Alton Sterling shooting.

[Kalbear]

Quote

Legal is supposed to be a clear cut yes or no situation.  Ethics and morals are more subjective.  Of course a police officer can act both legally and ethically, but what is considered 'ethical' is much harder to define than what is 'legal'.

Legal is absolutely not a clear cut yes or no situation. Guilt is supposed to be established 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but that means that only 'yes' is clear cut, and per the amount of massive false arrests, false convictions and false confessions that's not even remotely true.

And again, it does not matter, because one can be absolutely upset that someone legally did something reprehensible and be outraged about it. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, The Shamrock that hides said:

 

I take it that Nestor thinks you have a brain and can use it in a logical manor to evaluate the situation carefully, and will not be easily lead.

I suspect Nestor disagrees with my legal assessment as well.

[Lightning Lord]

8 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

How has the cop clearly and boldly lied, and what are you basing that on?

 

The officer's own words about the situation.

"I did what I had to do in a split second," yet we have over a minute of footage of this officer failing to understand or meaningfully negotiate the situation.  He interacted with those involved, ignored or misheard all on-scene information, and then decided to fire.  His statement, had he wished to be truthful in the least, and giving way more benefit of the doubt than I am willing, should have been closer to "After assessing the situation for some time, I determined that the only way to ensure the safety of Mr Kinsey was to fire upon his assailant."

So, yes, he lied.  Brazenly.  Or he has no idea that "split second" means "quickly."

[James Arryn]

9 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Of course, if it was a gun he'd be sitting there like a dick holding binoculars and end up getting shot, or the person next to him could get shot, or someone else could get shot.

Your timeline is a little off there.  The officer claimed he fired to rescue the individual, which would be when due care kicks in.  The warnings would have been before that.

Barry, I wonder if you have thought this through. Piecing together your rather remarkable series of arguments, we are left with a view which would/could/should do 2 things:

*make it virtually impossible to ever convict an officer of malice or prejudice unless they directly confess same and maintain such a position.

(Somehow, in your mind, it is all reduced to understandable (if regrettable) actions under stress by people who ought to be given the benefit of the doubt re: mens rea even if contradicted by visible fact. In other words, unless we can see into their mind and know that they meant evil, they must be assumed innocent.)

* make it virtually impossible to come to any conclusions whatsoever about police behaviour as a whole/generality when it comes to prejudice unless a significant number confess same and maintain such a position.

(I won't say 'somehow' because this is a standard rhetorical device used to deny any kind of prejudice or systemic corruption, but your combination of 'a series of isolated events' and sliding No True Scotsman mean that no pattern can ever be determined about police behaviour.)

I have a challenge for you. I will be you, using your rationale. You try and come up with a scenario where a cop shoots a black man, even on love television, wherein he will be convicted and from which we can clearly infer racism.

I have only 2 provisos:

1) that the officer at no point admits to malice or prejudice, but insists on innocence via accident, threat, etc.

2) that the world we live in does not include mind-reading machines.

 

I am not really expecting that you will be unable to come up with something, though I think I'll need to remind you of your tenets a few times. I intend rather to demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is here by having you yourself demonstrate how high/low you are setting the bar.

 

[Which Tyler]

11 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Legal is supposed to be a clear cut yes or no situation.  Ethics and morals are more subjective.  Of course a police officer can act both legally and ethically, but what is considered 'ethical' is much harder to define than what is 'legal'.

In many cases it is a goddamnded battlefield.  And often times 'rolling in' is the only way you're going to get all the information.  Police training was closer to your vision before columbine.  While students were being murdered the cops waited outside.  Now they're trained to rush in first.

Their lives are always going to be more important to them.  Police officers aren't expected to lay down their lives for the public, nor should they.  It's not that their lives are more important (though in some cases, they may be.  Like when you have to put your oxygen mask on first before helping others on an airplane).  But rather, it's that to a police officer, making sure he goes home to his family is more important to him than making sure you go home to yours.  That's not going to change.

So the cop did nothing right?  He engaged with both people and gave them commands.  He tried to talk and negotiate first.  Should he not have done that?

No it wouldn't be illegal.  Some might argue that it's unethical to put yourself in the position of lifesaver over someone who might testify against you.  Or to practice medicine (first aid) without a license or training.  Or to start giving first aid to one person and turn your back on your partner who is dealing with the supposedly mentally unstable armed man.

1. Good luck finding an example where shooting a man you know to be innocent, then handcuffing him and leaving him face down to bleed with no medical attention is the ethical/moral thing to do.

2. In some cases it may be "a battlefield", however alien that is to me; but I strongly suspect that that's a vanishingly small proportion.

3. Yes.

4. No-one's claimed the cop did nothing right; however, if he was trying to talk and negotiate, but incapable of hearing either the person he was negotiating with, or his colleagues in his ear-piece telling him to stand down, then he was incompetent and should have removed himself from the situation (swap with an officer on the perimeter if he must) The very last thing he should have done is to shoot someone becase he was confused.

5. Some might argue that - they'd be idiots who's opinions are utterly worthless. They'd also be legally wrong, as that's what you seem to care about.

 

 

I've seen it suggested elsewhere - do US cops have to carry liability insurance? if not why not? As a chiropractor I have to carry £5.5M of liability insurance in case I become the 6th chiropractor in history to accidentally kill someone; seems like a cop's chances are somewhat higher.

[Tempra]

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

1. Good luck finding an example where shooting a man you know to be innocent, then handcuffing him and leaving him face down to bleed with no medical attention is the ethical/moral thing to do.

2. In some cases it may be "a battlefield", however alien that is to me; but I strongly suspect that that's a vanishingly small proportion.

3. Yes.

4. No-one's claimed the cop did nothing right; however, if he was trying to talk and negotiate, but incapable of hearing either the person he was negotiating with, or his colleagues in his ear-piece telling him to stand down, then he was incompetent and should have removed himself from the situation (swap with an officer on the perimeter if he must) The very last thing he should have done is to shoot someone becase he was confused.

5. Some might argue that - they'd be idiots who's opinions are utterly worthless. They'd also be legally wrong, as that's what you seem to care about.

 

 

I've seen it suggested elsewhere - do US cops have to carry liability insurance? if not why not? As a chiropractor I have to carry £5.5M of liability insurance in case I become the 6th chiropractor in history to accidentally kill someone; seems like a cop's chances are somewhat higher.

Cops are generally protected from liability for acts within the scope of their employment by the qualified immunity doctrine.  If there is any recourse, it is usually limited to city, state, or federal government that employs the cop.