2 ms·

Exactly. There is no claim that they did not throw the tear gas back, but in order for it to be self-defense they have to show that the police did something to

Exactly. There is no claim that they did not throw the tear gas back, but in order for it to be self-defense they have to show that the police did something to justify it, as you laid out in #2.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
You have it backwards. The police must show that they were justified in throwing the tear gas in the first place. The burden of proof lies on them to prove that force was justified.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  You just said that self-defense must show justification for the use of force. Are you going back on that now? > that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it When was that proven like you demanded? > I never said anything about self–defense. If it isn't self-defense, then they just illegally assaulted one or more officers and deserve to be punished.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I never said anything about self–defense. I am saying you are misunderstanding how the burden of proof and presumption of innocence works. Your original comment, referring to a police officer using force: > If they are unjustified, then you should be able to prove that. Otherwise what you're talking about is the police having to prove their innocence. If I allege that a police officer used force on me, they have the presumption of innocence. However, if they admit to using force, that presumption vanishes. We can assume they did it, because they just admitted to it! The question then becomes whether or not that force was justified. In answering that question, the burden of proof shifts to them: I am presumed innocent of threatening them, and they must affirmatively prove that I did something to justify their use of force. Edit: I never said anything about self–defense because your original comment was about the burden of proof for use of force by the police, not against them. You are moving the goalposts.

Exactly. There is no claim that they did not throw the tear gas back, but in order for it to be self-defense they have to show that the police did something to justify it, as you laid out in #2.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

You have it backwards. The police must show that they were justified in throwing the tear gas in the first place. The burden of proof lies on them to prove that force was justified.

yeetawayhn 6y ago
You just said that self-defense must show justification for the use of force. Are you going back on that now? > that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it When was that proven like you demanded? > I never said anything about self–defense. If it isn't self-defense, then they just illegally assaulted one or more officers and deserve to be punished.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I never said anything about self–defense. I am saying you are misunderstanding how the burden of proof and presumption of innocence works. Your original comment, referring to a police officer using force: > If they are unjustified, then you should be able to prove that. Otherwise what you're talking about is the police having to prove their innocence. If I allege that a police officer used force on me, they have the presumption of innocence. However, if they admit to using force, that presumption vanishes. We can assume they did it, because they just admitted to it! The question then becomes whether or not that force was justified. In answering that question, the burden of proof shifts to them: I am presumed innocent of threatening them, and they must affirmatively prove that I did something to justify their use of force. Edit: I never said anything about self–defense because your original comment was about the burden of proof for use of force by the police, not against them. You are moving the goalposts.