There’s no doubt that there’s abusive police out there…video evidence alone has accounted for that over the years. But each situation needs to be judged on its own merits and all the facts should be taken into consideration before as close to a complete/reasonable recreation of the events can be understood.
This one is a slam dunk, which like Outdoor Woods Off! is likely keeping the fringe elements at bay.
This is one reason I didn’t become a cop. After the first shot I would have stood there thinking, “Well THAT’S an unwelcome surprise”, until the 2nd shot killed me. Or if I was lucky enough to survive, I would become a brutal cop out of fear for that someone, anyone, would try to kill me out of the blue.
I think both cops in these stories acted entirely correctly. I hope the experience scar them too badly.
I must be a pretty cold bastard, but I feel nothing for the two people, the one in the OP and the bridge guy, that were killed. From what I’ve read in the news stories, both were violent fuckheads who had it coming. I’m not saying we should kill all fuckheads, mind you, but weeping for these two is just a little too much bleeding heart for me to muster these days. They were stupid enough to attack police officers, so I say good riddance. Both cops were 100% in the right to use lethal force.
Signed,
A liberal who had an unpleasant run-in with an asshole cop a few weeks ago, so no fair claiming I back police in all situations.
I’m kind of surprised at the number of sanctimonious laments in this thread for an attitude that hasn’t been expressed. There is absolutely zero reaction on this board, or in the public at large against the actions of this cop. I guess it’s really disappointing to some people when people who are critical of unjustified police shootings are NOT equally critical of justified shootings.
That is some pretty incredible reaction time and shooting by the cop in question. That is a really hard shot to make and it didn’t seem like luck either. He kept it consistent until the end. Great job.
I don’t think its so “sanctimonious” to put out that there’s an opinion that the probability or propensity of some Dopers to side on the part of the victim are so very far fetched.
Its been demonstrated before, however, as we all seem to be in unison on this one unlike “don’t tase me bro!”, I think we’re on safe ground here in being a community that sees reality for what it is…wait, what?
Maybe, except that’s not what some people were suggesting.
They were suggesting that not only do some Dopers tend to side with the victim, but that those Dopers constituted a group of “usual suspects” that would probably also side with the criminals in these particular cases. As Diogenes notes, the folks making such assumptions are apparently incapable of appreciating the type of nuanced thought that can tell the difference between unjustified shootings and justified shootings.
And, no matter what the politics, or the issue, i think it’s generally a douchebag move to enter a thread with a pre-emptive “where are the usual suspects?” rant. If people do, in fact, enter the thread and make silly arguments, then by all means disagree with them, but calling out an argument that hasn’t even been made yet is plain stupid, especially when your point relies on sophomoric oversimplification.
What’s being expressed by some is preemptive (and thus far unjustified) sanctimonious finger waving at people they presume will automatically be critical of the cops no matter how justified the cop. They ran into this tread ready to be butthurt and indignant only to find that there weren’t any straw opponents to out in their place, so they had to settle for scolding imaginary ones instead.
You’re probably right, and I certainly didn’t originate the OP with the thought in mind to engage a specific reaction, although as I said, I kind of expected…something.
Do these insinuations and expectations exist for a reason, or is it all paranoia on the part of some?
It’s just a tendency of some people to “call out” arguments that haven’t even been made yet. I think the reason behind it is to make a pre-emptive strike, to insult or put down people before they can even comment. It’s certainly not confined to any particular political group on the Boards; i’ve seen liberals do it to conservatives, and vice versa.
I should add that i also side with the victim in this case.
In my opinion, the victim was the guy who got a gun shoved in his face and who got shot at in the course of doing his job.
Yes, and nobody has done so…encouraging! There was certainly an expectation that there would have been a Greenpeace effort to do so, though. Not that it matters much.
And the fact that he has to carry around the emotional baggage of killing someone.
Did I note correctly that the cop was, like, Harry Callahan cool when he sort of strolled over and picked up his light, looked over his shoulder and said “Oh, btw, the other guy crashed?”
Well, when I wrote the post, I had only read that people thought the shootings were justified because the cops’ lives were clearly in danger, not that there should be no thought given to the men who were killed.
I know, intellectually, that I should feel some sorrow that I saw the ending of two human lives on those videos. But, I just…can’t. That’s the “cold bastard” part.
But if everyone else feels that way, I guess I’m perfectly normal then.