Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday August 15 2016, @11:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the drop-gun-before-putting-hands-in-air dept.

Submitted via IRC for mecctro

After a night of violent protests, Milwaukee residents gathered Sunday evening to mourn an armed man shot to death by police and begin the healing process.

Family and friends of Sylville Smith, 23, held a candlelight vigil at the site of Saturday's shooting in a residential area of North Milwaukee.

The shooting triggered unrest in the city's north side Saturday night as protesters torched businesses and threw rocks at officers. Four officers were injured and 17 people were arrested, Mayor Tom Barrett said.

Tensions on Sunday gave way to calls for peace as activists gathered outside the affected businesses.

Smith's sister, Sherelle Smith, condemned violence carried out in her brother's name, saying the community needs those businesses.

Black Lives Shatter

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/us/milwaukee-violence-police-shooting/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:17AM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:17AM (#388485)

    They might do something violent in the future, so kill them now. That could apply to anyone. If someone isn't armed now, they might be later. This can't be construed as self-defense or defense of others, since there isn't an imminent threat to someone's life.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:29AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:29AM (#388488) Journal

    They might do something violent in the future, so kill them now. That could apply to anyone. If someone isn't armed now, they might be later. This can't be construed as self-defense or defense of others, since there isn't an imminent threat to someone's life.

    No, I don't grant your point at all. A reasonable person would expect that this person would be a far greater danger to others than "anyone". And this is defense of others despite your assertion to the contrary. Imminent threat to someone's life is not necessary.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 16 2016, @03:15AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 16 2016, @03:15AM (#388525)

      A reasonable person would expect that this person would be a far greater danger to others than "anyone".

      Who cares what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would expect? I can simply assert that any hypothetical "reasonable person" would agree with me; it's painfully easy.

      Imminent threat to someone's life is not necessary.

      I would say you have to have at least some evidence that they either do pose an imminent threat to someone's life or will pose an imminent threat to someone's life, or else what reason do you have to kill them? Because you imagine something bad might happen if you don't? How much danger is enough before you can just kill someone based on what you imagine might happen if you don't? How is the probability of the bad event happening calculated? This seems awfully subjective.

      Furthermore, does this apply to anyone with a gun? Just those who deal with the police? Only those who run from the police? What if someone runs from the police but doesn't have a gun? What if they later get a gun and then shoot someone? Just because someone doesn't have a gun at the moment doesn't mean they can't get one later. Imagine the frightening things that could happen if they did.

      This is just a convenient excuse for government thugs to kill people unnecessarily.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 17 2016, @12:40AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 17 2016, @12:40AM (#388923) Journal

        Who cares what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would expect?

        Courts do.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 17 2016, @01:32AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday August 17 2016, @01:32AM (#388940)

          Courts don't even define it in any rigorous way, and often use the term to justify authoritarian rulings.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 16 2016, @10:58PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday August 16 2016, @10:58PM (#388881) Journal

      Imminent threat to someone's life is not necessary.

      So are you saying police have a right to execute people on the street rather than trying to ensure suspects are tried before a court of law? Or are you advocating a "pre-crime" system where they execute specific people who they suspect might commit a crime in the future?

      In case you aren't familiar with it, that's not how the US legal system works. Criminals are supposed to be caught and brought before a judge, and the judge determines the sentence. The fact that some cop on the street decides you deserve an execution isn't sufficient justification for that to be carried out. Punishment is never legal unless it is determined in a court of law, generally involving a jury of one's peers. Of course, every citizen including police officers also have a right to self-defense, which is wholly separate from the act of bringing criminals to justice. The law states that: "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another." Whether the shooter is a police officer or an average citizen, to legally kill someone else outside of a court-mandated execution, they must be an immediate threat. Not a hypothetical one.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 17 2016, @12:38AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 17 2016, @12:38AM (#388920) Journal

        So are you saying police have a right to execute people on the street rather than trying to ensure suspects are tried before a court of law?

        How about you? Are you saying that?

        Maybe we should read what people actually write.

        Here, we have a person fleeing the police with a gun out. It's not just Joe Blow walking down the street. It's not execution to shoot someone who presents a danger to others.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:21AM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:21AM (#389428) Journal

          Just holding a gun is not an immediate threat. It's not even illegal!
          Running away *certainly* is not an immediate threat either. Quite the opposite.

          So where exactly is the threat which made the officer fear that he would or someone else would lose their life within seconds if he did not shoot that suspect?

          If the guy turned around and aimed the gun at the officers, then yes, that shooting is justified as self-defense. Otherwise, it's homicide.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:27AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:27AM (#389446) Journal
            Let's note the progression of your argument:

            So are you saying police have a right to execute people on the street rather than trying to ensure suspects are tried before a court of law? Or are you advocating a "pre-crime" system where they execute specific people who they suspect might commit a crime in the future?

            now

            Just holding a gun is not an immediate threat.
            Running away *certainly* is not an immediate threat either. Quite the opposite.

            You have yet to describe the actual circumstances of the shooting. It wasn't a pre-crime execution of a future murderer, it wasn't police executing a man for being on the street, and it wasn't just holding a gun or running. You also have greatly downplayed the danger here. We can't be concerned merely about "immediate threat", but future danger as well.

            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:37AM

              by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:37AM (#389450) Journal

              We can't be concerned merely about "immediate threat", but future danger as well.

              Federal law says otherwise.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:55AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:55AM (#389476) Journal
                Let's look at this federal law then and see if you're right.
                • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:20PM

                  by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:20PM (#389729) Journal

                  Yeah I already posted it....but here you are again:

                  "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."
                    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)#cite_note-1 [wikipedia.org]

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:49PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:49PM (#389757) Journal
                    Police != "person". In the course of their job, police have greater leeway and authority to kill. So no, you don't have a statute that applies here.
                    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 18 2016, @11:25PM

                      by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday August 18 2016, @11:25PM (#389789) Journal

                      Police aren't people? Since when? What is this, Robocop?

                      They certainly don't have a right to just ignore laws that they find inconvenient. They don't get to decide what is legal or not. Unless there is another law which explicitly defines a more general definition of "defense" for police officers, they ARE bound by that same law. They're unlikely to actually be tried and convicted, because the prosecutors are playing for the same team, but that still doesn't make it legal.

                      So...where is the law that you claim exists which gives police greater leeway here?

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 19 2016, @11:37PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 19 2016, @11:37PM (#390335) Journal

                        Police aren't people?

                        Police are legally distinct from people in general which is an obvious fact. Why are you pushing this angle?

                        They certainly don't have a right to just ignore laws that they find inconvenient.

                        You have yet to cite such a "inconvenient" law. Police have special powers and special restrictions that regular people do not have.

                        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday August 22 2016, @07:28PM

                          by urza9814 (3954) on Monday August 22 2016, @07:28PM (#391828) Journal

                          Police aren't people?

                          Police are legally distinct from people in general which is an obvious fact. Why are you pushing this angle?

                          They are legally distinct only where there are specific laws that make this so. They are still required to obey the law.

                          They certainly don't have a right to just ignore laws that they find inconvenient.

                          You have yet to cite such a "inconvenient" law. Police have special powers and special restrictions that regular people do not have.

                          I've cited that law twice now, and I'm waiting for you to cite the law that gives them special powers to ignore it. I'm not saying they DON'T have any special powers, but those special powers must be enumerated in law as well. Police certainly do not get to just do whatever the hell they want at any time for any reason.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 22 2016, @07:42PM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 22 2016, @07:42PM (#391838) Journal

                            They are legally distinct only where there are specific laws that make this so.

                            Which is the case here.

                            I've cited that law twice now, and I'm waiting for you to cite the law that gives them special powers to ignore it. I'm not saying they DON'T have any special powers, but those special powers must be enumerated in law as well. Police certainly do not get to just do whatever the hell they want at any time for any reason.

                            I'm not wasting my time. Courts would be ruling differently, if your assertion were true.

                            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday August 22 2016, @08:34PM

                              by urza9814 (3954) on Monday August 22 2016, @08:34PM (#391871) Journal

                              Yes, because if there's anything we learn from reading this site, it's that courts ALWAYS make the right decision, especially when they're discussing the actions of government officials...right?

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:08AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:08AM (#391955) Journal
                                Or perhaps it's conspiracy that the courts never, ever interpret this law as urza9814 claims they should?