• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    Self defense and defense of others are the only circumstances where police can justifiably use lethal force. Self defense, they are clearly the victim. Defense of others, I would argue they deserve the same protections as the victim.

    The bill doesn’t protect other, non-justifiable uses of force.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house? What about kneeling on someone’s neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air? What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death? What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?

      You act like this bullshit list is actually EVER followed by any cop in any situation. You act as though cops who DON’T follow this list are punished for murdering innocent civilians without following this bullshit process.

      Fuck you and your boot licking ass.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house

        Not protected.

        What about kneeling on someone’s neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air?

        Not protected.

        What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death

        Not protected.

        What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?

        Not protected.

        This bill does not protect officers in any of the scenarios you describe. None of these scenarios describe self defense or defense of others. None of these uses of force are justifiable.

        Also not protected is an officer mistaking an acorn for a gunshot and unloading his weapon into the back of his own cruiser, with a handcuffed suspect in the back.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          ALL OF THESE USES OF FORCE HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND JUSTIFIABLE YOU ABSOLUTE BOOT LICKING MORON.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            In every case you described, officers were charged and prosecuted. Some were convicted, some were acquitted. None of them would have been protected under Marsy’s law.

            Stop holding pockets.

            • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Hmmm let’s see The elderly woman scalded to death, no officers charged: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/katherine-fernandez-rundle-criticized-for-darren-rainey-florida-prison-death-11657307

              Shooting dogs, I’m sure all these thousands of cases per year are either justified or prosecuted: https://qz.com/870601/police-killing-dogs-is-an-epidemic-according-to-the-justice-department

              Not to mention that even when charged police officers are almost never found guilty even when the evidence is overwhelming due to the various additional protections they have. At best someone can sue the city and obtain a financial remedy while the police department is completely unscathed and unaffected by the poor and criminal behaviour of their officers.

              It’s obvious that you’re not arguing in good faith so you can respond how you like I’m done talking to you.

              Edit: just looked up the prison slang you were using in your comment. Obviously you’re not a boot licker, you are the boot. It’s clear now why you support a law that would hide your identity when you murder people. Cops HATE accountability, that’s why nobody trusts them anymore. Fascists gonna fash!

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                The “elderly woman” you’re talking about was a 50-year-old man, and the situation does not qualify for protection under the bill. The man posed no credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Their act of locking him in the shower had lethal results, but it was not a “use of lethal force” under self defense laws, and would not qualify the officers for protection under the bill.

                Dogs are legally considered property, not people. Killing a dog is not considered a use of lethal force. Marsy’s law does not protect officers for killing dogs.

                In both scenarios you cited, the law would not hide their identities.