• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White cop tackles black mom after she called police for help[W:295]

the principle should be the same. The presumption should be that violence was not warranted, and the police should have to prove that it was. .
I have to disagree.
Since Officers are charged with enforcing the law the, if there is a presumption, it should be that they were acting correctly (doing their job) unless it can be shown otherwise.
 
Excon said:
I have to disagree.
Since Officers are charged with enforcing the law the, if there is a presumption, it should be that they were acting correctly (doing their job) unless it can be shown otherwise.

They would then be in a unique position in our society--every good supervisor I've ever known assumes their employees are not doing their job, and seeks evidence to the contrary.

But aside from that, and more importantly, your view is the view taken by every dictatorship and tyranny in history--the assumption is that whatever violence is visited upon citizens, it was necessary, and up to the victims to prove otherwise. That is simply not how a free society works, or should work.

See my first few posts in this thread for further argument on this issue.
 
They would then be in a unique position in our society--every good supervisor I've ever known assumes their employees are not doing their job, and seeks evidence to the contrary.

But aside from that, and more importantly, your view is the view taken by every dictatorship and tyranny in history--the assumption is that whatever violence is visited upon citizens, it was necessary, and up to the victims to prove otherwise. That is simply not how a free society works, or should work.

See my first few posts in this thread for further argument on this issue.

No one said they shouldnt have supervision. But they are in a unique position, the people entrusted to use force and decide when to use it. And every good supervisor I know, trusts but verifies.
 
jonny5 said:
No one said they shouldnt have supervision. But they are in a unique position, the people entrusted to use force and decide when to use it. And every good supervisor I know, trusts but verifies.

And here we see one problem with not doing split quotes: you've addressed the least important (and also weakest) point in my post, and left it at that.

The real point is that if the presumption is that the police are always acting as they should, that's exactly how every tyranny in history has been run, and for obvious reasons.
 
And here we see one problem with not doing split quotes: you've addressed the least important (and also weakest) point in my post, and left it at that.

The real point is that if the presumption is that the police are always acting as they should, that's exactly how every tyranny in history has been run, and for obvious reasons.

Only if you use that one fact as the only reason there is tyranny. Correlation isnt causation.

And dont worry about what i choose to address or not. Stick to the topic.
 
jonny5 said:
Only if you use that one fact as the only reason there is tyranny. Correlation isnt causation.

A force being able to harm or kill a citizen under the presumption that it's always justified is more or less the (modern) definition of tyranny. So it's not correlation--that's an essential feature of tyranny, and when you have that kind of society, it's a tyrannical one.

jonny5 said:
And dont worry about what i choose to address or not. Stick to the topic.

If what you choose to leave out is part of the topic, obviously I'm sticking to the topic by observing you've left it out. So I have no idea what your point could be, here.
 
A force being able to harm or kill a citizen under the presumption that it's always justified is more or less the (modern) definition of tyranny. So it's not correlation--that's an essential feature of tyranny, and when you have that kind of society, it's a tyrannical one.

Comment on how I post is not the topic. Since thats all we seem to be able to do here, Im moving on.
 
They would then be in a unique position in our society--every good supervisor I've ever known assumes their employees are not doing their job, and seeks evidence to the contrary.
That is an absurdly weird argument to make because we are talking about work actually done in a fashion that it is supposed to be done in.
So the predisposition of a review should be that it was done correctly unless it can be shown it has not.


But aside from that, and more importantly, your view is the view taken by every dictatorship and tyranny in history--the assumption is that whatever violence is visited upon citizens, it was necessary, and up to the victims to prove otherwise. That is simply not how a free society works, or should work.
iLOL No.
The presumption is on the lawfulness of the actions of those enforcing the law.
Under the view you speak of, that is where the review ceases.
Under the review I speak of, the presumption stands unless unlawful action can be determined.


See my first few posts in this thread for further argument on this issue.
Don't need to.
If you have a specific argument to make with me, make it.
 
Excon said:
That is an absurdly weird argument to make because we are talking about work actually done in a fashion that it is supposed to be done in.

Are we? I think we're talking about work done with no knowledge of whether it was done correctly or not. If you assume that the work was done correctly, you're begging the question, which is not a good way to argue, because it can lead to any conclusion at all.

Excon said:
So the predisposition of a review should be that it was done correctly unless it can be shown it has not.

Doesn't follow from the premises.

Excon said:
The presumption is on the lawfulness of the actions of those enforcing the law.
Under the view you speak of, that is where the review ceases.

What does this mean--the view I speak of? The tyrannical view? Or the view I think is correct?

Excon said:
Under the review I speak of, the presumption stands unless unlawful action can be determined.

What presumption?

Excon said:
Don't need to.
If you have a specific argument to make with me, make it.

If you cannot be bothered to click back a few steps to read something I've written, I question your sincerity. But I suppose I can also click back and copy and paste. Here's the substantive argument from post #225, which is leveled at you or anyone who takes your view:

Suppose our justice system operated on the principle that someone who is accused of a crime is assumed to be guilty, and will only avoid sentencing by proving their innocence. That would be a really bad way to run the justice system. It would obviously be a bad way to run the justice system. As it is, the prosecutor must prove that the accused is guilty. And that is (again, obviously) how it should be. The reason for all this being so is also obvious: if we did it the other way 'round, it would allow government officials to persecute whoever they want for whatever reason they want, imprisoning or executing their critics or whoever might offend them. Moreover, citizens in such a society would clearly not be free, and rights would be either greatly reduced or non-existent. There has to be a good and worthy reason that a person's freedom and bodily well-being is curtailed by agents of the government (or of any powerful entity).

Now, if the police can shoot, tackle, taze, stab, punch, or even detain citizens for no reason, or just on their word that said citizen was up to no good, the situation is very much the same as the one we avoid by the assumption of innocence. Clearly, someone who is shot to death suffers much the same fate, without due process, as someone who is executed. Someone who is injured suffers a punishment, as does someone who is detained.

I agree that police have to be allowed to do their jobs, and from time to time, that may entail justly doing any of those things to someone. But when that happens (i.e. when it's just to shoot, taze, tackle, beat, or detain someone), it ought to be a trivial matter to prove that such action was necessary. The assumption ought to be that any such action is not warranted, and if it is warranted, in this day of dashcams, ubiquitous cell phone video, surveillance cams, and body cams, it ought to be easy to prove the warrant.

My point, then, is about how we evaluate actions taken by the police. I'm pointing out that the assumptions too many people make are opposite of what they should be, for exactly the reasons outlined above.
 
Last edited:
But aside from that, and more importantly, your view is the view taken by every dictatorship and tyranny in history--the assumption is that whatever violence is visited upon citizens, it was necessary, and up to the victims to prove otherwise. That is simply not how a free society works, or should work.
The presumption is on the lawfulness of the actions of those enforcing the law.
Under the view you speak of, that is where the review ceases.
What does this mean--the view I speak of? The tyrannical view? Or the view I think is correct?


Under the review I speak of, the presumption stands unless unlawful action can be determined.
What presumption?
Which view did you express in what I quoted? Huh? Is it really that hard to be honest? You only spoke of one view where a review would not exist, and then falsely attributed it to me.
Duh!

What presumption?
Do you not understand what we are discussing here? Do you really not understand I am speaking about the opposite presumption of the one you advocate?

You bringing "dictatorship and tyranny" into this is absurd and dishonest because under such a construct there would be no review.
 
That is an absurdly weird argument to make because we are talking about work actually done in a fashion that it is supposed to be done in.
Are we? I think we're talking about work done with no knowledge of whether it was done correctly or not. If you assume that the work was done correctly, you're begging the question, which is not a good way to argue, because it can lead to any conclusion at all.
We? No. Just you.
But no, the job is law enforcement.
The presumption should be that they were acting within the law to enforce it.


So the predisposition of a review should be that it was done correctly unless it can be shown it has not.
Doesn't follow from the premises.
iLOL
Yes it does.
You don't go checking every employee to see if they did their job correctly.
It is only when it something arises that gives cause to suggest otherwise that you you look into it.


Don't need to.
If you have a specific argument to make with me, make it.
If you cannot be bothered to click back a few steps to read something I've written, I question your sincerity. But I suppose I can also click back and copy and paste. Here's the substantive argument from post #225, which is leveled at you or anyone who takes your view:
No, I can't be bothered to hunt through the a thread with over 300 posts to find where you first started posting and determine what are in those posts in which you want me to respond.
That is on you. Your failure to initially point out where is just another reason to question your sincerity.

Nor do I need to because I addressed specifics which were quoted, not something else.
If you do not wish to expound, that is on you.


Suppose our justice system operated on the principle that someone who is accused of a crime is assumed to be guilty, and will only avoid sentencing by proving their innocence.
And yet that is exactly what you want to do.

Unless credible information shows that they didn't act within the law, the presumption should be that they had done their job correctly as the vast majority of situations handled are. That is the same concept of innocent until proven guilty.


Now, if the police can shoot, tackle, taze, stab, punch, or even detain citizens for no reason, or just on their word that said citizen was up to no good, the situation is very much the same as the one we avoid by the assumption of innocence.
No it isn't because the Officers are charged with performing such actions.


Clearly, someone who is shot to death suffers much the same fate, without due process, as someone who is executed. Someone who is injured suffers a punishment, as does someone who is detained.
Absurd opinion.
These situation are of the sort where force is authorized under the law.


, it ought to be a trivial matter to prove that such action was necessary. The assumption ought to be that any such action is not warranted, and if it is warranted, in this day of dashcams, ubiquitous cell phone video, surveillance cams, and body cams, it ought to be easy to prove the warrant.
You do not seem to understand that an Officer's actions of the kind we are speaking about (use of force) are under review almost immediately and they do articulate a reason for it's use. "We" are not the arbiter, nor should "we" ever be.
Policy and law under a review board familiar with Law Enforcement and the actions Officers need to take, should be the arbiter and if taken to Court, reviewed from the perspective of another reasonably situated Officer. Which go figure, is the standard.


My point, then, is about how we evaluate actions taken by the police. I'm pointing out that the assumptions too many people make are opposite of what they should be, for exactly the reasons outlined above.
No. That is you saying you think they are wrong because they don't agree with you. That is all.
And no, there should be no presumption that the actions were not warranted.
 
Excon said:
Which view did you express in what I quoted? Huh?

I'm not sure, because I'm not sure how you're using the word "expressed." I "spoke of" (the words you originally used) two views, and I'm asking to which one you were directing your comments.

Excon said:
Is it really that hard to be honest?

Not that I'm aware of, but it is pretty hard to be clear.

Excon said:
You only spoke of one view where a review would not exist, and then falsely attributed it to me.
Duh!

I have never attributed any view to you except the one you've claimed to have. I'm sure you do not believe your view is tyrannical. I've got news for you: neither did Joseph Stalin. The point of arguments like mine is pretty simple: you believe A, but don't want to believe B. I'm showing why, if you believe A, you've actually committed yourself to believing B.

Excon said:
What presumption?
Do you not understand what we are discussing here? Do you really not understand I am speaking about the opposite presumption of the one you advocate?

To do that, sometimes you have to speak of your view, and sometimes you have to speak of mine. But you simply write something like "that view" or "the view you speak of" and expect me to know which view you mean. Your thoughts may be clear to you. They are not clear to me.

Excon said:
You bringing "dictatorship and tyranny" into this is absurd and dishonest because under such a construct there would be no review.

Usually even under tyrannical regimes there is some review--it's just inadequate review, review based on absurd premises, corrupt processes, and so forth.

But then, your own words convict you: If we presume that the police are doing their job correctly all the time, why would there ever be need for a review of their actions? Your assumption commits you to a tyrannical view, though you probably do not recognize as much.

Excon said:
We? No. Just you.

(Just for context, this was in response to me saying that we are making no assumptions about whether the police are doing their jobs correctly or not).

Yes, I believe you. That is precisely the problem.

Excon said:
But no, the job is law enforcement.
The presumption should be that they were acting within the law to enforce it.

Why?
 
Excon said:
It is only when it something arises that gives cause to suggest otherwise that you you look into it.

How is that different from what I've said? Seems to me that when a citizen is physically harmed, that's a pretty good reason to "look into it."

Excon said:
No, I can't be bothered to hunt through the a thread with over 300 posts to find where you first started posting and determine what are in those posts in which you want me to respond.

Does it really take you that long to search through 300 posts?

Excon said:
Nor do I need to because I addressed specifics which were quoted, not something else.
If you do not wish to expound, that is on you.

Specifically what specifics? What are you writing about now?

Excon said:
And yet that is exactly what you want to do.

If you think that, you haven't understood what I've said.

Excon said:
Unless credible information shows that they didn't act within the law, the presumption should be that they had done their job correctly as the vast majority of situations handled are. That is the same concept of innocent until proven guilty.

How is it the same? If a police officer is brought to trial for having committed violence against someone, she should enjoy the same presumption of innocence as anyone else for the purposes of the trial. But for the purpose of determining whether she should keep her job, or whether she should be investigated, or (perhaps) whether she should be prosecuted, the opposite presumption should hold.

Excon said:
No it isn't because the Officers are charged with performing such actions.

They are? If that is so, then you've once again illustrated the problem. They're charged with performing such actions only when warranted, and not otherwise. When warrant truly does exist, it's easy to prove.

Excon said:
Absurd opinion.
These situation are of the sort where force is authorized under the law.

So, in your view, what stops police officers from outright murdering whoever they please, whenever they please?

Excon said:
You do not seem to understand that an Officer's actions of the kind we are speaking about (use of force) are under review almost immediately and they do articulate a reason for it's use.

Why do you say that? Nothing I've said suggests that when police use violence, their actions aren't reviewed (whether they are adequately reviewed, or reviewed with the correct standards, is another matter). I'm making a case for the ideal standards to be employed in such a review, and more importantly, the standards the public should demand be used in such a review.

Excon said:
"We" are not the arbiter, nor should "we" ever be.

Hmmmm...I disagree. This notion that police are somehow different from other citizens is absurd, and has been allowed to go on far too long. The moment you allow a certain class of people to do things lawfully that other citizens cannot do, such that those actions may routinely violate the rights of other citizens, you've created a de facto master class. Civil servant becomes semantically equivalent to civil master.

Excon said:
No. That is you saying you think they are wrong because they don't agree with you. That is all.
And no, there should be no presumption that the actions were not warranted.

Ignores the fact that I made an argument for my case.
 
I'm not sure, because I'm not sure how you're using the word "expressed." I "spoke of" (the words you originally used) two views, and I'm asking to which one you were directing your comments.
Wrong. There was no ambiguity, you simply choose not to follow what was said.


I have never attributed any view to you except the one you've claimed to have.
First purposefully not following what was said, and are now purposely being dishonest about it.
Figures.


The point of arguments like mine is pretty simple: you believe A, but don't want to believe B. I'm showing why, if you believe A, you've actually committed yourself to believing B.
iLOL No.


To do that, sometimes you have to speak of your view, and sometimes you have to speak of mine. But you simply write something like "that view" or "the view you speak of" and expect me to know which view you mean. Your thoughts may be clear to you. They are not clear to me.
There you go again with that purposeful dishonesty and purposely choosing not to follow. That is all on you.
And as you can see I am going to keep pointing that out until you stop playing this silly little game.


Why do you ask when it was pointed out that the job is law enforcement? It is like you choose to be oblivious.



How is that different from what I've said? Seems to me that when a citizen is physically harmed, that's a pretty good reason to "look into it."
What? No one said not to look into it.

Your position is simply ludicrous.
There should be no automatic assumption of wrong doing.
The assumption should be on the Officer doing his job correctly unless something can be shown that they didn't.


Does it really take you that long to search through 300 posts?
Wtf? Are you really trying to argue that irrelevant nonsense?

If you want to point me to a specific post that is on you to do. Not on me to guess which one.


Specifically what specifics? What are you writing about now?
iLOL
You are playing a silly little game that you already lost.
Good luck with that.


If you think that, you haven't understood what I've said.
No, that is exactly what you want to do to the person acting in a law enforcement capacity.
Guilty until proven innocent.


But for the purpose of determining whether she should keep her job, or whether she should be investigated, or (perhaps) whether she should be prosecuted, the opposite presumption should hold.
A stupid and irrational position.
It should never be presumed during review that they were in the wrong.
Any review should start with a presumption of innocence.


They are? If that is so, then you've once again illustrated the problem. They're charged with performing such actions only when warranted, and not otherwise. When warrant truly does exist, it's easy to prove.
iLOL
I have illustrated no problem.

Their job is law enforcement, it should be presumed that they were doing their job correctly.


When warrant truly does exist, it's easy to prove.
Stop with the nonsense.

Not even the way it is set up now is it easy to prove.


So, in your view, what stops police officers from outright murdering whoever they please, whenever they please?
Your question is totally absurd and irrelevant in this discussion.
Nor are police in the habit of just going out and murdering folks. :doh


(whether they are adequately reviewed, or reviewed with the correct standards, is another matter)
Actually no, that is something that is and should be presumed also. Because that is their job.


I'm making a case for the ideal standards to be employed in such a review,
No you aren't. The ideal standard is already in place and it places a presumption on innocence as it should


Hmmmm...I disagree. This notion that police are somehow different from other citizens is absurd, and has been allowed to go on far too long.
iLOL
You can disagree all you want, you are still wrong.
The general public is not charged with enforcing the law.


Ignores the fact that I made an argument for my case.
iLOL
No you didn't.
All you did was spout a bunch of nonsense.
 
Excon said:
There you go again with that purposeful dishonesty and purposely choosing not to follow. That is all on you.
And as you can see I am going to keep pointing that out until you stop playing this silly little game.

Whatever you've got to do to keep your pants on.

Excon said:
Why do you ask when it was pointed out that the job is law enforcement?

Plenty of people don't do their jobs right. What reason is there to believe that police officers are an exception?

Excon said:
Wtf? Are you really trying to argue that irrelevant nonsense?

Merely pointing out that you're protesting more than is warranted.

Excon said:
If you want to point me to a specific post that is on you to do. Not on me to guess which one.

Well, I'm assuming you can read, and if you can, there's no reason to guess. There is only one post in this thread (aside from the ones we've exchanged) in which I make my argument.

Excon said:
You are playing a silly little game that you already lost.
Good luck with that.

Yes, I think it'll take quite a bit of luck to get a clear articulation of your position, based on the evidence so far in this thread.

Excon said:
No, that is exactly what you want to do to the person acting in a law enforcement capacity.
Guilty until proven innocent.

Nope. And I've already explained why.

Excon said:
It should never be presumed during review that they were in the wrong.
Any review should start with a presumption of innocence.

Not when what's on the table is is the violation of someone's rights, and especially when someone has lost her life.

Excon said:
Their job is law enforcement, it should be presumed that they were doing their job correctly.

You keep saying that, but have offered no reason to believe it.

Excon said:
Not even the way it is set up now is it easy to prove.

Why do you say that?

Excon said:
Your question is totally absurd and irrelevant in this discussion.

If that were really so, you could easily answer it and show as much, rather than rely on bluster and assertion. So I ask again: what, if we followed your view, would prevent the police from murdering whoever they wish and simply asserting that they were acting lawfully?

Excon said:
Nor are police in the habit of just going out and murdering folks.

I agree, for the most part. A few are, and some do so just because they get mad and act rashly, or get scared and act stupidly. But most police officers do not murder or kill anyone, I would agree.

Excon said:
Actually no, that is something that is and should be presumed also. Because that is their job.

So, not merely are we to presume, when an officer shoots and kills a citizen, that it was done lawfully, we should also presume that whatever review takes place is adequate. That, once again, is exactly what every tyrannical government in history has thought, and making those assumptions is what allowed mass murdering regimes to do what they do.
 
Last edited:
You sure do a lot of typing to say absolutely nothing of import.








Whatever you've got to do to keep your pants on.
Still playing your game, figures.















Plenty of people don't do their jobs right. What reason is there to believe that police officers are an exception?
Plenty of people? iLOL
If you hadn't been playing your little game you would have known this comment of yours was already addressed.












Merely pointing out that you're protesting more than is warranted.
Invalid reply to what was quoted. You made an absurd argument and are now deflecting.



















Well, I'm assuming you can read, and if you can, there's no reason to guess. There is only one post in this thread (aside from the ones we've exchanged) in which I make my argument.
More of your little game deflecting from the reality of the situation.
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.

















Yes, I think it'll take quite a bit of luck to get a clear articulation of your position, based on the evidence so far in this thread.
:lamo
No. It was clear and you are only playing a stupid game of which I will not play.













Nope. And I've already explained why.
More dishonesty on your part.
No, that is exactly what you want to do to the person acting in a law enforcement capacity.
Guilty until proven innocent.














Not when what's on the table is is the violation of someone's rights, and especially when someone has lost her life.
No. A stupid position to take.
The allegation is why it is being reviewed. Duh!
The presumption is and should always be with the accused.















You keep saying that, but have offered no reason to believe it.
Wrong as usual, you just choose to ignore what has been said.











Why do you say that?
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.












If that were really so, you could easily answer it and show as much, rather than rely on bluster and assertion. So I ask again: what, if we followed your view, would prevent the police from murdering whoever they wish and simply asserting that they were acting lawfully?
:lamo
Projection.

Your question is totally absurd and irrelevant in this discussion.
Nor are police in the habit of just going out and murdering folks. :doh













A few are, and some do so just because they get mad and act rashly, or get scared and act stupidly.
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, not merely are we to presume, when an officer shoots and kills a citizen, that it was done lawfully, we should also presume that whatever review takes place is adequate.
Of course, unless the evidence presented in the review suggests otherwise.









That, once again, is exactly what every tyrannical government in history has thought, and making those assumptions is what allowed mass murdering regimes to do what they do.
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.
 
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.
 
Like I said. You do an awful lot of typing to actually say nothing of import.

The point of contention here is your position that a "presumption should be that violence was not warranted" in police interactions.
Nothing you have said supports such a presumption or refutes my position in any way.

It is like you do not understand that we have a review process and if something turns up they investigate further and charge if need be.
In that process, when force is used they question it. It is not unlike an affirmative defense. The Officer articulates why he used said force.

There should be no presumption that force was not warranted, such an assumption is saying that they are in the wrong from the get.
Not only is that presumption absurd and wrong headed from the point of a person doing the job they are assigned to do in the manner they are approved to do it, but it opens a can of worms of liability that would be foolish to open.




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?

More games. Figures. :lamo

1. Let me answer in a form that you are so adequately familiar with that maybe you will get the drift.

To find the answer you seek, see my first few posts addressing you in this thread.
According to your stated position, that would be me telling you where to find it. (lets see if you still hold to that absurd position.)

2. iLOL There is no contradiction there.
a ) Pointing out that your comment was already addressed is not telling you to hunt something down in some post somewhere in this thread that you addressed to someone else.
b ) As it was already addressed to you, you should already be familiar with it if you are following our discourse.​
 
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.
iLOL
Your response does not refute or even negate what I said.
And no, you did not tell me where to find it. Pointing to the actual post number would be telling me where to find it, but that is not what you did.

Linking to the actual post or quoting what you said would be far better and less lazy. But you do not go tell a person to hunt down your first few posts to look for further argument like you absurdly did. It doesn't work that way.

And btw, fyi (though I am sure you already know), stripping the numbers from what you quoted removes the link to what you actually quoted. That (as I am sure you know) makes it harder for one to follow the quotes back to what was said. You might want to consider leaving those numbers in, especially if you are going to refer someone back to something you said previously.




It's pretty arrogant to judge your own writing for clarity--that's properly the place of your readers.
iLOL
What I said was clear. All you are doing is deflecting.
 
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.
Irrelevant nonsense to what you quoted and that which has been argued.
You clearly can not follow.
The presumption of innocence remains with the accused. That is not just in criminal matters either. Said concept applies to reviews as well.

And btw, you need to get a different legal theory instructor because all you are doing is spewing nonsense.




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.
:doh No. They haven't taken anything away.

Due process has already occurred through the enforcement of what has already been authorized given the situational circumstances. From that point it should be assumed that LE was doing their job of law enforcement. (not assuming the idiotic position of not doing their job)
Under that review if it is shown that the Officer was not acting within the bounds of the law that is where the presumption stops. It is like you do not not understand that.
 
No one has a right to be a police officer.
iLOL
This just shows how convoluted your exchanges have gotten.
You are making argument against something no one has said. Doh!


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.
You are again making argument against something no one has said. Doh!


--and when person A shoots person B (in any circumstance), there is probable cause to investigate person A.
iLOL
Shootings are automatically reviewed. Do you really not understand that?
 
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?
No. I did not speak to hijacking. I spoke to a flaw in design.


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.
Another absurd reply. Figures.
No, professional juries sounds like a better solution, made up of those trained in the law and the standards required.
 
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.
You can repeat it until you are blue in the face. I care not.
Nor does your assumption follow from what I stated.

Your question was totally absurd and irrelevant in this discussion. The police are not in the habit of just going out and murdering folks. Do you really not understand that?
For your question to following you would have to show they are in the habit of doing such and you simply can not do that.

This was your question.
So, in your view, what stops police officers from outright murdering whoever they please, whenever they please?
Any opinion I give in regards to your question is irrelevant as you can not show that that is the norm for them.
So keep asking your absurd question all you want. You will get nowhere by doing so.
 
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?
iLOL
Your question does not follow from what you quoted.

I spoke to their actions in the course of their duty and reacting to what they perceive as a threat.




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.
Wtf?
Wow. Now you are presuming that those assigned to review can't do the the job they are assigned to do either. That is just more absurdity.

No. It is on you to show that a review isn't adequate.




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.
Of course they have such reviews? Wut?
No. They do not have such reviews.
Maybe the word "such" has confused you as all you have done is provide information showing that they do not have such reviews.

They clearly did not have a system such as ours is.




And btw, thanks for the unsolicited reading list.
Just so you do not understand, that comment goes to you not actually having provided a valid argument by simply providing titles to read.
 
Excon said:
Like I said. You do an awful lot of typing to actually say nothing of import.

And like I said, if what you say is true, you wouldn't keep posting.

Excon said:
The point of contention here is your position that a "presumption should be that violence was not warranted" in police interactions.

Yes, correct. Part of the contention, anyway.

Excon said:
It is like you do not understand that we have a review process and if something turns up they investigate further and charge if need be.

Rather, it's like you do not understand that what is, is irrelevant to what ought to be. I am arguing about what ought to be.

Excon said:
There should be no presumption that force was not warranted, such an assumption is saying that they are in the wrong from the get.

Yes, but not in a manner that cannot be contradicted and overruled. It is merely to say that evidence should be required to substantiate warrant for shooting a citizen. The idea is not that this presumption continues in the face of evidence presented to the contrary. That's how it works in a court of law--the presumption of innocence doesn't continue if sufficient evidence of guilt is presented.

Excon said:
Not only is that presumption absurd and wrong headed from the point of a person doing the job they are assigned to do in the manner they are approved to do it, but it opens a can of worms of liability that would be foolish to open.

You calling it wrong doesn't make it wrong. Where is your argument that it is wrong?

Excon said:
To find the answer you seek, see my first few posts addressing you in this thread.
According to your stated position, that would be me telling you where to find it. (lets see if you still hold to that absurd position.)

The difference being that in my post, there actually was an argument in support of my position. I've read all your posts, and do not see any such argument. I had read them before asking you where you addressed the comment--which was, incidentally, that plenty of people don't do their jobs correctly. You haven't said anything to argue against that...and it would be pretty foolish of you to do so, because it's pretty clearly true.

Excon said:
a ) Pointing out that your comment was already addressed is not telling you to hunt something down in some post somewhere in this thread that you addressed to someone else.
b ) As it was already addressed to you, you should already be familiar with it if you are following our discourse.

Not only should I be, I would be, if you had made such a comment. But you haven't.

Excon said:
Your response does not refute or even negate what I said.

So, who appointed you the ethics and protocol judge of internet debating? As a matter of sheer pragmatics, the fact that you never answer my questions should worry you; an impartial observer would start to think that perhaps you have no answers.

Excon said:
What I said was clear. All you are doing is deflecting.

No. Pointing out that it is impossible for you to judge.

Excon said:
The presumption of innocence remains with the accused. That is not just in criminal matters either. Said concept applies to reviews as well.

Says who? Why should it apply to a job review, or to a grand jury inquiry?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom