Which part of “based on your posting history, no-one believes you when you say this” is confusing you?
The officer wasn’t so completely inept and incompetent that he didn’t realize he had royally fucked up after the first shot and put his weapon away.
He was incompetent and criminal enough to ‘forget’ to tell other responders to the scene that he had shot someone.
There you go. No straw men, breathless hyperbole, or paranoid fantasies.
For 55 officers involved in fatal shootings this year, it wasn’t their first time
Practice makes perfect, I guess.
I guess shooting first works.
Well, the article includes:
So there’s definitely a range of police types involved. I can easily see a member of a SWAT team (who, one hopes, has received advanced weapons training) being called in when the situation is already pretty dire - the suspect is known to be armed, hostages involved, etc. - and a fatal outcome is more likely.
Of course, I remain skittish about police departments who go to the paramilitary well too often, sending in strike teams to serve no-knock warrants with flash-bang grenades and such.
I think the replicant may be correct here. Which just shows the disgusting way American police are trained these days. A suspect reaching for his wallet when you ask him to show ID? You don’t just shoot him once in midsection on the off-chance he’s reaching for a gun. You shoot and continue firing until he is certainly dead.
A crazy man sauntering away from the cops holding a knife? The crazy man just might suddenly transform into a star circus performer and hurl the knife at a cop. But don’t just shoot to disable his throwing arm. Have all six cops empty their magaizines into him to assure his death.
How in heaven’s name did America become this?
We have it from the replicant’s mouth. Murder is no longer prosecutable.
“Your honor, I poured the rat poison into the coffee intending to feed it to a rat. But while my back was turned wifey drank it.”
– Case dismissed. There is nothing to prove defendant’s claim is impossible.
Did the officer know that? How could he have? Why put away his gun without first closing in to make sure the victim was no longer a threat?
Because he hasn’t got the first clue about proper proceedure?
Pulling his weapon, aiming and shooting an unarmed man that is no immediate threat confirms that.
Agreed, which is why he should be tried for manslaughter.
But if he’d shot him multiple times, you would take this as evidence the officer perceived a threat?
It would have to be considered in deciding whether charges were merited.
So one shot is evidence for manslaughter; multiple shots (assuming nothing else was different about the circumstances) might be used to challenge the merit of a manslaughter charge?
The second law of gundamentalism states “only aim your gun at something you intend to shoot”. Police are trained with firearms, so they really ought to be cognizant of the 3 laws of gun handling. If they are not familiar with the three laws, they have not been properly trained, and police departments should not be hiring officers for duties that they have not been adequately trained for.
I am saying the officer pointed his gun at the guy: pointing a gun should be treated as fundamentally equivalent to shooting a gun.
Maybe the zeroth law exempts the police or something.
Given that our system is shit, and there is no accountability, and this piece of shit incompetent asshat is likely to get away with it, can the family of the victim at least sue the department for all the moneys? (maybe enough that they’ll have to put cops on street corners to beg - that would be nice).
Or is there some other protection the government can throw up that prevents people from suing in cases like these?
Maybe they could hold a bake checkpoint!
Or a lemonade stand, and then have it shut down by another police department after some rich guy complains.
Well, it looks like the Chicago Police Department is going to be handing out a big bouquet of oopsy daisies.
Another ‘accidental’ police shooting. How many of these are there going to be before things change? How many non-cops could get away with the ‘accidental discharge’ defence. Teenage boys have accidental discharge, people carrying guns should not.
This was obviously a screwup on the officers’ part, yes - they aimed for one person and killed two instead. As above, a manslaughter charge would be appropriate.
I’m not sure what kind of “change” you expect to happen, though. Disarming the police is not viable and no amount of training is going to prevent every accidental shooting. Nor is it clear that the officer is “getting away” with anything yet - the department is acknowledging that someone was wrongfully killed and an investigation is underway.