Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Umbran]

It's unclear whether this legislation allows or was intended to allow the murder of Americans by drone.

Yeah, you keep using the emotionally loaded language. This is, at the moment, a legal discussion. In a legal context, "murder" is what you have after you have shown the killing was not legally justified (*legally*, not morally). I raise the point because, just as you are not supposed to murder people, we also have a big thing about folks being innocent until proven guilty.

The legislation is amazingly brief. It does not spell out some forces that are allowed, and others that are not. It says, "...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force..." - failure to give express capabilities must have been intentional, the Congress was enabling broad powers. Nor does it say that American citizens are not to be targets of this force - if they're part of, aiding, or abetting Al Qaeda or their operations, they were potential targets.

Right. A note by an attorney saying, "I think it's okay." is all that was used. He got no clarification from a court on whether it was okay or not. Instead, he went on his own.

Since Congress had already authorized broad and unspecified capabilities, that's *more* than was really required. Soldiers don't generally wait on courts for authorizations to shoot particular enemies.

We don't know if it was intended to allow the use of lethal force to murder Americans. It was used that way, but as you noted, it was supposed to be used against Al Qaeda, not U.S. citizens. Where one is both, it may not allow the use of that force.

There is *nothing* in the legislation that even vaguely suggests that US citizens are excluded. Such an interpretation is not supported by the text.

So, you may have a problem with the AUMF, in concept or execution, but given the AUMF, proving this was not legal is difficult.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

First, your source if bupkis.

No your source is bupkis. Or should I say, you have no source at all and are just pulling stats and made up "facts" out of thin air? You may not like the source, but you've provided no evidence to the source I provided as being bupkis or the level of bupkis of the source.

Second, there have't been 1000 deaths by police, where those being killed were not a threat to the lives of the officers or legitimately perceived as a threat.

So you don't perceive U.S. citizens who have joined with an extremist group and are planning and taking part in attacks agains the U.S., its citizens, and its military personnel to be threats? You don't legitimately perceive it as a legitimate threat? That's interesting.

The police are not obligated to end up dead from not reacting to a perceived threat with lethal force. If you don't want to end up dead, comply with the police orders and sue later if the arrest was not justified.

Permission to move the goal post has been rejected. Stay on topic.

You're the only one here discussing that. The rest of us are talking about murder by the government, not death by the government.

Yes, I'm discussing that... with you. Or have you not noticed what you have been discussing?

 

[Umbran]

First, your source if bupkis.

You have to support that, not just assert it. Upon what do you base the idea that this is not factual information? They do give a description of their methodology here:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/about-the-counted

What about this is inappropriate or inaccurate?

1000 shot dead by police. Of those, 203 were unarmed individuals. That would suggest that 20% of the time, use of lethal force was not required. That is a pretty nasty failure rate. If 20% of your software didn't work right, you'd be pissed off. And these are dead people who didn't have to be dead.

If we take this as a typical year, that would indicate that over time, the number is (or will be) thousands killed who didn't have to be. You're interested in one death of a guy working with Al Qaeda, but you're okay with these hundreds of deaths of unarmed civilians?

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, you keep using the emotionally loaded language. This is, at the moment, a legal discussion. In a legal context, "murder" is what you have after you have shown the killing was not legally justified (*legally*, not morally). I raise the point because, just as you are not supposed to murder people, we also have a big thing about folks being innocent until proven guilty.

The legislation is amazingly brief. It does not spell out some forces that are allowed, and others that are not. It says, "...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force..." - failure to give express capabilities must have been intentional, the Congress was enabling broad powers. Nor does it say that American citizens are not to be targets of this force - if they're part of, aiding, or abetting Al Qaeda or their operations, they were potential targets.

that pesky Constitution that guaranteed him a jury trial. That legislation when used to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights is invalid.

Since Congress had already authorized broad and unspecified capabilities, that's *more* than was really required. Soldiers don't generally wait on courts for authorizations to shoot particular enemies.

Apples and oranges. Americans are different than the enemies we usually face.

There is *nothing* in the legislation that even vaguely suggests that US citizens are excluded. Such an interpretation is not supported by the text.

The Constitution protects Americans from that legislation.

 

[Maxperson]

So you don't perceive U.S. citizens who have joined with an extremist group and are planning and taking part in attacks agains the U.S., its citizens, and its military personnel to be threats? You don't legitimately perceive it as a legitimate threat? That's interesting.

Give me a break. You know very well from my recent posts that it's the direct and immediate threat to the officers that allows them to shoot.

 

[Maxperson]

You have to support that, not just assert it. Upon what do you base the idea that this is not factual information? They do give a description of their methodology here:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/about-the-counted

What about this is inappropriate or inaccurate?

The Guardian is a very biased and bupkis source in general. I don't waste my time with biased sources like that. Will they sometimes be accurate? Sure. I'm not going to sift through the junk to find out, though.

1000 shot dead by police. Of those, 203 were unarmed individuals. That would suggest that 20% of the time, use of lethal force was not required. That is a pretty nasty failure rate. If 20% of your software didn't work right, you'd be pissed off. And these are dead people who didn't have to be dead.

Incorrect. Lethal force is required every time the officers have reason to fear for their safety. That includes all the times that unarmed people reach for their waste bands, into glove boxes and so on. That fact that 80% of the time those people are reaching for weapons makes that necessary. It's highly unreasonable to expect officers to end up wounded or dead 80% of the time in order to not shoot the 20% who were unarmed.

The long and the short of it is that if the cops are after you, don't do something stupid and earn wounding or death. Keep your hands visible and move slowly. Comply, and if the cops are in the wrong, sue them later. If you reach quickly for something out of sight and end up shot, it's your fault, not the fault of the cops.

If we take this as a typical year, that would indicate that over time, the number is (or will be) thousands killed who didn't have to be. You're interested in one death of a guy working with Al Qaeda, but you're okay with these hundreds of deaths of unarmed civilians?

Those very few times where the cops are in the wrong, like the one in Chicago, I want them charged and tried for murder...........just like Obama.

 

[tomBitonti]

Incorrect. Lethal force is required every time the officers have reason to fear for their safety. That includes all the times that unarmed people reach for their waste bands, into glove boxes and so on. That fact that 80% of the time those people are reaching for weapons makes that necessary. It's highly unreasonable to expect officers to end up wounded or dead 80% of the time in order to not shoot the 20% who were unarmed.

Eh, where are you getting those percentages?

Anyways:

From "Tenessee v. Garner," 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (see https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html):

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

There is a lot more to the decision, much too much to quote here. Here are a few select quotes:

Part 15:

One other aspect of the common law rule bears emphasis. It forbids the use of deadly force to apprehend a misdemeanant, condemning such action as disproportionately severe. See Holloway v. Moser, 193 N.C., at 187, 136 S.E. at 376; State v. Smith, 127 Iowa at 535, 103 N.W. at 945. See generally Annot., 83 A.L.R. 3d 238 (1978).

Part 18:

For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where

"the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."

The standard is not "fear for their safety" but "in immediate danger of serious physical injury". Maybe that's what you mean by "safety", but if so, the expression is terribly loose.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Maxperson]

From "Tenessee v. Garner," 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (see https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html):

There is a lot more to the decision, much too much to quote here. Here are a few select quotes:

You picked a case not dealing with self-defense, but rather dealing with someone trying to escape. It doesn't talk about what happens when the civilian is making threatening moves that put the officer in fear for his life.

Part 15:

Irrelevant. It's not talking about someone making a sudden move towards a possible weapon.

Part 18:
For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where "the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."

You didn't read that, did you? The bolded says it all. The officer only needs to reasonably believe that immediate danger is happening. The danger doesn't have to be real.

The standard is not "fear for their safety" but "in immediate danger of serious physical injury". Maybe that's what you mean by "safety", but if so, the expression is terribly loose.

You are wrong. Reasonable believe of immediate danger is all that is required for lethal force to be used. You posted it yourself. It's also all over the place in official laws, documents, case law, etc.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Give me a break. You know very well from my recent posts that it's the direct and immediate threat to the officers that allows them to shoot.

So you have a problem with all drone attacks, not just the ones on U.S, citizens, right? I mean, a lot of them happen to be on targets that aren't directly and/or immediately attacking the U.S., its citizens, or its military personnel.

 

[tomBitonti]

To continue, the cited case is presented as setting the standard for the use of deadly force. For example, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

Here is another view:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm

USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
By: George Coppolo, Chief Attorney

You asked what procedures Connecticut law requires to be followed when a law enforcement officer uses a deadly weapon that causes someone's death.

SUMMARY

The law requires the Division of Criminal Justice to investigate whenever a law enforcement officer, while performing his or her duties, uses deadly physical force that causes someone's death. It must also determine whether the officer's use of deadly physical force was appropriate under standards established by statute and submit a report of its findings and conclusions to the chief state's attorney. The division is a state executive branch agency headed by the chief state's attorney, and is in charge of the investigation and prosecution of all criminal matters in the Superior Court.

The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.

Bold added by me.

Thx
tomB