Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by chanel, May 25, 2010.
Sean Bell deserved to die.
This goes back to 2006:
"Shoot to Wound" Bill (A Rift Opens For Spitzer, Paterson - February 24, 2006 - The New York Sun)
"Shoot to Wound" Bill Offered in NY
Posted: February 24th, 2006 12:20 PM EDT
By JACOB GERSHMAN
New York Sun
A push by Eliot Spitzer's gubernatorial running mate, David Paterson, to restrict police officers from using deadly physical force in the line of fire has opened a rift between the Harlem state senator and the state attorney general.
Yesterday, Mr. Spitzer, the leading Democratic candidate for governor, disavowed a bill introduced by Mr. Paterson that would prohibit police officers from shooting suspects with the intent to kill and would hold the officers liable for second-degree manslaughter, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.
"Eliot is not in favor of this revision to the penal code," the campaign manager for Mr. Spitzer, Ryan Toohey, said. "When David agreed to be Eliot's running mate, we knew they wouldn't be in lockstep agreement with each other. That's part of how good relationships work."
Mr. Paterson's bill, which is intended to protect minority criminal suspects from being killed by police officers unnecessarily, has provoked a furious reaction from New York State and city police groups, which say the senator's legislation would handcuff police officers and ultimately leave the public in greater danger.
Conceivably, under Mr. Paterson's law, the heralded police officer who killed the man who shot to death City Council Member James Davis on July 23, 2003, would be indicted for second-degree manslaughter.
Absolute madness. This seems to me to be a gift to Sharpton and all the scumbag lawyers who will sue every cop that "accidently" kills a suspect in self defense. Has NY gone out of its freakin mind? Where's Rudy when you need him?
Who the fuck are YOU to make that determination? Sean Bell was UNARMED, yet you determine he deserved to die?
What is totally mind-boggling is that you right wing scum bags constantly accuse liberals of 'Statism' and you claim 'government' can never get anything right...YET, when it comes to arresting, incarcerating and exterminating human beings, you morons suck the tit of 'government' and embrace the right wing nanny state...
Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Did you cons notice this from the link in the OP?
You know - that IDIOT, Joe Biden you all so love to villify?
How say you now?
Why do you have quotation marks around "accidentally"? You do realize what that implies, don't you?
Yes I do. A cop should be able to kill in self defense. But now they will have to say "Oops. I missed his thigh". After all a shooter with an injured leg may be able to fire a second shot. Duh.
Kudos to Mr. Biden.
I don't think you do (understand what quotation marks mean when used as you have used them here). You originally wrote:
By putting quotes around "accidentally," you are saying that police officers, on occasion, intentionally kill people. I don't think you meant to say that.
Quotation marks are generally used for one of two purposes. Either they are used to designate a direct quote from someone or they are used to indicate that the word(s) in quotation marks really don't mean what they appear to mean and, in fact, mean the opposite. Example: A person is posing as a police officer. He really is not a police officer. The author writes: "And so the 'police officer' enters the room and sits down." The quotation marks around "police officer" are put there to indicate that the person is not really a police officer but, rather, a fake or an imposter.
Another example: A restaurant posts a sign which says: "Be sure and try our 'fresh' fish today." Not good. By putting quotes around "fresh," the restaurant is announcing that their fish isn't fresh at all - quite the opposite.
The improper use of quotation marks has come into vogue during the past twenty years or so. The main reason people misuse quotation marks in this manner is an attempt to emphasize the word being placed in quotes, without realizing what they are actually doing.
And so, when you talk about a police officer "accidentally" killing someone in self defense, you are, in effect, winking your eye at the readers and telling them just the opposite - that the killing is not accidental at all.
BTW - kudos to you for giving kudos to Joe Biden. See - even a "liberal idiot" can do something right now and then. (Quotation marks intentional.)
How about this. For all male suspect don't go for a kill shot heart/head, aim for the dick! Hows that for sharp shooting?
I would consider a dick shot a minimum force shot. Your not trying to kill them just stop them in their tracks.
When even a total galactic class moron like Biden can see this is a bad idea then you know it has reached ultimate proof.
Fortunately, as mentioned probably in the article the bill ahs no sponsors and will not pass.
Separate names with a comma.