Unless you can provide any evidence it was racial, then you can't assume it was.
So don't start accusing me of having an agenda just because I don't condemn someone prior to a trial. I do wonder what the point is in a trial sometimes when so many have their minds already made up. Trial by internet seems the way forward, would be a lot cheaper too.
I'm sorry, but you're just talking nonsense. I've not once claimed it was racial or assumed so. I don't know if it was, but I do know that it's a possibility. The only one talking in absolutes is you, who are completely dismissing the possibility of race being any sort of factor just because it can't be proven. Which is stupid.
You clearly do have an agenda, and the fact you're claiming it's because you refuse to condemn him - as opposed to you just trying to find any reason to defend him or partially mitigate his actions - just confirms this further.
That's at least three FMs who have stated - or agreed with - that other posters don't 'know' that Officer Tensing isn't a racist. I'd like to know why we should start from a default position that he IS racist, because he showed no signs of prejudice in the encounter? Is it because all cops are racist, all white males are racist, all white people are racist - which?
Classic straw-man. I don't know that he is racist, and you don't know that he isn't. My default position is that race COULD in some way have been a factor, yours is that without any evidence it COULDN'T. One of those default positions is stupid, would you like to guess which?
I'm sorry, but you're just talking nonsense. I've not once claimed it was racial or assumed so. I don't know if it was, but I do know that it's a possibility. The only one talking in absolutes is you, who are completely dismissing the possibility of race being any sort of factor just because it can't be proven. Which is stupid.
You clearly do have an agenda, and the fact you're claiming it's because you refuse to condemn him - as opposed to you just trying to find any reason to defend him or partially mitigate his actions - just confirms this further.
The issue being of course is that if you were on the jury you would find him guilty without hearing any evidence. The trial would be irrelevant. I've discussed his defence, given my thoughts, that's it. Luckily the justice system doesn't work in a way where the person is sentenced prior to trial.
Having an agenda would be to condemn before trial as that's to Judge an incident prior to all the evidence being heard.
As for race, if we turn every incident involving a white and black person into a race issue then it creates issues that aren't there. The is nothing to suggest it's a race issue. Some have made it into one.
Having an agenda would be to condemn before trial as that's to Judge an incident prior to all the evidence being heard.
As for race, if we turn every incident involving a white and black person into a race issue then it creates issues that aren't there. The is nothing to suggest it's a race issue. Some have made it into one.
It's pretty clear what your agenda is, as the only making making statements as fact is yourself, yet you claim to be being objective.
As for race, it's obvious your understanding is limited if you genuinely believe there is no issue here, or that this has been made into a race issue rather than it already being part of a wider race issue. Does that mean that I think every cop is a racist? Of course not. But at this point, it would be incredibly naive not to consider what part, if any, race is playing in these incidents that are happening all too frequently. Instantly dismissing it due to "lack of evidence" shows either said naivety or an agenda IMO, as even you must know it's pretty much impossible to prove someone's attitude to race.
It's pretty clear what your agenda is, as the only making making statements as fact is yourself, yet you claim to be being objective.
As for race, it's obvious your understanding is limited if you genuinely believe there is no issue here, or that this has been made into a race issue rather than it already being part of a wider race issue. Does that mean that I think every cop is a racist? Of course not. But at this point, it would be incredibly naive not to consider what part, if any, race is playing in these incidents that are happening all too frequently. Instantly dismissing it due to "lack of evidence" shows either said naivety or an agenda IMO, as even you must know it's pretty much impossible to prove someone's attitude to race.
But in a case of law there is no evidence of race being an issue here. That is a fact. Whether someone chooses to interprate that there is shows more of an agenda then if someone doesn't. It doesn't get instantly dismissed, you look at the case on its own merits and decide from there.
You have decided I have an agenda simply because I won't condemn him if murder and I'm looking at both sides from a legal perspective. How you can determine that is beyond me.
I can just by considering the intent immediately prior to the shooting. One was legally carrying a gun as an enforcer of the law the other was carrying a gun to carry out an unlawful act.
The very presence of a gun in Roberts case suggests intent.
By your very argument any member of the public could shoot an officer simply because they panicked if they were legally carrying a gun.
If a criminal - say like Harry Roberts - had used "I panicked" as a defence after shooting dead the policemen he shot in 1966, I very much doubt you'd have lent that much credence.
But when it's the other way on, it's excuses for the boys all round.
You have asserted that these two comparison situations are virtually identical, and technically, maybe the incidentals of the occurrences are.
When you look at the enveloping circumstances however, ie the wider picture, these two scenarios are anything but. Harry Roberts was engaged in criminal behaviour, and the police are trying to undertake their duty to uphold and enforce the law, a role we expect of them as a society.
We wouldn't lend credence to Harry Roberts trying to use "I panicked" to mitigate the shooting because of the fact that he was responsible for the situation he found himself in, and acted in order to prevent detection by the law.
But in a case of law there is no evidence of race being an issue here. That is a fact. Whether someone chooses to interprate that there is shows more of an agenda then if someone doesn't. It doesn't get instantly dismissed, you look at the case on its own merits and decide from there.
You have decided I have an agenda simply because I won't condemn him if murder and I'm looking at both sides from a legal perspective. How you can determine that is beyond me.
I can't make you see the point, especially as you're evidently determined not to, so I'll just leave it there.
I can just by considering the intent immediately prior to the shooting. One was legally carrying a gun as an enforcer of the law the other was carrying a gun to carry out an unlawful act.
The very presence of a gun in Roberts case suggests intent.
By your very argument any member of the public could shoot an officer simply because they panicked if they were legally carrying a gun.
By your argument any member of the police force could shoot a member of the public simply because they panicked if they were legally carrying a gun.
By your argument any member of the police force could shoot a member of the public simply because they panicked if they were legally carrying a gun.
Not legally, it would depend on the circumstances of the shoot as to whether it was legal or not. There is a difference though between intent and human error, both of course could lead to a conviction.
That's why we can't apply our circumstances in this country to that of America. There police rightly or wrongly are naturally more paranoid due to the different risks they face compared to ours.
Not legally, it would depend on the circumstances of the shoot as to whether it was legal or not. There is a difference though between intent and human error, both of course could lead to a conviction.
That's why we can't apply our circumstances in this country to that of America. There police rightly or wrongly are naturally more paranoid due to the different risks they face compared to ours.
I'm not saying it's right because it isn't.
No, what you're saying is that it's excusable for a cop to panic, but not anybody else.
It's OK for a cop to panic and plant a bullet through an innocent man's head, but it isn't OK for anybody else to panic.
No never said that, human error is allowed and often leads to manslaughter charges rather than murder as they did not forsee what would happen or reacted to a specific event.
No never said that, human error is allowed and often leads to manslaughter charges rather than murder as they did not forsee what would happen or reacted to a specific event.
So if a cop breaks into a house with one of those hammer things they use, and the occupier shoots him through the head as he comes in, and says "Whoops, soz, I panicked", that's OK for a manslaughter charge in your eyes?
So if a cop breaks into a house with one of those hammer things they use, and the occupier shoots him through the head as he comes in, and says "Whoops, soz, I panicked", that's OK for a manslaughter charge in your eyes?
Not one of my favourite sources however this link covers that exact scenario. Most are convicted of manslaughter but some have been acquitted entirely;
So if a cop breaks into a house with one of those hammer things they use, and the occupier shoots him through the head as he comes in, and says "Whoops, soz, I panicked", that's OK for a manslaughter charge in your eyes?
By "break in" I assume you mean carry out a legitimate raid. It would be pretty hard to mistake a raid as someone breaking into your house unlawfully.
Not one of my favourite sources however this link covers that exact scenario. Most are convicted of manslaughter but some have been acquitted entirely;
Most of them should never have faced charges as they would have had no idea that it was police they were shooting at, and the use of deadly force against intruders smashing your door in, is usually treated with sympathy in the USA. .
The Magee result was fair.
What about the circumstance when the occupier knows it's the police but still panics and shoots?
Which brings us right back to Tensing - why is it OK for him to panic and it's not murder when he plants a bullet in an innocent man's head?
Sorry, I'm not getting why he gets a free pass to maybe just manslaughter, for panicking, but the guy who panics when the cop breaks in, doesn't.
You are moving the goalposts.
You gave an example of when people will shoot in panic and I gave examples of manslaughter or aquittal to support why I said it should be manslaughter but could potentially be found not guilty.
You then ask IF someone know it's police but panic and shoot anyway. That would be murder as the very fact they knew it was a police officer would mean they knew the act was unlawful thus providing intent and making it murder. It would be an active shot rather than a reactive one.
You gave an example of when people will shoot in panic and I gave examples of manslaughter or aquittal to support why I said it should be manslaughter but could potentially be found not guilty.
You then ask IF someone know it's police but panic and shoot anyway. That would be murder as the very fact they knew it was a police officer would mean they knew the act was unlawful thus providing intent and making it murder. It would be an active shot rather than a reactive one.
No, I'm not moving the goalposts at all. My point has always been the same. The examples you gave were ones of mistaken identity.
If it's OK for a cop to shoot someone through the head and then plead panic, why can a member of the public not do the same in the circumstances I described?
Why should one be manslaughter and the other murder?
Indeed, the guy whose house is being broken into by the cops, probably has more reason to panic than Tensing, who really has no reason to "panic" at all.
Comments
You clearly do have an agenda, and the fact you're claiming it's because you refuse to condemn him - as opposed to you just trying to find any reason to defend him or partially mitigate his actions - just confirms this further.
The issue being of course is that if you were on the jury you would find him guilty without hearing any evidence. The trial would be irrelevant. I've discussed his defence, given my thoughts, that's it. Luckily the justice system doesn't work in a way where the person is sentenced prior to trial.
Having an agenda would be to condemn before trial as that's to Judge an incident prior to all the evidence being heard.
As for race, if we turn every incident involving a white and black person into a race issue then it creates issues that aren't there. The is nothing to suggest it's a race issue. Some have made it into one.
Are you on a wind up?
It's pretty clear what your agenda is, as the only making making statements as fact is yourself, yet you claim to be being objective.
As for race, it's obvious your understanding is limited if you genuinely believe there is no issue here, or that this has been made into a race issue rather than it already being part of a wider race issue. Does that mean that I think every cop is a racist? Of course not. But at this point, it would be incredibly naive not to consider what part, if any, race is playing in these incidents that are happening all too frequently. Instantly dismissing it due to "lack of evidence" shows either said naivety or an agenda IMO, as even you must know it's pretty much impossible to prove someone's attitude to race.
No, can you answer the question?
But in a case of law there is no evidence of race being an issue here. That is a fact. Whether someone chooses to interprate that there is shows more of an agenda then if someone doesn't. It doesn't get instantly dismissed, you look at the case on its own merits and decide from there.
You have decided I have an agenda simply because I won't condemn him if murder and I'm looking at both sides from a legal perspective. How you can determine that is beyond me.
I can just by considering the intent immediately prior to the shooting. One was legally carrying a gun as an enforcer of the law the other was carrying a gun to carry out an unlawful act.
The very presence of a gun in Roberts case suggests intent.
By your very argument any member of the public could shoot an officer simply because they panicked if they were legally carrying a gun.
You have asserted that these two comparison situations are virtually identical, and technically, maybe the incidentals of the occurrences are.
When you look at the enveloping circumstances however, ie the wider picture, these two scenarios are anything but. Harry Roberts was engaged in criminal behaviour, and the police are trying to undertake their duty to uphold and enforce the law, a role we expect of them as a society.
We wouldn't lend credence to Harry Roberts trying to use "I panicked" to mitigate the shooting because of the fact that he was responsible for the situation he found himself in, and acted in order to prevent detection by the law.
By your argument any member of the police force could shoot a member of the public simply because they panicked if they were legally carrying a gun.
Not legally, it would depend on the circumstances of the shoot as to whether it was legal or not. There is a difference though between intent and human error, both of course could lead to a conviction.
That's why we can't apply our circumstances in this country to that of America. There police rightly or wrongly are naturally more paranoid due to the different risks they face compared to ours.
I'm not saying it's right because it isn't.
No, what you're saying is that it's excusable for a cop to panic, but not anybody else.
No I'm not, where have I said that? In the circumstance you gave it didn't apply.
Yes, in effect that's what you're saying.
It's OK for a cop to panic and plant a bullet through an innocent man's head, but it isn't OK for anybody else to panic.
No never said that, human error is allowed and often leads to manslaughter charges rather than murder as they did not forsee what would happen or reacted to a specific event.
So if a cop breaks into a house with one of those hammer things they use, and the occupier shoots him through the head as he comes in, and says "Whoops, soz, I panicked", that's OK for a manslaughter charge in your eyes?
Not one of my favourite sources however this link covers that exact scenario. Most are convicted of manslaughter but some have been acquitted entirely;
http://theantimedia.org/man-shot-killed-police-officer-will-charged/
Oh I have no doubt that he knew full well what he was doing posting that.
By "break in" I assume you mean carry out a legitimate raid. It would be pretty hard to mistake a raid as someone breaking into your house unlawfully.
Most of them should never have faced charges as they would have had no idea that it was police they were shooting at, and the use of deadly force against intruders smashing your door in, is usually treated with sympathy in the USA. .
The Magee result was fair.
What about the circumstance when the occupier knows it's the police but still panics and shoots?
Then it's murder
Which brings us right back to Tensing - why is it OK for him to panic and it's not murder when he plants a bullet in an innocent man's head?
Sorry, I'm not getting why he gets a free pass to maybe just manslaughter, for panicking, but the guy who panics when the cop breaks in, doesn't.
You are moving the goalposts.
You gave an example of when people will shoot in panic and I gave examples of manslaughter or aquittal to support why I said it should be manslaughter but could potentially be found not guilty.
You then ask IF someone know it's police but panic and shoot anyway. That would be murder as the very fact they knew it was a police officer would mean they knew the act was unlawful thus providing intent and making it murder. It would be an active shot rather than a reactive one.
No, I'm not moving the goalposts at all. My point has always been the same. The examples you gave were ones of mistaken identity.
If it's OK for a cop to shoot someone through the head and then plead panic, why can a member of the public not do the same in the circumstances I described?
Why should one be manslaughter and the other murder?
Indeed, the guy whose house is being broken into by the cops, probably has more reason to panic than Tensing, who really has no reason to "panic" at all.