Radiolab on Graham v. Connor

[Doc_Glock]

I learned a lot from this. I had not understood the legal basis and history behind “reasonableness” before.

I learned that liberals feel the decision was actually counter to advancing their agendas that the decision seems to protect cops more than they would like. I also learned I simply don’t think like these people. There is such a gulf in our interpretation of events I sadly believe it to be an uncrossable chasm.

Trigger warning if you are a cop because the hand wringing toward the end will probably piss you off. I still think it is worth listening to and would enjoy anyone’s comments.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-mr-graham-reasonable-man/

[Greenie]

Started off good - by the end, I had unsubscribed from Radiolab. Their producer's rage-fest was basically the breaking point for me.

[HCM]

I learned a lot from this. I had not understood the legal basis and history behind “reasonableness” before.

I learned that liberals feel the decision was actually counter to advancing their agendas that the decision seems to protect cops more than they would like. I also learned I simply don’t think like these people. There is such a gulf in our interpretation of events I sadly believe it to be an uncrossable chasm.

Trigger warning if you are a cop because the hand wringing toward the end will probably piss you off. I still think it is worth listening to and would enjoy anyone’s comments.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-mr-graham-reasonable-man/

If they don’t like Graham v. Connor, wait till they try Scott v. Harris and “relative culpability.”

[Erick Gelhaus]

The rage-fest towards the end was the best part. The mask was removed and, in their own words, we heard exactly what they wanted.

There was some interesting pieces in the story I wasn't aware of that I've added to my presentations on deadly force law, policy, and aftermath concerns.

The really good part of Scott v Harris? Just how badly plaintiffs' bar lies! Harvard Law took Scott v Harris and did some pretty interesting research into who thought what was an objectively reasonable use of deadly force. There was some pretty in-depth demographics work in it. The article is here: https://harvardlawreview.org/2009/04/whose-eyes-are-you-going-to-believe-scott-v-harris-and-the-perils-of-cognitive-illiberalism/

[NickA]

Thanks for posting, I'll have to give this one a listen.
I had actually started to post this episode about the origins of gun control but never got around to it:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show/

It uses three events to frame modern gun control- the Black Panthers marching on the CA capitol, the NRA Cincinnati revolt, and the Heller decision.
The hosts on this one could barely contain their amused disdain for anyone who would own a gun, but overall it was pretty fair and quite interesting. Would make a good listen for non-gun people to introduce them to the issue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk