involving two college students it became a deadly weapon by implication, not due to some prior classification.
But because a taser, generally classified as non-lethal, was involved in an attempt by police to inflict grievous bodily harm in an earlier case, does not meant that now and forever a taser is a lethal weapon for this DA, any more than a fork used once in aggravated assault would ever after define forks as lethal weapons.
You appear to argue that if a taser were used in an earlier case of aggravated assault tried by the Atlanta DA, then that DA, and the court, is bound to regard it as such in a later case in which the taser, normally defined as a non-lethal weapon (e.g. in the NIJ force-contiunuum spectrum and Atlanta Police policy), is not used as a lethal weapon. That would be very bad practice.
So I don't see "wildly contradictory" interpretations of the law so far. I don't see that the DA has adopted any "diametrically opposed positions" here, nor evidence of "emotional reasoning."*
And I don't see how politics was clearly placed above the law here, as it so often has been in the past when an officer murdered someone and walked, thanks to pressure from a police union and the collusion of prosecutor. Someone who pushes back against that sort police culture, long accepted as "normal," is going to be accused of "politicizing" cases, especially by police unions and "law and order" politicians. At best that is one kind of "political' pushing back against another.
That's why responsible observers need to limit speculation and conclusions to what the known facts and the law allow. Once those are clear, then implications for policy and the larger context of the DA's actions, and the policeman's, can be drawn in, hopefully with equal care. Perhaps then this will sort out as "politically motivated" in some nefarious sense, but it is really too early to judge that now.
*in an earlier post, Bels commented on the tendency of police to call tasers "lethal" when used against police but "non-lethal" when used by police. There can be good reasons for such variation. The "wiggle room" is always there with non-lethal weapons.
RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 12:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Well it is "material" as a baseline from which police (including Atlanta police), prosecutors and the public can judge interpretation of force levels. That's why it is a good reference point for discussions of use of force.
You misunderstand. It is not material in this specific instance as Howard has already gone on record, by dint of his charges, that a taser is a deadly weapon. So in this specific instance no other baseline is needed.
Quote:?? Not sure what "it" refers to in your sentence--a police baton, the taser, legal classification, assault charge, an implied reference to a statute? I am going with the latter.
"It" is a deadly weapon. I used the example of kicking someone in the head as using a deadly weapon. This does not mean you are constantly walking around on two deadly weapons. I know you think you're painting me into a corner here, but you are not, as I'll explain in a bit.
Quote:I don't see how your statement contradicts anything I have said. I didn't say the statute itself 'only' implies use of a lethal weapon without stating it. If a police officer tried to kill someone with a baton, then for that case the baton could be construed as a lethal weapon. We know from the "immaterial" force continuum that batons are not generally regarded as lethal weapons.
The underlined and enlarged is a perfect example of the smarmy condescension that you and others engage in. If you are actually serious about having a civil discourse in this forum, which you constantly claim to be, then I'd highly suggest you cease such sophomoric sniping. Thank you in advance.
Quote:Charging that officer with aggravated assault would then "imply" that the weapon in this case was used with lethal in tent. "Wiggle room" will appear whenever something not generally classified as a lethal weapon is used as one.
It does not imply, it directly states. I get where you're going with this, but I already addressed it in the post you just replied to. A taser, unlike a baton, a kitchen knife or your feet, has literally one use. While there could be incredibly egregious use of the taser, such as shooting the dart in someone's eye or drive stunning them until the battery is dry this is not what occurred here. The use of the taser was egregious almost wholly because it was completely unwarranted. The taser should never have been deployed but it was not used outside of its normal function. Hence Howard is painting himself into a corner here.
Quote:Yes, the officers involved would have to have engaged in assualtive conduct outside of the taser use. That's why the DA combined the taser use with serious beating to arrive at the aggravated assault charge. And that's why I say that in ONE case involving two college students it became a deadly weapon by implication, not due to some prior classification.
Except I don't see anything in that video that would constitute deadly force by any metric I have ever seen in my twenty years doing this job. What happened was repulsive and wholly unnecessary but it was not deadly force. The taser should never have been deployed, but, as stated above, when deployed it was used as it normally is used. The felony assault charges are wholly the result of how repugnant and unwarranted the attacks were, hence my ongoing insistence that Howard is filing criminal charges with his heart (and as a politician) and not his head.
Quote:But because a taser, generally classified as non-lethal, was involved in an attempt by police to inflict grievous bodily harm in an earlier case, does not meant that now and forever a taser is a lethal weapon for this DA, any more than a fork used once in aggravated assault would ever after define forks as lethal weapons.
Incorrect, they were not charged with using the taser to inflict grievous bodily harm, they were charged with using the taser as a deadly weapon. There is an enormous difference between GBI assault and ADW. Why I don't see ADW in this instance is explained above.
Quote:You appear to argue that if a taser were used in an earlier case of aggravated assault tried by the Atlanta DA, then that DA, and the court, is bound to regard it as such in a later case in which the taser, normally defined as a non-lethal weapon (e.g. in the NIJ force-contiunuum spectrum and Atlanta Police policy), is not used as a lethal weapon. That would be very bad practice.
No, it can be used as a deadly weapon when used outside the scope of its intended use. As described above, that did not happen in this instance. I feel I have to reiterate this, as someone will surely try and twist this otherwise, but the assault on those college kids was repugnant and unwarranted. The use of the taser was wholly unnecessary, but the taser itself was not used in an unusual way. It just never should have been used at all. Where Howard really paints himself into a corner is his public statement that, "A taser is not a deadly weapon", I'd be very interested to see if Fred will answer his own question from the previous page as the answer should prove enlightening.
Quote:So I don't see "wildly contradictory" interpretations of the law so far. I don't see that the DA has adopted any "diametrically opposed positions" here, nor evidence of "emotional reasoning."*
I know you don't and I know why you don't. I just think you're 100% incorrect for the reasons I've stated.
Quote:And I don't see how politics was clearly placed above the law here, as it so often has been in the past when an officer murdered someone and walked, thanks to pressure from a police union and the collusion of prosecutor. Someone who pushes back against that sort police culture, long accepted as "normal," is going to be accused of "politicizing" cases, especially by police unions and "law and order" politicians. At best that is one kind of "political' pushing back against another.
"So often"? You'll have to get me a list of these "so often" cases. Again, you have an agenda in this regard, so you view events through that prism. I can surely be accused of the same, but I strongly believe, based on long experience in this exact field, that Howard is doing this for the reasons I have described. As I also pointed out this is not without precedent. Was Mosby pushing back when she filed charges in the Freddy Grey death? Based on your criteria one would assume the answer is yes. Well, she screwed the pooch so bad all the officers walked completely and she was essentially called out publicly by the bench officer in the trials. She withdrew the rest of the charges because she blew it and she knew it. I don't know a single DA or bench officer, and I know many, who doesn't look at her actions with a high degree of legal distaste. I highly suspect Howard will face a similar reckoning. Unless any of these officer opt for a jury trial, in which case they're all doomed.
Quote:That's why responsible observers need to limit speculation and conclusions to what the known facts and the law allow. Once those are clear, then implications for policy and the larger context of the DA's actions, and the policeman's, can be drawn in, hopefully with equal care. Perhaps then this will sort out as "politically motivated" in some nefarious sense, but it is really too early to judge that now.
Except we have a lot of the facts. In the college student assault we have a video clearly showing what occurred. The same in the Brooks shooting. I d find it odd, though, that you have never felt the need to make this point to Fred, who has consistently stated the officer in the Brooks shooting definitively "knew" that the taser had been discharged twice. Selective enforcement?
Quote:*in an earlier post, Bels commented on the tendency of police to call tasers "lethal" when used against police but "non-lethal" when used by police. There can be good reasons for such variation. The "wiggle room" is always there with non-lethal weapons.
To an extent, and certainly based on the weapon in question, but I've addressed this point in detail above. Again, Fred could answer why using a taser on a police officer, who would then be incapacitated, could be considered deadly force. It may have to do with what every officer carries on their person (most often two), that the vast majority of citizens do not.
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-27-2020
(06-26-2020, 04:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. I don't think ever said that. If I did I'd have to know the exact facts.
Fair enough, perhaps it was a discussion about Soldiers
IMO, you fire at an Officer you risk forfeiture of your life. It's not incumbent on the officer to hope that was the persons last effort to be a threat to you.
I say this while freely admitting my background is not in Law Enforcement.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I don't see how your statement contradicts anything I have said. I didn't say the statute itself 'only' implies use of a lethal weapon without stating it. If a police officer tried to kill someone with a baton, then for that case the baton could be construed as a lethal weapon. We know from the "immaterial" force continuum that batons are not generally regarded as lethal weapons.
The underlined and enlarged is a perfect example of the smarmy condescension that you and others engage in. If you are actually serious about having a civil discourse in this forum, which you constantly claim to be, then I'd highly suggest you cease such sophomoric sniping. Thank you in advance.
No. That's not "sniping," sophomoric or otherwise.
Accepting my statement as an example of "smarmy condescension" would create a standard that implicated this as well:
Except we have a lot of the facts. In the college student assault we have a video clearly showing what occurred. The same in the Brooks shooting. I d find it odd, though, that you have never felt the need to make this point to Fred, who has consistently stated the officer in the Brooks shooting definitively "knew" that the taser had been discharged twice. Selective enforcement?
Waste of time to go looking for either kind of "condescension," especially if you plan to continue presenting yourself as an expert explaining legal matters to people who don't get it. So long as you are not engaging in direct personal attacks, I'm not much concerned if you are "condescending" or not.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO, you fire at an Officer you risk forfeiture of your life. It's not incumbent on the officer to hope that was the persons last effort to be a threat to you.
The Brooks case has some very specific facts.
One was that Brooks had already been searched and Rolfe knew he had no other weapons. When a violent criminal is fleeing and throws down a gun, the police are not required to assume that was the only gun he had.
Another is that the officer knew exactly how many "shots" were in Brooks weapon and he knew it was no longer a dangerous weapon after seeing it fired twice.
A lot of the general rules don't apply
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO, you fire at an Officer you risk forfeiture of your life. It's not incumbent on the officer to hope that was the persons last effort to be a threat to you.
I say this while freely admitting my background is not in Law Enforcement.
What would you say about a case like this:
A person wielding a gun fires at an officer, then runs into a blind alley.
When the officer follows, he throws down the gun and raises his hands, posing no threat to the officer.
Does the officer have a right to fire at that moment, even though he had been fired upon before?
Suppose the officer does fire and kills the guy. Should the officer be held in any way accountable?
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 05:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Brooks case has some very specific facts.
One was that Brooks had already been searched and Rolfe knew he had no other weapons. When a violent criminal is fleeing and throws down a gun, the police are not required to assume that was the only gun he had.
Another is that the officer knew exactly how many "shots" were in Brooks weapon and he knew it was no longer a dangerous weapon after seeing it fired twice.
A lot of the general rules don't apply
Is it your assertion that officers never miss a weapon in a search?
I'd assume you could pride yourself on counting rounds fired in such a situation, but that stuff really only happens in the movies.
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 06:09 PM)Dill Wrote: What would you say about a case like this:
A person wielding a gun fires at an officer, then runs into a blind alley.
When the officer follows, he throws down the gun and raises his hands, posing no threat to the officer.
Does the officer have a right to fire at that moment, even though he had been fired upon before?
Suppose the officer does fire and kills the guy. Should the officer be held in any way accountable?
I knew this was coming and it's why I worded it as I did; instead of saying "you forfeit your life".
If someone surrenders then the Officer should not fire. Did Brooks do that?
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-27-2020
Anybody still want to explain to me what defund means?
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/minneapolis-city-council-votes-replace-police-department-organization-191122457--abc-news-topstories.html
Quote:The Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously on Friday to advance its plan to eliminate the police department and create a new public safety unit.
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 08:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anybody still want to explain to me what defund means?
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/minneapolis-city-council-votes-replace-police-department-organization-191122457--abc-news-topstories.html
Seems like restructuring, to me.
Quote:Friday's proposed amendments would update the city's charter to replace the police with a new organization: the Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention.
Under that organization there would be a Division of Law Enforcement Services, which will be "composed of licensed peace officers, subject to the supervision of the department of community safety and violence prevention," according to the proposed ordinance.
So, there will still be police with more oversight and with some duties likely redistributed.
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 08:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Seems like restructuring, to me.
So, there will still be police with more oversight and with some duties likely redistributed.
Of course it does.
They want to abolish the police force but somehow that still doesn't mean remove all funds.
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 08:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it does.
They want to abolish the police force but somehow that still doesn't mean remove all funds.
(06-27-2020, 08:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Seems like restructuring, to me.
So, there will still be police with more oversight and with some duties likely redistributed.
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-27-2020
Quote:Friday's proposed amendments would update the city's charter to replace the police with a new organization: the Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention.
I'm done
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-27-2020
(06-27-2020, 08:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm done
Yes, and within that department, a division of law enforcement services. AKA police.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-28-2020
(06-27-2020, 06:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I knew this was coming and it's why I worded it as I did; instead of saying "you forfeit your life".
If someone surrenders then the Officer should not fire. Did Brooks do that?
Let me check. No. he did not.
But I asked the question find out if we agree that even if someone threatens a cop, and the cop has a right to apply lethal force, that right is still continually dependent upon circumstances, and can change momentarily.
The question in the Brooks case is whether Rolfe still had that right, once Brooks was fleeing.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-28-2020
(06-27-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:
Quote:Charging that officer with aggravated assault would then "imply" that the weapon in this case was used with lethal in tent. "Wiggle room" will appear whenever something not generally classified as a lethal weapon is used as one.
It does not imply, it directly states. I get where you're going with this, but I already addressed it in the post you just replied to. A taser, unlike a baton, a kitchen knife or your feet, has literally one use. While there could be incredibly egregious use of the taser, such as shooting the dart in someone's eye or drive stunning them until the battery is dry this is not what occurred here. The use of the taser was egregious almost wholly because it was completely unwarranted. The taser should never have been deployed but it was not used outside of its normal function. Hence Howard is painting himself into a corner here.
What does "it" refer to? The Georgia statute? The charge against the officers?
I don't see how "one use" makes a difference here. All of the tools mentioned were made for "one use." All can be used for other things.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-28-2020
(06-27-2020, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it your assertion that officers never miss a weapon in a search?
It is my assertion that the cop who searched him can't later claim he thought the guy had another gun. You can't save yourself by your own incompetence.
(06-27-2020, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd assume you could pride yourself on counting rounds fired in such a situation, but that stuff really only happens in the movies.
I agree that counting shots fired from anything other than a taser would be almost impossible ("Do you feel lucky, punk?"). But tasers only fire twice and they make a bright flash every time they fire. Rofle was looking directly at Brooks both times Brooks fired his taser. there is video footage from the parking lot where Rolfe is asking Officer Brosnan if the first shot hit him, and then he tells the other officers aboiut Brooks firing at him again.
People who can not count to 2 should not be police officers.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-28-2020
(06-27-2020, 08:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm done
Finally!!
Only took 63 pages to get you to understand what the "defund the police" movement is really about.
RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-28-2020
While this nuanced look at the one case has been fascinating I am noting a dearth of posts in protest of the dozen or so other incidents posted within the last month.
One case that might go either way gets the focus of those who don't see a problem and the other cases get buried.
I'll remind the reader that none of the three officers involved in the Breonna Taylor murder have even been charged.
I'd be interested in seeing the defense for them from posters here...or some of the other cases too.
RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-28-2020
(06-28-2020, 02:26 AM)Dill Wrote: What does "it" refer to? The Georgia statute? The charge against the officers?
I don't see how "one use" makes a difference here. All of the tools mentioned were made for "one use." All can be used for other things.
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.