If you are referring to the Tamir Rice incident, the testimony by Loehmann was that it looked like the kid was trying to draw a gun, so that he thought he was justified in shooting him when his hands supposedly lowered.
Still lying.
Once again, the trick isn’t to type slower-engage your brain(a little less wild speculation might help) and type smarter.
Or at least copy someone who can type smarter.
Cleveland releases proposed policies on police use of force
This seems like a step in the right direction.
Bolding mine. They have to update the policy to* prohibit* use of weapons against someone who is already complying with their orders.
There is a growing population of smart people who disagree with you.
Let me acquaint you with one:
Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law “Redline.” He’s written for The New York Times, the New York Daily News, City Hall News, and has appeared on Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN. He graduated from Harvard University in 2000, Harvard Law School in 2003, and was an associate at Debevoise and Plimpton.
He feels that a police officer should be right “in fact” when they use deadly force.
As do I, and at least a dozen others on this board alone who I consider smart people.
You have also shown yourself to be a smart person (usually) and your opinion of how these cases should be judged may coincide with the prevailing opinion, but you do yourself an injustice to presume that that will always be the case and that the opposite opinion is only held by dumb people.
mc
What does he mean by being right “in fact”? You didn’t post any links, but if you would like to post some excerpts, maybe we will have a better understanding of what you or he means by it.
Regards,
Shodan
You asking for links-That has got to be the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
This thread has demonstrated repeatedly that the police are bigger fucking liars than even you. By that principle, in minimal terms of occupational sanction and possibly restitution, the burden of proof, the “beyond a reasonable doubt”, should be placed upon the officers themselves. If they can clearly show that they behaved appropriately, fine. But why should we trust them anymore, or give especial weight to their statements when they have been caught over and over and over and over again in these coverups?
He means (as do I) that if the cop thought there was a gun and killed someone because of it, then there had better be a gun “in fact.” That it’s not good enough to just feel the need for deadly force there has to be an actual need for the use of deadly force. Just saying “I thought he had a gun” is not good enough. The officer’s opinion or feeling or intuition is not justification for the use of deadly force. There has to be an actual, real, credible threat.
mc
Yes. Based on their poor judgement, police should be enjoined from firing first. They should be allowed to return fire though.
Was Tamir Rice shot at midnight?
And if they don’t point a gun at you, if they just have something that you think may be a gun, and that is not pointed in your direction, or they may have a gun in their waistband, and they also happen to have hands, is it justified to shoot them?
When the video contradicts the statements that they give, then the police are above reproach. Gotcha.
It’s ridiculous, and immoral, to suggest that the very people that we send into danger on our behalf, to protect us, should have less right to defend themselves than other people. That a tiny minority of them are liars shouldn’t change that.
It is quite literally impossible to be certain of a factual threat in the instant you have to respond to it. That’s why neither law nor (normal) morality require certainty, but simply common sense. Something hugely lacking among most posters here.
The “tiny minority” of them, and the greater number of blue brothers that cover for them and lie for them and pretend not see what they do…and all you enablers that worship the ass they sit on.
Believe it or not, there’s a middle ground between worshipping a group of people and assuming on flimsy evidence that they’re all liars and murderers. That’s to judge them based on what they actually do, not to pre-judge them as criminals just because they killed someone. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, and it’s even more important to give it to those we employ to go into danger to protect us. When a case has been fully investigated and it’s been found that the people involved did nothing wrong, it’s time to move on.
I’d say most people feel that way, but to be honest I doubt most people spend a lot of time thinking about the police at all, because most people rarely come into contact with them.
There is a potential for threads like this, and other places that question the actions of authority. Doing so is necessary to keep them in check, and remind them that they work for the people. But, when the investigation has happened, and it’s been found that there was nothing wrong, drop it. You’ve got what you (should) want - answers to your questions, and that ought to be enough. However, you insist on refusing to accept those answers, ignoring the evidence, and making yourself look stupid - and worse, if you do stumble upon a case where there’s actual wrongdoing, rather than it ebing brought to light, you’ll be laughed at because you’ve been wrong so many times.
Who says they should have less rights? If I shoot a man dead on the streets, and say after that I thought he was reaching for a gun, and it turns out he has no gun, i am going to jail.
If requiring a cop to be certain the use of deadly force is necessary makes some situations more dangerous for the cop, then do not send the cop into those situations. easy solution.
I, and many others, are no longer willing to sacrifice the safety of some for the safety of others. I, and many others, do not believe that we are safer because a cop can kill an unarmed civilian with absolutely no consequence.
You think that by allowing cops to sacrifice the safety of some to ensure the safety of the many, puts you on some sort of moral high ground; and that I (and others) who are not willing are somehow bringing about the end of civilization and thrusting our entire culture into violent chaos by hamstringing the only thing keeping us safe.
I say that it is your position that is ridiculous and immoral.
mc
Why are you arguing with a slime bag troll? No good can come of that.
He describes the police as the people we send out to protect us. But whom are they protecting? If not all of us, then they are little more than a hit squad for certain among us.
Yes, that’s why the US military ROE specifies that they can just shoot anything that they feel is a threat.
Oh wait, no it actually doesn’t specify that. In fact, a lot of ROE spells out the exact conditions when a serviceman or woman can fire. And “I felt threatened” isn’t one of the reasons.
The case of the shooting of Redel Jones. August 12, 2015
https://www.laprogressive.com/redel-jones-shooting/
Redel Jones was 30 yr old black woman. 2 LAPD officers, responding to a robbery call, were following Jones. 2 more came later. Jones was indeed the robber of a pharmacy, and did have a knife. This is not in dispute. Another thing that is not in dispute is that once again officers did not activate their body-cams. 4 officers, none activated their cameras.
Here is the dispute. The police officers says that they were following Jones and issuing orders to her when she turned and moved toward the officers with the knife.
An eye-witness says that Jones did not turn around and was shot as she was moving away from the officers.
I bring this one up because it should be pretty easy to clear up the dispute, right? Right??? If she was moving towards the officers, the bullets would enter her body from the front. If she was running away from them, the bullets would have entered her body from the back.
If you were a reporter, what would you do to get to the bottom of this? Hell, if you were an investigator, what would you do get to the truth?
You would get the autopsy report, wouldn’t you? You would ask the coroner "did the bullets enter her front or her back’? Kind of a standard thing for an autopsy. If she was shot in the front, the officers are telling the truth. If she was shot in the back, the witness is telling the truth.
I linked 4 sites, read several more. LA Times and Daily News, both respected papers. No mention of autopsy report. No mention that anyone had asked for one. No mention that any reporter had made a call to the coroner.
Or maybe my google-fu is weak.
To be fair, the military ROE is different when you are in hostile territory. “I felt threatened” is acceptable when you are in a “free fire zone”.
So, just accept that the police are acting as if they are an outside occupying force.
True, but I would rather not treat my neighborhood similarly to a free-fire zone in Iraq.