teaman Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) jbevins, I think you hold these "iconic people" to some false feeling that they are better than us. You will not find anyone's pictures hanging on the walls of my home outside of my family. I put nobody on a pedestal on Earth, I believe we are all equal. Some people are more successful than others, but somehow they are better than us? ...or held to a different standard? Not in my eyes. Many entertainers such as Queen B and her hubby are icons in the eyes of many youngsters but they are both obnoxious people with limited talent who have spewed hatred for years. Same goes for the idiots like Michael Moore and Sean Penn....these people are delusional. There are plenty of whacked out Hollywood types that preach getting rid of guns and all that yet they are protected by armed guards. Yep, sounds about right. Do you really believe O is any better than you are I? Wow, I am glad I don't feel the need to praise and follow this bunch of lost souls. Edited July 13, 2016 by teaman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 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. 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 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. Similarly, from the other side of the aisle, you will see some pretty pervasive "attitudes" as well, such as the sniping of innocent police trying to protect the people's right to protest. On the net, you can find almost any point of view you want. Edited July 13, 2016 by Jeff Matthews 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbevins Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 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. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teaman Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 By the way, I am not saying one race or another is less under a microscope in the public's view of hatred. The shooter in SC last year that shot up a bible study group was a POS and in my eyes it would have been justified had the cops just shot him instead of arresting him. However the shooter pulled over and gave up when the cops caught up to him without resisting, which takes any chance of the police shooting him to a minimum. Had he run or tried or had tried to resist, absolutely shoot his ***. The dirty cops should be dealt with even harsher than any one else because they are in a position of power and have gained our trust. Personally I don't think many cops join the force to shoot people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbevins Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 jbevins, I think you hold these "iconic people" to some false feeling that they are better than us. You will not find anyone's pictures hanging on the walls of my home outside of my family. I put nobody on a pedestal on Earth, I believe we are all equal. Some people are more successful than others, but somehow they are better than us? ...or held to a different standard? Not in my eyes. Many entertainers such as Queen B and her hubby are icons in the eyes of many youngsters but they are both obnoxious people with limited talent who have spewed hatred for years. Same goes for the idiots like Michael Moore and Sean Penn....these people are delusional. There are plenty of whacked out Hollywood types that preach getting rid of guns and all that yet they are protected by armed guards. Yep, sounds about right. Do you really believe O is any better than you are I? Wow, I am glad I don't feel the need to praise and follow this bunch of lost souls. 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 That sounds like one of those Alex Jones conspiracy nut lines... Been watching AJ, have you? He is entertaining in small doses. Half truths and innuendo make for an exciting break from an otherwise dull world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teaman Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) The two you selected, Michelle O and O are well regarded in who's eyes? Edited July 13, 2016 by teaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbevins Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 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. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Chad Posted July 13, 2016 Administrators Share Posted July 13, 2016 I think this thread has drifted far enough. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts