[Politics] "Pregnant Woman Indicted For Baby's Death After Being Shot"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

So I'm curious. If the other woman had instead punched the pregnant woman in the stomach, and the pregnancy was thus miscarried due to a punch instead of a gunshot, would that make their prosecution acceptable? Because right now we have a semantic argument that the other woman is still to blame because she had a disproportionate response to the assault, which implies that, if she had just punched or otherwise hit the pregnant woman, people here would find the prosecution of her to be more acceptable.

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
This makes no sense

alabama

I mean, it pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it?

I'm trying hard to not do a stereotype type thing. They sure arent making it easy.

KingsGambit:
If you take the baby out of the picture completely for a moment and conclude that the lady started the fight and was shot in self-defence, then she is liable for her own injury and any sustained by the shooter. That isn't a difficult argument to accept.

That's still a leap to make; what did the pregnant woman to do to WARRANT lethal force? Maybe things are different outside of Virginia, but as a gun owner, it's emphasized that verbal exchanges are never a legal defense for pulling your gun.

irishda:
So I'm curious. If the other woman had instead punched the pregnant woman in the stomach, and the pregnancy was thus miscarried due to a punch instead of a gunshot, would that make their prosecution acceptable? Because right now we have a semantic argument that the other woman is still to blame because she had a disproportionate response to the assault, which implies that, if she had just punched or otherwise hit the pregnant woman, people here would find the prosecution of her to be more acceptable.

I wouldn't be ok with it, no. Point of fact, the charge of manslaughter over a miscarriage is frighteningly reminiscent of what I've claimed to be the logical conclusion of the "abortion is murder" rhetoric for years now (ie, that if we accept that premise, miscarriages would also - by necessity - be at least investigated as manslaughter or negligent homicide). Point of fact, if we look at the grand jury's indictment, it's almost a dead ringer for it. "A grand jury indicted Marshae Jones, 27, on a count of felony manslaughter in May after deciding the expectant mother 'intentionally caused the death of another person, to-wit: UNBORN BABY JONES by INITIATING A FIGHT KNOWING SHE WAS FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT.'" (emphasis as seen here).

Smithnikov:

KingsGambit:
If you take the baby out of the picture completely for a moment and conclude that the lady started the fight and was shot in self-defence, then she is liable for her own injury and any sustained by the shooter. That isn't a difficult argument to accept.

That's still a leap to make; what did the pregnant woman to do to WARRANT lethal force? Maybe things are different outside of Virginia, but as a gun owner, it's emphasized that verbal exchanges are never a legal defense for pulling your gun.

I took my concealed carry classes in south Carolina. We were taught that the criteria for use of self defense is that a person has to reasonably believe their life to be in danger. So this can in theory extend to a person verbally claiming they're about to retrieve a firearm, which may in fact not exist.

We're still waiting on details of what exactly went down but yeah. That will be interesting to see.

Dirty Hipsters:

I don't see how one would need a gun to defend themselves from a pregnant woman. They don't tend to be very fast or strong, and guns should be the last option for self-defense, used only when there isn't an alternative.

Don't underestimate them: I've seen a pregnant woman start a fight in a restaurant, and she was strong enough to pick up a chair and swing it at her adversary (although she missed). She also punched a man who tried to separate them. I couldn't help but note that although the pregnant women was quite happy to take pops at the other woman, she was awful quick to protest that she was pregnant when the woman she was assailing fought back...

Nevertheless, any self-defence law should incorporate an element of proportionate force.

Agema:

Dirty Hipsters:

I don't see how one would need a gun to defend themselves from a pregnant woman. They don't tend to be very fast or strong, and guns should be the last option for self-defense, used only when there isn't an alternative.

Don't underestimate them: I've seen a pregnant woman start a fight in a restaurant, and she was strong enough to pick up a chair and swing it at her adversary (although she missed). She also punched a man who tried to separate them. I couldn't help but note that although the pregnant women was quite happy to take pops at the other woman, she was awful quick to protest that she was pregnant when the woman she was assailing fought back...

Nevertheless, any self-defence law should incorporate an element of proportionate force.

That sad moment when you realize that that person is now raising a child.

irishda:
So I'm curious. If the other woman had instead punched the pregnant woman in the stomach, and the pregnancy was thus miscarried due to a punch instead of a gunshot, would that make their prosecution acceptable? Because right now we have a semantic argument that the other woman is still to blame because she had a disproportionate response to the assault, which implies that, if she had just punched or otherwise hit the pregnant woman, people here would find the prosecution of her to be more acceptable.

No. If the shooter's response was less disproportionate, she is less to blame, which makes a difference in how we view her. Doesn't change things for the victim (that being the pregnant woman, which I shouldn't need to specify, but do).

Asita:

Point of fact, the charge of manslaughter over a miscarriage is frighteningly reminiscent of what I've claimed to be the logical conclusion of the "abortion is murder" rhetoric for years now (ie, that if we accept that premise, miscarriages would also - by necessity - be at least investigated as manslaughter or negligent homicide). Point of fact, if we look at the grand jury's indictment, it's almost a dead ringer for it. "A grand jury indicted Marshae Jones, 27, on a count of felony manslaughter in May after deciding the expectant mother 'intentionally caused the death of another person, to-wit: UNBORN BABY JONES by INITIATING A FIGHT KNOWING SHE WAS FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT.'" (emphasis as seen here).

Most pro-life folks still believe in charging someone with some flavor of homicide if they harm a pregnant woman and in so doing cause her to miscarry outside of the specific case of an abortion. The only real difference here is that she intentionally caused the situation leading to her miscarriage, and the shooter was acting in self defense. The woman was wholly responsible for the fallout of her actions, including the death of her fetus.

Thaluikhain:

No. If the shooter's response was less disproportionate, she is less to blame, which makes a difference in how we view her. Doesn't change things for the victim (that being the pregnant woman, which I shouldn't need to specify, but do).

So if you're pregnant and assault someone, you aren't to blame for your actions? Next thing you know, you'll tell me that the father of the fetus is the one *really* responsible, since he was the topic of the dispute.

Thaluikhain:
Doesn't change things for the victim (that being the pregnant woman, which I shouldn't need to specify, but do).

It seems the entire issue is predicated on the fact that, based on the article, she specifically is *not* the victim. She was the aggressor, hence she's the one being charged.

Schadrach:

Asita:

Point of fact, the charge of manslaughter over a miscarriage is frighteningly reminiscent of what I've claimed to be the logical conclusion of the "abortion is murder" rhetoric for years now (ie, that if we accept that premise, miscarriages would also - by necessity - be at least investigated as manslaughter or negligent homicide). Point of fact, if we look at the grand jury's indictment, it's almost a dead ringer for it. "A grand jury indicted Marshae Jones, 27, on a count of felony manslaughter in May after deciding the expectant mother 'intentionally caused the death of another person, to-wit: UNBORN BABY JONES by INITIATING A FIGHT KNOWING SHE WAS FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT.'" (emphasis as seen here).

Most pro-life folks still believe in charging someone with some flavor of homicide if they harm a pregnant woman and in so doing cause her to miscarry outside of the specific case of an abortion. The only real difference here is that she intentionally caused the situation leading to her miscarriage, and the shooter was acting in self defense. The woman was wholly responsible for the fallout of her actions, including the death of her fetus.

Based on the available information, that's bullshit. While we are unaware of the details of the confrontation itself and how it may have escalated, police indicate that Jones being shot was the first use of a weapon in the altercation. We can also infer - if the story circulating is accurate - that Jemison was not immediately fearful of her life, as supposedly she had not intended to hit anyone but instead fired a warning shot that only hit Jones due to ricochet. Put that together real quick. The first indication that a weapon was involved was when Jemison fired a warning shot which actually hit the person that she was trying to warn off. While I can see the argument that the charges against Jemison be dropped even with pro-life logic, to turn it around and say that Jones was guilty of manslaughter is insipid. By all indications this was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome, so why do we persist in treating it as if it were?

Schadrach:

So if you're pregnant and assault someone, you aren't to blame for your actions?

She's to blame for her own actions, yes; that nobody disputes. She's not to blame for the actions of other people.

As bizarre as it seems, lethal force is very rarely a proportionate, reasonable, or foreseeable reaction. Certainly not in a verbal exchange.

Asita:

Schadrach:

Asita:

Point of fact, the charge of manslaughter over a miscarriage is frighteningly reminiscent of what I've claimed to be the logical conclusion of the "abortion is murder" rhetoric for years now (ie, that if we accept that premise, miscarriages would also - by necessity - be at least investigated as manslaughter or negligent homicide). Point of fact, if we look at the grand jury's indictment, it's almost a dead ringer for it. "A grand jury indicted Marshae Jones, 27, on a count of felony manslaughter in May after deciding the expectant mother 'intentionally caused the death of another person, to-wit: UNBORN BABY JONES by INITIATING A FIGHT KNOWING SHE WAS FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT.'" (emphasis as seen here).

Most pro-life folks still believe in charging someone with some flavor of homicide if they harm a pregnant woman and in so doing cause her to miscarry outside of the specific case of an abortion. The only real difference here is that she intentionally caused the situation leading to her miscarriage, and the shooter was acting in self defense. The woman was wholly responsible for the fallout of her actions, including the death of her fetus.

Based on the available information, that's bullshit. While we are unaware of the details of the confrontation itself and how it may have escalated, police indicate that Jones being shot was the first use of a weapon in the altercation. We can also infer - if the story circulating is accurate - that Jemison was not immediately fearful of her life, as supposedly she had not intended to hit anyone but instead fired a warning shot that only hit Jones due to ricochet. Put that together real quick. The first indication that a weapon was involved was when Jemison fired a warning shot which actually hit the person that she was trying to warn off. While I can see the argument that the charges against Jemison be dropped even with pro-life logic, to turn it around and say that Jones was guilty of manslaughter is insipid. By all indications this was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome, so why do we persist in treating it as if it were?

Yeah, I gotta agree with this.

The moment Jemison said that she fired a warning shot it completely negated her self-defense claim in my mind. Every responsible gun owner knows that you DON'T FIRE WARNING SHOTS. If you fire a warning shot it might go somewhere you don't expect and hit someone you didn't expect to hit, which is exactly what happened here. Also, if you felt that you should fire a warning shot rather than actually shooting your attacker then you clearly weren't in mortal danger which would require you to fire the gun.

We still don't know what the actual actual confrontation was and what the attack on Jemison was. A few people in this thread have said that it was just verbal, which I haven't read anywhere and I would like for them to provide a source on that. Either way, the information that the shot that hit Jones was fired as a "warning shot" is clear evidence to me that it was a disproportionate use of force and should negate the self-defense claim at least partially.

Owning a gun is a right, but if you own and carry a gun it is your responsibility to use it only when appropriate and have the maximum amount of self-restraint, and if you don't you should absolutely face all consequences of that.

If they determined that the shooting was warranted, that explains everything now doesn't it. If you go on to do something that has a shooting as a natural response to it you're endangering your baby. If the argument is that a fetus is the same as a baby and this is the status quo we're under then this is literally the same as entering a brawl with your baby strapped to your chest. Of course you'd be liable for endangering the baby if you did that.

The real question is when did Alabama become a state of wonderland and not of America to have all these realities be the norm over there. Was the judge who decided that the pregnant woman's empty hands were lethal weapons and shooting is a proportional response to her fists of fury a cat by any chance? Was there proof of her mastery of the five step fist at least? Or is she not a traditional Kung fu practitioner? Is her style called the pregnant fist? Are they rivals with the Drunken Fist school for obvious reasons?

Yeah I can only make jokes at this point.

Pretty sure the intuition that this is gross is because people quite reasonably think of unborn children as basically the chattel of their mothers. If their mothers are in some sense responsible for their death, so what?

What are the intuitions if, instead of the mother getting shot, she was missed and the bullet landed in a friend of hers? Should she be prosecuted for that? That's a more interesting question in my view.

Schadrach:
So if you're pregnant and assault someone, you aren't to blame for your actions?

Seriously?

Seanchaidh:
What are the intuitions if, instead of the mother getting shot, she was missed and the bullet landed in a friend of hers? Should she be prosecuted for that? That's a more interesting question in my view.

You fire a gun, you are responsible for where the bullet goes. Now, things like the shooter thinking they were in immediate danger makes a big difference to how they should be judged, but (IMHO), I don't think I'd go so far as to blame the person they were shooting at for the shooting. If that person was putting someone in immediate danger, that's another crime right there, though.

Schadrach:
and the shooter was acting in self defense.

That's the disputed part. Exactly what warranted employing lethal force? Noone has said yet if the pregnant woman pulled a weapon herself or went to try and physically assault the shooter.

Thaluikhain:

Schadrach:
So if you're pregnant and assault someone, you aren't to blame for your actions?

Seriously?

Seanchaidh:
What are the intuitions if, instead of the mother getting shot, she was missed and the bullet landed in a friend of hers? Should she be prosecuted for that? That's a more interesting question in my view.

You fire a gun, you are responsible for where the bullet goes. Now, things like the shooter thinking they were in immediate danger makes a big difference to how they should be judged, but (IMHO), I don't think I'd go so far as to blame the person they were shooting at for the shooting. If that person was putting someone in immediate danger, that's another crime right there, though.

I think you might be using an Aussie mentality. The US has plenty of laws where if you make a mistake, someone else pays for it. Bankruptcy, for example. Our bankruptcy laws means that you can be chased for business mistakes you made. In the US, everyone else pays for it, including tax payers

Smithnikov:
That's the disputed part. Exactly what warranted employing lethal force? Noone has said yet if the pregnant woman pulled a weapon herself or went to try and physically assault the shooter.

That part isn't disputed. The article specifically says:

Initially, police charged 23-year-old Ebony Jemison for shooting 27-year-old Marshae Jones in December of 2018 outside a Dollar General in Birmingham. But according to AL.com, a police investigation determined that it wasn't Jemison who was to blame for the shooting-it was Jones, for starting it:

"The police investigation determined that it wasn't Jemison who was to blame for the shooting."

KingsGambit:

Smithnikov:
That's the disputed part. Exactly what warranted employing lethal force? Noone has said yet if the pregnant woman pulled a weapon herself or went to try and physically assault the shooter.

That part isn't disputed. The article specifically says:

Initially, police charged 23-year-old Ebony Jemison for shooting 27-year-old Marshae Jones in December of 2018 outside a Dollar General in Birmingham. But according to AL.com, a police investigation determined that it wasn't Jemison who was to blame for the shooting-it was Jones, for starting it:

"The police investigation determined that it wasn't Jemison who was to blame for the shooting."

Okay, you seem to have not got this yet. This doesn't make sense. A verbal altercation lead to a shooting. There is a bunch of context that is missing for me to understand why this is okay.

Let's take another example. Is it okay to punch Nazis for spouting hatred? (I say no.) But, as per my understanding of this incident, if Nazis started spouting hatred first, everyone should have free reign to punch as them as many times as they want.

Saying the police blames Jones gives no context why this is true. Maybe if Jones pushed Jamison, or was approaching threateningly. Or particular hurtful words

trunkage:
Okay, you seem to have not got this yet. This doesn't make sense. A verbal altercation lead to a shooting. There is a bunch of context that is missing for me to understand why this is okay.

Let's take another example. Is it okay to punch Nazis for spouting hatred? (I say no.) But, as per my understanding of this incident, if Nazis started spouting hatred first, everyone should have free reign to punch as them as many times as they want.

Saying the police blames Jones gives no context why this is true. Maybe if Jones pushed Jamison, or was approaching threateningly. Or particular hurtful words

Here's the problem; Alabama is a stand-your-ground state.

Alabama's 2006 Stand Your Ground law:

A person still must have a justifiable reason for using physical force and can't be the original aggressor. But there is no longer a duty to retreat.

Physical force is not justified if the person is engaged in an unlawful activity or the person they are using the defensive force against is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duty.

So when is it justified?

A person is justified in using deadly physical force if they believe the other person is:

-About to use unlawful deadly physical force.
-A burglar about to use physical force.
-Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape.
-Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will. (There are exceptions for people who used to live there and are under no injunctions or domestic protection orders.)
-Breaking into a nuclear power plant.

It's the same bullshit position that allows Police to get away with anything. I can assume that you're going to be mean to me, so your life is over.

So in Alabama: Gun Rights > Unborn Children > Actual Real Children > Women (these last two may be switchable)

Seems the more intangible you are, the more lovable Alabama finds you

ObsidianJones:

trunkage:
Okay, you seem to have not got this yet. This doesn't make sense. A verbal altercation lead to a shooting. There is a bunch of context that is missing for me to understand why this is okay.

Let's take another example. Is it okay to punch Nazis for spouting hatred? (I say no.) But, as per my understanding of this incident, if Nazis started spouting hatred first, everyone should have free reign to punch as them as many times as they want.

Saying the police blames Jones gives no context why this is true. Maybe if Jones pushed Jamison, or was approaching threateningly. Or particular hurtful words

Here's the problem; Alabama is a stand-your-ground state.

Alabama's 2006 Stand Your Ground law:

A person still must have a justifiable reason for using physical force and can't be the original aggressor. But there is no longer a duty to retreat.

Physical force is not justified if the person is engaged in an unlawful activity or the person they are using the defensive force against is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duty.

So when is it justified?

A person is justified in using deadly physical force if they believe the other person is:

-About to use unlawful deadly physical force.
-A burglar about to use physical force.
-Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape.
-Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will. (There are exceptions for people who used to live there and are under no injunctions or domestic protection orders.)
-Breaking into a nuclear power plant.

It's the same bullshit position that allows Police to get away with anything. I can assume that you're going to be mean to me, so your life is over.

I don't see where, in any news articles, it meets the requirement for justified use of deadly force. Most say they got into a verbal argument. That does not seem to meet these requirements

ObsidianJones:

It's the same bullshit position that allows Police to get away with anything. I can assume that you're going to be mean to me, so your life is over.

Of course, in this case "-Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape" would be the relevant line. You're right, Alabama's SYG law makes it legal to shoot someone who assaults you.

The situation in this case is essentially "A assaults B, knowing that assaulting B will necessarily put an innocent (C) at risk of harm. B shoots A in self defense, and in doing so also kills C. Is A responsible for killing C?" Without the innate sympathy for women and the obvious abortion comparisons it becomes a lot harder to call the person who was shot for assaulting someone and also held responsible for the death of another that occurred as a result of that same shot the "real" victim of the situation.

trunkage:
I don't see where, in any news articles, it meets the requirement for justified use of deadly force. Most say they got into a verbal argument. That does not seem to meet these requirements

Let's not get into the nitty gritty about stand-your-ground laws until we recognize the de facto state of the laws in the South: a self-defense claim only stands on its own merit if the corpse has darker skin than the person who pulled the trigger.

trunkage:
I don't see where, in any news articles, it meets the requirement for justified use of deadly force. Most say they got into a verbal argument. That does not seem to meet these requirements

Personally, I agree with you. That's why I say it's a Bullshit law. But in such phrasing as this muddies everything up.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.  A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

Like, you literally don't have to believe it. You can just say "I was afraid this person was going to hurt me", and then it's justified. There's no way to prove that person is lying unless they say straight forward and it was caught on tape "I'm going to kill you now, and I'm going to get away with it because I'm just going to invoke Stand Your Ground. I'm not afraid of you, but I can say that I am to get away with your murder".

In Short, Jemison can simply state she was afraid violence was imminent and be Lawfully Justified in shooting and killing Jones' child.

As a Gun Owner, I hate Stand Your Ground. I always will.

Schadrach:
Of course, in this case "-Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape" would be the relevant line. You're right, Alabama's SYG law makes it legal to shoot someone who assaults you.

The situation in this case is essentially "A assaults B, knowing that assaulting B will necessarily put an innocent (C) at risk of harm. B shoots A in self defense, and in doing so also kills C. Is A responsible for killing C?" Without the innate sympathy for women and the obvious abortion comparisons it becomes a lot harder to call the person who was shot for assaulting someone and also held responsible for the death of another that occurred as a result of that same shot the "real" victim of the situation.

If you have the proof that there was any assault on record that everyone agrees to, then you might be right. However, article to article, it shifts from "verbal confrontation" to the nebulously defined "'fight'" that focusing on the term Assault is meaningless until we can prove there was a physical altercation or one that Jones was pressing forward.

Until that is placed in front of us, all we have is Jemison's psychic powers.

ObsidianJones:

trunkage:
I don't see where, in any news articles, it meets the requirement for justified use of deadly force. Most say they got into a verbal argument. That does not seem to meet these requirements

Personally, I agree with you. That's why I say it's a Bullshit law. But in such phrasing as this muddies everything up.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.  A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

Like, you literally don't have to believe it. You can just say "I was afraid this person was going to hurt me", and then it's justified. There's no way to prove that person is lying unless they say straight forward and it was caught on tape "I'm going to kill you now, and I'm going to get away with it because I'm just going to invoke Stand Your Ground. I'm not afraid of you, but I can say that I am to get away with your murder".

In Short, Jemison can simply state she was afraid violence was imminent and be Lawfully Justified in shooting and killing Jones' child.

As a Gun Owner, I hate Stand Your Ground. I always will.

Imagine if rape law had such lax requirements. "He looked at me, clearly he was going to rape" would send people to jail. The way higher standard of just believing the victim with clear evidence would also lead to convictions (which doesnt happen today.)

trunkage:
Okay, you seem to have not got this yet. This doesn't make sense. A verbal altercation lead to a shooting. There is a bunch of context that is missing for me to understand why this is okay.
...

Saying the police blames Jones gives no context why this is true. Maybe if Jones pushed Jamison, or was approaching threateningly. Or particular hurtful words

Evidently I don't get it. Is the point that you don't believe the conclusion from the police investigation? Because that's an entirely different discussion and I don't know what that is being based on. Are you saying the police are wrong? The the pregnant woman didn't start the fight? That it wasn't self-defence? I'm quite sure I'm missing your point. 🤔

trunkage:
Imagine if rape law had such lax requirements. "He looked at me, clearly he was going to rape" would send people to jail. The way higher standard of just believing the victim with clear evidence would also lead to convictions (which doesnt happen today.)

If you listen to #MeToo detractors, we're already there.

But we live in this sad reality.

This is the very reason why every Cop comes on record, acting scared as if they seen a ghost when they are involved in another shooting.

"I saw my life flash before my eyes. This man was going to kill me. He was going to hurt me. I know it. I know it. I had to do it!!"

Yet they suit up and do the job again and again. You can't be completely scared all the time yet do the job without any issues. People quit things they are truly scared of.

ObsidianJones:
This is the very reason why every Cop comes on record, acting scared as if they seen a ghost when they are involved in another shooting.

"I saw my life flash before my eyes. This man was going to kill me. He was going to hurt me. I know it. I know it. I had to do it!!"

Yet they suit up and do the job again and again. You can't be completely scared all the time yet do the job without any issues. People quit things they are truly scared of.

Be fair, not every police officer is like this.

Abomination:
Be fair, not every police officer is like this.

Why is it on me to Be Fair when they get to shoot civilians, change the story, and when video evidence comes out that it didn't go down the way they reported, they are STILL given the benefit of the doubt?

More over, why should I be fair when they aren't fair to me?

Not every police officer is like this.

Not every Black Person is a Criminal.

Not every illegal immigrant is a rapist or a drug dealer.

Not every game journalist is a click-bait headline making shill.

But in three out of these four, the actions of the few still dictate how the vast majority sees said groups. I have to hear about Chicago any time we talk about how minorities are stigmatized. Any utterance of MS-13 brings about louder calls for the wall. And we're on a gaming website. Hell, the backlash over Cyberpunk can sum up the Game journalist faction.

But when we have police's "mistakes" that actually causes the loss of lives of others, they deserve fairness? Really?

ObsidianJones:

Abomination:
Be fair, not every police officer is like this.

Why is it on me to Be Fair when they get to shoot civilians, change the story, and when video evidence comes out that it didn't go down the way they reported, they are STILL given the benefit of the doubt?

More over, why should I be fair when they aren't fair to me?

Not every police officer is like this.

Not every Black Person is a Criminal.

Not every illegal immigrant is a rapist or a drug dealer.

Not every game journalist is a click-bait headline making shill.

But in three out of these four, the actions of the few still dictate how the vast majority sees said groups. I have to hear about Chicago any time we talk about how minorities are stigmatized. Any utterance of MS-13 brings about louder calls for the wall. And we're on a gaming website. Hell, the backlash over Cyberpunk can sum up the Game journalist faction.

But when we have police's "mistakes" that actually causes the loss of lives of others, they deserve fairness? Really?

You are unfairly applying the same stigma to others due another being unfairly applied to your demographic.

Don't complain about unfairness then also embrace such practices.

As you said, not all X are Y.

Abomination:
You are unfairly applying the same stigma to others due another being unfairly applied to your demographic.

Don't complain about unfairness then also embrace such practices.

As you said, not all X are Y.

Actually, I stated every cop after a shooting stating a very specific dogma. About being afraid of their lives and what have you. And then being able to do it again like nothing is wrong. Those cops, I do not believe.

I've seen cops who were completely scared for their lives and had to fire. I've seen them quit and relinquish their firearms. I believe them when they say they are scared for their lives.

I've seen cops who had to do it, and had to take time off with counseling. I believe them.

I'm specifically calling out people who spout BS to get away it. I'm not calling out Jeronimo Yanez, because you can see the visible fear when he drew his weapon. He was wrong. But he was legitimately afraid for his life. Brian T. Encinia, the arresting officer for Sandra Bland, originally said that Bland was combative from the beginning and her mannerisms caused him to fear for his life.

As her own video from her phone shows, He was combative because Bland wasn't subservient. Then made up the fearing for his life comment to justify his actions. I have no problem calling out Cops who do this. All of them who do are amoral, weak people who want all the power to themselves. They deserve no fairness because they seek no fairness.

Talk about all the good cops you want to. I support them. As I support everyone who upholds the law truthfully. But we're talking about these 'cops' who abuse common trust in the word of the Police Officer to abuse power. There are no two ways about that.

KingsGambit:

trunkage:
Okay, you seem to have not got this yet. This doesn't make sense. A verbal altercation lead to a shooting. There is a bunch of context that is missing for me to understand why this is okay.
...

Saying the police blames Jones gives no context why this is true. Maybe if Jones pushed Jamison, or was approaching threateningly. Or particular hurtful words

Evidently I don't get it. Is the point that you don't believe the conclusion from the police investigation? Because that's an entirely different discussion and I don't know what that is being based on. Are you saying the police are wrong? The the pregnant woman didn't start the fight? That it wasn't self-defence? I'm quite sure I'm missing your point. 🤔

Again, what the hell did the pregnant woman do to WARRANT LETHAL FORCE?! Is Alabama's laws so fucked that you can literally employ lethal force on someone for saying something mean? I want this detail, dammit!

ObsidianJones:
Actually, I stated every cop after a shooting stating a very specific dogma.

You said EVERY cop on record after a shooting behaves in a certain manner. Your words, not mine.

I do not believe that every police officer that has to discharge their weapon in order to subdue a hostile suspect does so because they're on a power trip. I am certain a significant number of police officers do indeed believe in the mantra "Protect and Serve".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here