yeah thats what we need, to protect an already over-protected class of people.
you want to increase hatred for cops? this is how you increase hatred for cops.
Pretty sure my hate meter is maxed for cops.
im somewhat torn in that i worked with many. these are fellow human beings... but all the bad stuff is true. there are handfuls of good cops here and there but there are absolutely bad cops almost everywhere, and theres nothing the 'good' cops can seemingly do about the bad cops without 'outing' themselves.
hence, acab.
the system is broken. it attracts both the worst and the best and turns them all into garbage.
One bad apple spoils the bunch.
Just expanded my hate meter to accomodate my new levels of cop hate.
They dont care how much hate the police receive. They just need to protect the fascism enforcers.
Yes, that is exactly what they're trying to do.
The former would expand the definition of “crime victims” to include “law enforcement officers, correctional officers, or correctional probation officers who use deadly force in the course and scope of their employment or official duties.”
Republicans want to redefine cops who use deadly force as victims? Color me doubleplusunshocked.
Deadly force may only be used to stop a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
If you kill me while I am in the process of attacking you, you are, indeed, my victim, whether you are a random individual, or a sworn officer. The fact that I am the one who dies during that encounter does not mean that I am the victim.
Edit: Do people really not know the circumstances under which force may be used? Does the general public not understand the 6 conditions that must be met before lethal force can be justified?
Reasonable Person
Credible Threat
Criminal Threat
Imminent Threat
Severe Threat
Necessity
Cops don't get some special exception to this. These are the legal standards that they must abide by when using lethal force.
The bill defines all cops or correctional officers who use deadly force on duty as victims. Not just those who kill someone in the specific circumstance that you described.
Self defense and defense of others are the only circumstances where police can justifiably use lethal force. Self defense, they are clearly the victim. Defense of others, I would argue they deserve the same protections as the victim.
The bill doesn't protect other, non-justifiable uses of force.
LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house? What about kneeling on someone's neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air? What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death? What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?
You act like this bullshit list is actually EVER followed by any cop in any situation. You act as though cops who DON'T follow this list are punished for murdering innocent civilians without following this bullshit process.
Fuck you and your boot licking ass.
LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house
Not protected.
What about kneeling on someone's neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air?
Not protected.
What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death
Not protected.
What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?
Not protected.
This bill does not protect officers in any of the scenarios you describe. None of these scenarios describe self defense or defense of others. None of these uses of force are justifiable.
Also not protected is an officer mistaking an acorn for a gunshot and unloading his weapon into the back of his own cruiser, with a handcuffed suspect in the back.
ALL OF THESE USES OF FORCE HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND JUSTIFIABLE YOU ABSOLUTE BOOT LICKING MORON.
In every case you described, officers were charged and prosecuted. Some were convicted, some were acquitted. None of them would have been protected under Marsy's law.
Not to mention that even when charged police officers are almost never found guilty even when the evidence is overwhelming due to the various additional protections they have. At best someone can sue the city and obtain a financial remedy while the police department is completely unscathed and unaffected by the poor and criminal behaviour of their officers.
It's obvious that you're not arguing in good faith so you can respond how you like I'm done talking to you.
Edit: just looked up the prison slang you were using in your comment. Obviously you're not a boot licker, you are the boot. It's clear now why you support a law that would hide your identity when you murder people. Cops HATE accountability, that's why nobody trusts them anymore. Fascists gonna fash!
The "elderly woman" you're talking about was a 50-year-old man, and the situation does not qualify for protection under the bill. The man posed no credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Their act of locking him in the shower had lethal results, but it was not a "use of lethal force" under self defense laws, and would not qualify the officers for protection under the bill.
Dogs are legally considered property, not people. Killing a dog is not considered a use of lethal force. Marsy's law does not protect officers for killing dogs.
In both scenarios you cited, the law would not hide their identities.
No, the general public is aware that cops are protected regardless of if these criteria are met. So are you.
Protecting Cops that MURDER CHILDREN is how we Protect The Children!
So the safe assumption is that any given officer in Florida is a murderer.
So the safe assumption is that any given officer in Florida is a murderer.
Fascists gonna fash
ACAB
So basically the laws are unconstitutional in the same way that arrest records and voting registration details are in the public domain in Florida.
yeah thats what we need, to protect an already over-protected class of people.
you want to increase hatred for cops? this is how you increase hatred for cops.
Pretty sure my hate meter is maxed for cops.
im somewhat torn in that i worked with many. these are fellow human beings... but all the bad stuff is true. there are handfuls of good cops here and there but there are absolutely bad cops almost everywhere, and theres nothing the 'good' cops can seemingly do about the bad cops without 'outing' themselves.
hence, acab.
the system is broken. it attracts both the worst and the best and turns them all into garbage.
One bad apple spoils the bunch.
Just expanded my hate meter to accomodate my new levels of cop hate.
They dont care how much hate the police receive. They just need to protect the fascism enforcers.
Yes, that is exactly what they're trying to do.
Republicans want to redefine cops who use deadly force as victims? Color me doubleplusunshocked.
Deadly force may only be used to stop a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
If you kill me while I am in the process of attacking you, you are, indeed, my victim, whether you are a random individual, or a sworn officer. The fact that I am the one who dies during that encounter does not mean that I am the victim.
Edit: Do people really not know the circumstances under which force may be used? Does the general public not understand the 6 conditions that must be met before lethal force can be justified?
Cops don't get some special exception to this. These are the legal standards that they must abide by when using lethal force.
The bill defines all cops or correctional officers who use deadly force on duty as victims. Not just those who kill someone in the specific circumstance that you described.
Self defense and defense of others are the only circumstances where police can justifiably use lethal force. Self defense, they are clearly the victim. Defense of others, I would argue they deserve the same protections as the victim.
The bill doesn't protect other, non-justifiable uses of force.
LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house? What about kneeling on someone's neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air? What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death? What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?
You act like this bullshit list is actually EVER followed by any cop in any situation. You act as though cops who DON'T follow this list are punished for murdering innocent civilians without following this bullshit process.
Fuck you and your boot licking ass.
Not protected.
Not protected.
Not protected.
Not protected.
This bill does not protect officers in any of the scenarios you describe. None of these scenarios describe self defense or defense of others. None of these uses of force are justifiable.
Also not protected is an officer mistaking an acorn for a gunshot and unloading his weapon into the back of his own cruiser, with a handcuffed suspect in the back.
ALL OF THESE USES OF FORCE HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND JUSTIFIABLE YOU ABSOLUTE BOOT LICKING MORON.
In every case you described, officers were charged and prosecuted. Some were convicted, some were acquitted. None of them would have been protected under Marsy's law.
Stop holding pockets.
Hmmm let's see The elderly woman scalded to death, no officers charged: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/katherine-fernandez-rundle-criticized-for-darren-rainey-florida-prison-death-11657307
Shooting dogs, I'm sure all these thousands of cases per year are either justified or prosecuted: https://qz.com/870601/police-killing-dogs-is-an-epidemic-according-to-the-justice-department
Not to mention that even when charged police officers are almost never found guilty even when the evidence is overwhelming due to the various additional protections they have. At best someone can sue the city and obtain a financial remedy while the police department is completely unscathed and unaffected by the poor and criminal behaviour of their officers.
It's obvious that you're not arguing in good faith so you can respond how you like I'm done talking to you.
Edit: just looked up the prison slang you were using in your comment. Obviously you're not a boot licker, you are the boot. It's clear now why you support a law that would hide your identity when you murder people. Cops HATE accountability, that's why nobody trusts them anymore. Fascists gonna fash!
The "elderly woman" you're talking about was a 50-year-old man, and the situation does not qualify for protection under the bill. The man posed no credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Their act of locking him in the shower had lethal results, but it was not a "use of lethal force" under self defense laws, and would not qualify the officers for protection under the bill.
Dogs are legally considered property, not people. Killing a dog is not considered a use of lethal force. Marsy's law does not protect officers for killing dogs.
In both scenarios you cited, the law would not hide their identities.
No, the general public is aware that cops are protected regardless of if these criteria are met. So are you.
Protecting Cops that MURDER CHILDREN is how we Protect The Children!
So the safe assumption is that any given officer in Florida is a murderer.
Fascists gonna fash
ACAB
So basically the laws are unconstitutional in the same way that arrest records and voting registration details are in the public domain in Florida.
What a great idea! said no one. ever.