Good thing I’ve not claimed that, then. What he deserved is utterly irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it was justified.
Fair enough. Do you think the cop was justified in shooting the guy? What evidence led you to this determination? Anything other than the cop said “He has a gun!”
Maybe it’s the language barrier, maybe very different time zones. I’m trying to say this: if the film doesn’t support your ( and Steophan’s ) theories, it just doesn’t stop being evidence.
However here’s some food for though, some interesting facts I stumbled upon:
Finland ( population 5,509,717 )
Between 2003-2013, police fired a gun 122 times.
People shot dead by the police since year 2000:
2000; a man with an axe
2009; an armed man trying to kill other person
2010; accidental shooting, victim was a guard
2015; a man with an axe attacking a cop
2016; a gunman resisting arrest
2016; a gunman threatening a cop
2016; a man who was stabbing a woman ( she survived only because of the shots )
2018; a man shooting and wounding a cop when stopped after speeding
None of them were unarmed ( well, the guard probably was ).
That’s still the wrong question. The relevant question is “do I believe that he was not justified in shooting”, to whatever level of proof. I think it’s possible he was unjustified, to the extent there should be further investigation. I don’t believe there’s casue to arrest and charge at this point, let alone to say he’s guilty.
The claim that he had a gun is a claim that he acted in self defence, and that’s enough to mean that he’s claimed that he’s the victim and should be treated as such.
Basically, there’s nowhere near enough evidence to say whether or not it was justified, so we should presume that it was until proven otherwise.
I’ll take this, thanks!
Yes, of course it’s evidence. But if we are looking for evidence that the cop was lying when he said “he’s got a gun”, it’s not very good evidence, because [list=A][li]It doesn’t cover the whole incident, and [*]He did have a gun.[/list] [/li]
The guy who got shot in the incident under discussion was armed, too. Although he didn’t look Finnish, I grant you.
Regards,
Shodan
Now, now. She was a Clinton-licking Democrat asshole. I think that was LAZombie’s key insight.
@ LAZombie — I hope you, or other Republicans, will answer this: Do you feel a need to call attention to Clinton-licking Democrat assholes because
(a) you think they are much less virtuous than Trump-licking Republican assholes, or
(b) compared with Republican assholes, the Democrat assholes are rarer and, like sharing a 4-leaf clover, cause for celebration?
…so did this guy have a gun concealed in his head?
I would like someone on the “cops should get the benefit of the doubt” side in this thread to clearly and unambiguously condemn the cop’s actions in that video. And maybe some actual police that are members of this board as well.
Yes, that was clearly against policy and wrong.
Can you think of anyone else who should be unambiguously condemned for his actions?
Regards,
Shodan
Sure. The guy should be condemned, arrested, placed on trial, and if found guilty, sent to jail/prison. what he should not be is kicked in the head by a running officer while he is handcuffed face-down on the ground.
Notice the police report fails to mention the head kicking. Guess the cops simply forgot to write that in. Without video, I bet people would believe the police report as gospel.
Now, how about a statement regarding the other 3 cops who were there, who neither said nor did anything to prevent the kicking, nor did anything afterward about the cops actions that are “clearly against policy and wrong”?
Hitler?
Carrot Top?
We call those “Good Cops”.
He went on paid leave, for ghod’s sake! How much more punishment do you want to pile on?
Obviously wrong, and possibly criminal. Why would you expect anyone to think differently? This video does not belong in the thread, it’s not controversial in any way, and neither is the response by the police department.
I’m not sure what they could have done to prevent it, it came out of nowhere, and it is also possible that the ones behind the kicking officer didn’t see exactly what happened. As for what they did afterwards, that is the period we are in now, the investigation is happening, and presumably they will give statements. Unless you know what’s in those statements, it’s impossible to judge them.
At worst, based solely on the video, they did nothing wrong but didn’t actively do a (presumably) good thing, if you think they should’ve acted directly against the kicker at that point.
Sure it is. What about the other police who just stood around and let it happen? What about the police report that conveniently left out head kick? You know, the police report that would have been accepted if there was no video of the incident? Why don’t the other cops get suspended for letting that happen?
Ah, once again I feel like we watched different videos. He ran in, kicked him once, and that was it. One cop was already on the ground handcuffing the guy and the others were behind him. What, exactly, do you expect them to have done to stop him?
If you suspened everyone who doesn’t turn in their workmates you’d have no-on left working anywhere. It’s a ridiculous expectation.
Starting with screening, to prevent people with aggression issues from getting a badge and a gun. Then training, in order to teach a cop the proper way of interacting with a suspect. Let it be known to your co-workers that you will not tolerate and will report such behavior.
That’s a bit pessimistic. So, you are saying that everyone everywhere turns a blind eye to assaults in their workplace, and you are okay with that?