He shouldn't have been trying to shoot a snake. It's stupid. Personal responsibility.
Oklahoma - Police kill 5 year-old child
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
He shouldn't have been trying to shoot a snake. It's stupid. Personal responsibility.
I guess it would make sense in a way because they are a danger to society... for being stupid. So what do we do with the other stupid people? wait until they kill someone and then put them away? I don't really think that being stupid (but having good intentions) is good enough a reason to prosecute for murder.
Like I said... there was no bad intention involved. Only coincidence... So basically they're going to be prosecuted for being stupid.
It's not just being stupid. It's killing somebody through your stupidity. How can KILLING SOMEONE THROUGH YOUR STUPIDITY not something that you should be punished for. Shouldn't a cop be held to more responsibility than a normal person and not less? If I went out and accidentally shot a little kid, I would get at least 10 years.
s0meguy said:
In case you missed it, I'll reiterate:
When I took an ADIS course while handling issues pertaining to a DUI arrest, one of my classmates had gotten popped for a BAC of 0.01%. Clearly, he had even better cause than I did for thinking he was okay to drive (I blew a 0.088%). Had he gotten in a wreck and killed someone (he was pulled over initially for speeding), he would have been prosecuted for manslaughter even though it would not have been intentional. Even in my case, it's not like I was trying to drive under the influence, and being told by my passenger and other comrades that I was fine to drive certainly didn't do anything to create doubt about my capability.
There are people out there who drive drunk who sincerely believe they are okay to drive.
I don't think that the system should be about punishing (the current system has focused too much on REVENGE), but rather fixing society. Instead of just putting people away they should be 'fixed' in order not to be a threat to society anymore. Only in extreme 'unfixable' cases they should be 'put away'.
But there are so many problems with this... (as with everything really, it simply can't be perfect) For one... the 'fixed' part. how is it determined that one is a danger to society? Where to draw the line? You can be a indirect threat, like an employer firing his employees who can't find work and become criminals in order to be able to survive, pick pocket, mass murderer, big company leader that knowingly 'forces' people (and if you believe thats their own fault which its not because they didn't choose to be weak willed and brainwashed by the media, consider children) to become fat and destroy their lives, George Bush or simply a dumbass that is statistically probable to do things that make him a danger to society.
As for 'put away'. For starters some might think that it's not his fault that he's like this (and should thus not be forced to live an empty life because of this), it could be because he had a bad youth or simply because of traits that he received genetically, his (bad) intelligence. But then again, there aren't many other viable options. Killing them could be a good solution but there are so many reasons and opinions for it not to be.
Yep. They should be 'fixed' and not simply punished. There is no point in punishing and on top of that it costs too much.
As for that story. I'm Dutch and can only somewhat relate to what you say (apparently) and don't know what all the abbreviations mean. From what I can gather someone with too much alcohol in his blood killed someone and you asked me how I think he should be punished. Did I forget anything?
Last edited:
Expensive cocktails
Okay, now that I can agree with. As to the rest, I would urge you to consider it in the context of American justice. I would be perfectly satisfied if the outcome was a settlement to the family, a permanent dismissal from law enforcement, and that the shooter was never allowed to carry a firearm again. But that's not the way it works in this country. Culpable negligence? Okay, I'll accept that. My biggest fear was that because these were cops, they would walk away without any consequences whatsoever.
That's part my bad. I'm aware that in Europe they use a different standard. BAC stands for Blood Alcohol Content, and measures a percentage of your bloodstream that is alcohol. The "legal cutoff" is eight one-hundredths of a percent (0.08%, also called "point oh-eight"); at the time of my arrest, it was one tenth of one percent (0.1%). My associate in ADIS (Alcohol Drug and Information School, which is part of drug sentences, and also something people undertake on advice of an attorney before trial) was determined to have a BAC of one one-hundredth of one percent (0.01%), which is essentially a ridiculous arrest. (I do wonder what he did to piss off the officer.) At 0.088%, I should have known better, but didn't. At 0.01%, he had no reason to think that he was intoxicated. You can have a beer at 19:00, leave the bar at 21:00, and still blow a 0.01%, which utterly defies the advice given in the state driver's manual upon which driver's licensing testing is based.
It should be noted, for clarity, that the "legal cutoff" is simply the point at which a suspect no longer gets to argue the point. All told, my drinking came to a per-drink cost of $1,200-1,500. My associate, however, spent for an even better lawyer, so before even getting to trial, he had spent $12,500 in defense of his one drink. (It's a calculation they have you perform in ADIS; add up the drinks, the citation, the lawyer's fees, and any fines and lost wages resulting from a conviction; I ended up with charges dropped in exchange for a bail forfeiture, and the case never made it to trial.)
s0meguy said:
Okay, now that I can agree with. As to the rest, I would urge you to consider it in the context of American justice. I would be perfectly satisfied if the outcome was a settlement to the family, a permanent dismissal from law enforcement, and that the shooter was never allowed to carry a firearm again. But that's not the way it works in this country. Culpable negligence? Okay, I'll accept that. My biggest fear was that because these were cops, they would walk away without any consequences whatsoever.
That's part my bad. I'm aware that in Europe they use a different standard. BAC stands for Blood Alcohol Content, and measures a percentage of your bloodstream that is alcohol. The "legal cutoff" is eight one-hundredths of a percent (0.08%, also called "point oh-eight"); at the time of my arrest, it was one tenth of one percent (0.1%). My associate in ADIS (Alcohol Drug and Information School, which is part of drug sentences, and also something people undertake on advice of an attorney before trial) was determined to have a BAC of one one-hundredth of one percent (0.01%), which is essentially a ridiculous arrest. (I do wonder what he did to piss off the officer.) At 0.088%, I should have known better, but didn't. At 0.01%, he had no reason to think that he was intoxicated. You can have a beer at 19:00, leave the bar at 21:00, and still blow a 0.01%, which utterly defies the advice given in the state driver's manual upon which driver's licensing testing is based.
It should be noted, for clarity, that the "legal cutoff" is simply the point at which a suspect no longer gets to argue the point. All told, my drinking came to a per-drink cost of $1,200-1,500. My associate, however, spent for an even better lawyer, so before even getting to trial, he had spent $12,500 in defense of his one drink. (It's a calculation they have you perform in ADIS; add up the drinks, the citation, the lawyer's fees, and any fines and lost wages resulting from a conviction; I ended up with charges dropped in exchange for a bail forfeiture, and the case never made it to trial.)
Where I live there is no "animal control" as far as snakes go. All we have in a city near us is a dog catcher. So people who don't know how to deal with a snake call the cops. The cops just grab them if its a king snake or something of that sort. If its a venomous snake, they aren't about to hit it with their billy stick, that's stupid. Basically asking to get bitten. Even around here they shoot them. Its no different then a hunter shooting at a squirrel with a .22 and the bullet hitting someone they couldn't see. I feel for the cop as well as the poor child that died. I doubt they were walking around and thought, HEY BOB A SNAKE, LETS SHOOT AT IT. I'm sure someone called because they thought they were in danger. The cop simply tried to rid of that danger. A cops job is more then just dealing with people, its dealing with any danger that could harm someone. Plus if it was in a tree how can you hit it with the club? If they would have left it there and it bit someone and killed them, they would have been more responsible for the death in that situation more so then what they did. Now the poor guy has to live with this the rest of his life, he killed a child. It does not make it ANY better that people want to call him a murderer.
Yes its a tragedy a child lost his life. All people can see in this case is that a child did in fact lose it's life. So lets ROAST the person that did it, even if it was accidental. And yes I would say that if it happened to my child or if someone hit my child with a car on accident.(not drunk) It's the SAME DAMN THING. And I'm glad your Steve Irwin, but I grew up in the woods, and I'm not about to reach up to a birdhouse and grab a poisonous snake with my hand. But i suppose they could have shimmied up the pole and swung their stick at it.(sarcasm) If it were a harmless snake, they could have grabbed it, but we don't know the exact details.
It’s the difference between shooting in a hunting ground and shooting in a neighborhood. That’s a huge difference. It’s idiotic to shoot unnecessarily in a neighborhood.
If it’s in a tree, it’s not a danger. I used to live in rattlesnake country, but it wasn’t bonehead country. If the snake was an imminent threat, it was trapped and moved. A snake in a tree is not even a threat. The cop could've just thrown sticks at the snake to get it to move away.
Roman said:
I must admit, Roman, that it seems very few people think it's funny. Now, if the stray shot had hit the police cruiser and, in a Hollywood moment, caused it to explode, that might be funny. But dead five year-olds ... could Monty Python have made it funny?
I don't think the incident, the accident, is in any way funny. But....
What's funny is how people are blowing it so completely out of proportion to reality. In the USA alone, hundreds, perhaps thousands, are murdered, killed intentionally and with malice, every single day. Likewise, there a thousands of accidental deaths that happen every single day.
To select one accident and make such a major issue out of it shows how out of touch y'all are with reality. If y'all are so angry and upset about this one accidental death, what would y'all be like if you knew of each of the thousands of accidental deaths that occur every day? Y'all would need pills to calm you down each and every day, for god's sake!
Relax, calm down, the kid in Oklahoma was just one of thousands. And worse, singling his death out seems to show how little y'all feel about all of the other accidental deaths.
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
I realize, Max, that such subtleties are beyond you, but did it ever occur to you that there's more to it than that?
Think about it this way: if you slipped in the shower and died, big freakin' deal, right? I mean, maybe some people would think to put some sort of anti-slip device on the floor of their showers, whether sucker-mats or those grip-tape flowers, and at least then you would have made some sort of positive contribution to other people's lives. If you were shot in the head by a stupid police officer, though, people might just want to be reassured that the police were doing everything they could to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. I mean, unlike falling in the shower, there's not much people can do to protect against this sort of accident. Or perhaps we should just dress our children in body armor and combat helmets, so that people carrying lethal force on their person don't need to be bothered with things like caution?
In the meantime, people are also considering standards of justice. Is culpable negligence a fair charge? Is the potential prison term fair? Perhaps we should simply let accidental deaths go, since they're accidents?
Let's consider another accidental death. I mentioned above Oregon's low price for human life. In that circumstance, the shooter wanted to show his gun to a friend, came walking out of the bedroom and for some reason pointed the gun at the victim's chest. The shooter claimed to not remember firing the weapon, and says he did not know it was loaded.
Once upon a time I was hanging out at a friend's. His roommate, a member of the National Guard, called us to the back room. I walked through the door, saw a 9mm pointed at my face, and dropped, rolling back out the door. The guy laughed, said, "It isn't even loaded, see?" And then he pulled back the slide, and we all watched in amazement as a round popped out of the chamber. He ... uh ... didn't know that it was loaded.
Is it really too much to ask of an asshole with a gun to know whether or not the thing is loaded?
So what about culpable negligence? Given that such a death would not depend wholly on the dead, do you think people have any responsibilities toward each other, such as to not accidentally kill one another? Or would that fall under the, "Gee, it would be nice if ..." category? Or better yet, would that be one of those moral responsibilities that sucks donkey dick?
No, but why is this accident so much more important than any/all of the others?
Sure, and it's called "law". Or don't you believe in the law? And according to the law, this one accident is little different to the thousands that occur each and every day.
Making such an issue out of this one accident is nothing but sensationalism and, I might add, part of someone's agenda against the police. Had this been an ordinary citizen who fired the gun, you wouldn't have made it such a big deal, would you?
Baron Max
Oh, that would be totally different!! I'd call for not only the death penalty for the shooter, but for all Muslims all over the entire world, and especially for Muslims who live in India.
Baron Max
Oh, that would be totally different!! I'd call for not only the death penalty for the shooter, but for all Muslims all over the entire world, and especially for Muslims who live in India.
Baron Max
Just pretend that cop is Muslim, then maybe you can understand how the people feel.
Muslims are clearly evil. I think that cop was a muslim in disgiise. No god fearing christian american would accidentally shoot a kid.
I bet you've "accidentally" (yeah, right) shot a few americans in your day, huh sam?
I think all Muslims are inherently terrorists; attacking any country that contains even one Muslim should constitute a war on terror
Trolling again, S.A.M. ?