I grew up here. I live here.
This happened in Loudoun County. What do you know about Loudoun County?
I live in Arlington and work in DC, and have for the last 10 years, and I know many “successful” black folks, and a very large portion of them are pulled over for no apparent reason relatively frequently (as much as multiple times per year).
When, specifically, did the cops claim to have seen the gun? We would need to establish that before we can determine if the video contradicts the claim.
Earlier, you said -
The cop’s claim that he had a gun seems to have been pretty clearly validated - he did have a gun. So when the cop said “he’s got a gun”, that cop was right. So the cop became aware that the crook had a gun at some point, and that awareness was apparently correct. So again, how does the fact that the gun does not appear in the video contradict the established fact that the crook did indeed have a gun, and that the claim of the cop that he had a gun was correct?
Regards,
Shodan
The controversial part is that she wasn’t tackled to the ground, or beaten, or had an anal cavity search, or shot. Something that is likely to happen to a black person acting in the same exact way.
The best part is, liberal friends I know post that video as an example of “white privilege” and conservatives post that video as an example of the kind of people who worked for Hillary.
Here’s the thing. HOW did the cop know he had a gun? That’s the question.
And even if it turned out that he DIDN’T have a gun, the cop could just say “I thought he had a gun” and everything would be alright.
Quite a bit. It’s typically one of the top three counties in the entire country in terms of income and wages. Very wealthy and expensive county. And growing like crazy. And I’m sure what you are getting at… lower percentage of minorities than most of the other DC area counties.
Look, I get the point that blacks face more unwarranted police attention than whites. That’s not fair, of course. But I still argue that a black person driving an expensive car is a regular, expected thing in the DC area. Even in Loudoun County, which boasts a Ferrari and Lamborghini dealership.
According to my acquaintances and friends, such folks getting pulled over is also a relatively “regular, expected” occurrence in the DC area (and elsewhere).
What difference does it make how he knew?
The cop said the crook had a gun. The crook had a gun. Therefore, the cop was right in saying that he had a gun.
What do you think it was - extrasensory perception? Lucky guess? Or maybe - stay with me here - the cop saw the gun, but it didn’t show up on camera.
Hell of a stretch, I know.
Regards,
Shodan
The cop was guessing.
Recently, a cop said a person had a gun, when it turned out to NOT be a gun. It seems to me that cops are learning that immediately prior to chasing a suspect, just scream “He has a gun” so they don’t have to be in any danger and can just freely shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. Afterward two things can happen:
- The suspect had a gun. Cop is right
- The suspect didn’t have a gun. Cop says “I thought he had a gun” Cop is right.
There really is no downside to a cop yelling “He has a gun” before chasing any suspect.
It makes a hell of a lot of difference, because of there was no way of knowing, he was guessing, then lying about it later.
What difference does an unfalsifiable proposition make?
The cop said he had a gun. He did have a gun. How does one set about proving whether or not the statement that he had a gun is a lie, or the truth, apart from the fact that it was true?
Regards,
Shodan
See post #13277.
Here, read this analysis. I have highlighted the key point to make it easier for you to grasp.
Did you watch the video?
The suspect runs from behind the house and across the cop’s line of sight. he appears from behind the house at 0.17, and the cop yells about the gun at 0.23. It is reasonable to infer that the cop is claiming to have seen the gun sometime in that six-second timeframe. If you have some alternative analysis that is not just your usual pseudo-socratic JAQing off, you are welcome to offer it.
The question is not simply whether he had a gun. The question is whether the cop actually saw that gun in the period where he used the alleged existence of the gun to justify shooting a guy in the back.
If you yell “He’s got a gun” every time you encounter a suspect, whether you see one or not, then you’re going to be right some of the time. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is wrong to claim to have seen a gun when you haven’t.
We can compare it, in some ways, to lies told by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq war in 2003. A central claim at the time was that the administration had evidence that Saddam Hussein was holding weapons of mass destruction. This claim was demonstrated to have been a fabrication. If Saddam Hussein had indeed turned out to possess WMDs, this fact would not have provided a post hoc justification for the fabrication.
The problem, as others have noted, is that courts have shown incredibly excessive deference to what police claim about their feelings, and about what they saw, without always being willing to make rational and evidence-based analysis of whether an officer’s actions truly were reasonable under the circumstances. Cops know this, and they understand that, as long as they can offer the merest fig-leaf of an excuse about feeling unsafe, courts are going to excuse a wide variety of bad behavior. That’s been demonstrated in quite a few of the court decisions discussed in this thread.
“He’s got a gun” (or “I thought I saw a gun”) seems to be taking its place as the escalated-tension equivalent of “I thought I smelled marijuana.”
So the video does not contradict any claims by the police.
On what do you base the inference that the cop did not see the gun before the video began?
Regards,
Shodan
ETA -
Cops do not yell “He’s got a gun” every time they encounter a suspect.
Don’t you think the fact that he did, in fact, have a gun does something to establish whether or not the cop saw the gun?
It seems very much like you are tying yourselves into knots trying to claim that just because the cop was right doesn’t mean he was right.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps he just isn’t seeing the response that has been repeated time and time again.
Possible solution: Have someone print out a copy of this page and hand it to him, so that he may shove it up his ass and take a closer look at it.
Succinctly put.
BTW, this would cover the other cops who may fire at the suspect also. “He said the suspect had a gun! Therefore my fear of being shot by the suspect is justified.”