Walter Scott had no gun, nor did he make any kind of aggressive move toward the officer who shot him in the back 8 times – well, except for not reaching for the officer’s taser. Eric Garner did not make any gun-like moves that warranted being strangled. And Freddie Gray, as far as we know, there were no guns involved.
What, exactly, were these fine constables defending themselves from?
Now you’re just being silly. All those guys were black, you know.
No, you responded to the argument put forward by Leaper, who I agree with, that considering police have a monopoly on force (not to mention a job description that *entirely consists *in inserting themselves into dangerous situations) AND huge opportunities to manipulate evidence or stonewall investigations AND close ties with the judicial branch that’ll wind up examining their case ; their standard for reasonable self-defence and use of deadly force is not or should not be the same as that for “civilians” ; and that applying the civvy standards of presumption of innocence to cops was an obviously bonkers idea ; with “oh well bodycams solve that problem”.
Which is what I responded to, debunking the handwave. At which point you responded with something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the points being made.
Try and follow the conversation you’re having. It helps.
ETA : BTW, “fundamental rights” are not absolute. They’re subject to contextual limitations, regulations, restrictions.
(bolding mine)
No. Just no. There is no reason to fear a gun just because it is present. That’s ridiculous. Of course, you’re ridiculous, too, so it’s not surprising that an opinion you have would also be ridiculous.
You are a sad, fearful human; a pathetic wretch.
Can you agree that the best thing might be to attempt to communicate with said child before making the determination to fire? Or do you think that you should fire as soon as you see the gun?
That would be the ideal situation; a “didn’t your mama teach you no sense?” conversation would be preferable to shooting someone.
And what would you say to a white child?
Is there some inherent difference between white and black children that renders them any differently able to play with a gun and shoot someone?
I’m not aware of one. Please inform me of any that you know of.
Whatever **Smapti’s **schtick is, after a while I think it reflects negatively on those that choose to continuously respond to it. IMO, the board would be better served if its posters voluntarily refrained from making every thread he posts in to be about him. There is no new information to be had by engaging.
And… scene.
Well now, in Smaptiville it would work like so:
The one in the center has some sort of weird (most likely alien) weapon and so would would be engaged first. The one on the left is almost pointing their gun at the camera and is the next highest threat priority, then the desperado on the right.
As for the creatures they are riding: work the targets dark to light (the natural order of threats) so: center, right, left.
The last kid and three animals are dropped mainly 'cause its a pain in the ass to reload a partly-spent magazine (you can lose count of your bullets so easily).
Of course post shooting the grieving mother of the family would be given a stern lecture about letting her loved ones play with things that could be interpreted in any way as dangerous (and then arrested for not paying respectful attention to the ‘police’ officer).
Cute.
It is obvious that all three people in this picture are wielding toy guns. No rational person would have cause to feel threatened by them.
Please do not pretend that this is in any way analogous to a person appearing to be a teenager brandishing in a public park a replica which has been altered to resemble a real weapon.
The SVPD would shoot the mother as well?
Is reasonable to expect police officers to make the assumption that the guns are toys? That’s how people end up dead.
How do you know they didn’t take real guns and paint the ends? Huh? The only way to keep your risk below your acceptable threshold of 0.000000000001% is to blow them away before they have a chance to fire. Or give them fair warning: "Dropyourweapon"BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM!
Yes. Obviously a toy. So no worries.
You must try harder, Smapti, this is too easy!
Safer to issue the fair warning last.
So let’s delineate the hierarchy of risk:
[ul][li]If a suspect points a gun at police, it is not reasonable to expect they they wait until shots are fired before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect has a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to wait until it is pointed at them before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect has what looks like a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume it is a toy or a fake, or unloaded, before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect looks like they might have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to wait until it is plainly visible before defending themselves. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect doesn’t look like they have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume the suspect doesn’t have a gun. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][li]If a suspect looks like they don’t have a gun, it is not reasonable to expect police to assume the suspect does not have a gun. That’s how cops end up dead.[/li][/ul]
And so forth.
This happened awhile ago, but just went public:
When the photo came to light, one officer was fired; the other one was already in prison for leading a crew of rogue cops in robberies, home invasions and other crimes.
The fired cop is fighting for his job back. Here is his lawyer’s defense: