And if I’m the guy’s neighbor and because you backed off he comes into my house and shoots my wife or my kids, I’m just supposed to shrug and say “well, at least the officer didn’t shoot first”?
Yes.
At least you’re willing to bite that bullet (pun very much intended), but no thanks - that’s not the society I want to live in.
Right, talking to a police officer and explaining things always helps defuse the situation, which is why when Philando Castile calmly noted that he had a permitted firearm in his vehicle and that he was emphatically not touching it, everything was fine, right?
IOW, god forbid there is anything in your glove box that looks remotely like a weapon (like a flashlight or Leatherman tool, which are both in my glove box), or you might still get shot.
Every time I have been pulled over for a traffic stop, I turn off the engine, put on my hazard lights, and put my hands on the steering wheel in plain sight. I am not belligerent, but am instead polite and respectful. I’ve trained my son to do this as well.
And you know what? Other than the last part about being polite, the rest is totally ridiculous that we have to do this to avoid getting shot, and makes it evident that we live in a police state with trigger-happy cops.
I’d rather live in the society where fewer people get shot, not the one where more people get shot.
Then repeal the 2nd. If there’s no credible threat to the neighbors, we can’t shoot someone for exercising their rights.
As long as the guy is just sitting there, that’s clearly not going to happen. Nobody is saying the cops have to leave him to his own devices. I’m suggesting they simply back off instead of immediately shooting him.
Well, I don’t particularly like this aspect of the society we’re currently living in.
Same here.
No, obviously everything was not fine, which is why the involved officer was fired, charged with 2nd degree murder, and the city paid almost $4 million after a wrongful death lawsuit. Sounds pretty “not fine” to me.
The society where police officers ignore armed individuals who are undergoing mental health crises is not the one where fewer people get shot. Here’s one example of the cops doing exactly that.
Sounds good to me.
What right was he exercising when he reached for his gun when a police officer told him not to? The right to bear arms, flawed as it already is, is not a right to hold a gun at literally any time and any context.
They didn’t immediately shoot him. They tried to talk him down, he walked away into his backyard, they followed him (as they should - he could have walked into his backyard, hopped the fence, and shot his neighbor), they kept trying to talk him down, he reached for his gun, and only then did they shoot him.
Me neither - I don’t think someone should have been able to accumulate that many firearms, especially someone with serious mental health issues. That seems like a recipe for disaster.
Except that you “accidentally” left out the part where the officer was acquitted of all charges. Also (as you say), the City paid the settlement, not the officer.
Bottom line: the officer lost his job, but Philando Castile is still dead.
I agree with you there.
I don’t have all the details of the case; I’m not sure if there was a valid reason for the specific charges he faced to have failed or not. But if not, that’s an issue with that jury, not with policing.
Obviously - do you think a random traffic cop has four million dollars?
Yes, our judicial system is not yet capable of bringing people back from the dead, that’s true. It would also be true if the officer was executed by firing squad on live television - that wouldn’t bring his victim back from the dead either.
Due process. Also the right to privacy if you believe in that. When one of these AR-15 bros brings a weapon to a protest, can cops just summarily disarm them? Of course not.
Brandishing is a crime, but not a serious one. Making threats might be a crime. But what legal justification did they have for ordering him not to pick up a weapon he was legally allowed to own and carry around? It was a wellness check, he wasn’t being charged with anything.
Obviously the details matter, we can tweak the specifics until we come to the conclusion we want. But in this case, if the cops hadn’t shown up, would he be dead? Maybe he would have taken his own life, but he’s dead now anyway, so not much of an improvement.
I’ve never understood why owning multiple guns makes someone more dangerous; realistically how many can a person use at one time? If you take the stance that owning multiple guns is prima facie evidence of a pathological obsession with firearms, then you’ve just branded every dedicated gun collector in the country as a sociopath.
Oh yes, what a beautiful idea, lets pay a lot of people to go around armed in our behalf so we can be mortally afraid of them…
I said it was unjustified-
And are all the innocent bystanders going to take cover also? And are you going to leave a criminal with a gun?
Several details.
Ah yes, the “innocent bystander” excuse. I have never seen any evidence that police care a whit about innocent bystanders, or you wouldn’t see police shooting and killing so many of them.
That post was in response to what a civilian should do if confronted with a gun. But even it were a police officer, I’m not saying the proper response is to depart the scene. I’m saying it’s possible to take cover and retreat, then reassess.
It just happened on Friday, and details are still being released. I actually haven’t even had a chance to read all the links myself. My former wife is beside herself, saying he was a really nice guy that everyone loved at work. I have no idea why one of his “friends” would say that he possessed multiple firearms and that he “would not go down without a fight.” It sounds like they were trying to get him killed.
My guess would be that they knew more about the situation than us, including information that made them afraid that if they did not call the police, he would hurt someone.
But they did. And here the idea that the Police should let the man with a gun shoot first- that would mean a dead police officer. At that range a rifle bullet would go through his vest like a hot knife through butter, and the man was apparently good with guns.
But you posted it as an example of police killing an innocent man.
Well, thank goodness no one got hurt. 
Other than the 43-year old veteran suffering with PTSD and father of two kids who took at least three gunshots at close range to the head, neck and torso while sitting in his own yard, of course.
Look, maybe you’re right. Maybe there’s no way this was going to have a happy ending, or at least an ending in which Jakub Dziemaszkiewicz survived the night. But I feel like I keep watching the same bad movie over and over again, in which a distraught, emotionally disturbed person has a weapon in their hand—likely threatening self-harm—and is simply gunned down by the police shortly after their arrival with little or no attempt at de-escalation.
There’s a lot of things they could have done to deal with a disturbed individual on their own property with no bystanders present. Like “setting up a perimeter,” which would actually be helpful in this case. If they were concerned about the neighbors, they could evacuate them or post a guard at their house(s). But instead, they handled things the way police usually do in this country.
In closing, I’ll note that once again, the only shots fired were by the police.