Another SYG Killing

[SmarterthanYou]

Nowhere have I claimed a person does not have the right to defend themselves.

what you ARE claiming though, is that people who have expert training are somehow less liable or responsible for their mistakes, negligence, and piss poor judgement than are civilians who have no 'official' training.

 

[Timshel]

what you ARE claiming though, is that people who have expert training are somehow less liable or responsible for their mistakes, negligence, and piss poor judgement than are civilians who have no 'official' training.

If you try to perform a surgery on someone and fuck it up it's very likely you are going to be criminally negligent and/or liable. You are not qualified and you should avoid taking such a risk. If a well trained doctor makes a mistake he MAY be liable but the chances that he would be criminally negligent is pretty low. Also, one has to realize that a doctor or a police officer is a flawed individual capable of mistakes that his/her job puts them at a higher risk of making.

 

[Timshel]

but WHY!?!?!?!? nobody seems to want to face the reality of their bullshit. we TRAIN these cops, supposedly EXPERT firearms training, so WHY do you give them lax standards of liability and negligence if they are TRAINED!!!!!!!!!!

I don't support any lax standards. Should the standards be different than those for a civilian? Yes, of course.

 

[Timshel]

it's a shame you can't do better than that. their job is dependent upon how much ticket revenue and asset forfeiture they can bring in. nothing more, nothing less. surely you cannot be this naive about law enforcement.

Another example of extremist bullshit. I am not arguing that the incentives are always what they should be. But a cop who routinely flees from all danger and stress is probably not going to do well. But more importantly, he should not do well. We are talking about what the standards should be and you are just ranting. By removing societies rational acknoweldgment of the risks leos assume we are not going to make them more likely to assume the risks inherent in protecting society.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't support any lax standards. Should the standards be different than those for a civilian? Yes, of course.

you are not explaining why. why should they be different. we give police officers an extreme amount of power over our daily lives. they literally have the power to kill, or at the very least, destroy our financial lives. WHY are you so supportive of them having different, LAX, standards for their 'mistakes'?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Another example of extremist bullshit. I am not arguing that the incentives are always what they should be. But a cop who routinely flees from all danger and stress is probably not going to do well. But more importantly, he should not do well. We are talking about what the standards should be and you are just ranting. By removing societies rational acknoweldgment of the risks leos assume we are not going to make them more likely to assume the risks inherent in protecting society.

a police officer is in no more danger doing their job than a crosswalk guard, so again, why the relaxed standards compared to civilians.

 

[Timshel]

you are not explaining why. why should they be different. we give police officers an extreme amount of power over our daily lives. they literally have the power to kill, or at the very least, destroy our financial lives. WHY are you so supportive of them having different, LAX, standards for their 'mistakes'?

I certainly have explained why there needs to be different standards, repeatedly, not in the post you quote but in others.

I don't support any lax standards you lying sack of shit. You mostly turn a blind eye to the fact that most cases of police brutality fall on minorities and the poor and/or avoid discussing the impacts of bigotry because it offends your racist allies. I don't. Still, police are human beings. They make mistakes and society should neither pretend they are perfect or expect them to be. They fuck up... they should be punished. But you are irrational about it due to some sort of butt hurt and you are seeking vengeance rather than rational solutions.

 

[Timshel]

a police officer is in no more danger doing their job than a crosswalk guard, so again, why the relaxed standards compared to civilians.

Bullshit. We protect them and most grant them the respect they are due (or even more). If we remove that then they will be in much greater danger than a crosswalk guard.

When they fuck up they should be punished. Many more of them should be in prison. You are not hearing anything I am saying because you are an irrational moron.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I certainly have explained why there needs to deifferent standards, repeatedly, not in the post you quote but in others.

then it should be easy enough for you to re-explain here.

I don't support any lax standards you lying sack of shit.

truly? then in one of the scenarios played out in the real world of today, if a civilian uses a firearm to defend himself/herself, or another individual, and an innocent bystander is wounded by the shooting, should they be liable for the injury to that bystander? and then if a cop defends himself/herself, or shoots and kills an active shooter, and an innocent bystander is injured, should the police officer be held liable for the injury to that bystander?

You mostly turn a blind eye to the fact that most cases of police brutality fall on minorities and the poor and/or avoid discussing the impacts of bigotry because it offends your racist allies. I don't.

besides your flat out bullshit lies (if you read any of my 'anti police' posts, you'll see I make little reference to the color of the victim) you're simply trying to deflect the issue.

Still, police are human beings. They make mistakes and society should neither pretend they are perfect or expect them to be. They fuck up... they should be punished. But you are irrational about it due to some sort of butt hurt and you are seeking vengeance rather than rational solutions.

again, this can be resolved by you answering the question or explaining the difference in standards and why they should apply.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Bullshit. We protect them and most grant them the respect they are due (or even more). If we remove that then they will be in much greater danger than a crosswalk guard.

When they fuck up they should be punished. Many more of them should be in prison. You are not hearing anything I am saying because you are an irrational moron.

so instead of dealing with the reality of your foolish position, you're going to resort to ad homs? if you are providing greater protections to police officers through the law, are you not then elevating them to a higher class of citizen? again, consider the power over our lives that you give them and explain why you think they should have different standards of the law applied to them.

 

[Timshel]

then it should be easy enough for you to re-explain here.

truly? then in one of the scenarios played out in the real world of today, if a civilian uses a firearm to defend himself/herself, or another individual, and an innocent bystander is wounded by the shooting, should they be liable for the injury to that bystander? and then if a cop defends himself/herself, or shoots and kills an active shooter, and an innocent bystander is injured, should the police officer be held liable for the injury to that bystander?

besides your flat out bullshit lies (if you read any of my 'anti police' posts, you'll see I make little reference to the color of the victim) you're simply trying to deflect the issue.

again, this can be resolved by you answering the question or explaining the difference in standards and why they should apply.

Fine, I will explain it again. They are at greater risk of making life threatening mistakes due to the nature of their jobs. It is made even worse by stupid laws and policies that they don't get to choose.

I don't really get what you are suggesting. I think you are just ranting and foaming at the mouth like another Alex Jones wannabe.

Why shouldn't a civilian be subject to liability if they shoot an innocent bystander? Are you saying that a civilian should not be liable or that police should be? I definitely think an innocent bystander should be able to seek damages from the state if an officer shoots them, punitive damages if it is negligent and there should be possible criminal charges if it is gross negligence. Are they not able to or you just don't think juries are siding with you enough?

Yes, you make little reference to the color or status of the victim because you are afraid to offend your racist buddies by acknowledging the impacts of bigotry. That's what I said. You are going to run off and turn that into me calling you a racist, which is not waht I said. Go ahead, ButthurtmoreThanYou.

I have answered the question multiple times. You just won't accept anything less than your own brand of stark raving and incoherent lunacy.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Fine, I will explain it again. They are at greater risk of making life threatening mistakes due to the nature of their jobs. It is made even worse by stupid laws and policies that they don't get to choose.

do we not provide them VERY EXPENSIVE AND EXPANSIVE training to avoid those?

I don't really get what you are suggesting. I think you are just ranting and foaming at the mouth like another Alex Jones wannabe.

then pay closer attention. maybe you'll see what i'm suggesting

Why shouldn't a civilian be subject to liability if they shoot an innocent bystander? Are you saying that a civilian should not be liable or that police should be? I definitely think an innocent bystander should be able to seek damages from the state if an officer shoots them, punitive damages if it is negligent and there should be possible criminal charges if it is gross negligence. Are they not able to or you just don't think juries are siding with you enough?

the question you should be asking yourself is why SHOULD a civilian be liable for injuring an innocent bystander if they fire in defense of life. and if you'd bothered to research the subject at all, you'd know that in ANY instance of cops injuring innocents during the course of their official duties is not held liable for the injuries or deaths. The STATE will usually settle to avoid a lawsuit, but even if they don't and lose in court, the cop never suffers any punishment.

Yes, you make little reference to the color or status of the victim because you are afraid to offend your racist buddies by acknowledging the impacts of bigotry. That's what I said. You are going to run off and turn that into me calling you a racist, which is not waht I said. Go ahead, ButthurtmoreThanYou.

i'm not afraid of offending anyone. anyone that has seen me post on here more than a month knows I have no problem offending the fuck out of anyone. I've also acknowledged the impacts of bigotry and hatred many times, so really all you are doing is still trying to deflect the topic away from something you don't wish to acknowledge.

I have answered the question multiple times. You just won't accept anything less than your own brand of stark raving and incoherent lunacy.

sure I will accept something, but only so long as it 1) makes sense. and 2) applies the law EQUALLY!!!! as in the so called constitutional 'equal protection under the law' right of all people.

 

[Timshel]

so instead of dealing with the reality of your foolish position, you're going to resort to ad homs? if you are providing greater protections to police officers through the law, are you not then elevating them to a higher class of citizen? again, consider the power over our lives that you give them and explain why you think they should have different standards of the law applied to them.

You are using obvious strawman arguments for the purpose of ad hominem attacks. There is nothing foolish about my position nor do I support any lax standards. Your position is incoherent.

The courts operate on what is reasonable. Any reasonable person would understand that an amatuer surgeon is at an increased risk of making a mistake and willfully subjects his patients to the risks. The same is true with a driver. If you've never driven a car and decide to give it a shot on a road busy with pedestrian traffic your mistakes are more negligent than those of a skilled and licensed driver. I am NOT suggesting that the assumed expertise eliminates all possiblity of negligence but it does create a different standard. You can whine about how it unfair all you like, but no rational person will pay you any interest and many will assume all critics of police malfeasance is just as misguided as yours.

There is also the fact that a cop has more opportunities for the mistakes. If they make them often they need to be dealt with but the law of averages insists that they are a bit more likely to be involved in such accidents.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You are using obvious strawman arguments for the purpose of ad hominem attacks. There is nothing foolish about my position nor do I support any lax standards. Your position is incoherent.

I am not creating any strawman nor am I using ad homs.

The courts operate on what is reasonable. Any reasonable person would understand that an amatuer surgeon is at an increased risk of making a mistake and willfully subjects his patients to the risks. The same is true with a driver. If you've never driven a car and decide to give it a shot on a road busy with pedestrian traffic your mistakes are more negligent than those of a skilled and licensed driver.

now, not only are you using a strawman, you are using a totally invalid example. no court, prosecutor, or cop is going to consider any different standard between licensed and unlicensed drivers.

I am NOT suggesting that the assumed expertise eliminates all possiblity of negligence but it does create a different standard. You can whine about how it unfair all you like, but no rational person will pay you any interest and many will assume all critics of police malfeasance is just as misguided as yours.

There is also the fact that a cop has more opportunities for the mistakes. If they make them often they need to be dealt with but the law of averages insists that they are a bit more likely to be involved in such accidents.

so instead of actually justifying your reasons, you're just going to use the same tired excuse of 'cops are in more danger than civilians' and call all objectors cop haters. all you had to say was 'this is what I believe, so fuck you'. I wouldn't have needed to waste any time on you then.

 

[Timshel]

do we not provide them VERY EXPENSIVE AND EXPANSIVE training to avoid those?

then pay closer attention. maybe you'll see what i'm suggesting

the question you should be asking yourself is why SHOULD a civilian be liable for injuring an innocent bystander if they fire in defense of life. and if you'd bothered to research the subject at all, you'd know that in ANY instance of cops injuring innocents during the course of their official duties is not held liable for the injuries or deaths. The STATE will usually settle to avoid a lawsuit, but even if they don't and lose in court, the cop never suffers any punishment.

i'm not afraid of offending anyone. anyone that has seen me post on here more than a month knows I have no problem offending the fuck out of anyone. I've also acknowledged the impacts of bigotry and hatred many times, so really all you are doing is still trying to deflect the topic away from something you don't wish to acknowledge.


sure I will accept something, but only so long as it 1) makes sense. and 2) applies the law EQUALLY!!!! as in the so called constitutional 'equal protection under the law' right of all people.

I think their training should be better.

I have answered you several times after you rudely request a repetition and misrepresent my statements. But you can't coherently state what it is you are suggesting and instead tell me to listen more closely?

The civilian should be SUBJECT to liability because they injured an innocent bystander. That should be obvious.

So you want the officer to be held liable separately from their employer even though their liability is due to their job? Would that remove the departments liability? I don't think that is all that wise as the police departments share some responsibility. They'd have even less interest in ensuring that officers are trained or properly disciplined. It might even be in their interest to push officers to take greater risks. Besides that a cop might not be able to pay. Would they be required to carry insurance? They would have to be paid a lot more in such a system.

I don't agree that that is where we should start. Your suggestion is agressive treatment of a symptom which only shifts the focus. You seek to blame the police for the bad laws passed by legislators who are supported by citizens and rulings of judges and juries. You are scapegoating the police and making them a convenient target for problems that are not theirs alone. Get rid of the victimless crimes first and quit turning a blind eye to inequality under the law and most of the problems of police brutality will disappear.

 

[zappasguitar]

but WHY!?!?!?!? nobody seems to want to face the reality of their bullshit. we TRAIN these cops, supposedly EXPERT firearms training, so WHY do you give them lax standards of liability and negligence if they are TRAINED!!!!!!!!!!

Because like it or not...even the POLICE are ONLY human.

Humans make mistakes.

Even you make the occasional mistake.

 

[zappasguitar]

what you ARE claiming though, is that people who have expert training are somehow less liable or responsible for their mistakes, negligence, and piss poor judgement than are civilians who have no 'official' training.

What you keep trying to claim is that no police officer anywhere should ever make any mistake ever!

 

[zappasguitar]

a police officer is in no more danger doing their job than a crosswalk guard, so again, why the relaxed standards compared to civilians.

You're delusional.

Right...escorting little children across the street is no more dangerous than shooting it out with bank robbers.

Such incredible stupidity and from one who considers himself SmarterThanYou.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I think their training should be better.

ok, how 'expert' or extensive do you think their training should be? and would it change your standards of differences between their mistakes and a civilians?

The civilian should be SUBJECT to liability because they injured an innocent bystander. That should be obvious.

but WHY??? if they are put in the same exact situation as a cop that injures bystanders, why should someone be liable for injuries suffered by bystanders for defending their own lives? why should someone with 'training' be given greater leeway for the same mistakes?

So you want the officer to be held liable separately from their employer even though their liability is due to their job? Would that remove the departments liability? I don't think that is all that wise as the police departments share some responsibility. They'd have even less interest in ensuring that officers are trained or properly disciplined. It might even be in their interest to push officers to take greater risks. Besides that a cop might not be able to pay. Would they be required to carry insurance? They would have to be paid a lot more in such a system.

this would be another issue, though very comparable. some people want gun owners to carry million dollar liability policies to be able to carry a gun in public. why should a cop be any different then?

I don't agree that that is where we should start. Your suggestion is agressive treatment of a symptom which only shifts the focus. You seek to blame the police for the bad laws passed by legislators who are supported by citizens and rulings of judges and juries. You are scapegoating the police and making them a convenient target for problems that are not theirs alone. Get rid of the victimless crimes first and quit turning a blind eye to inequality under the law and most of the problems of police brutality will disappear.

we either fix the issue one step at a time, or you can try to revamp the entire process. the latter is not really possible or it would have been started already.

lets try another example. from the linked thread, these cops were not liable for injuring the 9 bystanders while shooting the armed subject. would you hold two citizens liable if they were in place of the cops?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...it-by-police-gunfire-Read-more-http-www.foxne

 

[tekkychick]

What you keep trying to claim is that no police officer anywhere should ever make any mistake ever!

The average citizen is rarely in a position where they might shoot an innocent bystander.

Police officers are often in an emotional situation, danger happening all around, and having to make split second decisions. Some of those decisions go wrong.

Now, do we have to hold them more accountable for bad decisions? When they shoot a drunk guy on a stairway who had a pink fake gun and was mostly passed out? Yeah. They're accountable.

But there are situations where so much is going on that cops will do something they shouldn't and they shouldn't be punished for that.

We need better police review boards that don't automatically excuse officers no matter what they do; that doesn't mean officers should never be exonerated though.