Including the bit where they shoot you for no reason, per the recent spate of incidents?
An arrest - even one using force - is not “unprovoked violence”, and neither is injuring or killing someone in self defence. The vast majority of cases that have been investigated have been one or both of the above.
The automatic assumption that someone who acts in self defence is a lying murderer is victim blaming bullshit.
What about this particular case. Self defense?
I’m trying to parse the last sentence. Cop is afraid so kills innocent citizen. Those who condemn the cop are … victim blaming? The cop who just killed someone is the victim, not the dead person, because the cop now has to undergo therapy? 
This reminds me of what I really find so detestable in many of these killings by cops. The victim (by which I mean the dying black person, not the grief-stricken murderer) is allowed to bleed out, while fellow officer consoles the murderer. In the YouTubes and News-sites one often sees victims of police violence allowed to lie dying on the ground while cops make no effort to call an ambulance, just wander around consoling or congratulating each other.
In one very recent incident, the dying innocent black person’s innocent girlfriend was handcuffed and then, surrounded by cops, she was the one blamed for not calling 911 for her dying boyfriend. :eek:
How do these incidents reconcile with your world-view, Steophan ?
Of course it was self defense – the black person was on the ground with his hands in the air trying to verbally calm the situation. The police officer, the police union representative, and Steophan all have it right – the black person needed to be shot. What ever makes you think that the officer’s life was not threatened? Remember, the onus is on the black person shot by police to prove absolutely with the sworn evidence of two white men that he did not need to be shot.
The logic is simple:
#1. We can all agree that the officer is an idiot (or a moron – the difference is trivial, so let’s not quibble about where he fits on the scale of dumnitude) who cannot control his trigger finger.
#2. We can all agree that based on #1, as long as there are bullets in the officer’s gun, he is in grave danger of shooting himself.
#3. Based on #2, by shooting the black person, the officer reduced the risk of his shooting himself by one bullet, while at the same time the live target practice improved his skill at shooting black people.
The same logic applies to leaving black people to bleed out after having been shot, for if a black person has not been shot until dead, there is the possibility that the black person will pull out the bullet with his fingers and then shove it up the officer’s ass before dying.
This logic is unassailable, so unless you are a godless-commie-pinko-librul-furriner, get out there and vote Trump to make America great again like is was back in Jim Crow when it was open season on Black people. Get with the [del]pogrom[/del] program, people!
Shooting the black guy laying on the ground is attempted murder.
Trying to shoot the autistic guy and missing, and hitting the black guy acidentally? That’s STILL attempted murder!
The excuse is shamelessly stupid to begin with, but even if we accept it as truthful, the cop was still trying to murder an unarmed, handicapped man and only failed due to his incompetent marksmanship. He deserves to be in prison either way.
Gotta love the insanity in the defense, though. “He wasn’t trying to shoot the unarmed black guy, so this isn’t relevant to Black Live Matters despite what it looks like! It was the innocent autistic guy he was trying to kill.”
Has anybody heard what happened to the autistic guy after the caregiver was hauled off by the cops?
(I swear to god I initially read this as the set-up for a joke)
ETA: sorry if that information offended anyone, but I nearly shat myself from laughing so hard. 
Yes, this. Aiming for the autistic guy obviously makes it all better.:smack:
Yes, someone who has to defend themselves from attack is a victim. How is that not completely obvious to everyone?
In the vast majority of cases discussed here, the person killed is not an “innocent victim”, but someone resisting arrest or outright attacking a cop. There are exceptions, of course, and in those cases police can and will be convicted. But even with video evidence of people trying to pull guns on cops, there are several posters here who will claim the police shouldn’t have defended themselves. It’s ridiculous.
nm
Which case? The one where the guy was resisting the cop, and ended up paralysed? Looked like it might have been self defence and two trials failed to prove otherwise. “Might have been” is more than enough to say someone’s not guilty.
Resisting arrest is not a capital crime.
Remember the autistic guy had a toy truck. Surely anyone would confuse that with a gun!
It is if you have dark skin and live in America.
Steophan, you are so full of shit that when you die they’re going to give you an enema and bury you in a shoe box.
Just sayin.
My cite? Almost every post you’ve made here.
That’s got nothing to do with anything, unless you’ve seen any reports of judges attempting to sentence people to death for it.
They never get before the judge when the police are executing them in the street.
Do you believe that Sean Groubert would have been prosecuted if there hadn’t been video evidence of his shooting? Do you think there’s a decent possibility that he would have lied to protect himself, and then his department would have protected him, and maybe prosecutors would have gone easy on him to maintain a good working relationship? Is this possible or totally nuts, in your eyes?
And have you ever seen Serpico?