Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Toddlers must really scare you.
“unruly mob” = “people kneeling quietly in the street to remember those who were murdered”
Absolutely pathetic.
We are talking about a proportional response to people being inconvenienced. Assault isn’t it. If you think it is, you are just wrong.
The right answer to ending a crowd based inconvenience is to direct the crowd to more convenient areas.
Unruly mob = people blocking streets and refusing to obey lawful instructions given by law enforcement.
Please, tell what methods you would recommend to restore order? Forget, for the sake of argument, that you consider one side to be Democrats and the other Republicans (which, I might point out, is not a given). I realize that is difficult, but as an academic exercise, try.
When the populace refuses to obey legal orders to prevent from creating a dangerous situation, what is law enforcement allowed to do?
I would say that a first step is ‘nothing that the Geneva Convention forbids doing to enemy soldiers on the battlefield’. But apparently my standards for police behavior are too high.
Arrest them?
What dangerous situation? All they had to do was route traffic to other streets.
When you have a large unruly group against a smaller peace-keeping force, arresting the larger group is not feasible. These are the situations that pepper spray/tear gas were developed as a humane method to restore order. So, if arresting a large mob is not a feasible solution, what do you suggest?
Were they actually unruly? Were they actually a threat? Or have the police taken Trump’s instructions to “not be nice” to heart? Notice how the police laugh and applaud.
“large unruly group”
What a complete bunch of utter crapola.
Are you trying to say that the use of pepper spray is forbidden by the “Geneva Convention”? I don’t believe it is. So, what is your argument?
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.–Paul Simon
At least you acknowledge your limitations.
Attack dogs and fire hoses, I’m old school that way.
CS and Pepper Spray are in the class of chemical weapons that are banned for battlefield use. We are not allowed to use them against each other, but the GCs are not written to cover domestic use.
Well of course, but I meant not just that the man was killed, but that the young woman is now not only without her boyfriend and the father of her child, but may also spend the rest of her life worrying that if she had acted differently, he might still be alive.
Please understand I’m in no way defending the cop’s actions. He panicked and wildly overreacted. There’s no excuse for pumping six shots into the side of a vehicle moving away from you. He’s been fired and I would cheer if he were charged with multiple felonies.
But what if the young woman hadn’t sped away from not one but two cops? She panicked, too. I imagine her grief will forever be tinged with misgivings and regret.
Then they may have both been executed on the roadside.
When cops are violent thugs that are harassing you, then trying to escape from danger is the rational thing to do. She fled in fear for their lives, the only mistake is that she didn’t flee fast enough.
I’ll never know what was in her head. Did she know these cops well enough to know they were violent thugs? Or did she just assume (not, perhaps, unreasonably) that all cops were?
Whatever her thoughts in the moment were, my point is that she has to live with knowing that her actions led to her boyfriend’s death. Very few people can look back on that with the 100% certainty that they could not have done anything different that would have resulted in a different outcome. I hope she can find peace with those memories.
They were not doing anything wrong at the time that the cops chose to start harassing them. The cops were then making threats. These cops certainly were claiming to know them well enough.
Funny how the person who actually pulled the trigger and killed him isn’t a concern here. But, I’m sure that, assuming the very likely case that he avoids legal repercussion, he will have no problem finding peace with his actions.
It’s like you are chastising someone because they ran from the lion, and that’s what got them killed, when they should have just stayed put and accepted a light mauling.
Actually, I have quite a bit of concern for the cop. I hope he wakes up every night for the rest of his life in horror that because he panicked, a young father is dead and a young woman is left to raise their child alone. I also hope many of those nights come in a penitentiary cell, though I suspect they won’t.
Am I chastising the woman? Maybe. I know the conventional wisdom when stopped by the police is to do nothing to provoke them. (And yes, I know that advice didn’t help Philando Castile or many others.) Cops are not lions. 99 or more times out of 100 they do not intend to kill you. Speeding away from the first cop exponentially increased the chances that their next encounter with police would be violent. We’ll never know what would have happened had they stayed put when approached by the first cop. Whether I chastise her or not, she’s the one who has to live with the what-ifs.
If you are doing something to attract their attention, sure.
If you are doing nothing, and they have decided to turn their attention to you anyway, then the chances that they are predators looking for prey goes up substantially.