Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Thoughts on the Jena 6  (Read 28252 times)

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #200 on: October 09, 2007, 09:32:10 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).
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

1654134681665465

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #201 on: October 09, 2007, 02:56:10 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

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #202 on: October 09, 2007, 08:32:06 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. 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #203 on: October 10, 2007, 12:01:19 AM »
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::
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Private David Lewis

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #204 on: October 10, 2007, 12:03:44 AM »
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. 
The main partner in their Entertainment Law group went to CLS, but he was Fiske and on LR, so be careful.  You don't want to set yourself goals that are too high.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #205 on: October 10, 2007, 12:04:47 AM »
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?
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #206 on: October 10, 2007, 12:08:03 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. 


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

You are better than most, P.
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

Private David Lewis

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #207 on: October 10, 2007, 12:13:50 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. 


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. 
The main partner in their Entertainment Law group went to CLS, but he was Fiske and on LR, so be careful.  You don't want to set yourself goals that are too high.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #208 on: October 10, 2007, 12:52:11 PM »
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.
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on the Jena 6
« Reply #209 on: October 10, 2007, 01:51:01 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?




Couldn't agree with you more.
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston