Ships to Gaza incident

[KrazyHorse]

yeah but when cops do it and it results in the loss of life, it often also results in an investigation. Cops are not supposed to kill people to prevent crimes even the murder of innocents.

WTF are you on?

[Asher]

Israel doesn't need a law to prevent people from entering its territory. It can do so on a whim; that's its sovereign right under universally recognized international law.

No, you cannot attack people outside your territory because you think they're going to enter your territory.

Cite one precedent.

[KrazyHorse]

The protection of innocent life from imminent threat is MOST CERTAINLY sufficient justification under the laws of every state in the US for the use of lethal force by an officer of the peace.

[Al B. Sure!]

The protection of innocent life from imminent threat is MOST CERTAINLY sufficient justification under the laws of every state in the US for the use of lethal force by an officer of the peace.

Imminent threat is the debatable part.

Do I need to remind you of Amadou Diallo or Sean Bell, two incidences in NYC?

[KrazyHorse]

So you admit that this statement:

Cops are not supposed to kill people to prevent crimes even the murder of innocents.

Was retarded?

[Kuciwalker]

Whether or not it can do so in international waters seems to me to be a bit more nebulous, legally (as far as such a word applies to international incidents).

Obviously. That's why I'm not disputing that the act was, technically, illegal. I just think that there was no breach of the spirit of the law, and no material harm came from the breach of the letter of the law.

[Al B. Sure!]

So you admit that this statement:

Cops are not supposed to kill people to prevent crimes even the murder of innocents.

Was retarded?

It's retarded without the italics on supposed. The emphasis on supposed implies a statement about ideal circumstances.

Speak on Amadou Diallo, KH, and tell me if that killing was justified. The courts didn't think it was indicting the cops though they were ultimately acquitted in a controversial ruling.

Don't act like the use of the lethal force is very clear-cut and not shrouded in controversy.

[Kuciwalker]

No, you cannot attack people outside your territory because you think they're going to enter your territory.

Cite one precedent.

Thankfully, I never said that. I said that Israel can prevent people from entering its territory. The right to control its own borders is part of the definition of a sovereign power.

[KrazyHorse]

It's retarded without the italics on supposed. The emphasis on supposed implies a statement about ideal circumstances.

WTF are you talking about? Under WHAT ideal circumstances? the circumstances where nobody ever kills anybody?

Cops ARE SUPPOSED TO KILL BAD GUYS IF THEY PRESENT AN IMMINENT THREAT TO INNOCENT LIFE. Could you please, once in a while, think through something clearly? YOUR STATEMENT WAS LAUGHABLY INCORRECT.

Speak on Amadou Diallo, KH, and tell me if that killing was justified. The courts didn't think it was indicting the cops though they were ultimately acquitted in a controversial ruling.

WTF does this have to do with anything? At no time, so far as I know, was the RIGHT AND DUTY OF A COP TO USE LETHAL FORCE TO PROTECT INNOCENT LIFE FROM IMMINENT, SERIOUS HARM EVER QUESTIONED SERIOUSLY IN THESE CASES.

What may have been questioned, though I'm not aware of the details, was the nature and severity of the threat posed IN THOSE PARTICULAR INSTANCES, and the availability of other means for the cops to perform their duty IN THOSE PARTICULAR INSTANCES.

Don't act like the use of the lethal force is very clear-cut and not shrouded in controversy.

The use of lethal force in ANY GIVEN INSTANCE may be controversial. Its use, IN GENERAL, is not under question.

Stop being a ****ing dimwit.

[Al B. Sure!]

Exactly, KH. THAT is what I was trying to get to Kuci/Asher's comments. Kuci stated,

You really want to use this analogy? You can, in fact, arrest someone in order to prevent them from committing a crime. If I pulled out a gun, pointed it at you, and said "I'm going to kill Asher!" then a police officer would have every right to gun me down.

and I responded:

Umm... it's a bit more complicated than this. I don't feel like looking up cases but I'm pretty sure there have been cops who have gotten into hot water for killing people in certain situations. Typically, cops are put on paid leave and an investigation is done when cops kill suspects.

I then elaborated on it with the posts you quoted.

Again... I said it's more complicated and not clear-cut. I thought you would get that when i then noted:

Imminent threat is the debatable part.

What is your problem? Are you even reading the posts or picking and choosing?

[Kuciwalker]

It is clear-cut, AS. The general principle is crystal clear. What is typically unclear in any given case are the relevant facts.

[Al B. Sure!]

so it's not clear-cut then. clear-cut implies to me something that can be applied categorically in all situations.

[KrazyHorse]

No ****ing ****. Pull that **** with full colour and sound video going from 3 different angles and tell me that the prosecutor's office would do anything other than high-five the cop.

[KrazyHorse]

so it's not clear-cut then. clear-cut implies to me something that can be applied categorically in all situations.

So there is no clear-cut law against murder because we never figured out who Jack the Ripper was?

WTF?

[KrazyHorse]

Regardless of the evidence on hand, the law should be able to determine who is guilty and who is innocent perfectly in all cases.