Is Punching A Nazi OK?

[Randwolf]

The thing about the scare quotes, as Iceaura suggested, is that they imply illegitimacy. If the justification for killing is reasonable fear of life and limb, then there isn't supposed to be any question of legitimacy. This isn't pseudo-legal, or quasi-legal. It's legal.

My point indeed - and the original purpose of the scare quotes. These acquittals are illegitimate. The courts have been acting in a pseudo, quasi-legal fashion. These actions are illegal.

This is the crux of our disagreement and may be where we have to agree to disagree. As consolation, we are left with "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

[iceaura]

Why would one need exoneration for committing an act that is specifically and explicitly deemed legal?

The deeming was the exoneration. One event.

My point indeed - and the original purpose of the scare quotes. These acquittals are illegitimate. The courts have been acting in a pseudo, quasi-legal fashion. These actions are illegal.

According to your interpretation of the law - some kind of convoluted philosophical reasoning you engaged in has persuaded you that these official determinations, by the authorities directly charged with establishing legitimacy, are mistaken somehow.

You can take that up with them, in the appropriate venue. Meanwhile: If the people in charge of saying whether stuff is legal or not all say something is legal, it is. That's how we tell.

 

[Randwolf]

According to your interpretation of the law - some kind of convoluted philosophical reasoning you engaged in has persuaded you that these official determinations, by the authorities directly charged with establishing legitimacy, are mistaken somehow.

You can take that up with them, in the appropriate venue. Meanwhile: If the people in charge of saying whether stuff is legal or not all say something is legal, it is. That's how we tell.

So, assuming your interpretation is correct and further assuming that you think this state of affairs unjust, tell me... Given the power, which laws, specifically, would you change in order to rectify this injustice?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

So here we are... To some extent I think that is what has TCS going on about as well (aside from the comparing Nazi and transgender) - the statutes specifically and explicitly prohibit "killing someone because they are black" - although the functional outcome appears to be diametrically oposite.

yes
- and i didn't compare them -
please don't get T all riled about that again
thanks

So, assuming your interpretation is correct and further assuming that you think this state of affairs unjust, tell me... Given the power, which laws, specifically, would you change in order to rectify this injustice?

boldface and underline mine - and i have to interject because therein lies part of my point to Bells here
there is a state law - stand your ground
there is a federal law - hate crimes act
federal law is superior to state in the US - you can't consider state law superior to federal

most people understand to this point - so far, so good

now things get tricky and here is where people have dropped the ball... and i think misunderstand:
the law is explicit in this matter, and it is illegal to kill, maim or batter someone due to race, or, as stated in my challenge from the beginning, because they are black.

it's not implied - it's explicitly stated
let me quote it again for clarification, and i will bold/colour the relevant explicit wording for easier reference to my point

18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts
(a) In General.—

(1)Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249

so this is not implied, but rather explicitly stated as i pointed out
therefore, it's federal and all encompassing law
and as such, this means it cannot be called legal

so, when someone demonstrates that there are people who have gotten away with race crimes, like Bells clearly did, then this isn't a matter of legality at that point, but rather a miscarriage of justice

again, for reference because it is relevant, links provided, for reference, to Blacks Law dictionary, a primary source in the US and UK

LEGAL
1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law. 2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law ; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law. 3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity. 4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice.

[edited for space. see link for full details - captain]
http://thelawdictionary.org/legal/

so i am not interpreting anything, nor am i posting a subjective opinion about it
i am also not refusing to accept the evidence in any of the examples

this is a clear concise explicitly termed federal statute that demonstrates this is not legal - this is in no way demonstrative or explanatory of the miscarriages of justice, nor is it in defense of anything other than the specific point as to the legality of shooting blacks -or- striking anyone due to a prejudice listed in said general descriptions in the federal statute

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

It's a description of a physical situation, an observed pattern in hundreds of events over decades of time across an entire country.

1- please read my last post above to Randwolf
2- this is not what determines the legality of something. your specific patterns or events are demonstrative of miscarriages of justice and or unjust behavior, they are in no way demonstrations of the legality of something
http://thelawdictionary.org/legal/

When hundreds of judges, juries, attorneys general, police forces,

when the Federal DOJ and related agencies, and dozens of examples of every single legitimizing authority involved,

consistently and in precedent and over decades and involving hundreds of decisions,

declare something to be legal, officially

in a court of law while in session, in the AG's office while doing official business, in the management of police force discipline and daily behavior, in the official publications of the DOJ,

it is.

and therein lies your problem: you have not shown a single adjudicated case that explicitly states the legality of shooting blacks
you have shown and demonstrated miscarriages of justice
but not a single case you've argued has worded, in it's adjudication or anywhere else, that it is legal
- and mind you, legal has a very specific meaning, as provided by my link above

you are arguing about perception versus legality, and you're arguing that because people perceive something due to their interpretations of events (and i will state while also not being privy to all the evidence, forensic or otherwise) then it is evidence of or demonstrative of the legality of something
except that you
1- cannot supersede federal law with state law
2- you cannot state that something that is listed as being explicitly illegal is then, because of miscarriages of justice, legal

this is demonstrated by my point re: OJ and is directly relevant and demonstrative of this argument
just because he was not found guilty doesn't mean murder, or the murder of whites, is legal (even sometimes)
because the law explicitly states this is illegal


the definition of "explicit", to be clear, is:

Definition of explicit
1a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent

it doesn't imply it in 18 U.S. Code § 249
it doesn't leave it up for interpretation
it doesn't leave it to the decision of random internet forum discussion
it is explicitly stated
explicitly

Your opinions of what the language of some law is supposed to mean do not count.

you are absolutely correct

but i am not giving my opinion, let alone my opinion on the language

see: explicithttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explicit
then see: 18 U.S. Code § 249

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Personally, I think the mods should split this thread. The topic of the OP is "Is it moral acceptable to physically assault someone who holds political/social beliefs that most people find reprehensible?". The topic of shooting minorities based on racial preconceptions is a completely different topic and goes well beyond "thread drift". It deserves it's own thread.

i am not so sure... simply because of the following:
when it was brought up and i challenged the statement about the legality, it brought the mention of 18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts

as such, the questions of punching and killing is explicitly answered in the very first paragraph
18 U.S. Code § 249 (a) (1)

it is clearly stated to be illegal, so the question then must be: does anyone find it morally acceptable to break the law due to their prejudice of a political (or other) belief ?

EDIT: i like your question better. let me reword it: "Is it morally acceptable to break the law regarding someone who holds political/social beliefs that most people find reprehensible?"

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

One objectionable (and at issue) feature of TCS's list of punching targets - all of which he was comparing, using simile, with his pretended strawman punching target 'nazi ideology or belief ' - was its inclusion of inherent characteristics along with contingently held beliefs.

Followed by his simply denying he was making a comparison, using simile, at all - because even that guy is wary enough to scrabble back from that cliff.

i am going to say this one last time: i did not make a comparison - Tiassa did.

i utilised a list taken directly from 18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts - and i provided this list and demonstration for you both already. multiple times.

this has been answered and dealt with, and there is a MOD note about it
so, if i am going to be chastised for having to continually repeat myself due to your baiting like the above, even when the evidence clearly shows, demonstrates, provides example of, and proves you wrong, about said list versus comparison, then i will simply be forced to report your further baiting/trolling post per the Bells MOD post

is that clear?
is that explicit enough for you?

 

[Bells]

i am grouping this together for a point of clarification: the [stand your ground - state] law exists to give a person the ability to defend themselves against threats
however, the law [hate crimes act - federal] also states that to use race as a reason for the threat, it illegal and considered a hate crime
this is not irrelevant

On paper, it is not.

But in practice, this is not what is actually happening. Hence the problem and this is why many believe that it is legal to kill black people. It is how the realities of the practice of the law is being interpreted.

While it is a hate crime to believe that a person who is black constitutes a threat and therefore one may feel justified in shooting them for that reason, in practice, such crimes are not being prosecuted in too many instances. Do you see what I mean now?

So for some, the turning of a blind eye, the deliberate failure to prosecute such crimes, sets a dangerous precedent. And one that some do use to get away with killing black people in what would normally be classified or prosecuted as a murder or manslaughter, and a hate crime, but it is not prosecuted at all and the person who committed what all thinking individuals would deem a crime and what the law deems a crime, is more often than not, not charged.

In these instances, all the hate crime legislations, all the laws pertaining to murder in the US criminal code becomes irrelevant, because they are not being applied correctly if at all. And the racial bias is blatant. We know this because you are twice as likely to get away with it if you are white and your victim is black or a minority than if it is the other way around.

the reason: people may well perceive other races as a threat, and this is a biological response due to their ignorance. howver, the constitution, and the rule of law, specifically state that utilisation of said racial argument as justification of a threat is illegal, and as such you cannot argue the legality of shooting over race using the stand your ground law as there is a clear, specific law that denotes said legality in the hate crimes act. said law is also a federal statute and superior to state governance.

You say this, but this is not being applied in reality.

Take the shooter who murdered someone because he thought the brown fellow holding a dog leash while walking his dog constituted enough of a threat that he felt justified in shooting him from his car as a result... He was not charged or prosecuted. The general acceptance is, as Randwolf points out, insidious in nature.

There are no laws on the books that say that it is legal to murder black people. This is established fact . But the laws against murder, shooting others and even self defense laws, are being interpreted and applied in a way that does allow a white person to murder a minority or black person and not even be charged. That is the reality and what is actually happening. Is it illegal? Yes. But when interpreted in a manner that deems someone a threat, it becomes legal. And when combined with studies that show how people view blacks and minorities as threats, yes, even though such reasons are legally seen as hate crimes, people are getting away with these crimes for the reason they simply perceived a threat.

You think the stand your ground laws are clear and specific, but in reality, they are vague and obscure and the racial bias in how this is being used is criminal in itself.

You can argue about this until the veritable cows come home, but the reality is vastly different to what is down on paper. Now, this is a local law enforcement issue and also an issue of education and dealing with racial bias, which is yet to happen in the US and elsewhere. I think this is the distinction that you are lacking in this argument on this issue. You keep saying that it is not legal because the law does not say this can happen. What you fail to realise is that the law is vague (some believe this is deliberate, but that is the subject matter for another thread perhaps) and obscure and how it is being interpreted, be it by the criminal justice system and the local law enforcement personnel, gives every appearance that it is legal to shoot a black person for being black (remember, racial bias) and get away with it. We know this because this is what is actually happening.

this is where the injustice in the system is found. you clearly defined the problem. it is about perception. but perception doesn't mean the same thing as legal.

But when it keeps happening, it makes it look legal, doesn't it?

It gives every appearance of legality because of how it is being applied.

except that this is proven wrong by simply noting the OJ trial
you are equating injustice with legality
there are lots of laws that are broken regularly that people get away with breaking - that doesn't make it legal. it just makes it unjust, as people have gotten away with a crime.

what you have presented above is about how the law is interpreted, and that is also injustice as the law is explicit on certain terms noted by me already

interpretation isn't the same as legality - and you have made a coherent well thought out argument how the law is literally interpreted for me above proving my point. just because it is typical for people to completely ignore a law for the sake of their personal agenda doesn't mean something is legal. this is demonstrated best by the constitutional right to freedom of religion and the subsequent reinterpretation which required clarification, ending in the following: 42 U.S.C. § 1996

clearly you can see where this applies to the situation?

The OJ trial?

Had you read the links I provided, you would have seen that it happens in many of cases, for one thing. But not in every case. The OJ trial was different because it happened in the media, OJ was very famous and wealthy. And if you failed to notice the racist undertones of that trial and the media circus surrounding it, then really, is there any point to this discussion?

And again, the law clearly states that if someone perceives a threat, then stand your ground laws allows you to defend yourself. That is all they need to show, is that they felt threatened. That is the law. See the insidious nature of it all? You think it is an injustice but still illegal. But the stand your ground laws and castle doctrines popping up around the US, makes it legal. So a black person knocking on someone's door and being shot and killed through the door.. their shooter may not be charged because he or she perceived a threat, even when no such threat exists. That is absolutely legal because the law is vague enough to render it legal. Understand now?

it is clearly defined as not being both ways per the letter of the law, yet it appears that people interpret the law per their agenda.

this is also something that will, eventually, end up in front of SCOTUS for the exact reasons we are posting above - because eventually someone will state the same argument that i just made, and it will be redefined per the SCOTUS, much like our 5th amendment "right" which is now, technically, a privilege per SCOTUS

And until that day happens, you need to acknowledge the legal ambiguity that exists and the realities of how these laws are being applied. It is easy to say that it is a hate crime and a case of injustice and you would not be incorrect. It is also easy to say that this is illegal and under normal circumstances, in an ideal society where racial bias was not a factor, you would be correct. But we are not talking about an ideal society, or a society where racial bias is nonexistent.

We may say it is not legal. But the way the law is being applied tragically makes it legal. And it is wrong, but that is how it is at present. If you wish to change the system then find out if your State has stand your ground laws, and lobby your local representative to ensure that it is not vague and applied fairly.

 

[Bells]

My point indeed - and the original purpose of the scare quotes. These acquittals are illegitimate. The courts have been acting in a pseudo, quasi-legal fashion. These actions are illegal.

Yes.

But while they stand as legal precedent, they are.. yes, legal. While the courts are ruling on a matter of law and these interpretations of the legislation are going as they are, they are, sadly, legal. We may think it is illegal because of the racial bias being applied to these laws, but until the laws are amended or a court strikes them down, they exist as they are and will be interpreted as they are.

And sadly, it is legal for them to do so until that happens.

A friend of mine recently commented that there is a reason why stand your ground laws are so popular in the US. While not overtly racist, the vague nature allows for interpretations that would render it legal to kill blacks and minorities and he believes this is intentional. And perhaps he is correct. Because when one looks at it, the many studies conducted on this very issue, point to something being completely wrong with the law itself and with its application. And instead of correcting the ambiguity and the vague nature of the legislation, more States are adopting it. Which from a legal perspective, makes little sense. As he noted to me, why keep enacting these laws, even when it is so unjust in how it is applied unless it is deliberate that the consequences of this type of legislation is the unthinkable?

Because when you think about it, self defense laws and doctrines are well established in the US. Stand your ground laws create extra layers on what is commonly known and accepted. Actual threat to one's safety now has the added layer of 'perceived threat', which is vague in the extreme. Why add that layer if the consequences are that minorities and blacks are killed at a higher rate? And this is evidenced in the fact that homicides of blacks and minorities have risen since these laws are put in place in various states around the US. And instead of striking down these laws, more states are putting them on their books? While his comments could be argued as being a conspiracy theory, he made some pretty valid points. There is something insidious when states enact laws that they know will result in an increase in the homicide of blacks and minorities.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

sigh... tab crashed and i just lost my reply

Do you see what I mean now?

i do see what you mean... let me make this more clear. i need to post something from further down that got lost when the tab crashed
you posted

But when it keeps happening, it makes it look legal, doesn't it?

It gives every appearance of legality because of how it is being applied.

lets look at this from another way.
MAGIC ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic )
you go see a magician and he does a trick... doesn't matter which one
the magician specifically states the trick is possible due to selling their soul to Tinkerbell and Satan
so the magician promotes the trick as an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
you think it's magic
you're told it's magic
everyone else marvels because it is magic to them

but is it really magic? or simply a sleight of hand? an illusion? a "brain failure", if you want to use the wording of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

it is not actually magic, but rather just what people want to believe. any critical thinker will not believe it's magic any more than you will believe the magician sold their soul to Tinkerbell.
this is the same thing.

You say this, but this is not being applied in reality.

the application is not the same thing as the legality of a situation. two different topics for different discussions.
when you talk to a mathematician about a math topic, you don't use the lexicon from, say, a microbiologist, do you?
no
why? because that would directly prohibit clear, concise communication, and would not clearly define the topic. it would also not be accurate, nor would it be correct.

in this case, you are talking about the legality of something, and as such, it is not relevant to point out popular perception unless you're wanting to point out that people are capable of believing something that is absolutely not true... you know, like a religion
so i use a legal term and a legal dictionary

just like above to Randwolf ( http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-17#post-3437899 )
perhaps it will make more sense than my other post to you - and i do make specific points that required me to bold and change font colour to ease reference, mind you
gotta break down some of the following...

And again, the law clearly states that if someone perceives a threat, then stand your ground laws allows you to defend yourself. That is all they need to show, is that they felt threatened. That is the law. See the insidious nature of it all? You think it is an injustice but still illegal.

i see the injustice and the insidious nature... but it is still not legal as the federal statute is all encompassing and in the US, Federal law is superior to State law (see: https://www.usa.gov/laws-and-regulations#item-36597 )

But the stand your ground laws and castle doctrines popping up around the US, makes it legal. So a black person knocking on someone's door and being shot and killed through the door.. their shooter may not be charged because he or she perceived a threat, even when no such threat exists. That is absolutely legal because the law is vague enough to render it legal. Understand now?

the stand your ground laws don't make it legal, the failure of the prosecuting attourneys to apply federal law makes it a miscarriage of justice.
i can't make it more clear than the Magic analogy
maybe religion will help - there are millions of americans that believe in god, so does that make god real?
nope
this is the same thing, really

2Bcont'd

 

[iceaura]

So, assuming your interpretation is correct and further assuming that you think this state of affairs unjust, tell me... Given the power, which laws, specifically, would you change in order to rectify this injustice?

Note that all this irrelevant digression from the OP is from others - not me.

I doubt all injustice can be rectified by rewording laws to cover all eventualities.

Some areas of what I would regard as improvement: the "reasonable person" criterion could be changed to "the accurately perceiving/comprehending person" or something of the kind. So if you kill someone for threatening you, you have to have been right - not just "reasonably" afraid, but actually in danger as hindsight proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

And none of the "stand your ground" or similar justifications apply to the armed instigator of physical conflict. If you have to kill somebody to keep from maybe getting killed in a fight you started while you had a gun on you, you get sympathy - and jail time.

So off hand, a couple. But no doubt better minds than mine can improve on them. When whimsical, I sometimes toy with the "cheerleader criterion" - if the victim had been a white female cheerleader, and everything else the same, as a legal criterion.

2- this is not what determines the legality of something

Yes, it is. That's my observation. What doesn't determine the legality of something is your notion of how some law you read has to apply.

but i am not giving my opinion, let alone my opinion on the language

You are. You are telling me that the law says these guys committed a crime, for example. I'm pointing out that judges, juries, AGs, DOJ, and police, have officially ruled that the law says they did not - ruled like that not just once or twice, but dozens and hundreds of times for decades across the entire country.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Bells cont'd from above

And until that day happens, you need to acknowledge the legal ambiguity that exists and the realities of how these laws are being applied. It is easy to say that it is a hate crime and a case of injustice and you would not be incorrect. It is also easy to say that this is illegal and under normal circumstances, in an ideal society where racial bias was not a factor, you would be correct. But we are not talking about an ideal society, or a society where racial bias is nonexistent.

i am not ignoring the ambiguity of the application of law, just so you know

We may say it is not legal. But the way the law is being applied tragically makes it legal. And it is wrong, but that is how it is at present. If you wish to change the system then find out if your State has stand your ground laws, and lobby your local representative to ensure that it is not vague and applied fairly.

please read the post here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-17#post-3437899

and for the record, i am well known by both my congressperson and senator as i am outspoken on certain topics, and this is one of them, hence my passion

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

2- this is not what determines the legality of something. your specific patterns or events are demonstrative of miscarriages of justice and or unjust behavior, they are in no way demonstrations of the legality of something

Yes, it is. That's my observation.

you're observations don't count for anything when confronted by the legal definitions which explicitly state you're wrong
it is clearly and explicitly noted in Blacks Law, linked for you
so you're ignoring evidence again for the sake of your belief

What doesn't determine the legality of something is your notion of how some law you read has to apply.

and again, it isn't about how i read it
it has nothing to do with me at all
it is explicitly stated in a law

so again, just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is
it would be like saying that because you, specifically, believe all Toyota's are great cars, then all great cars must be Toyota's
nonsensical and illogical
there is a lexicon, there is a law, and there is the evidence as plain as day

You are.

no, i am not - none of the law i posted is opinion, and none of the definitions i posted are opinion

You are telling me that the law says these guys committed a crime, for example.

no, i am not.
i am telling you that the law explicitly states that any action of battery, assault or violence (like killing) acted due to race (or the rest of the list i gave you) is illegal

i didn't make it up, nor did i infer it

I literally linked it, quoted it and re-posted it so many times i was chastised for trolling because you won't read it
let me quote it again

(a) In General.—
(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

so as you can see here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
i am not giving my "spin" or interpretation. it is explicitly stated.
i am not telling you anything... the US federal government has made a statute that is telling you the above

I'm pointing out that judges, juries, AGs, DOJ, and police, have officially ruled that the law says they did not - ruled like that not just once or twice, but dozens and hundreds of times for decades across the entire country.

miscarriages of justice while applying state law is not the same thing
you are demonstrating something that is unjust - this much is true
but that is not a demonstration nor is it evidence that something is legal
did you not read what legal meant?
Blacks Law dictionary is a (if not "the") leading legal lexicon in the US and England
and, of course, i am not quoting a random non-applicable state law either, but a federal law

so either you're saying that federal laws don't matter and neither does evidence
or
there is a miscarriage of justice and you don't understand the difference between what is legal or not

 

[Tiassa]

Click to kick a phat distraction.​

My point indeed - and the original purpose of the scare quotes. These acquittals are illegitimate. The courts have been acting in a pseudo, quasi-legal fashion. These actions are illegal.

This is the crux of our disagreement and may be where we have to agree to disagree. As consolation, we are left with "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The only thing I would say here is that I think you are referring to the difference between law and justice, and while I sympathize greatly with your statement that, "These actions are illegal", there is also the observable and practical difference between how any of us view the law as it should be enforced and what reality says passes muster.

It occurs to mention that there is a thread on whether the police have a "right to murder", one of our neighbors notes↗, "you have a right to kill if you think your life is in danger", and, "The court decides after the fact if it was reasonable to consider your life in danger".

And we all get what he means. However, I think of a controversial case from my area: The officer writes a police report that disagrees with every other eyewitness account, and there are many. The officer describes a drawn-out attempt to get a belligerent man to stop wielding a knife in a hostile manner. The truth, apparently, is that he told a deaf woodcarver to drop a closed penknife and then shot him, taking a fraction of the time his report describes, and there is a question about the integrity of the physical evidence. Now, think of it this way: This is the town where cops can get caught on video hauling a black man out of a wheelchair, beating him, and planting evidence on him, and expect the full support of the police department and mayor's office. And yet the cop who shot the deaf, nonwhite woodcarver did such a sloppy job in covering for himself that the department had no choice but to fire him. Still, the county prosecutor explained to the people that the state saw "no reason" to file charges. People rioted. A police station was set on fire. The U.S. Attorney would, years later, write that she really, really wanted to charge, but didn't think she could overcome the burden of presuming good faith. He wasn't even charged with perjury or subversion of justice. We know he lied. We can prove it. But we can't even charge him with that because we can't overcome the burden of good faith. There is no court in the nation that is going to stop this: He lied in good faith.

Unjust? Certainly.

Legal? Absolutely.

We have a new bizarre tragedy up here. An inquest jury just returned seemingly conflicting verdicts↱:

• A significant majority of inquest jurors (six of eight for one, seven for the other) found that the police believed they were in danger when they shot.

→ We might note explicitly this does not examine the question of whether that belief is supported by the evidence. One juror disbelieves that the police believed they were in danger; another said the evidence did not support what the officers claimed.​

• The inquest jury was unanimous in their finding that the victim was shot to death while obeying police instructions.​

Clearly, we cannot convict these officers.

Presently, the circumstance exists that you can follow police instruction and still be shot to death simply because the cops are scared. No court has put a stop to it, yet; we have no reason to expect any will.

In our state, it is an all or nothing proposition↱. Either we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these officers acted in malice when they kill, or we don't bother charging them with anything. And no court yet has put a stop to this farce.

(One Democratic legislator said law enforcement puts up resistance to even discussing the issue. "Police officers have all but threatened to engage in de-policing," a local newspaper↱ explains. The prosecutor who saw no reason to charge the officer who shot the woodcarver wants the law changed, for whatever that's worth.)

Justice is its own question. Statute and process do not require justice. Don't get me wrong; if you say, "Damn it, we're Americans, of course statute and process require justice!" I am perfectly happy to agree with you, and thus have another friend to commiserate with when we lose that argument over and over and over and over and over again.

And every once in a while, the People win little bits and pieces, but this one is going to take a while, and the toll isn't going to get any less staggering except, of course if people just reaccustom themselves as if the way it goes is the only way it can be.

But as to our neighbor's point in the other thread, part of law and process means the court is not necessarily called on to decide anything about a given case. And while your point has especial strength in this context, there is also the matter of statute and the fact that the higher courts―especially the Ninth, for heaven's sake!―aren't stopping this.

Statute and process, to the one. Justice, to the other.
____________________

Notes:

Black, Lester. "Jurors Find Seattle Police Feared for Their Lives in Che Taylor Shooting, But That Taylor Was Obeying Commands". Slog. 10 February 2017. TheStranger.com. 13 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2l0C3su

Herz, Ansel. "Lawmaker Admits Task Force on Fatal Police Shootings Has Been "Putting Off" Discussion of Controversial Law", Slog. 8 September 2016. TheStranger.com. 13 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2cdCSLk

—————. "Washington State Law Makes It Virtually Impossible to Charge Police Officers Who Kill". The Stranger. 10 February 2016. TheStranger.com. 13 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2kpshOx

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

There are no laws on the books that say that it is legal to murder black people. This is established fact . But the laws against murder, shooting others and even self defense laws, are being interpreted and applied in a way that does allow a white person to murder a minority or black person and not even be charged. That is the reality and what is actually happening. Is it illegal? Yes. But when interpreted in a manner that deems someone a threat, it becomes legal. And when combined with studies that show how people view blacks and minorities as threats, yes, even though such reasons are legally seen as hate crimes, people are getting away with these crimes for the reason they simply perceived a threat.

Bells
the reality in the US is that there is a preponderance of people who believe in jesus and the abrahamic religions.
does the fact that the majority of the people believe there is a god somehow prove or demonstrate that the earth is 6,000yrs old per the reading or interpretation of the bible? does it demonstrate that the deity in question is physically real simply because so many people believe it to be so and thus it has become a presence in all facets of our society?

if you think about it... you're doing the same thing with regard to something being legal in the above paragraph

something is believed to be real, or perceived to be real. this doesn't mean it's real
so you argue that it's real because of the examples of the misapplication of the legal statutes, even though there is a federal statute that supersedes the state and explicitly states otherwise
this is no different than saying because so many people believe jesus is real and physically go to church, taking communion, and you can demonstrate this, then it is evidence of jesus being real

You think the stand your ground laws are clear and specific, but in reality, they are vague and obscure and the racial bias in how this is being used is criminal in itself.

the stand your ground laws are irrelevant when there is a federal statute
and i am not arguing the stand your ground laws

You can argue about this until the veritable cows come home, but the reality is vastly different to what is down on paper. Now, this is a local law enforcement issue and also an issue of education and dealing with racial bias, which is yet to happen in the US and elsewhere. I think this is the distinction that you are lacking in this argument on this issue. You keep saying that it is not legal because the law does not say this can happen. What you fail to realise is that the law is vague (some believe this is deliberate, but that is the subject matter for another thread perhaps) and obscure and how it is being interpreted, be it by the criminal justice system and the local law enforcement personnel, gives every appearance that it is legal to shoot a black person for being black (remember, racial bias) and get away with it. We know this because this is what is actually happening.

this is truly confusing as there is no need to argue the point of racial bias
I know there is a racial bias. i lived it. i still live with it. it's not the point
and i know the law can sometimes be vague - like you state the stand your ground laws are vague
but again, that isn't the point and it really is irrelevant considering the explicit legal statute

the point you keep making is that your perception of reality must be real because it is shared and because you perceive it to be real
that essentially is your argument above - multiple times, really
but my argument is simply the same one: it doesn't matter what you or i believe when there is a clear, concise source of information that explicitly states the answer

just like i showed to ice and others... this isn't a matter of vague laws. it's explicitly spelled out in clear, easily understood language. i am not saying it is applied at all times. nor am i saying that the world is a just place. i am saying that there is a federal legal statute that is explicitly stating the legality of the situation and it's contrary to your beliefs as well as what has been demonstrated in the courts.

it's not my opinion. it is federal law.
it is not my interpretation. it's explicitly stated
this isn't even about misrepresentation as it's easily comprehended and it truly applies
this is about what is perceived versus what is real.


if we were ruled by what is perceived versus what is real, regardless of how many times you could repeat, then we would still be working under the rule of the church and science wouldn't have prospered

but that isn't the case
what is perceived is that you believe it to be legal because [insert explanation like above] - and if that is good for you, then fine. enjoy. say hi to god for me.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Legal? Absolutely.

no, it wasn't legal
it was a miscarriage of justice
legal is a specific term that means "deriving authority from or founded on law " or "of or relating to law" when used colloquially,which makes your statement factually incorrect

but because you utilise it in a manner that is directly related to the law and not as a statement of your belief about the law, then you should consider using an actual legal dictionary like Blacks Law, which can be found in almost all US courts
because i know you put such great stock in dictionaries:

What is LEGAL?
1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law. 2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law ; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law. 3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity. 4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice. See LAWFUL

http://thelawdictionary.org/legal/

there is a difference in making a statement of belief and making a statement of fact
you're making a statement of your belief about the system and you've already demonstrated your refusal to accept evidence to the contrary

the examples you use are not demonstrative of the legality of shooting blacks, nor are they examples of the legality of anything
they are either unjust, miscarriages of justice, or your belief of either /or

 

[Tiassa]

no, it wasn't legal
it was a miscarriage of justice
legal is a specific term that means "deriving authority from or founded on law " or "of or relating to law" when used colloquially,which makes your statement factually incorrect

See also RCW 9A.16.040(3)↱.

 

[Bells]

Bells
the reality in the US is that there is a preponderance of people who believe in jesus and the abrahamic religions.
does the fact that the majority of the people believe there is a god somehow prove or demonstrate that the earth is 6,000yrs old per the reading or interpretation of the bible? does it demonstrate that the deity in question is physically real simply because so many people believe it to be so and thus it has become a presence in all facets of our society?

if you think about it... you're doing the same thing with regard to something being legal in the above paragraph

something is believed to be real, or perceived to be real. this doesn't mean it's real
so you argue that it's real because of the examples of the misapplication of the legal statutes, even though there is a federal statute that supersedes the state and explicitly states otherwise
this is no different than saying because so many people believe jesus is real and physically go to church, taking communion, and you can demonstrate this, then it is evidence of jesus being real

But it is legal.

If someone argues that he or she shot another person because of a perceived threat, that is legal in many parts of the US. And yes, many people have shot unarmed minorities and used that as an excuse and have gotten away with it.

Why?

Because the stand your ground laws now state that the threat only has to be perceived and not actual or real.

The result of these laws is that many black people and minorities have died. And many of their killers were not even charged, because they advised of a perceived threat.

Do you actually understand what I am saying here?

No, there are no laws that say it is legal to murder a black person. But there are laws that dictate that one can use deadly force if one perceives a threat.. And black people are dying because their killers perceived a threat. Whether that threat is real or not is beside the point. If they declare they perceived a threat, that is a legal defence.

the stand your ground laws are irrelevant when there is a federal statute
and i am not arguing the stand your ground laws

And yet, that federal statute will not really come into play when local law enforcement and the local State prosecutors argue that the killer perceived a threat.

Federal Hate crimes rarely come into play in this murders, and when they do, the right kick up a huge fuss and the jury rarely indicts.

You keep relying on these laws as though they are fool proof and always work. They clearly do not. And the laws were written in a way that literally allows this as a defence. Saying the laws themselves are irrelevant does not absolve the fact that white people are shooting minorities and claiming they perceived a threat and getting away with it twice as much as anyone else is. It's called racial bias. And juries rarely indict or render a guilty verdict if it gets to court. A lot of the time, it never gets that far as the local law enforcement will not press charges.

You need to see what is going on around you. Saying 'oh well, that's just illegal' means diddly squat. Because people are being killed and their murderers are not even being charged in some cases. All because of a perceived threat. So a minority walking his dog is a perceived threat to a white guy in his truck, so much so that the white guy was deemed justified in shooting him dead because the minority raised his arms in the air when he was nearly hit by said truck.

That is the law and how it is being applied. Legally. Until those laws are amended, the driver of that truck did nothing illegal.

this is truly confusing as there is no need to argue the point of racial bias
I know there is a racial bias. i lived it. i still live with it. it's not the point
and i know the law can sometimes be vague - like you state the stand your ground laws are vague
but again, that isn't the point and it really is irrelevant considering the explicit legal statute

the point you keep making is that your perception of reality must be real because it is shared and because you perceive it to be real
that essentially is your argument above - multiple times, really
but my argument is simply the same one: it doesn't matter what you or i believe when there is a clear, concise source of information that explicitly states the answer

just like i showed to ice and others... this isn't a matter of vague laws. it's explicitly spelled out in clear, easily understood language. i am not saying it is applied at all times. nor am i saying that the world is a just place. i am saying that there is a federal legal statute that is explicitly stating the legality of the situation and it's contrary to your beliefs as well as what has been demonstrated in the courts.

And as explicitly you believe it is spelled out, the reality is vastly different.

The laws are written that way and people are using those laws to avoid being charged for murdering minorities by claiming they perceived a threat. So in those cases, it is legal to murder a black person.

just like i showed to ice and others... this isn't a matter of vague laws. it's explicitly spelled out in clear, easily understood language. i am not saying it is applied at all times. nor am i saying that the world is a just place. i am saying that there is a federal legal statute that is explicitly stating the legality of the situation and it's contrary to your beliefs as well as what has been demonstrated in the courts.

it's not my opinion. it is federal law.
it is not my interpretation. it's explicitly stated
this isn't even about misrepresentation as it's easily comprehended and it truly applies
this is about what is perceived versus what is real.


if we were ruled by what is perceived versus what is real, regardless of how many times you could repeat, then we would still be working under the rule of the church and science wouldn't have prospered

but that isn't the case
what is perceived is that you believe it to be legal because [insert explanation like above] - and if that is good for you, then fine. enjoy. say hi to god for me.

The law allows for a perceived threat.

What part of that is not sinking in, exactly?

You want to change the law? Lobby your local representative and express your displeasure with the NRA for pushing for these laws to begin with.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

See also RCW 9A.16.040(3)↱.

please note that RCW 9A.16.040 is from the Washington State legislature - whereas 18 U.S. Code § 249 is a federal statute

federal trumps state

 

[Tiassa]

please note that RCW 9A.16.040 is from the Washington State legislature - whereas 18 U.S. Code § 249 is a federal statute

federal trumps state

And?