I’m genuinely interested in your opinion, it’s not a game.
And if the guy runs off in all future encounters?
When do you think a cop should chase a person who runs after the cop sees them committing a crime?
As an aside, I personally don’t believe that cops should worry about what the purpose of a law is.
Your’s is a common argument. A person is stopped for a minor violation, things escalate and force, sometimes deadly force, is employed. Therefore, the force was used to punish/stop an offender for a minor violation. This is false argument. While the initial stop may be for something minor, the force is not being used for that reason. In the vast majority of police use of force incidents, there is a reasonably perceived threat, resistance to arrest or non-compliance to lawful commands or flight. (See Graham v Connor)The offense is no longer the minor offense that started it all. It is now resisting arrest or obstruction of justice or the officer feels his safety or that of another is in jeopardy.
By your logic, if a cop stopped somebody for a bad inspection sticker and the driver refused a lawful order to step out of the car and a fight ensued where the officer used a Taser, the reason the person was tased was because he had a bad inspection sticker. That’s simply not the case. The guy in this case wasn’t tased for not having his bike light on. He was tased for fleeing a lawful stop and subsequently shot while resisting arrest and reaching for a gun.
If you are saying police shouldn’t stop people for minor violations or police shouldn’t pursue people who flee lawful stops, that is a completely different argument. If are arguing that the only reason the officer in this case attempted the stop was the biker’s race, support your argument. I know that’s not necessary in the Pit but it would be nice,
It TURNED OUT that he had no weapon. Are you suggesting the the police must be 100% certain that there is a gun? You are viewing that incident with the 20/20 hindsight that the U.S. Supreme Court warned against. If you haven’t read Graham v Connor, I suggest that you do so. It is the law of the land and not particularly difficult to grasp. BTW, I am not excusing deaths. I’m saying that, where there is a higher violent crime rate there are going to be more police contacts and that, inevitably, there will be more instances where deadly force is legally justified.
Holy shit! Please, please tell where the police said they were afraid of his cell phone. I’m begging you.
Are you saying that the shooting of an unarmed man is never justified?
It’s “inevitable”. What better excuse for something happening? Can you think of a better excuse for an event than “it was inevitable”? I can’t.
The problem with these deaths being “inevitable” is that it’s a complete and total lie.
I present to you the case of Richard Cottier. He was shot and killed by police in London on April 9, 2018. Why do I bring him up? I bring up this shooting because he was the only person killed by police in the UK that day. He was also the only person killed by police in the UK that week, and that month, and in all of 2018.
This “inevitable” deadly force that is “justified” to be used by police is a lot less inevitable and a lot less often justified in other places than it is here.
You think it’s normal for the police to shoot down a guy who had no weapon and was not attacking them. In other countries, that’s not normal.
Of course they weren’t afraid of his cell phone, don’t be silly. They were afraid of his gun.
His non-existent gun. His gun that he didn’t own, wasn’t carrying, and didn’t threaten them with.
Is that better? Does that make the shooting more justified?
We know that is not true. Hell, can you imagine being an off-duty cop trying to get a free food sample in Costco when you were knocked down by someone with mental problems? You know it’s absolutely justifiable to pull your piece and spray hot lead in the direction of the person that is being dragged away and mow down multiple people.
And was on the run from police for a domestic violence incident, was on probation for two previous domestic violence incidents, had a previous conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, and had been spotted breaking into cars with a crowbar. As well as running away from police, and pointing something that could have been a gun at police.
Cite. So you might want to consider all the circumstances before deciding whether or not to be outraged, as well as deciding at whom to be outraged. Or you can just say “fuck the courts” again.
Regards,
Shodan
Point is, I don’t have infinite time, and “why” or “what about” can take an infinite number of iterations
As I said, you can post it to social media, if you want to shame them. If you ID them, you can threaten to garnish their wages to pay the fines. You can make a game of it, and if you see him on the street, sneak up on him and pester him then.
If the cop sees someone committing a violent crime.
But those who make the laws, hire the cops, and give them their operating procedures and training should, wouldn’t you agree?
And that is the problem with using deadly force to enforce compliance for non-violent codes.
No, the reason that the person was teased is because the cop feels that it is important enough to enforce inspection stickers to employ violence to make people comply.
I’m not saying that police shouldn’t stop people for minor violations, but I am saying that they shouldn’t put themselves, the public, or even the lawbreaker’s safety in danger by resorting to violence to enforce compliance with civil ordinances.
I don’t think that the only reason for the stop was the biker’s race, I just figure that probably was a large part of it. Just as I can talk to a black guy who applied at 10 different places, and was passed over for a white guy every time, I can’t really prove that race was the only or even major factor, but it would be naive to entirely discount it, as you want to.
What were they afraid of that justified shooting him? What did he have in his hand? Tell me where the police said that it wasn’t what he had in his hand that made them feel threatened.
I won’t beg, that’s just pathetic.
No, I’m not saying that.
Thanks for answering.
Yes, I would agree.
From your cite:
Let’s assume that officers are correct. That the suspect did have something in hand and pointed toward the officers. OK.
They fire 20 times.
Suspect was hit 8 times, including 6 shots in the back.
The official report says one shot was fired whilst suspect was already on the ground.
This doesn’t seem a bit much to you?
I’m going to go ahead and disagree with this. There are many instances where a cop demands a person follow an order (usually some bullshit made up law) that the person peacefully refuses to follow (and in many cases it is not a lawful order to begin with so THAT doesn’t apply). The cop IMMEDIATELY grabs the civilian, throws them on the car or the pavement while SCREAMING, “Why are you resisting arrest. Stop resisting. Why are you resisting.” while handcuffing or choking them. Maybe a few punches thrown in too.
The resisting arrest and obstruction of justice are just bullshit after the fact for the cop to justify their actions and IMO to get the person charged with something since the bs reason they gave as cause of the arrest (not showing license as a pedestrian or filming a cop in public) will never hold up and they know it but if you “resist” arrest that is still a crime even if you are arrested for a non-crime the cop pulled out of his ass.
It’s “shoot the black guy in the back”.
If white the correct answer is “do nothing and talk to your co-workers about those young hooligans”.
I know what I’m saying. If I shot an unarmed man I’d be doing 20 to life. IANACop
Video of the incident.
And the police knew that it was Clark in the back yard, and his rap sheet?
Your country is awash with guns, so USA police are at greater risk than police in first world countries.
Your country still has not dealt with racism and poverty, so there are high crime and violent crime rates in many black communities.
This has led to an extremely high incarceration rate – the highest in the world, arguably other than North Korea and China.
Convictions make it even more difficult for people, especially blacks, to move forward economically.
This results in further violent crime and more aggressive policing.
The police culture has not improved because the police are often at risk, such that they dehumanize many of the public whom they are supposed to be serving and protecting – shooting first and asking questions later.
Take a look at the stats on police caused deaths per capita by country. The USA sits between Angola and Bangladesh. Canada has a gun ownership rate that in general lies between the USA’s rate and western European countries’ rates, and it has a killings by police rate that lies between the USA’s rate and western European rates. Notably, in Canada the aboriginal violent death rate is disproportionally high to the white violent death rate. It’s no coincidence that general access to guns and racism based poverty results in more killings by police.
Not all police are sociopaths or psychopaths. Most are good people who go into the career with good intentions, but quite simply, as long as the USA fails to deal with its racism and poverty problems, and fails to greatly reduce the rate of gun ownership, its police will continue to have hair triggers and a culture that dehumanizes their victims.
Or maybe it’s time to get rid of the psychopaths instead of making excuses for and covering for and lying for them???
But go ahead. Keep blaming the victims.