Understanding the divide white/black/blue

[gjonesy]

Just for general knowledge, the only officers in NC allowed to use deadly force on an unarmed suspect are correctional officers. They may use deadly force to prevent the escape of convicted felons or pretrial detainees awaiting felony charges.

They are also charged, put on administrative leave pending investigation and if its determined that the officer acted with prudence and lawfully the charge is dropped...if its a bad shoot they go to trial, and because they are state officers they must be investigated at the highest level by the state bureau of investigation.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR. Being charged isn't to be confused with being arrested and put in jail. Its a process of law. For an investigation to be done formally there is presumptive "charge" of some kind, it can be excessive force, corruption malfeasance ect. That doesn't mean that it will be heard in open court or that any jury will hear evidence. There is an administrative hearing and then charges are either recommended or dropped pending investigation.

 

[gjonesy]

But you made a statement, you have to back it up. It's not about caring what someone else believes.

1. An officer may approach anyone and ask you any questions. When an officer does not have articulable facts that would allow him/her to detain you or arrest you, then you are free to go. The side note is that the officer does not have to inform you that you are free to go. It is up to you, as in individual, to state that you do not wish to answer any questions and also ask if you are free to go.

2. Terry stops are stops where an officer believes you are going to commit a crime or have committed a crime. In these stops you are not allowed to go. At most you may be required to identify yourself. The law becomes a bit muddy here. While you may be required to vocally ID yourself, it's murky as to if you have to provide ID or written verification of whom you are.

3. Lastly we have an arrest. Again you are not free to go, but once again you required to ID yourself. Many states failure to ID yourself at this points does become a crime, even if it isn't in a Terry stop.

Ok since this is hearsay let's see the links memos and documents that back up these claims.

Two can play this game..

 

[gjonesy]

In case you were unable to find it here is the actual statues

§ 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.
(a) A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical
weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14-288.21, poison, lying in wait, imprisonment,
starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which
shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex
offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of
a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any
person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's
prison for life without parole as the court shall determine pursuant to G.S. 15A-2000, except
that any such person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the murder shall be punished
in accordance with Part 2A of Article 81B of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes.
(b) A murder other than described in subsection (a) of this section or in G.S. 14-23.2
shall be deemed second degree murder. Any person who commits second degree murder shall
be punished as a Class B1 felon, except that a person who commits second degree murder shall
be punished as a Class B2 felon in either of the following circumstances:
(1) The malice necessary to prove second degree murder is based on an
inherently dangerous act or omission, done in such a reckless and wanton
manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and
social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.
(2) The murder is one that was proximately caused by the unlawful distribution
of opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or
preparation of opium, or cocaine or other substance described in G.S.
90-90(1)d., or methamphetamine, and the ingestion of such substance caused
the death of the user.
(c) For the purposes of this section, it shall constitute murder where a child is born alive
but dies as a result of injuries inflicted prior to the child being born alive. The degree of murder
shall be determined as described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section. (1893, cc. 85, 281;
Rev., s. 3631; C.S., s. 4200; 1949, c. 299, s. 1; 1973, c. 1201, s. 1; 1977, c. 406, s. 1; 1979, c.
682, s. 6; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1251, ss. 1, 2; c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1; c.
179, s. 14; c. 662, s. 1; 1987, c. 693; 1989, c. 694; 1993, c. 539, s. 112; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 21, s.
1; c. 22, s. 4; c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001-470, s. 2; 2004-178, s. 1; 2007-81, s. 1; 2012-165, s. 1;

Notice in this section that no where does it say but if you have a badge that makes it legal to kill someone with a deadly weapon. Police correctional officers and security officers are (persons also)

 

[MarneMath]

1. Florida v. Royer and United States v. Mendenhall

2. https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default...-by-subject/4th-amendment/terrystopupdate.pdf

3. Pennsylvania v. Muniz

These are the statues and relevant opinions that support my statement. Just so you know, this forum tends to have a rule, even in general discussions, that claims should be verifiable. It isn't really a "game", but a tool used to help promote healthy and sustainable discussions based around facts.

 

[MarneMath]

What you post seems rather irrelevant. The Supreme Court has already ruled that use of deadly force is not illegal, so it doesn't make sense for an "automatic" charge charged against an officer. Perhaps North Carolina is the one random state that decides to charge officers immediately; however from the various use of lethal force cases in North Carolina, it seems more normal to place an officer on administrative leave pending an investigation. From what I understand, an investigation is not the same as being charged. Furthermore, it seems if malice intent led to the death, then that investigation will led to a charged officer. However, I haven't read nor seen anything that indicates anything you are claiming. In fact, your own laws state otherwise:

14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.

(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.

http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3-431.pdf further reading on NC and officer use of force

 

[gjonesy]

It isn't really a "game", but a tool used to help promote healthy and sustainable discussions based around facts.

I have seen it used many times to have threads shut down because some people simply didn't agree with the point of veiw being expressed. Used as a tool to call in a moderator to either force compliance or shut it down. Thats what i call a "Game".

It really has no basis on whether or not a person is stating a fact.

I can say all day long that water is wet. A factual common sense statement but can it be proven with documents and scientific data?

 

[gjonesy]

14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.

(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.

Still nothing you have posted spacifically says that a (charge will not be made according to the rule of law)

It is procedural in the case of any death by firearm.

 

[MarneMath]

You are asking me to prove a negative.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/byarticle/chapter_15a/article_20.pdf

It really makes no sense that in your laws it'll say Officers are justified in using deadly force, but then they'll be charged with murder at the same time. As the individual making the claim, I feel that you have some sort of obligation to justify this via some means. The more abnormal the claim, the more proof things tend to require. Generally speaking, saying water is wet is not a controversial statement. However, if you came here saying you found the theory of everything, then expect for heavy questioning.

In my opinion, your statement seems a bit more outlandish and something I really cannot take on face value.

 

[gjonesy]

I will do you one better!

Here is the telephone number of the attorney generals office of the state of North Carolina.

Call him and tell him that the north Carolina justice academy is teaching its officers wrongly that they can use leathal force without any consequence because they have badges. Since you appear to know more then an officer that has been trained in that state.
I am sure hed be delighted to hear from you.

1(919) 716-6400

 

[gjonesy]

It really makes no sense that in your laws it'll say Officers are justified in using deadly force, but then they'll be charged with murder

The statues you posted are for justifiable use of force and are in place as exemptions.

Still doesn't mean they will not be charged, doesn't mean there will be no investigation. Those are exemptions and must be ruled upon at administrative hearing.

 

[gjonesy]

Those are exemptions and must be ruled upon at administrative hearing.

And before you ask. An administrative hearing is an evidence and fact finding hearing to see if the rule of law is followed.

Justifiable use of force applies to everyone. Civilians and officers alike.
Its the same thing if a person with conceal carry lawfully uses force.
They may not get arrested but they will be charged and investigated.

One law doesn't cancel the other.

 

[MarneMath]

I will do you one better!

Here is the telephone number of the attorney generals office of the state of North Carolina.

Call him and tell him that the north Carolina justice academy is teaching its officers wrongly that they can use leathal force without any consequence because they have badges. Since you appear to know more then an officer that has been trained in that state.
I am sure hed be delighted to hear from you.

1(919) 716-6400

That's not what I've been arguing. My statement is simple, that there exist justified legal reasons why cops can use deadly force without being charged with murder. There also exist cases where deadly force is illegal and a badge will not save you. Thus, I fail to see your point. All I am really saying is this: It makes no sense, to me, that an officer will be charged with murder despite having the legal right to perform their duties. It seems more likely that the officer will be put on admin leave and the actions will be investigated. However, in my experience, being investigated isn't the same thing as being charged. Nothing you have shown me indicates that charges are automatic.

 

[gjonesy]

My statement is simple, that there exist justified legal reasons why cops can use deadly force without being charged with murder.

My statement is equally simple.

Its procedure, plain and simple.

 

[gjonesy]

Let me explain this another way, charges are (presumptive) and more or less recorded. Once an investigation has been concluded and it is found that the officer was justified in his actions then its dropped.

 

[MarneMath]

I can tell that carrying on this discourse with you will not produce anything productive. I'm opting out for now.

 

[gjonesy]

I can tell that carrying on this discourse with you will not produce anything productive. I'm opting out for now.

See that is why this whole divide thing exsist in the first place.

Im sure people would love to point at the justifiable use of force laws and interpretate that cops have a license to kill. That is Hollywood movie myth.

There are processes and legal procedure that has to be followed for every person. There is no exemptions for procedure. Whether you kill someone in cold blood or you are completely justifed in your actions the law makes no distinction.

 

[gjonesy]

The more abnormal the claim, the more proof things tend to require. Generally speaking

What is "abnormal" about this claim?

A person points a gun at another pulls the trigger and causes that person to die. All circumstances must be investigated and charges made, "pending the out come of said investigation."

Police have no special powers or privligage with regaurds to deadly force. They are infact subject to the same laws as anyone else. They are held to a higher standard.

 

[Tobias Funke]

"Three Modest Propositions"

(e.g., Al Sharpton: “I believe in offing the pigs. Well, they got pigs out here. You ain’t offed one of them. What I believe in, I do. Do what you believe in. Or shut up and admit you’ve lost your courage and your guts to stand up”).

That's such a misleading omission of single quotation marks that it's a flat out lie.

 

[gjonesy]

That's such a misleading omission of single quotation marks that it's a flat out lie.

I read the snopes articles, seen the video. Ever how sarcastic it may seem, don't you think its a bit inflammatory? He basically dared people to follow through on their threats. Now we are seeing this happen on a large scale. One thing i know from many years of training is you do not antagonize a potential threat because they just might take you up on it.

 

[Tobias Funke]

No, when the quote is put in context I don't think it's particularly inflammatory and I certainly don't think he's "daring" people to shoot cops.

But even if someone thinks that, the way the quote was taken out of context for the purpose of ascribing certain ideas to Sharpton himself instead of people he was making fun of is inexcusable, and it really shows how low the far-right will sink. You seem to think that disagreeing with you isn't "seeing both sides," but I see both sides and lean heavily towards one because of the constant lies and misinformation like that article.

 

[gjonesy]

No, when the quote is put in context I don't think it's particularly inflammatory and I certainly don't think he's "daring" people to shoot cops.

But even if someone thinks that, the way the quote was taken out of context for the purpose of ascribing certain ideas to Sharpton himself instead of people he was making fun of is inexcusable, and it really shows how low the far-right will sink. You seem to think that disagreeing with you isn't "seeing both sides," but I see both sides and lean heavily towards one because of the constant lies and misinformation like that article.

Well its certainly not a lie, he did infact make those statements. Even the snopes article points that out. And saying that i personally think that anyone who disagrees with me isn't seeing both sides is a falicy. People can certainly see both sides and reject one and ascribe to the other. But that's part of the problem.
The low left has done its share of mudslinging but this isn't about politics. That is a discussion for another thread seeing as it is going off topic.

I can make fun of rapist and pedophiles all day long. But the victims of such abuses probably wouldn't find it humorous at all.

This thread is about finding a common ground on which to stand and understand why these things are happening. Not to hash out who is right or wrong.

 

[gjonesy]

Personally i think killing anyone because of their race and or occupation is inexcusable.

I keep seeing this word "inexcusable", nothing about this topic is in any way, shape or form excusable. Civil disobedience, violence, death, destuction of property no matter the cause or how righteous someone believes it is within a civilized society. Thats inexcusable.

All lives matter!

 

[MarneMath]

Civil disobedience is inexcusable? So you're telling me that Rosa Parks action to sit in the seat of her choice is inexcusable? Why?

 

[Tobias Funke]

People can certainly see both sides and reject one and ascribe to the other. But that's part of the problem.

Why is it a problem to weigh both sides and come down in favor of one? I literally don't even know how you can think that's a problem. It's all well and good to say that we should try to find a common ground (and yes, not murdering police officers is definitely part of it), but it doesn't have to be in the middle due to the both sides are just as bad fallacy (it also didn't seem to be much of a concern to many of the posters here until police were getting shot...)

I'm not interested in hashing out who's right and wrong, since I think there's enough information out there for people to decide that themselves. I just wanted to say that suggesting that not being neutral--in regards to the big picture of police/courts and race relations--is somehow a problem is at best condescending and at worst a common deflection tactic. Of course hardly anyone is neutral when it comes to specific incidents like the recent attacks against police, but I think that goes without saying.

 

[gjonesy]

Civil disobedience is inexcusable? So you're telling me that Rosa Parks action to sit in the seat of her choice is inexcusable? Why?

Thats a far cry from what i was talking about, i wouldn't even call that civil disobedience, blocking an amublance so it can't take people to the hospital is what i was referring to. Hostile actions toward innocent people no matter if its none violent if it disturbs the peace cause tention and intimidation. Its flat out wrong.

This is not the hight of the civil rights movement.

 

[gjonesy]

Of course hardly anyone is neutral when it comes to specific incidents like the recent attacks against police, but I think that goes without saying.

Not everyone is denouncing it. Some people think its well deserved. I have a problem with that. And you obviously have your own opinion as to what's the root of the problem here. Who is right. So my opinion is irrelevant to you any way.

I simply suggest that those peacemakers on both sides of the divde should not rush to judgement.

That being said no one who gets killed during this is going to come back. Dead is dead, living in the past and not learning from it. Will perpetuate this cycle of violence.

 

[MarneMath]

Thats a far cry from what i was talking about, i wouldn't even call that civil disobedience, blocking an amublance so it can't take people to the hospital is what i was referring to. Hostile actions toward innocent people no matter if its none violent if it disturbs the peace cause tention and intimidation. Its flat out wrong.

This is not the hight of the civil rights movement.

It's what you said though that civil disobedience is inexcusable. Now you're saying that civil disobedience that is hostile towards innocent people is inexcusable. So does that imply that some civil disobedience in your book is, in fact, excusable?

 

[gjonesy]

civil disobedience in your book is, in fact, excusable?

You obviously want to argue about this, and I am not backing away from my statement. Lawful protest of today (2016) that causes no harm and is in order, I WOULDN'T EVEN CALL IT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!

If its breaking the law and causing harm then it is inexcusable, in my opinion.

 

[MarneMath]

So to clarify, a lawful protest is fine, since you don't call it civil disobedience?

 

[gjonesy]

So to clarify, a lawful protest is fine, since you don't call it civil disobedience?

If it doesn't cause harm, if brings attention to a problem in our society without being inflammatory or hate speech. There is a gray area i believe exist. And that's the area that will finally at some point prevail. I am very confident in that.