this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
106 points (94.2% liked)

World News

38188 readers
1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 107 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Christmas eve at a pub, random bloke comes in and starts shooting at people. Pub goers react to stop the assault, gunman is killed of injuries sustained in the beating from the crowd.

Man, if someones shooting into a crowd of people, using deadly force to stop them does not sound like whatever vigilante justice narrative these prosecutors are trying for. Sounds more like what the world needs, a healthy dose of FAFO.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (4 children)

They have to be charged, a man was violently killed, that's the Prosecutor's job. Now whether they are found guilty, or jailed is another thing entirely.

Also, we don't know the circumstances. Is this gang related? If so then the charges are probably warranted. The article says "after the shooting" the gunman was killed. In which case subduing the attacker and letting the authorities deal with the situation, is what a reasonable society expects. But if he's actively shooting and that's the way you need to end it, then by all means.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That's not "the prosecutor's job". One of the prosecutor's duties is determining when the police fuck up and arrest someone who has not broken the law; at that point, the prosecutor should drop the case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

That's not how it works in many places, and even here in the US. You absolutely can be detained and charged yet later exonerated. Some places when you kill someone you are by default charged with murder because you killed someone, your personal feelings don't determine the laws elsewhere. The public doesn't determine whether or not someone gets arrested, and yeah, if someone gets killed I expect the cops to hold the killer for a while to figure out what happened.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Or pursue it to make it clearly defined. That's how the law works, we quite literally have precedent because a prosecutor or defense attorney wouldn't let the shit go.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He doesn't have to be charged. It needs to be investigated first. Idk if that's what has happened here.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

It happened 2weeks ago, that's plenty of time for an investigation of some description to have occured. And reading elsewhere, it sounds like the gunman was subdued, then killed. And that certainly changes things.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But if he was shooting pub goers then they could use appropriate force to stop him. It's common sense.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You know what else is common sense? Not commenting on a topic when you don't have all the facts. How do you know the force was appropriate? Cos all I'm reading says that gunman appears to have been killed after he'd been subdued. Hence the charges.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Then nobody ever can comment on anything, because such a thing as having all the facts doesn’t exist.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That seems like a silly hight bar. How about we throw in reading comprehension to the list?

Lets compare:

How do you know the force was appropriate

I'll highlight important words for you:

But if he was shooting pub goers then they could use appropriate force to stop him.

Hope that helps you out.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Okay, here's some reading comprehension for you. The person you intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was subdued. They also said that appropriate force would be reasonable if he was actively shooting. You've basically repeated what they've said, trying to antagonise a response. It's a shitty way to try and have a discussion, and I'm gonna call people out on this every day of the week. Be better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was

Oh? WokerOne made that clear? Incorrect. So.... Kinda invalidates your whole argument... And is the basis for my argument. Hence the repetition. Nor did the parent comment make that clear either. Certainly suggests it might be the case. But, when sommone follows that up with its own premise and context, and you ignore it, is on you. The usefulness of a conversation after that point is also lost. But again, that's on you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The article says "after the shooting" the gunman was killed.

Pretty fucking clear to me. Note it doesn't say "during" or any of its synonyms.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes.... Meh. This is boring. You don't really understand what it is you failed to understand. But that's alright.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You don't understand basic English comprehension.

Let's break down your initial comment.

But if he was shooting pub goers

He wasn't so the rest of your comment is irrelevant. He had shot pub goers, but he wasn't when he was killed. He had been subdued. Don't need to break down the rest cos it's as useful as you are in general to society, not very.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. This is why every time someone dies we don't have a trial

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

True. In this case it's a finding of fact so the person being charged can be found not guilty in a court of law rather than public opinion.