The Second Amendment

[Oneiric1975]

Allow the population the freedom to arm itself and disband the Police. Let's see how that works instead.

Thankfully that is only a fringe of the defund police movement. Personally I like the more mainstream interpretation of diversify the skill sets of the police. Fewer "warrior cops" and more "mental health care professionals".

The BLM neighborhood can "police" itself without racist interference.

Given that the black community already feels more threat from police than protection by police one can't really blame them for being skeptical of police.

 

[Oneiric1975]

So you agree that the Police Officer was guilty of killing Floyd in a drive by shooting as he endangered the entire crowd? That was one of the charges of which he was convicted.

I don't believe that was the nature of the charge he was convicted on.

 

[Always in His Presence]

...or perhaps systemic injustice. It happens. I agree that our justice system is a very good one, but when there are repeated cases where a group gets off and there's still a dead person who didn't do anything to deserve to die and nothing changes that there's going to be a problem.

Maybe the point is that we attempt to figure out what went wrong (because in many cases something DID go wrong on the part of the Police) and fix that problem. If the police shoot an unarmed kid because of a "mistake" perhaps we need to figure out why that mistake went to that level.

Because right now there's a very large number of people who feel that the police are a threat to them rather than the officers of peace and stability we want in our society. That is sub-optimal at best.

I can't fight the propaganda with anything other than facts - when people no longer want to view statistics the conversation is over. You are painting all officers based an the few. If you cannot recognize that, there is no intelligent exchange. Knowing full well any death is tragic.

2021 - 62 this year - of the 62 officer involved deaths, there were 5 that were questioned. We are addressing 5 out of 44,000,000 people - FIVE

Of the FIVE one so far ended in convictions - ONE out of 44,000,000

Please tell me again how this is a national problem? Use statistics, not dramatized reporting.

No person in the history of the US justice system has ever been found "innocent". They have only been found "not guilty". One of the major issues people have with our police force is that it is almost impossible for them to be brought to justice through our court system. To use that same court system and claim that it validates the system seems somewhat disingenuous.

Not guilty means what? Seriously, A person is charged with a crime, there is guilty or NOT guilty.

Not guilty: a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

If there is no guilt proven - you are innocent.

Definition of innocent

1a: free from legal guilt or fault​

 

[atpollard]

And in the instances where the officer clearly does wrong and is not charged or is cleared by the justice system?

If the officer is cleared by the justice system, then he has not "CLEARLY" done wrong.

Should we shoot criminals that are acquitted because WE THINK they are guilty, or does their acquittal settle the question?

 

[atpollard]

I don't believe that was the nature of the charge he was convicted on.

One of the charges (the one that the prosecutor was reluctant to pursue, but added at the last minute due to political pressure) requires an attack on a group that results in the death of an individual under the legal definition of that charge. It is typically employed in drive by shootings where a bystander is killed. The officer was found GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES, including that one. That is why I suspect an interesting appeal and a not-impartial trial. They would have convicted him of the 9-11 WTC bombing if he had been charged with it.

 

[Belk]

If the officer is cleared by the justice system, then he has not "CLEARLY" done wrong.

Should we shoot criminals that are acquitted because WE THINK they are guilty, or does their acquittal settle the question?

Is the justice system 100% accurate in all cases or is it possible to improve upon it?

 

[Belk]

Not guilty means what? Seriously, A person is charged with a crime, there is guilty or NOT guilty.

Not guilty: a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

If there is no guilt proven - you are innocent.

Definition of innocent

1a: free from legal guilt or fault​

From a lawyer.

In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.

What is the difference between innocent and not guilty? | MacDonald Law Office, LLC

 

[Pommer]

I think it's the times that they don't that is the problem. And it happens more than not. It was actually kind of amazing that Chauvin got prison. If his actions hadn't been recorded by a young woman by-stander it was obvious that the whole event was going to be covered up as a "medical incident" (per the initial report that was filed).

He hasn’t been sentenced yet...June something for that.

 

[Always in His Presence]

From a lawyer.

What is the difference between innocent and not guilty? | MacDonald Law Office, LLC

That is the problem - my definitions (as shown in the links) are from a law dictionary. We can argue over words - but not guilty and innocent are synonymous in the English language. It takes an attorney or internet expert to change that to something that fits their narrative.

Push come to shove - legally, they committed no crime so the argument is moot.

While horrible and grievous any loss of life is - you cannot assign their deaths as murder nor abuse if there was no crime committed.

 

[Oneiric1975]

One of the charges (the one that the prosecutor was reluctant to pursue, but added at the last minute due to political pressure) requires an attack on a group that results in the death of an individual under the legal definition of that charge. It is typically employed in drive by shootings where a bystander is killed. The officer was found GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES, including that one. That is why I suspect an interesting appeal and a not-impartial trial. They would have convicted him of the 9-11 WTC bombing if he had been charged with it.

I don't know where you're getting the "drive by shooting" or "attack on a group". Here's the summary of the charges from CNN:

The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death "without intent" while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.

The third-degree murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death by "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

The second-degree manslaughter charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death by "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm."

All of those sound perfectly reasonable. Can you show me where it involved him threatening a group in the charges?

 

[Gene2memE]

That is the problem - my definitions (as shown in the links) are from a law dictionary. We can argue over words - but not guilty and innocent are synonymous in the English language.

Synonyms, yes. But not identical.

I can be found not guilty of a crime for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't mean that if I'm found 'not guilty', I'm actually innocent.

 

[Belk]

Synonyms, yes. But not identical.

I can be found not guilty of a crime for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't mean that if I'm found 'not guilty', I'm actually innocent.

Good luck. I'm done trying to explain it.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Should we shoot criminals that are acquitted because WE THINK they are guilty

No, we can leave that to the police. Death sentence for selling loose cigarettes? Check. Death sentence for possibly trying to pass a fake $20? Check. Death sentence for being 13 years old playing with a toy gun in the park? Check. Death sentence for sitting in the car and calmly telling police there is a licensed gun in your car? Check.

We don't even NEED the courts!

 

[pgp_protector]

No, we can leave that to the police. Death sentence for selling loose cigarettes? Check. Death sentence for possibly trying to pass a fake $20? Check. Death sentence for being 13 years old playing with a toy gun in the park? Check. Death sentence for sitting in the car and calmly telling police there is a licensed gun in your car? Check.

We don't even NEED the courts!

Don't forget no knock warrants on the wrong address.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Don't forget no knock warrants on the wrong address.

Even worse: SLEEPING IN ANOTHER ROOM DURING A NO-KNOCK WARRANT! (That's one of those crimes that you know we have far too much of in this country)

 

[Always in His Presence]

Synonyms, yes. But not identical.

I can be found not guilty of a crime for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't mean that if I'm found 'not guilty', I'm actually innocent.

My knife just is not sharp enough to split that hair.

Definition of SYNONYMOUS

having the same connotations, implications, or reference​

 

[atpollard]

Is the justice system 100% accurate in all cases or is it possible to improve upon it?

Sure it can be improved, I like trial by ordeal. However, I am in the minority, so I abide by the rule of law. If you feel strongly enough to become a vigilante and punish those the Justice system fails to, then do what you must.

I think OJ was guilty, but accepted his verdict. I see no reason not to accept the verdict of any police officer either.

I thought the Chauvin trial was partial but accepted its verdict, just as I will accept the result of the appeal whatever it is.

It is not my job to retry all cases in the news based on tainted misinformation from sources with agendas.

 

[atpollard]

Death sentence for possibly trying to pass a fake $20?

That’s where the second amendment comes in.
When a drugged out of his mind violent criminal like Floyd enters a store to cause trouble, the shop owner can just “stand his ground” and resolve the trouble himself without the need for a Police department to play Law Enforcement and Social Worker at the same time. The woman he beat and robbed would not have been as easy a target if she had been armed.

If people REALLY don’t want the police that badly, I am willing to give it a try. I live in one of those neighborhoods with a 30+ minute police response time, so it is no skin off my nose. The shotgun will cost less than my current non-protection.

 

[Oneiric1975]

That’s where the second amendment comes in.
When a drugged out of his mind violent criminal like Floyd

He may have had a lot of drugs in his system but the video of his death doesn't show a man out of control. In fact he was totally under perfect control by the police. So much so that he died.

himself without the need for a Police department to play Law Enforcement and Social Worker at the same time.

So in your world George Floyd was threatening deadly force and IMMINENT death to the store owner? I hadn't heard that.

The woman he beat and robbed would not have been as easy a target if she had been armed.

He beat and robbed a woman right before being killed by Officer Chauvin? Wow! I hadn't heard that at all!

If people REALLY don’t want the police that badly, I am willing to give it a try.

Why is it some folks always go for the "argumentum ad absurdem"? I certainly never said we need to get rid of all police! Sheesh!

I live in one of those neighborhoods with a 30+ minute police response time, so it is no skin off my nose. The shotgun will cost less than my current non-protection.

I hope you never have to find out if you can actually kill another human being.

 

[Belk]

Sure it can be improved, I like trial by ordeal.
However, I am in the minority, so I abide by the rule of law. If you feel strongly enough to become a vigilante and punish those the Justice system fails to, then do what you must.

How about we skip the silly idea of vigilantism and work to fix the system. That strikes me as a better idea.

I think OJ was guilty, but accepted his verdict. I see no reason not to accept the verdict of any police officer either.

I thought the Chauvin trial was partial but accepted its verdict, just as I will accept the result of the appeal whatever it is.

It is not my job to retry all cases in the news based on tainted misinformation from sources with agendas.

Yes, it would be horrible if agendas or misinformation were introduced to the subject. :Roll eyes: