No. He did appear be a threat. A big difference.
Nobody have said that cop should wait until suspect starts to shoot.
You example is amazingly stupid. Do you really think this is a competent advice from a doctor ? Then again your follow-up is on the same level, if it would be that simple this thread wouldn’t exist at all.
No regards.
What makes your posts sort of midway between grotesque and funny is your notion that telling people to freeze, put their hands up, and not resist arrest when the cops are pointing guns at you doesn’t pertain to whether or not they get shot.
Sometimes I think it’s trolling, sometimes I think it’s stupidity, sometimes I think it is performance art. This is one of those times.
Regards,
Shodan
What was the difference at the moment the shooting happened?
Regards,
Shodan
Funny story, except when it hurts to breathe.
Your post would be better if there wasn’t video like this where a guy is waving an obvious gun around while the police surprisingly don’t immediately shoot him.
So, white guy waving an immediately identifiable gun around - not a threat
Black guy with something in his hand - threat that needs immediately shot 20 times.
Yeah, ok.
Huh? Are you asking what’s the difference between guilty and innocent ?
I think I’ve pinpointed the problem we have here. The others are talking about cops and you are talking about lynch-law vigilantes that kill suspects because they’re guilty by default as there’s never smoke without fire.
And, of course, if you are a black guy, don’t pick up a BB gun in walmart. You’ll get shot with no warning.
Again, how do you konw what happened at the moment of the shooting?
No, I am asking for the difference between an apparent threat and a real one, at the moment when the threat is presented. How do you tell the difference?
No, I don’t think that’s the problem.
Do you know the difference between killing a suspect because you think he is pointing a gun at you, and being convicted in a court of law?
Regards,
Shodan
If you are a cop, you can make that claim fit the most ridiculous situations and not be convicted for the most part? If you feel you have to empty your gun before letting your mind register the fact that a cell phone doesn’t look like a weapon in any way, shape or form then maybe you should find a profession where common objects don’t make you panic and attack.
If the threat is just apparent, then it isn’t a threat yet. Is it really asking too much of our police to get better at telling the difference between the two?
You can use that to justify shooting anyone. They could have been a threat, they could have a gun, they could have a knife, they might try to run. At the moment when the police first encounter someone, how do they determine that there is or is not a real threat?
Skin color?
Does he run away, resist arrest, fail to show his hands, come at you with something in his hand after you point a gun at him - subtle cues like that.
Regards,
Shodan
This is an important point. The police all too often seem to charge into a situation and start shooting at the flimsiest of provocation when what they really need to do is assess the situation from a distance rather than creating a situation at close quarters. This would save them from making a fair number of their instantaneous mistakes.
Do they run at him screaming conflicting orders at him while flailing around with a deadly weapon-not so subtle threats to his life like that.
What if he Lays down with his hands in the air?
Can you please indicate where this victim of a police shooting did any of that?
ETA: Ninja’d by Manson, so how about this one?
How about Sean Groubert? If the shooting hadn’t been captured on camera, and/or if his victim had died, would have have been successfully prosecuted?
I will assume from the attempts to talk about other cases that my point has been carried about this case.
Regards,
Shodan