06-29-2020, 04:55 PM
(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
