• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Another example of poor police training

Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Can you be more specific?
Click to expand...
Sure:
Violent: 1. of, or relating to, or characterized by strong physical force. 2. Resulting from extreme or intense force. 3. Vehemently or passionately threatening.
See Black's law dictionary deluxe 9th edition (Examples excluded).

Nothing in this conditions violence on breaking the law. No case precedent of which i am aware does either. You are literally making stuff up in order to play semantics. You are simply incorrect.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Curious George said:
Sure:
Violent: 1. of, or relating to, or characterized by strong physical force. 2. Resulting from extreme or intense force. 3. Vehemently or passionately threatening.
See Black's law dictionary deluxe 9th edition (Examples excluded).

Nothing in this conditions violence on breaking the law. No case precedent of which i am aware does either. You are literally making stuff up in order to play semantics. You are simply incorrect.
Click to expand...
I see, I went to the law itself for my definition. We were using different "legal definitions". By the laws themselves their action was not violent.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
I see, I went to the law itself for my definition. We were using different "legal definitions". By the laws themselves their action was not violent.
Click to expand...
Um, what? Which statute did you use? I don't want to beat a dead horse, but i am aware of no law that defines "violence" for all instances of violence. From my perspective, you were just relying on the PR spin of "force" as distinguished from "violent crime." It seemed silly (especially in that it doesn't resolve the OP), but if you were trying to have honest dialogue, I can appreciate that there was a misunderstanding.

Let us instead pursue where you think the line should be drawn if you believe the officer behavior seen in this video is acceptable.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Curious George said:
Um, what? Which statute did you use? I don't want to beat a dead horse, but i am aware of no law that defines "violence" for all instances of violence. From my perspective, you were just relying on the PR spin of "force" as distinguished from "violent crime." It seemed silly (especially in that it doesn't resolve the OP), but if you were trying to have honest dialogue, I can appreciate that there was a misunderstanding.

Let us instead pursue where you think the line should be drawn if you believe the officer behavior seen in this video is acceptable.
Click to expand...

I used a general over view of laws to see how the word applied. Such as this one:

18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined

And this:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45220.pdf

Wikipedia:

Violence - Wikipedia

They all tend to say that their either has to be a forceful action or an illegal threat of force. I could keep going. In practice what the police did was not violence since they did not use force and they were within the law in their use of threats.

I tried Black's Law Dictionary on my tablet, but that thing sucks at times. Perhaps a Google search is better than a Bing search
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And perhaps the problem is that we were looking up different terms. I just went to Black's Law dictionary and looked up violence:

What is VIOLENCE?
The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, iu relation to assaults, by elementary writers on criminal law. State v. Wells, 31 Conn. 212.

No, that does not appear to be the case:


What is VIOLENT?
Characterized or caused by violence; severe; assailing the person (and metaphorically, the mind) with a great degree of force.


Perhaps my source?

What is VIOLENT? definition of VIOLENT (Black's Law Dictionary)
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
And perhaps the problem is that we were looking up different terms. I just went to Black's Law dictionary and looked up violence:

What is VIOLENCE?
The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, iu relation to assaults, by elementary writers on criminal law. State v. Wells, 31 Conn. 212.

No, that does not appear to be the case:


What is VIOLENT?
Characterized or caused by violence; severe; assailing the person (and metaphorically, the mind) with a great degree of force.


Perhaps my source?

What is VIOLENT? definition of VIOLENT (Black's Law Dictionary)
Click to expand...
I am happy to send you a picture of blacks law dictionary with the definition if that is what you would like.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Curious George said:
If you want, by all means. I have no issue with words. You do note that you are defining "crime of violence" and then concluding that violence must be a crime. This is circular.
Click to expand...
No, I used crimes of violence to see how it was applied in practice. You wanted a "legal definition" The definitions of words are based upon usage so seeing how the words are actually used is not "circular". By that standard all definitions are "circular".
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, I used crimes of violence to see how it was applied in practice. You wanted a "legal definition" The definitions of words are based upon usage so seeing how the words are actually used is not "circular". By that standard all definitions are "circular".
Click to expand...
When you are using crimes of violence definition for violence and conclude that in order to be violent it must be a crime then you are indeed using circular reasoning.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Curious George said:
When you are using crimes of violence definition for violence and conclude that in order to be violent it must be a crime then you are indeed using circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
That is now what I was doing. I was checking to see what "violence" is in the eye of the law. That would be the "legal definition". The sources that I used went from specific to general and they all said use of force or illegal threats when they defined the term. At least one did say threats could be "violent" in the eye of the law but they had to be illegal. Threats that were not illegal would not be violent.

And Black's Law supports me. I need a source that I can use just as you do. Find a source that I can check on for myself.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
That is now what I was doing. I was checking to see what "violence" is in the eye of the law. That would be the "legal definition". The sources that I used went from specific to general and they all said use of force or illegal threats when they defined the term. At least one did say threats could be "violent" in the eye of the law but they had to be illegal. Threats that were not illegal would not be violent.
Click to expand...
That is correct. But the illegal part is what makes them a crime. If they were not illegal then they would just be violent acts not violent crimes.
And Black's Law supports me. I need a source that I can use just as you do. Find a source that I can check on for myself.
Click to expand...
I offered to send a picture. You are welcome to go to your local law library, i guarantee they will have a copy there.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
On such a basic term? And when it is supported by actual laws out there?
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing you cannot follow this.

You searched violent crime. Illegal threats of harm constituted violent crime. Now noting that this was not defining violent but violent crime we should be able to deduce that it is at least in theory possible to have violence without crime. So if the threat was not illegal, then it would just be violent and not a violent crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top