Killing people lying in the street with their hands in the air, pulling up their pants while being forced to crawl while keeping hands up, and just answering their door is a right? I gotta reread this Constitution, I’m missing all kinds of fun!
We should presume (not assume) that it was a tragic mistake unless proven otherwise. You have provided good evidence that it is, in fact, otherwise. That evidence will be more closely examined in the investigation, and possible trial, to determine what actually happened.
No, defending yourself us a fundamental right. Not a constitutional right, a basic human right. You want to remove that right from a class of people because some other people have (in your opinion) lied.
Ahh, yes. The “whoopsie” defense. Second only to the “I was scairt” defense.
I agree completely that it is both a natural right and a constitutional right.
Can you really argue that when the police break down doors in the middle of the night and shoot residents that they are not denying these rights? Aside from the very rare instance where compelling and verified information reveals a violent situation is occurring, police should not be breaking down doors. And they should not shoot people who are not clearly and obviously presenting an immediate threat.
Chalking it up to “I thought he was going for a weapon” when there is no video evidence, and “woops, my mistake” when there is video evidence, is not acceptable, even if we believe cops aren’t intent on murdering people.
It seems obvious to me that different training is necessary, different policies should be implemented, and police forces should stop protecting the “few bad apples” that they say are a distinct minority.
I think far too many police choose that vocation because they seek authority and have violent tendencies, but that’s probably a different discussion.
If I am paranoid, and think that people are out to get me, is it my right to defend myself from threats that I perceive, and shoot to kill anyone who I think may possibly wish to cause me harm? Is it an affirmative defense that I thought that guy was going to kill me, even if there is absolutely nothing that he did that was actually threatening?
Or should I get help to better assess the threat of a situation, or even learn to avoid the situations in the first place?
This is where we are with cops. They are acting paranoid, as if the slightest movement or gesture is a threat. They are instigating and escalating situations to the point where they perceive a threat.
We want better screening and training of police. We want police who have demonstrated bad judgement to be evaluated as to their fitness for their job, and either receive training to improve their fitness, or be removed from the job if it is not something they can achieve appropriate qualifications for.
When police lie to cover up their “mistakes”, it completely removes them from being accountable, they cannot serve their communities if they are not honest about their conduct. It prevents measures from being put into place to prevent such tragedies from occuring again, and it very reasonably reduces the community’s trust in law enforcement.
When police lie and are then contradicted on video, it does cast all police in a bad light. It proves that police are not honest, and cannot be taken solely at their word. So, when shootings come out that for some reason the video does not exist, it is very reasonable to question the officer’s account of events.
People like yourself, with your defense of the paranoid poorly screened and trained liars who kill people who posed absolutely no threat to the officer or to the public, actually decreases the safety of both officers and the public. It drives a wedge between law enforcement and community. If we could have a conversation where the police actually said “We’ve fucked up, we need to see how to improve our screening and training to have officers who are actually able to improve the safety of the public” then we could start to move forward.
But as long as there are those like yourself who insist that they aren’t doing anything at all wrong when they shoot people in the back and plant weapons on them, when they shoot people for informing them that they are a licensed gun owner, when they shoot people for laying on their back in the street… yeah, as long as there are those like you who find these actions to be perfectly acceptable, we will not be able to have a conversation that actually improves things.
And to top it off, you aren’t even involved. You don’t live in this country, you have no idea what happens in this country, you just like defending pieces of shit who don’t care about the lives of the people in the communities that they were sworn to protect.
If i shoot someone, the investigation should start with the presumption that i am the victim?
I am not defending paranoid people, I’ve repeatedly and clearly stated that any fear needs to be reasonable. I have no idea why this is such a difficult concept for people to understand.
Anything else is irrelevant, really. Poorly chosen, poorly trained cops gave the same right to self defence as anyone else. Should they be better trained as selected? Of course. But that has no relevance to questions of self defence.
If you claim self defence? Yes, obviously. There should be compelling evidence otherwise before you are arrested and charged. That’s why, to pick an example of someone killing in self defence that was discussed in great detail here, George Zimmerman wasn’t arrested immediately.
To do anything else would be unacceptable victim blaming.
I don’t live in a stand your ground state. I have a duty to retreat. So if i run after someone, or even don’t retreat when i could have, i can yell self defense all i want, bit it won’t fly.
When i went through my cc class, there was a guest speaker, a state policeman. He flat out told us that if a gun goes off, a crime has been committed. Not necessarily by you, bit you’ll probably be taken in as the presumptive criminal. If you open carry, there is a good chance Random Cop will presume you top be a criminal, even if the gun is legally carried and is not fired, or so we were instructed. So police are investigating from presumptions that do not have me as the victim. And i haven’t even shot anyone!
My commiserations for living in a state that has yet to adopt self defence laws based on basic human rights.
Defending yourself from people that are in no way attempting to harm you? Last I checked, that’s murder. Would you say the same if a pizza delivery guy shot someone in cold blood when they opened the door?
Yes, you are defending paranoid people. Absolutely. You have repeated over and over that it is reasonable for someone to be in fear of perceived threats that have no basis in reality. That is the very definition of paranoia.
Poorly chosen and trained cops do not have the right to instigate and escalate a situation until they become uncomfortable with it and kill a person who posed them no threat.
No, you fucking idiot, victim blaming would be to say that it was the dead guy’s fault for the officer feeling threatened.
You have some fucked up ideas of who a victim is, if you consider the victim to be the guy who just killed an unarmed civilian.
He also explained to us that if we claim self defense or defense of others- to be very, very careful. For instance, say i am walking along, carrying my gun, and i come across two people locked in battle. I shoot the apparent aggressor- but. Turns out that was a cop overpowering a suspect. My “defense of other” defense probably isn’t going to work there, either. I’m not going to be investigated as a presumptive victim if a cop gets shot while attempting to raid my house, either.
While I don’t disagree that he (the cop teaching your class) is probably right on both counts, I disagree that he should be correct with your last sentence. Cops busting down doors with no warning should not trump a resident’s right of self defense. Residents should be secure from the state in their own houses. There are other (less dangerous, less intrusive) ways to apprehend criminals.
So what you’re saying is … we should shoot any cops who approach our door, because we have the fundamental right to defend ourselves.
So let’s assume that you walk around the corner and see two guys there. One is holding a smoking gun and another lies on the ground twenty feet away with a bullet hole in his back and without any visible weapon.
And your first instinct says that the gun man is the victim ? :smack:
Now I know that you’re just throwing in anything so that you don’t have to admit being wrong. So I think we’ve made you see your error and saying anything more is actually useless. Apparently ignorance fought even if you pretend otherwise 
My instincts have nothing to do with anything. If the killer claims self defence, we should presume he’d telling the truth until we gave evidence that shows otherwise. Your scenario provides strong evidence otherwise, so it’s unlikely that his claim would stand up.
No, quite the opposite. You have no right to shoot a cop who is doing their job, because not only are they not a threat to you, they are making you safer.