Quote:


It can escalate in a second. If a cop drew his weapon on what he thought was a crime in progress, and the kid turned around and in doing so pointed what appeared to be an automatic weapon at the cop, the cop would have no choice but to shoot. It does happen. Cops occasionally confuse all sorts of things for guns, so a fake gun is hardly out of the realm of possibility. They usually get away with it too.

It would not take long for someone who stumbled across the prank kidnapping to decide to king hit the kid, or worse, and they are hardly going to negotiate with them first.

Do you think charging the cop with manslaughter would make it hurt any less?

Quote:


That is not "best effort". That is no effort at all. Filming in public is often done with actors at times when there are less people around. They do this for a simple reason - because it is easier to film that way.

Quote:


As far as I can tell there was only one camera, often at some distance, which would be easy enough to miss, even if someone did have line of sight to it.

Does netting your neck snapped by a fool instead of a smart person make it hurt any less?      

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:08am:


Cops being trigger happy is entirely a different thing and isn't solved by punishing kids for having a fun prank.  You don't fix a cop who is trigger happy by locking up all the potential things that could cause the cop to shoot first and ask second. 

And all of your what ifs still don't mean this ought to be a criminal act.  There are many what ifs that can happen - doesn't mean we need to criminalise practically everything. If we did your type of "common sense" rationale then we'd all end up like a Singapore. No thanks.  People need to be treated as responsible. Not treated by what ifs.  It is only being targeted because it happened to involve humour about terrorism.  Big deal. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was about a pie in the face. Or those fake "kidnapping" pranks. Or pants pull downs. Etc etc.  your what ifs exist only in this case because it's hit a touchy subject.  And in a truly liberal society even touchy subjects are not exempt from freedom of expression and speech.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:13am:


We already have plenty of rules based on what-ifs. It is illegal to carry a knife in public without good reason - and self defense doesn't count.

Someone getting hurt or killed because you staged a serious of what appear to be violent crimes in public is is hardly an unforeseen consequence, and the kids would be liable for their stupidity under common law if something bad did happen.

Quote:


Yet again you fail to see the obvious point. It has nothing to do with the subject being touchy. Staging a fake bank robbery with the reckless disregard shown by these kids would be just as stupid and just as likely to get you charged, or killed.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:14am:


Yeah, whatever you say........

Quote:


What were these controls? You keep going on about the effort these kids supposedly went to to prevent things getting out of hand. The only examples of this effort you have presented is that they had a camera, were acting, and the videos do not show a lot of other people. They have "making of" style videos which also show no effort to control the situation.

If a floor cleaner in a supermarket can have the sense to put out a signing warning people they might slip over, do you really think these kids made their "best effort" to avoid an unintentional shootout with police, by doing even less?

Quote:
.

It's called the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person could foresee it. Even an idiot could foresee it.

Police are not instructed to ask questions when faced with a violent crime in progress. They are trained to draw their weapon. If a kid rushes around the corner with an automatic weapon, that kid is probably going to die.

If a member of the public attempts to stop a kidnapping, there is no onus on them to warn the kidnappers fist that they are going to intervene, or to check their surroundings for hidden cameras.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:30am:


It's not a shootout when only one party is doing all the shooting.  And if the cops are trigger happy to the point that they don't first assess the situation, see the camera, the fake beards, and the fake guns, then I'm sorry but our society must have a much bigger problem then some kids performing a prank.

What would you suggest we do? All live a beauracratic life?  Everything we do is stamped and approved before we do it? They did reasonable best effort: everyone was an actor. Streets were practically empty and where they aren't empty you can see the participants either uninterested or giggling. No one seems to be threatened.

And I love your wet floor sign examples. Guess what: if a person fails to put out a wet floor sign, but mops, it can be foreseen that someone trips and dies.  Guess what - it would most likely be deemed an accident and a civil matter between business and plaintiffs.  Doubtful the moppee would be found of a criminal act.  And guess what, not having a wet floor sign is NOt a criminal act. Yet what about all those what ifs? That poor grandma with her bad hip?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:


Cops have been programmed to hate Muslims.

This case will evaporate in ignominy with police humiliated for crass bigotry and Islamophobic prejudice.