26 ms·

No, that’s not how things work in the United States. Law enforcement officers don’t have a general license to kill. Genuine interference with law enforcement is

No, that’s not how things work in the United States. Law enforcement officers don’t have a general license to kill. Genuine interference with law enforcement is a crime, but if an officer kills someone for doing it, that’s still murder.

profdevloper 5mo ago
No, they don't, but real life is messy and the good guy doesn't always win. When you intentionally put yourself in a chaotic situation, bad things can happen. It's unclear if deadly force was justified in either the Good or Pretti cases, but that's for the courts to decide -- they were certainly avoidable and needless tragedies.
- SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
  If the courts were to decide either of those cases, I would defer to their judgment. The Trump administration has made it clear that they're going to try and stop those cases from ever reaching a court, though, so in the absence of a court judgment I'm going to keep calling them murders.
  - profdevloper 5mo ago
    Guilty until proven innocent
    - text0404 5mo ago
      > Guilty until proven innocent This is a description of your stance on Alex Pretti.
      - profdevloper 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        text0404 5mo ago
        So he wasn't proven guilty in a court of law, and everything that you're saying is conjecture based on your non-expert opinion? "Guilty until proven innocent," was it?
        profdevloper 5mo ago
        One thing not debatable -- the guy is dead. Whatever he was doing there, hope it was worth it.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
      "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle we apply in criminal courts, as a control on their quite extreme power to kidnap you and put you in a cage if they decide you're guilty. It doesn't apply even in civil court, much less personal judgment. I don't have to wait for some third party's approval before I'm allowed to plainly describe what I've seen and what I think about it. I do think it's important to be fair-minded. Minnesota is conducting investigations, and perhaps they will conclude that it wasn't murder after all; if they do then I would defer to that judgment as well.

profdevloper 5mo ago

No, they don't, but real life is messy and the good guy doesn't always win. When you intentionally put yourself in a chaotic situation, bad things can happen. It's unclear if deadly force was justified in either the Good or Pretti cases, but that's for the courts to decide -- they were certainly avoidable and needless tragedies.

SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
If the courts were to decide either of those cases, I would defer to their judgment. The Trump administration has made it clear that they're going to try and stop those cases from ever reaching a court, though, so in the absence of a court judgment I'm going to keep calling them murders.
- profdevloper 5mo ago
  Guilty until proven innocent
  - text0404 5mo ago
    > Guilty until proven innocent This is a description of your stance on Alex Pretti.
    - profdevloper 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - text0404 5mo ago
        So he wasn't proven guilty in a court of law, and everything that you're saying is conjecture based on your non-expert opinion? "Guilty until proven innocent," was it?
        profdevloper 5mo ago
        One thing not debatable -- the guy is dead. Whatever he was doing there, hope it was worth it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
    "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle we apply in criminal courts, as a control on their quite extreme power to kidnap you and put you in a cage if they decide you're guilty. It doesn't apply even in civil court, much less personal judgment. I don't have to wait for some third party's approval before I'm allowed to plainly describe what I've seen and what I think about it. I do think it's important to be fair-minded. Minnesota is conducting investigations, and perhaps they will conclude that it wasn't murder after all; if they do then I would defer to that judgment as well.