• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,364
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,364
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,789
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,620
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
.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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
.No need to revel in your close-mindedness.
It is not closeminded to reject a destructive, extremist movement like #BLM.
Your mischaracterization of #BLM is revesling

Derec said:
Examples?
Every trial is, by definition, based on hindsight.
Of course it is. One has the right to self-defence.
Derec said:
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.
Cool story.

Derec said:
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.
That means it was the wrong house.



Derec said:
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.
Too bad a jury that heard all the testimony and all the evidence disagreed.
Derec said:
Shooting at police is still a crime even if you don't kill anybody.
Not in all cases.
Derec said:
In both those cases they were returning fire when people started firing at them.
In both cases, they killed someone who was not their target.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,364
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Refresh my memory, what things do you mean in particular?

Ok, for example, whether or not Lyoya's actions can be characterized as fighting. I mean, you don't want the investigation influenced by mob pressure right? You call his actions fighting, I call it resisting and explained what fighting is not only by definition but also using boxing and MMA matches as an example. Lyoya had plenty of opportunities to "fight" with the officer in those ways (exchanging blows) but didn't. The officer was also outmatched so if Lyoya was fighting I'd think the officer would sustain injuries to reflect as such. Is it unreasonable to think these things should be considered in the investigation?

Do you think "what if" arguments should be allowed as evidence in the investigation? For example, "what if Lyoya tried to use the taser?". If so, then why not also include "what if Lyoya disregarded it & continued to run?".


As for the taser;

a) He didn't announce it (may not have been required)
b) How many times can it be fired and how many times was it fired before Lyoya allegedly gained possession of it?
c) Did the officer have the option to put distance between himself and Lyoya and issue commands?

Are those unreasonable things to consider?

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

I agree that mob pressure shouldn't sway the investigation. I also believe that police shouldn't police themselves.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Mr. Stallings (one of the Derec's references of a black man acquitted of firing at police officers) is getting $1.5 million from the city of Minneapolis for the actions of its police of firing from an unmarked van at a civilian.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,112
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Mr. Stallings (one of the Derec's references of a black man acquitted of firing at police officers) is getting $1.5 million from the city of Minneapolis
More racist BS by completely useless Minneapolis city council and weak-ass mayor. No white man would get over a million dollars for shooting at police. Where is even logic in that?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Mr. Stallings (one of the Derec's references of a black man acquitted of firing at police officers) is getting $1.5 million from the city of Minneapolis
More racist BS by completely useless Minneapolis city council and weak-ass mayor.
The reasoning is that the police should not be randomly firing at citizens, especially from unmarked police vans.

No white man would get over a million dollars for shooting at police. Where is even logic in that?
Perhaps the logic is that the Minneapolis police would not fire randomly at a white man. Mr. Stallings did not know he was returning fire at the police - the van was unmarked.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,424
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Mr. Stallings (one of the Derec's references of a black man acquitted of firing at police officers) is getting $1.5 million from the city of Minneapolis
More racist BS by completely useless Minneapolis city council and weak-ass mayor.
The reasoning is that the police should not be randomly firing at citizens, especially from unmarked police vans.

No white man would get over a million dollars for shooting at police. Where is even logic in that?
Perhaps the logic is that the Minneapolis police would not fire randomly at a white man. Mr. Stallings did not know he was returning fire at the police - the van was unmarked.
Well, you know how it goes. Them black folk ain't allowed no self defense.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
This article ( Minneapolis pays victim of police attack $1.5 millionpresents a fuller picture of Mr. Stallings interaction with the Minneapolis Police Department:

In the days after Floyd's killing, with a curfew in effect, police officers roving in an unmarked van shot plastic bullets at Jaleel Stallings without warning. The event was documented in body-camera footage released by Stallings' lawyer after his story was first reported by the Minnesota Reformer. Stallings returned fire with a pistol, which he had a permit to legally carry, in what he later described as an attempt to defend himself against shots from unknown assailants. .... The body-camera footage released by Stallings' lawyer, Eric Rice, showed the police response to the unrest from the point of view of officers patrolling the streets of south Minneapolis firing without provocation or warning at passersby. Lt. Johnny Mercil can be heard saying he believed a group of protesters were white "because there's not looting," while Cmdr. Bruce Folkens boasted about "hunting people." Both have since left the department.....

The footage also showed a starkly different version of the Stallings encounter than the police narrative.

On May 30, 2020, just before 11 p.m., the officers were driving down Lake Street, with an officer firing plastic bullets from the open sliding door of the unmarked van. "Go home!" the officers shouted at people after shooting at them.

Stallings was standing in a parking lot with two other men. The Army veteran later said he thought someone from the dark cargo van was shooting real bullets, referring to warnings that day from Gov. Tim Walz that white supremacists were stalking the city in unmarked vehicles. Stallings took cover behind a truck and fired back, hitting the police van, the video shows.

Police raced over to Stallings, identifying themselves. Footage shows Stallings dropping face down on the ground, setting his gun aside. Police strike him repeatedly, screaming obscenities, until his face is battered and blood is spilled on the pavement. "You [expletive] shoot the cops?!"
"Who are our shooters?" an officer asks another on the scene.

"Nobody — he shot at us," replies the other, falsely.

Stallings was charged with eight felonies, including two counts of attempted murder, rioting and assault with a dangerous weapon. In the criminal complaint, the officers said they kicked Stallings because he resisted arrest.

Remember, all of the above is from the footage of the body cameras of the police. To recap: Mr. Stallings returned fire from an unmarked van. When confronted by police, he immediately surrended and was assaulted by the police. The police lied about the account, and he was charged with 8 felonies (of which he was acquited).

With all of this additional and relevant information, I wonder if Derec will change is view on this particular case and outcome.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,789
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
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.
Nope. I am accusing you of dishonest discourse, of the "just a theory" flavor. a "backstabber" or one who "shoots someone in the back" is "cowardly" because it implies a failure to face your enemy... and you are failing to leverage the feeling of "backstabbing cowardice" in this discussion about two "face to face combatants", while simultaneously gaslighting the fact of your transparently obvious tactic... and that seems to make you frustrated. awwww... here are two shits... the absolute most I can possibly give you.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,620
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,722
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,644
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Looked like "suicide by cop".
Looks like murder by cop.
I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.
Suicide requires intent. This guy was just an idiot.
No.
He was a violent drug addled criminal.

As well as an idiot. But being an idiot isn't why he's dead. It's mostly the violent part.
Tom
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,620
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Looked like "suicide by cop".
Looks like murder by cop.
I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.
Suicide requires intent. This guy was just an idiot.
No.
He was a violent drug addled criminal.

As well as an idiot. But being an idiot isn't why he's dead. It's mostly the violent part.
Tom
Not his violence. It is very very very hard to call it self defend when it involves shooting someone in the back of the head at point blank range when you are on top of him, and he’s face down and unarmed.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,644
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Suicide requires intent.
Not necessarily.

A few years back we were having a huge flood, 100 year flood. A guy up the road was a really smart guy, with a great job, and a tendency towards thrill seeking. He decided to go for a midnight kayak on the flooded river, alone. He told his wife he'd be back in a couple of hours.

It took the authorities 3 days to find his body wedged under a fallen tree. Left his wife a grieving widow, pregnant with two toddlers and no income.

Was he suicidal? Hard to say. But he did die as a result of making some super risky decisions. Whether he chose his own death is hard to say, but he did make the choices that caused it.
Tom
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,706
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Looked like "suicide by cop".
Looks like murder by cop.
I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.
Doesn’t make it not murder.
Well maybe suicide is not correct but let's face it, Lyoya must have had some sort of death wish to go grappling with some one with a gun.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,644
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Doesn't make it not murder.
If we're going to start coming up with our own definitions of murder, based on our opinions of individual killings, I've got some things to say about abortion.
Tom
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,931
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Doesn't make it not murder.
If we're going to start coming up with our own definitions of murder, based on our opinions of individual killings, I've got some things to say about abortion.
Tom
So say it.
And please favor us with your reason(s) for saying it, so that discussion might ensue.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,644
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Doesn't make it not murder.
If we're going to start coming up with our own definitions of murder, based on our opinions of individual killings, I've got some things to say about abortion.
Tom
So say it.
And please favor us with your reason(s) for saying it, so that discussion might ensue.
If murder is the killing of a human being that one considers wrong, then Toni's post is relevant to this thread.
If not, then it isn't.

She can explain herself and her meaning if she chooses to do so. But she wasn't at all clear. Looked like emotional goading to me.
Tom
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,644
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Looked like "suicide by cop".
Looks like murder by cop.
I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.
Doesn’t make it not murder.
Well maybe suicide is not correct but let's face it, Lyoya must have had some sort of death wish to go grappling with some one with a gun.

Or possibly,
Lyoya was incredibly drunk. A BAC that would put some people in the hospital. And a victim of BLM, who taught him that the cops are the enemy and he is entitled to do whatever he wants.

Who knows what all caused him to try to deal with the traffic stop by assaulting a cop. But he did choose to do that and wound up dead.
It happens.
Tom
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Nope. I am accusing you of dishonest discourse, of the "just a theory" flavor. a "backstabber" or one who "shoots someone in the back" is "cowardly" because it implies a failure to face your enemy... and you are failing to leverage the feeling of "backstabbing cowardice" in this discussion about two "face to face combatants", while simultaneously gaslighting the fact of your transparently obvious tactic... and that seems to make you frustrated. awwww...
From I gather from that gobbledygook is that you are upset about a straw man.

If you shoot someone in the back, that means they are not facing you. Which means at that moment they cannot possibly be a threat to you. That makes it cowardly.
here are two shits... the absolute most I can possibly give you.
Your modesty is admirable, because that is a vast underestimate.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Looked like "suicide by cop".
Looks like murder by cop.
I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.
Suicide requires intent. This guy was just an idiot.
No.
He was a violent drug addled criminal.

As well as an idiot. But being an idiot isn't why he's dead. It's mostly the violent part.
Tom
Mr Lyoya is dead because he was shot in the back of the head. That is the cause of death.

If you can show that the police officer literally had no choice in the shooting, you have an argument. Otherwise, you don't.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,644
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Mr Lyoya is dead because he was shot in th
Mr Lyoya is dead because he assaulted a cop. If he had not done that he wouldn't be dead.

Well, he might be. People who drive with that much alcohol in their system tend to wind up dead, or worse.
Tom
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Mr Lyoya is dead because he was shot in th
Mr Lyoya is dead because he assaulted a cop. I
Assaulting a police officer does not result in automatic death. The officer chose to shot him in the back of the head.

f he had not done that he wouldn't be dead.

Well, he might be. People who drive with that much alcohol in their system tend to wind up dead, or worse.
Tom
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,620
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Doesn't make it not murder.
If we're going to start coming up with our own definitions of murder, based on our opinions of individual killings, I've got some things to say about abortion.
Tom
So say it.
And please favor us with your reason(s) for saying it, so that discussion might ensue.
If murder is the killing of a human being that one considers wrong, then Toni's post is relevant to this thread.
If not, then it isn't.

She can explain herself and her meaning if she chooses to do so. But she wasn't at all clear. Looked like emotional goading to me.
Tom
I'm honestly not able to understand what you mean because you've constructed your sentences so poorly that it is impossible to discern their meaning.

OTOH, I'm pretty clear that I believe that shooting an unarmed person you have face down and are on top of, point blank in the back of the head is almost certainly murder.

You seem absolutely determined to hem and haw and pussyfoot around what you mean. I'm not certain whether that's because you are embarrassed by what you mean or whether you simply prefer to leave us to guess so that you can tell us we are not understanding you correctly. Maybe I have that wrong. If so, my apologies.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,620
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Mr Lyoya is dead because he was shot in th
Mr Lyoya is dead because he assaulted a cop. If he had not done that he wouldn't be dead.

Well, he might be. People who drive with that much alcohol in their system tend to wind up dead, or worse.
Tom
What evidence do you have that Mr. Lyoya would not be dead if he had not assaulted a cop? History shows us that police officers far too often shoot unarmed persons who, in fact, have committed zero crimes.
 
Top Bottom