Quote:It's not the use that people have a problem with. I would wager the vast majority of police shootings are probably necessary as a last resort to protect themselves or civilians from deadly harm.
It's the idea that all that has to be said is "I felt my life was in danger" and that's that. How many times have mistakes been made that never came to light because their word was enough. People are upset because they see an event like the shooting recently caught on the body camera where the cop straight up lied in a manner that without the camera would have gotten him off.
It makes you wonder how common that is? I imagine not very but still you have to see how it can make people skittish or untrusting.
That isn't a thing, by the way. The officer has to described what they did that put them in that position.
No officer gets out of shooting someone by only saying, "I felt my life was in danger." For example, did he sucker-punch you and hit your repeatedly as you were unable to defend yourself from the aforementioned sucker-punch?
Quote:I would suggest that you perhaps visit the U.S. sometime. Specifically visit the south valley of Albuquerque, N.M.
Been to the US multiple times, can't say I have been there..
Again I'm not even saying people shouldn't use force but surely a man can be taken down without ending his life...
Quote:That isn't a thing, by the way. The officer has to described what they did that put them in that position.
No officer gets out of shooting someone by only saying, "I felt my life was in danger." For example, did he sucker-punch you and hit your repeatedly as you were unable to defend yourself from the aforementioned sucker-punch?
Really? I'm sorry, but there are many high profile murders that have happened just this year where the cop used the "fear for my life" defense... the one that jumps into my memory is that man in SC that was shot in the back, and the cop lied saying he was going for his gun.
This is a real thing...
Some pretty disgusting posts in this thread so I'll leave one more.
I hope some of you are one day faced with the prospect of having to use deadly force while being beat to death.
Its mind boggling how people can be so far removed and out of touch with reality that they honestly believe its better to be bludgeoned and gamble your life away than to protect yourself with deadly force... And then want to prosecute those who aren't that stupid or naive.
Quote:There are ways of not sustaining an unarmed assault that don't involve killing the assailant. Just sayin'. I know you're extremely protective of cops, and I'm extremely critical of them. If Joe Blow Citizen were to respond to fisticuffs with a Glock, he'd spend a decade or more in prison on a manslaughter charge. I fail to see why cops should be given any additional leeway. If anything, the defensive training and ability to call for backup that Joe Blow Cop has should raise the standards of justifiable homicide far above what Joe Blow Citizen would face in court.
No one should have to sustain an assault, but that does not entitle the victim to pull out a gun and kill the unarmed assailant. Surely you would agree that if you responded to the scene of a bar fight only to find that someone was dead from a gunshot wound, you'd begin an investigation that would end in an arrest for murder, right? Why should the presence of a badge preclude the possibility that an officer shooting an unarmed man is, in fact, murder?
Picture yourself as an officer.
Say you call for backup and they are 10+ minutes away, that's not uncommon. Particularly in smaller agencies.
My other thought is, how do you know the suspect is unarmed? As he's rushing you, after you've told him to stand down, stay in his vehicle, stop approaching you etc. In the heat of that moment, how would you determine he is unarmed before he decides to beat your head in?
I don't know why the officer couldn't defend himself and stop the assault before it got that far without using his gun. How big was the suspect? How big was the cop? Regardless of training that makes a difference.
It's easy for us and the general public to critique the situation after the fact. I think you and I both agree on that.
The guy didn't throw one punch. He beat the cop and easily could have killed him.
People act as if a fist fight can't end in a death...it can and has. One punch is all it could take depending on the situation.
Quote:Really? I'm sorry, but there are many high profile murders that have happened just this year where the cop used the "fear for my life" defense... the one that jumps into my memory is that man in SC that was shot in the back, and the cop lied saying he was going for his gun.
This is a real thing...
Has he been found not guilty because he felt his life was in danger?
No.
Last I knew he was being charged with murder. Whether he is found duty or not remains to be seen.
Quote:Some pretty disgusting posts in this thread so I'll leave one more.
I hope some of you are one day faced with the prospect of having to use deadly force while being beat to death.
Its mind boggling how people can be so far removed and out of touch with reality that they honestly believe its better to be bludgeoned and gamble your life away than to protect yourself with deadly force... And then want to prosecute those who aren't that stupid or naive.
Agreed.
Some posts in this thread are truly mind boggling.
Quote:That isn't a thing, by the way. The officer has to described what they did that put them in that position.
No officer gets out of shooting someone by only saying, "I felt my life was in danger." For example, did he sucker-punch you and hit your repeatedly as you were unable to defend yourself from the aforementioned sucker-punch?
That exact thing happened with the situation I commented on. Without the body camera he would have gotten away with lying about "fearing for his life" therefore murdering a guy. Required body cameras would end people's suspicion.
The mind boggling part of this thread is some people's complete lack of empathy for the life of a person. In one thread they will claim all life is precious and in another will say the exact opposite.
Quote:That exact thing happened with the situation I commented on. Without the body camera he would have gotten away with lying about "fearing for his life" therefore murdering a guy. Required body cameras would end people's suspicion.
The mind boggling part of this thread is some people's complete lack of empathy for the life of a person. In one thread they will claim all life is precious and in another will say the exact opposite.
I don't think I will lose much sleep tonight knowing that I feel very little empathy for criminals who attack law enforcement officers while in performance of their duty.
Stating the cop would have gotten away with it without video is conjecture at its finest. If there was no evidence, sure he would have (as would anyone else), but thats why they have investigations. If the investigation irrefutably showed that the victim was shot in the back from 30 yards then he would have been charged like any normal citizen.
Police are afforded the benefit of the doubt because of the split second decisions that have to be made which sometimes involve deadly force. They never have to be right in hindsight, only proven that they did what any other reasonable police officer may have done in the same situation.
Quote:Police are afforded the benefit of the doubt because of the split second decisions that have to be made which sometimes involve deadly force. They never have to be right in hindsight, only proven that they did what any other reasonable police officer may have done in the same situation.
And you don't see the notion of someone, particularly someone endowed with the legal right to kill, not having to be "right in hindsight" about shooting an unarmed man to be a problem?
Quote:I don't think I will lose much sleep tonight knowing that I feel very little empathy for criminals who attack law enforcement officers while in performance of their duty.
Stating the cop would have gotten away with it without video is conjecture at its finest. If there was no evidence, sure he would have (as would anyone else), but thats why they have investigations. If the investigation irrefutably showed that the victim was shot in the back from 30 yards then he would have been charged like any normal citizen.
Police are afforded the benefit of the doubt because of the split second decisions that have to be made which sometimes involve deadly force. They never have to be right in hindsight, only proven that they did what any other reasonable police officer may have done in the same situation.
In one breathe you say it's conjecture and in other they get the benefit of the doubt. This is the problem people have.
The cop shot the guy in the head. Said he was being drug by the car which was a total lie. Now I ask you, since you give the benefit of the doubt to the cop, if there was no video evidence because of the body camera what would have happened?
Quote:And you don't see the notion of someone, particularly someone endowed with the legal right to kill, not having to be "right in hindsight" about shooting an unarmed man to be a problem?
No, because its difficult to always be right for me. Maybe not for you, but most people aren't perfect all the time, especially when they have half a second to make a decision that may cost them their own life.
Go watch that video of the anti deadly force activist who was put into a simple shoo or no shoot police scenario and used deadly force on an unarmed subject.
Quote:No, because its difficult to always be right for me. Maybe not for you, but most people aren't perfect all the time, especially when they have half a second to make a decision that may cost them their own life.
Go watch that video of the anti deadly force activist who was put into a simple shoo or no shoot police scenario and used deadly force on an unarmed subject.
Perhaps it's the idea that some people think the death of a criminal is always right that other people take issue with? Because that is what it seems like.
Quote:In one breathe you say it's conjecture and in other they get the benefit of the doubt. This is the problem people have.
The cop shot the guy in the head. Said he was being drug by the car which was a total lie. Now I ask you, since you give the benefit of the doubt to the cop, if there was no video evidence because of the body camera what would have happened?
If there is no evidence then he goes free, guilty or not. Its the same for any person in our country. Its nothing special. Murderers and rapists go free on technicalities every day.
Our justice system is set up with the premise that it us better to let a criminal go free than to convict an innocent man. If you have problems with that, then you need to probably find a way to cope, because it isn't changing.
Quote:Perhaps it's the idea that some people think the death of a criminal is always right that other people take issue with? Because that is what it seems like.
You seem to be interjecting whole paradigms of thought into some anonymous group of people. Who are you talking about specifically?
Quote:No, because its difficult to always be right for me. Maybe not for you, but most people aren't perfect all the time, especially when they have half a second to make a decision that may cost them their own life.
Go watch that video of the anti deadly force activist who was put into a simple shoo or no shoot police scenario and used deadly force on an unarmed subject.
It just scares me that you think a police officer who shoots and kills an unarmed man should not be held accountable for doing so. I'm certainly not right all the time, but I do know that if I'm going to kill someone, I'd better be damn sure that I'm right in that decision, and part of being right in that decision is being 100% certain that that man presents a clear, present and intentional danger to my life. 99% of the time, that requires him to either be armed or represent himself as being armed.
An anti-deadly force activist does not have the same training that a police officer would. Furthermore, I am
not anti-deadly force. I
am against using deadly force when there are other options available, and in the case of a single unarmed assailant, there are alternatives to putting two in the chest and one in the head.
Quote:It just scares me that you think a police officer who shoots and kills an unarmed man should not be held accountable for doing so. I'm certainly not right all the time, but I do know that if I'm going to kill someone, I'd better be damn sure that I'm right in that decision, and part of being right in that decision is being 100% certain that that man presents a clear, present and intentional danger to my life. 99% of the time, that requires him to either be armed or represent himself as being armed.
An anti-deadly force activist does not have the same training that a police officer would. Furthermore, I am not anti-deadly force. I am against using deadly force when there are other options available, and in the case of a single unarmed assailant, there are alternatives to putting two in the chest and one in the head.
Aren't police officers taught to shoot center mass in the first place? Certainly not aiming for the head (unless the head happens to be center mass)
Quote:It just scares me that you think a police officer who shoots and kills an unarmed man should not be held accountable for doing so. I'm certainly not right all the time, but I do know that if I'm going to kill someone, I'd better be damn sure that I'm right in that decision, and part of being right in that decision is being 100% certain that that man presents a clear, present and intentional danger to my life. 99% of the time, that requires him to either be armed or represent himself as being armed.
99% of time? That's complete [BLEEP].
Quote:Aren't police officers taught to shoot center mass in the first place? Certainly not aiming for the head (unless the head happens to be center mass)
Tell that to the cop in Cincinnati that blew a guy's brains out for absolutely no reason.
Quote:It just scares me that you think a police officer who shoots and kills an unarmed man should not be held accountable for doing so. I'm certainly not right all the time, but I do know that if I'm going to kill someone, I'd better be damn sure that I'm right in that decision, and part of being right in that decision is being 100% certain that that man presents a clear, present and intentional danger to my life. 99% of the time, that requires him to either be armed or represent himself as being armed.
An anti-deadly force activist does not have the same training that a police officer would. Furthermore, I am not anti-deadly force. I am against using deadly force when there are other options available, and in the case of a single unarmed assailant, there are alternatives to putting two in the chest and one in the head.
You may not be anti deadly force, but you certainly are pro hindsight.
You have less than half a second to decide on your life as an angry man, suspected of a crime, charges at you and says he will kill you while pulling something from the back of his waistband. So you would wait until the gun is pointed at you before reacting with deadly force?
For your family's sake, please don't ever get into law enforcement. We don't need any more dead cops. I hope your widow would agree with the "It's better me than them" mentality.