Is there a shooting you disagree with?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Surefire
  • Start date Start date
I don't make it my business to keep track of unjustified cop shootings, but I'd disagree with any shooting where the policeman was doing it out of anger, racial hatred or in any circumstance where the victim was innocent and hadn't committed any crimes.
 
from the wiki link rothbard posted

'' information confirmed by Canadian infantry under interrogation; that prisoners were not to be taken if they hindered operations.''

if the enemy is in layered defence with 3 trench systems in depth, yea, it sucks, but everyone in the first two trench systems is dying
 
That was my fucking point you abject retard.



Manslaughter is an intentional crime, not a negligent one.
 
awful lot of drug enforcement related shootings where the police end up shooting an innocent person and frequently at the wrong house!
 
A lot of dept's don't allow no knocks anymore bc they're so dangerous. I mean honestly, what do you expect ANY person to do when they're home and hear their front door get smashed in? Grab a gun!
 
How do you figure? He already post 3 links, 1 of which didn't even happen at a home. So calling it "frequent" is a gross exaggeration.
 
Notice that it's specifically qualified with "negligent." Why? Because it's not the same as manslaughter. It's distinguished, similar to how "involuntary manslaughter" and "vehicular manslaughter" are distinguished from "manslaughter."


You should probably just quit while you're not ahead.
 
I mean, you know I'm just a police sackrider, and all I ever do is praise them and agree with everything they do, so take this with a grain of salt.

But when police crash through the wrong door and kill innocent people, it's not evil intent. I really doubt the cops are out there figuring out how to a) kill people who they know aren't doing anything wrong, b) not catch the criminals they've spent days or weeks or months surveilling, and c) alert those criminals so they can destroy evidence and set up a new operation someplace else, now that they know the cops are onto them.

Sackrider that I am, I'm pretty sure that's just carelessness at best, stupidity at worst. Not malice.
 
This was on History channel not too long ago. It was such a beautiful city. Very tragic.
 
Joe_Cool is desperately Googling for a jurisdiction that does not make the distinction. Loser.
 
this was a nice kick in the face to someone who was laying flat on their stomach spread out

[y]P-ZLV_sB3Rc[/y]
 
Dumpy is dead on in the sense of how negligence applies to the topic at hand. I wanted to avoid limiting the responses possible, in the hopes that something like this would happen. Not because I want to pwn anyone, but because I wanted to focus on, as I was thinking of it: personal responsibility.

Dumpy has hit on this in the legal sense, by pointing out that negligence is a means by which intentional and even unintentional death is determined.

Negligibility is a means of making that determination. Perhaps professional would be a better monicker than personal, but responsibility is integral to the determination of negligence.
 
they really need to stop serving so many search warrants at 2am with a fucking SWAT team. shit is unnecessary half the time and has gotten people killed.
 
Intent doesn't mean what you think it means. Also, your post is riddled with a conflation of legal terms, probably few of which you understand. I'm not necessarily wanting to be a dick here, but the aggression you guys are presenting in your posts makes it pretty difficult for me to respond without calling you out on being absolutely incorrect.

Anyway, if a neighborhood kid sets fire to a bag dogshit on your doorstep as a practical joke, and it winds up burning down your house and your wife dies in the fire, he is charged with manslaughter/murder, a requirement of which is intent.


The outcome has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the crime was the result of an intentional act. The only exception to that would be unforeseeability, for which the court has tests.
 
Back
Top