Democrats plot effort to counter Tucker Carlson on Jan. 6 narrative

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm talking about the specific case involving Ma'Khia Bryant, and within that context the Use of Force Guidelines are pretty specific. When I wrote "only legal option" I was talking about Officer Nicholas Reardon's actions specifically. Ulvade is irrelevant to my arguments. 

I gave you a breakdown of the video in broad strokes -

Minutes 00:00-10:00 - Context of media.
10:01-23:00 - Use of Force as it applies in Graham v Connor (which is basically the go-to precedent case for Use of Force).
23:00-end - Laws specific to Columbus PD where the death of Ma'Khia Bryant took place. 

Nate doesn't tell you what to believe, he just lays down the events and the law and invites you to make your own decision. I have given you my reasoning as to why a lethal response is not just the best option but really the only option. I am happy to discuss alternatives if you can demonstrate from a legal perspective that non-lethal force was a justified response under the circumstances. 

 

Bryant had a knife, what matter is it how "athletic looking" she is? If she was "short and dumpy" would it have made the attempted murder less heinous? 

I know what you are talking about.  You sumarised your specious opinion with "only legal option."  Neither the guidelines or your YouTube videos suport that opinion.

Acting in some other way than the "only legal option" means that course of conduct is illegal.  You have zero case law to support an officer facing charges that follow your deluded thinking.

What was highlighted after Ulvade was the case law that supports the reality that an officer is under no obligation to protect anyone.

I was not talking about Bryant's physique.  I'm not sure why your asking about it.  It may explain your perpetal pavlovian penchant for perplexed emojis.

We can see from the videos that the gun was ineffective at stopping the knife thrust. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Golden Duck

[+Paranoid Android]

 

21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I know what you are talking about.  You sumarised your specious opinion with "only legal option."  Neither the guidelines or your YouTube videos suport that opinion.

My argument is that with the weapon being used the way it was this was the only option the officer had. Like I said, Nate doesn't tell you what to believe, he simply lays out the facts and the law. If you believe there was another legal option explain how, referencing the law and the facts, as this was my conclusion based on my understanding of the law and the facts.  

  

21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

What was highlighted after Ulvade was the case law that supports the reality that an officer is under no obligation to protect anyone.

That is simply untrue. I invite you to watch this video if you really think that situation demonstrates police don't have an obligation to protect anyone: 

 

21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I was not talking about Bryant's physique.  I'm not sure why your asking about it.  It may explain your perpetal pavlovian penchant for perplexed emojis.

You seemed to be highlighting her "athletic build" as some kind of argument defending Ma'Khia Bryant's antics! 

 

  

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

26 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

My argument is that with the weapon being used the way it was this was the only option the officer had. Like I said, Nate doesn't tell you what to believe, he simply lays out the facts and the law. If you believe there was another legal option explain how, referencing the law and the facts, as this was my conclusion based on my understanding of the law and the facts.  

  

That is simply untrue. I invite you to watch this video if you really think that situation demonstrates police don't have an obligation to protect anyone: 

 

You seemed to be highlighting her "athletic build" as some kind of argument defending Ma'Khia Bryant's antics! 

 

  

 

It would not have been unlawful not to shoot Bryant.  You can not produce a case that says otherwise.  The question about the obligation to protect the publuc has been tested in court numerous times.

The officer could simply not have shot Bryant.  And the athletic looking woman in pink would still have evaded the knife thrust. 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Golden Duck

[Gummug]

On 3/7/2023 at 9:40 AM, preacherman76 said:

Well well, that’s a horse of a different color. Hmm

That guy got 4 years. Wonder if this footage was allowed in court??

As the video stated, that's longer than some violent criminals. I guess you don't mess with royalty...

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

It would not have been unlawful not to shoot Bryant.  You can not produce a case that says otherwise.  The question about the obligation to protect the publuc has been tested in court numerous times.

May not be unlawful, but they would also not be performing their duties. People who do not perform their duties lose their jobs! 

 

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

The officer could simply not have shot Bryant.  And the athletic looking woman in pink would still have evaded the knife thrust. 

 

You don't know that she would have evaded the knife. She did evade the knife up until the point that Bryant was shot, but she was up against a car at this point.

I will also point out that you are once again using "athletic looking woman" to make your point. As if this somehow makes a lick of difference. What does her physique have to do with whether she was in danger of being stabbed? Honestly, it sounds like you are trying to say that a fat woman attacking a fit woman is ok because the fit woman can simply block any potential kill shots that a fat woman might try to make. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You're right about one thing - this IS a waste of time.

Your contribution is. Usually the case. You struggle to stay on topic and then you tend to turn a thread into a topic you want to talk about. You don't work well with others. 

Just a reminder, the threads about the release of video evidence to a highly biased right wing reporter whom we know has cherry picked to provide a right wing interpretation of events 

Guess they couldn't afford to do it on movie like the My Son Hunter fantasy production. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not against tasers! I've said it several times. Neither am I against professionals saying that tasers are a great alternative to deadly force! 

HOWEVER (and I'm saying this in caps, because the HOWEVER is the important part - which you seem to be ignoring) a taser is NOT a replacement for a gun. There are some situations where a taser is going to be a great non-lethal option, and this choice gives police a far greater scope to do their job, BUT it doesn't change the fact that when lethal force is required (eg, the Ma'Khia Bryant case) a gun is the only option the police have. 

Well you have convinced yourself of that regardless of what evidence is offered. You don't accept other viewpoints for consideration. 

It was clearly not the only option, you just refuse to accept there even could have been another option. 

I don't take your "extensive experience" with guns as a given. Therefore I have zero confidence that you can determine that a gun was the only option in that particular altercation. Sounds like 2A BS.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't have statistics, if that's what you're asking for. 

Maybe you are starting to see why tasers aren't the best method for disarming a person while they are mid-swing with a knife! 

Yes I'm asking for statistics.

Without them you can't possibly be citing any reasoning behind your claims that they are restricted in situations similar to this one. 

That's just ridiculous. You're basically saying here that you are expressing a belief. 

No, I don't see why the taser wasn't the best method. He called out four times. That's ample time to draw closer in and deploy a taser. Regardless of your opinion.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You haven't defined what "better training" is yet. You've just waved your hand at it and said "more training = good". 

No I've said that training investigating non lethal options and a review on tasers to find of they really are ineffective and how to approach improvements. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Ok, thanks for offering your opinion. I disagree with it and cannot really argue further. 

Right, people at the scene aren't worth considering in your opinion. Gotcha.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Like I said, it's irrelevant.

The link was to begin with. And you knew that is the point.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

And? Why does that change the officer's actions?  

It doesn't.

It illustrates why police are less likely to be called. The incident put distrust in many minds. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You don't need a VPN! They are watchable on YouTube! 

Not on the forum or normal browser 

You posted age restricted material.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That said, if you haven't got a VPN, I recommend you get one  

What for 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Awww, diddums needs a hug???    

A barf bag would be more appropriate. You watch some absolute rubbish. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

As above, this is an opinion I don't share.

That he didn't yell out first? 

You refute he called out four times? Or that yelling out isn't time that could have been used to draw a taser? 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

This wasn't a kiddy fight, she was trying to shank the lady. 

You accuse me of all sorts of crap, but you are legitimately trying to claim that this: 

Is the equivalent of this: 

 

No, that's a disingenuous example. You realise Mikahia was the only minor involved in the altercation? 

Do you deny that fighting was a common occurrence between those girls? 

I'm of the opinion GD is. I feel that Shai-onta Craigs position is debatable. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Agreeing to disagree means that we have different opinions and neither will change our minds. Only you would find a way to twist that into a ridiculous attack by misrepresenting my purpose in saying this! 

Right, why is it always you then? 

[Golden Duck]

39 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

May not be unlawful, but they would also not be performing their duties. People who do not perform their duties lose their jobs! 

 

You don't know that she would have evaded the knife. She did evade the knife up until the point that Bryant was shot, but she was up against a car at this point.

I will also point out that you are once again using "athletic looking woman" to make your point. As if this somehow makes a lick of difference. What does her physique have to do with whether she was in danger of being stabbed? Honestly, it sounds like you are trying to say that a fat woman attacking a fit woman is ok because the fit woman can simply block any potential kill shots that a fat woman might try to make. 

Here's a suggestion. Don't try and over think things.  You seem to be motivated to find some scandal when there is none.  We do not know the name of the athletic looking woman in pink; so, I'll dwacibe her physical appearance. 

The killer was ineffective in stopping the thrust.  Shooting or not shooting would have the same result. 

Thanks for admitting you overstaed the "only legal option" remark.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Golden Duck

[+Paranoid Android]

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Here's a suggestion. Don't try and over think things.  You seem to be motivated to find some scandal when there is none.  We do not know the name of the athletic looking woman in pink; so, I'll dwacibe her physical appearance. 

The killer was ineffective in stopping the thrust.  Shooting or not shooting would have the same result. 

Because of the actions of Officer Reardon, Ma'Khia Bryant did not get a chance to try again. There's no guarantee she wouldn't have succeeded if the officer didn't intervene. 

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Thanks for admitting you overstaed the "only legal option" remark.

Did you watch the video I linked? 

As in, there are many specific cases where police can be criminally charged and/or sued by individuals for not performing their duties. The first example he provides is the death of George Floyd - at least one of the officers was charged with not intervening to stop Chauvin from killing him! That seems to suggest that they do in fact have a duty to protect the public. 

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Here's a suggestion. Don't try and over think things.  You seem to be motivated to find some scandal when there is none.  We do not know the name of the athletic looking woman in pink; so, I'll dwacibe her physical appearance. 

The killer was ineffective in stopping the thrust.  Shooting or not shooting would have the same result. 

I thought the lady in pinks name was Shai-Onta Lana Craig-Watkins, however upon further reading it appears to be Tionna Bonner, aged 22. It seems she was the first person to pick up a knife and make threats, prompting the call which resulted in Bryant's death. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ma'Khia_Bryant

[+Paranoid Android]

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Your contribution is. Usually the case. You struggle to stay on topic and then you tend to turn a thread into a topic you want to talk about. You don't work well with others. 

Just a reminder, the threads about the release of video evidence to a highly biased right wing reporter whom we know has cherry picked to provide a right wing interpretation of events 

Guess they couldn't afford to do it on movie like the My Son Hunter fantasy production. 

Ok  

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Well you have convinced yourself of that regardless of what evidence is offered. You don't accept other viewpoints for consideration. 

It was clearly not the only option, you just refuse to accept there even could have been another option. 

I don't take your "extensive experience" with guns as a given. Therefore I have zero confidence that you can determine that a gun was the only option in that particular altercation. Sounds like 2A BS.

It's called having a belief. It differs to yours, shock horror. 

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes I'm asking for statistics.

Without them you can't possibly be citing any reasoning behind your claims that they are restricted in situations similar to this one. 

That's just ridiculous. You're basically saying here that you are expressing a belief. 

I can find them if you really want, but I don't see why you need evidence that a taser isn't as effective as a gun at stopping criminals in their tracks! There is a reason Use of Force Guidelines puts a taser at a lower force than a gun - it's because it is not as effective, and is ok to be used in cases that aren't extreme. Do you need statistics to prove that to you???? 

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, I don't see why the taser wasn't the best method. He called out four times. That's ample time to draw closer in and deploy a taser. Regardless of your opinion.

No I've said that training investigating non lethal options and a review on tasers to find of they really are ineffective and how to approach improvements. 

Right, people at the scene aren't worth considering in your opinion. Gotcha.

Not when it comes to forming an opinion! 

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The link was to begin with. And you knew that is the point.

Still irrelevant! It doesn't matter whether Bryant called the police or not! She tried to murder a woman, and she lost her life as a result.  

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It doesn't.

It illustrates why police are less likely to be called. The incident put distrust in many minds. 

It strengthens police trust in the minds of many others. If someone doesn't call the cops because of this, they are an idiot!   

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not on the forum or normal browser 

You posted age restricted material.

You don't need a VPN to access YouTube. YouTube age-restricted pretty much ALL Ma'Khia Bryant commentary due to the fact that a 16 year old died. You can still watch it on YouTube. But you need to have a YouTube account with your age listed in order to access the material. Seems pretty straight forward.  

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What for 

Plenty of reasons. If you have Netflix (or any streaming platform) you can watch content you wouldn't normally have access to, you can keep your browser data private. There are other reasons to get a VPN but those are the two biggest, and they're the two reasons I got my VPN. 

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

A barf bag would be more appropriate. You watch some absolute rubbish. 

So because I watch some "absolute rubbish", I "ruined" your YouTube viewing experience?!?!?! Makes sense to me    

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That he didn't yell out first? 

You refute he called out four times? Or that yelling out isn't time that could have been used to draw a taser? 

That this is evidence he had enough time to draw a taser and disarm someone in the middle of murdering another human being! I disagree with that, naturally. 

 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, that's a disingenuous example. You realise Mikahia was the only minor involved in the altercation? 

Do you deny that fighting was a common occurrence between those girls? 

I'm of the opinion GD is. I feel that Shai-onta Craigs position is debatable. 

Were knives a common weapon of choice during these fights, and did Officer Reardon have access to her extensive history of fighting? 

Aside from this, I see nothing about her age that would change anything in how things panned out. 

42 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Right, why is it always you then? 

Why is it always YOU? I don't accuse anyone but you of intentionally misrepresenting me! 

[psyche101]

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Ok  

It's called having a belief. It differs to yours, shock horror. 

It's no shock. But you don't state it is a belief until prompted. 

I prefer to stick with what we know. How many times has GD pointed out that the lunge happened anyway without contact? 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I can find them if you really want, but I don't see why you need evidence that a taser isn't as effective as a gun at stopping criminals in their tracks! There is a reason Use of Force Guidelines puts a taser at a lower force than a gun - it's because it is not as effective, and is ok to be used in cases that aren't extreme. Do you need statistics to prove that to you???? 

Yes it matters. 

I doubt you will find statistics. There is a claim by the manufacturer which a number of policemen say is incorrect. 

What needs to be know is of they are actually effective. The claim is that they are not. If they are not, why are they in use? If they are effective why can police refuse to use them on a personal basis? 

It's really a seperate argument in that respect although has impact in those instances.

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Not when it comes to forming an opinion! 

Well I disagree

People who knew both girls, their history and were there longer than Reardon would have to have a better grasp of the entire situation. They were shocked at his reaction. Her uncle is a supporter of police and felt they get it very wrong. 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Still irrelevant! It doesn't matter whether Bryant called the police or not! She tried to murder a woman, and she lost her life as a result.  

She lost her life because the police arrived when they did. 

The lady in pink, Tionna Bonner, first picked up a knife and threatened Bryant prompting the call. Had Reardon arrived at that point, perhaps Bonner would have died. She is free to keep picking up knives despite the outcome of the incident. 

The person who attempted violence to begin with isn't affected. 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It strengthens police trust in the minds of many others. If someone doesn't call the cops because of this, they are an idiot!   

No they aren't.

Look at the statistics for black death in the area. 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You don't need a VPN to access YouTube. YouTube age-restricted pretty much ALL Ma'Khia Bryant commentary due to the fact that a 16 year old died. You can still watch it on YouTube. But you need to have a YouTube account with your age listed in order to access the material. Seems pretty straight forward.  

I don't have an account as far as I know unless Google set me one up. 

I only ever used it to watch music video's. I had a stint where I watched some debates a few years ago but had no requirement for a login. Unless I'm given a link it was mainly for music for me. 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Plenty of reasons. If you have Netflix (or any streaming platform) you can watch content you wouldn't normally have access to, you can keep your browser data private. There are other reasons to get a VPN but those are the two biggest, and they're the two reasons I got my VPN. 

Don't really care about the data. I don't keep important passwords on my phone only in my head. Other than that, reading my emails and stuff would probably bore someone to death. 

I'm good with the Netflix I've got. I don't have time to keep up with the series I'm watching as it is. Just finished Picard season 2 and I've got two seasons of The Boys and Mandalorian yet. 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

So because I watch some "absolute rubbish", I "ruined" your YouTube viewing experience?!?!?! Makes sense to me    

I just can't look at the screen without wanting to punch it after walk don't run. 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That this is evidence he had enough time to draw a taser and disarm someone in the middle of murdering another human being! I disagree with that, naturally. 

Right, you're belief.

Try setting your watch and say:

What's going on here

Then say Get down four times. 

Should be around six seconds.

Do you feel that's insufficient time to draw a taser? 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Were knives a common weapon of choice during these fights, and did Officer Reardon have access to her extensive history of fighting? 

Aside from this, I see nothing about her age that would change anything in how things panned out. 

No he didn't.

Better information could have made him aware. She was a foster child. There will be records of her behaviour and history. Which is actually very good according to all accounts. 

Bryant's foster mother stated Mikahia wasn't the one who started the fights.

Reardon did not warn he would shoot, he did not say drop the knife. Better training would correct those oversights. 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Why is it always YOU? I don't accuse anyone but you of intentionally misrepresenting me! 

I've dropped a laugh emoji seeing you accuse another but I'm too lazy to look it up. 

You always seem to be in these heated discussions. I believe GD proposed it correctly when he said you go looking for scandals to be upset about. I've said very similar in the past. 

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Because of the actions of Officer Reardon, Ma'Khia Bryant did not get a chance to try again. There's no guarantee she wouldn't have succeeded if the officer didn't intervene. 

Did you watch the video I linked? 

As in, there are many specific cases where police can be criminally charged and/or sued by individuals for not performing their duties. The first example he provides is the death of George Floyd - at least one of the officers was charged with not intervening to stop Chauvin from killing him! That seems to suggest that they do in fact have a duty to protect the public. 

Why are you speaking of guarantees when the Guidelines make no allusions to such a thing.

It's reasonable that the athletic looking lady in pink would have fled the area.  

Keep at it.

Quote

The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their "services."

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

Edited March 16, 2023 by Golden Duck

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

There is a reason Use of Force Guidelines puts a taser at a lower force than a gun - it's because it is not as effective,

Incorrect.  That is a misinterptetation. 

[spartan max2]

On 3/14/2023 at 12:55 AM, psyche101 said:

 

 

Breaking windows to enter the capital building.

The peaceful totally not unhinged Jan 6 mob ...

Edited March 16, 2023 by spartan max2

[Gromdor]

5 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Breaking windows to enter the capital building.

The peaceful totally not unhinged Jan 6 mob ...

We have had 8 Iowans get arrested for Jan. 6.  Iowa is red but watching the trials few have questioned the guilt of these men/women.  Five have been convicted so far. 

Kenny Radar- Still convinced election was stolen and is unrepentant. Three months jail time.

Daryl Johnson- Pushed his way in.  Only 30days jail time.

Kyle Young- Engaged with hand to hand fighting with police.  Badly beat a DC officer (Michael Fanone) with the mob and tried to steal his weapon- Over Seven Years jail time.

Doug Jensen (I'm pretty sure I know this guy from work. He was a laborer for the bricklayers)-  Five years jail time.  No remorse, was actively trying to incite violence with the mob.  Wore his QANON shirt.

Leo Kelly- Still in court: Cedar Rapids man Leo Kelly faces five more charges related to Jan. 6 riot at U.S. Capitol (yahoo.com) In his LifeSiteNews interview, which is no longer available online, Kelly said he was not armed or violent during the riot, but felt the participants had no other choice because "no one will even listen to us."

Deborah Sandoval- Still in court. together with her son facing 13 counts: Deborah & Salvador Sandoval - Indictment (justice.gov)

Salvador Sandoval- Still in court with his mom.  Was assaulting police officers.

Chad Heathcote- 15 days in jail.  Adel's Chad Heathcote convicted in Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol attack | weareiowa.com  He wasn't so terrible- especially compared to Young, Jensen, and Sandoval.  He's the guy that the right points at pretending all the Jan 6 rioters were acting like.

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Gromdor

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Kyle Young- Engaged with hand to hand fighting with police.  Badly beat a DC officer (Michael Fanone) with the mob and tried to steal his weapon- Over Seven Years jail time.

Over a 150 officers were injured that day. This is a fact.

It's amazing how seemingly intelligent right wing UM members filter out that fact. 

[+Paranoid Android]

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's no shock. But you don't state it is a belief until prompted. 

I prefer to stick with what we know. How many times has GD pointed out that the lunge happened anyway without contact? 

And if the officer did nothing, Bryant would have been free to lunge again! It's irrelevant that the initial lunge failed, she was still trying to murder her. 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yes it matters. 

I doubt you will find statistics. There is a claim by the manufacturer which a number of policemen say is incorrect. 

What needs to be know is of they are actually effective. The claim is that they are not. If they are not, why are they in use? If they are effective why can police refuse to use them on a personal basis? 

It's really a seperate argument in that respect although has impact in those instances.

40% appears accurate, according to this link.

Even if it's 10% or 5% or 1%, the fact is that another woman's life was in danger and tasers are not 100% effective at stopping criminals, which is why Use of Force Guidelines require lethal force be used when someone's life is in danger.

.

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Well I disagree

People who knew both girls, their history and were there longer than Reardon would have to have a better grasp of the entire situation. They were shocked at his reaction. Her uncle is a supporter of police and felt they get it very wrong. 

Good. This is what's called "agreeing to disagree", and it's not as bad as you think. It's simply accepting that your opinion and my opinion are different and we won't change each other's mind! 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

She lost her life because the police arrived when they did. 

The lady in pink, Tionna Bonner, first picked up a knife and threatened Bryant prompting the call. Had Reardon arrived at that point, perhaps Bonner would have died. She is free to keep picking up knives despite the outcome of the incident. 

The person who attempted violence to begin with isn't affected. 

She lost her life because she attacked a woman with a knife! If she didn't do that she would still be alive, regardless of whether she called the police or not! 

Period! 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No they aren't.

Look at the statistics for black death in the area. 

I should also look at the statistics for black crime in the area! Do you think I will find a correlation? 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I don't have an account as far as I know unless Google set me one up. 

I only ever used it to watch music video's. I had a stint where I watched some debates a few years ago but had no requirement for a login. Unless I'm given a link it was mainly for music for me. 

If you click on YouTube there should be a button on the top right saying "sign in". The details should be the same as your Google Account, or you can register with an email of your choice. 

I rarely use YouTube for music, except when I'm putting music on for my students at school. 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Don't really care about the data. I don't keep important passwords on my phone only in my head. Other than that, reading my emails and stuff would probably bore someone to death. 

I'm good with the Netflix I've got. I don't have time to keep up with the series I'm watching as it is. Just finished Picard season 2 and I've got two seasons of The Boys and Mandalorian yet. 

 Just putting it out there, whatever the case. 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I just can't look at the screen without wanting to punch it after walk don't run. 

 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Right, you're belief.

Try setting your watch and say:

What's going on here

Then say Get down four times. 

Should be around six seconds.

Do you feel that's insufficient time to draw a taser? 

The time it takes to draw is not the issue at stake. It's the fact that at this point Ma'Khia Bryant was in close proximity to an innocent bystander and that knife was in the process of being used! 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No he didn't.

Better information could have made him aware. She was a foster child. There will be records of her behaviour and history. Which is actually very good according to all accounts. 

Bryant's foster mother stated Mikahia wasn't the one who started the fights.

Reardon did not warn he would shoot, he did not say drop the knife. Better training would correct those oversights. 

How do you propose he get given this information? Did dispatch have this information available to them? Did Ma'Khia Bryant provide this information in the police call to help the police better identify what was happening? 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I've dropped a laugh emoji seeing you accuse another but I'm too lazy to look it up. 

You always seem to be in these heated discussions. I believe GD proposed it correctly when he said you go looking for scandals to be upset about. I've said very similar in the past. 

I have occasionally had disagreements with others (literally 1-2 individuals, at 1-2 specific instances) that ended with a question - did you misrepresent me? Or a statement - it might not be intentional, but you are misrepresenting me".

You are the only one who I have to say virtually on a daily basis "stop misrepresenting me", and I no longer think you are doing it by accident. You are the only one who comes close to that. 

 

[+Paranoid Android]

19 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Why are you speaking of guarantees when the Guidelines make no allusions to such a thing.

It's reasonable that the athletic looking lady in pink would have fled the area.  

Keep at it.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

Thao and Kueng are also charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure, alleging they did not intervene to stop Chauvin as he knelt on Floyd's neck.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-08/us-grand-jury-charges-chauvin-minneapolis-officers/100125742#:~:text=Thao and Kueng are also,he knelt on Floyd's neck.

If these guys were charged with crimes, then obviously they do have an obligation to step in and protect the public! 

 

19 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Incorrect.  That is a misinterptetation. 

What is a misinterpretation? 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

And if the officer did nothing, Bryant would have been free to lunge again! It's irrelevant that the initial lunge failed, she was still trying to murder her. 

How is it irrelevant? If Reardon had said he killed her because he thought she could have stabbed another person I don't think he would have been acquitted. 

Fact is he didn't stop the threatening action. 

You're convinced her motive was murder. I'm not. I feel she was attempting to cut Tionna Bonner in retaliation / self defence. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

40% appears accurate, according to this link.

Even if it's 10% or 5% or 1%, the fact is that another woman's life was in danger and tasers are not 100% effective at stopping criminals, which is why Use of Force Guidelines require lethal force be used when someone's life is in danger.

No. That's why I said it's a seperate subject.

What is a 40% efficient piece of equipment doing in their hands? 

Tasers can undoubtedly save lives and would have done so in this situation. If there is a fault why isn't that addressed. If they are ineffective why are they in use? 

This case has highlighted this. It's an issue that sorely needs addressing. If tasers are not effective they need to be redesigned or removed. This debate shouldn't even be happening. It would not under any other circumstances.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Good. This is what's called "agreeing to disagree", and it's not as bad as you think. It's simply accepting that your opinion and my opinion are different and we won't change each other's mind! 

It's not really.

It more strikes me as arrogant. You're just dismissing evidence to maintain a belief. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

She lost her life because she attacked a woman with a knife! If she didn't do that she would still be alive, regardless of whether she called the police or not! 

Period! 

Had she not called police she would be alive and I have no doubts Bonner would be too. 

IMHO she lost her life because of the circumstances at the time. Had Reardon arrived earlier it may well be Bonner who was killed. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I should also look at the statistics for black crime in the area! Do you think I will find a correlation? 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/playlist/black-men-boys-who-were-killed-by-police/amp/

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

If you click on YouTube there should be a button on the top right saying "sign in". The details should be the same as your Google Account, or you can register with an email of your choice. 

I rarely use YouTube for music, except when I'm putting music on for my students at school. 

I guess this is why I prefer links. 

Should you be posting age restricted material on a family forum? Just asking. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 Just putting it out there, whatever the case. 

Ok thanks.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

I can't possibly be the only one.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The time it takes to draw is not the issue at stake. It's the fact that at this point Ma'Khia Bryant was in close proximity to an innocent bystander and that knife was in the process of being used! 

I don't understand.

Time is time. It can be used in any way. It's enough time to evaluate and draw. And from what I see on the footage he was well within range. 

As GD has pointed out, the shots didn't affect the motion. So it wasn't a life saving action. It was an understandable action but it didn't actually save a life. It took one.  

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

How do you propose he get given this information? Did dispatch have this information available to them? Did Ma'Khia Bryant provide this information in the police call to help the police better identify what was happening? 

Dispatch would have it if they were trained to look for a record upon the reporting of an incident. 

Had Reardon yelled he was going to shoot one of the seven bystanders could have stopped him and told him it was a child. Had he said drop the knife Mikahia would have had the opportunity to make a decision. 

It's all well and good to say there was no choice and according to Reardon's trading, but he didn't see those options. That's why I feel training is at fault here rather than Reardon. 

He had at least six seconds to offer de-escalation techniques. He wasn't trained to take that opportunity. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I have occasionally had disagreements with others (literally 1-2 individuals, at 1-2 specific instances) that ended with a question - did you misrepresent me? Or a statement - it might not be intentional, but you are misrepresenting me".

You are the only one who I have to say virtually on a daily basis "stop misrepresenting me", and I no longer think you are doing it by accident. You are the only one who comes close to that. 

If you say so. If I was to present examples you would probably call them misrepresentation again. 

I never understood that line. It sounds silly. You're not the information presented. What you do present is worthy of challenge. It's not you misrepresented, it's your information challenged. 

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Thao and Kueng are also charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure, alleging they did not intervene to stop Chauvin as he knelt on Floyd's neck.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-08/us-grand-jury-charges-chauvin-minneapolis-officers/100125742#:~:text=Thao and Kueng are also,he knelt on Floyd's neck.

If these guys were charged with crimes, then obviously they do have an obligation to step in and protect the public! 

 

What is a misinterpretation? 

 

 

Thao and Keung are charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder, not for failing to prevent homicide.

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

She lost her life because she attacked a woman with a knife!

Bryant lost her life because she was shot.

Attacking a person with a knife is not punishable by penalty of death.

[+Paranoid Android]

5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Thao and Keung are charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder, not for failing to prevent homicide.

Thao and Kueng are also charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure, alleging they did not intervene to stop Chauvin as he knelt on Floyd's neck.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-08/us-grand-jury-charges-chauvin-minneapolis-officers/100125742#:~:text=Thao and Kueng are also,he knelt on Floyd's neck.

As from the article, they are ALSO being charged with violating his rights, and the reasoning for this charge is their failure to intervene - allegedly that thing that you are telling me police don't have a duty to do! The video I linked for you goes into more detail as to the Supreme Court cases, and particularly their limitations and why this isn't a carte blanche statement from the courts that officers don't have a duty to protect you. 

 

5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Bryant lost her life because she was shot.

Attacking a person with a knife is not punishable by penalty of death.

And she wouldn't have been shot if she wasn't trying to stab someone with a knife!

Taking this back to January 6, why not use this exact argument for Ashlii Babbitt and argue that climbing through a window is not punishable by penalty of death! Yet it happened! And the officer who pulled the trigger was right to do so, in my opinion! 

[+Paranoid Android]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

How is it irrelevant? If Reardon had said he killed her because he thought she could have stabbed another person I don't think he would have been acquitted. 

Fact is he didn't stop the threatening action. 

As she was in the process of stabbing as she got shot, it very much is irrelevant whether previous attempts failed! 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You're convinced her motive was murder. I'm not. I feel she was attempting to cut Tionna Bonner in retaliation / self defence. 

I'm not convinced her motive was murder either. I'm intentionally describing her actions only from the point of view of someone who has just arrived on the scene and knows absolutely nothing about the situation. (in the exact way that the officer who arrived on the scene had no knowledge of her or her situation and needs to make a judgement purely based on actions that happen within the space of seconds). Whether she is simply trying to cut her is not important, it's how it looks to the officer who has to make a decision. 

The officer can't assume that she's just trying to cut her for retaliation. In his mind, Bryant is trying to murder someone, as that is what the evidence in the video is presenting at the time, which is the evidence he had available to him when he arrived on the scene. 

It's also worth noting that even if she was just trying to cut her, that can still be fatal. Severing the wrong artery at the wrong time can make her bleed out in minutes (maybe less, I'm not a doctor). And if they were struggling over the weapon and someone slips, then whoops an accident happens and she's still murdered a human being, whether she intended to do it or not. So I am comfortable using "murder" to describe her attempted actions in this context. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No. That's why I said it's a seperate subject.

What is a 40% efficient piece of equipment doing in their hands? 

Tasers can undoubtedly save lives and would have done so in this situation. If there is a fault why isn't that addressed. If they are ineffective why are they in use? 

This case has highlighted this. It's an issue that sorely needs addressing. If tasers are not effective they need to be redesigned or removed. This debate shouldn't even be happening. It would not under any other circumstances.

Then start a thread, I really don't care enough to argue with you about it. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's not really.

It more strikes me as arrogant. You're just dismissing evidence to maintain a belief. 

We're using the same evidence, we're interpreting it differently. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Had she not called police she would be alive and I have no doubts Bonner would be too. 

Glad you think so. I disagree. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

IMHO she lost her life because of the circumstances at the time. Had Reardon arrived earlier it may well be Bonner who was killed. 

Maybe it would be Bonner who was killed. That's the way the cookie crumbles! That is also completely irrelevant to the point!

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/playlist/black-men-boys-who-were-killed-by-police/amp/

You asked me to "look at the statistics for black deaths in the area". I also think it's fair to look at the statistics for black crime in the area, and your response is to post a bunch of names from a national perspective. That's not statistics, that's case studies! 

How many of those were resisting arrest? How many of them were unarmed? In short, how many of them were unjustified shootings? Don't get me wrong, even one unjustified shooting is too many and the officers who act unjustifiably should be held accountable! But black men are not somehow being targeted and executed by police, this is a lie and has no bearing in reality. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I guess this is why I prefer links. 

Should you be posting age restricted material on a family forum? Just asking. 

They don't have a warning on them until after I post them to the forum (nothing on YouTube tells me the content is restricted, as I am logged into my YouTube account). And in order to view them you need to have an account on YouTube that acknowledges your age. It's also worth pointing out that YouTube is very sensitive when it comes to commentary on hot button topics like this, and so a lot of reasonable non-adult content gets flagged as "age restricted" even when it's entirely reasonable. 

I can't go back and edit my posts, even if I wanted to, so if a mod feels that the content is inappropriate, they can remove it, ok  

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Ok thanks.

I can't possibly be the only one.

I don't understand.

Time is time. It can be used in any way. It's enough time to evaluate and draw. And from what I see on the footage he was well within range. 

As GD has pointed out, the shots didn't affect the motion. So it wasn't a life saving action. It was an understandable action but it didn't actually save a life. It took one.  

Respectfully I don't see how you can possibly argue that it didn't stop anything. The video clearly demonstrates that at the time Ma'Khia was shot her arm was raised up and was currently in a downward arc towards Bonner! Without an intervening officer the blade is headed straight at Bonner. 

You see, an example of where we both have the same information and yet are interpreting it differently - different opinions, not "ignoring" evidence. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Dispatch would have it if they were trained to look for a record upon the reporting of an incident. 

Had Reardon yelled he was going to shoot one of the seven bystanders could have stopped him and told him it was a child. Had he said drop the knife Mikahia would have had the opportunity to make a decision. 

It's all well and good to say there was no choice and according to Reardon's trading, but he didn't see those options. That's why I feel training is at fault here rather than Reardon. 

He had at least six seconds to offer de-escalation techniques. He wasn't trained to take that opportunity. 

I'm sorry, I do not find your suggestions realistic. As it's somewhat off topic, I don't feel it will serve much to detail a paragraph response for each of your suggestions and why I don't find them compelling. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If you say so. If I was to present examples you would probably call them misrepresentation again. 

If you quoted a one-off example of where I said, "I don't think it's intentional, but you're misrepresenting my position here, so to clarify, what I mean is...." and use that somehow as evidence that I get into arguments with others in the same way I constantly get into arguments with you, then damn straight I'm going to call that a misrepresentation! 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I never understood that line. It sounds silly. You're not the information presented. What you do present is worthy of challenge. It's not you misrepresented, it's your information challenged. 

Sorry, I tried to paste something into this, and now I can't remove this black background thing, so you'll just have to read along. Sorry. 

I had originally replied to this in detail along with explanations of what "misrepresentation" actually means (it's NOT simply "challenging" my comments, as you seem to suggest in your post) but the fact is we're arguing about something that hasn't even happened in this thread, so I'm going to drop this particular argument. 

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Thao and Kueng are also charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure, alleging they did not intervene to stop Chauvin as he knelt on Floyd's neck.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-08/us-grand-jury-charges-chauvin-minneapolis-officers/100125742#:~:text=Thao and Kueng are also,he knelt on Floyd's neck.

As from the article, they are ALSO being charged with violating his rights, and the reasoning for this charge is their failure to intervene - allegedly that thing that you are telling me police don't have a duty to do! The video I linked for you goes into more detail as to the Supreme Court cases, and particularly their limitations and why this isn't a carte blanche statement from the courts that officers don't have a duty to protect you. 

 

And she wouldn't have been shot if she wasn't trying to stab someone with a knife!

Taking this back to January 6, why not use this exact argument for Ashlii Babbitt and argue that climbing through a window is not punishable by penalty of death! Yet it happened! And the officer who pulled the trigger was right to do so, in my opinion! 

Thr article I linked to goes into just as much detail.  And I'll provide youvthevtext again to facilitate the discussion.

Quote

In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/

Quote

Definition of 'under arrest' in American English

 

in legal custody, as of the police

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/under-arrest#:~:text=Collins-,under arrest in American English,the scene of the crime

Floyd was in custody, the woman in pink was not.

Bryant died of gunshot wounds.  She wouldn't have been shot if the killer had not decided to shoot her.  The killer was under no obligation to shoot her.

Taking this back to 6 January, the woman you say the killer was trying to protect was in the killer's field of fire.  This a complaint that has been raised in this forum.

Your a free to have your opinion about the killing of Babbit.  It doesn't change the fact the Police Guidelines you linked to do not place the officer under legal obligation to kill Bryant.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Golden Duck

[+Paranoid Android]

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Thr article I linked to goes into just as much detail.  And I'll provide youvthevtext again to facilitate the discussion.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/under-arrest#:~:text=Collins-,under arrest in American English,the scene of the crime

Floyd was in custody, the woman in pink was not.

Bryant died of gunshot wounds.  She wouldn't have been shot if the killer had not decided to shoot her.  The killer was under no obligation to shoot her.

Taking this back to 6 January, the woman you say the killer was trying to protect was in the killer's field of fire.  This a complaint that has been raised in this forum.

Your a free to have your opinion about the killing of Babbit.  It doesn't change the fact the Police Guidelines you linked to do not place the officer under legal obligation to kill Bryant.

I noticed you stopped short of saying that climbing through a window shouldn't be a death sentence!

For the rest we are going around in circles,  so o think I'll get off the merry go round before I get more dizzy.