First, Let's Piss Off The Police

[Rigby5]

There is no law that says you must expose your weapon before you use it. If you are attacked with the "belief" you are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death, you have the legal authority to use deadly force. By the time I reached black belt, I knew how to kill another person five ways in four moves or less. There was no law I had to inform my attacker I had advanced self-defense training.

If a prosecutor decided to bring charges, first he or she would have to prove what you believed at the time. Secondly, there is no legal definition of what serious bodily harm is. That would have to be determined by a jury or judge.

Yes there is.
A black belt is required by law to avoid physical confrontations, just like a person with a CCW.
They are legally required to try to retreat, warn, etc.
You need to go back to your black belt teacher and get that straightened out.
Black belts HAVE been prosecuted for murder when they kill someone in a physical confrontation they could have avoided.
The burden of proof would be on the one who killed someone else, that the other person represented a deadly threat and that killing them was the only option.
Which is very difficult to prove.
You are not presumed innocent when you deliberately kill an unarmed person.

 

[progressive hunter]

Which is what I said. I stole things when I was a kid, but not as an adult, and it was stupid small stuff at that. If somebody breaks into a house or store, it's not because they can't survive without a big screen or jewelry.

who did you ask to know that??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are ignoring the fact that we are not changing into this system. As i have already pointed out, criminal negligence has existed forever and has been applied to medical professions in the past. We are not changing into anything.

I repeat:
Pretending that the existence of the accidents negates the reality of the criminal negligence is ridiculous.

You did not deal with that point.

I don't know the entire story of the OP case. The link had very little information about it. Criminal negligence is when you acted irresponsibly, not because you got bed one mixed up with bed two. If you testified you were in a hurry to get to lunch and just gave a patient any medication that was closest to you, that would be criminal negligence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

who did you ask to know that??

You need to ask somebody to know that they don't need a big screen or jewelry to survive?

 

[FA_Q2]

However you want to spin it, the bottom line fact remains. The police are leaving in droves, not signing up in droves and the same thing is happening to the medical profession. That's just a fact. You're driving people away from needed professions, making the situation worse than it was before.

And?

That does not speak to the idea in this thread that medical professionals should not be held criminally liable for negligent behavior.

That we have been disincentivizing police forces is a given. I would fault the outright demonization of police as racist and the immediate blame game that is being played on them at the moment as FAR more impactful than being held liable for their actions. There was always going to be problems from the get go as the concept of policing is fundamentally changing but the current climate is making that far worse than it should be.


Indeed, that sentiment is going to increase hostile encounters while decreasing the ability to deal with them. That is a perfect storm. It does not excuse when negligent behavior ends up killing someone though nor should anyone be let off when they reach that level of negligence.

 

[Unkotare]

You need to ask somebody to know that they don't need a big screen or jewelry to survive?

Hypocrite

 

[progressive hunter]

You need to ask somebody to know that they don't need a big screen or jewelry to survive?

who said anything about "survive"???

I was specific about desire,,,

arguing with you leftist is a waste of time,,,

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't know the entire story of the OP case. The link had very little information about it. Criminal negligence is when you acted irresponsibly, not because you got bed one mixed up with bed two. If you testified you were in a hurry to get to lunch and just gave a patient any medication that was closest to you, that would be criminal negligence.

Yes, and it has been pointed out to you that a jury heard those details and decided she was criminally negligent.

You are claiming this is an incorrect decision. That you do not have details that bolsters that claim, I am calling out the claim as incorrect.

It seems that you do not have a viable argument that your claim is correct.

I do not think anyone disagrees that accidents should not involve jail time. This was MORE than an accident, it was determined that the accident was negligent. There is noting wrong with that category.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes there is.
A black belt is required by law to avoid physical confrontations, just like a person with a CCW.
They are legally required to try to retreat, warn, etc.
You need to go back to your black belt teacher and get that straightened out.
Black belts HAVE been prosecuted for murder when they kill someone in a physical confrontation they could have avoided.
The burden of proof would be on the one who killed someone else, that the other person represented a deadly threat and that killing them was the only option.
Which is very difficult to prove.
You are not presumed innocent when you deliberately kill an unarmed person.

Sure you are. In this country all accused are considered innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

In a situation of battle it doesn't matter whether you're armed or a black belt. If you willingly start an altercation and kill somebody in the process, you are charged with murder or manslaughter. Black belts are not required by law to do anything different than the untrained. If your state has a Stand Your Ground law, that means you have no duty to retreat either. We just passed ours last summer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, and it has been pointed out to you that a jury heard those details and decided she was criminally negligent.

You are claiming this is an incorrect decision. That you do not have details that bolsters that claim, I am calling out the claim as incorrect.

It seems that you do not have a viable argument that your claim is correct.

I do not think anyone disagrees that accidents should not involve jail time. This was MORE than an accident, it was determined that the accident was negligent. There is noting wrong with that category.

I never claimed she was innocent or guilty. Again, I don't know the case outside of the OP which was very, very brief. it could be she's guilty, I just don't know. But if she was sent to prison for making an innocent mistake that everybody makes on the job, it will deter people from going into that profession.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

who said anything about "survive"???

I was specific about desire,,,

arguing with you leftist is a waste of time,,,

Learning what a leftist is is not a waste of time. Judging by what you wrote, I'm likely more conservative than you've ever been.

Very few people "need" to steal anything in our country. Plenty of jobs around, and plenty of options to choose from.

 

[progressive hunter]

Learning what a leftist is is not a waste of time. Judging by what you wrote, I'm likely more conservative than you've ever been.

Very few people "need" to steal anything in our country. Plenty of jobs around, and plenty of options to choose from.

well youve ignored clear facts and changed key words to change the narrative just like a leftist,,
you never commented on civil asset forfeiture,, why is that??

OH I forgot the leftist trick of being a mind reader and knowing what every other person on the planet is thinking which always seems to conform your narrative,,

 

[FA_Q2]

I never claimed she was innocent or guilty. Again, I don't know the case outside of the OP which was very, very brief. it could be she's guilty, I just don't know. But if she was sent to prison for making an innocent mistake that everybody makes on the job, it will deter people from going into that profession.

You claimed we should not be locking people up for mistakes:

Like who? People didn't end up in prison for simply making a mistake. Like I asked, what job did you ever have where you worked flawlessly?

Yes, the hospital should be held responsible for the mistake of their employee and financially compensated for it. But without knowing the case (the OP link was very short) we are going to put people away for making mistakes on a job, then nobody is going to want to do that job. What then? It's not like our country is flooded with healthcare workers.

And we have been talking about this specific example the entire time. I do not know any other way to take your remarks other than you think this was a misarrange of justice because she was locked up for a mistake.

What I have been getting at is that she was not locked up for a 'mistake' but locked up for negligence. Do you agree with that sentiment then?

And if you do, why the comments on this thread? What point were you trying to make because I have missed it if you were not stating that what was done here was wrong.

I would point out that this crime is not new and does not represent any change in the manner that we treat anyone under the law.

 

[Independent thinker]

people committ crimes to get food and many other things, so do we make all those things illegal too???

We need to keep career criminals locked up. Nobody anywhere should have a long rap sheet.

 

[Independent thinker]

And?

That does not speak to the idea in this thread that medical professionals should not be held criminally liable for negligent behavior.

That we have been disincentivizing police forces is a given. I would fault the outright demonization of police as racist and the immediate blame game that is being played on them at the moment as FAR more impactful than being held liable for their actions. There was always going to be problems from the get go as the concept of policing is fundamentally changing but the current climate is making that far worse than it should be.


Indeed, that sentiment is going to increase hostile encounters while decreasing the ability to deal with them. That is a perfect storm. It does not excuse when negligent behavior ends up killing someone though nor should anyone be let off when they reach that level of negligence.

Criminal behavior is criminal behavior. Negligence is a different level. Everybody makes mistakes and sometimes people die from those mistakes. Again, bottom line, if we want people in these professions then we can't chase them away. If a janitor makes a mistake and someone dies then why aren't the police and medical professionals allowed to make mistakes?

 

[progressive hunter]

We need to keep career criminals locked up. Nobody anywhere should have a long rap sheet.

true,, but that has nothing to do with what I said or my point,,

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes there is.
A black belt is required by law to avoid physical confrontations, just like a person with a CCW.
They are legally required to try to retreat, warn, etc.
You need to go back to your black belt teacher and get that straightened out.
Black belts HAVE been prosecuted for murder when they kill someone in a physical confrontation they could have avoided.
The burden of proof would be on the one who killed someone else, that the other person represented a deadly threat and that killing them was the only option.
Which is very difficult to prove.
You are not presumed innocent when you deliberately kill an unarmed person.

You are always presumed innocent.

Killing an unarmed person is difficult to defend but sometimes it is justified such as Wilson/Brown and Rittenhouse

There is no legal requirement in most states to retreat.

 

[rightwinger]

Criminal behavior is criminal behavior. Negligence is a different level. Everybody makes mistakes and sometimes people die from those mistakes. Again, bottom line, if we want people in these professions then we can't chase them away. If a janitor makes a mistake and someone dies then why aren't the police and medical professionals allowed to make mistakes?

There is a crime called Criminal Manslaughter which is charged when your negligence causes death.
So, if a Police Officer walks into an apartment that she thinks is hers and there is a black man sitting on the couch watching his own TV and she shoots him.

She still goes to jail, even though it was an “accident”

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

well youve ignored clear facts and changed key words to change the narrative just like a leftist,,
you never commented on civil asset forfeiture,, why is that??

OH I forgot the leftist trick of being a mind reader and knowing what every other person on the planet is thinking which always seems to conform your narrative,,

So when did I claim to know what every person is thinking? What clear facts are you talking about? I said repeatedly that the OP was vary vague and not enough information to make me come to a solid decision.

My point was that if lock people up for a simple mistake we are going to have less people get into that field of work. I even gave an example so there would be no questions on where I stood.

I didn't know you were so hell bent on changing the subject. Civil asset forfeiture again is a case by case basis. A crack house, yes as long as they are not renting it. If the person owns it then it should be taken because it's more than likely the owners friends won't stop business just because the owner is sitting in jail. We need to close places like that down.

On the other hand a true story here: Years ago the father of a late friend of mine got a DUI. He was driving home from the bar and I assume his driving habits were less than impressive. A cop followed him home. When he parked on the street and started to walk up the drive, the officer approached him and gave him a sobriety test and of course arrested him after he failed.

He was a Polish immigrant and spoke with a heavy accent. When he went to court, he plead guilty. He said to the judge "Judge, I do wrong, I admit. I drink, I go to jail. But police tow car. Car was not drinking, I was!!!!" The court bust out in laughter and even the judge couldn't help himself.

 

[progressive hunter]

So when did I claim to know what every person is thinking? What clear facts are you talking about? I said repeatedly that the OP was vary vague and not enough information to make me come to a solid decision.

My point was that if lock people up for a simple mistake we are going to have less people get into that field of work. I even gave an example so there would be no questions on where I stood.

I didn't know you were so hell bent on changing the subject. Civil asset forfeiture again is a case by case basis. A crack house, yes as long as they are not renting it. If the person owns it then it should be taken because it's more than likely the owners friends won't stop business just because the owner is sitting in jail. We need to close places like that down.

On the other hand a true story here: Years ago the father of a late friend of mine got a DUI. He was driving home from the bar and I assume his driving habits were less than impressive. A cop followed him home. When he parked on the street and started to walk up the drive, the officer approached him and gave him a sobriety test and of course arrested him after he failed.

He was a Polish immigrant and spoke with a heavy accent. When he went to court, he plead guilty. He said to the judge "Judge, I do wrong, I admit. I drink, I go to jail. But police tow car. Car was not drinking, I was!!!!" The court bust out in laughter and even the judge couldn't help himself.

ho9w do you know it was a simple mistake if you dont know details??

as I said the jury heard the case and made a decision,, I have nothing to say different and neither do you,,
as for the civil asset forfeiture ,, you said cops done violate rights but with that they do more than that,,


your attempt to spin away from your own comments is noted and mocked for a typical leftist tactic,,,