That he aimed his gun and pulled the trigger may be compelling evidence that he meant to shoot him, especially when he subsequently lied about it. You’re incapable of understanding things like this due to whatever trauma that warped you beyond reason and rationality on this subject, and you have my sympathy. Being a broken person must truly suck.
Smapti would defend the undercover female vice cop who shot Santa because she thought he called her a 'ho three times.
Oh, I get it! His gun was only pointed in the vicinity of the vehicle! He was in fact waving it around at random, and it was sheer coincidence that he happened to score a direct hit on the survivor of the crash. What are the odds?
Now what the fuck was he doing with his weapon unholstered in the first place? How is that a reasonable reaction when confronted with a person doing the only sensible thing a person can do upon surviving a car wreck: trying to escape the vehicle?
Smapti =Because you can’t criticize police shootings without being an anarchist and against the Rule of Law.
Yet, normal people do this every time they read about some police misconduct.
Anarchists, all! I tells ya!
Hey, that suspect had his hands on a heavy metal object that could EASILY be used as a weapon against the officer, perfectly justifying a pre-emptive shot!
Smapti has repeatedly argued that cars are deadly weapons, right?
You’re a worthless simpleton, who plays a child’s game of “neener neener, I did not say those exact words!”
You’ve made your points abundantly clear - you worthless piece of skin.
In Smapti’s world, the officer kindly mitigated Andrew’s grieving for his wife.
I just hope Smapti doesn’t encourage the officer to display similar kindness to any orphans the couple may have left.
Well, unless they’re at a crime scene, I should add, in which case the officer opening fire is a perfectly justifiable act of self-defense, the alternative being total anarchy.
Actually, the police should have nuked them for orbit–it’s the only way to be sure!
If the officer had intended to shoot, he wouldn’t have shot once and then put his gun away. He would have fired multiple times and then approached with his gun still drawn. Nor would he have any reason to deny shooting - he’d simply have to say he thought he was in danger. Putting the gun away indicates he didn’t think the man was a threat, this he had no reason to intentionally shoot.
Please offer a rebuttal to this that doesn’t involve strawmen, breathless hyperbole, or paranoid fantasies.
. . . following his shooting of the guy.
Putting his gun away after shooting the guy indicated he didn’t think the man was a threat after he had shot the guy.
One shot did the job, as shown in the vid. Sortta sick how you are incapable of understanding this.
This cop only fired once - he doesn’t even embrace the proper Smapti-level response, which would be to preemptively shoot multiple times.
Just once, geez… why even bother going to work if you’re going to be so casual about it?
Note how the cop can’t be held responsible under Smapti’s scheme:
[ul]
[li]If it’s a single shot it was clearly an accident;[/li][li]Multiple shots mean the guy was a threat and the shooting was justified.[/li][/ul]
And zero shots? Instant collapse of society.
Paranoid fantasies like the collapse of society?
Except that it *didn’t * “do the job”. The victim was still alive and conscious. If the cop had intended to shoot he would have shot to kill.
What part of " he should be charged with manslaughter" is confusing you?
And there we have it. In Smapti-land, the purpose of a police officer shooting someone is not to stop a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others, but instead is to kill the victim.
… collapsed, paralyzed inside the car. What did you want the cop to do? Pull the guy out of the wreck and then give him a double-tap behind the ear?
Cats land on their feet. Buttered toast lands butter side down. If you tie buttered toast to a cat’s back, buttered side up, and then toss the cat out over a bouncy castle, what will happen? A rotating hovering cat?
As shown in other threads, Smapti is opposed to palliative care and euthanasia under any circumstances what so ever – including his wish that terminal patients who are in extreme permanent pain.
As shown in this and other threads, Smapti believes that police should shoot people dead when there is no need to shoot in the first place.
I wonder how Smapti would deal with a police officer encountering a terminal patient in extreme permanent pain? My guess is that Smapti would hover and rotate, which when you think about it, is pretty much what he does in his posts by often being unable to factually support his observations or ethically support his positions.