There is no loophole that says that people who run forfeit a right to due process, by the way. That’s not a capital offense, and cops would not have the authority to carry out the execution in any case.
That they don’t give a shit about due process and would be happy to do away with the US Constitution.
He was shot in the back, and I’m sorry, but I don’t give a ton of credibility to the cop who shot him saying he was moving for a gun. Of course he’s going to say that.
And do you think it’s possible for you to make a post that contains more than a single, useless, irritating word?
AND people were cheering that he was gunned down. As if that means justice was served. It wasn’t. Justice requires due process, which the shooter did not receive. Perhaps the cop had no alternative; I’m honestly not 100% sure I trust that. We know only two things for sure: that he was shot by the cop, and that we was shot in the back. Incidentally, there are of course non-lethal methods for apprehending someone who is fleeing, even someone dangerous. But again, for me that’s not the main point of concern.
It’s people’s cheering for his death and glee that there will be no need for a trial that disturbs me.
After all, WHAT IF THEY ACTUALLY SHOT THE WRONG GUY?
In at least this case, he wasn’t the wrong guy. And no, I didn’t cheer.
I’m glad for the lack of cheering. And I sincerely hope that they did in fact get the right guy.
I don’t think this quote is necessarily true. Yes, in a legal sense, “justice” requires due process, but in a moral sense? Maybe not.
I think the whole situation is pretty sad, from start to finish. Also, if Clemmons was shot in the back while running away, then it was absolutely condemnable. However, I could certainly see why a person might hear that he was shot while armed and fleeing and be pleased with that, even if I’m not. If you’re for the death penalty, why decry a situation where a perpetrator of multiple homicide is killed quickly and (possibly, if the cop’s telling the truth) for good reason?
For me, it does morally as well. Vengeance is not justice.
Again, I’m not saying I think cop who shot the perp did anything wrong, necessarily. I don’t really know, but I suppose if pressed I would say I think it more likely than not he acted correctly.
I guess it comes down to this: is it better that the shooter was gunned down, or would it have been better if he had been properly apprehended and faced a trial, as per his constitutional rights? I strongly get the sense that there are plenty who are on the side of: it’s better he was just gunned down. That’s what bothers me.
But I agree that the situation is totally sad all around. Horrifically tragic.
Try putting yourself in the cop’s shoes. This guy is desperate, wounded, just murdered four of your colleagues, and is probably still armed. Wouldn’t you be a little twitchy? If the guy makes any move other than immediate and obvious surrender and compliance, would you take a chance? Police officers are human too.
“Due process” doesn’t even enter into it. There are lots of situations in which deadly force is authorized without due process; these include reasonable interpretation of an immediate threat and a situation in which a dangerous felon is fleeing. Sure, I would have preferred that the guy be dragged in alive to see his day in court, but I’m not at all upset by this outcome.
I would indeed be twitchy.
My argument is not about the cop’s actions; it’s about the public’s reaction.
Cite for this, oh Great Karnak.
These requests for cites are really fucking tiresome. My suggestion: either debate with actual words, or bow the fuck out.
Piss off, chuckleknees.
Yep. You got nothin’.
Still better than what you’ve got.
I’m still waiting for a cite that posters in this thread “don’t give a shit about due process and would be happy to do away with the US Constitution.”
Even Sylvia Browne wasn’t surprised he wasn’t taken alive. Those people who were arrested for harboring him, what were they thinking?!
Your posts have been shitty and annoying for the past couple of pages. But I’ll take them seriously for a moment, in case you are not trying to be that way.
The first sentence makes a mockery of the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The eighth amendment is based on the premise that civilized nations don’t reach for the pliers and bamboo shoots, even when one of their members commits a heinous crime.
The second sentence celebrates the fact that Clemmons was killed extrajudicially. That pretty much defines not giving a damn about due process. To be clear, I’m not saying that the officer who killed Clemmons acted inappropriately, I just don’t personally find joy in the death of other human beings. It’s a preference of mine. At any rate tossing two constitutional amendments out the door like that is basically doing away with the constitution.
Cheap outrage. Now Annie may be just venting. Or maybe she doesn’t care about the bill of rights: lots of sentimentalists aren’t especially exacting in their civil rights stances for example. Anyway, I’m not pitting her. I’m pitting Michael Ellis for being obtuse. Then again, he may be just presenting lame parody. Two and three word posts are often ambiguous.
What, Diogenes, no suggestion that Clemmons might have had it coming to him? Or is that a line you reserve for gunned down cops?
I’ve linked to several articles and I’ve watched hours of local news. I don’t recall hearing or reading anything that said he was shot in the back. Could you find that bit of information for me?