4 ms·

My point is that if you did have a way of killing a commuter to save your own live, you would be justified in doing so, just as a cop is. The fact that you don

My point is that if you did have a way of killing a commuter to save your own live, you would be justified in doing so, just as a cop is. The fact that you don't is a consequence of how driving works, not of power that society is stripping you of. You do have this right on the street, for instance. Just as a cop does.

aswanson 9y ago
My point is that any living human in your presence can be interpreted as a 'threat to your life ' and the law is too loose and allows cowards and nervous people with badges to get away with preventable murder.
- brucephillips 9y ago
  > My point is that any living human in your presence can be interpreted as a 'threat to your life ' Not reasonably, no, which is why all people, including cops, must continue to be allowed to defend their own lives when their is a reasonable threat. Can you really not imagine a situation where a cop would reasonably fear for their life? Really?
  - aswanson 9y ago
    Of course I can imagine one. The point is, the law is written such that any statement by the cop stating fear has to be interpreted as truth. Hence non convictions on a body armored cop, with 4 backing officers shooting 5 ak rounds in a prone crying man's unarmed back after a stupid game of Simon says.
    - brucephillips 9y ago
      This is what you said "Precisely why the "feared for my life" defense of police execution has to be ended." Which is a clear argument for removing officers right to defend themselves when they fear for their life, reasonably or unreasonably. You're moving the goal posts.
      - aswanson 9y ago
        I think you're reading my intentions in bad faith. Of course police should be able to defend themselves when warranted. The law and training of the police has been shown to exhibit too broad a defintion of when warranted, at the expense of the citizen, because it is based on the subjective, ambiguous definition of fear. This is my last clarification of what I meant as I find this conversation is a waste of time, because you are being pedantic rather than dealing with the spirit of the argument. If you follow the Roman Calendar, Happy New Years, in advance. Cheers.
        brucephillips 9y ago
        > I think you're reading my intentions in bad faith. One can only read your words, not your intentions. If you want to avoid miscommunication, make your words match your intentions.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    The problem is that the cop feeling get to decide if violence is warranted. It’s all in the wording ‘fear’ - you can argue, prove and disprove risk and threat, but ‘fear’ is entirely subjective and as far as thing goes subjective is not a good standard upon which base laws
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    > Can you really not imagine a situation where a cop would reasonably fear for their life? Really? This is just a blatant straw-man argument. The real issue is whether unreasonable claims that an officer acted out of a fear for his life should effectively be 'get out of jail' cards.
    - brucephillips 9y ago
      > This is just a blatant straw-man argument No, it's not. OP said "Precisely why the "feared for my life" defense of police execution has to be ended". It's difficult to have a reasoned discussion when you don't read.
      - mannykannot 9y ago
        It is rather ironic that you should write that, when the poster had already clarified his meaning (for those who had not realized it from the context in which it was originally made) and in the very post to which you were replying, no less.
        brucephillips 9y ago
        It's not "clarifying" when it's inconsistent with what he first said. And it doesn't make your strawman accusation any less incorrect.
        mannykannot 9y ago
        If someone finds that what they wrote did not express precisely what they meant, then making it clear is perfectly reasonable. It happens all the time in reasoned discussions. You might have had an arguably tendentious point if you had made your comment immediately, but once aswanson had clarified his position, it became a straw man. Rational discussion moves along, and flogging a dead horse that's left the station has no part in it.
vehementi 9y ago
So wait, if I legally have a gun in my car it'd be fine to start shooting at that erratic driver?
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  Nothing goes over his head! He’s too fast!
- brucephillips 9y ago
  If that was the only way to save your life in that circumstance, which when driving it almost never is, then of course. What about self defense laws do you not understand?

aswanson 9y ago

My point is that any living human in your presence can be interpreted as a 'threat to your life ' and the law is too loose and allows cowards and nervous people with badges to get away with preventable murder.

brucephillips 9y ago
> My point is that any living human in your presence can be interpreted as a 'threat to your life ' Not reasonably, no, which is why all people, including cops, must continue to be allowed to defend their own lives when their is a reasonable threat. Can you really not imagine a situation where a cop would reasonably fear for their life? Really?
- aswanson 9y ago
  Of course I can imagine one. The point is, the law is written such that any statement by the cop stating fear has to be interpreted as truth. Hence non convictions on a body armored cop, with 4 backing officers shooting 5 ak rounds in a prone crying man's unarmed back after a stupid game of Simon says.
  - brucephillips 9y ago
    This is what you said "Precisely why the "feared for my life" defense of police execution has to be ended." Which is a clear argument for removing officers right to defend themselves when they fear for their life, reasonably or unreasonably. You're moving the goal posts.
    - aswanson 9y ago
      I think you're reading my intentions in bad faith. Of course police should be able to defend themselves when warranted. The law and training of the police has been shown to exhibit too broad a defintion of when warranted, at the expense of the citizen, because it is based on the subjective, ambiguous definition of fear. This is my last clarification of what I meant as I find this conversation is a waste of time, because you are being pedantic rather than dealing with the spirit of the argument. If you follow the Roman Calendar, Happy New Years, in advance. Cheers.
      - brucephillips 9y ago
        > I think you're reading my intentions in bad faith. One can only read your words, not your intentions. If you want to avoid miscommunication, make your words match your intentions.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  The problem is that the cop feeling get to decide if violence is warranted. It’s all in the wording ‘fear’ - you can argue, prove and disprove risk and threat, but ‘fear’ is entirely subjective and as far as thing goes subjective is not a good standard upon which base laws
- mannykannot 9y ago
  > Can you really not imagine a situation where a cop would reasonably fear for their life? Really? This is just a blatant straw-man argument. The real issue is whether unreasonable claims that an officer acted out of a fear for his life should effectively be 'get out of jail' cards.
  - brucephillips 9y ago
    > This is just a blatant straw-man argument No, it's not. OP said "Precisely why the "feared for my life" defense of police execution has to be ended". It's difficult to have a reasoned discussion when you don't read.
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      It is rather ironic that you should write that, when the poster had already clarified his meaning (for those who had not realized it from the context in which it was originally made) and in the very post to which you were replying, no less.
      - brucephillips 9y ago
        It's not "clarifying" when it's inconsistent with what he first said. And it doesn't make your strawman accusation any less incorrect.
        mannykannot 9y ago
        If someone finds that what they wrote did not express precisely what they meant, then making it clear is perfectly reasonable. It happens all the time in reasoned discussions. You might have had an arguably tendentious point if you had made your comment immediately, but once aswanson had clarified his position, it became a straw man. Rational discussion moves along, and flogging a dead horse that's left the station has no part in it.

vehementi 9y ago

So wait, if I legally have a gun in my car it'd be fine to start shooting at that erratic driver?

LoSboccacc 9y ago
Nothing goes over his head! He’s too fast!
brucephillips 9y ago
If that was the only way to save your life in that circumstance, which when driving it almost never is, then of course. What about self defense laws do you not understand?