I’ve never seen a picture of this cop, but in my head he has the face of Daniel Holtzclaw.
The reporter should have waited to file this story till he could say who shot who.
I have a friend who is a retired cop, and he loves to watch PD Live. It turns my stomach hearing his comments. While watching people who are clearly mentally I’ll, he casually suggests they should be tazed or shot. Never a mention of getting them help. That’s the mindset.
Yup.
Not sure when/if the article was updated, but:
Chief Todd Thomas said the man showed a handgun and exchanged shots with the police officers.
I’m quoting this because such stories should get more attention.
And the “conservatives” who pretend to be pro-Life should be clamoring for those fetus abusers to get charged with assault or attempted murder.
I hope, septimus, you have not ceased pulmonary function while waiting for this to happen. Surely you should know keeping ‘those people’ in their place trumps (ha!) any fetal right to life.
I wouldn’t call myself a “cop hater” but I think that the law enforcement profession is like any other: you’re gonna have a range of employees ranging from exemplary to horrible. I just don’t understand people who give cops a pass on everything when it’s clear that there are some folks in law enforcement who simply shouldn’t be. Period.
Actually, I think it’s quite easy to understand. First off, the people who give cops a pass also give soldiers a pass for whatever horrible thing they do to “the enemy”. Well, as far as those people are concerned, cops only deal out heavy-handed consequences (if I may be euphemistic) to “the enemy”. As the enemy is dehumanized in their view, and worse yet, brought that dehumanization on themselves, again in their view, well, obviously, the enemy deserves it.
What’s harder, apparently, to understand is how keeping soldiers and cops in line, having them deal with everyone in a legal, professional manner is a benefit to society.
Now wait for the idiots to come by and tell me I have no idea what it’s like in the military and that I’m some kind of ivory tower libtard.
…this one is just so fucked up.
https://indyweek.com/news/wake/the-garner-cops-mikisa-thompson-malcolm-x/
For those that don’t want to click through here’s the headline: “Garner Cops Raided a Black Woman’s Home, Seized Her Phones and Computers, and Charged Her With Loudly Playing Malcolm X Speeches”.
When did they do the raid? Midnight. Hours after they had already issued an ordnance. 9 cops. Full search of the house, just in case she had guns. Because of a phone call from her (white) neighbor. A neighbor who by the way, a few weeks ago, dog killed the black women’s dog. The police seized a laptop, a macbook, a monitor, seven iphones, computer speakers, a fucking alarm clock and charging cables.
Full video of the raid available on the twitter link.
…I hadn’t read the entire twitter thread when I posted this, but a recent update.
Well fuck. Well done Garner Police: making America Great Again. :rolleyes:
New Jersey officers can be seen punching Cyprian Luke in the face while he is pinned to the ground. He was arrested on assault and other charges.
The California Assembly is looking into it,
*At issue is Assembly Bill 392, known as the California Act to Save Lives, which would put the onus on officers to justify discharging their weapon, shifting the standard from “reasonable” – as defined by the Supreme Court’s Graham v Connor ruling in 1989 – to “necessary.” That means that, under the proposed bill, police must feel confident it is necessary to shoot to protect themselves or others from danger, or they could be prosecuted for killing a person. …
California has the highest percentage of police shootings per 100,000 people among states with more than 8 million residents, said Seth Stoughton, a former police officer …
(Assembly member Tom) Lackey (a 28 year CHP veteran) said there is a problem exists with policing protocols, which have resulted in the high-profile shooting deaths of civilians such as Stephon Clark, a Sacramento man who was killed by police officers in March 2018 while carrying only a cellphone.
“But this bill isn’t the solution to that problem,” he said, warning that the new policy could lead to tragic results for officers. “You change the policy midstream, and you’ll cause officers to think before reacting, and that time gap is going to be deadly.”*
Thinking before acting? Inconceivable!
I bet gun people will oppose this law, because then it might become “necessary” before they can shoot people, instead of just “reasonable”
I’m a bit behind the times with this thread, but I was just thinking about this case and wondering if she bit off the umbilical cord after she gave birth in the cell alone. Folacin, what about the placenta? After she passed all the afterbirth and it was still attached to her child, what do you think she did with it? It sounds like the doctor didn’t arrive until an hour after her child was born so I think these questions are valid. While I agree with you about criminals being in jail, I am curious what do you think about that?
Not sure what part of my post you are responding to here. I specifically said “I don’t think she should have given birth there”, so all the comments above seem non-responsive?
I just thought that putting her back in jail after the birth (assuming good cause to put her there in the first place) was not out of line.
Sort of - it might be “reasonable” to shoot someone even if it turns out later not to be “necessary”. I.e. it turns out the gun wasn’t loaded, so it wasn’t necessary to shoot.
Apparently some of the dimwits in the CA Assembly think it should be.
Regards,
Shodan
Even I wouldn’t use that as a reason to condemn shooting someone.
I’m perfectly fine with “I shot him because he had a clearly recognizable gun pointed at me”
I’m not fine with “I shot him because he had something in his hand and I was afraid”
But that means that you are using a “reasonable” standard rather than a standard of “necessary”. If the gun wasn’t loaded (or it was a very realistic replica gun with the orange tip painted black) then it wasn’t actually “necessary” for the cop (or the ordinary gun owner) to shoot, even if it may have been “reasonable” at the time for them to do so.
The real issue is clawing back the legal term of art “reasonable”, which clearly has become pretty damned “unreasonable” as applied to police officers.
That seems to be determining the necessity after the fact. I wouldn’t advocate for that either.
I’m fine with making one of the definitions of “necessary” in this context as “Pointed a clearly recognizable gun at me”