You may think he’s a troll. But he is stating a belief that many (most?) in the US still hold. Indeed it’s the belief that we all were taught growing up. That the police are the good guys, they may not be perfect but they deserve our respect and support. And they further believe that what we are trying to do with all this “monday morning quarterbacking” is to try and destroy the very institution charged with keeping us safe. And if we succeed, then no one will be safe.
you may not think Steophan deserves to be taken seriously, but I think the argument does. I may not agree with them but I am trying to help them undertand my point of view.
I understand your position. You think people who defend themselves when they genuinely, and reasonably, believe they are about to be killed should be locked up if it turns out they were mistaken. Really, the question of whether it’s cops or not is something of a red herring, everyone should have the right to defend themselves, the only relevance of them being cops is that you are sending them into danger on your behalf, and so it’s more immoral to want to weaken that right for them.
And hereis a fuller example of what he is further proposing -
So it appears that he agrees with mental midgets such as many in this thread - even if he shouts “I have a gun” and reaches into his pocket, and the police shoot him, those police should go to jail. An interesting standard, if by “interesting” one means “utterly moronic”.
So you agree that if people break into my house at night and I defend myself by killing them and later it turns out I was mistaken because they were a police raid, I shouldn’t be locked up? After all, I was genuinely and reasonably scared of being killed by intruders, but I was mistaken.
If there’s good reason to think they were not, then yes - same as for anyone else accused of a crime. An accusation alone should not lead to a trial, there must be significant evidence and a realistic chance of conviction.
Any shooting by the police should be investigated, but action should only be taken if there’s genuine evidence of a crime. Putting the evidence to a Grand Jury before there’s a trial would seem to me a good way of ensuring that it’s considered fairly.
No, it’s not reasonable to assume the police are a threat.
But, you know what? If it turns out that I’m wrong about that, and the case is treated as I’ve suggested cases with cops will be treated, then either the Grand Jury will fail to indict, or the trial jury will acquit.
Interesting that the only people objecting to body cameras after that incident are the police unions. They, rather than the majority of individual cops or the command structure, are what causes the majority of these problems.
You think the police unions are the ones telling cops to turn off their cameras and mics when it looks like they have to go extra-legal on someone’s ass?
Ghod you have got to be pretty damn stupid to think that we are stupid enough to buy that crap.
Now take a good long look at each other, realize that the doofus you are facing is your primary supporter…and understand how fucking stupid your position must be if this person is backing you up.
Cite. So two of the three witnesses saw both Jones holding a knife, and her moving towards the police, and one who didn’t see the knife (which was recovered at the scene) or her moving towards the police.
I found some referencesto activists complaining that the LAPD didn’t release the results of an autopsy soon enough, but apparently one was performed (cite - pdf).
It might be an interesting exercise to predict whether the wounds were front-to-back, or back-to-front, before reading the cite. No fair peeking read the cite for yourself.