Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[bilby]

Bilby assumed that the shooting was racially motivated

No, he didn't.

 

[Derec]

Bilby assumed that the shooting was racially motivated

No, he didn't.

The hell he didn't!

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you are a black man in his own home, seeking to defend it from intruders, in which case your summary execution by law enforcement officers is perfectly OK, if you are bearing (or they are frightened that you might be bearing) arms.

- Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Florida Edition.

[emphasis added]

 

[bilby]

Bilby assumed that the shooting was racially motivated

No, he didn't.

The hell he didn't!

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you are a black man in his own home, seeking to defend it from intruders, in which case your summary execution by law enforcement officers is perfectly OK, if you are bearing (or they are frightened that you might be bearing) arms.

- Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Florida Edition.

[emphasis added]

Leaving aside the fact that that emphasis wasn't in the original, and that its addition changes the entire focus of my post, you might want to note that I didn't mention "the shooting" in that satire of the second amendment at all.

I assumed (correctly) that policing in the state of Florida was racially biased, but your imagination supplied the idea that my comment was specific to the particular shooting in the OP, and further supplied the emphasis on race as a motivation for it.

The actual emphasis of my comment was the abject abandonment of the second amendment in Florida.

If you genuinely can't stand the idea that race might be a factor in the actions of Florida police (surely it ain't so!), then perhaps you could respond to this version:

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you are in your own home, seeking to defend it from intruders, in which case your summary execution by law enforcement officers is perfectly OK, if you are bearing (or they are frightened that you might be bearing) arms.

- Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Florida Edition.​

Bilby also said:

If it's OK for cops to shoot someone because they believe that person to be armed, then people do NOT have the right to bear arms.

The 2nd amendment was invalidated the very first time a police officer shot someone, with their being armed as his excuse.

Did the victim of this shooting have the right to bear his legally owned and licenced arms in his own home? If not, how is that consistent with the second amendment?

And how is it consistent with your own position regarding the legitimacy of owning and carrying an AR-15, not just in your own property, but in public places?

If the police are justified in fearing for their lives and employing deadly force because they see a man holding a pistol in his own home, how are they (or any member of the public) not even more justified in gunning down any person merely seen carrying a firearm in a public place?

 

[Derec]

Leaving aside the fact that that emphasis wasn't in the original, and that its addition changes the entire focus of my post, you might want to note that I didn't mention "the shooting" in that satire of the second amendment at all.

You still wrote the racial qualifier, and your post was clearly in reference to this shooting.

I assumed (correctly) that policing in the state of Florida was racially biased,

How so?

If you genuinely can't stand the idea that race might be a factor in the actions of Florida police (surely it ain't so!)

What evidence do you have for it?
...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you are in your own home, seeking to defend it from intruders, in which case your summary execution by law enforcement officers is perfectly OK, if you are bearing (or they are frightened that you might be bearing) arms.[/quote]
He was in his home, but he was replying to a knock by a sheriff's deputy, not an "intruder".

Did the victim of this shooting have the right to bear his legally owned and licenced arms in his own home? If not, how is that consistent with the second amendment?

Constitutional rights are not absolute. He did not just bear arms in his own home. He armed himself to answer the door for police.

And how is it consistent with your own position regarding the legitimacy of owning and carrying an AR-15, not just in your own property, but in public places?

I am not in favor of open carry if that's what you mean. Whether it's an AR15 or a Glock 17.

 

[bilby]

He was in his home, but he was replying to a knock by a sheriff's deputy, not an "intruder".

Which he absolutely would have been 100% aware of, because he would have used his psychic powers to determine that the person claiming to be a sheriff's deputy wasn't lying (and his super hearing to correctly hear what was being yelled from the other side of a closed door).

Impersonating police is an offence, so criminals never do it, as they always respect the law. Right?

 

[Derec]

Which he absolutely would have been 100% aware of, because he would have used his psychic powers to determine that the person claiming to be a sheriff's deputy wasn't lying (and his super hearing to correctly hear what was being yelled from the other side of a closed door).
Impersonating police is an offence, so criminals never do it, as they always respect the law. Right?

Do you have a habit of answering your door with a gun, including when police are at the door, on the off chance that it's intruders?

I wonder if Fortson had some reason to think it was intruders. Was he expecting some kind of trouble?

 

[bilby]

Do you have a habit of answering your door with a gun,

I no longer own any guns, nor do I live in a jurisdiction where people are allowed to have guns for home defence, so no.

including when police are at the door,

When people claiming to be police are at the door. I am not psychic. Nor can I see through a closed door.

on the off chance that it's intruders?

I wonder if Fortson had some reason to think it was intruders.

Well, it seems that at least one of his neighbours was wanted by the Sheriffs office, so he presumably lives in a fairly rough neighbourhood.

Was he expecting some kind of trouble?

Would it be unreasonable for him to have been?

If you aren't expecting visitors, and someone knocks loudly on your door, it's not an unreasonable expectation that the knocker represents "some kind of trouble".

Do you have any basis whatsoever for your innuendo that he was involved in some kind of shady behaviour? Other than his choice to exercise his constitutional and legal right to bear arms in defence of his home?

 

[Swammerdami]

Do you even read your own posts? If cops kill 999 blacks while killing 1 white, in your view the 1 killing proves the 999 were not racist?

What does your entirely invented ratio have to do with anything?

Once again, as you have done consistently over the years, you demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with aids to cognition like Thought Experiments and Reductio ad Absurdem. I engage you only in the (apparently vain) hope that I might jog you out of your shallow thinking. Instead you learn nothing, are incapable of nuance, and seize on typos (e.g. misspelling of Tamir) as though they are great victories for your "debate team."

Reductio ad Absurdem is often the logical rejoinder to your posts: Many of your claims and opinions are absurd and I try to help you see that.

 

[Derec]

Once again, as you have done consistently over the years, you demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with aids to cognition like Thought Experiments and Reductio ad Absurdem.

Contrary to your condescending statement, I am fully aware of those. I am also aware it's spelled "reductio ad absurdum". That said, all this reduction did in this case is expose your absurdity.
In the US, police shoot significant number of both blacks and whites. Somewhat more blacks as a share of population, yes, but not disproportionate relative to share of crimes committed. And vast majority of police shootings are justified, regardless of race.
So your 999:1 counterfactual is indeed absurd. But unlike a good reductio ad absurdum, it does not illuminate anything.

I engage you only in the (apparently vain) hope that I might jog you out of your shallow thinking. Instead you learn nothing, are incapable of nuance, and seize on typos (e.g. misspelling of Tamir) as though they are great victories for your "debate team."

Except for the misspellings, all those actually apply more to you and your Ilk.

 

[Derec]

When people claiming to be police are at the door. I am not psychic. Nor can I see through a closed door.

Doesn't matter. Bad guys can get fake police uniforms too. Better assume all cops are intruders.

Well, it seems that at least one of his neighbours was wanted by the Sheriffs office, so he presumably lives in a fairly rough neighbourhood.

Just because sheriff's department was called does not make it a "fairly rough neighborhood". Do any news stories identify the apartment complex?

Do you have any basis whatsoever for your innuendo that he was involved in some kind of shady behaviour? Other than his choice to exercise his constitutional and legal right to bear arms in defence of his home?

Him showing up to the door with a gun is pretty much it. I do not think gun owners routinely do that.

 

[Patooka]

Are you fucking serious? Try this - what was the guy doing that was explicitly illegal? And this is Florida, land of the fuckwits. I suspect cops get greeted with citizens carrying guns All. The. Time. It's just that this one particular time it ended with a fatality. I don't know why this time it was different, maybe you could enlighten us.

Please provided evidence that people answer the door "All. The. Time." with guns when cops come knocking.

Brad Parscale was drunk, had loaded gun when Florida police arrived at home

Brad Parscale was drunk when cops showed up at his Florida home for a suicide prevention call — where the former Trump campaign manager’s wife told police he hit her and had loaded a gu…

nypost.com

And this event even happened this century, unlike most of your whataboutisms. Now to repeat - what exactly did Fortson do that was explicitly illegal and warrant a summary execution?

 

[Gospel]

Please cite the relevant portion of Florida law that says that you may answer the door for police officers holding a gun.

Where's the one that says you may not?

 

[Gospel]

Clearly, it doesn't take perfect vision to see that the officer made a mistake. There is no law prohibiting someone from answering their door with a firearm. In fact, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supports the right to own and bear arms within one's home, including at the door. Simply possessing a firearm does not constitute an immediate threat, and the individual did nothing that could be considered threatening.

 

[unapologetic]

the individual did nothing that could be considered threatening.

Right. The gun was pointed AT THE FLOOR.
As you should, when greeting someone while holding a weapon.
The deputy shot 5 times BEFORE yelling 'drop the gun'.
The cop was not in 'immediate danger'.
The cop panicked.

 

[Patooka]

Please cite the relevant portion of Florida law that says that you may answer the door for police officers holding a gun.

Where's the one that says you may not?

That's already been asked and Derec conveniently ignored it. At the very least, this deputy needs to fired and there needs to be a review of the training regime in that department to ensure they're aren't other trigger happy fuckup who should never have been passed through the screening process in the first fucking place.

 

[Derec]

That's already been asked and Derec conveniently ignored it.

I did not ignore it. I do not know of a specific Florida law that addresses this particular issue. Do you? In any case, I do think answering the door with a gun is threatening, especially when it is a police officer (or sheriff's deputy) on the other side.

At the very least, this deputy needs to fired and there needs to be a review of the training regime in that department to ensure they're aren't other trigger happy fuckup who should never have been passed through the screening process in the first fucking place.\

I already acknowledged that the deputy should have given Fortson more time to comply.
Why are you (and others) so reluctant to acknowledge that Fortson should not have answered the door while clutching a gun? Why do the same people who advocate for gun bans on some threads turn into 2nd Amendment absolutists in threads such as this one?

 

[Derec]

Right. The gun was pointed AT THE FLOOR.
As you should, when greeting someone while holding a weapon.

Better would be if he had it holstered, or even better, had not brought it to the door.

The deputy shot 5 times BEFORE yelling 'drop the gun'.
The cop was not in 'immediate danger'.
The cop panicked.

He did. It's not either or. Both of them made mistakes.

 

[Derec]

Clearly, it doesn't take perfect vision to see that the officer made a mistake. There is no law prohibiting someone from answering their door with a firearm. In fact, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supports the right to own and bear arms within one's home, including at the door. Simply possessing a firearm does not constitute an immediate threat, and the individual did nothing that could be considered threatening.

The second amendment is nowhere near that detailed. And, as I told Patooka, it's funny how quickly y'all turn into 2nd Amendment absolutists.

 

[Derec]

Brad Parscale was drunk, had loaded gun when Florida police arrived at home

Brad Parscale was drunk when cops showed up at his Florida home for a suicide prevention call — where the former Trump campaign manager’s wife told police he hit her and had loaded a gu…

nypost.com

I suggest you read more than just the headline, and maybe even watch the video. He was not holding a gun - he was holding a beer can. He did not have a gun anywhere on his person - it was in the house, and he was outside.
No comparison to the Fortson case whatsoever.

And this event even happened this century, unlike most of your whataboutisms.

Unlike you, I do not engage in whataboutisms.

Now to repeat - what exactly did Fortson do that was explicitly illegal and warrant a summary execution?

As I said, showing up at the door (when the deputy clearly identified himself) is threatening in my book. I do not know if it is technically legal under FL law though. Also, I do acknowldge that the deputy should have given Fortson more time to comply. But I think he was well within his rights to draw his weapon and demand Fortson drop his.
Two people can both be wrong. This is one of those cases.

 

[Gospel]

Clearly, it doesn't take perfect vision to see that the officer made a mistake. There is no law prohibiting someone from answering their door with a firearm. In fact, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supports the right to own and bear arms within one's home, including at the door. Simply possessing a firearm does not constitute an immediate threat, and the individual did nothing that could be considered threatening.

The second amendment is nowhere near that detailed. And, as I told Patooka, it's funny how quickly y'all turn into 2nd Amendment absolutists.

Y'all? What does that even mean? Please either provide a link to a post of mine where I've expressed any opposition to the Second Amendment or refrain from making false claims about me. Thank you.