#blacklivesmatter explanation

[bilby]

Thank you for admitting that he did not intend to fool them. It was not his fault "they" (the racist man and his wife) are fools. But for any sort of law to be broken, he would have had to INTEND to fool them.

Someone walks into a bank with a carrot in his pocket and yells "This is a stick-up" INTENDS to fool people into believing he has a gun.

John Crawford did not INTEND anything other than talking on his cell phone and examining a product that was being sold in the store he was in.

1) You can have crime without intent. Look up strict liability laws.

2) Ignorance is generally not a defense against criminal charges, anyway. To use ignorance as a defense you have to show that you had reason to not know that you were doing the illegal act (for example, an alcohol-naive person who unknowingly drinks spiked punch and then gets a DUI. Not intending to commit a crime (say, playing with a gun not aware that you are brandishing) can reduce the severity but isn't a defense. You intended to play with the gun, you're guilty.

I am sure the knowledge that playing with a children's toy made him guilty of a capital crime will be a great consolation to his grieving family.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) You can have crime without intent. Look up strict liability laws.

2) Ignorance is generally not a defense against criminal charges, anyway. To use ignorance as a defense you have to show that you had reason to not know that you were doing the illegal act (for example, an alcohol-naive person who unknowingly drinks spiked punch and then gets a DUI. Not intending to commit a crime (say, playing with a gun not aware that you are brandishing) can reduce the severity but isn't a defense. You intended to play with the gun, you're guilty.

I am sure the knowledge that playing with a children's toy made him guilty of a capital crime will be a great consolation to his grieving family.

Nobody's saying it's a capital crime. What is it with you guys who compare getting shot in self defense with execution??


As far as I'm concerned he died of stupidity. He did something that looked like a threat, multiple people believed that threat and responded accordingly.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I am sure the knowledge that playing with a children's toy made him guilty of a capital crime will be a great consolation to his grieving family.

Nobody's saying it's a capital crime.

And yet he is dead.

What is it with you guys who compare getting shot in self defense with execution??


As far as I'm concerned he died of stupidity.

Yes, someone else's.

He did something that looked like a threat, Did he do multiple people believed that threat and responded accordingly.

Did he really do something that looked like a threat, or did people see a threat that wasn't there because they were predisposed to see black men as threats no matter what those black men were doing?

 

[bilby]

I am sure the knowledge that playing with a children's toy made him guilty of a capital crime will be a great consolation to his grieving family.

Nobody's saying it's a capital crime. What is it with you guys who compare getting shot in self defense with execution??


As far as I'm concerned he died of stupidity. He did something that looked like a threat, multiple people believed that threat and responded accordingly.

The use of lethal force to defend against children's toys is a touch excessive.

He died of stupidity alright; but he wasn't the one who was being stupid.

There was no excuse for any sane person to believe that he was a threat to anyone.

Everything ever done by anyone could be considered a threat by an observer with sufficiently poor judgement. Poor judgment is not an excuse; poor judgment in a police officer making a decision about the use of deadly force is inexcusable.

 

[RavenSky]

Thank you for admitting that he did not intend to fool them. It was not his fault "they" (the racist man and his wife) are fools. But for any sort of law to be broken, he would have had to INTEND to fool them.

Someone walks into a bank with a carrot in his pocket and yells "This is a stick-up" INTENDS to fool people into believing he has a gun.

John Crawford did not INTEND anything other than talking on his cell phone and examining a product that was being sold in the store he was in.

1) You can have crime without intent. Look up strict liability laws.

2) Ignorance is generally not a defense against criminal charges, anyway. To use ignorance as a defense you have to show that you had reason to not know that you were doing the illegal act (for example, an alcohol-naive person who unknowingly drinks spiked punch and then gets a DUI. Not intending to commit a crime (say, playing with a gun not aware that you are brandishing) can reduce the severity but isn't a defense. You intended to play with the gun, you're guilty.

You can't have THAT crime without intent, though. Moreover, he did not commit any crime. Is it your position that examining items for sale in the store you are in is a crime? And not just any old crime, but a VIOLENT crime?

 

[RavenSky]

I am sure the knowledge that playing with a children's toy made him guilty of a capital crime will be a great consolation to his grieving family.

Nobody's saying it's a capital crime. What is it with you guys who compare getting shot in self defense with execution??


As far as I'm concerned he died of stupidity. He did something that looked like a threat, multiple people believed that threat and responded accordingly.

He died of stupidity alright, but not his own.

And STOP with the falsehood of "multiple" people believing he was a threat. That is 100% false. The video shows people right next to John Crawford totally unconcerned. The ONLY people who did the foolish freak out was the racist and his wife. They are the ones who were stupid and who caused John Crawford's death.

I hope John Crawford's family sue that man and his wife into bankruptcy.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Nobody's saying it's a capital crime. What is it with you guys who compare getting shot in self defense with execution??


As far as I'm concerned he died of stupidity. He did something that looked like a threat, multiple people believed that threat and responded accordingly.

He died of stupidity alright, but not his own.

And STOP with the falsehood of "multiple" people believing he was a threat. That is 100% false.

I know, Right?

The video shows people right next to John Crawford totally unconcerned. The ONLY people who did the foolish freak out was the racist and his wife. They are the ones who were stupid and who caused John Crawford's death.

Correct.

I hope John Crawford's family sue that man and his wife into bankruptcy.

I concur.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody's saying it's a capital crime. What is it with you guys who compare getting shot in self defense with execution??


As far as I'm concerned he died of stupidity. He did something that looked like a threat, multiple people believed that threat and responded accordingly.

The use of lethal force to defend against children's toys is a touch excessive.

He died of stupidity alright; but he wasn't the one who was being stupid.

There was no excuse for any sane person to believe that he was a threat to anyone.

Everything ever done by anyone could be considered a threat by an observer with sufficiently poor judgement. Poor judgment is not an excuse; poor judgment in a police officer making a decision about the use of deadly force is inexcusable.

Self defense is based on what the threat reasonably appears to be. Do something that appears to be a sufficiently serious threat to someone and they can use lethal force to stop you whether you actually intended the threat or not. Responding to fake weapon with a real one is legal--it might not even need to be a realistic fake. Long ago where I grew up there was a road rage case, the guy got mad at another car and forced them off the road. He then went to the rifle rack on the back of his truck and took down a club. Oops--the people in the other car could see him taking something off the rifle rack but they were too far away to see exactly what. They were coming back from the range. Both shot straight. One dead road rager, no charges.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) You can have crime without intent. Look up strict liability laws.

2) Ignorance is generally not a defense against criminal charges, anyway. To use ignorance as a defense you have to show that you had reason to not know that you were doing the illegal act (for example, an alcohol-naive person who unknowingly drinks spiked punch and then gets a DUI. Not intending to commit a crime (say, playing with a gun not aware that you are brandishing) can reduce the severity but isn't a defense. You intended to play with the gun, you're guilty.

You can't have THAT crime without intent, though. Moreover, he did not commit any crime. Is it your position that examining items for sale in the store you are in is a crime? And not just any old crime, but a VIOLENT crime?

You can examine a gun in a store. You just are careful about how you handle it. You should be just as careful about handling realistic replicas.

Furthermore, his actions do not constitute examining it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody's saying it's a capital crime. What is it with you guys who compare getting shot in self defense with execution??


As far as I'm concerned he died of stupidity. He did something that looked like a threat, multiple people believed that threat and responded accordingly.

He died of stupidity alright, but not his own.

And STOP with the falsehood of "multiple" people believing he was a threat. That is 100% false. The video shows people right next to John Crawford totally unconcerned. The ONLY people who did the foolish freak out was the racist and his wife. They are the ones who were stupid and who caused John Crawford's death.

I hope John Crawford's family sue that man and his wife into bankruptcy.

The people right next to him knew it wasn't real and so they weren't concerned. Only those who didn't know the score got scared.

And it is multiple people--he fooled the officers also.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You can't have THAT crime without intent, though. Moreover, he did not commit any crime. Is it your position that examining items for sale in the store you are in is a crime? And not just any old crime, but a VIOLENT crime?

You can examine a gun in a store. You just are careful about how you handle it. You should be just as careful about handling realistic replicas.

What do you do with a toy gun?

 

[RavenSky]

The use of lethal force to defend against children's toys is a touch excessive.

He died of stupidity alright; but he wasn't the one who was being stupid.

There was no excuse for any sane person to believe that he was a threat to anyone.

Everything ever done by anyone could be considered a threat by an observer with sufficiently poor judgement. Poor judgment is not an excuse; poor judgment in a police officer making a decision about the use of deadly force is inexcusable.

Self defense is based on what the threat reasonably appears to be. Do something that appears to be a sufficiently serious threat to someone and they can use lethal force to stop you whether you actually intended the threat or not. Responding to fake weapon with a real one is legal--it might not even need to be a realistic fake. Long ago where I grew up there was a road rage case, the guy got mad at another car and forced them off the road. He then went to the rifle rack on the back of his truck and took down a club. Oops--the people in the other car could see him taking something off the rifle rack but they were too far away to see exactly what. They were coming back from the range. Both shot straight. One dead road rager, no charges.

Loren, your defenses of people killing black men get more and more ridiculous every day. In your example (unsubstantiated OF COURSE), there was an actual altercation, and your road rage person did grab an item (the club) with clear intent to continue the altercation. Your anecdote in no way whatsoever resembles the killing of John Crawford.

And your contention that every person has to conduct themselves such that even the most idiotic among us does not mistake it for a threat is nonsense. Of course, I don't doubt that you believe that, because it is the basis of your defending every person who kills a black person.

Injured black man runs to police after car accident. THREAT!!!! Bang! Dead black man. Loren approves.

Drunk black woman knocks on a door for help. THREAT!!! Bang! Dead black woman. Loren approves.

Teenage black boy walking home from the store. THREAT!!!! Bang! Dead black teenager. Loren approves.

Male black driver reaches for his wallet as ordered to do. THREAT!!! Bang! Injured black driver. Loren approves.

As these are just the cases wherein the dead black person can NOT, in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, be reduced to a "thug" who deserved what they got.

 

[RavenSky]

You can't have THAT crime without intent, though. Moreover, he did not commit any crime. Is it your position that examining items for sale in the store you are in is a crime? And not just any old crime, but a VIOLENT crime?

You can examine a gun in a store. You just are careful about how you handle it. You should be just as careful about handling realistic replicas.

Furthermore, his actions do not constitute examining it.

There is zero evidence that John Crawford was not careful in his handling of the toy. Furthermore, his actions do not constitute "brandishing" it as you claim. Even the racist's wife stated that John Crawford was, in fact, examining the toy while he was talking on the phone.

Nobody's saying it's a capital crime. What is it with you guys who compare getting shot in self defense with execution??


As far as I'm concerned he died of stupidity. He did something that looked like a threat, multiple people believed that threat and responded accordingly.

He died of stupidity alright, but not his own.

And STOP with the falsehood of "multiple" people believing he was a threat. That is 100% false. The video shows people right next to John Crawford totally unconcerned. The ONLY people who did the foolish freak out was the racist and his wife. They are the ones who were stupid and who caused John Crawford's death.

I hope John Crawford's family sue that man and his wife into bankruptcy.

The people right next to him knew it wasn't real and so they weren't concerned. Only those who didn't know the score got scared.

And it is multiple people--he fooled the officers also.

He did not fool the police officers. The racist asshole that saw a black man and immediately felt threatened is the one who fooled the police.

But I am glad you admit that the other people in the store did not feel threatened and know it was not a real gun and knew John Crawford was not a threat. By admitting that, you have no choice but to admit that the racist asshole and his wife - who followed John Crawford through the store - knew or should have known that the item was not a real gun. If they were too fucking stupid to know the difference after following the man and examining the item in his hands - even though everyone else could tell the difference at a glance - that is not John Crawford's fault. That is 100% the fault of the racist and his wife.

Police were also at fault for not properly assessing the situation for themselves. instead relying on what the racist asshole told them. They were not "fooled" by John Crawford. They were "fooled" by the asshole man; and they were deadly fools for not assessing the situation themselves before killing John Crawford. Had they bothered to look before shooting, they would have known it wasn't a real gun just like every other person in that store except the racist asshole and his wife.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He did not fool the police officers. The racist asshole that saw a black man and immediately felt threatened is the one who fooled the police.

But I am glad you admit that the other people in the store did not feel threatened and know it was not a real gun and knew John Crawford was not a threat. By admitting that, you have no choice but to admit that the racist asshole and his wife - who followed John Crawford through the store - knew or should have known that the item was not a real gun. If they were too fucking stupid to know the difference after following the man and examining the item in his hands - even though everyone else could tell the difference at a glance - that is not John Crawford's fault. That is 100% the fault of the racist and his wife.

Police were also at fault for not properly assessing the situation for themselves. instead relying on what the racist asshole told them. They were not "fooled" by John Crawford. They were "fooled" by the asshole man; and they were deadly fools for not assessing the situation themselves before killing John Crawford. Had they bothered to look before shooting, they would have known it wasn't a real gun just like every other person in that store except the racist asshole and his wife.

If he had not fooled the officers they would not have shot him.

The people near him saw where the gun came from and knew it wasn't real. Those without the benefit of seeing this didn't know it wasn't real and were fooled.

 

[laughing dog]

He did not fool the police officers. The racist asshole that saw a black man and immediately felt threatened is the one who fooled the police.

But I am glad you admit that the other people in the store did not feel threatened and know it was not a real gun and knew John Crawford was not a threat. By admitting that, you have no choice but to admit that the racist asshole and his wife - who followed John Crawford through the store - knew or should have known that the item was not a real gun. If they were too fucking stupid to know the difference after following the man and examining the item in his hands - even though everyone else could tell the difference at a glance - that is not John Crawford's fault. That is 100% the fault of the racist and his wife.

Police were also at fault for not properly assessing the situation for themselves. instead relying on what the racist asshole told them. They were not "fooled" by John Crawford. They were "fooled" by the asshole man; and they were deadly fools for not assessing the situation themselves before killing John Crawford. Had they bothered to look before shooting, they would have known it wasn't a real gun just like every other person in that store except the racist asshole and his wife.

If he had not fooled the officers they would not have shot him.

The people near him saw where the gun came from and knew it wasn't real. Those without the benefit of seeing this didn't know it wasn't real and were fooled.

Yes, but their mistake is their responsibility because Crawford was not trying to fool anyone nor was he acting in a suspicious manner.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

He did not fool the police officers. The racist asshole that saw a black man and immediately felt threatened is the one who fooled the police.

But I am glad you admit that the other people in the store did not feel threatened and know it was not a real gun and knew John Crawford was not a threat. By admitting that, you have no choice but to admit that the racist asshole and his wife - who followed John Crawford through the store - knew or should have known that the item was not a real gun. If they were too fucking stupid to know the difference after following the man and examining the item in his hands - even though everyone else could tell the difference at a glance - that is not John Crawford's fault. That is 100% the fault of the racist and his wife.

Police were also at fault for not properly assessing the situation for themselves. instead relying on what the racist asshole told them. They were not "fooled" by John Crawford. They were "fooled" by the asshole man; and they were deadly fools for not assessing the situation themselves before killing John Crawford. Had they bothered to look before shooting, they would have known it wasn't a real gun just like every other person in that store except the racist asshole and his wife.

If he had not fooled the officers they would not have shot him.

The people near him saw where the gun came from and knew it wasn't real. Those without the benefit of seeing this didn't know it wasn't real and were fooled.

A man walking through WalMart carrying WalMart merchandise isn't fooling anyone. He's going to the checkout. Had he been carrying a a box of Cap'n Crunch, no one would have believed him about to about to breakfast someone to death. And no one else who saw him with the toy thought he was about to pull a Columbine.

Bigots see what they want to see and their victims can do nothing to make them see otherwise.

 

[Rhea]

Had he been carrying a a box of Cap'n Crunch, no one would have believed him about to about to breakfast someone to death.

Are you absolutely sure of this?
Are you feeling certain that if a black man is shot to death holding a box of cereal that Loren won't say that it was a "Good Shoot™," because... Reasons?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If he had not fooled the officers they would not have shot him.

The people near him saw where the gun came from and knew it wasn't real. Those without the benefit of seeing this didn't know it wasn't real and were fooled.

Yes, but their mistake is their responsibility because Crawford was not trying to fool anyone nor was he acting in a suspicious manner.

While he didn't intend to fool anyone he did intend to play with the gun. That action would reasonably be expected to fool people (after all, the gun was designed to look real) and it did exactly what one would expect. Unfortunately he fooled someone who felt threatened and had the means to stop the threat.

- - - Updated - - -

If he had not fooled the officers they would not have shot him.

The people near him saw where the gun came from and knew it wasn't real. Those without the benefit of seeing this didn't know it wasn't real and were fooled.

A man walking through WalMart carrying WalMart merchandise isn't fooling anyone. He's going to the checkout. Had he been carrying a a box of Cap'n Crunch, no one would have believed him about to about to breakfast someone to death. And no one else who saw him with the toy thought he was about to pull a Columbine.

Bigots see what they want to see and their victims can do nothing to make them see otherwise.

Nobody would have been fooled if he carried the gun in it's box. The problem was him taking it out and playing with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Had he been carrying a a box of Cap'n Crunch, no one would have believed him about to about to breakfast someone to death.

Are you absolutely sure of this?
Are you feeling certain that if a black man is shot to death holding a box of cereal that Loren won't say that it was a "Good Shoot™," because... Reasons?

Oh, come on now! Everyone knows Cap'n Crunch was the victim of the cereal killer, not the perpetrator!

 

[arkirk]

Had he been carrying a a box of Cap'n Crunch, no one would have believed him about to about to breakfast someone to death.

Are you absolutely sure of this?
Are you feeling certain that if a black man is shot to death holding a box of cereal that Loren won't say that it was a "Good Shoot™," because... Reasons?

It is obvious you have not heard of cereal killers.

Ksen has been doing a lot of informative posting on this issue...the killing of unarmed black people in public places by the police. The variety of lame excuses we are hearing regarding these killings ought to concern us all. I think it is an extension of the same mentality that the U.S. is using in the middle east and parts of south east Asia. They frequently blow up rather large family gatherings with their drone strikes. I think this killing of black people is clearly an expression of racism. Some of the recent cases indicate it isn't really even a gun related thing...just plain old unvarnished racism.

 

[RavenSky]

He did not fool the police officers. The racist asshole that saw a black man and immediately felt threatened is the one who fooled the police.

But I am glad you admit that the other people in the store did not feel threatened and know it was not a real gun and knew John Crawford was not a threat. By admitting that, you have no choice but to admit that the racist asshole and his wife - who followed John Crawford through the store - knew or should have known that the item was not a real gun. If they were too fucking stupid to know the difference after following the man and examining the item in his hands - even though everyone else could tell the difference at a glance - that is not John Crawford's fault. That is 100% the fault of the racist and his wife.

Police were also at fault for not properly assessing the situation for themselves. instead relying on what the racist asshole told them. They were not "fooled" by John Crawford. They were "fooled" by the asshole man; and they were deadly fools for not assessing the situation themselves before killing John Crawford. Had they bothered to look before shooting, they would have known it wasn't a real gun just like every other person in that store except the racist asshole and his wife.

If he had not fooled the officers they would not have shot him.

The people near him saw where the gun came from and knew it wasn't real. Those without the benefit of seeing this didn't know it wasn't real and were fooled.

Reality check yourself Loren. The police were primed by the racist asshole to believe there was a real gun, and they never took the time to properly assess the situation for themselves.

 

[RavenSky]

Had he been carrying a a box of Cap'n Crunch, no one would have believed him about to about to breakfast someone to death.

Are you absolutely sure of this?
Are you feeling certain that if a black man is shot to death holding a box of cereal that Loren won't say that it was a "Good Shoot™," because... Reasons?

I'm afraid I have to agree with Rhea here. After all, a bag of Skittle and an Arizona Tea were sufficient cause for the usual suspects to declare Zimmerman justified in killing Trayvon. Why would we think a box of Cap'n Crunch would be veiwed with any less suspicion.