In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 27 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote: "Innocent" isn't the right term. "Not guilty" is. The law purposefully avoids the term "innocent" for obvious reasons.
There should be a plaque of this somewhere whenever discussions like this come up.
On November 27 2014 07:56 oneofthem wrote: it is not a bad choice of words. it is a primitive concept because it draws on some unexamined intuitions about rights.
You're starting to convince me self-defense is a privilege extended to unarmed black teens, but denied to armed white police officers.
"Unexamined" in the sense that we only have four centuries of examination, or so. "Intuitions" in the sense that you have to be an expert psychologist to qualify for self preservation. We wouldn't want any primitives to think you don't have the right to kill you and take your stuff, would we?
this criticism of self defense is really not sourced from this particular problem, but more from collective agency(self defense as rational in war, for example) . but a subset of problems still apply in the individual context. i don't really care about the race involved, but the range of actions available as well as the decision process. for the decision process, defense is a reflexive, single track one when understood within a rigid territorial rights system. it really is a poor justification by itself.
On November 27 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote: "Innocent" isn't the right term. "Not guilty" is. The law purposefully avoids the term "innocent" for obvious reasons.
There should be a plaque of this somewhere whenever discussions like this come up.
if you read the thread wilson defenders used the word and i copied it.
further, this is not a trial to determine guilt. it was to determine whether to press charges, i.e. whether to inquire into guilt. innocent seems like the appropriate negative here actually
On November 27 2014 07:56 oneofthem wrote: it is not a bad choice of words. it is a primitive concept because it draws on some unexamined intuitions about rights.
You're starting to convince me self-defense is a privilege extended to unarmed black teens, but denied to armed white police officers.
"Unexamined" in the sense that we only have four centuries of examination, or so. "Intuitions" in the sense that you have to be an expert psychologist to qualify for self preservation. We wouldn't want any primitives to think you don't have the right to kill you and take your stuff, would we?
this criticism of self defense is really not sourced from this particular problem, but more from collective agency(self defense as rational in war, for example) . but a subset of problems still apply in the individual context. i don't really care about the race involved, but the range of actions available as well as the decision process. for the decision process, defense is a reflexive, single track one when understood within a rigid territorial rights system. it really is a poor justification by itself.
Classic self-defense isn't grounded in concepts of territorial rights. It is grounded in defense of person. The typical test for permissibly using lethal force in self-defense is whether one had reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury from the assailant.
i didn't mean literally land territory rights, but the sort of 'sphere of control' framework as exemplified by territory sovereignty claims. the case of self/person is a special case of this more general framework, rather than something unique.
rephrasing it, ...when self defense is invoked by the violation of a certain boundary of control.
On November 27 2014 09:34 oneofthem wrote: i didn't mean literally land territory rights, but the sort of 'sphere of control' framework as exemplified by territory sovereignty claims. the case of self/person is a special case of this more general framework, rather than something unique.
rephrasing it, ...when self defense is invoked by the violation of a certain boundary of control.
What you're describing isn't self-defense. What you're describing is more skin to the stand your ground and castle doctrines, which are separate permissive reasons to kill people in some states. Neither was applicable in this case.
figured I'd give context because I realized people here might not know this story
A man sitting under a nearby gazebo made a 911 call, telling the dispatcher, “there’s a guy in here with a pistol, pointing it at everybody,” according to audio of the call. The caller said the gun is “probably fake, but you know what, he’s scaring the s— out of people,” and later said, “I don’t know if it’s real or not.” He described Tamir as “probably a juvenile.” He eventually left the park.
But information about the gun possibly being fake wasn’t mentioned to the officers in a call to them about a young black male with a gun in a park.
“Shots fired, male down, um, black male, maybe 20,” one of the officers radioed in. “Black hand gun.”
just gonna leave that here. found it quite refreshing in how (provocatively) it will establish a sense of equivalency to what happens not just because of the outrage in ferguson, but more specifically the feeling black people get in general due to serious issues in the justice system and conduct of police especially with minorities.
oh my. sorry for dp, but things just got interesting.
In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers.
Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is.
In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers.
Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is.
This would have some merit if the GJ investigation/hearing was held in typical hush hush manner, but since transcripts are released to public, it'll become apparently obvious that the hearing was pretty non-biased.
On November 27 2014 10:36 Doublemint wrote: oh my. sorry for dp, but things just got interesting.
In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers.
Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is.
This would have some merit if the GJ investigation/hearing was held in typical hush hush manner, but since transcripts are released to public, it'll become apparently obvious that the hearing was pretty non-biased.
read it more carefully/completely before jumping to conclusions.
The National Bar Association put forth reasons why a special prosecutor was needed for this case. This evidence demonstrates clearly that they were right to be concerned. Is this why he failed to actually prosecute before the grand jury, and instead engaged in character assassinations against Michael Brown? Is Bob McCulloch a mere stooge for the police department, enabling them to get away with a wide variety of abuses? Or does he just have so little respect for the position he holds that he sees no issue with shielding those who must uphold the public trust against any accountability for their actions?.....
Now we need to have an investigation on Prosecutor McCulloch to discover if this is an isolated incident, or something more widespread. This might be why the t-shirt sales were done in the first place, to create such a scenario and poison trust in the prosecution’s case as presented. The actual case it turns out did enough of that, but back in August, it may have seemed a good idea to someone seeking to hide the truth. It needs to be uncovered who did this, and to put steps in place to prevent similar incidents in the future. That Prosecutor McCulloch’s organization has already rejected any such investigation leaves open the question – what it is that they are afraid to uncover? Are these ties far deeper than just a random t-shirt sale?
Unless the investigation pops up hidden evidence/interviews etc, the overall response from the legal community has been the GJ investigation was held in fair manner, and the transcripts are proof of that.
I can see why someone who has had personal experience with abusive racist policemen would be highly suspicious any time there is an incident in the news about a policeman justifying his lethal use of force, in the face of outrage from blacks. What would only be rational in that case, however, is to suspect he is lying about what really happened. When it goes to the point of trying to redefine what is legitimate self-defense for a law officer generally, in order for the convenience of holding onto your prejudice even in the case that the police officer is telling the truth, then it goes beyond reason.
A policeman's job is absolutely to pursue a suspect and arrest him, whenever he has probable cause. To resist arrest by assailing him certainly does put him in the position of legitimate self defense, no matter whether he "needed" to pursue the suspect or not. He was trying to enforce the law. He was attacked once already, pursued his attacker, and allegedly was attacked again. The matter that his attacker chose to attack a police officer, who had the authority and the reason and the armaments to defend himself by lethal force if necessary, would plainly be the fault of that attacker. The only thing to dispute should be the facts of the events which took place.
House and Senate negotiators who thought they were close to a deal renewing expired tax breaks have a new factor to worry about: a veto threat from a White House unhappy about helping businesses but not the working poor.
The veto threat comes with Congress on Thanksgiving recess and planning only a couple of work weeks in December before it adjourns.
At issue for President Obama and many congressional Democrats are the Earned Income Tax Credit for lower-income workers and the $1,000-per-child tax credit that benefits both the poor and the middle class. The proposed deal would not extend those credits, and in 2017 both would revert to lower amounts. In the case of the child tax credit, it would fall back to $500 per child.
"The president would veto the proposed deal because it would provide permanent tax breaks to help well-connected corporations while neglecting working families," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman said.
The other tax breaks in the legislation expired at the end of 2013. A failure to extend them would dramatically increase taxes for millions of businesses and individuals for the current tax year. The Internal Revenue Service, meanwhile, has already warned that the uncertainty over their future will likely delay next year's tax filing season.
House Republicans have passed a number of bills this year making permanent some breaks for businesses, such as tax credits for research and development or deductions for new equipment. In the past, these have been temporary but renewed every year or two. The Senate, with its Democratic majority, instead prepared a catch-all bill that extended 55 tax breaks, for both businesses and individuals, for another two years.
On November 27 2014 10:36 Doublemint wrote: oh my. sorry for dp, but things just got interesting.
In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers.
Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is.
This would have some merit if the GJ investigation/hearing was held in typical hush hush manner, but since transcripts are released to public, it'll become apparently obvious that the hearing was pretty non-biased.
one could even argue that there was a certain character assassination of michael brown since the transcripts are widely available. I mean the demon shit, then the "I felt like a small boy vs. Hulk Hogan?" I won't even argue that due process was not followed as it was, and even the self defense with use of deadly force was justified. however, just the smallest things do matter here when such a high degree of mistrust against the police, and the (justice) system at large is at hand here. what good are laws if people do not follow them because they truly feel the game is rigged against them? that goes to the very core of democracy and the rule of law.
On November 27 2014 15:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Can we start some sort of push for police bodycams? At the very least, if something like this happens again we'll have substantive evidence.
Hell of a lot cheaper than apc's, teargas, etc... Not too many arguments against them other than 'we don't want you to see what happens'...
Even if you added filming you wouldn't get to see the films. They would only show up in court. This is since they wouldn't be bothered going through the entire video and checking if they were allowed to publish all the content in it or not. For example, they might have been on private property marked with no photography without a search warrant in a home altercation scenario.
On November 27 2014 16:16 Yurie wrote: Even if you added filming you wouldn't get to see the films. They would only show up in court. This is since they wouldn't be bothered going through the entire video and checking if they were allowed to publish all the content in it or not. For example, they might have been on private property marked with no photography without a search warrant in a home altercation scenario.
Right, but the jury can, and that's what leads to more informed decisions before taking both sides of the story into account.