Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Elegiac]

And for the 15th time, I’m going to trust the opinion of actual legal experts here.

"Appeal to Authority [argumentum ad verecundiam] (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."

Get an argument that's not an outright fallacy.

[Antiganon]

And for the 15th time, I’m going to trust the opinion of actual legal experts here.

Pray tell, what threat did Breonna Taylor present to the officers?

Or could an officer just shoot up innocents all over a city block if he's shot at by somebody on said block?

My understanding is that officers are supposed to account for the threat to innocent bystanders before discharging their weapons, and they can be held accountable if they fail to do so.

Oh look, like that other officer was. For shooting into the white neighbors apartment. Not the black neighbor though.

Gee, I wonder what was different.

[Elegiac]

Where’s the argument that says “opinion of random Internet dude > law professor?”

Not really relevant because what you're doing here is strawmanning.

I'm not claiming my argument is correct because I'm not a lawyer. I'm claiming my argument is correct because it's supported by evidence; yours isn't, and saying "but legal experts" is a fallacy.

You guys fascinate. You’re so sure you have everything figured out.

Shockingly enough, people who actually know the definitions of words and have actual evidence backing them up do have it figured out.

[Elegiac]

Ok, sigh, here’s the part of the definition you probably didn’t read/ignored: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism.

Yeah, not "deferring to an authority"; you're insisting that your position is the correct one solely because it being stated by people deemed to be authorities on the subject.

You're welcome to prove otherwise by posting some reasoning that isn't "well legal experts said so" when you get argued into a corner by insisting that shooting a sleeping woman in her bed after breaking into her apartment on spurious grounds is 'self-defense'.

Then again, you're not really different; the entire concept of self-defense in American jurisprudence has always primarily been a vehicle to enable the majority to legally justify violence against minorities. I just figured by this point in 2020 most people wouldn't remain blithely ignorant of that fact.

[Elegiac]

Oh, and actually self-defense is an extension of the idea that there needs to be a very high burden of proof to find anyone guilty in the US, which was put in place to limit the power of the majority to freely imprison minorities.

False, self-defense in the US has nothing to do with assumption of innocence.

The pivotal moment coincides with the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s. There are two crucial court cases, one in Ohio and one in Indiana, in which the state courts decide not to obligate white men to retreat in the face of danger even if they’re outside their homes. This coincided with the moment the federal government withdrew federal forces from the South, which meant it withdrew protections for newly freed people. This was done in the interest of protecting white property, especially given the end of slavery. This legal shift accompanied an effort by whites to retain a claim to what had been their property, to maintain control over formerly enslaved people. The 13th Amendment carried a loophole by which white Southerners could continue enslaving African-Americans under the guise of incarceration for criminal behavior. For instance, vagrancy laws could be used to keep African-Americans in prison. All of these things are part of a larger constellation in which self-defense laws were mobilized selectively in the interest of white property.

[Endus]

"Appeal to Authority [argumentum ad verecundiam] (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."

Get an argument that's not an outright fallacy.

It's worse than that. He's cherry-picking the sources he deems "authoritative" based on the conclusion he wants to have drawn.

https://www.wctrib.com/opinion/67035...did-not-indict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Estrich (linked to demonstrate that yes, she's a lawyer).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...etically-weak/
Not just a lawyer, a former prosecutor who's made these kinds of decisions.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/br...s-legal-expert
Law professor.

Cherry-picking sources that confirm your desired conclusion and then stating you're deferring to authoritative sources is not honest. It's not an appeal to authority, though, it's a different specific form of lie. Cherry-picking.

[Antiganon]

Ah great! Sources with different opinions. Let's digest them:

1. This one seems focused on the idea that deadly force wasn't required because the boyfriend only shot once, so deadly force wasn't required. Nothing that says there's no self defense argument, just saying that because he only shot once the force wasn't required. Implicitly, then, it's not inconsistent with this person's argument to say that if he'd shot a bunch of times, they could have fired back, right? So not a complete repudiation of self defense, just saying that the standard in her mind wasn't met.
2. There's only 6 lines in this one, unless I can't see the rest behind the paywall. He clearly agrees that it should have been prosecuted, but would be nice to have more meat on the bone.
3. This is a good source. He states they should have been charged, but "there's a credible self defense claim".

I mean, I see nothing that's as definitive as I see from posters on here. I see all these people spouting legal theories that I don't see anywhere in coverage from experts. There's definitely some dissension among experts, as you mention, but below are quotes from various posters on here that all seem a lot more sure of themselves than the experts.

Endus:

"if the officers were charged with manslaughter, it's a slam dunk conviction based on what we know"

Daemos Daemonium:

So Atleast one officer is guilty manslaughter or murder there isn’t any third option.

Antiganon:

That's manslaughter, or at the very least negligent homicide.

Postman1782:

It wasn't manslaughter, it was murder.

Bodakane:

more people should go to jail.

Endus:

Charge the fucking AG

Themius:

she was murdered.

Say whatever the hell you want, it changes nothing.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be proved in court, with evidence. There should have been charges or either murder or manslaughter/negligent homicide.

If it was truly self defense, let him testify in open court to that effect and see if a jury buys it based on ALL the available evidence.

[Endus]

Ah great! Sources with different opinions. Let's digest them:

1. This one seems focused on the idea that deadly force wasn't required because the boyfriend only shot once, so deadly force wasn't required. Nothing that says there's no self defense argument, just saying that because he only shot once the force wasn't required. Implicitly, then, it's not inconsistent with this person's argument to say that if he'd shot a bunch of times, they could have fired back, right? So not a complete repudiation of self defense, just saying that the standard in her mind wasn't met.

That's literally what a repudiation of a self defense claim looks like. That the claim does not meet the standard, and thus it was not self defense. So you're just wrong on the facts, here.

2. There's only 6 lines in this one, unless I can't see the rest behind the paywall. He clearly agrees that it should have been prosecuted, but would be nice to have more meat on the bone.

C'mon. Incognito Mode exists, y'know.

Here's the relevant meat, however;

I’m a former prosecutor, and I would have charged all three officers with manslaughter. I think murder would be overcharging, because the officers did not have the intent to kill Taylor. Still, if three gang members burst into an apartment, were met with gunfire by somebody in the home, and in response shot up the apartment complex and killed an innocent person, they would almost certainly be charged with homicide.

It’s no less of a crime when three cops do the same thing. Self-defense is an issue, but one that a jury should decide. We know the officers continued to fire long after any threat ceased. A neighbor called 911 to report gunfire, and 68 seconds into the call, you can still hear the shots. Further, under Kentucky law, you can’t claim self-defense if your actions placed innocent people in danger, as the police who killed Taylor obviously did.

The first bold is important; even if you think they can make a claim of self defense, unless it's egregiously clear, you press charges and let them make that defense in court.

The second bold is also critical; claiming self-defense doesn't really work when the person you killed presented no threat whatsoever. A self-defense claim might be functional if they'd shot Walker, but they didn't.

3. This is a good source. He states they should have been charged, but "there's a credible self defense claim".

Again, see above; a potential self-defense claim means you should definitely be charged. These officers weren't charged. If they courts processed the claim fairly and even if it turned out they could make that case, it would assuage public outcry. Not charging them at all is just rank corruption.

I mean, I see nothing that's as definitive as I see from posters on here. I see all these people spouting legal theories that I don't see anywhere in coverage from experts. There's definitely some dissension among experts, as you mention, but below are quotes from various posters on here that all seem a lot more sure of themselves than the experts.

So? You quote me a few times, and I'll give you a big hint, here; I'm speaking about what's required for justice to be done, not necessarily the specifics of the actual law codes on the books. It's entirely possible that Kentucky law is a shitshow that lets police officers get away with murder. Wouldn't be the first time something like that's been true in the USA. Doesn't mean those laws are just and should stand, however.

And here, to be clear, you're trying to duck responsibility for your own dishonest cherry-picking by trying to tone-police those of us you disagree with. Seriously, stuff that condescending nonsense. Either back your claims up without dishonesty, or back off and leave discussion to honest posters.

[Antiganon]

It's not dishonest cherry picking, those were literally the first two articles I opened. Appreciate if you'd not attack my integrity. Makes me think you just don't want to hear from people who disagree with you... I mean, does it ever strike you as odd that basically every single poster on here is ultra-liberal? I'm not even that conservative and I stick out like a sore thumb.

The conservative ones keep getting themselves banned for posting blatant conspiracy theories and making personal attacks for no reason.

Conservative voices cry about being silenced because they can't play by the same rules as everyone else, film at 11.

[draynay]

It's not dishonest cherry picking, those were literally the first two articles I opened. Appreciate if you'd not attack my integrity. Makes me think you just don't want to hear from people who disagree with you... I mean, does it ever strike you as odd that basically every single poster on here is ultra-liberal? I'm not even that conservative and I stick out like a sore thumb.

"you just don't like it when people disagree" followed by "I'm a poor snowflake"

Nice.

[Endus]

It's not dishonest cherry picking, those were literally the first two articles I opened. Appreciate if you'd not attack my integrity.

And the wayback machine says . . .

I’ve linked several reputable sources agreeing with my interpretation of self defense. It’s not even really mine; it’s what you find when you read up on it.

That statement is a lie.

That's why I attack your lack of integrity. Because you demonstrate your lack of integrity.

Makes me think you just don't want to hear from people who disagree with you... I mean, does it ever strike you as odd that basically every single poster on here is ultra-liberal? I'm not even that conservative and I stick out like a sore thumb.

I spend way more time responding to people I disagree with than the people I do. So your attempt at an ad hominem and a baseless claim of persecution has no merit whatsoever. You're just making shit up at this point.

[postman1782]

Ah great! Sources with different opinions. Let's digest them:

1. This one seems focused on the idea that deadly force wasn't required because the boyfriend only shot once, so deadly force wasn't required. Nothing that says there's no self defense argument, just saying that because he only shot once the force wasn't required. Implicitly, then, it's not inconsistent with this person's argument to say that if he'd shot a bunch of times, they could have fired back, right? So not a complete repudiation of self defense, just saying that the standard in her mind wasn't met.
2. There's only 6 lines in this one, unless I can't see the rest behind the paywall. He clearly agrees that it should have been prosecuted, but would be nice to have more meat on the bone.
3. This is a good source. He states they should have been charged, but "there's a credible self defense claim".

I mean, I see nothing that's as definitive as I see from posters on here. I see all these people spouting legal theories that I don't see anywhere in coverage from experts. There's definitely some dissension among experts, as you mention, but below are quotes from various posters on here that all seem a lot more sure of themselves than the experts.

Endus:

"if the officers were charged with manslaughter, it's a slam dunk conviction based on what we know"

Daemos Daemonium:

So Atleast one officer is guilty manslaughter or murder there isn’t any third option.

Antiganon:

That's manslaughter, or at the very least negligent homicide.

Postman1782:

It wasn't manslaughter, it was murder.

Bodakane:

more people should go to jail.

Endus:

Charge the fucking AG

Themius:

she was murdered.

Because it is murder? Blindly firing into a house and killing people, is murder.

[Bodakane]

Ah great! Sources with different opinions. Let's digest them:

1. This one seems focused on the idea that deadly force wasn't required because the boyfriend only shot once, so deadly force wasn't required. Nothing that says there's no self defense argument, just saying that because he only shot once the force wasn't required. Implicitly, then, it's not inconsistent with this person's argument to say that if he'd shot a bunch of times, they could have fired back, right? So not a complete repudiation of self defense, just saying that the standard in her mind wasn't met.
2. There's only 6 lines in this one, unless I can't see the rest behind the paywall. He clearly agrees that it should have been prosecuted, but would be nice to have more meat on the bone.
3. This is a good source. He states they should have been charged, but "there's a credible self defense claim".

I mean, I see nothing that's as definitive as I see from posters on here. I see all these people spouting legal theories that I don't see anywhere in coverage from experts. There's definitely some dissension among experts, as you mention, but below are quotes from various posters on here that all seem a lot more sure of themselves than the experts.

Endus:

"if the officers were charged with manslaughter, it's a slam dunk conviction based on what we know"

Daemos Daemonium:

So Atleast one officer is guilty manslaughter or murder there isn’t any third option.

Antiganon:

That's manslaughter, or at the very least negligent homicide.

Postman1782:

It wasn't manslaughter, it was murder.

Bodakane:

more people should go to jail.

Endus:

Charge the fucking AG

Themius:

she was murdered.

Multiple crimes were committed by multiple people.

[Felya]

Now can I tell you that you don't know what the word "lie" means?

By posting evidence of the truth... it’s literally in the definition of the word... wtf?

Here is a hint that might help in general. When people complain about being called a liar, instead of presenting the truth, it’s as close you will ever get to a liar admitting they are actively lying. That goes for every condemnation of ones character... complaining about it, instead of clarifying the misconception, is a confirmation that condemnation was justified.

It’s like getting punched for calling someone dumb... you might be in pain, but you proved your point.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not dishonest cherry picking, those were literally the first two articles I opened. Appreciate if you'd not attack my integrity. Makes me think you just don't want to hear from people who disagree with you... I mean, does it ever strike you as odd that basically every single poster on here is ultra-liberal? I'm not even that conservative and I stick out like a sore thumb.

Does it strike you as odd, that you act like a conservative, despite claiming you are not? While calling posters on this forum “ultra-liberal”, while they claim they aren’t? What does it mean, if you act like people leaning left, are ultra liberal?

That was an attack on your integrity... can you name it?

[shimerra]

Now can I tell you that you don't know what the word "lie" means?

Anyway, this is devolving, obviously. Good night.

You're either lying or particularly dumb/biased which has been very clearly demonstrated. Either way not an ideal circumstance.

[Felya]

Uhm... this seems off:

Ex-officer charged in George Floyd’s death freed on $1M bond
https://apnews.com/article/police-th...de0794434c5730

[unfilteredJW]

Well I decided to come back and look at this today with a fresh perspective and, nope, still a waste of time.

I’m out. Have fun with your echo chamber guys.

It's tough defending murderers and facists.

We get it.

[ohwell]

It's tough defending murderers and facists.

We get it.

Yet BLM and Antifa do it every day. No wonder they're so angry.

[unfilteredJW]

Yet BLM and Antifa do it every day. No wonder they're so angry.

Sure thing boo boo.

You know antifa means anti-facist right?

[Elegiac]

Yet BLM and Antifa do it every day. No wonder they're so angry.

Question:

If you aren't anti-fascist, what are you.