disciple Clint
He was right about everything
- Mar 26, 2018
- 15,261
- 6,000
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
just as I thoughtIt depends on what your definition of "is" is.
That would be double jeopardy. A Person can’t be tried twice for the same crime.
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.Let's say the criminal was speeding and had a gun. Does the cop get to kill them then?
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.
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.just as I thought
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.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.
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?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.
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.Wha? As in torturing someone or deliberately injuring them with the expectation of Divine intervention to demonstrate innocence? That sort of trial by ordeal?
Unarmed people should not act like they are hurrying to draw a gun, either.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.
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.
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?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.
You don't like my suggestion (OK, fair enough).Yes, that is exactly what this sounds like.
I have made multiple suggestions. Much like you missed the fact I accept the current judicial system you apparently have missed my suggestions.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.
Really?I have made multiple suggestions. Much like you missed the fact I accept the current judicial system you apparently have missed my suggestions.
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
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.
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.
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.This is, by no small margin, the worst idea I've ever seen proposed on this forum.
Congratulations!
I only quoted what you said. If you did not believe what you said, then that is on you.
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)?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?