The story is that he was shot by a SWAT policeman. Not sure if it was a rifle or pistol.
Surely SWAT has at least 2-5 power scopes on their rifles or at the very least, a pair of binoculars to see that it was a toy truck?
If we’re talking about a situation like this, then firing makes sense as a first step, with criminal charges afterwards. Not only did the cop have a ‘bad shoot’, but he refused medical aid to the victim, held the witness to the event for no good reason, and lied about the situation.
So your argument is that we should let cops get away with shooting people because if we don’t, they might try to cover it up more than they already do? I find that… unconvincing.
They need training to be able to properly recognize, respond to, and de-escelate threats. Had the officers been trained in dealing with mental disabled people, things would have gone much more smoothly, I imagine. The cop said he didn’t know why he shot the guy. That tells me that he was not very good at his job.
We give them a tough job, we don’t really pick the best candidates for the job, we do not give them the tools and training to do it properly, and we don’t hold them accountable at all when they fuck up, because we give them the benefit of the doubt, and the tools and motive to hide it. This creates a problematic situation.
I am not suggesting changing any one of these things on their own will help, but addressing all of them, might.
If our police are much better trained, and come from a higher level of screening, then when they fuck up on the job, we can say that it was our fault for putting them out there when they were not the person for it. The cop should not be condemned for not being the right person for the job, when we thought he was.
Firing someone is not “condemning” them. It’s giving them an opportunity to make another employer look bad.
Shooting an unarmed, helpless, unthreatening person, for no expressable reason, goes far beyond being not the right person for the job, doesn’t it? Who the hell *does *that?
Sure, if this was in a dark alley or underlit tenement hallway, and/or there was a hostage saying “he’s got a gun!” The broad-daylight aspect of this case suggests to me that if this cop can’t exercise good judgement under optimal conditions, he’s not trustworthy in general.
He doesn’t need to be condemned, but failing to meet basic competence in such an absurd way would get anyone fired.
In all other contexts, in which the shooter is not wearing a police uniform, the point of debate would be, does he belong in a secure psychiatric facility, or in prison?
Yes: you imagine. You imagine a lot in those 2 sentences I quoted, for example.
When come back bring facts.
Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth. I AM a gun owner. I do not need special training to not shoot people that are not a threat.
I do not need ‘special training’ to not harm others.
Yes, in our world, when you’re exposed as the wrong man for the job, you get canned, and maybe the guy who placed you there does, too.
There are also such a thing as a career-killing mistakes where everyone agrees it was a mistake and you were not criminally liable but you’re dead-ending for it.
Now, if the immediate reaction were “Holy Shit, we’ve fucked up, are you all right, here let’s help you – quickly, guys, find out all what went wrong and let everybody know…” then we could buy into a scenario where if at the end it’s determined someone made a terrible mistake in a confused situation but there’s no crime he gets reassigned somewhere where he should not be in that situation again. Move him from SWAT to motor pool for a while, or something. But when what happens is you don’t know why you shot him, and then you just leave the wounded bound on the ground, and some superior officer makes a report getting it so wrong HE gets fired… well there are examples that need to be made, sorry.
Sometimes a bold enough attitude can trump that, though.
Sure.
To review:
(Emphasis added)
The word “if,” signals the subjunctive, which I mentioned before: a grammatical mood signifying a state of unreality such as a wish, future action, or – relevant to this particular example – a hypothetical.
Now turning to your question:
Your question assumes a non-hypothetical: that I accept the the explanation. If it were otherwise, you might have asked, “Would your acceptance take into account that Mr. Kinsey had shouted?”
Had you asked that, I would have responded that it depends on when the sequence of events unfolded, and when the shooting happened in relation to these other events. In other words, it would have required firming up the hypothetical.
I don’t accept his explanation. If the officer shot the truck wielder and said it looked like a gun, my inclination would be to accept his explanation, but of course many other factors might change that.
Because the officer did not shoot the truck-wielder, it was unnecessary to weigh these considerations; the officer’s explanation fails on its face.
So my statement was a hypothetical, so signaled by the subjunctive mood.
Hope that helps you.
So many words; so little communicated… truly you have a [del]gift[/del][del]talent[/del]proclivity, Bricker.
Ok.
Seems to me you did not know what “subjunctive,” meant.
Shakespeare was right. It has to be the lawyers first.
Immaterial. As far as we can tell, the officer shot at the man with the truck/gun, and hit nothing with two shots and the other man with the third. If not, you need to explain how you protect the unarmed person by shooting him.
Your attempt to divert the debate by using a false hypothetical is noted.
Toying with a hypothetical may not be productive but that doesn’t make it malicious or misleading. Inclined to shrug it off, myself, but still annoyed he made me look up “subjunctive”.
If Bricker didn’t operate from a stance of assumed condescension, convenient obscurity and prevaricating digressions, he wouldn’t be Bricker.
Speaking strictly subjunctively, of course.
I accept and endorse Bryan Ekers’ hypothetical!
I also accept Bricker’s subjunctive observation. Seems obvious it was an opinion on the relative value of the excuse as it pertains to mitigating factors that might insulate the officer from criminal charges, rather than a comment on the incident as a whole. In other words, lawyerly and appropriate to a possible defense of the shooting officer, but picayune and entirely irrelevant to the outrage over the incident. In fact, if the hypothetical were true (officer thought white toy truck was a firearm), it would only further indict the shooter’s judgment, and make the subsequent actions of the LEOs on the scene more puzzling and infuriating.
Indeed. In the isolated hypothetical (i.e. we do not mention that the suspect was sitting out in the open in broad daylight, reserving the possibility of darkness or concealment for a later “gotcha”), I can picture mistaking a toy truck in someone’s hands for a firearm. I remain unclear why it was necessary to handcuff the man who didn’t have a toy truck in his hands, or indeed any object at all.
Unless we grant the officer the courtesy of letting him reasonably assume the man might had a toy truck hidden on his person, in which case it’s a short leap to granting that police would have been acting reasonably had they they just shot and killed both men early on.
You know, for the safety of everyone concerned.