Yeah, it’s such an unreasonable burden for cops to actually know it’s a gun before killing a guy.
And I was responding to the reasoning showed by one cop when tasing a suspect while another cop “reasoned” it was a situation worth killing an unarmed guy over.
Which shows the same bias we accuse Shodan and others of.
I am not saying the shooting was justified. Just that the reason put forth by Fear Itself was flawed.
Again, the simple fact that they disagreed does not determine which was right. If both officers had fired their weapons, would that have made them right?
Unless you would care to describe the policies you believe should be in place whereby police can “actually know” it is a gun, in low-light conditions and in the stress of confronting a criminal. Do they wait until they actually see the gun (in low-light conditions)? Do they wait until they can “actually know” that it is not an Airsoft pistol modified to look real? Do they wait until he points it at them? Wait until after he gets off a shot?
Would you like to describe those policies yourself? In this thread, you seem to be advocating in a world where the cops have been replaced by Judge Dredd, where they can act as judge, jury and executioner based entirely on their personal whims. Do you support any restrictions or punishments at all when cops kill civilians? If so, what are they? Pray be specific.
I was speaking of police policies on shooting in general. I would have thought that my reference to “policies” would have made that clear, even to one of your obviously limited attainments.
My apologies for pushing you beyond that of which you are capable.
But by all means, pick out a fucking case, and describe the policies (not including after-the-fact second guessing) and describe the policies that should be in place to prevent that shooting, and the practical implications of implementing such policies. If possible.
Let me know if you don’t understand more - I can type slower.
No need to type slower. Just type smarter.
I was referencing this bit you had just typed, of course(Sorry you have trouble following your own train of thought): " Do they wait until they actually see the gun (in low-light conditions)? Do they wait until they can “actually know” that it is not an Airsoft pistol modified to look real? Do they wait until he points it at them? Wait until after he gets off a shot?"
Suppose we implement such a policy. The police receive a report of someone in a park pointing a gun at people. He is videotaped doing so. The police receive a report that he is pointing a gun at people. The police show up, and he pulls what appears to be a gun, and points it at them. Does that count as “positively identifying” that the suspect has a gun?
If you agree that it does, we have no problem. If you want to bring in facts that are not apparent at the time of the shooting, then you are doing what I, for one, would object to, which is Monday-morning quarterbacking.
If you want to condemn the police based on facts not in evidence at the time, feel free. Just don’t expect anyone with an IQ in double digits to go along with it.
No doubt Czarcasm will love it, but notice the caveat.
Okay, Tamir Rice. Some of policy changes there that would have saved a life.
First, actually check the history and references of the officers that you hire. If someone is being fired form one police department due to being unfit for duty, you don’t hire him.
Second, even if you have officers that are fit for duty, you should have a policy that says that if someone is suspected of having a gun, you don’t drive right up to them and jump out of the car. You stop somewhat short and assess the situation.
Practical implications? Pros, Less people get shot. Cons, people who demonstrate that they are not fit to wear a badge and a gun don’t get to play cops and robbers and cops may have to walk a bit further.
I can think of many of my childhood friends that the cops should have shot, according to you, because when we were kids, we had toy guns that looked more like real guns than airsoft guns do now, and we would run around and shoot each other with them.
Do you feel that the police have no responsibility to investigate the matter whatsoever before opening fire.
Aslo, cite a case of s kid playing with a gun where when the officers showed up, he pointed it at them. If there is video, then it should be easy to see when this happened. If it is just the officer stating that the kid pointed the gun at him, and the video doesn’t show that, then it doesn’t count.
If the cop has any sense, he asks "what do you mean by ‘positively identify’?
He was recorded on video pointing what appeared to be a gun at people earlier, we received a report of someone pointing a gun at people, when we pulled up he pulled what appeared to be a gun and pointed it at us. It sure looked like a gun."
Did you point them at the police, around midnight?
When they point what appears to be a real gun at you, how much investigation is appropriate? Do you mean waiting to see if he gets off a shot first?
So, unless there is video clearly showing what happened - in other words, the video better cover the whole encounter from start to finish, no matter what the lighting conditions and camera angles, then the police are assumed guilty. Gotcha.