Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Supreme Court reaffirms that the police are free to do anything they want as long as they avoid getting caught in a Star Trek-style temporal loop   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Repeat, Appeal, Appellate court, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme court, Police, federal appeals courts, Supreme Court, law enforcement  
•       •       •

1895 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Oct 2021 at 9:13 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



49 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-10-18 3:42:26 PM  
I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.
 
2021-10-18 9:19:22 PM  

TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.


Yeah, these seem to be very "threading the needle" cases, and the headline seems a bit misleading. I'm not totally opposed to these rulings.
 
2021-10-18 9:21:37 PM  
Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Everybody has a right to a trial to determine guilt. Any death by police is a theft of someone's rights and a gross injustice.
 
2021-10-18 9:23:58 PM  
The method by which these opinions were passed down is gross and disrespectful, but qualified immunity is definitely a legal thing. The the Supreme Court isn't going to find against it unless there is extremely compelling reason to do so. The solutions are to either pass a law making qualified immunity not a thing somehow, or to change the rules by which our police operate. All the Supreme Court is doing is saying, "Within the context of what the police have been explicitly allowed to do in the line of duty, their actions don't appear unreasonable nor in conflict with those allowances." The problem is what they're allowed to get away with.
 
2021-10-18 9:24:16 PM  
The Chief Justice said, "De doo doo doo, de dah dah dah. That's all I've got to say to you."
 
2021-10-18 9:24:30 PM  
Obligatory:

"Pfft. Time travel. Since my first day on the job as a Starfleet captain I swore I'd never let myself get caught in one of these godforsaken paradoxes; the future is the past, the past is the future ... it all gives me a headache."
 
2021-10-18 9:25:03 PM  

love-m'-beer: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Yeah, these seem to be very "threading the needle" cases, and the headline seems a bit misleading. I'm not totally opposed to these rulings.


That's sorta the problem with the police having special immunity; they don't really need it if they are acting reasonably in the line of duty, or in self defense the would be fine anyway.  They only really need it when they do stuff that they really shouldn't have done. I say let a jury decide just like for everyone else.
 
2021-10-18 9:29:03 PM  

austerity101: The method by which these opinions were passed down is gross and disrespectful, but qualified immunity is definitely a legal thing. The the Supreme Court isn't going to find against it unless there is extremely compelling reason to do so. The solutions are to either pass a law making qualified immunity not a thing somehow, or to change the rules by which our police operate. All the Supreme Court is doing is saying, "Within the context of what the police have been explicitly allowed to do in the line of duty, their actions don't appear unreasonable nor in conflict with those allowances." The problem is what they're allowed to get away with.


A thousand times no. Qualified immunity is not part of § 1983. Judges made it up out of whole cloth so cops could get away with breaking the law.

//don't know what "definitely a legal thing" is even supposed to mean
//and the interpretation of qualified immunity has gotten so absurd that they argue they "didn't have notice" because the comparable case was about a big dog and this time they shot a small dog
 
2021-10-18 9:33:43 PM  

bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Everybody has a right to a trial to determine guilt. Any death by police is a theft of someone's rights and a gross injustice.


In 2019 48 cops got killed at work.
In 2019 999 people were killed by cops.
This is submitted without comment.
 
2021-10-18 9:33:45 PM  
V For Vendetta - Cop kills little girl
Youtube FJF1pMKicTY
 
2021-10-18 9:33:51 PM  
We just need a few more people beaten to death by police and then we'll achieve herd qualified immunity.
 
2021-10-18 9:34:58 PM  
Actually, temporal loop sounds like a great method of interrogation. Do it Groundhog Day style, wake them to the same sounds, exact same routine, exact same sequence of questions. Same knock at the door, same interrupting announcements. Same dropped dish at the same point in the script.
 
2021-10-18 9:35:33 PM  
Remember not to initiate inverse tachyon pulses in both/all timelines or else the pulses might converge at a single point and break down the subspace barrier between time and anti-time, causing an anti-time eruption ("temporal anomaly'). And then you'd be in a fine pickle you may never get out of for all eternity.

/please don't stuff me into a locker or steal my lunch money
 
2021-10-18 9:38:20 PM  
...and don't even get me started on the temporal cold war.
 
2021-10-18 9:44:08 PM  
"Qualified immunity" is one of those legal terms of art that gets tossed around like happy bouncing balls by talking heads and Internet chat rooms. It's got two parts, and people don't get the first part. "Qualified" means just that: it means that under certain conditions, the officer gets to claim immunity from liability or prosecution due to specific qualifications. It was never meant to be "absolute" immunity, which it has come to mean.

Qualified immunity is supposed to mean that the officer is immune from prosecution for performing actions that would be criminal IF he was not acting within the scope of his duties. For instance, putting hands on someone, placing them in handcuffs, and making them sit in back of a squad car, are all crimes if you or I did it (battery, unlawful detention, false imprisonment). Police officers get to do that because they are immune from prosecution as long as they act within the scope of their policies and procedures.

Now, society has to allow them a degree of leeway, because obviously, nobody wants to be arrested, and if cops were only allowed to politely ask someone to please put their hands behind their back and the suspect decided to walk away, even Jeffrey Dahmer would never be arrested. So police are allowed to use a certain amount of force to overcome resistance. It has to be that way IF you want criminals to be reasonably detained.

The purpose of a 1983 suit is to overcome the presumption of qualified immunity by showing that the officer acted outside the scope of his policies and procedures and did something that should NOT be immune from prosecution. My friend the Nevada CO has been the subject of several 1983 suits; none of them was ever justified because they were things like "He wrote me up for having contraband in my cell that another CO told me I could have" (true story). Not all 1983 suits are as frivolous.

The only real issue with 1983 suits and qualified immunity is that the burden is on the claimant (as with any civil suit) to prove their allegations; in this case, it should be on the officer to prove his actions were in line with approved policy instead of the claimant having to prove otherwise. If the officers did everything by the book, it should be easy enough to show, RIGHT?
 
2021-10-18 9:46:04 PM  

TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.


Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.
 
2021-10-18 9:47:39 PM  

bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.


Until there is a weapon equivalent to a Star Trek phaser's stun setting, there will be situations where the police are forced to shoot to kill.
 
2021-10-18 10:00:57 PM  
Wait'll Clarence Thomas gets pulled over one night by the cops because he "fits the description".
 
2021-10-18 10:01:19 PM  

Befuddled: bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Until there is a weapon equivalent to a Star Trek phaser's stun setting, there will be situations where the police are forced to shoot to kill.


I believe the Great Dismal himself pointed out that the street finds its own uses for things. So bring it on.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-10-18 10:03:31 PM  

Befuddled: bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Until there is a weapon equivalent to a Star Trek phaser's stun setting, there will be situations where the police are forced to shoot to kill.


Tasers were meant to be the non-lethal way of taking down someone.


Until the pigs used it every chance they got and found out ways to kill people with it. Now, the person who invented the taser is ashamed at what he had created.
 
2021-10-18 10:05:49 PM  
 
2021-10-18 10:07:05 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: [YouTube video: V For Vendetta - Cop kills little girl]


Lol thinking people would care about cops shooting kids way back in 2005.
 
2021-10-18 10:21:13 PM  

Esc7: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: [YouTube video: V For Vendetta - Cop kills little girl]

Lol thinking people would care about cops shooting kids way back in 2005.


It was a white kid.
 
2021-10-18 10:27:46 PM  

menschenfresser: Remember not to initiate inverse tachyon pulses in both/all timelines or else the pulses might converge at a single point and break down the subspace barrier between time and anti-time, causing an anti-time eruption ("temporal anomaly'). And then you'd be in a fine pickle you may never get out of for all eternity.

/please don't stuff me into a locker or steal my lunch money


You heard them, boys.  Swirlies, it is!
 
2021-10-18 10:30:36 PM  
Super weird. I literally just finished watching that episode. One of the few episodes that wasn't scary that I could show my son.
 
2021-10-18 10:59:48 PM  

Gyrfalcon: "Qualified immunity" is one of those legal terms of art that gets tossed around like happy bouncing balls by talking heads and Internet chat rooms. It's got two parts, and people don't get the first part. "Qualified" means just that: it means that under certain conditions, the officer gets to claim immunity from liability or prosecution due to specific qualifications. It was never meant to be "absolute" immunity, which it has come to mean.

Qualified immunity is supposed to mean that the officer is immune from prosecution for performing actions that would be criminal IF he was not acting within the scope of his duties. For instance, putting hands on someone, placing them in handcuffs, and making them sit in back of a squad car, are all crimes if you or I did it (battery, unlawful detention, false imprisonment). Police officers get to do that because they are immune from prosecution as long as they act within the scope of their policies and procedures.

Now, society has to allow them a degree of leeway, because obviously, nobody wants to be arrested, and if cops were only allowed to politely ask someone to please put their hands behind their back and the suspect decided to walk away, even Jeffrey Dahmer would never be arrested. So police are allowed to use a certain amount of force to overcome resistance. It has to be that way IF you want criminals to be reasonably detained.

The purpose of a 1983 suit is to overcome the presumption of qualified immunity by showing that the officer acted outside the scope of his policies and procedures and did something that should NOT be immune from prosecution. My friend the Nevada CO has been the subject of several 1983 suits; none of them was ever justified because they were things like "He wrote me up for having contraband in my cell that another CO told me I could have" (true story). Not all 1983 suits are as frivolous.

The only real issue with 1983 suits and qualified immunity is that the burden is on the claimant (as with any civil suit) to prove their allegations; in this case, it should be on the officer to prove his actions were in line with approved policy instead of the claimant having to prove otherwise. If the officers did everything by the book, it should be easy enough to show, RIGHT?


One correction - QI has nothing to do with criminal prosecution as you implied (unless I misunderstood, in which case my apologies). It is solely a defense to civil actions against individual officers for damages. It does not apply to police departments, and the local government authorities who empower them.
 
2021-10-18 11:02:33 PM  

bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Everybody has a right to a trial to determine guilt. Any death by police is a theft of someone's rights and a gross injustice.


Good news school and nightclub shooters.  bluejeans thinks you should not be stopped.  go on, kill as many as you want.
 
2021-10-19 12:06:25 AM  

pxsteel: bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Everybody has a right to a trial to determine guilt. Any death by police is a theft of someone's rights and a gross injustice.

Good news school and nightclub shooters.  bluejeans thinks you should not be stopped.  go on, kill as many as you want.


you know the "good guy with a gun" who stops mass shootings is a figment of your brown-shirted imagination, right?
 
2021-10-19 12:25:33 AM  
The difference between Qualified Immunity and Absolute Immunity is the something has to Disqualify.
If nothing can disqualify then the police have Absolute Immunity.

US Law Enforcement have absolute immunity with no oversight.
They do not answer to civil authority and certainly not the will of the voters.
They are vastly over armed for any conceivable purpose.
They can kill, assault, rob and falsely imprison anyone at any time without repercussion.
And it seems there is nothing anyone can do to change it.

That my friends is the US. Its a police state.
 
2021-10-19 12:28:00 AM  
THE REAL OUTRAGE on this is what SCOTUS is doing with these decisions.

The QI idea is that a cop only pays if he violates 'clearly-established' constitutional rights.  OK.

But SCOTUS is strongly-hinting that 'clearly-established' must be  based on a SCOTUS ruling on similar facts. Not a lower court ruling, or series of rulings.

So imagine this scenario:  Most appeals courts agree a specific scenario violates the Constitution. No circuit conflict and the Justices mostly agree so they do not take any appeal on it.

That means everyone agrees the conduct is unconstitutional...but, for qualified immunity purposes, the principle is not 'clearly-established' SCOTUS precedent and so you cannot sue the cop for doing it. Over and over again.

If they stick to that...How is that for Catch-22?
 
2021-10-19 12:37:18 AM  

Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.


LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.
 
2021-10-19 12:38:48 AM  
I'm not one much to give that much to the cops but in those two cases. Sure. It's not like a blanket approval of qualified immunity was given to them. Looks like the supreme court is going to go at it a case at a time. The cops will eventually lose a few.
 
2021-10-19 12:49:16 AM  

haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.


Let's say a person gets a visit from their crazy uncle. Uncle goes on an angry rant and picks up a hammer while spewing crazy talk. Won't put the hammer down. Person is afraid crazy uncle might attack. Picks up a gun, orders crazy uncle to drop the hammer

Then shoots him dead

Would you convict that person of murder?
 
2021-10-19 12:50:20 AM  

Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.

Let's say a person gets a visit from their crazy uncle. Uncle goes on an angry rant and picks up a hammer while spewing crazy talk. Won't put the hammer down. Person is afraid crazy uncle might attack. Picks up a gun, orders crazy uncle to drop the hammer

Then shoots him dead

Would you convict that person of murder?


Yes, because the odds are that the cop...I mean the nephew is probably lying.
 
2021-10-19 12:51:40 AM  

sparkeyjames: I'm not one much to give that much to the cops but in those two cases. Sure. It's not like a blanket approval of qualified immunity was given to them. Looks like the supreme court is going to go at it a case at a time. The cops will eventually lose a few.


The Simpsons - Krusty Bets on The Generals
Youtube 3Xu5cQlum38
 
2021-10-19 1:05:00 AM  

haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.

Let's say a person gets a visit from their crazy uncle. Uncle goes on an angry rant and picks up a hammer while spewing crazy talk. Won't put the hammer down. Person is afraid crazy uncle might attack. Picks up a gun, orders crazy uncle to drop the hammer

Then shoots him dead

Would you convict that person of murder?

Yes, because the odds are that the cop...I mean the nephew is probably lying.


Probably? So you really don't get what beyond a reasonable doubt means
 
2021-10-19 1:36:19 AM  

Shaggy_C: Esc7: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: [YouTube video: V For Vendetta - Cop kills little girl]

Lol thinking people would care about cops shooting kids way back in 2005.

It was a white kid.


This cannot be understated.
 
2021-10-19 1:39:39 AM  

pxsteel: bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Everybody has a right to a trial to determine guilt. Any death by police is a theft of someone's rights and a gross injustice.

Good news school and nightclub shooters.  bluejeans thinks you should not be stopped.  go on, kill as many as you want.


I didn't say that. I said they shouldn't be killed.

Don't put weasel words in my mouth.

You are equating killing someone with stopping them. People can be apprehended and held to account without summary execution.

Literally dozens of other countries manage that just fine.
 
2021-10-19 1:42:21 AM  

hugadarn: bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Everybody has a right to a trial to determine guilt. Any death by police is a theft of someone's rights and a gross injustice.

In 2019 48 cops got killed at work.
In 2019 999 people were killed by cops.
This is submitted without comment.


https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

In America, the police are infinitely more dangerous to your life and limb than any thief, murderer, rapist, or terrorist could ever hope to be.
 
2021-10-19 1:49:36 AM  

haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.


*sigh* it has nothing to do with being "pants-pissing terrified" as you say. (I mean, in general. I can't speak to any specific cop, who knows how, or if, they think)

Police have to answer not only for their own safety but for the safety of the community. Another reason police have qualified immunity, beyond what I mentioned before, is because their actions do not only impact the individual in the instant encounter but everyone else in the area.

Let's take your guy with the hammer. Cop has no Taser and no immediate backup, which was the case. He does not shoot. Hammer Man takes advantage of the moment to flee through a nearby window. Hammer Man then breaks into the house next door and hammers two of the neighbors to death before enough officers arrive to take him down by not killing him. Neighbors' family then sue the cops for failure to act when he had the opportunity, leading to the deaths of their relatives.

Police are not all cowards and thugs, and their actions are not entirely dictated by the drive to kill people. They are also based on the idea that bad guys are harmful to the community they live in and need to be stopped before more people get hurt. If that means Hammer Man must be shot rather than Tased or allowed to leave because of the fear of what he "might" do, then that's what has to be, because the risk of letting him go and finding out is so great.

Until we can accurately predict the future or read people's minds, there will have to be split-second decisions made, and we'll have to deal with the fallout; but you can't keep pretending it's only because the cops want to shoot someone. That doesn't help the situation.
 
2021-10-19 1:50:48 AM  
You will obey, citizen!
 
2021-10-19 2:53:52 AM  

Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.

Let's say a person gets a visit from their crazy uncle. Uncle goes on an angry rant and picks up a hammer while spewing crazy talk. Won't put the hammer down. Person is afraid crazy uncle might attack. Picks up a gun, orders crazy uncle to drop the hammer

Then shoots him dead

Would you convict that person of murder?

Yes, because the odds are that the cop...I mean the nephew is probably lying.

Probably? So you really don't get what beyond a reasonable doubt means


Hey, it's a cop, he is lying.  There is no reasonable doubt he killed the person.  Only that the cop reported he pissed his pants, which happens daily apparently, is his excuse for the murder.
 
2021-10-19 3:07:13 AM  

haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.

Let's say a person gets a visit from their crazy uncle. Uncle goes on an angry rant and picks up a hammer while spewing crazy talk. Won't put the hammer down. Person is afraid crazy uncle might attack. Picks up a gun, orders crazy uncle to drop the hammer

Then shoots him dead

Would you convict that person of murder?

Yes, because the odds are that the cop...I mean the nephew is probably lying.

Probably? So you really don't get what beyond a reasonable doubt means

Hey, it's a cop, he is lying.  There is no reasonable doubt he killed the person.  Only that the cop reported he pissed his pants, which happens daily apparently, is his excuse for the murder.


So you completely didn't read or understand my hypothetical. Drunk, or just stupid?
 
2021-10-19 3:52:29 AM  

Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.

Let's say a person gets a visit from their crazy uncle. Uncle goes on an angry rant and picks up a hammer while spewing crazy talk. Won't put the hammer down. Person is afraid crazy uncle might attack. Picks up a gun, orders crazy uncle to drop the hammer

Then shoots him dead

Would you convict that person of murder?

Yes, because the odds are that the cop...I mean the nephew is probably lying.

Probably? So you really don't get what beyond a reasonable doubt means

Hey, it's a cop, he is lying.  There is no reasonable doubt he killed the person.  Only that the cop reported he pissed his pants, which happens daily apparently, is his excuse for the murder.

So you completely didn't read or understand my hypothetical. Drunk, or just stupid?


I read it, I just believe it is bullshiat.
 
2021-10-19 3:59:20 AM  

Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.

Let's say a person gets a visit from their crazy uncle. Uncle goes on an angry rant and picks up a hammer while spewing crazy talk. Won't put the hammer down. A person is afraid crazy uncle might attack. Picks up a gun, orders crazy uncle to drop the hammer

Then shoots him dead

Would you convict that person of murder?


Back up a bit.  The scenario is actually Guy visits crazy uncle and breaks into his house.  Claims crazy uncle had a hammer in his hand so he shot him.
Yes, I convict that person of murder.
 
2021-10-19 4:05:32 AM  

replacementcool: pxsteel: bluejeansonfire: Not a single person should die by police. It's not their job (or authority) to judge people death-worthy and shoot them dead right then and there.

Everybody has a right to a trial to determine guilt. Any death by police is a theft of someone's rights and a gross injustice.

Good news school and nightclub shooters.  bluejeans thinks you should not be stopped.  go on, kill as many as you want.

you know the "good guy with a gun" who stops mass shootings is a figment of your brown-shirted imagination, right?


They are rare, but they do exist. Of course, they also get killed by cops after they are done being the good guy with a gun.
 
2021-10-19 4:49:06 AM  

haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: haknudsen: Pats_Cloth_Coat: TommyDeuce: I'm kind of split on these - at least based on what was presented in TFA - guy with the chainsaw that had a knife in his pocket, and got his back kneeled on for 8 seconds doesn't sound too bad - maybe don't threaten people with a chainsaw? 
Guy with the hammer who got killed?  Unless he's the Mighty Farking Thor, you can back away a little and maintain enough safety.  Unless you want to use it as an excuse to shoot someone.

Guy is holding a hammer and could charge at you. He could throw it. Heck, his wife could barge in to it at any moment. If they didn't have a taser then yeah, shoot him.

LOL right, and a Unicorn could sneak behind him and stab him in the back.  If he was so terrified he was pissing his pants at finding a guy with a hammer he shouldn't be a cop.

Let's say a person gets a visit from their crazy uncle. Uncle goes on an angry rant and picks up a hammer while spewing crazy talk. Won't put the hammer down. A person is afraid crazy uncle might attack. Picks up a gun, orders crazy uncle to drop the hammer

Then shoots him dead

Would you convict that person of murder?

Back up a bit.  The scenario is actually Guy visits crazy uncle and breaks into his house.  Claims crazy uncle had a hammer in his hand so he shot him.
Yes, I convict that person of murder.


So you didn't understand it. It's the uncle visiting.  Nobody broke in to anything.  Sheesh
 
2021-10-19 7:29:28 AM  
Subby neglected to answer what happens if the cops DO get trapped in a Star Trek-style temporal loop.
 
2021-10-19 12:24:36 PM  
We're kind of in a Derp Loop right now.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.