252 unarmed civilians dead and all we can come up with are a small handful of cases where the shooting was questionable. Any unjustified killings is too many but does 252 unarmed civilian deaths necessarily indicate that the number is far too large?
Unarmed doesn’t mean, not a threat. Many unarmed civilians are killed while assaulting a police officer. This may not seem common but its mostly because no one covers those cases because its so clear that the shooting was justified.
I sure would like to see a cite on that.
Perhaps one day someone will invent something that the police can use to stop an assault without resorting to killing the person.
Police reports are usually filed under penalties of perjury.
One case three years ago is not enough to make all police shootings of unarmed civilians suspect. If all cops were like that, there would be almost no unarmed police shootings because they’d plant a gun on all the dead civilians.
Most police officers now have body cams. The police officer’s body cams are frequently loaded up to the cloud contemporaneously to prevent tampering by the officer. Police shootings that occur while the body cam was off draws a significant amount of scrutiny from IA.
There has not been a statistically significant decrease in police shootings and killings after the use of body cams. DC found no difference whatsoever in heir police force after implementation of body cams.
Who is this? Michael Brown? It has been pretty well established that none of the witnesses that saw him with his hands up are credible. The cop in that case was far more credible.
He was told not to reach for his waist, he reached for his waist, he got shot. He shouldn’t have been shot but its not so cavalier as you seem to make it out.
Who is this?
For most of our history, self defense has been what we call an “affirmative defense”
If you killed someone, the burden was on you to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that you killed that person in self defense. So no, its not obvious that you should be taken at your word that you killed in self defense, the standard used to be the other way for centuries until recent decades.
I’m not saying you are a hypocrite because I disagree with you, though I absolutely do disagree with you. I’m saying that because you have posted hypocritical shit, including this gem I cited in this very thread. So please go back and read those two quotes of yours, and explain to me how the fuck that’s not hypocritical. I’m not holding my breath, because your habit seems to be ignoring any facts that are presented to you and then insisting that we are just being mean to you because Reasons, but I can dream.
Also, for the record, I do agree with you that mocking people for their mental health problems is pathetic. I don’t think you are a sociopath. I can see why others do, because your posts do show a severe lack of empathy. However, your posts also show far too much fear to be a sociopath. IME, people who idolize using force to defend themselves, like you have in this thread, are fucking terrified of the world. Then fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate. and hate leads to pointless arguments on a message board.
even one is too many but what percentage of cops do you think are dirty lazy and aggressive?
Most of the “facts” that you know are based on Zimmerman’s testimony.
Zimmerman claims he got out of his truck to read road signs in his own neighborhood. That’s when the kid who has been trying to get away from him bumrushed him and started to beat his head into the ground.
It is equally likely that Zimmerman got out of his truck to confront Martin and pulled out his gun. Martin seeing the gun rushed Zimmerman and proceeded to attack him in self defense and then Zimmerman shot him.
Why is it so clear to you that Zimmerman was the one acting in self defense? Why isn’t it equally as likely that Martin was the one acting in self defense?
There is reasonable doubt in the Tamir Rice case but that’s only because we have video. The reasonable doubt in the Zimmerman case comes almost entirely from the fact that he is the only one left alive to testify.
Because the police have something called the police power. A cop is allowed to point a gun at you while trying to enforce the law. Its why we give them guns in the first place. They are allowed to detain you by force, they are allowed to do all sorts of shit you and I can’t.
If a cop says “you had sex with my wife, I’m going to kill you” then you could probably shoot him if he tried to pull out his gun.
Strange. Isn’t that why people want to carry guns around? So they can enforce the law when the police aren’t around?
Regular citizens are not allowed to enforce the law?
How do you know? How do you know that Martin wasn’t attacking Zimmerman in self defense because Zimmerman pulled his gun on Martin?
There are literally 3 streets in the entire development. One that forms a loop and two that bisect the loop. Its hard to believe that a resident of the community could be unsure of where he is in such a simply laid out community.
If you are a cop, yes.
If you are pulling a Zimmerman, no.
This is the area where the rights of cops and civilians differ. Cops do not have a duty to retreat anywhere I can think of. Cops have police power, civilians do not.
As asked before:
By this time, I think we’ve all seen too many such videos.
Since you asked twice, I’ll proffer that nobody I know (who is not a cop) carries a gun to enforce laws. People carry guns to protect themselves and their loved ones. Speaking only for myself, I have no desire to enforce any laws and would not step in to thwart an observed crime that didn’t involve perceived immediate threat of death or serious injury.
Are you expecting a different answer, or have different beliefs?
So you would step in to thwart an observed crime that DID involve perceived immediate threat of death or serious injury? Isn’t that enforcing the law?