Perhaps we need to start weeding out police who are so constantly afraid for their lives that they shoot people pulling out their wallets or cellphones.
Those are not legitimate shootings, those are goddamned unacceptable in a free society.
Sigh. Wrong, obviously. And it has nothing to do with him being a cop, it has to do with him being a person, with the right to defend himself.
Well they’re certainly acceptable under the laws of a country that prides itself on freedom… I can only guess you’re another idiot who thinks people should wait until they’ve actually been shot to defend themselves.
How could you convict anyone, cop of otherwise, if all they have to do is say the magic words. Clearly, you are wrong because people and cops get convicted, whether they feel personally threatened or not.
What the fuck are you talking about with “magic words”? Do you really think anyone’s saying that, if someone claims to have been in fear, that guarantees their acquittal? I’ve never claimed that, no-one who supports self defence claims that, it’s an absolute fucking lie spread by liberal arseholes who hate the idea of people standing up for themselves.
For someone to be convicted when they claim it was self defence, you need to either prove they were lying about being in fear of imminent death or serious injury, or that said fear was unreasonable. So, take the guy running from the police when he was shot. If video or witness evidence proves he did nothing that would put a reasonable person in such fear, then he can be convicted. But you actually need something to prove the cop a liar, you can’t just say “well he killed someone, so he might be lying, but I can’t prove it, but lock him up anyway”. Well, you can’t say it unless you’re an idiot who doesn’t actually care about protecting innocent people from attack.
So no officer can be convicted unless the prosecutor possesses telepathic powers. Riiiight.
Well, I’d ask if you were retarded, but as I am exceptionally familiar with this brand of Cop Logic*, we’ll just go forward, eh?
What the entire conversation is about is the basic fact of whether or not this kind of thing is acceptable in our society. That’s what the protests come down to, that’s what these threads come down to. That I and a helluva lot of Americans DO NOT think this situation is acceptable and are demanding change.
So here’s my question for you, Mr. Fascist Supporter of Police Slaughtering Innocents… How many deaths are justifiable? How many people are police allowed to kill each year because they reached for a phone, or had a wallet in their hands, or “walked with purpose” toward a police officer when they were in need of assistance?
All of us?
100,000 per year?
1,000 per year?
Is there a point where you would accept that perhaps the procedures and training need to change to reduce this number?
Do you have the slightest understanding why people might not view such things as
acceptable and desire to change both the laws and our societal expectations of police behavior?
- I’ve worked for and with a fair number of current, former and retired cops, and gamed and socialized with them too. To a man (and woman), they all seem highly trained in and greatly enamored of the logical fallacy that says “AHA! You said X, so I’ll assume Y and Z (which are patently false, absurd and (preferably) downright offensive) and throw them back your face in order to put you on the defensive and control the conversation.”
Or flagging down the police with a towel wrapped around their arm. Cuff 'em Danno.
Really? How about a no-knock at the wrong address?
How about the cop who tried to shoot the family dog, but shot a four-year-old girl instead:
So explain how the four-year-old had it coming.
So does that mean I can shoot people who I think are a threat? Say they pull out their cell phone or have their hands near their waistband, can I shoot them without waiting to determine their intentions?
Don’t be silly. First, they must do something a reasonable person would find threatening, like run away, or resemble a 12 year old black child with a toy gun in his pants.
No, wrong again. Why would you need telepathy to prove what a reasonable person would think? That’s the exact purpose of having that standard, to prevent the need for telepathy.
It’s not a matter of numbers. It’s a matter of whether a reasonable person would have been in fear at the point the cop shot. And that is decided by the public, on juries, so it’s not like they don’t have their say.
But to make it clear, they are not allowed to kill anyone because they reached for a phone, or a wallet, or walked in a certain way. If in any case that was the actual reason the cop shot him, and not because the cop believed it was a gun, then they’re not justifiable.
So, the answer is zero.
Yes, if you reasonably believe they are an imminent danger to you. Just the same as the cops.
New Mexico: 2 Officers Face Murder Charge
I had just moved to ABQ when this happened:
Wow, Americans sure live in terror, don’t they?
Well, going by you and Smapti, “reasonable persons” seem to be fucking bonkers and hopped up on insane troll logic, so I could see how a police officer would be afraid and/or thoroughly confused.
What’s confusing about being allowed to defend yourself if you are in danger of of imminent death or serious injury? Plenty of people seem to have a problem with that, but I’m fucked if I can tell why.