[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Again, you are just trying to paint him as a bad person. Maybe he was, but bad people can still be murdered.
[/QUOTE]
I think your opinion is equally as ridiculous, so we’re even. And debating you is like butting my head against the wall, so as I said, I’m not interested in continuing with this. I’m don’t need to cede anything to you, because I don’t believe my opinion is erroneous. This is the last time I’m going to reply to you. You can continue trying to provoke me if you feel like wasting your time, though.
So you claim I argued something I didn’t, you claim this kid robbed someone when that has hardly been substantiated, then you pathetically argue his friend saying he planned to do something illegal is justification for someone with no knowledge of this fact/assertion to shoot him, and yet you still think you weren’t arguing something in error? Hilarious. But feel free to take your ball and go home since you can’t defend your positions like a rational adult.
There’s a general rule that you should always assume a gun is loaded, unless you have very explicit reason to think otherwise (ie, you just saw it unloaded, and the chambered round removed). I think by extension, you should always assume a gun is real, unless you have very good evidence it isn’t, like a close up, in hands, extended inspection.
In response to your first sentence — I needn’t don shoes, I’ve already conceded Tyree’s killing was proper.
But your final sentence? This is the sort of hyperbole which leads to so many unnecessary killings. (Or, are you one of those calling the Tamir Rice killing, and Sandra Bland takedown “good police work”?)
In Virginia, we have concealed carry and open carry and if I am concealed carrying and you can see the silhouette of the gun through my shirt, THAT might be brandishing.
If you don’t think it was murder then what are you arguing about? Dead kids got killed because he pulled a gun on some cops that were chasing him, right? No, then wtf ARE you saying? Are you just asking questions?
You seemed to imply it could very well have been murder despite so much of the evidence going the other way. What evidence do you have that it was murder other than the fact that he was shot by a cop?
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
So you claim I argued something I didn’t,
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Again, you are just trying to paint him as a bad person. Maybe he was, but bad people can still be murdered.
[/QUOTE]
So, you didn’t type that? Or was your cat walking on your keyboard? Because you said he might have been a bad person, but bad people can still be murdered. That’s like saying you think he was murdered. Your words, under your name. If you’re not going to own them, you’re not worth discussing anything with.
Yes. Same in Illinios. I could lose my CCL just for being made if someone calls the cops on me.
My perspective on this is as a trained/licensed concealed carrier, not as a cop. I’ve taken more training than the CCL requires, and target practice twice a month. Based on what I know, how I’ve been trained, and as someone who walks city streets with a gun, I can tell you that all anyone has to do is reveal to me that they have something that looks a lot like a gun. Sorry, but I know how long it takes from revealing the weapon to killing me with it. You can be damned sure I’ll do my best to make sure you hit the sidewalk/street first.
If the kid in question here merely had the weapon in his hand - and make no mistake, a pellet gun is a weapon - I’d have not hesitated to stop the threat. Whether that’s the true story, whether the gun was visible at the time of the cop deciding to shoot - that’s where the question lies.
Yes, he typed that, but you seem to be having a parsing error. That statement makes no claim about the kid being murdered. It merely states a truism: whether the guy is robbing the store has no bearing on whether or not he was murdered. The only thing that matters is the facts of a shooting.
Yes, it raises the possibility he was murdered–a possibility the exists in every police shooting. But asserting a possibility is not the same thing as making a claim.
Your citation does nothing to tell us whether or not the victim was shot legally or not. What matters is whether he was brandishing. And possibly the behavior of the cops.
All I did was link to a story I heard in the news without presenting an opinion, just trying to add perspective and a shitstorm ensures. And out of all of the opinions in this thread, yours is the one I value even less than brickbacon’s.
Did anyone here make that argument? If so, can you please quote them? But just out of curiosity, why do you think we mandate soldiers do that in many instances in your opinion?
How exactly do they face (any more) danger than your average person when off duty? But more importantly, let’s get some perspective here. Being a cop is not even close to being the most dangerous job. Why should we tolerate them “being on edge” and possibly unable to perform their duties as tasked because they face danger? Isn’t that what we pay them for, grace under fire (And I don’t necessarily mean literal fire before you go off on a rant)?
And just to head off one more common line of argument: yes, most of the more dangerous jobs are not that way due to violence, but being a cabbie typically is. If cab drivers shot as many unarmed people as cops do, and justified it by saying their job is dangerous and they were on edge, would you think that was a good excuse?
How? The fact that he supposedly planned to rob someone later means it’s more likely he pulled a bb gun on cops whom he presumably knew he could not rob or hurt, and whom he knew had actual lethal weapons? Please walk me through your logic, and please tell me it’s more than bad guys do stupid things?
Trusting the police account as gospel. Which seems to be a predicate for most folks in situation like this.
I am asking you how you know he pulled a gun on the cops? Because they cops said that? What did the cops say in the Water Scott case? What do you expect the cops to say in an incident like this regardless of the truth? Now again, since people have a hard time grasping this basic fact, I am not arguing the kid was murdered or that the cops are lying. What I am saying is that trusting the cops because they are cops is foolish, and we have mountains of evidence detailing why that is the case broadly speaking. If a debate about the rectitude of a specific shooting begins with a recount of the police version repeated as unbiased fact, then you less likely to get to the truth, and less likely to understand why some people are upset. Few people would argue that someone who pulls a gun on some cops after running away isn’t asking to be shot. The question is whether that actually happened.
Please list all the evidence showing he pulled a gun on the cops?
It’s not like that at all. Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem as has already been pointed out to you. Either way, I thought you weren’t coming back because you are wasting you time arguing with me?
Or else you have a problem writing comprehensively. And no, I’m not through with this thread, just through with you since now you’re resorting to bring insulting.
As BigT noted, apparently you do. I don’t see anyone else making the erroneous assumptions you are, so I am gonna chalk it up to a reading issues and not writing issues. It’s okay to admit a mistake.
If it turns out that the police report that’s the only source of information we currently have was falsified, then there will be reason to criticize the police, and to expect them to be subject to some sort of consequences. Likewise, if it turns out that the run-up to this incident was improper (police going after the suspect just because his skin color matched the description, or escalating where they had the opportunity to de-escalate, or whatever), then there would also be reason to criticize the police and to hold them accountable.
As of right now, there is no evidence for either of these things. We should look for such evidence, of course, but absent it, it is not appropriate to criticize the police at this time.
I was shot in the head with a BB pistol while driving past a house where kids were ‘playing in the yard’ on the 4th of July, 18 years ago. One teenager was shooting at passing cars, including mine. The pellet came through the open passenger side window, grazed the back of my head, hit the driver side window frame and bounced back to the seat behind me, found there by the police officer who responded to my report. He went to the house and confiscated the WEAPON. I did not press charges. I don’t know if he pressed charges and I was not involved in any followup, if any occurred. I was not injured but certainly could have been - a matter of inches.
First off, drop the 2A garbage, as it has no applicability to this case. Unless one of you people bringing it up can show me where a 13 y/o has the right to carry a firearm, it’s not applicable.
Those of you referring to this as a murder…educate yourselves. Murder is a specific charge where a person’s life was taken unjustifiably with malice aforethought. That hardly applies in this case in any shape or fashion. Currently it is a homicide, as a life was taken by another human. Whether the the homicide is justified will be determined by the police & DA investigations.
Also, my only beef about saying that a person who is holding a weapon has an advantage is that it doesn’t go far enough. While that is a true statement, it doesn’t take into account that even a person with a weapon that is either holstered or stuck in their pants also has an advantage. Since they know when they’re going to act they can have a small to large advantage based on the reaction time of the person they are assaulting. A person holding their weapon just has that much more of an advantage.