No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

[Derec]

It was Derec who refered to Lyoya as "boy".

I was being sarcastic. The phrase "he a good boy" is a parody of the attitude of people excusing the behavior of people like Lyoya. Not only his family and his family's shysters who have a vested interest in making their dead relative appear as a victim (so they can scam millions of taxpayer moneys) , but also news media (e.g. NPR, who published a piece about Lyoya praising him while ignoring his criminal record and warrants) and politicians like Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) who referred to Lyoya as "an American of great distinction".

 

[Derec]

It is pretty clear #BLM has taught you nothing.

Any particular reason why you deleted the "/s" from my reply?
Of course #BLM did not teach me anything. That's because they have nothing to teach. Not me. Not anyone.
They are an extremist organization founded by two trained Marxist grifters. And they support cop killers like Joanna Chesimard (nom de guerre Assata Shakur).

Wow, the police have carte blanche to kill based on what they "perceive" (something the public or the justice system can never know for certain) someone might do.

We all act based on our perceptions. We should not judge police actions on something only evident in hindsight.

You do realize such a policy would give credence to private citizens killing police officers based on what they feel the officers might do.

Police are not only allowed but duty bound to confront criminal suspects, including the use of deadly force. The situations are not analogous.

That said, private citizens have been let off the hook when they acted based on their perceptions but ended up shooting at police. Brianna Taylor's boyfriend comes to mind, as does Andrew Coffee IV. Jaleel Stallings was also acquitted.
So "such a policy" is in effect already.

 

[Derec]

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

No, it isn't. Many things that are not death penalty crimes can nevertheless get you killed.

Instead of the cop backing down, why aren't you saying that Lyoya should have backed down? Then he'd be alive. In prison, but alive.

 

[Derec]

The cops that shot the unarmed guy 12 times in the video I posted above are being charged with manslaughter.

I still don't know what the purpose of that video was in this thread. The guy acted the exact opposite was to Lyoya. He was surrendering. Lyoya decided to wrestle with the cop and try to take his taser. They are not the same.

 

[Derec]

Derec’s wall of (12) posts in a row bespeaks desperation to rationalize his own previous statements.

It bespeaks on nothing more than lack of time and desperation to answer as many posts as possible when I do have time.

 

[Derec]

So no one gets killed, for one thing.

That's a good reason for Lyoya not to wrestle with the cop.

 

[Gospel]

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

No, it isn't. Many things that are not death penalty crimes can nevertheless get you killed.

Instead of the cop backing down, why aren't you saying that Lyoya should have backed down? Then he'd be alive. In prison, but alive.

Yes, it is incredibly stupid to resist arrest guilty of a crime or not.

I thought that statement was pretty clear. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I may not say specifically that Lyoya should have "backed down" but if you think my statement supports him resisting arrest I dunno what to tell you.

No, it isn't. Many things that are not death penalty crimes can nevertheless get you killed.

And why exactly is that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

No, it isn't. Many things that are not death penalty crimes can nevertheless get you killed.

Instead of the cop backing down, why aren't you saying that Lyoya should have backed down?

The idea would be the Police would be better capable of managing a situation and being able to resolve the conflict without killing the person. This isn't a bad goal. A criminal shouldn't commit crimes. That isn't carte blanche though. Why is this so hard to get across to some?

We should be respecting the cops, not fearing them.

 

[Derec]

And why exactly is that?

Because death penalty is a judicial punishment that is only an option under certain circumstances.
A lot more situations can lead to death "in the field". I do not see why that is hard to understand.

 

[Derec]

We should be respecting the cops, not fearing them.

I do not think criminals being afraid of attacking cops is a bad thing.

Respect is good, but people like Lyoya have no respect for the law, his baby mamas (that he is smacking around), for people around them (driving super drunk endangers everyone around you), etc. So why do you expect he would have any respect for the cops?

 

[Gospel]

And why exactly is that?

Because death penalty is a judicial punishment that is only an option under certain circumstances.
A lot more situations can lead to death "in the field". I do not see why that is hard to understand.

I understand that more situations can lead to death "in the field" what I'm really asking (to be honest) is why do deaths "in the field" occur? To answer my own question it's when suspects endanger police or the general public. There are cases when it's justified and cases when not because our police force is not infallible. It's the reason for investigations. Now, I'm discussing things that may come up during the investigation, do you believe that none of what I've mentioned thus far will be considered during the investigation? Because that would be a strange investigation.

 

[Gun Nut]

If that officer was fast enough to realize that "Action is faster than reaction" and shoot to kill in the back of the head, he was fast enough to back off.

Why should police officer have to back off in light of a perp resisting arrest?

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Pet peeve: "This sub-task is no cause for a reaction to the whole"
No drop of water is responsible for the flood.

"Since when is death the penalty for a BLACK PERSON to simply twitch their finger slightly!!!!?one1?"
Ever since that person chose to hold a gun, point it at someone, and position that finger over the trigger, obviously.

"Since when is having a run in the park deserving of EXECUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT"
Ever since that person chose to wield a knife and run directly at a group of children while screaming, "I'll kill them all!!!", obviously.

and, most relevantly, "since when does having a little scuffle with someone create cause to be shot??"
Ever since that person chose to have a scuffle with a clearly identified police officer and attempt to take their weapon(s).

Again, it used to be the case that shooting someone in the back was considered cowardly.

and it is used to be a "war crime" to not line up in a neat row to face your enemy on an open battlefield and take turns loading and firing smoothbore muskets at each other until one side has no one left standing. Taking cover was "cowardly", too. So.. so much for that.

When one has to reach back over 150 years to prove a point, it is pretty pathetic.

But hey, if you want to justify cowardly behavior, that is your privilege.

The point I failed to make was that "shooting someone in the back" is an old term, connected with "machismo", having nothing, in the remotest sense, to do with what happens during a close-combat scuffle involving the control of a weapon.
But hey, if the best argument you can make is a play on words (like not being a "backstabber" if its not a physical penetration directly into the spine). then I can rest assured knowing I am holding the more correct position.

 

[laughing dog]

If that officer was fast enough to realize that "Action is faster than reaction" and shoot to kill in the back of the head, he was fast enough to back off.

Why should police officer have to back off in light of a perp resisting arrest?

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Pet peeve: "This sub-task is no cause for a reaction to the whole"
No drop of water is responsible for the flood.

"Since when is death the penalty for a BLACK PERSON to simply twitch their finger slightly!!!!?one1?"
Ever since that person chose to hold a gun, point it at someone, and position that finger over the trigger, obviously.

"Since when is having a run in the park deserving of EXECUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT"
Ever since that person chose to wield a knife and run directly at a group of children while screaming, "I'll kill them all!!!", obviously.

and, most relevantly, "since when does having a little scuffle with someone create cause to be shot??"
Ever since that person chose to have a scuffle with a clearly identified police officer and attempt to take their weapon(s).

Again, it used to be the case that shooting someone in the back was considered cowardly.

and it is used to be a "war crime" to not line up in a neat row to face your enemy on an open battlefield and take turns loading and firing smoothbore muskets at each other until one side has no one left standing. Taking cover was "cowardly", too. So.. so much for that.

When one has to reach back over 150 years to prove a point, it is pretty pathetic.

But hey, if you want to justify cowardly behavior, that is your privilege.

The point I failed to make was that "shooting someone in the back" is an old term, connected with "machismo", having nothing, in the remotest sense, to do with what happens during a close-combat scuffle involving the control of a weapon.

Nonsense

But hey, if the best argument you can make is a play on words (like not being a "backstabber" if its not a physical penetration directly into the spine). then I can rest assured knowing I am holding the more correct position.

"Yup, I am justifying cowardly behavior". would have been to the point, more honest and avoided a stupid strawman.

 

[laughing dog]

It is pretty clear #BLM has taught you nothing.

Any particular reason why you deleted the "/s" from my reply?
Of course #BLM did not teach me anything. That's because they have nothing to teach. Not me. Not anyone.

No need to revel in your close-mindedness.

Wow, the police have carte blanche to kill based on what they "perceive" (something the public or the justice system can never know for certain) someone might do.

We all act based on our perceptions. We should not judge police actions on something only evident in hindsight.

Bullshit. People get judged by juries based on hindsight all the time.

You do realize such a policy would give credence to private citizens killing police officers based on what they feel the officers might do.

Police are not only allowed but duty bound to confront criminal suspects, including the use of deadly force. The situations are not analogous.

Of course it is. One has the right to self-defence.

That said, private citizens have been let off the hook when they acted based on their perceptions but ended up shooting at police. Brianna Taylor's boyfriend comes to mind,

Are you serious? The police burst into the wrong house unannounced late at night.

as does Andrew Coffee IV. Jaleel Stallings was also acquitted.
So "such a policy" is in effect already.

Mr. Stallings returned fire from an unmarked police van. Mr. Coffee saw a rifle sticking through his window late at night and thought he was beating robbed.

In all cases, the people's perceptions were wrong. But none of those who were acquitted actually killed anyone.

Of course, in 2 of those cases you cited, the police ended killing innocent civilians. And getting away with it.

 

[Toni]

So no one gets killed, for one thing.

That's a good reason for Lyoya not to wrestle with the cop.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that he should have wrestled with the police officer. Where opinions diverge is whether it was a capital offense and whether the police officer was qualified to act as judge, jury and executioner.

 

[TSwizzle]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

 

[Toni]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

Looks like murder by cop.

 

[Derec]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that he should have wrestled with the police officer.

But you are giving him a pass for his decisions, while putting the entire onus on the police officer to deescalate even as Lyoya kept escalating.

Where opinions diverge is whether it was a capital offense and whether the police officer was qualified to act as judge, jury and executioner.

Over and over you and some others keep pulling this "capital offense" fallacy. No, police officers are not "judge, jury and executioner". They do not impose any judicial punishment. They, however, can use force, up to and including lethal force, to stop a threat to themselves and others.
By your logic, police would never be allowed to use lethal force because they are never empowered to act as "judge, jury and executioner". That is obviously ridiculous.

 

[Derec]

.No need to revel in your close-mindedness.

It is not closeminded to reject a destructive, extremist movement like #BLM.

Bullshit. People get judged by juries based on hindsight all the time.

Examples? The self-defense laws in particular go by what the "honest and reasonable belief" (actual wording in Michigan law) is. Not by hindsight.

Of course it is. One has the right to self-defence.

Both police officers and civilians have the right to self defense. But, as I have pointed out, police are expected to seek out dangerous situations in the course of their daily duties. Civilians are not.

Are you serious? The police burst into the wrong house unannounced late at night.

First of all, it was not the wrong house. It was the address on the warrant - it's just that BT's ex boyfriend (the drug dealer) no longer lived there.
Second, there is some disagreement over whether the police announced themselves.
In any case, I am serious. It's what I am saying. The boyfriend acted on his perception that he was being robbed and the charges were dropped. Of course, the general anti-police political climate of 2020 probably contributed to the charges being dropped so quickly.

Mr. Stallings returned fire from an unmarked police van. Mr. Coffee saw a rifle sticking through his window late at night and thought he was beating robbed.

As I said, they acted on their (claimed) perceptions and were acquitted because of it.
For the record, I do not buy Coffee IV's excuse. The police raid was going on for some time (his father was already in custody) at that point and others had no trouble discerning that it was police, not robbers. Add to that that previously IV threatened police and the jury erred here. He should have been convicted of attempted murder and felony murder. At least the weapons charge stuck, so he will serve some years. Not enough, but it's something.

In all cases, the people's perceptions were wrong. But none of those who were acquitted actually killed anyone.

Shooting at police is still a crime even if you don't kill anybody. And BT's boyfriend actually hit and wounded an officer.

Of course, in 2 of those cases you cited, the police ended killing innocent civilians. And getting away with it.

In both those cases they were returning fire when people started firing at them.

 

[Derec]

I understand that more situations can lead to death "in the field" what I'm really asking (to be honest) is why do deaths "in the field" occur?

They can occur for many reasons. When you scuffle with police, you are demonstrating that you are a danger to him or her. In particular, you may gain control of their weapon, which is very dangerous.
Such cases have occurred before, and it would have been better had the officer used deadly force before it came to that.

To answer my own question it's when suspects endanger police or the general public.

Right.

There are cases when it's justified and cases when not because our police force is not infallible. It's the reason for investigations.

Of course there should be an investigation. But that investigation should not be swayed by mob pressure.

Now, I'm discussing things that may come up during the investigation, do you believe that none of what I've mentioned thus far will be considered during the investigation? Because that would be a strange investigation.

Refresh my memory, what things do you mean in particular?