ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
1d ago
Well, not anymore, but you could have maintained a charitable stance right up to the end of his trial.
ulyssessword
2d ago
I mean if you hit somebody with a car you are always gonna be at least in jeopardy...
Then don't do that. Or if it's unavoidable, argue the point and easily win in court.
ulyssessword
2d ago
What's preventing good drivers from avoiding charges? As far as I can tell, the drivers can simply drive well and not get charged with anything.
I'm not seeing it. If you're going to blame the police for creating a speed trap that constrains how people can drive, then you might as well blame construction workers for creating a work zone for the same reason.
ulyssessword
2d ago
they can't convert every situation
That wasn't my claim. I'm saying there's none, ever. Either the suspect chose to assault the officer by their own free will (constrained by the situation, of course), or there was nothing a reasonable person could have done and it wasn't a justified shooting.
ulyssessword
2d ago
Have you ever heard of a situation where a driver was:
- Not at fault in a normal-driving-sense for what they did, and
- Criminally responsible for assault or some similar charge.
That seems completely backwards both for the elements of the offenses and the levels of proof required. Needless to say, I've never heard of it happening, and I'm having a hard time imagining it outside of cartoonish logic.
ulyssessword
2d ago
How many federal countries are there / have there been in history when the federal element had the ability to control the states but refused to do so?
Does fucking around so hard that they completely fail at their responsibilities and the Provinces take over international diplomacy and trade count? That was Canada under Trudeau for a while. Same with Saskatchewan unilaterally deciding it wouldn't pay the Carbon Tax on home heating.
ulyssessword
2d ago
I don't see anything inconsistent with "It was valid self defense, and the person who was shot did not commit a crime to trigger it." It doesn't apply here (she shouldn't have obstructed the street or resisted arrest or fled or drove at the officer), but honest misunderstandings can have tragic outcomes with nobody at fault.
ulyssessword
2d ago
To my eye, it looked like a failed three-point turn. She started forwards with her wheels to the left, but turned them continuously rightwards as she went. This angle (from here) is the best I saw.
and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.
Did that happen in this case? All three angles are ambiguous, but it looks like he was off to the passenger side, she backed up and lined up with him, then she drove forwards and almost avoided him.
EDIT: nevermind. Fourth angle shows it better.
ulyssessword
2d ago
The problem is that the police can convert actual fleeing into threats to the police through their own actions
No, they can't. They can remove the option of fleeing-without-conflict, but that's all. She chose to drive at the officer when she could've chosen to stop.
Are you going to claim that the police can convert a normal walk to the grocery store into assault on an officer through their own actions as well?
ulyssessword
3d ago
It doesn't even need to be a car. Imagine a suspect is running away on foot. If the officer is off to the side or behind, they aren't justified in shooting. If they're in front, they can probably shoot the person charging at them.
I don't believe that suspects have the right to an escape route or that the police are bloodthirsty enough to manufacture an excuse to kill random people, so I don't have the same conflicted feelings as you.
ulyssessword
4d ago
There's not much point in trying to (retroactively) change a grading rubric and the paper's score so that the actual outcome, your preferred outcome, and the procedurally-fair outcome all match. As a result, practically nobody had that broad of a conversation.
There is a point to setting scientific research standards and Harvard's employees, so that the actual/preferred/fair outcomes all match (in the future, at least).
Also, getting a zero for a substandard paper is wrong, and getting fired for academic fraud is right. We should be keeping different halves of the double standards from those examples.
At least Bush had 9/11. That justifies breaking some campaign promises IMO.
More options
Context Copy link