The 2017 General Salma Hayek discussion thread...Part 3!!!

[churchmouse]

M’kay. So my hypothetical experiment is to drive somewhere, hope someone smacks my truck bed with their hand (preferably in a robe), shoot them, say nothing (it’s my right), and be on my merry way. I just have a hard time believing that nothing will become of this for me. That’s all I’m saying, nothing more. Getting tired of the word salad.

Oh I know something would come of this for you or I or any other citizen. Something terribly bad.

 

[IndyGal65]

Oh I know something would come of this for you or I or any other citizen. Something terribly bad.

Thanks CM. That’s all I was trying to get across. I didn’t think it was rocket science.

 

[jbombelli]

Thanks CM. That’s all I was trying to get across. I didn’t think it was rocket science.

It wasn't. Rest assured.

 

[churchmouse]

Thanks CM. That’s all I was trying to get across. I didn’t think it was rocket science.

Being frightened and being in actual danger of harm/death are very far apart.

 

[IndyGal65]

Being frightened and being in actual danger of harm/death are very far apart.

Agreed. Imagine if that had been the rape victim running to the car for help.

 

[Kutnupe14]

M’kay. So my hypothetical experiment is to drive somewhere, hope someone smacks my truck bed with their hand (preferably in a robe), shoot them, say nothing (it’s my right), and be on my merry way. I just have a hard time believing that nothing will become of this for me. That’s all I’m saying, nothing more. Getting tired of the word salad.

In your hypothetical experiment, are you a police officer responding to a call? So, just so I'm getting this straight, your issue is with the way shootings, which involve police, are handled? So basically your saying that police are given more leeway in accidental shootings than non-police officers.

 

[IndyGal65]

In your hypothetical experiment, are you a police officer responding to a call? So, just so I'm getting this straight, your issue is with the way shootings, which involve police, are handled? So basically your saying that police are given more leeway in accidental shootings than non-police officers.

1) I’m pretty certain I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’m an average citizen in this situation. I’d post my prior quotes showing this but I’m not smart enough to figure out how to do multiple quotes on my iPad.

2) Please don’t put words in my mouth. Although I have questioned the situation in Minnesota, I’m not generalizing all police action shootings. I’m speaking for myself when I posed the hypothetical.

 

[Kutnupe14]

1) I’m pretty certain I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’m an average citizen in this situation. I’d post my prior quotes showing this but I’m not smart enough to figure out how to do multiple quotes on my iPad.

2) Please don’t put words in my mouth. Although I have questioned the situation in Minnesota, I’m not generalizing all police action shootings. I’m speaking for myself when I posed the hypothetical.

Fair enough. So, I'll ask. Are you saying that police are given more leeway in accidental shooting (like in the Justine Damond instance) than non-police officers. And if you're not, then what exactly is the difference between the "average citizen" and Noor, if his status as being a police officer isn't noteworthy? Inquiring minds, and all.

 

[IndyGal65]

Fair enough. So, I'll ask. Are you saying that police are given more leeway in accidental shooting (like in the Justine Damond instance) than non-police officers. And if you're not, then what exactly is the difference between the "average citizen" and Noor, if his status as being a police officer isn't noteworthy? Inquiring minds, and all.

This feels like the movie Groundhog Day.

I honestly don’t know the difference, if there is one, between an investigation into an accidental shooting, where the shooter is either an officer, or a citizen. I’ve had the good fortune not to be involved in one (as a citizen, of course). Do I think the situation in Minnesota is shady as hell? Yes, I do. Do I think if I did something similar, as noted in my hypothetical, that I would be in some kind of trouble? Yes, I do. Just my opinion, doesn’t make me right. Or wrong.

EDIT: By shady, I mean the way it happened. It could have happened anywhere, by anyone.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This feels like the movie Groundhog Day.

I honestly don’t know the difference, if there is one, between an investigation into an accidental shooting, where the shooter is either an officer, or a citizen. I’ve had the good fortune not to be involved in one (as a citizen, of course). Do I think the situation in Minnesota is shady as hell? Yes, I do. Do I think if I did something similar, as noted in my hypothetical, that I would be in some kind of trouble? Yes, I do. Just my opinion, doesn’t make me right. Or wrong.

EDIT: By shady, I mean the way it happened. It could have happened anywhere, by anyone.

I think the flaw in your argument is that you are putting yourself in situation that you wouldn't typically, if ever (ad infinitum) find yourself in. That's what has me confused with you placing yourself in the situation. For all the times that officers use the "reaching for their waistband" excuse before shooting someone, you can rest assured, that non-officers aren't given the same leeway, if the person you shoot doesn't have a weapon.

 

[IndyGal65]

I think the flaw in your argument is that you are putting yourself in situation that you wouldn't typically, if ever (ad infinitum) find yourself in. That's what has me confused with you placing yourself in the situation. For all the times that officers use the "reaching for their waistband" excuse before shooting someone, you can rest assured, that non-officers aren't given the same leeway, if the person you shoot doesn't have a weapon.

I’m not going to rehash your first two lines...I’ll chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding of words. However, I do agree with the rest of your statement.

Have a good night, Kut. (Indy has an early morning.).

 

[Kutnupe14]

I’m not going to rehash your first two lines...I’ll chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding of words. However, I do agree with the rest of your statement.

Have a good night, Kut. (Indy has an early morning.).

Nite, nite!

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Good try rabbit....good try.

 

[jamil]

In your hypothetical experiment, are you a police officer responding to a call? So, just so I'm getting this straight, your issue is with the way shootings, which involve police, are handled? So basically your saying that police are given more leeway in accidental shootings than non-police officers.

This is what it seems like to me. Where a citizen would go to jail for criminally negligent actions causing a death, an officer might only get fired. Of course this is anecdotal, but it seems it's rare that stories come out which would tend not to confirm this notion. Maybe we need a higher standard, and better training to help officers meet that standard. Like, for example, maybe when SWAT is called in, they make sure the story they were told is true before they start shooting.

 

[BugI02]

Maybe I should ask this plainly:
1. Can a private citizen verbally chastise another person
2. Should that person, if a sheriff, call several members of his department to detain and escort out of an area, the private citizen spoken of in #1
3. Would you consider the above action, if true, a serious abuse of power by the sheriff, and a potentially a violation of the 4th Amendment.
4. If you think the above scenarios are acceptable, what are your thoughts on fascism?
5. Do you hold the opinion that if the FBI finds a chargeable event, they will always file charges?

If you haven't read the legal document associated with, feel free:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...or-David-A-Clarke-Jr-s-Email.html#document/p1

Maybe I should ask this plainly:
1. Can a private citizen verbally chastise FBI DD McCabe
2. Should that person, a 'public servant', call several members of his department or security detail to detain and escort out of an area, the private citizen spoken of in #1
3. Would you consider the above action, if true, a serious abuse of power by the DD, and a [sic] potentially a violation of the 4th amendment
4. If you think the above scenarios are unlikely, what are your views on fascism exhibited by people you happen to agree with/support
5. Do you hold the opinion that if the FBI finds a chargeable event, that politics NEVER affects whether they will file charges

I predict that as a private citizen, I also will not be able to verbally chastise (without being detained and removed) ANY corporate CEO or staff member; or indeed likely not even the Chief of the police department you used to work for (or any other), nor most any elected official above a local level (could you successfully verbally chastise the mayor of your community)

You are attempting to rationalize selective prosecution based on politics. Nice squirrel

 

[BugI02]

You're clear there was an investigation, into the Justine Damond shooting, right?

From: https://www.twincities.com/2017/12/...ustralia-voices-concern-about-shooting-probe/

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman last week said investigators “haven’t done their job” in relation to the shooting of Justine Ruszczyk Damond by Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor.

Freeman was captured on video, which he says he did not know was being recorded, expressing his frustration about the case during a Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation holiday reception. He said it wasn’t his fault there was not enough evidence to charge Noor, and that investigators “haven’t done their job.” Noor has declined to speak with investigators.

Freeman didn’t name the investigators or their agency, but the BCA is leading the investigation.

Yep, just like there was an investigation of Clinton; perfunctory and with a seemingly pre-determined conclusion. Diversity über alles!

 

[BugI02]

I think the flaw in your argument is that you are putting yourself in situation that you wouldn't typically, if ever (ad infinitum) find yourself in. That's what has me confused with you placing yourself in the situation. For all the times that officers use the "reaching for their waistband" excuse before shooting someone, you can rest assured, that non-officers aren't given the same leeway, if the person you shoot doesn't have a weapon.

This, I think, speaks more toward IndyGal's point.

Noor was a police officer. His job as a beat officer consists almost totally of putting himself in the middle of such situations; so people would rationally expect that he was trained to handle same, had some aptitude for the job, and if not would have been weeded out before ever being placed on the street. The question has always been did some political goal interfere with that selection process and is CYA now interfering with what most would consider justice

Based on his demonstrated performance, making Noor a beat cop seems analogous to giving someone afraid of flying a job as co-pilot

 

[Kutnupe14]

Steve Bannon calls Trump Tower meeting "treasonous."

Steve Bannon describes Trump Tower meeting with Russians as 'treasonous': Report

 

[Fargo]

Steve Bannon calls Trump Tower meeting "treasonous."

Steve Bannon describes Trump Tower meeting with Russians as 'treasonous': Report

When you snuggle in with a grenade of awesome, you shouldn't be surprised when you get some awesome splashback on you...

 

[Kutnupe14]

When you snuggle in with a grenade of awesome, you shouldn't be surprised when you get some awesome splashback on you...

Agreed. Bannon was bad for the administration from the get go (as well as several others, obviously). Once he lost his position at the WH, anyone could have seen how this would have unfolded.