jbevins

Very decent price.

What would something like that go for?

Not at all. In fact, many such cases are tried by juries, so it's the citizens siding with the police. You can't really get too much more democratic than that, in which case you might have to confess that democracy isn't something you always like or support. I don't get your point. Are you saying police don't have more lattitude for deadly force than a citizen? Not in the law, they don't. Maybe they have a bit more "latitude" in the sense that jurors tend to grant deference to officials and tend to require some pretty solid proof before convicting one. Contrast that with the propensity of jurors to disbelieve thugs and crack-heads (not that they all are), and you get the idea. The law allows jurors to judge the credibility of witnesses. The legal standards are the same. How does Graham v. Conner related to police use of deadly force?

That doesn't sound like you believe we are all equal. Nor did your other posts. Even above you contradict yourself about that. I didn't say or suggest that Oprah or the first lady were better than me, better than you or better than anyone else. I said they were establishment figures that are well regarded, and that this is the only place I've ever heard them villified as racists. That sounds like one of those Alex Jones conspiracy nut lines, but hey, I'm enjoying the learning, so carry on! I'll get the hang of it!

Not at all. In fact, many such cases are tried by juries, so it's the citizens siding with the police. You can't really get too much more democratic than that, in which case you might have to confess that democracy isn't something you always like or support. I don't get your point. Are you saying police don't have more lattitude for deadly force than a citizen?

I personally know people who have been involved in interactions with the O word and the stories are not pretty. You may be surprised at the revelations especially in a culture that worships wealth and by extension those with it (or is it the other way around?), but not everyone is. I wasn't surprised by your personal annecdotes, because I don't know you or them. What surprised me was that you would/could call her a classless racist in a forum that nominally precludes that kind of talk. But Mallette informed me it was only a "close call" - so I guess you didn't cross that line. OTOH, I have a reasonable sensibility as a normal person, and remain surprised by the pervasive attitudes here about citizens normally considered in high regard by the mainstream. That's just my reaction. That's why I said I had stepped on to another planet. I'm not used to hearing Oprah and the First Lady regarded so boorishly.

I think the police us of deadly force is defined in various court rulings like graham v. conner. In effect, the courts allow officers to determine what was reasonable, and prosecutors and judges by tradition give way to the officer for the reason of "law enforcement" as a desired societal goal. Ergo, police can pretty much kill people and simply "say" they feared for their safety. In effect, that's the reasonableness test in a nutshell. That's a wider use of deadly force than citizens enjoy.

Absolutely! And the same rules apply to ordinary citizens, too. The right to legitimate self-defense has to be the most precious right any individual can have. Are you saying it's the same for citizens? All I have to do is say I feared for my life and I can kill anyone I want?

May have been "strung out?" Not according to witnesses. Maybe the cops were strung out? He's a "perp?" What was he guilty of? Was he under arrest? "...no idea what his right hand was doing." Maybe trying to protect himself from this onslaught? Trying to "buck him off?" Really? How do you know that? None of that squares with any witness statements. By all accounts, Alton was a guy who was respected and regularly sold CDs in front of this store with the owner's permission. A well liked man. I'm leaning a great deal about human relations here. I was telling some friends at lunch about how even Oprah was demonized and no one believed me! I had to send him the link! "Oprah Winfrey? GTFOH!"

Right. My mistake. I should have said "blacks" and not "minorities." BTW, Banks never redlined "Asiatics", nor did we ever have the equivelent of Jim Crow laws for "Asiatics." Thanks for catching my error. The studies are about policing of blacks.

Because the Supreme Court has ruled in so many words, that police have the right to kill anyone who they believe threatens them harm. It doesn't say they have a right to neutralize, stop or deter. It says they have the right to kill. So, if you are going to shoot a guy, you are going to make darn sure he is dead. The couple in a car a few months back had 156 shots fired into the window (best of my memory). In other words, there is a basic, fundamental right to kill based on nothing other than the policeman's considerations of fear.

Is this at odds with all the new laws encouraging people to carry guns? Police hate to hear "gun" - lawmakers want everyone armed to teeth?

Fantastic work. CNC machine in garage? WOW!

Thanks for the welcome Mallette. I did read the TOS. I can't think of anything I said in contradiction. But I blanched red when reading these two statements made earlier, and the ones about the First Lady. They attempt to describe two of the most mainstream establishment black women as racists, not to mention the rest of the ugly characterization. I said early on that there was a total uniformity of expression here, and maybe because of that, no one sees these kinds of statements as foul balls? I didn't think it would hurt to defend the two women since no one else was going to. What does it mean to "stay clear of racism" then?

Consider this: maybe those platforms are being used to speak the truth. About 100% of the academic studies on the subject reveal a serious problem in policing of minorities. Of course people wouldn't hear about that if all they listen to is partisan antagonists. The truth is not often pleasant. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk