Did you read the article? That quote is from May and refers to a completely different shooting than the one the article is about.
Ah, you’re right, the Chief was referring to the shooting of a different unarmed man. My apologies.
He’s still most likely a stealth liberal pansy though.
Sorry, I don’t have a scorecard large enough to keep track of all the questionable shootings anymore.
I’ve asked a couple of times, but clearly the police defenders on this board are not willing to say how much bloodshed there has to be before they too admit that maybe we have a problem in this nation.
People using firearms in self-defense is not a “problem” no matter how many times it happens or whether or not they wear a uniform.
**Smapti **won’t be happy until the general public is forced to belly-crawl everywhere they want to go lest they’re hit by a self-defense bullet. Can’t be too safe.
Are you capable of conceiving of no middle ground between “Any time anyone shoots anyone for any reason it is murder” and “It’s OK to shoot anyone you feel like any time”?
Actually, he was aiming at the child but missed and hit the dog instead.
But the problem is that the situation is not “lots of cops are using firearms in self defense”. It’s “lots of cops are using firearms in what THEY CLAIM is self defense”. If there had been 10 cases of white cops killing black civilians in the past 6 months, and in every single one of those cases the black civilians had inarguably been actively trying to kill the cop with an actual gun, people would not be making the complaints that we are making. (There would be a different important discussion going on, but it would be about the prevalence of guns and violent imagery and the breakdown of social safety nets, or something like that… not “cops are bad mkay”.)
Sure, for any individual case it may or may not be reason to either argue:
(a) I believe the cop was acting in self defense
or
(b) I believe that the correct legal finding is one of self defense, due to what can actually be proved in a court of law
I can even see an argument for
(c) In the vast majority of these cases, I believe that the correct legal finding is one of self defense, due to what can actually be proved in a court of law
But your position seems to be
(d) In the vast majority of these cases, I believe the cop was acting in self defense
And I just don’t see how either logic or basic human empathy can support that position.
Depends if you are in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. Despite what you and others seem to want, it’s not a simple yes/no question, it’s one that will require a thorough investigation and, if there’s a reasonable chance that it was murder, a trial.
To take two out of a multitude of possible hypotheticals, if you see someone walking out of the swimming baths with a towel wrapped round their arm, it is not reasonable to assume it’s a gun. If you’ve received an emergency call that someone’s been waving a gun around and has then wrapped it in a towel, it would be reasonable to assume that - and if they then pointed their wrapped arm at you it would be reasonable to shoot them. And, most importantly, it would remain reasonable even if it’s later discovered that there was no gun.
What matters is whether it was reasonable to believe there was a threat. Proving that there was a threat may well prove that it was reasonable to be in fear, but proving their wasn’t a threat says nothing as to whether the fear was reasonable.
Does this make it hard to prosecute people who claim to kill in self defence? Yes, obviously. It damn well should be hard to convict people, you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime. That should always be a difficult decision - no matter how obvious it may seem, all other reasonable explanations need to be dismissed.
You know all these cases that people think are probably murder? The defendant should be found not guilty in every one of them. “Probably” should never be enough to convict someone.
The sad thing is that none of this has to do with cops, it should apply to everybody.
(c) and (d) are functionally equivalent, in terms of how we should act and how we should treat people. Otherwise, you are suggesting punishing or otherwise negatively treating people who are not only not criminals, but are the victims of a crime serious enough that they had to kill to save their own life, or avoid serious injury.
And if that means a few, or even a lot, of “factually guilty” people get off, so what?
But in many cases, that threat exists only in their mind.
I note that this is an appropriate and effective rejoinder offered by kayaker to Smapti’s dictum. At present, it remains without response in this thread.
Hence the reasonableness test.
Not really. Innocent people don’t shoot cops who are carrying out their duty. You don’t get to assume the cops have come to the wrong house and shoot them.
Semantically debatable, but irrelevant. They are certainly NOT equivalent in terms of how upset people should be about the world we live in.
Let’s hypothesize for a moment that not only did we have body cams on all cops, we had absolutely perfect full-360-view hi-def body cams with perfect image and sound quality. So any time any one of these incidents happened, everyone agreed on precisely what had happened, whether someone actually “reached for his waistline”, etc.
There would then presumably be some incidents where everyone agreed “ok, that was absolutely reasonable self defense”. And probably some incidents where everyone agreed “that cop is a criminal, this proves it, and he will soon be convicted”. But there would still be some incidents where people would say “geez, I guess MAYBE that cop might have thought he was threatened, but damn it if he had only made some different choices earlier that poor innocent 12-year-old would still be alive”. And in incidents like that, it might be the case that the inescapably correct legal verdict would be “not guilty”, but that the non-legalistic response of reasonable people watching it would be that the cop bore responsibility for the death of an innocent. Put together enough such incidents, particularly if they correlate along racial lines, and you have a very upset public that feels that that the cops as a whole are unnecessarily violent along racial lines.
Would you tell those people that they’re wrong? Do you think that’s actually problem that could exist? That does exist?
They are exactly about how upset people should be with the world. If someone kills someone, claims self defence, and it can’t be proved it wasn’t they should be fucking glad that he wasn’t convicted. Because that means the justice system is working as it should.
What if cops kill black civilians in incidents that can not be proven not to be self defense at a rate 20 times higher than they kill white civilians?
Are you even capable of taking a step back and considering that there might be societal problems that reasonable people could acknowledge and discuss even in situations in which actual convictions properly never occur?
Rather pointless, unless an independent prosecutor is appointed. Foxes and henhouses.
Of course we should be discussing societal problems, but every time that’s tried people start screaming “RACIST!!!” in an attempt to shut down any discussion that doesn’t involve blaming cops (who’ve been found not guilty of any crime) for all of the problems.
No, not really. It should stop people talking about whether there was actually a threat in any particular case, rather than focussing on how a reasonable person would have reacted. Unfortunately people get hung up on irrelevant details like “it was a replica gun” or “he was unarmed, he was just pulling his wallet out of his pocket”. What he was actually doing doesn’t matter, what matters is the shooter’s state of mind, and whether it was reasonable.
You don’t need an independent prosecutor to be able to make your own judgement on that, you just need to understand what the law actually is.