Law School Discussion

Thoughts on the Jena 6

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #190 on: October 07, 2007, 12:51:18 PM »
But, wasn't that quote suggesting that the "idealists" who are well-fed are a bit OVERLY idealistic? As though perhaps "idealist" is mildly pejorative, because those idealists themselves live a mildly under-informed version of life, surrounded as they are by people who have less material wealth than them, and therefore unable as they are to sympathize with the plight of the less fortunate?


Nope.

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #191 on: October 07, 2007, 01:12:27 PM »
Oh I see. So the quote is suggesting that the morons who are materialist are all wrong and ought to be idealistic because materialism is the bad thing, and idealism the good thing that we all could have, if only we had enough stuff?


Nope.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #192 on: October 07, 2007, 06:27:01 PM »
This is ridiculous.

Yup.  I'm not doing this anymore.  You need to find a new playmate.

ETA: Marx, of course, was the ultimate materialist.  You should read the German Ideology and then come back with different aphorisms.

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #193 on: October 07, 2007, 06:35:25 PM »
This is ridiculous.

Yup.  I'm not doing this anymore.  You need to find a new playmate.

red. and stanley are gone  :(

Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #194 on: October 07, 2007, 07:24:39 PM »
lol, bb is still the most interesting poster here.  Sorry guys. 

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #195 on: October 07, 2007, 09:33:46 PM »
lol, bb is still the most interesting poster here.  Sorry guys. 

You're a fool.


obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #196 on: October 09, 2007, 05:48:17 AM »
lol, bb is still the most interesting poster here.  Sorry guys. 

You're a fool.



I prefer useful idiot.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #197 on: October 09, 2007, 07:32:10 AM »
Thanks for bumping this thread.  Something has been really bothering me.

Quote
Accepting the facts as you've outlined them, I don't think being drunk, dealing crack, going to a strip club/brothel for your bachelor party, and trying to get away from people (unidentified as cops) chasing after you, and even purposefully trying to hit an unidentified person aiming a gun at you with your car mean you should be killed in a hail of fifty gunshots.


I do. Trying to run someone over is trying to kill them. When someone is trying to kill you you fire until they are definitely dead which can take some time to ascertain if they're driving a vehicle.

NYPD policy vehemently disagrees with you about this.  The policy says that cops should not fire at moving vehicles, even when they are being used as weapons, for at least two reasons:

1. A dead or injured driver puts passengers and people nearby in tremendous danger (because s/he is in control of the car); and

2. It is nearly impossible to get a clean shot, and if you don't have a clean shot, you put yourself and others at further risk.  The police say, basically, that if you have time to get a clean shot, you have time to get out of the way, which certainly makes sense to me based on the frenzy I've experienced jaywalking across crowded streets.  The policy says you should get out of the way and then assess whether lethal force is necessary -- and whether it will add to or reduce the danger of someone getting killed.

The Bell shooting is actually a good illustration of the second point.  At least one of the 50 bullets ended up in a private home; another (or was it two?  I don't remember) shattered a glass wall at the Jamaica AirTrain station, narrowly missing PAPD and (I think) a tourist.  (They were injured by the shattered glass but not by the bullet[s?].) 

Finally, I know reports about the situation vary, but your description is really misleading.  All agree that one of the undercover officers came up to the side of the car with his gun out and put his foot on the bumper. Bell apparently moved the car back and forth (hitting the unmarked police van) in an effort to shake the officer off his car -- and, in fact, the officer jumped off or was shaken to the side as the car started to move.  It appears that no one thought that Bell was trying to run the officer over at the time.  Indeed, the accounts after the shooting revolved around a claim that the first officer had told the other officers that he saw one of the passengers reach for a gun, and not that anyone thought the first officer was about to be run over.  The controversy was about two things (1) whether the officer clearly identified himself as NYPD when he approached (and touched) the car with his gun out and (2) whether Bell was trying to hurt him or was instead just trying to get away.  Either way, the police have a policy of not firing into moving vehicles.  Even if you believe the police identified themselves clearly and that Bell was trying to hurt them, these facts are insufficient to overcome the clear judgments underlying the policy.  It was very dangerous, and we are lucky that no one else was killed or seriously hurt.

Quote from: Bb.
Quote
regardless of Bell's character flaws and alleged criminal history.

Alleged?

AFAIK, he had an arrest record but no convictions.  But it doesn't matter since we don't sanction the punishment of death by fusillade (officially).

Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #198 on: October 09, 2007, 12:56:10 PM »
Quote
I def do NOT agree that the Jena 6 should be automatically set free.  They need to stand trial for the crimes they committed just like the DA needs be investigated for his professional conduct. (or lack thereof)


That's the best post on this whole thread. 

That's funny because a lot of posts have said the same thing.  Read the thread if you want to actually participate in some discussion of the issues in Jena.  Otherwise, go read Frontpage or TownHall or whatever.


Sorry, no time to read 14 pages of squabble. 

You're a class act. Honestly.




WHAAAA!

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #199 on: October 09, 2007, 06:32:06 PM »
The police say, basically, that if you have time to get a clean shot, you have time to get out of the way, which certainly makes sense to me based on the frenzy I've experienced jaywalking across crowded streets.

I don't know about the specifics of Bell's situation, but this doesn't make much sense to me at all.  If someone is driving at you with the intent to run you over, you can't simply "get out of the way" in order to avoid the car.  I think the best justification for not firing on moving vehicles would be that even if you did kill the driver, it would hardly stop the vehicle, and it would become an unmanned tool of destruction.  

Yes, and that's point one.  But the second point is also important: the policy judges that if you are in actual danger of being run over by a car, you do not have time to make a clean shot, which means, of course, that you should not make a shot at all.  We saw this in action in Bell's case, when four of the fifty bullets struck Bell, their presumed target; fourteen struck the other passengers in the car; two nearly struck Port Authority PD officers at the AirTrain station, etc.  If you do have time to make a clean shot, you also have time to get out of the way of the car.  You should get out of the way first, and then judge whether you or others face an imminent risk of death.