Well put.
I find it absolutely astounding that ANYbody could hold these two things (threat/not threat) in their minds at the same time.
I don’t know how their heads don’t just explode from the irony and the complete lack of logic.
I am equally amazed that someone minding their own business, not threatening anybody, is someone to be fearful of, but someone threatening a cop with a gun isn’t.
I don’t think you know what “imminent” means.
This reminds me of all the bullshit in the Zimmerman thread, where people were claiming that by following Martin, Zimmerman was threatening him.
In re: the shotgun at Wal Mart: Your characterization is false and is contradicted by the statement of the police chief and by the behavior of the people in the store. His behavior was demonstrably threatening. Continuing to assert otherwise in the face of the evidence is simply lying.
You fat racist simpleton.
Maybe. But it was legal, and no-one was in imminent danger, nor could have reasonably believed that they were. Who did he threaten? Who did he point the gun at? Who’s legitimate instructions did he ignore? You can’t answer any of those questions without admitting no-one was in any danger, or in real fear of imminent injury.
lol.
I love how I’m the racist because you’ve decided to bring race into this, and I’m a simpleton because you can’t answer my questions, and are ignoring the statement from the police that no-one was threatened.
And I’m only fat because every time I fuck your wife she gives me a biscuit.
The chief of police said the opposite, you lying shitbag. He said that he would interpret their behavior as the beginning of something bad and as consistent with the initiation of a mass shooting. A reasonable person would experience fear in those circumstances. You imbecile.
I don’t know why you’re racist. Parenting perhaps? I bring it up because you are, and it’s helpful for people to be mindful of this when reading your views on which situations present reasonable threat.
My first guess here is genetics. Could be schooling as well, but your stupidity seems more profound than that.
Desperate lies. I’ve quoted where he said their behavior was threatening. You quote where he said nobody was threatened.
She does like to give out biscuits, but she doesn’t pity-fuck fat simpletons. I think you’re thinking of your mother.
I’m currently in a committed relationship, but I do love me some biscuits.
Well, you are in Western PA. Are you doughy? Are you an imbecile? If so, you might just have to stick with the cookies then.
No, you actually haven’t. You are letting your prejudices read things into his statement that simply aren’t there.
People may have been frightened, for good reason, but no-one was either threatened with imminent death or serious injury, nor had good reason to believe they were.
Of course, if I’m wrong, you could answer one of these questions. Who did he point the gun at? Who did he threaten? Who did he even communicate with, in any way? What instructions by the police or the store’s owner/manager did he ignore?
Of course you can’t answer any of them, because there’s no previous answer from the idiotic leftie hive mind you’re part of.
Racking a shotgun in a store filled with people. This is threatening to anybody with a lick of common sense. Not afraid of the gun. Afraid of the insane idiot who would think this was normal behaviour. Mass shootings happen. And they start JUST LIKE THIS. ETA: Yes, anyone in that store had FUCKING GOOD REASONS to be fearful of the nutcase wandering around with a loaded shotgun. As I said, this is how mass shootings start.
The other examples were NOT threatening a cop with a gun. They are examples of people WITH NO GUN AT ALL, who are still considered by the police to be “a threat”.
My only conclusion here is that you are either:
a) mentally unable to grasp what is being plainly said here
b) trolling all of us for shits and giggles.
It could be the Earl Warren option.
Just this morning, I mention for the unmitigated heck of it, a guy got fatally stabbed about 100 feet from my front door and the cops have sealed off the block and such. This is 100% true, no kidding.
When looking up news reports of the event, I find that this is only the 12th homicide in Montreal this year, which strikes me as absurdly low (even by our standards). By comparison, Philadelphia (which is slightly smaller) has had 112 and Houston (which is somewhat larger) had 73 just in the first three months of 2015.
I might joke that Americans live in terror, but I can kinda see why.
Well, this is the internet, so there’s a lot of conflation of different concepts going…
Could he have acted in a way to make it less likely for him to die?
Should he have?
Does that make him responsible for his own death?
Does that make him culpable for his own death?
Does that mean he deserved to die?
All the italicized words above are ones that are sufficiently imprecise that there’s little if any point in really arguing about them in this context.
But, assuming I have even the faintest correct idea of what happened, he was playing with a toy gun with the bright orange safety tip removed. That’s a Bad Idea. That’s something that people Should Not Do.
BUT, we generally try to set up our society so that there are multiple layers protecting children from death, one of which is telling them “you should not do X”, but that’s not the only one. For instance, we teach our children to look both ways before crossing the road. But we also tend to have lower speed limits and clear signage around areas where children live, and special rules for school buses, so that it’s as unlikely as possible that a child failing to look both ways (as children will do) will actually die.
The way the cops acted stripped away one of those layers.
“justified” in what sense?
I agree that self defense should be legal. And I agree that there will be times when people will act in what they believe to be self defense even though it turns out that there was no threat. I haven’t researched the case enough to have an opinion about whether the specifics of the Tamil Rice (if I have his name right) case would stand up in a fair and impartial court as self defense, but I think you’re overlooking or downplaying the possibility that the actions of the cops were “reckless” in some fashion that may not be a crime, and may not be a fireable offense, but which certainly would not qualify as good policing.
I assume you agree that this has nothing to do with the 12-year-old-kid?
One small note that makes a large difference: When the cops saw him he wasn’t playing with the toy gun at all-it was jammed into his pants. At that point there wasn’t enough showing to tell that it was a gun, toy or otherwise, and if the tip was still on it they wouldn’t have seen it.
This, plus the relatively high importance of two facts, namely that he was **12 years old ***and that he was sitting by himself in an open public space.
As Bad Ideas that 12 year old boys Should Not Do go, here’s just a few that are much more severe than playing with a realistic looking toy gun:
[ul]
[li]smoking a stolen cigarette[/li][li]stealing a cigarette[/li][li]lifting some booze out of the kitchen and sharing it with friends[/li][li]lifting booze and drinking it alone[/li][li]vandalizing public or private property[/li][li]reading Ayn Rand[/li][li]fighting[/li][li]walking on train bridges / stepping over electric rails[/li][/ul]
None of those, incidentally, require armed intervention by law enforcement.
*****I’m going to keep emphasizing this fact. Society has NOT changed so much that this is irrelevant to our expectations for adolescent consumers’ adherence to statutory restrictions on the appearance of toys. Fucking hell.
How interesting. I can’t think of any explanation other than those two why someone would claim holding a shotgun and not threatening anybody is more dangerous than someone pointing a pistol at some cops, or trying to run them over, or trying to grab the cop’s gun from them, or setting their dog on the cops they fucking called.
Either people are, quite literally, blind to what people are trying to do to these cops, or they are trolling me. I know at least three people are disagreeing with me on general principles, but there’s others who are normally better than that.
Is anyone so claiming? The impression I get is that someone racking a shotgun in a Walmart is a reasonably dangerous enough situation to call police, not that it’s being calculated as “more dangerous” than the situations you describe.
How about other cases where people were shot by the police, and you seem to have no problems because the officer FELT threatened, or WAS IN FEAR for his life?
Cases where the perpetrator was reaching for his wallet. Or running away. Or had his hand in his pocket. Or was holding a stapler.
How do these cases fit into your worldview, eh? Is it more reasonable to shoot a person in one of these situations? Or someone walking around a crowded store with a loaded shotgun?
John Crawford was just holding a gun, but he’s dead. This guy in Mississippi can’t even get arrested and he did more than just hold that gun.
I wonder why there were such different outcomes?
It’s just inexplicable.
…and pointing it at people, and refusing orders to drop it, and moving aggressively when approached by officers, but what do the facts matter when there’s a Cause to be defended?
And at no point did the police ever encounter him while he was armed - he’d already left by the time they showed up.