Law School Discussion

Thoughts on the Jena 6

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #200 on: October 09, 2007, 10:01:19 PM »
If you do have time to make a clean shot, you also have time to get out of the way of the car. 

I'm not denying this might be in the provision, but I am denying that it could possibly be true.  You couldn't imagine a case in which a car is headed at you, you have time to shoot at the car, yet you don't have time or room to escape the path of the car?  Cars don't stay on one straight path; the driver can steer and try to hit you.  If you shoot the person in the car, however, the driver cannot try to steer and hit you.   

::resumes studying for civ pro test::

Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #201 on: October 09, 2007, 10:03:44 PM »
This discussion leads me to believe you have never shot at a moving vehicle that is trying to run you over.  You should come to Texas. 

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #202 on: October 09, 2007, 10:04:47 PM »
This discussion leads me to believe you have never shot at a moving vehicle that is trying to run you over.  You should come to Texas. 

:D

Speaking of the Gulf Region, can we get back to Louisiana now?

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #203 on: October 10, 2007, 10:08:03 AM »
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. 


It is a shame that she has to explain this to some people on here.

You are better than most, P.

Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #204 on: October 10, 2007, 10:13:50 AM »
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. 


It is a shame that she has to explain this to some people on here.

You are better than most, P.


Yes--some of us are so stupid.  This morning I tripped over myself while getting out of bed.  It was all I could do to toast a Pop Tart. 

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #205 on: October 10, 2007, 10:52:11 AM »
Wasn't talkin about you personally. 

Some of the debates of late on this thread have been like arguing that the sky, is in fact, blue.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #206 on: October 10, 2007, 11:51:01 AM »
The great thing about internet arguing is that if someone else can't prove that the sky is blue, you can often make them really annoyed by deliberately insisting it's purple.

One thing that I notice about the LSD boards, relative to many others where I've been on the internet, is that here people tend to prefer to show themselves as non-cooperative. Somehow the concept of cooperation suggests to them the concept of weakness or ineptitude. (This is, of course, a logical fallacy, but that's a different issue.) So, when they're in doubt, they aggressively posture about their own independence, lack of support, and aggression, going out of their way to find the small points where they and everyone else DIFFER. It's very important to them to find difference and then get angry about it. In lots of other locations, people are more sanguine about the notion of creating a field in which we can all work, even if there are differences among the denizens of that field.

I suppose it's good practice for the inherently adversarial nature of the law, and it's generally verbally quite accurate to the type of thinking that's required in an LSAT question. People often read my posts as though they were LR or RC questions (another obvious logical fallacy) and then feel they've adequately addressed the issues at hand merely because they've pointed out a weakener, strengthener, or assumption, or found which of the following five answer choices  parallels the method of reading in the stimulus above. But it certainly doesn't actually get at the issues at hand, and it tends to prevent people from actually advocating for their own positions.

Nobody on this thread who CLAIMS to be advocating that racism in America doesn't exist to any important extent has actually DONE any advocating for that claim. They just keep re-stating that position, then things which are supposed inferences from that position, and then things that are only tangentially related to that position, and then a lot of anger about things like taxes and jobs and abortion and any other hot-button issues they can find. But they don't ... actually ... BOTHER to try to prove their point. And that's definitely not very good practice for the law, is it?




Couldn't agree with you more.

Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #207 on: October 10, 2007, 12:59:23 PM »
The great thing about internet arguing is that if someone else can't prove that the sky is blue, you can often make them really annoyed by deliberately insisting it's purple.

One thing that I notice about the LSD boards, relative to many others where I've been on the internet, is that here people tend to prefer to show themselves as non-cooperative. Somehow the concept of cooperation suggests to them the concept of weakness or ineptitude. (This is, of course, a logical fallacy, but that's a different issue.) So, when they're in doubt, they aggressively posture about their own independence, lack of support, and aggression, going out of their way to find the small points where they and everyone else DIFFER. It's very important to them to find difference and then get angry about it. In lots of other locations, people are more sanguine about the notion of creating a field in which we can all work, even if there are differences among the denizens of that field.

I suppose it's good practice for the inherently adversarial nature of the law, and it's generally verbally quite accurate to the type of thinking that's required in an LSAT question. People often read my posts as though they were LR or RC questions (another obvious logical fallacy) and then feel they've adequately addressed the issues at hand merely because they've pointed out a weakener, strengthener, or assumption, or found which of the following five answer choices  parallels the method of reading in the stimulus above. But it certainly doesn't actually get at the issues at hand, and it tends to prevent people from actually advocating for their own positions.

Nobody on this thread who CLAIMS to be advocating that racism in America doesn't exist to any important extent has actually DONE any advocating for that claim. They just keep re-stating that position, then things which are supposed inferences from that position, and then things that are only tangentially related to that position, and then a lot of anger about things like taxes and jobs and abortion and any other hot-button issues they can find. But they don't ... actually ... BOTHER to try to prove their point. And that's definitely not very good practice for the law, is it?



 ::)

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #208 on: October 10, 2007, 07:52:16 PM »
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.

While I appreciate your time and you have added to my knowledge of NYPD procedures, what you're describing isn't racism.

7S

  • ****
  • 1702
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #209 on: October 10, 2007, 08:17:52 PM »