First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Yet another person shot and killed while having their hands up
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/20/16

octorockandroll wrote:

I'm pretty sure that is not the case for a few reasons

1.) Every water gun I can remember seeing since I was a boy looks something like this.



Even if it were painted black, I would probably not mistake it for a real firearm, and I assume someone who's job involves dealing with firearms just about every day would be even less likely to do so.

2.) If a person were to go up to a cop like that and not be a very young child that person would be actively looking for trouble. They wouldnt be confronted by police and then respond shittily, they would be taking action specifically towards starting shit, so the reason the officer would be off the hook would be because they were deliberately provoked, not because they mistook a toy that only barely looks like a gun for a gun. Even without a weapon a guy attacking an officer is still a danger.

3.) the punishment for the officer (if he even received one that is) would be pretty minimal in that last scenario. A straight up attack is much different than a guy walking away. If it were a kid just playing around like that, the officer would definitely get a bigger punishment but if memory serves it would only be a temporary suspension. Like I said, not a super terrible punishment, but one nonetheless. Hell, its possible the parents would be worse off. If they knew about the modified water gun and didnt do anything about it they would be in some deep shit, seeing as modifying fake firearms to look more like real ones is illegal here.


You are trying to pick apart the logic in a hypothetical...but I'll humor you.

1) I didn't say water gun. I said toy gun:



2) Say the guy is 20 yards away pointing the toy gun at police. He isn't moving towards the police. No imminent danger although clear reasonable suspicion of danger.

3) Pointing at someone with a toy gun is not an attack.
4854 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 9/20/16

Xxanthar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


arano wrote:

45 million living in poverty, hate on minorities, racist police,..etc
half of the country rooting for a demagoge,....
So, as a German i have a question:
is the U.S.A. turning into a third world country or are you guys just as stupid as the people in Germany in 1933.
one thing is for sure, remember the days that everybody hated russia and europeans played the lottery to get a magic green card to your country?
Well, you became shit like russia in the last 20 years, and you are the only ones not realizing.
USA.....USA....USA


While I disagree pretty strongly with just about everything presented here I feel I should say that maybe this post might be on to something. After all I am not an american, but Xxanthar is and according to him the rule of the game in america is apparently "Comply or die". I can see that fitting into nazi germany pretty well.


Yes, that was exactly what I was saying.... derrrrrrrp. Continue living under the protection of the USA and contributing nothing but some maple syrup.


https://youtu.be/ad3muFUM4r0

Just... WOW!!

I'll say this much about, you never fail to surprise.
4854 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 9/20/16

sundin13 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

I'm pretty sure that is not the case for a few reasons

1.) Every water gun I can remember seeing since I was a boy looks something like this.



Even if it were painted black, I would probably not mistake it for a real firearm, and I assume someone who's job involves dealing with firearms just about every day would be even less likely to do so.

2.) If a person were to go up to a cop like that and not be a very young child that person would be actively looking for trouble. They wouldnt be confronted by police and then respond shittily, they would be taking action specifically towards starting shit, so the reason the officer would be off the hook would be because they were deliberately provoked, not because they mistook a toy that only barely looks like a gun for a gun. Even without a weapon a guy attacking an officer is still a danger.

3.) the punishment for the officer (if he even received one that is) would be pretty minimal in that last scenario. A straight up attack is much different than a guy walking away. If it were a kid just playing around like that, the officer would definitely get a bigger punishment but if memory serves it would only be a temporary suspension. Like I said, not a super terrible punishment, but one nonetheless. Hell, its possible the parents would be worse off. If they knew about the modified water gun and didnt do anything about it they would be in some deep shit, seeing as modifying fake firearms to look more like real ones is illegal here.


You are trying to pick apart the logic in a hypothetical...but I'll humor you.

1) I didn't say water gun. I said toy gun:



2) Say the guy is 20 yards away pointing the toy gun at police. He isn't moving towards the police. No imminent danger although clear reasonable suspicion of danger.

3) Pointing at someone with a toy gun is not an attack.


As I believe I said earlier, fake guns in Canada are legally obligated to look easily distinguishable from real guns.

As I said before, the only reason someone would point a toy gun at a police officer would be if they are an on duty police officer would be if they are a child or a very stupid adult trying to act agressively towards a police officer. If you can think of another scenario, go ahead and say it but until then everything I said before still stands.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/20/16

octorockandroll wrote:

As I believe I said earlier, fake guns in Canada are legally obligated to look easily distinguishable from real guns.

As I said before, the only reason someone would point a toy gun at a police officer would be if they are an on duty police officer would be if they are a child or a very stupid adult trying to act agressively towards a police officer. If you can think of another scenario, go ahead and say it but until then everything I said before still stands.


You do understand what a hypothetical is, right? The scenario works the same way with a gun with no ammo. There is no actual danger, however there is a reasonable expectation of danger.

Anyways, it doesn't matter if the person is "acting aggressive". From 20 yards away, there is no imminent danger from a toy gun or unloaded weapon. Theres no two ways about it.

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here.
7057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Earth
Offline
Posted 9/20/16
Go arrest some elk, breh
4854 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 9/20/16

sundin13 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

As I believe I said earlier, fake guns in Canada are legally obligated to look easily distinguishable from real guns.

As I said before, the only reason someone would point a toy gun at a police officer would be if they are an on duty police officer would be if they are a child or a very stupid adult trying to act agressively towards a police officer. If you can think of another scenario, go ahead and say it but until then everything I said before still stands.


You do understand what a hypothetical is, right? The scenario works the same way with a gun with no ammo. There is no actual danger, however there is a reasonable expectation of danger.

Anyways, it doesn't matter if the person is "acting aggressive". From 20 yards away, there is no imminent danger from a toy gun or unloaded weapon. Theres no two ways about it.

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here.


You should know full well what my point is by now. In Canada, as far as I can remember, shooting someone without them warranting it, is something a police officer will be punished for.
18746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Online
Posted 9/20/16

illusiv3 wrote:

Why post this on Crunchyroll? People are trying to watch anime, not participate in an ill-informed trial by forums


if you are trying to watch anime why are you in the "general discussion" section of the forums, at least go to the anime section


ive seen ppl complain about this left and right today


don't come to the forums then
31 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/20/16
who the [email protected] taught you "if you don't do what a policeman says you get shot? hahaha what school is this?... in most states, the police arent allowed to shoot unless you're POINTING or about to point the weapon at the officer.. This is still AMERICA.. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS IN AMERICA... I don't care if he had a gun on him at all (which he didn't) that doesn't give an officer the right to shoot you, i don't know which communist country you came from, but here in america the police aren't allowed to shoot you just for "not complying" with an officer.
41322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/20/16
Who?
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/20/16

octorockandroll wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

As I believe I said earlier, fake guns in Canada are legally obligated to look easily distinguishable from real guns.

As I said before, the only reason someone would point a toy gun at a police officer would be if they are an on duty police officer would be if they are a child or a very stupid adult trying to act agressively towards a police officer. If you can think of another scenario, go ahead and say it but until then everything I said before still stands.


You do understand what a hypothetical is, right? The scenario works the same way with a gun with no ammo. There is no actual danger, however there is a reasonable expectation of danger.

Anyways, it doesn't matter if the person is "acting aggressive". From 20 yards away, there is no imminent danger from a toy gun or unloaded weapon. Theres no two ways about it.

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here.


You should know full well what my point is by now. In Canada, as far as I can remember, shooting someone without them warranting it, is something a police officer will be punished for.


The legal code pretty much everywhere uses the word "reasonable". In Canada, the exact wording is (In section 25 of the Canadian penal code): Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

In other words, everything an officer does is justified if they are acting on reasonable grounds.

Nowhere in this law does it assert that action must match the reality of the situation (as that would require the ability to read minds) but instead, like I've been saying, it asserts that the action must be performed on reasonable grounds, which speaks to the (reasonable) belief of the officer.

To take a word from the US Supreme Court:

"“The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Moreover, the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving….thus we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day”"
4854 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 9/20/16

Xxanthar wrote:

Go arrest some elk, breh




What? That isn't even a Canadian stereotype, at least not one I've ever heard of. Was Moose or Caribou just too hard for you to spell or something? They're not even that Canadian, you can find them in America and a ton of different places in Asia, and it's not as if they have a significant presence in our iconography. If you've got nothing left but to spout a bunch of stereotypes like a child, a least make them actual recognizable stereotypes. You'll still look like an idiot, but you'll at least look like one who knows the bare minimum of what he's talking about.

Oh, and before I forget:


Xxanthar wrote:
This ain't Canada. Shall I keep copy and paste 'Comply or Die' for you until it get's through your head?



Xxanthar wrote:
Yes, that was exactly what I was saying.... derrrrrrrp.


Do I even need to say anything?
23208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Long Island
Online
Posted 9/20/16
While I agree that people should follow an officers instructions during arrests and what not, failing to follow those instructions shouldn't warrant a death sentence. Even if someone does reach into their pockets, it's not like they're going to draw and start firing with the speed of cowboys in old western films.
7057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Earth
Offline
Posted 9/20/16 , edited 9/20/16

ChinaCat89 wrote:

While I agree that people should follow an officers instructions during arrests and what not, failing to follow those instructions shouldn't warrant a death sentence. Even if someone does reach into their pockets, it's not like they're going to draw and start firing with the speed of cowboys in old western films.


It takes about a second once your hand grabs the hilt, maybe 2 seconds if it's an old man with arthritis.
4854 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 9/20/16

sundin13 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
You should know full well what my point is by now. In Canada, as far as I can remember, shooting someone without them warranting it, is something a police officer will be punished for.


The legal code pretty much everywhere uses the word "reasonable". In Canada, the exact wording is (In section 25 of the Canadian penal code): Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

In other words, everything an officer does is justified if they are acting on reasonable grounds.

Nowhere in this law does it assert that action must match the reality of the situation (as that would require the ability to read minds) but instead, like I've been saying, it asserts that the action must be performed on reasonable grounds, which speaks to the (reasonable) belief of the officer.

To take a word from the US Supreme Court:

"“The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Moreover, the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving….thus we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day”"


It could very well be that I'm wrong, I made it clear that I was going off of fallible memory after all. This is just the general trend I have noticed in Canada. In fact, I recall an officer who did something like what you're describing being suspended in Hamilton earlier this very year, my 1 minute google search can't find the story though, so it could be I'm remembering that wrong too.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/20/16

octorockandroll wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
You should know full well what my point is by now. In Canada, as far as I can remember, shooting someone without them warranting it, is something a police officer will be punished for.


The legal code pretty much everywhere uses the word "reasonable". In Canada, the exact wording is (In section 25 of the Canadian penal code): Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

In other words, everything an officer does is justified if they are acting on reasonable grounds.

Nowhere in this law does it assert that action must match the reality of the situation (as that would require the ability to read minds) but instead, like I've been saying, it asserts that the action must be performed on reasonable grounds, which speaks to the (reasonable) belief of the officer.

To take a word from the US Supreme Court:

"“The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Moreover, the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving….thus we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day”"


It could very well be that I'm wrong, I made it clear that I was going off of fallible memory after all. This is just the general trend I have noticed in Canada. In fact, I recall an officer who did something like what you're describing being suspended in Hamilton earlier this very year, my 1 minute google search can't find the story though, so it could be I'm remembering that wrong too.


Ah, well one of the key things that needs to be understood when dealing with police use of force is that "law" =/= "policy". All stations have their own policies on how to act in different situations, so it could very well be that an officer does something that is entirely legal but against policy, which would result in a suspension. Alternatively, the suspension could very well be to placate the community's anger at a situation.

Earlier in this thread I was saying that in my opinion this incident was likely against policy but not criminal.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.