Excon said:
Plenty of people? iLOL
If you hadn't been playing your little game you would have known this comment of yours was already addressed.
Hmmmm...so later, you write:
If you want a person to reply to a specific point, you provide it. They do not go hunting for whatever it is they think you may be referring to.
That is all on you.
So, where did you address this comment?
Excon said:
If you want a person to reply to a specific point, you provide it. They do not go hunting for whatever it is they think you may be referring to.
That is all on you.
First, I don't know who appointed you the ethics and protocol judge of internet-board debating--perhaps you could enlighten us all on that matter. In the meantime, I did provide the point. It was a post I wrote, and I told you where to go find it.
Excon said:
No. It was clear and you are only playing a stupid game of which I will not play.
It's pretty arrogant to judge your own writing for clarity--that's properly the place of your readers.
Excon said:
No, that is exactly what you want to do to the person acting in a law enforcement capacity.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Not for the purpose of a trial--as I've already said. The burden of proof is on the side that either has, or proposes to, take away someone's rights. In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence of the defendant means the state has the burden of proof. There are two reasons for this being the case. First, because if convicted, the rights of the defendant will be taken away. Second, because it's simply the nature of evidence that when someone does deserve to have their rights taken away, it's easier to show as much than to do it the other way around.
When the police shoot someone, they've taken away that person's right from bodily harm. Now, the person shot may have deserved it, but the burden of proof must be on those who have taken the right away, just as it would be on the prosecutor in a trial.
No one has a
right to be a police officer. No one has a
right not to be investigated when there is probable cause--and when person A shoots person B (in any circumstance), there is probable cause to investigate person A.
Excon said:
Because there are people out there that are irrational and can not accept the evidence as is and what to make up reasons to disbelieve it.
So you're worried the process can be hijacked? Any process can be hijacked. Let's not have jury trials any more, since sometimes juries make irrational decisions. Let's not hold elections any more, since voters can be swayed by propaganda. And so on.
Excon said:
Your question is totally absurd and irrelevant in this discussion.
Nor are police in the habit of just going out and murdering folks.
I repeat: if what you're saying is true, you'd be able to answer the question, and in so doing, your point would just be obvious to everyone. You've said that we're to presume the police have acted correctly in all cases of violence, and further, that whatever inquiry is done has been done adequately. The question I've asked not only seems relevant, it seems like the obvious one anybody should ask. And your reply, which you've made twice now, merely dismisses it...which is exactly what tyrannical governments say to their critics.
Excon said:
A few are not just out there murdering people. They are acting within the bounds of the law and their jobs and reacting to what they perceive is a threat.
But obviously you are unable to understand that so instead ridiculously claim murder.
So, I want to be clear about this. Is your claim that literally no police officers ever murder people?
Excon said:
Of course, unless the evidence presented in the review suggests otherwise.
How would that ever be possible if the assumption is that the review is adequate? Give me an example of the kind of evidence that would be needed.
Excon said:
Wrong again and a stupid position to take, as again, such systems do not have reviews to determine if a State's actor was possibly in the wrong to start with.
Of course they have such reviews. They're just politically based and completely unfair. Mostly, they are done just to keep records, though very rarely they result in discipline to the officer who had murdered or imprisoned someone. Those review files form a major source for historical research, so there can be no question they took place. See, e.g.:
Gary Bruce,
The Firm: The Inside Story of the Stasi, Oxford University Press (2012), pp 128-30.
Alexander Vatline,
Agents of Terror: Ordinary Men and Extradordinary Violence in Stalin's Secret Police, University of Wisconsin Press (2016), pp 98-103.
William Shirer,
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, New York: Simon and Schuster (2011), p 198.