The Second Amendment

[disciple Clint]

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

just as I thought

 

[Gene2memE]

That would be double jeopardy. A Person can’t be tried twice for the same crime.

1) That doesn't answer my question, and
2) Yes you can, it just depends on the jurisdiction is, and what the crime is.

(In Australia, you can be tried for certain crimes twice. In the UK and some other parts of Europe as well. In Japan, there's officially double jeopardy, but the state is allowed to fully retry the case at every level of appeal.)

Here's some (real life) examples.

A man was found guilty of murder. Twice. In two separate cases. Both cases were then were overturned on legal technicalities about evidence handling, resulting in the guilty verdicts being voided. Is he guilty, innocent, or just not guilty?

A man was found not-guilty of two murders. New evidence came to light 20 years later, and he was retried for the same trial and found guilty. Was he innocent for those 20 years, and then guilty?

 

[renniks]

Let's say the criminal was speeding and had a gun. Does the cop get to kill them then?

Of course not. Not unless he's pointing his gun at people. How would the police know I was armed in my car, anyway? Only if I'm waving a gun around or put the gun in the window. Lots of people have guns in their trucks all the time here during deer season, no one gets shot by the cops.

 

[RDKirk]

Interesting question, I would say they did not have their right to bear arms. There is another thread on about a diner pulling a gun on protesters and the argument was that he could pull his gun because some of the protesters were armed. Of note, none of the protesters pointed their weapons at the man, yet people were arguing it was okay for him to point a weapon at people exercising their right to bear arms.

I think it's obvious that the right to bear arms is only seen as applicable to some people. Cliven Bundy and his group can point their weapons at law enforcement and the usual suspects will defend them. Philando Castile will just inform you he has a gun is his car and be blown away and the usual suspects will defend the shooting. The right to bear arms is either a right or not, but from my observation, it is only supported when the right kind of people bear arms; the not right people can be shot on the spot.

Actually, a great many gun owners were quite upset over the Castile death, and many left the NRA because of its failure to address it. The NRA is staunchly pro-police in every case; the rank-and-file gun owners...not so much.

 

[morningstar2651]

just as I thought

I'm calling you out for being needlessly pedantic. I don't have or need a special definition for the word "unarmed". Nobody should shoot unarmed people. If you find that statement objectionable or controversial, then the problem lies with your desire to have unarmed people shot or your belief that some people deserve to be shot.

 

[morningstar2651]

Of course not. Not unless he's pointing his gun at people. How would the police know I was armed in my car, anyway? Only if I'm waving a gun around or put the gun in the window. Lots of people have guns in their trucks all the time here during deer season, no one gets shot by the cops.

I agree with you 100%. I grew up in the midwest and this was my experience too. I used to go bowhunting with my dad.

This isn't everyone's experience, though. Not everyone grew up or lived in an area where hunting is mainstream. I've been living in the Phoenix metro area for over a decade, and the urban sprawl here means that many children growing up here have never really been outside of the city or have never seen farmland or livestock outside of movies. Driving a couple of hours from here to Flagstaff feels like driving into a different world because it's so close yet culturally very different.

Experiences with guns and police are very different here. I grew up in a small town where I knew several police officers by name. I went to school with their kids. Here I've been pulled over under false pretenses twice: once while driving through Guadalupe (a neighborhood that is 65.58% Hispanic) at night a cop pulled me over hoping to use SB1070 to arrest me. He claimed he pulled me over because the light on my license plate was out (it wasn't out). The other time was in Mesa on a holiday, I was asked to get out of the car and was threatened with a sobriety test and a drug test (I don't drink or use drugs) and that cop never explained their reason for pulling me over.

Have you ever had an armed man pull you over and order you to get out of your car and threatened you with being taken to the police station to undergo drug testing? It's not a pleasant experience.

 

[renniks]

Have you ever had an armed man pull you over and order you to get out of your car and threatened you with being taken to the police station to undergo drug testing? It's not a pleasant experience.

No, but my daughter did. Yes, some are too gung ho to boost their arrest records, but what does that have to do with shooting people?

 

[atpollard]

Wha? As in torturing someone or deliberately injuring them with the expectation of Divine intervention to demonstrate innocence? That sort of trial by ordeal?

Let's take George Floyd as a test case. Under Trial by Ordeal. George would not have needed to fear arrest and imprisonment or any punishment from the police or justice system. A simple test would have been made to determine whether George was guilty of fraud or falsely accused. God would reveal innocence or guilt. If George was declared guilty by God, then George would have been punished. If George would have been declared innocent, then his false accuser would have been punished. In either case, there would have been JUSTICE.

(In this case, George could have quietly died of his overdose without the indignity of being held face down on the street as he died because he was terrified that he would suffer INJUSTICE.)

Trial by Ordeal removes the human corruption of the Legal System from the equation. You could flip a coin.

 

[atpollard]

Okay.

Now, what if they don't have a gun, but the cop BELIEVES they have a gun. Should cops shoot unarmed people? Yes or no?

EDIT: This is an easy question.

NOBODY SHOULD SHOOT UNARMED PEOPLE.

Unarmed people should not act like they are hurrying to draw a gun, either.

If a man robs a bank with his hand in his pocket and says "I have a gun", the crime is still "Armed Robbery" ... even though a finger is NOT a gun. If a police officer shoots him while robbing the bank, was the officer wrong for killing an unarmed man, or right to believe that the hand in the pocket held a gun?

If a suspect is told to keep their hands where the officer can see them, and reaches into their pocket instead, is it unreasonable to suspect that it MIGHT be a gun?

It it really so complicated to keep your hands where the police can see them during a traffic stop? Then just slowly follow directions so the officer doesn't have to guess what you are pulling out of wherever he cannot see. I have been stopped and searched and armed ... not being stupid prevents getting shot. He just returned the blade when we were finished and we both went home that day. (I used it for work).

 

[Belk]

Let's take George Floyd as a test case. Under Trial by Ordeal. George would not have needed to fear arrest and imprisonment or any punishment from the police or justice system. A simple test would have been made to determine whether George was guilty of fraud or falsely accused. God would reveal innocence or guilt. If George was declared guilty by God, then George would have been punished. If George would have been declared innocent, then his false accuser would have been punished. In either case, there would have been JUSTICE.

(In this case, George could have quietly died of his overdose without the indignity of being held face down on the street as he died because he was terrified that he would suffer INJUSTICE.)

Trial by Ordeal removes the human corruption of the Legal System from the equation. You could flip a coin.

Yes, that is exactly what this sounds like.

 

[atpollard]

Have you ever had an armed man pull you over and order you to get out of your car and threatened you with being taken to the police station to undergo drug testing? It's not a pleasant experience.

Did you reach your hand next to the seat while he was talking to you ... because YOU knew you were unarmed and had a right to record him on the cell phone in your pocket?

 

[atpollard]

Yes, that is exactly what this sounds like.

You don't like my suggestion (OK, fair enough).
You don't accept the current Judicial System (Which I accept as the one we have.)
You want something "better", but you have no real suggestion ... just lots of complaints.

Put up or shut up.
Lead, follow or just get out of the way.
Right now, you are adding nothing but static to the conversation.

 

[Belk]

You don't like my suggestion (OK, fair enough).
You don't accept the current Judicial System (Which I accept as the one we have.)
You want something "better", but you have no real suggestion ... just lots of complaints.

Put up or shut up.
Lead, follow or just get out of the way.
Right now, you are adding nothing but static to the conversation.

I have made multiple suggestions. Much like you missed the fact I accept the current judicial system you apparently have missed my suggestions.

 

[atpollard]

I have made multiple suggestions. Much like you missed the fact I accept the current judicial system you apparently have missed my suggestions.

Really?

If it was a real gun would that of been justification for his death?

Yes, you added the fact that it was altered to look like a real gun. So my question is, if it was a real gun would that of been justification for his death? If not the fact that it it was altered is not relevant.

How is it relevant then? Please explain because I do not understand.

We are talking about Tamir Rice who did not level a gun at the officer. If the gun he had was a real weapon rather then a toy, how would that be relevant to his death?

Do tell.

What about the people who do what they are told and still get shot?

Perhaps it is time to quit making traffic stops a life or death situation?

Yes, this is my point. Why are traffic stops a life or death situation? Because if someone has a record or warrant they go into fight or flight mode. How about we stop searching for criminal records at traffic stops and just give a citation no matter what? This seems an easy way to de-escalate the situation from both sides.

Typically they do not go to jail. That is part of the problem and why our justice system is seen as problematic.

Concealed carry rules vary by state. My state requires no class and I obtained my license simply by filling out a form.

Again, this is not always true and what we are discussing. There have been multiple cases where people followed instructions and were still shot.

This is incorrect and the crux of the issue. You asked why I would think you "would defend anyone murdering with impunity". It is because you keep repeating the same story which is contradicted by real world evidence.

Which is more important? Catching the one case in ten thousand were a murder ran a stop sign or stopping the one in a thousand cases were a criminal in fight or flight shoots a cop? Or the numerous cases were the traffic officer makes a mistake?

Why do you keep ignoring the real world situations were they are not arrested and do not face justice?

That would be the multiple times where someone followed orders but was still shot.

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.

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

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

From a lawyer.

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

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

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

Agreed. Let me be clear, I work with a lot of officers and many of them are fine men and women. A few are jerks and a couple are dangerous. The issue I have with them is the issue I have with some other civil servants I work with. It takes an act of congress to get rid of the bad apples.

Yes, that is exactly what this sounds like

You do not accept the current Judicial System, you reject and distrust it.
Your "solution" is for the police to stop arresting criminals.
I stand by my original comment.

 

[Gene2memE]

Let's take George Floyd as a test case. Under Trial by Ordeal. George would not have needed to fear arrest and imprisonment or any punishment from the police or justice system. A simple test would have been made to determine whether George was guilty of fraud or falsely accused. God would reveal innocence or guilt. If George was declared guilty by God, then George would have been punished. If George would have been declared innocent, then his false accuser would have been punished. In either case, there would have been JUSTICE.

(In this case, George could have quietly died of his overdose without the indignity of being held face down on the street as he died because he was terrified that he would suffer INJUSTICE.)

Trial by Ordeal removes the human corruption of the Legal System from the equation. You could flip a coin.

This is, by no small margin, the worst idea I've ever seen proposed on this forum.

Congratulations!

 

[Belk]

Really?


You do not accept the current Judicial System, you reject and distrust it.
Your "solution" is for the police to stop arresting criminals.
I stand by my original comment.

Do not presume to tell me what I believe.

 

[atpollard]

This is, by no small margin, the worst idea I've ever seen proposed on this forum.

Congratulations!

On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to either go along with the current System or to completely de-fund the police and self-police. Someone just asked how I would improve it, so I stated my personal preference.

What about you?
Are you complaining about the existing system without proposing any solutions?
Are you willing to accept anarchy if you dismantle the police without creating anything to replace it (as is the current trend)?

Lots of naysayers and few people stepping up with solutions.
So I am just here to admire the breeze rising from the lips of do-nothing complainers.
I don't HAVE a police problem. They don't stop crime in my neighborhood and I don't do anything that resembles drawing a firearm when they occasionally visit. You might want to try it out for yourself (although I do have to buy my TVs rather than stealing them in the name of looting for racial justice).

 

[atpollard]

Do not presume to tell me what I believe.

I only quoted what you said. If you did not believe what you said, then that is on you.

 

[Belk]

I only quoted what you said. If you did not believe what you said, then that is on you.

No, you then added to it which I quoted.

 

[Gene2memE]

On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to either go along with the current System or to completely de-fund the police and self-police. Someone just asked how I would improve it, so I stated my personal preference.

Yes, an "improvement" that tortures people, adds retributive punishment, assumes the existence of a God (not only that, a direct interventionist God) and assumes that such an entity cares if an individual is 'guilty' or 'innocent', adds supernatural evidence back into the legal system and generally sends us back ~1400 years in terms of the advancement of jurisprudence.

That's like improving the Hindenburg by adding fire to it.

What about you?
Are you complaining about the existing system without proposing any solutions?
Are you willing to accept anarchy if you dismantle the police without creating anything to replace it (as is the current trend)?

I haven't been complaining about anything. My initial post in this thread was explaining how the legal view of the second amendment has been modified over the past ~70 or so years, as has US gun culture. I've also pointed out a few pieces of evidence related to police shootings and then tried to clarify about why courts find someone 'not guilty' instead of 'innocent'.

Personally, I'd like to see the US roll out a scheme similar to Australia in the late 1990s and New Zealand a few years back. And massively reform its gun ownership laws. (Neither is going to happen though)

As for police reform, I'd like to:
Roll back the militarisation of US law enforcement,
Introduce a federally mandated training period for all US police,
Add dedicated metal health and community engagement taskforces to every agency,
Reinstate widespread and persistent foot patrolling,
Enhance on the job training, with an empahsis on community engagement skills
Mandate body camera use (and strict penalties for not doing so),
Substantially reduce no-knock raids,
Introduce use-of-force standards along with civil review of incidents,
Reform qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture
Create an external agency to investigate police misconduct and change the way investigations and suspension work
Change the focus of recruiting/hiring (fewer ex-millitary, more young people)
Expand counselling and support measures for police