Virginia cops pepper-sprayed Black and Latino Army officer who had hands raised during traffic stop, video shows

[spat]

The standard is necessarily perceived danger. The defendant's actions and thinking are then compared to that of a "reasonable person."

Yes, a standard that requires reading the mind of the defendant is a bad standard.

A standard that requires reading the mind of a fictional "reasonable person" is even worse.


When the standard changes depending on the eloquence of the prosecutor and defense attorney, then it isn't a standard at all.

 

[spat]

Is there a difference? Someone points an airsoft rifle at you in the dark.

Its easy to define, But It can be difficult to interpret . Travon martin George Zimmerman.

Well, if it's a real loaded rifle then it was a real danger.

Even if it was a real rifle, but with no ammo in sight, then not a real danger.

Since there's no way for the defendant to know, that would be a terrible standard.



Now, perceived danger ? So the law has to guess at what was going through the defendants mind ?

Also a terrible standard.

Law should be clear. Once the facts of the case are agreed upon, the verdict should be obvious.

The fact that that is seldom the case in our modern legal system is evidence that it is more dysfunctional than the cast of the Jerry Springer reunion episode.

Most of the laws could be fixed pretty easily. Self defense law I am not so sure about.

 

[holdover]

Absurd. How about only if he shoots you first? If you get hit in the face, You'll know for certain the gun is loaded. Only hits count, if he misses you , you cant be certain he was trying to kill you

 

[holdover]

Yes, a standard that requires reading the mind of the defendant is a bad standard.

A standard that requires reading the mind of a fictional "reasonable person" is even worse.

NO. it requires a reasonable belief that you MIGHT be in danger. It only requires a believable threat. ""Believable"" is ascertained by the jury. would the juror feel threated in the same situation?

 

[spat]

NO. it requires a reasonable belief that you MIGHT be in danger. It only requires a believable threat. ""Believable"" is ascertained by the jury. would the juror feel threated in the same situation?

That depends on how effectively a lawyer can tell a scary story.

That is a terrible legal standard.

The law should be objective and based on facts. It should not be based on how scary something can be made to sound.

The law should not be based on what feelings the lawyer can evoke in the jury.

 

[holdover]

whoooo boy. its not based on how scary the lawyer can tell a story. It is very much based on the facts of the case.

Take for instance the girl with the knife that was just killed. She posed no threat to the officer at the time , but was about to plunge it into the victim . The cop should have held his fire until he was sure she was going to do it? or would a reasonable person assume she was going to stab the girl?


Would you want the cop to refrain from firing until the victim was stabbed? When she drew the knife back , the officer had a split second decision to make. Is she going to do it? Any reasonable person would say yes. There is an assumption based on the facts that she was going to do it. The officer had to assume, based on what he saw that the womans life was in danger.

Maybe your right, maybe in that split second of time , she found Jesus, and was about to drop the knife .Maybe it was a rubber knife, but if he waited to be 100% sure the victim could be dead . The decision had to made. and it had to made with the information he had. there is no 100% sure in real life.

 

[spat]

whoooo boy. its not based on how scary the lawyer can tell a story. It is very much based on the facts of the case.

Take for instance the girl with the knife that was just killed. She posed no threat to the officer at the time , but was about to plunge it into the victim . The cop should have held his fire until he was sure she was going to do it? or would a reasonable person assume she was going to stab the girl?


Would you want the cop to refrain from firing until the victim was stabbed? When she drew the knife back , the officer had a split second decision to make. Is she going to do it? Any reasonable person would say yes. There is an assumption based on the facts that she was going to do it. The officer had to assume, based on what he saw that the womans life was in danger.

Maybe your right, maybe in that split second of time , she found Jesus, and was about to drop the knife .Maybe it was a rubber knife, but if he waited to be 100% sure the victim could be dead . The decision had to made. and it had to made with the information he had. there is no 100% sure in real life.

You can pretend the current standard is based on facts.

You must not have been watching the news lately though, because they have proven that is not the case.

 

[holdover]

I Dont know what your talking about

 

[spat]

I Dont know what your talking about

The news for the last few days has been full of leftards coming out of the woodwork claiming exactly what you say they can't claim about the case.

So, if you think the current standard isn't too fuzzy, you must not be paying attention.

 

[holdover]

No I wasnt, Dont watch the news very much anymore. Being honest. do you want to elaborate a bit.?

 

[Rap]

That depends on how effectively a lawyer can tell a scary story.

That is a terrible legal standard.

The law should be objective and based on facts. It should not be based on how scary something can be made to sound.

The law should not be based on what feelings the lawyer can evoke in the jury.

Every decision ever made was based on limited/incomplete information, was opposed to "absolute facts."

Constraints of limited time, limited brain power/perspective and (in modern society) limited money make the above statement a reality.

The legal system is a creation of humans who are bound by those same limitations, as opposed to omniscient, morally pure computers.

The court system recognizes its shortcomings and employs language to promote the prioritization of "facts" but in the end, timely results are demanded in spite of the constraints being applied and "truth" is determined by which side has the relative advantage in resources.

 

[spat]

Every decision ever made was based on limited/incomplete information, was opposed to "absolute facts."

Constraints of limited time, limited brain power/perspective and (in modern society) limited money make the above statement a reality.

The legal system is a creation of humans who are bound by those same limitations, as opposed to omniscient, morally pure computers.

The court system recognizes its shortcomings and employs language to promote the prioritization of "facts" but in the end, timely results are demanded in spite of the constraints being applied and "truth" is determined by which side has the relative advantage in resources.

Reality is as you say.

We have lots of people out there insisting men can bear children these days, so you can't trust "the public" to adhere to any definitions or standards.

But that doesn't mean we should just accept it and pretend it's not a problem.

The law should minimize it's reliance on subjective criteria for this reason.

That's why DUI is based on an objective test like BAC and not a subjective one like "seemed impaired".

BAC isn't a great standard, but it's a lot better than "would a reasonable person consider him impaired".

This is why we should eliminate personal judgement and "feelings" from the law as much as possible.

My point is just that a good objective standard for self defense may not exist.

 

[holdover]

A ""reasonable person"" is a long established legal standard. There are no personal feelings in the law. Seemed impaired is not grounds for an arrest. it is grounds for reasonable suspicion which proceeds to an investigation where the actions of the accused are observed and noted

a cop sees a car swerving down the street, acting irradicably, on a Friday night. The driver seems impaired but the cop doesnt know for sure, he could have dropped hot coffe on his dick , or having a medical issue. based on what was observed, a reasonable person may think the guy is drunk . its not unreasonable to think so. The cop lights him up, pulls him over,based on his observations which are factual information.

The cop asks for the drivers license and tells him he was swerving all over the road . The driver smells like Jack Daniels threw up , he admits to have having one or two drinks. he asks him to step out of the car and driver falls on his face, and cannot get up easily. He gives him every sobriety test he has and the guy has failed .

WTF is unfactual ? Does the cop need to have a degree in medicine to observe that a person is drunk? what would a reasonable person conclude?

 

[spat]

A ""reasonable person"" is a long established legal standard. There are no personal feelings in the law. Seemed impaired is not grounds for an arrest. it is grounds for reasonable suspicion which proceeds to an investigation where the actions of the accused are observed and noted

a cop sees a car swerving down the street, acting irradicably, on a Friday night. The driver seems impaired but the cop doesnt know for sure, he could have dropped hot coffe on his dick , or having a medical issue. based on what was observed, a reasonable person may think the guy is drunk . its not unreasonable to think so. The cop lights him up, pulls him over,based on his observations which are factual information.

The cop asks for the drivers license and tells him he was swerving all over the road . The driver smells like Jack Daniels threw up , he admits to have having one or two drinks. he asks him to step out of the car and driver falls on his face, and cannot get up easily. He gives him every sobriety test he has and the guy has failed .

WTF is unfactual ? Does the cop need to have a degree in medicine to observe that a person is drunk? what would a reasonable person conclude?

I realize it is a long eatablished legal standard.

It still sucks.

The fact that we have used it for a long time doesn't mean it's good.

The medical profession used to use "bleeding" as the go to remedy for everything. They did that for far longer than we have used antibiotics. That doesn't mean "bleeding" was good.

How can you claim in the same breath that "reasonable person" is a common and long established standard, and that "personal feelings" don't have a place in the law ?

The entire "reasonable person" standard asks the jury to decide what they feel is reasonable.

Or do you have some "reasonableness" test based on hard science ? What was the "reasonableness score" of the restraint used by officer Chauvin ? what is the legal cutoff there ?

Or was that all about how the lawyers could make the jury feel about it ?



What I consider reasonable and what a jury of SJW's consider reasonable are likely to be far different.

Do you really want a system where the jury is being asked to decide what they think is "reasonable" in a world where a large block of the population doesn't think it's reasonable for a cop to shoot someone *that is in the middle of stabbing someone* ?

 

[holdover]

""How can you claim in the same breath that "reasonable person" is a common and long established standard, and that "personal feelings" don't have a place in the law ?""

Pretty simple, would a reasonable person believe someone swerving in thier car on a friday night MIGHT be impaired?

I dont see any emotion or feelings here. It is what it is.

A guy admits to haveing a few drinks and smells like booze and falls out of car.? Wheres the emotion?


""The entire "reasonable person" standard asks the jury to decide what they feel is reasonable.""

That is correct. based upon the facts at the time.


Or do you have some "reasonableness" test based on hard science ? What was the "reasonableness score" of the restraint used by officer Chauvin ? what is the legal cutoff there ?

Officer Chauvin was well outside the boundries of his training , A reasonable jury found him guilty of murder and I agree with them .His cut off was when Floyd stopped resisting. He may not be guilty of first degree murder requiring pre meditation, but he is at least partially responsible for causing his death. IMO


reasonableness is the accumulation of all known facts and whether the person demonstrated reasonablness in thier actions.

If the officer that shot the knife wielding girl continuned to fire into her while on the ground , emptying his mag, after she fell down and dropped the knife would be considered unreasonable because the threat was stopped. He cannot argue that he felt threatened at that point. A reasonable person can see that .


I dont see how your pulling emotion out of it at all. He fired to save someones life. Any reasonable person can see that. He didnt fire because he was mad . He fired because he believed someone was in danger . there is no science possible to explain what he should or should not have done

Under the law he was justified. No emotion needed .

 

[spat]

""How can you claim in the same breath that "reasonable person" is a common and long established standard, and that "personal feelings" don't have a place in the law ?""

Pretty simple, would a reasonable person believe someone swerving in thier car on a friday night MIGHT be impaired?

I dont see any emotion or feelings here. It is what it is.

A guy admits to haveing a few drinks and smells like booze and falls out of car.? Wheres the emotion?


""The entire "reasonable person" standard asks the jury to decide what they feel is reasonable.""

That is correct. based upon the facts at the time.


Or do you have some "reasonableness" test based on hard science ? What was the "reasonableness score" of the restraint used by officer Chauvin ? what is the legal cutoff there ?

Officer Chauvin was well outside the boundries of his training , A reasonable jury found him guilty of murder and I agree with them .His cut off was when Floyd stopped resisting. He may not be guilty of first degree murder requiring pre meditation, but he is at least partially responsible for causing his death. IMO


reasonableness is the accumulation of all known facts and whether the person demonstrated reasonablness in thier actions.

If the officer that shot the knife wielding girl continuned to fire into her while on the ground , emptying his mag, after she fell down and dropped the knife would be considered unreasonable because the threat was stopped. He cannot argue that he felt threatened at that point. A reasonable person can see that .


I dont see how your pulling emotion out of it at all. He fired to save someones life. Any reasonable person can see that. He didnt fire because he was mad . He fired because he believed someone was in danger . there is no science possible to explain what he should or should not have done

Under the law he was justified. No emotion needed .

The point that you seem to be missing is that the concept of what is reasonable varies from person to person and even time to time based on how that person feels.

What you describe as "swerving all over" someone else might just call normal variations in lane position.

That crap is not remotely objective. There can never be a factual finding of "reasonable".

Sure, in extreme cases most people will agree, but that's not where the problem arises.

An objective standard does not rely on people's feelings.

BAC is an objective standard. You run the test and it comes up with q .07 or a .08. Everyone looking at the test results will agree that's the number.

People do not agree on what is "reasonable". It's impossible for anyone to decide what a "reasonable" person would do. Everyone thinks they are reasonable, so that standard becomes "what would you do". We all know people are not going to agree about that.


The "reasonable person" test should be banned from all legislation. It is an abomination.

 

[Grimscale]

A reasonable jury found him guilty of murder

how is that jury in any way "reasonable"?
More than half of them weren't cops, have never been placed in the same position as either the perp or the cop, and WERE THREATENED BY POLITICAL FIGURES with violence if they did not vote to convict.

To me, that's the very definition of "unreasonable".

 

[holdover]

I dont think the verdict was unreasonable at all.

 

[Vapor]

I've said this peace before.


Some cops are dick heads. They are c student bullies, drunk with power, who think they can get away with anything. They harrass, break the law, and literally steal poperty.

Then there's ones out there trying to do what's best for everyone, who truly want to protect and serve.

I don't know the exact ratio. My personal experiences are probably 30 dick cheese, 70 good. Probably depends on where you live.


These 2 were dick heads. They should be held accountable. At the same token, we can't say all of them are bad.


I try to describe this common sense thing to my racist friend too, but alas, he struggles.


If there is ever a point where that number tips in the opposite direction, and the good people of this country have had enough, there will be very ugly times indeed.