It means that’s a lot of bullshit.
I don’t see a blame-the-victim vibe around here concerning police shootings; if anything, the exact opposite.
I didn’t say “around here.” I was talking about the rhetoric of the cops themselves (not to mention the media).
You weren’t at all clear on that point. The “blame the victim vibe” was brought up by buttonjockey308, who said he was getting it from this thread, not from the police.
No, I don’t want to, and I don’t need to. Reality has this way of suprising me sometimes. Things I thought were implausible often turn out to actually be the case. For this reason, I’ve learned to withhold judgment when I don’t have much data. And in this case, I have almost no data.
With that said, it happens I can think of something. It was inspired by your own suggestion that the police officer threatened to sic the dog if the guy didn’t comply. My presentation of a possible scenario is as follows: The police officer said he was going to sic the dog on the guy in order to kill him, once he had the cuffs on him. The guy (who some here are theorizing may have been mentally not all there) believed him, and panicked, and shot the police officer.
No, I don’t think it’s likely in general that police officers would say things like this. But this is an extraordinary case, not an ordinary one. And I think it’s possible that sometimes police officers say things like this.
I don’t think this is what happened. That’s because I don’t claim to have even the first clue what happened. But you asked for a scenario that would vindicate the guy’s claims, that’s also compatible with the (paucity of) data we have about the incident. And I’ve presented one.
Also, to be clear, I don’t claim such a scenario would legally justify the shooting.
I don’t know about that kind of thing, so I withhold judgment. Instead, I’m just claiming that such a scenario would be compatible with the guy’s claim that he was shooting “in self defense”.
-FrL-
Here’s the text that isn’t showing up in my above post for some reason:
[QUOTE=Frylock]
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Either of you (or anyone else) want to paint a plausible scenario how it could’ve been a case of self-defense?
One more try:
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Either of you (or anyone else) want to paint a plausible scenario how it could’ve been a case of self-defense?
[quote]
No, I don’t want to, and I don’t need to. Reality has this way of suprising me sometimes. Things I thought were implausible often turn out to actually be the case. For this reason, I’ve learned to withhold judgment when I don’t have much data. And in this case, I have almost no data.
With that said, it happens I can think of something. It was inspired by your own suggestion that the police officer threatened to sic the dog if the guy didn’t comply. My presentation of a possible scenario is as follows: The police officer said he was going to sic the dog on the guy in order to kill him, once he had the cuffs on him. The guy (who some here are theorizing may have been mentally not all there) believed him, and panicked, and shot the police officer.
No, I don’t think it’s likely in general that police officers would say things like this. But this is an extraordinary case, not an ordinary one. And I think it’s possible that sometimes police officers say things like this.
I don’t think this is what happened. That’s because I don’t claim to have even the first clue what happened. But you asked for a scenario that would vindicate the guy’s claims, that’s also compatible with the (paucity of) data we have about the incident. And I’ve presented one.
Also, to be clear, I don’t claim such a scenario would legally justify the shooting.
I don’t know about that kind of thing, so I withhold judgment. Instead, I’m just claiming that such a scenario would be compatible with the guy’s claim that he was shooting “in self defense”.
-FrL-
You have not one, but two unclosed quote tags there. That’s why nothing’s showing up.
Frylock, I fixed your coding and removed the other two duplicated posts. As Q.E.D. pointed out, there’s a bug in the current version of vBulletin where an unclosed quote tag causes a post to show up blank.
Never mind.
(Thanks guys. That never happened to me before! -FrL)
No they don’t.
I’m just going to say that if one person is threatening me enough to make me fire in self-defense, I will shoot him until my weapon is empty.
(I have previously stated that I am unsure I would make that decision in time for it to be useful… I feel rather sickened by the idea of hurting someone.)
But if, for some reason, I feel that my life depends on making someone dead, I see no issue with shooting him four times in the head.
That’s if he doesn’t get killed in his cell before trial first.
I’m afraid that I can see situations where someone who was in genuine fear for his life would fire four, or more, shots into their target. Though the time frame involved matters, too. One to put someone down, and three following to keep him there, is a very different thing from four rounds fired wildly in a panic. I will say that having four panic rounds all go into a target’s head seems pretty unlikely. (Not claiming it’s impossible, just something that I’d want to hear an explanation for.)
At the moment, there remains the presumption of innocence. So, while I’m skeptical of the accused’s claims, I would want to see more evidence than simply the articles linked here, before I come to a judgment.
ETA: As for the article diggleblop linked - if they can’t solve that, or if they fail to charge the person who did it, I’d hope the local citizens demand some politician’s figurative heads. I don’t give a crap who does it: Vigilantism must not be tolerated. Esp. if it’s from the police themselves.
There is a report out tonight that the shooter had an Ohio concealed carry permit. They don’t say whether the weapon used was the one he registered.
The report also said the shooter was cited for tinted windows in Twinsburg last year, but not by the officer who was shot.
This, of course, adds no information upon which to base an opinion. Just further info.
Sounds a little over the top to me… Look, I am on the side of the cops 99% of the time, but some people in some situations have plenty to fear from the cops. For instance, just check Wikipedia:
This guy had a legal concealed carry permit and really might have believed he was acting in self defense. If you typically give the police the benefit of the doubt (as is only right), you might want to try to cut this guy some slack and give him the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are available… Or we could just go and hang this “murdering scumbag nutbar” from the nearest tree…
He was an LPN who worked for the state, and that allowed him the CC permit.
Really, in all of the reports I’ve read so far, this shooter seems like a normal type of guy. Not a badass or even a troublemaker. A couple of boring arrests, lived with his mom and was a LPN with Ohio Job & Family Services.
Just seems really weird, all of it.
Him having a CC license in Ohio is independent of him working for the State. Anyone who meets fairly standard requirements (they seem fairly close to the requirements I had to go through) can get one:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/concealcarry/index.asp
It does beg many questions as to what really happened.
But it’s not “fishy” that the officer’s gun remained in his holster? :rolleyes:
Perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but as I recall, police are trained to shoot until the gun is empty. So it’s only to be expected that a lot of bullets would get fired when it’s the cops doing it.