Chicago police officer severely beaten said she was afraid to use her gun

[Theinquisition]

You been severely beaten and hospitalized 60-75 times?

Damn, if that's the case he should look for a new line of work.

[Tsar Bomba]

Really, if I used the same standard that some of you guys did for 'extreme physical danger' to use deadly force when I ran security for clubs, I would've killed like 60-75 people by now.

The amount of times arguments like this have popped up in this thread... If you don't understand the difference between a confrontation at a bar, and a confrontation between a cop/suspect, you're hopeless.

[Mistame]

I get that, but there are several people in the thread acting like its a given : someone assaults you, you can(maybe should) kill them.

And they're clearly wrong.

Your belief does not matter, if it's not the belief that a reasonable person would match in those same circumstances.

Wrong. Your belief is the primary factor as this imaginary "reasonable person" is not there, going through what you're going through in the moment. You've no obligation to try to assess whether or not the person beating the hell out of you is going to stop after a few hits or they're going to possibly kill you, all while they're beating the hell out of you. If you're alone, down and getting the shit beat out of you and your only option to stop the assault is lethal force, it is justified. Period.

Really, if I used the same standard that some of you guys did for 'extreme physical danger' to use deadly force when I ran security for clubs, I would've killed like 60-75 people by now.

Not comparable scenarios. If you're down and getting beaten with no help around and your only option to stop the assault is deadly force, it's justified.

Damn, if that's the case he should look for a new line of work.

Hm. I thought "he" identified himself as a female in another thread. Could be wrong.

[Polyxo]

You been severely beaten and hospitalized 60-75 times?

I've taken punches to the face, had bottles thrown at me. I've had people try to stab me with box cutters and like, facial scissors. I've had my face rammed into a brick wall. Been kicked in the head a bunch of times. I didn't go to the hospital, but anytime there's a major altercation, we have an ambulance come and have EMTs check people out.

The closest I came to hospitalization was the brick wall. That just wouldn't stop bleeding. Speaking from expertise, it's hard to just put some at risk of death from punches. You really need to have someone at a point where they're totally passive, and keep beating on them. If it weren't the case, contact sports would just be far too dangerous to proceed, because we're generating WAY more force with regularity than anybody else does.

- - - Updated - - -

The amount of times arguments like this have popped up in this thread... If you don't understand the difference between a confrontation at a bar, and a confrontation between a cop/suspect, you're hopeless.

Statistically, the former is more dangerous.

[Endus]

Wrong. Your belief is the primary factor as "a reasonable person" is not there, going through what you're going through in the moment.

I've already cited the relevant law on this. You're definitively wrong. It's the belief of a reasonable person that matters, not the belief of whoever pulled the trigger. If they WERE reasonable, then their belief will match that of a reasonable person, and they'll be seen to have been justified, but that principle is in there to ensure that people who freak out over nothing or people who are legitimately crazy don't get off on technicalities.

Again;

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...SeqEnd=9700000

However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another

If it's determined that said belief is unreasonable, their actions are not justified. You're flat-out wrong on this, and it's crystal clear. Nor is that the only point where it emphasizes "reasonable belief"; that requirement is mentioned 16 times in the law above.

It's not "your belief" that matters. It's reasonable belief.

[jimboa24]

Not sure why you think that trains you to kill, lulz.
Do you honestly believe that anyone who recieved that amount of basic training in their military service was "trained to kill"?

Statistic and real world scenarios, like WW1, WW2 and pretty much every war involving guns before that, suggest otherwise my friend. They all knew where to hit the target, the fact remains that rarely anyone ever did it.

You cannot be serious. You must be trolling.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe they should be trained to defend themselves using non-lethal methods.

Yes, so then they can be accused of police brutality. Cops don't win - ever. If they use lethal force they get shit for doing so. If they use non-lethal force, they get accused of beating people.

Seriously, it's like people expect the police to deal with 250 pound, 6'2 enraged assholes, somehow subdue them without leaving a single scratch on the suspect. But it's perfectly fine for cops to get killed, the average BLM asshole has no problem with that.

On a related thought, BLM forgot the "O" in front of their acronym. You know, for "only."

[Polyxo]

And they're clearly wrong.



Wrong. Your belief is the primary factor as this imaginary "reasonable person" is not there, going through what you're going through in the moment. You've no obligation to try to assess whether or not the person beating the hell out of you is going to stop after a few hits or they're going to possibly kill you, all while they're beating the hell out of you. If you're alone, down and getting the shit beat out of you and your only option to stop the assault is lethal force, it is justified. Period.



Not comparable scenarios. If you're down and getting beaten with no help around and your only option to stop the assault is deadly force, it's justified.



Hm. I thought "he" identified himself as a female in another thread. Could be wrong.

She did have help, there were two other cops around. And yes, I'm a girl.

[Mistame]

I've already cited the relevant law on this. You're definitively wrong. It's the belief of a reasonable person that matters, not the belief of whoever pulled the trigger. If they WERE reasonable, then their belief will match that of a reasonable person, and they'll be seen to have been justified, but that principle is in there to ensure that people who freak out over nothing or people who are legitimately crazy don't get off on technicalities.

Again;

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...SeqEnd=9700000

However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another

Reread what it says. It says, "if he reasonably believes", meaning the person being assaulted. The "other reasonable person" bit you're throwing in there is drivel. If a person is being beat down and believes that the only way to stop the assault and subsequently prevent "great bodily harm or death", lethal force is justified. You seem to be coming at this from the angle that the person doing the assaulting would be the "victim" if lethal force was used, rather than the target of the assault being the victim. The victim does not change.

She did have help, there were two other cops around.

So, she had two male cops there and managed to get the shit beat out of her while they just stood around? Doubt it. We don't have all the details, but I suspect they showed up during the assault.

[Polyxo]

Reread what it says. It says, "if he reasonably believes", meaning the person being assaulted. The "other reasonable person" bit you're throwing in there is drivel. If a person is being beat down and believes that the only way to stop the assault and subsequently prevent "great bodily harm or death", lethal force is justified.



So, she had two male cops there and managed to get the shit beat out of her while they just stood around? Doubt it. We don't have all the details, but I suspect they showed up during the assault.

They're literally there on video.

[Endus]

Reread what it says. It says, "if he reasonably believes", meaning the person being assaulted. The "other reasonable person" bit you're throwing in there is drivel. If a person is being beat down and believes that the only way to stop the assault and subsequently prevent "great bodily harm or death", lethal force is justified.

The reasonable person standard is the entire way you determine whether that belief was "reasonable", so it's hardly "drivel". It's not presumed to be reasonable just because the killer says so.

The target's belief only works as a defense if that belief is reasonable. That is crystal clear, under the law. If it's unreasonable because the circumstances don't really justify that, it doesn't matter how badly the target believed it to be true, because it's unreasonable, their use of lethal force makes them a murderer.

[Theinquisition]

I've taken punches to the face, had bottles thrown at me. I've had people try to stab me with box cutters and like, facial scissors. I've had my face rammed into a brick wall. Been kicked in the head a bunch of times. I didn't go to the hospital, but anytime there's a major altercation, we have an ambulance come and have EMTs check people out.

The closest I came to hospitalization was the brick wall. That just wouldn't stop bleeding. Speaking from expertise, it's hard to just put some at risk of death from punches. You really need to have someone at a point where they're totally passive, and keep beating on them. If it weren't the case, contact sports would just be far too dangerous to proceed, because we're generating WAY more force with regularity than anybody else does.

- - - Updated - - -



Statistically, the former is more dangerous.

I disagree.

A well placed punch can give someone brain damage.

I have a buddy sitting in prison right now, for getting into a bar fight while on R&R, punching someone in the temple, and killing him.

Not only that, but it really doesn't take much to knock someone out, and in todays cowardly society, people don't just stop when someone is knocked out, As I mentioned earlier I can literally go on youtube right now and look up hundreds of videos of people being knocked out, and being kicked in the head, or continue to receive dozens of punches to the face. That shit can kill you, there is a reason why punching or kicking someone when they are knocked out can land you a attempted murder charge.

[Mistame]

They're literally there on video.

The only video I've seen is a grainy, five-second video that shows the aftermath of the assault. If they were there from the start and unable to help her due to being incapacitated, etc, then she didn't exactly have help, if the subject managed to beat the hell out of her.

The reasonable person standard is the entire way you determine whether that belief was "reasonable", so it's hardly "drivel". It's not presumed to be reasonable just because the killer says so.

Alright, let's run with that for a moment. Someone punched you in the face and you shoot them? "Unreasonable". Someone's sitting on you, pounding your face in or smashing your head against the ground and you shoot them? More than "reasonable". The life of a person committing a violent assault does not trump the bodily integrity of their victim. So, to reiterate, had she shot this guy, it would have been justified.

[Endus]

I disagree.

A well placed punch can give someone brain damage.

Again, "can" is not the standard applied. "Is likely to" is the standard that warrants deadly force in response. Otherwise, you're arguing that anyone who takes a swing at anyone, ever, can legally be shot dead for doing so.

Maybe club bouncers should go armed and their solution to any drunken fisticuffs should be to shoot whoever swung first? Does that make sense? Because that's the standard you're arguing for.

[Repefe]

Funny thing is ... even the criminal didn't go as far as killing someone, yet ppl here suggest the police official, the good guy, should go for a kill, no hesitation.

[Polyxo]

I disagree.

A well placed punch can give someone brain damage.

I have a buddy sitting in prison right now, for getting into a bar fight while on R&R, punching someone in the temple, and killing him.

Not only that, but it really doesn't take much to knock someone out, and in todays cowardly society, people don't just stop when someone is knocked out, As I mentioned earlier I can literally go on youtube right now and look up hundreds of videos of people being knocked out, and being kicked in the head, or continue to receive dozens of punches to the face. That shit can kill you, there is a reason why punching or kicking someone when they are knocked out can land you a attempted murder charge.

It's a statistically insignificant possibility. You do not get to justify lethal force based on a statistically insignificant possibility. I'm a retired professional fighter with over 20 years of training under some of the best coaches in the US, have competed internationally, and have notably heavy hands. I'm not likely to cause serious injury, even if I'm lighting up some completely inexperienced person.

[Theinquisition]

Again, "can" is not the standard applied. "Is likely to" is the standard that warrants deadly force in response. Otherwise, you're arguing that anyone who takes a swing at anyone, ever, can legally be shot dead for doing so.

It's open to interpretation. If I eel my life is in danger I have the right to defend myself. Don't want to get shot, keep your meat hooks to yourself.

[Orange Joe]

It's pretty fucked up when law enforcement can't do their job because racists will riot and the media will stir it up even more.

A police officers job is to kill people?

[Theinquisition]

It's a statistically insignificant possibility. You do not get to justify lethal force based on a statistically insignificant possibility.

until it happens to you....I am willing to bet people aren't willing to put their life on the line, hoping that they aren't the outlier.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny thing is ... even the criminal didn't go as far as killing someone, yet ppl here suggest the police official, the good guy, should go for a kill, no hesitation.

Think of the savings.

[Endus]

It's open to interpretation. If I eel my life is in danger I have the right to defend myself.

How many times am I going to have to link the law in question?

No. If it's reasonable that you feel your life is in danger from actions that are likely to pose a lethal threat, then you have the right to use deadly force in response.

If said belief is unreasonable, such as if said actions are not likely to pose a lethal threat, you are not so justified.

[Polyxo]

until it happens to you....I am willing to bet people aren't willing to put their life on the line, hoping that they aren't the outlier.

- - - Updated - - -



Think of the savings.

If they're not willing to assume a little risk, they need to quit.