Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Chaz and John,

I think you are misunderstanding what Tom is trying to say. I think we can all agree that the police officer could have had better job performance and in a perfect world he might have diffused the situation in a way that did not result in death for an out of control teen having a temper tantrum. However, let's forget about the policeman for a moment. Let's instead try to understand Tom's position about the teen. I think Tom has a good point about teaching our children to have some self control. People who behave like this teen did are bound to run into the wrong person eventually...be it cop or some other angry nut case out there. There are consequences for our actions always.

I'm gonna but in here. This is a dead argument. All children are taught self control, they all are warned about the consequences of such behaviour, and yet they still do it. They see a daily record of police shootings on the TV, and many other examples of consequences. But even in good old ancient Greece where Socrates, Plato and Aristotle banged on about sophrosone people still went ape-shit and over did the copobos wine and ending up spewing up or trying to suck off Socrates who would refuse.
We are probably in an age when personal restraint is actually in its heyday. Please reflect on the good old days of the Gangs of New York, Atilla the Hun, or other barbarian hoards.

There are significant current problems with a large number of boys brought up without the guidance of a father figure, and most primary and much secondary education is feminised to a degree that it can not provide any kind of alternative, but I don't think we are in an especially lax period of history and there is an argument that boys get too much restraint and not enough opportunities to blow off steam. Most boys like to fight but are always prevented form doing so.

If someone came over to my car and started hitting the windshield with a baseball bat, my first response would be to drive off...if that person happened to be in my cars path...oh well...I would have to run him over and face my own consequences...but I would not just sit there and take the chance he would start beating me with the baseball bat. Let's suppose he was in a fight with one of his peers...or in a bar room brawl with drunk...eventually this kid would have met his match. It is just unfortunate this kids didn't learn there are always consequences to pay until too late. He should have learned them from his parents and teachers so that when he eventually met another person like himself...with zero self control and with no filtering system of right and wrong (which unfortunately for the teen...was apparent in the police officer) he might not have been so out of control and might not have to die for having a really bad day.

I don't think we are in a position to judge this specific case to this degree. We can only reflect on generalisations until more is offered about Carl.

tbieter wrote:Here is the Minnesota law that applied to Joey Carl's encounter with the police officer who responded to the 911 call from someone in the neighborhood:


1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2009 609.066

609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.

Subdivision 1. Deadly force defined.

For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means
force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know
creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a
firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within
the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another
person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force.

"Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which
are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person.

"Peace
officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.

Subd. 2. Use of deadly force.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065,
the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer
knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony
involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer
knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony
if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the
person's apprehension is delayed.

Subd. 3. No defense.

This section and sections 609.06, 609.065 and 629.33 may not be used
as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party.

History: 1978 c 736 s 2; 1986 c 444; 2001 c 127 s 1
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.066

I think that Subdivion 2 (1) applies. From the video, it appears that the officer fired his weapon when Carl swung his bat at the driver's side window.
.
Poppycock. The officer was in no real danger of "great bodily harm".

After carefully reviewing this statute, look at the above video again and tell me if you think that the shooting was legally justified.

And note the first paragraph of the newspaper report in my initial post:[/b]"

Teen shot dead by police officer

A 17-year-old boy whose friends said had been drinking earlier in the night died in the street near his Norton Park home late Thursday, shot by a Duluth police officer sitting behind the wheel of a squad car as the boy broke out the driver’s side window with a baseball bat. (Emphasis by underlines added)

tbieter wrote:Some of these quotes from Scripture are certainly relevant to this incident:
http://www.essortment.com/all/biblescriptur_rzcl.htm


Seneca "On Anger" via Alain de Botton.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2964035542#

chaz wyman wrote:Maybe he thought it was funny, and a great opportunity to kill someone that day?

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote:Some of these quotes from Scripture are certainly relevant to this incident:
http://www.essortment.com/all/biblescriptur_rzcl.htm


Seneca "On Anger" via Alain de Botton.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2964035542#

If the police officer was not angry then these references are not relevant.
Maybe he thought it was funny, and a great opportunity to kill someone that day?

tbieter wrote:Maybe he thought it was funny, and a great opportunity to kill someone that day?

Gustaf wrote: I would have expected more sympathy for the police from a teacher.

Gustaf wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Maybe he thought it was funny, and a great opportunity to kill someone that day?

Maybe he thought that with the window gone, his skull was next.

The window had not 'gone'. He had other options.
Taser. Drive away. Drive over the suspect. get into the passenger seat. call for backup. give a verbal warning.
It is easy to avoid injury from a baseball bat when you are in car. It is not possible to hurt a person in a car with a bat that does not want to be hurt. Use your imagination! Have you heard of ducking down?

Gustaf wrote:

tbieter wrote:Maybe he thought it was funny, and a great opportunity to kill someone that day?

I see by your profile that you are a teacher by occupation. That explains a lot.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/ ... /#comments

chaz wyman wrote:What a strange idea!! I have no sympathy for people who commit summary executions.

This policeman shot and killed a teenage boy.

I have know teachers to loose their job because they held a student at arms length to protect themselves.

chaz wyman wrote:The window had not 'gone'. He had other options.
Taser. Drive away. Drive over the suspect. get into the passenger seat. call for backup. give a verbal warning.
It is easy to avoid injury from a baseball bat when you are in car. It is not possible to hurt a person in a car with a bat that does not want to be hurt. Use your imagination! Have you heard of ducking down?

Gustaf wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:What a strange idea!! I have no sympathy for people who commit summary executions.

Neither do I, no does any sane person.

However, I am not sure what this has to do with the matter at hand, since the matter at hand clearly does not involve a summary execution.

This policeman shot and killed a teenage boy.

Is the age of the person who went berserk with a baseball bat of any relevance here?

Would the police officer be any less condemnable if, ceteris paribus, he had shot a 40 year old man?

If the answer is no, then please explain why your brought up the age of the dead baseball bat wielding maniac, if it is of no relevance.

If the answer is yes, please explain the relevant difference.


Clearly you have not heard of the age of consent.
Only a fool would think that the police officer was treating the case with due diligence. He had alternatives.

I have know teachers to loose their job because they held a student at arms length to protect themselves.

Again, I am not sure what this has to do with anything. It is trivially obvious that there is nothing wrong with such action by teachers, so from philosophical point of view there really is not much to discuss.

I didn't think you were so stupid as to need me to spell it out.
I am telling you that police get away with murder whereas teachers have to behave with a greater deal of respect. I've had a boy attack me with a trundle-wheel - a weapon as dangerous as a bat. I did not feel the need to have a gun and shoot him in the face - and I was not even enjoying the protection of a police car with re-inforced windows, equipped with an accelerator pedal a taser and back-up radio. I really think you have had an imaginectomy!! The policeman was in no danger.
He has commited at worst murder and at least a failing of a duty of care.
Get a life!

chaz wyman wrote:Get a life