A good example of the phenomenon is this article “‘Unarmed’ black man killed in Walmart parking lot by police officers firing ‘dozens of bullets’ into packed car” You have to read to the bottom of the article that the man had rammed a police car and was trying to ram another one when shot. I would think those facts are more relevant to what happened than that he did not have a gun and was black. But thankfully, I am not a journalist.
Were the police firing high, to injure the passengers, or low, to stop the car?
I’ve seen enough of the clips to not automatically believe police who say they feared for their lives. And, yeah, I think, ‘no other option’ rather than ‘fear for one’s life’ should be the standard for lethal force, as long as officers seem to fear men of color so much more than anyone else.
I didn’t vote. I remember reading headlines and wondering what justified a shooting. Now I wonder if the shooting was justified. The split-second thought is skepticism, and I don’t think race is a factor.
How do you stop a car with a gun by shooting low? The only quick and reliable way to stop a car with a gun is to shoot the driver.
Nit pick and getting off topic - There is nothing quick or reliable about stopping a car by shooting the driver. Head shot that kills him instantly? Maybe, but you will have an out of control car until it stops by hitting something or coasts to a stop. In some jurisdictions shooting to disable the vehicle is permitted. In others, like NJ, it is not.
The latter. It wouldn’t be in the news otherwise. Same with “Police Shoot ____”, where the blank doesn’t indicate any sort of crime.
If they include both a racial description and a crime, then it’s more shaky. I suspect that the racial descriptor is only present because people consider it important, and that likely means there’s an argument by some that the race was relevant to the shooting (when it should not be). I go in assuming that there is at least room for interpretation that they did something wrong.
That one is just a lie. He is not unarmed if he’s in a vehicle and using it as a weapon. Though I’m not sure that shooting him is the best solution in that situation.
Justified shootings rarely make the news. And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up acquittals or lack of charges–neither establish that the shooting was justified. At best, they mean there’s not enough evidence. More likely, they indicate a common problem in our system that makes it really hard to convict a law enforcement officer.
Unlike in other situations, the prosecution and the cops are on the same side. And cops seem to be trained to escalate situations, and then shoot when this inevitably puts them in more danger. We don’t have a system that encourages them to use the least dangerous method, or to prioritize lives.
The latter is the reason for the widespread distrust of police officers these days, and the former is a part of the cause, since it removes consequences for all but the most egregious cases.
I have to disagree, unjustified shootings rarely make the news. I hear far more about justified shootings which some reporter, or possibly some family lawyer, is trying to make a justified shooting look nefarious.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Headline: Team plays baseball game.
What’s your first reaction, did they win or lose?
My answer to the OP, as appears to be the majority opinion, is that I would wonder what sort of crappy paper was this, and then start reading the article in order to get some idea about what happened.
With regard to the OP/poll, I object to your excluded middle.
Why do we have to immediately assume that the police action(s) were justified or not?
Justification does not seem to affect news coverage that much. Look at the Micheal Brown shooting which was obviously justified and the Daniel Shaver shooting which obviously was not justified. The former garnered much more news coverage.
That is why I choose the second option because more police shootings are justified than not, and the media coverage does not correlate with justification.