You’re a moron. Did you watch with the sound off or something? Your characterization of this is contradicted almost completely by the actual video.
No. It’s not plausible that a random stopped person would pull out a gun a shoot a police officer. That is a completely unreasonable line of thought. People with this mentality should not have guns/badges.
Do we have to preface every post with “you’re a moron”, asshole? Are you interested in discussion or just circle jerking with here with the rest of the “you can never say the victim could’ve done anything more prudently no matter what” crew?
Rewatching the video, I did overstate the amount of time he freezes. The body language still comes off as very “sudden decision” to me, though. As I said, I went into the video not knowing it was going to be a cop shooting a guy, and my first reaction was to cringe because I thought I was about to see a gunfight. I suspect that watching the video from an article more less entitled “cop shoots innocent black man for no reason” may have colored your initial watch.
Again, I ask, how might this encounter have looked different if the victim actually were a threat?
That’s the standard? If? If the guy actually were doing the bad thing, it wouldn’t have been some kind of space-time paradox, no. It also wouldn’t be an “implausible ending” if the guy had slowly and loudly said “I have to get my license out of the glove box there” and then slowly grabbed a gun and turned and fired, either. So that doesn’t resolve our problem either.
If he had slowly done the same thing he did while announcing it in advance: shooting the cop is a plausible ending.
If he had reached into his pants where his license “should” have been, well, do I even need to say it? You know what people keep in pants, don’t you? Plausible ending.
If he had stayed exactly where he was and not said a word or done a thing: plausible ending.
People always could be about to do something threatening. It could always plausibly arise from a given set of facts. So we have two choices: either that’s not the standard, or every shooting is justified.
I guess continuing to shoot a guy with his hands in the air, backing away/falling backwards, is not conviction-worthy to you, Senor Beef and Clothahump? Just a minor error?
Threat? The cop stopped this guy for his lack of seat belt. Then he shot him out of fear. There was no rational threat.
Says the man who called others in this thread “you idiots.”
Even if the first gunshot is justified (and it’s not), how can you seriously argue that the subsequent gunshots were justified, Senor Beef and Clothahump?
Point out which one says anything about the south or South Carolina. Fucking imbecile.
What are the statistics? How many random traffic stops result in a cop being attacked compared to all random traffic stops? If there are 10,000 every day, and only 4 attacks, for example, then that’s a pretty miniscule risk.
It might look very similar. The problem is that it’s the cop’s fucking job to manage the situation, not take a situation that is somewhat ambiguous and turn it into a gunfight at the OK Corral.
I’m as much a proponent of cops keeping themselves safe as anyone, but you can’t treat every single person you bump into like a guy who’s itching to kill a cop.
No - I save moron calls only for moronic people.
Did you watch with the sound off, yes or no?
Ctrl-F “southern.”
I would imagine we’d all be blaming the cop for not reciting magical words to calm a criminal down.
I mean that’s what we’re doing now - blaming the law abiding citizen for not following some undocumented ritual to prevent the law enforcement officer from shooting him.
The proffered evidence was all in one post. Even on my phone I can read them all at once.
Eta: Ah, I see the one “southern” that I missed. Dramatic reaction justified.
I would. But it’s just not reasonable to ask a person to verbally announce every movement. What he did wasn’t threatening and could not have been taken as threatening by a reasonable and sane person.
If we are now in a situation where police officers are so hair-trigger-set that any sudden movement results in them shooting - again, I stress, Groubert fired the first shot after Jones had turned back out of the truck and Groubert was still ordering him to do so - then we are in one hell of a bad spot with regards to the people who are policing us.
As to SenorBeef’s comments about how “the expectation” is that his license is in his pocket, again… Christ. Are we seriously now even contemplating the idea that a police officer should try to kill a man because his license isn’t where most people carry it?
Groubert’s actions were flat out paranoid and, consequently, homicidal. There simply isn’t anything Jones did that is obviously wrong. As Jimmy points out, literally anything Jones could plausibly have done to obey Groubert’s instructions could have been construed as the beginning of a threat, if you’re that paranoid. As to Clothahump’s claim that his “body language” indicates he’s reaching for a weapon, that’s too silly to even bother refuting. I suspect Jones’s only error in “Body language” was that his body is too dark a color.
What I’m saying is that, until the moment the guy pulls out of his vehicle with his hands up, his actions look more or less identical to someone who’d made the determination to violently resist, as in the videos I linked earlier. That’s more or less what you’d expect that to look like.
Now, hypothetically, someone could say “I’m going to get my license, it’s on my seat” and slowly move in, and grab a gun and shoot the cop, but that’s more movie bad guy stuff than the way people in a fight or flight reflex sort of situation act.
Blame is not a binary, black and white situation. The cop overreacted and the guy didn’t deserve to get shot. But that doesn’t mean that the victim couldn’t have handled the situation better or that he didn’t make mistakes. You guys are so obsessed with the idea that “anything other than total binary blame, where the victim is completely blameless is just blaming the victim, you can’t possibly find fault with the actions of the victim” and that’s a simplistic worldview.
In a perfect world, should you, as an innocent person, be completely unafraid of cops? Sure. But does that mean you can wait for a cop to come up to your window and suddenly lunge on your seat or something else unexpected and then be blameless when you get shot? Give it a try, and then say “I’m the victim, I’m blameless” as you bleed to death.
I didn’t say what the cop did wasn’t conviction-worthy, nor did I say that shot was justified. I only rang in to say that the victim’s actions were poorly chosen and that it also, as a dispassionate observer, set off my “potential threat” alarm.
What the stop was about is nearly irrelevant. People often get arrested for speeding or seatbelt violations because they have warrants for arrests for other crimes. That’s often why a person will run or attack a cop when pulled over for something minor.
So knowing what I posted in this thread, and my posting history on the board, your position is not merely that I am of sub-average intelligence, but significantly enough so as to be classified as a moron?
It’s not hyperbole thrown around in an argument, but an attempt at an objective observation and diagnosis?
Moron, as a diagnostic term used for someone with low IQ, has long been out of use. It’s current and common use is as a insult for someone who simply acts that way.