Maybe, maybe not. If I did step in, it wouldn’t be to enforce the law, it would be to save lives. It would have nothing to do with enforcing any laws.
When the assailant is a police officer?
Ok, fair enough.
And how would you determine if there was an immediate threat of death or serious injury?
Are you talking about John Crawford?
There is no audio but other than the claim that they ordered John Crawford to drop the gun, the video seems o verify everything the officer said. Crawford was holding the gun, they shot him, he ran away then he came back towards the gun and they shot him again. I don’t see how the video contradicts what they said.
We can argue about whether or not a slo mo of the vide of Tamir Rice’s death shows he moved his hands towards his waist or not but I do not see anything in the video that contradicts there statements. The only thing they might be lying about is the verbal warnings.
Can you cite to the police statements? Because the ones I am seeing do not contradict the video.
I’m not saying that I think there was nothing wrong with any of these shootings but I don’t see how their statements are contradicted by the video.
I don’t have any cites regarding what the police testified to, so you may be correct. I was working off memory, recalling how the police said the suspects pointed weapons at them. The videos clearly show that the people never pointed any guns at the police. In the Crawford and Rice cases, the cops shoot immediately, apparently before even asking any questions or giving any orders. “Shoot first, ask questions later” seemed to be the order of the day.
So what percentage do you think it is?
The first example you give is not even a police shooting.
The second one (Dubose) involves POLICE video. You really think the cop in this case intentionally lied knowing that their bodycam captured the whole thing? Or is it possible that the 2 or 3 seconds between when he tried to open the decedent’s door and when the decedent drove away might have been confusing and chaotic? If the police are really as scummy as you say then why didn’t they destroy the body cam and plant a gun on the body? I mean that is what is causing all this distrust, right? The South Carolina cop planting a weapon on the dead body.
The Third one ALSO involves police video. But this one definitely stinks. Chicago police has been a cesspool for decades.
The 4th one Rashad McIntosh seems sketchy too. Chicago again!!! color me surprised.
The 5th one is once again, not a shooting.
So, let me ask again, what percentage of police killings do you think fall into this category?
I posted the link to the video upthread.
No. They are allowed to defend themselves and to a limited extent others. They are not allowed to arrest me for prostitution or dealing drugs. Cops can. They can do so with force and at the point of a gun. If YOU a civilian tried to arrest me for prostitution, at the point of a gun, I could probably shoot you and it would be self defense.
Well, they have tasers but tasers require pretty good accuracy and thin clothing.
No? There is no such thing as citizen’s arrest anymore? During a recent shooting, people got in their truck and chased the shooter down. Was that illegal? Should those guys go to jail? What does “not allowed” mean in your sentence. It is illegal to do it? Unwise? Something else?
I can hold someone attempting to break into my house at gunpoint. Isn’t that force?
Oh, are we playing the “you’re clearly using an extremely common word in the middle of a standard English sentence, but I’ll pretend that you were using it in a technical legal sense because I enjoy looking stupid on the internet” game?
In that case explain the following quotes:
It’s going to be difficult for you to reconcile those two quotes, but good luck.
Are you genuinely this stupid?
It’s akin to saying that Arabs can’t be anti-Semitic because they are also Semites.
Not really. I’ve repeatedly said I believe that Dunn’s murder conviction is unsound, and that therefore Davis wasn’t murdered.
Calling Arabs “semites” is only correct in a linguistic context, not in any other. If used in that context, it would be silly to think it refers to race, religion, or nationality.
Same with the discussion of “stalk” earlier. In the context of whether Zimmerman committed a crime, it’s silly to use that word in a completely different context, one that doesn’t refer to action towards a human at all.
Likewise, I’ve made it clear that I’m using “thug” in it’s normal meaning, to refer to an aggressive, antisocial person. That you immediately assume that refers to a black person says more about you than me.
Your belief is not based on evidence.
Translated:
Likewise, I’ve made it clear that I’m using “nigger” in it’s normal meaning, to refer to a person with black skin. That you immediately assume that means I’m a racist asshole says more about you than me.
Also, I see you ignored my request to explain the hypocrisy from you that I cited, just as I predicted.
That’s the whole point of this thread. We don’t know what percent of cops do these things and how often they do it. But, it appears to be much larger than we’ve been led to believe!
We’ve been told for years (decades? ages?) that these things absolutely did not happen. That the police did not target certain people because of where they live or the color of their skin. That the police did not charge people for crimes they did not commit. That the police did not kill unarmed civilians. That the police did not misrepresent the facts on crime reports and in court testimony. And in case after case we are finding that they do do these things.
What percentage do you think is acceptable? And what percentage do you think we’ll finally learn is actually occurring?
mc
Mentioned in SRIotD, the governor of New Mexico want to protect the state’s fuzz from their victims.
How can you tell? There is no audio. But generally in the WalMart case it does seem like the victim is unaware of the presence of the police until he gets shot.
Tamir Rice seems to be aware of what is going on but he is 12.