4 ms·

The use of force to detain someone suspected of graffiti is disproportionate to the crime. Especially if the use of force could foresee-ably result in death.

• balls187 9y ago
  Strawman.
  • SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    You keep using that word, I do not believe it means what you think it means.
    • balls187 9y ago
      Strawman is a logical fallacy, which occurs when someone refutes an argument not actually made. My argument: he was a teacher, recent grad, and a vandal [the victim/suspect was painted one way, biasing the reader]. Refuted argument: His being a vandal was irrelevant, because death as a punishment does not fit the crime of vandalism.
      • SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
        When you add "and vandal", you're implicitly saying that this somehow makes the use of deadly force more justified. You're saying its relevant; they're saying its irrelevant. We aren't computers we don't need to declare every variable.
        • balls187 9y ago
          > When you add "and vandal", you're implicitly saying that this somehow makes the use of deadly force more justified. Well no that's not at all what I was saying. I took issue with the author attempting to make Israel more sympathetic, instead of treating him objectively. Rather than paint a right vs wrong, police accountability should be based on facts and the merits of the circumstances according the policies and processes of the police department. But, since you raised that point, the fact that he was a vandal, and he was fleeing police, was actually material in making the use of non-deadly force (a TASER is not considered deadly force), lawful.
          • gerbilly 9y ago
            > making the use of non-deadly force (a TASER is not considered deadly force), lawful. Your use of 'lawful' is a weasel word. You are trying to have it both ways. Trying to slur the dead young man as a 'vandal' and a criminal (I don't think graffiti is a felony in most jurisdictions) but then insisting that the news article should have been objective. You yourself are not being objective. You used an emotionally loaded term, but then in your subsequent arguments are insisting on defending it by logic alone, when you know your comment was meant to have an emotional impact.
            • balls187 9y ago
              Your biases are clouding your ability to reason. It was Lawful because the officer was justified in using non-lethal force to apprehend a suspect who was evading arrest. The intent of using a taser is to incapacitate with non-lethal force. For Israel, the combination of shock exacerbated a health condition that caused him to go into cardiac arrest. Calling him a vandal balances out the emotional impact of referring to him only as a "recent highschool grad, and aspiring teacher."
              • gerbilly 9y ago
                When someone so young dies for nothing the first thing that comes to my mind is to feel, not to reason.