Well, it’s clearly been Smapti’s position all along that for their own safety, police officers should pre-emptively shoot everyone on the scene. The video of Andrew Thomas, shot as he was climbing out of a wrecked vehicle, is simply a good example of his beliefs in action. Had officer Patrick Feaster spotted Thomas’s wife Darien Ehorn, who’d been killed in the crash, he should have put a bullet in her, also for his own safety, just in case she wasn’t actually dead since that means she was capable of charging at the officer without warning.
Perhaps if you keep repeating that mantra enough times, you’ll start believing it.
You did note that I’m not defending the officer here, right? He was, at best, so negligent in handling his weapon that he managed to shoot another human being without even realizing it, and at worst so self-serving that he knew he’d fucked up and then attempted to play dumb about it. I see no reason he shouldn’t be charged with manslaughter.
What I don’t see is any indication that he deliberately shot the victim or that he fired his weapon with malicious intent, but your black-or-white, the-perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good morality has trapped you in this mindset where anyone demanding anything less than the summary drawing and quartering of the officer must therefore be an evil apologist for dirty cops who murder and lie with impunity.
never mind
Judging by every other post you have on these boards, in which you’re actually sane and funny, I can only determine that you are in the middle of the longest “taking of the piss” we’ve seen 'round these parts. But I think you’re slipping because, really …
… is just ridiculous. It couldn’t be more clear if he stopped to blow the smoke out of his gun barrel before holstering it.
Maybe he regretted it afterwards, but he very clearly deliberately shot him. Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of the word… The gun didn’t aim at this man by itself, and it didn’t fire by itself.
Oh, I comfortably know your position. You just have difficulty admitting it when it’s put in blunt terms.
Exactly. Your position has always been that anyone who doesn’t support the idea that police should shoot everyone on scene for the own protection is arguing for anarchy.
In this case, so far, the officer did indeed pre-emptively kill someone and lied about it with impunity, or at least there’s been no “punity” assigned as yet that I’m aware of. The video and public outcry might embarrass Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey into acting, but I get the impression he’d rather everyone would just politely forget about the whole thing.
No, that has never been my position. Feel free to prove me wrong.
If he had “very clearly” done so, then he would currently be under indictment.
Your posts are my cite.
In fairness to the officer, we must consider the possibility that a spirit took possession of his body in those seconds; a spirit that believes (as Smapti does) that a police officer should shoot people at the scene for his own pre-emptive protection, in case they are armed or about to charge at the officer or something.
Then cite the post in which I say cops ought to shoot everyone they see immediately upon arriving at the scene.
You’ve made it abundantly clear that police officers should use deadly force on anyone they even remotely perceive as a threat or whom they can claim to fear. You’ve made this so broad, and your defenses so resolute, that no one here believes you to be a functional human being.
So while being a thin parody of your beliefs, it would not be a surprise to anyone here to see you defend any such shooting as legal and legitimate.
All of them put together and viewed from a distance. It’s like one of those collage images, with the ultimate visual being a police officer slapping in his third magazine.
So you have no cite, in other words, and you choose to willfully disregard evidence that directly contradicts what you’ve chosen in advance to believe.
Good to know.
I’m willing to recognize that you’ll grudgingly and reluctantly admit that maybe an officer went too far sometimes when there’s video showing that he clearly did, but your preference will still be to side with the officer and wish we didn’t make such a big deal about the video.
No, as he said, the only cites people need are your continued posts.
He aimed and pulled the trigger. At that moment, he meant to shoot him. Your blind trust in law enforcement doesn’t change this fact.
So your argument is that it is scientifically impossible to accidentally fire a gun.
Is that your argument? That he accidentally aimed and pulled the trigger?
It is clear that he had his gun drawn and aimed in the vicinity of the vehicle. It is not clear that he did so with the intent of shooting anyone who might have been within that vehicle at the time, let alone that he did so with malicious intent. There is nothing to disprove the claim that he accidentally discharged his weapon and in so doing struck the occupant of said vehicle. Therefore, any person who is rendering an opinion consistent with the rules of American jurisprudence, as governed by the common law and the Constitution, is compelled to find that he did not criminally murder the victim.
If you wish to argue that the Constitution and the American judicial system and rule of law is wrong, then please feel free to do so and be honest about it.