OT: Derek Chauvin Verdict Is In

[robillionaire]

.

[robillionaire]

^^^ Because we don’t give officers the benefit of the doubt anymore. They lost that. It’s as simple as that.

I think thats fair most of the time, but some people are doubling down even after the video came out and saying 'justice for Ma'Khia' and acting like her situation is on the same level as the George Floyd murder, when clearly its not.

I just don't get it, I'm trying to see it through another lens to maybe understand why people feel this way. I do agree with them it is terrible that a 16 year old girl lost her life due to the situation, but I also don't know what else the cop was supposed to do, he had two choices, either shoot the person about to stab another, or let the stabbing happen. He had no context, he didn't know she was 16, he didn't have enough to react or de-escalate the situation, etc.

I'm all for thinking cops are bad, and cannot be trusted, but in this case I don't think it falls under the same category as the others people are trying to place it with.

Even is she started out as the victim, by the time the cops got there, she was the aggressor with people running from her.

well that's my thing, say someone shows up at your house acting aggressively and you call the cops, and then a fight breaks out and you decide it's time to get a knife/gun/blunt object or whatever, and then the cops roll up and shoot you? sure they were following protocol but kinda would just suck for you

[robillionaire]

the officer has legal justification for the shooting as the girl was attacking someone with a deadly weapon. my thing with that case is whether or not everybody would still be alive if they didn't show up and shoot someone. maybe someone gets stabbed, unlikely imo that someone gets killed, but ultimately I feel like they did more harm than good. we don't even know the whole story behind what was going on in that fight. maybe the Bryant felt she was defending herself against attackers? From what I'm reading it was her house and she was the one who called the cops in the first place to report people fighting in front of her house? (big mistake if true). Anyway my overall question is if we really want cops to pull up to every little scrap or teenager dust up and start shooting, does this practice make a community safer, personally I don't think it does

This is from the foster mom: It was her birthday. Two girls who aged out came back to celebrate their foster mom's birthday. When they arrived, the house was a mess. They told MaKhia to clean it up. It escalated from there.

We know MaKhia wasnt getting jumped when the police arrived. The girl in pink was standing around outside by the car. The other girl was getting toppled over by MaKhia with a knife in her hands. We also know MaKhia wasnt alone in the confrontation because a dude who was with another girl was kicking the girl who was toppled over.

Supposedly MaKhia's father and grandmother were there at the altercation. You can hear a man say something about his baby. After the shooting there are interviews from Makhia's mom, aunt and uncle saying all these sweet things about MaKhia etc. I am going to say it. Why was MaKhia in a foster home? Why pass on the responsibility of raising a teenager to another person? You got a father, mother, grandmother, uncle and aunt out there. She wasnt allowed/invited to live with any of them?

Just like the Adam Toledo death, I dont blame the cops. It's a tragedy when teenagers are killed but in these instances, they put themselves in situations to be shot. And really, if you are looking for blame and responsibility, besides the kids, put it on the parents and family of the kids.

Also,
https://www.fox19.com/2021/04/21/year-old-charged-fatal-stabbing-another-teen-remain-custody/

13 year old girl stabbed and killed another 13 year old girl. Same state, like a day apart.

I have you on my ignore list I'm actually not interested in engaging in a conversation as I am aware of your consistently reactionary agenda pushing on every issue, no hard feelings but I just don't think we can have a good faith discussion about this issue have a nice day

[robillionaire]

What about rubber bullets?

I would rather these than regular bullets obviously but they've been known to abuse the use these as well randomly firing them into crowds and aiming to shoot people's eyes out like they did protesters last summer, They should probably be treated in the same manner you would consider a lethal round, they call them "less lethal" but they can still kill and maim a person.

here's an article about them https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2020/06/19/police-break-rules-shooting-protesters-rubber-bullets-less-lethal-projectiles/3211421001/

that said it would still be a good step towards disarmament, in this case yeah I think the rubber bullet would have incapacitated that girl and everyone would still probably be alive

[NYKAL]

I think thats fair most of the time, but some people are doubling down even after the video came out and saying 'justice for Ma'Khia' and acting like her situation is on the same level as the George Floyd murder, when clearly its not.

I just don't get it, I'm trying to see it through another lens to maybe understand why people feel this way. I do agree with them it is terrible that a 16 year old girl lost her life due to the situation, but I also don't know what else the cop was supposed to do, he had two choices, either shoot the person about to stab another, or let the stabbing happen. He had no context, he didn't know she was 16, he didn't have enough to react or de-escalate the situation, etc.

I'm all for thinking cops are bad, and cannot be trusted, but in this case I don't think it falls under the same category as the others people are trying to place it with.

Even is she started out as the victim, by the time the cops got there, she was the aggressor with people running from her.

well that's my thing, say someone shows up at your house acting aggressively and you call the cops, and then a fight breaks out and you decide it's time to get a knife/gun/blunt object or whatever, and then the cops roll up and shoot you? sure they were following protocol but kinda would just suck for you

if they are FLEEING from you, and have ceased to pose a thread, at this point, YOU'VE become the criminal and can be charged if you're the aggressor with a knife, even IF they assaulted you prior.

[Barcs]

Read on Twitter

Expect other conservative states to attempt this as well.

Yep, conservatives absolutely HATE being held accountable for anything. There is literally no reason why in 2021 ALL police officers aren't required to have bodycams. They think censoring the issue will make it go away. Idiots... No surprise it's in Oklahoma, one of the worst states in the country.

[NYKAL]

its the CEASED to be a threat part that is so important. Once the threat has ended, you have NO legal right to continue to physically assault the person. The law doesn't give a damn about how emotionally pissed off you might be. Thread ends, so does any violent response.

[Barcs]

^^^ Because we don’t give officers the benefit of the doubt anymore. They lost that. It’s as simple as that.

Exactly, they need to re-earn our trust. They think they are above the law and act like it. Every day just driving around I see cops blatantly breaking the law, constantly. They need to be held to higher standards than the rest of society because they are supposed to be role models. Enforcing a law that you don't follow yourself is hypocrisy.

[robillionaire]

its the CEASED to be a threat part that is so important. Once the threat has ended, you have NO legal right to continue to physically assault the person. The law doesn't give a damn about how emotionally pissed off you might be. Thread ends, so does any violent response.

the threat ends when exactly? when someone is in my driveway the threat hasn't ended, nobody was fleeing in this situation and the last thing I want is to be killed in my own driveway if cops show up in 10 seconds and see me as the aggressor for defending myself at my house, say I have some intruder at gunpoint for example. That's why I say it's probably better to just handle the situation yourself than call cops. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

also see this post from you

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1985259&p=85274142#p85274142

[NYKAL]

its the CEASED to be a threat part that is so important. Once the threat has ended, you have NO legal right to continue to physically assault the person. The law doesn't give a damn about how emotionally pissed off you might be. Thread ends, so does any violent response.

the threat ends when exactly? when someone is in my driveway the threat hasn't ended, nobody was fleeing in this situation and the last thing I want is to be killed in my own driveway if cops show up in 10 seconds and see me as the aggressor for defending myself at my house, say I have some intruder at gunpoint for example. That's why I say it's probably better to just handle the situation yourself than call cops. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

also see this post from you

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1985259&p=85274142#p85274142

I saw video of people running all over, one girl already cut, falling and rolling over on the grass while other ran about. And yes, even IF they are still in your driveway, if they are NO LONGER posing a threat in any way, YOU are the criminal if you continue to dish out violence. Doesn't MATTER how you feel, it's the law. If a guy breaks into your house, points a gun at you. Then he trips, drops the gun and you pick it up. At this point YOU can't legally shoot him or harm them in any way unless they continue to attack. If they try to flee or surrender your only legal recourse it to call the police.

[NYKAL]

if its a choice of me getting stabbed or cops airing someone out, I'm going to call for the shooting every time. You're grown enough to take a life, your grown enough to lose it.

[HarthorneWingo]

if its a choice of me getting stabbed or cops airing someone out, I'm going to call for the shooting every time. You're grown enough to take a life, your grown enough to lose it.

It’s not your call.

[robillionaire]

its the CEASED to be a threat part that is so important. Once the threat has ended, you have NO legal right to continue to physically assault the person. The law doesn't give a damn about how emotionally pissed off you might be. Thread ends, so does any violent response.

the threat ends when exactly? when someone is in my driveway the threat hasn't ended, nobody was fleeing in this situation and the last thing I want is to be killed in my own driveway if cops show up in 10 seconds and see me as the aggressor for defending myself at my house, say I have some intruder at gunpoint for example. That's why I say it's probably better to just handle the situation yourself than call cops. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

also see this post from you

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1985259&p=85274142#p85274142

I saw video of people running all over, one girl already cut, falling and rolling over on the grass while other ran about. And yes, even IF they are still in your driveway, if they are NO LONGER posing a threat in any way, YOU are the criminal if you continue to dish out violence. Doesn't MATTER how you feel, it's the law. If a guy breaks into your house, points a gun at you. Then he trips, drops the gun and you pick it up. At this point YOU can't legally shoot him or harm them in any way unless they continue to attack. If they try to flee or surrender your only legal recourse it to call the police.

In your scenario of someone breaking into my house and pointing a gun at me and dropping it and me picking it up, I'd just shoot and have my lawyer explain to the jury that "there was a struggle and they both reached for the gun" rather than risk them wrestling the gun back away from me and killing me. At least that way you have the chance to defend yourself in a court of law instead of being dead and unable to plead your case.

Plus what you're saying varies state by state. I live in North Carolina which has a broad version of the castle doctrine and states that "a person who “unlawfully and forcibly” enters one’s home, workplace, or car is presumed to intend violence and harm, and therefore it is easy to establish self-defense." In other words once they have broken into my house, the law states after that point I can presume they are posing a threat just based on their presence. Not sure what your state says but worth looking into.

None of this really relates to the case in question, but I will say it was a very stupid decision to grab a knife after having called the cops (doubling down on another stupid decision, shouldn't have called them if you intended to fight), once you call the cops you have to be aware that your life could be in danger if you are perceived as the aggressor

[NYKAL]

then I hope you enjoy the jail time because I doubt your lawyer is getting you out of that. They will examine the scene and determine what happened.

[NYKAL]

https://www.mass.gov/doc/9260-self-defense-defense-of-another-defense-of-property/download

[robillionaire]

https://www.mass.gov/doc/9260-self-defense-defense-of-another-defense-of-property/download

Like I said maybe in your state the laws are different. I'm not in Massachusetts and the law here clearly details that I can shoot an intruder no questions asked. Your link also includes a castle doctrine but it's a little more limited. It's on page 6 of what you posted

https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.2.pdf

[NYKAL]

if its a choice of me getting stabbed or cops airing someone out, I'm going to call for the shooting every time. You're grown enough to take a life, your grown enough to lose it.

It’s not your call.

NO shyt.

[robillionaire]

then I hope you enjoy the jail time because I doubt your lawyer is getting you out of that. They will examine the scene and determine what happened.

I mean you said it was common sense that an intruder "should expect bullets to come flying at them" and if someone broke into your house the first thing you'd do is hit the circuit breaker and then hunt them down in the dark, so I'm not sure how your philosophy is any more legally permissible than mine

"you break into a house, don't announce yourself as police, you SHOULD expect bullets to come flying at you. foh with the BS excuses. Common sense would dictate if the homeowners hear them breaking in, they very well may react with violence ... common sense should have had them aware of the likely possibility that the homeowner would react to protect his home from an intruder. If I run up in someones home, I'm expecting resistance.

I've said for years, someone enters my home, I'm hitting the circuit breaker and turning off all the lights. Then I'm hunting the **** down."

[NYKAL]

then I hope you enjoy the jail time because I doubt your lawyer is getting you out of that. They will examine the scene and determine what happened.

I mean you said it was common sense that an intruder "should expect bullets to come flying at them" and if someone broke into your house the first thing you'd do is hit the circuit breaker and then hunt them down in the dark, so I'm not sure how your philosophy is any more legally permissible than mine

"you break into a house, don't announce yourself as police, you SHOULD expect bullets to come flying at you. foh with the BS excuses. Common sense would dictate if the homeowners hear them breaking in, they very well may react with violence ... common sense should have had them aware of the likely possibility that the homeowner would react to protect his home from an intruder. If I run up in someones home, I'm expecting resistance.

I've said for years, someone enters my home, I'm hitting the circuit breaker and turning off all the lights. Then I'm hunting the **** down."

I don't deny that. It would be illegal and I'd go to jail but, I'd still do it. you are going on the theory that I PERSONALLY disagree with the thoughts above. I'm stating what the outcome will likely be if you continue to offer violence once the threat has ended. I took law classes and was a paralegal for Oppenheimer and Lindenburg, so, just giving what I now to be the law in these cases. If the gun dropped and it would up in my hands, I probably wouldn't shoot him but, he'd get tortured. Sure enough. I shouldn't have said hope you enjoy your time in jail, it was hypocritical when I know I'd likely be committing a crime too,

[robillionaire]

then I hope you enjoy the jail time because I doubt your lawyer is getting you out of that. They will examine the scene and determine what happened.

I mean you said it was common sense that an intruder "should expect bullets to come flying at them" and if someone broke into your house the first thing you'd do is hit the circuit breaker and then hunt them down in the dark, so I'm not sure how your philosophy is any more legally permissible than mine

"you break into a house, don't announce yourself as police, you SHOULD expect bullets to come flying at you. foh with the BS excuses. Common sense would dictate if the homeowners hear them breaking in, they very well may react with violence ... common sense should have had them aware of the likely possibility that the homeowner would react to protect his home from an intruder. If I run up in someones home, I'm expecting resistance.

I've said for years, someone enters my home, I'm hitting the circuit breaker and turning off all the lights. Then I'm hunting the **** down."

I don't deny that. It would be illegal and I'd go to jail but, I'd still do it. you are going on the theory that I PERSONALLY disagree with the thoughts above. I'm stating what the outcome will likely be if you continue to offer violence once the threat has ended. I took law classes and was a paralegal for Oppenheimer and Lindenburg, so, just giving what I now to be the law in these cases. If the gun dropped and it would up in my hands, I probably wouldn't shoot him but, he'd get tortured. Sure enough. I shouldn't have said hope you enjoy your time in jail, it was hypocritical when I know I'd likely be committing a crime too,

I would say if they were running away, and I mean obviously fleeing, I wouldn't chase them down the street and shoot them, that's an entirely different story. But if I had even the slightest bit of concern that they could harm my family I'd rather not risk it. I'm not some gun nut that fantasizes about shooting people, I'd rather not do it but if they're in my house with a gun all bets are off at that point