When the law of your state defines it as one, I suppose;
That’s the law in my state. It’s more than likely that your state has a similar law. You would do well to follow it so that you don’t allow drunk drivers to plow into you and kill you while you’re distracted.
Lots of things? Really?
In the case of the child-killing cops, could you name a few?
Short of amending the Constitution to provide for psychic readings prior to any transfer of firearms, I don’t know how you expect to enforce such an idea.
Provide an example of a case in which cops unjustifiably killed a child, and we’ll talk.
My beliefs are based on nothing other than that which I have personally observed to be true. I cannot choose to believe something I know to be false for the sake of getting people to like me.
I’d make a horrible politician.
You, Smapti, are incapable of rationally evaluating whether the actions of cops (or other authority figures) are justified; as you are similarly incapable of evaluating the morality of many other actions and circumstances (such as those involving slavery, civil disobedience, military duty, and many more).
You don’t have to; I just hope that some day you might consider that your preconceived notions, and the philosophical underpinnings behind your beliefs about authority and society, might be incorrect and skewed due to your personal traumatic experiences.
Based on what you’ve posted, you’d also make a horrible soldier, a horrible cop, a horrible neighbor, a horrible citizen, and a horrible human being.
The “helpful police” comment sounds sarcastic, but it almost appears that was indeed police intent:
I think some training should be mandatory for cops to help them determine what is a danger and how to defuse situations without the use of deadly force. Shooting first and asking questions later is for John Wayne movies, not real life.
I heartily agree!
I didn’t say unjustified, so go ahead and talk.
While you’re at it, could you tell us where exactly the toy gun was when those officers rushed up to that 12 year old child?
So we agree the shooting of Rice was justified, then?
The only thing agreed upon is that they killed a child. Quit trying to add things to the story that aren’t there, and answer the question.
BTW, where was the toy gun when they rushed up to the 12 year old child?
I know why you refuse to answer that: If you admit that he didn’t have a toy weapon in his hand when they came up to him, they no longer have any excuse, even a poor excuse, to be immediately afraid for their lives. That is why, in your mind’s eye, you cannot look directly at that child and at what that child was doing when he was gunned down.
In his waistband where he was reaching for it. Check and mate.
So he was brandishing something in his pants?
But you could choose to shut the fuck up about it, rather than constantly vomiting your vile “opinions” onto the board at every opportunity, you twisted, morally debased piece of shit.
And once again, some dickwad gave a very good reason why he might have been reaching for it:
You just checkmated yourself, dickwad.
I’m sorry you can’t be bothered to keep this civil.
Can you not at least agree that he should not have responded to the police’s arrival by reaching for his piece?
First you say he was brandishing it. But it was in his pants. And that he should have dropped it. But it was in his pants. How does one drop something without picking it up?
By not taking a hold of it, which is what he did do.
Please, do continue to elaborate on how “grab at the toy gun in your waistband” is a completely logical thing to do when confronted by the cops and how it’s exactly what you would teach your children to do.
We are way past “civil”, you lying sack of shit, so tell me how he could have possibly dropped the gun without reaching for it in the first place? If you stick to your story that they told him to drop the “weapon”, then they shot him down for trying to comply with police orders.