[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Plus, since you are even against further scientific study into gun violence

This is not correct.

[Waragainstsleep]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/e...heory-debunked

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is a different question from whether he's complelled to do it, and I'm not sure of the relevance.

The relevance is that appears to be what happened. That's why he kept shouting "I'm not!" when the cop told him not reach for his gun.

He was under two commands. He Followed them. He was shot for it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Not obeying a command might not be a crime under your law, but that doesn't do you any good because the cop shoots you as you were acting suspiciously by not following his command. It is not the civilian responsibility to make up for mistakes made by the cop. By this standard the civilian can't win here.

It is a law in most places: failure to obey a lawful and reasonable order of the police.

Source:
I've been arrested for it. (got the charges dropped shortly after due to the order being bullshit). But, as the cops love to say - you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Not obeying a command might not be a crime under your law, but that doesn't do you any good because the cop shoots you as you were acting suspiciously by not following his command.

Am I understanding this right?

The argument is he was compelled to keep going for his wallet because if he had decided to keep his hands at 10 and 2 he might have been shot?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The relevance is that appears to be what happened. That's why he kept shouting "I'm not!" when the cop told him not reach for his gun.

He was under two commands. He Followed them. He was shot for it.

I'm still lost here.

He followed two commands . . . . . . justice is only served once the cop is behind bars.

Connect the dots for me.

[The Final Dakar]

The cop killed him for following his commands?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The cop killed him for following his commands?

The way it appears to me is the cop killed him because he thought a gun was getting drawn on him.

IOW, the cop made a mistake with fatal consequences. The question is whether the appropriate punishment is prison.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The way it appears to me is the cop killed him because he thought a gun was getting drawn on him.

IOW, the cop made a mistake with fatal consequences. The question is whether the appropriate punishment is prison.

He thought a gun was being drawn on him because the civilian was following his orders.

[subego]

Hence the qualification of the cops actions as a "mistake with fatal consequences".

Had the civilian been drawing a gun, it wouldn't have been a mistake to shoot him.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hence the qualification of the cops actions as a "mistake with fatal consequences".

Had the civilian been drawing a gun, it wouldn't have been a mistake to shoot him.

Why would a person intent on killing a cop tell them they have a gun on them?

[subego]

Under most circumstances they won't.

If they did, shooting him wouldn't require the qualifier "mistake with fatal consequences".

[The Final Dakar]

By not holding him Legally accountable you're saying cops can create deadly situations with no repercussions.

[subego]

This implies intent on the part of the cop(s).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This implies intent on the part of the cop(s).

No it's pointing out the logical legal conclusion to treating this situation as an innocent mistake.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It is a law in most places: failure to obey a lawful and reasonable order of the police.

Source:
I've been arrested for it. (got the charges dropped shortly after due to the order being bullshit). But, as the cops love to say - you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride.

And even if it weren't an offense, like you wrote, you can beat the charge …

Originally Posted by subego 

Am I understanding this right?

The argument is he was compelled to keep going for his wallet because if he had decided to keep his hands at 10 and 2 he might have been shot?

I'm saying that not following the cops instructions (as opposed to following confusing or contradictory instructions) can also serve as justification for putting someone in jail, hurting, mistreating or even killing someone. As Snow-i wrote, you'd risk being charged with breaking the law, and suddenly someone who didn't do anything wrong might have the expense of a lawyer or (perhaps because you can't afford a lawyer) a rap sheet (since you have entered a plea deal). Although, of course, we don't know what would have happened in this particular instance if the victim had refused to comply.

Again, the onus is on the trained professional, not the civilian.

Originally Posted by subego 

This is not correct.

I think that bit is a distraction, the main point is that you are pro gun ownership, and if you are, then arguing that civilians possessing guns making the interaction more dangerous is a weird one to make.

Originally Posted by subego 

The way it appears to me is the cop killed him because he thought a gun was getting drawn on him.

IOW, the cop made a mistake with fatal consequences. The question is whether the appropriate punishment is prison.

Making honest mistakes can get you into prison, e. g. if someone dies because of my negligence, I can be charged with and convicted of manslaughter. To me the cop should be behind bars, not 25-to-life, but he has unnecessarily ended someone's life and destroyed a family and should have been given jail time. The civil cases connected to that don't change anything. (Plus, it never made sense to me that people were found not guilty in criminal court, but guilty in a civil court.)

Again, not sanctioning this is also hurting cops, because I don't think most of them “enjoy” killing innocent people, I don't think they get up and look for opportunities to kill innocent brown people. I reckon most cops would be traumatized by that event for life. Not sanctioning cops means you are keeping the few bad apples that can spoil a police department. It means that there is no discussion about improving and changing training (e. g. not spending that much training on shooting and hand-to-hand combat, but also other forms of conflict resolution). And ultimately, cops rely on having a good relation to the community. If the people they are supposed to protect are afraid of them, and for good reason, this hampers their ability to do their job and also makes their job unnecessarily more dangerous.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

This implies intent on the part of the cop(s).

No, it doesn't. You can be held legally or criminally responsible without there being any intent on your part. Of course, it makes the crime less severe, manslaughter is a lesser charge than first degree murder, but it is a crime nonetheless.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think that bit is a distraction

Then the accusation shouldn't have been made.

Of course guns make situations more dangerous. They're guns. Their function is to kill people.

Despite this, I am pro gun ownership. Freedom has a price.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Freedom has a price.

And yet America continues to be the only developed/free country willing to pay it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Someone has to, it's part of the cost to be the boss.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And yet America continues to be the only developed/free country willing to pay it.

Europe indeed paid the price with 40 million civilians dead in WW II.

At our current rate American gun violence will have reached parity in about, let's see, carry the 4... 700 years.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No it's pointing out the logical legal conclusion to treating this situation as an innocent mistake.

Is the issue here the result of what happens for treating an innocent mistake as an innocent mistake, or that it isn't an innocent mistake?

I'm willing to discuss the problems with the former, but such discussion will obviously not apply to the latter.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

Europe indeed paid the price with 40 million civilians dead in WW II.

At our current rate American gun violence will have reached parity in about, let's see, carry the 4... 700 years.

I'm confused here, are you arguing that the lack of an armed populace was the cause of WW II?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm confused here, are you arguing that the lack of an armed populace was the cause of WW II?

My argument was somewhat rhetorical.

The justification for the price America pays is avoidance of the types of scenarios which precipitated WW II.

I question how 20th century Europe would have played out had the citizenry been allowed the means to rebel against their own governments.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

My argument was somewhat rhetorical.

The justification for the price America pays is avoidance of the types of scenarios which precipitated WW II.

I question how 20th century Europe would have played out had the citizenry been allowed the means to rebel against their own governments.

I imagine you would have had bloodshed on the level of the American Civil War.

[subego]

Which, even if it happened in every country in Europe, still wouldn't have managed the number of deaths from WW II.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which, even if it happened in every country in Europe, still wouldn't have managed the number of deaths from WW II.

That's a bit facile: the American civil war preceded the development of many modern weapons such as tanks, modern machine guns, the use of barbed wire, airplanes, radios, submarines, etc. And it was fought in a society that wasn't yet completely industrialized. Had the American Civil War been fought in the early 20th century, the casualties would have been much higher.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Europe indeed paid the price with 40 million civilians dead in WW II.

At our current rate American gun violence will have reached parity in about, let's see, carry the 4... 700 years.

Yes, but America isn't at war with itself and shouldn't be compared with the casualties in war zones.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's a bit facile: the American civil war preceded the development of many modern weapons such as tanks, modern machine guns, the use of barbed wire, airplanes, radios, submarines, etc. And it was fought in a society that wasn't yet completely industrialized. Had the American Civil War been fought in the early 20th century, the casualties would have been much higher.

I assumed "bloodshed on the level of the American Civil War" meant "bloodshed on the level of the American Civil War", not "bloodshed on the level of the American Civil War were it fought with tanks and planes".

Should the latter have been what was meant, I shall revise my statement, but either way, the claim didn't come from me. I took what I was given.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, but America isn't at war with itself and shouldn't be compared with the casualties in war zones.

As I said, the justification for our policy is avoidance of the type of scenarios which created WW II.

The comparison is apt, because those are the two options under consideration.

Do we kill 40,000 in a year, or 40,000,000 over five? Seems an easy choice to me.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Europe indeed paid the price with 40 million civilians dead in WW II.

At our current rate American gun violence will have reached parity in about, let's see, carry the 4... 700 years.

Hitler was voted into power. Who exactly do you imagine would have stopped him with their guns?

[Waragainstsleep]

Of course if you lot hadn't declared independence in the first place, it seems likely we would have avoided both world wars altogether. Difficult to imagine anyone daring to take on the British Empire with the resources of 20th century America added to what it already had.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Of course if you lot hadn't declared independence in the first place, it seems likely we would have avoided both world wars altogether. Difficult to imagine anyone daring to take on the British Empire with the resources of 20th century America added to what it already had.

Sorry I'm not sorry.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said, the justification for our policy is avoidance of the type of scenarios which created WW II.

The comparison is apt, because those are the two options under consideration.

Do we kill 40,000 in a year, or 40,000,000 over five? Seems an easy choice to me.

But these are not the only two choices: in Europe there has neither been a big war of WW2 proportions nor a big problem in gun violence. In fact, societies are safer than ever. So pretending that these are your two options is a bit of a red herring.

Originally Posted by subego 

I assumed "bloodshed on the level of the American Civil War" meant "bloodshed on the level of the American Civil War", not "bloodshed on the level of the American Civil War were it fought with tanks and planes".

Yes, but precisely that is the fault in your argument: If tanks had been available during the American Civil War, then you would have seen tank war fare and much larger casualties.

Originally Posted by subego 

Should the latter have been what was meant, I shall revise my statement, but either way, the claim didn't come from me. I took what I was given.

You made the argument that an American Civil War-level event in Europe would have been preferable as the casualties would have been much lower. The reasonableness of Paco's comment on the Civil War doesn't enter here, because you could have made the same argument as I did.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But these are not the only two choices: in Europe there has neither been a big war of WW2 proportions nor a big problem in gun violence. In fact, societies are safer than ever. So pretending that these are your two options is a bit of a red herring.

A fundamental reason there hasn't been a big war is American interference via NATO.

Our government rides herd on the governments of Europe. There is no one to ride herd on our government except the people.

We have chilling examples of how European governments behave when not held to account by a greater power. Were our government not held accountable, it would make the European examples look amateurish in comparison.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, but precisely that is the fault in your argument: If tanks had been available during the American Civil War, then you would have seen tank war fare and much larger casualties.

You made the argument that an American Civil War-level event in Europe would have been preferable as the casualties would have been much lower. The reasonableness of Paco's comment on the Civil War doesn't enter here, because you could have made the same argument as I did.

I'm lost.

If the casualties were going to be caused by tanks, then that isn't bloodshed on the level of the American Civil War, it's bloodshed on the level of WW I or II.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Hitler was voted into power. Who exactly do you imagine would have stopped him with their guns?

When do the Europeans get their guns? Late 18th century, like us?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

A fundamental reason there hasn't been a big war is American interference via NATO.

No, the fundamental reason is the European project, not NATO. Having an external enemy has helped, but compare the situation to Korea and Japan which are still in conflict about what has happened during the Japanese occupation and so forth.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sorry I'm not sorry.

Me either, **** the crown.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, the fundamental reason is the European project, not NATO. Having an external enemy has helped, but compare the situation to Korea and Japan which are still in conflict about what has happened during the Japanese occupation and so forth.

The reality that the main aggressor in WW II (at least in Europe), Germany, is the one constantly trying to put the breaks on US/NATO military intervention kind of shows the argument that US is prime reason for peace in Europe is basically BS. But it does fit the narrative on American Exceptionalism which I don't generally expect to hear from Subego. However, it does sort of slot into the argument that an armed populace is a Good Thing for the US and by extension the world, so I guess that might be the angle he's coming from.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

The reality that the main aggressor in WW II (at least in Europe), Germany, is the one constantly trying to put the breaks on US/NATO military intervention kind of shows the argument that US is prime reason for peace in Europe is basically BS. But it does fit the narrative on American Exceptionalism which I don't generally expect to hear from Subego. However, it does sort of slot into the argument that an armed populace is a Good Thing for the US and by extension the world, so I guess that might be the angle he's coming from.

If this is the case, may I presume one of the following scenarios has more appeal?

1) A post-war Europe without NATO, and a pacifist Germany staring down three million hungry Soviets

2) A post-war Europe without NATO, and a Germany able to kick that much ass.

[Chongo]

The Spaniards fought a civil war with tanks and planes.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

If this is the case, may I presume one of the following scenarios has more appeal?

1) A post-war Europe without NATO, and a pacifist Germany staring down three million hungry Soviets

2) A post-war Europe without NATO, and a Germany able to kick that much ass.

That is a very different argument than armed citizens in the US via NATO are the primary driver for peace in post WW II Europe.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

That is a very different argument than armed citizens in the US via NATO are the primary driver for peace in post WW II Europe.

The armed citizens in the US keep the US government in check.

The US government is essentially in charge of NATO.

NATO keeps Europe in check.


This is the mechanism by which armed citizenry in America affect European peace.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

The armed citizens in the US keep the US government in check.

The US government is essentially in charge of NATO.

NATO keeps Europe in check.

This is the mechanism by which armed citizenry in America affect European peace.

I would agree that NATO kept the Soviets in check, but the 'European Project' has been the primary driver for intraeuropean peace, well that and a very healthy dose of war weariness. Europe has kept NATO in check much more so than the reverse.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I would agree that NATO kept the Soviets in check, but the 'European Project' has been the primary driver for intraeuropean peace, well that and a very healthy dose of war weariness. Europe has kept NATO in check much more so than the reverse.

I argue the European Project succeeded, and continues to succeed, in no small part due to:

1) Most countries in Europe not needing to concern themselves with having militaries actually powerful enough to provide for their defense.

2) An inability to be aggressive towards one's neighbors due to lacking said military.

The above conditions exist because of NATO.


I'm not really sure where exceptionalism fits into this. We're not doing this because we're nice, we're doing it because it's a net profit.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

I argue the European Project succeeded, and continues to succeed, in no small part due to:

1) Most countries in Europe not needing to concern themselves with having militaries actually powerful enough to provide for their defense.

2) An inability to be aggressive towards one's neighbors due to lacking said military.

The above conditions exist because of NATO.


I'm not really sure where exceptionalism fits into this. We're not doing this because we're nice, we're doing it because it's a net profit.

And I would say it's an interesting argument based on a US-centric worldview that's simply not accurate. Well, one could argue the semantics around what exactly 'no small part' means. Do I believe you point is completely without merit? No. Do I think it's the primary driver behind several generations of peace in Europe? No. My experience is that there are countries here full of battle sites and graveyards who have recognised the value of shared interest over self interest. This is demonstrated in their relative lack of restraint in engaging military action across the globe, socialist societies, economic, social, and legal cooperation, and (mostly) open borders. The idea that this is all courtesy of Uncle Sam is the all but a textbook definition of exceptionalism. Lots of good things happen in the world that America is not the primary cause of.

i would say that the populations of Europe see NATO as a force to protect from external military threats, and the EU/European Community as the bulwark against 'internal' aggression.

But that may just be my thinking- I'd love some more Euro-natives to jump in and give their thoughts.

[subego]

My off-the-cuff analogy is NATO contributed as much to Europe's success as being able to plant in good soil contributes to a farmer growing a successful crop.

Not the primary driver, yet vital if the farmer wants to make best use of their efforts.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is the issue here the result of what happens for treating an innocent mistake as an innocent mistake, or that it isn't an innocent mistake?

I'm willing to discuss the problems with the former, but such discussion will obviously not apply to the latter.

Dude, you can go to jail for a mistake. Involuntary manslaughter.

[The Final Dakar]

I guess a philosophical question is whether being incredibly bad at your job is an innocent mistake.