4 ms·

without justification FTFY.

by gimboland 6y ago

~~without justification~~ FTFY.

ashtonkem 6y ago
The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. In such a situation, it’s not clear why a group of people that acts this way should be given any equipment at all, let alone the legal authority to use it based on their own word alone.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  > The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. But you just said you couldn't prove this above... Which is it?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    You can’t prove a negative. You can however point out that no justification was given, or that the justification given was a blatant lie. Given that we live in a constitutional republic that provides rights to all citizens, any use of force on them that lacks justification is therefore unjustified.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    No, they said they could not prove themselves to have done nothing. I know those things feel equivalent, but they represent entirely opposite ends of perspective. In the scenario they have to prove themselves innocent, the cop needs provide no justification.
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      No, their claim isn't that they didn't throw tear gas at the police, but that they were justified in doing so.
bitwize 6y ago
The cops can arrest you, throw you in jail and prevent you from contacting your lawyer before you get a chance to show you had justification.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And even if they don’t have justification for use of force, unless if there’s a super narrow precedent showing they shouldn’t have, they’re immune from lawsuit. And since qualified immunity dismisses lots of cases, very few new precedents are being created. The total effect is that if you have a device created after QI was invented by the courts, you’re effectively totally immune.

4 ms·

without justification FTFY.

by gimboland 6y ago

~~without justification~~ FTFY.

ashtonkem 6y ago
The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. In such a situation, it’s not clear why a group of people that acts this way should be given any equipment at all, let alone the legal authority to use it based on their own word alone.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  > The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. But you just said you couldn't prove this above... Which is it?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    You can’t prove a negative. You can however point out that no justification was given, or that the justification given was a blatant lie. Given that we live in a constitutional republic that provides rights to all citizens, any use of force on them that lacks justification is therefore unjustified.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    No, they said they could not prove themselves to have done nothing. I know those things feel equivalent, but they represent entirely opposite ends of perspective. In the scenario they have to prove themselves innocent, the cop needs provide no justification.
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      No, their claim isn't that they didn't throw tear gas at the police, but that they were justified in doing so.
bitwize 6y ago
The cops can arrest you, throw you in jail and prevent you from contacting your lawyer before you get a chance to show you had justification.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And even if they don’t have justification for use of force, unless if there’s a super narrow precedent showing they shouldn’t have, they’re immune from lawsuit. And since qualified immunity dismisses lots of cases, very few new precedents are being created. The total effect is that if you have a device created after QI was invented by the courts, you’re effectively totally immune.