A quote from the link in my previous post:
“BART said its investigation of the shooting would continue, as will a separate investigation by the Alameda County district attorney’s office.”
(Bolding added.)
Sorry, I’m not seeing a change. I’m not a cop, but if I thought that someone could still grab a weapon and shoot, I’d keep my gun out and I’d do it because I was still willing to shoot.
Interesting that noone has raised the alleged victim’s criminal record.
Your criminal record is irrelevant if you’re prone and being kneeled on by three policemen.
I don’t see his record as relevant. One, the cop most likely didn’t have access to it. He was responding to an altercation. And two, even if he was Jeffrey Dahmer, he was shot in the back while laying on ground.
Please. Dollars to donuts that Grant had a rap sheet a mile long.
I support the police much more than this board seems to, on average, and to me that video looked like an outrageous, extreme case of deadly criminal recklessness. Unless there was something that happened which the video did not show justifying that shooting, I think the cop should go to jail. From what previous posters are saying, it looks like that criminal investigation has already started.
You can’t shoot an unarmed and helpless person who is submitting to law enforcement just because his rap sheet is a mile long. This is America, not Soviet Russia.
I think I see where you’re coming from. It isn’t really a question of the law, but of the type of actions one would expect by the police. There’s no question in my mind that if I were walking down the street, and a guy bumped into me, and I spun around, pulled out a gun, and shot him, and two cops were standing right there, they’d grab me immediately and probably arrest me. Even though, legally speaking, there was some possibility that the act was not a crime, the police would instantly assume (quite reasonably) that it was one.
In this Oakland case it is psychologically understandable that the other cops at the scene didn’t immediately leap on their fellow officer. But after a few days have gone by and the guy hasn’t been arrested, it seems likely that despite the apparent randomness of the act, other police (most crucially the ones who witnessed it) are giving him the benefit of the doubt, just because he’s a cop.
No one is saying that your speculation (which is what it is at this point) is false. He may very well have.
What we’re saying is that past performance is not some sort of carte blanche or 00 license to kill for the police. Even if he were a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, a known traitor to the United States or a drug dealer, I will not EVER condone a law enforcement officer shooting him in the back. We have a Constitution for a reason.
So I take it you don’t actually have any knowledge about this?
Of course that goes for everyone. What you said in your other post was:
“If you shoot someone, then have an “Oh my god! I just accidentally shot him!” reaction, then you were not justified in having that gun out of its holster. Period.”
That’s the part that’s incorrect. One can have his gun out of his holster because he may need to use it because a threat seems very possible, but end up re-holstering without incident. In these cases you were justified in both un-holstering and re-holstering without shooting. Of course an accidental shooting can still happen. According to your quote above, it seems you’re saying the gun shouldn’t be out of it’s holster unless one is going to shoot. That’s the part Bricker was responding to.
In your last post you wrote:
"The non-law-enforcement rules of gun safety include the “don’t pull on something you aren’t going to shoot, if necessary” number. "
The if necessary part is important and it goes for both law enforcement and private citizens. You un-holster your weapon because you either need to shoot immediately or feel a threat may be immanent and will shoot to stop if your life or someone else’s is in a life or death situation.
Lets call it intuition.
Okay, let’s take it as a given that he’s a convicted criminal with so many charges against him that you’d need an odometer to properly count them.
How is this relevant to this thread?
Cite? (Intuition doesn’t count on the SDMB, FYI)
And last time I checked, execution without trial is oh, I dunno, UnConstitutional? Illegal? Immoral? Just because someone has a rap sheet doesn’t mean he’s automatically denied his rights as a citizen.
Why is it that ordinary, law abiding citizens are the “victims” of such supposed brutality?
While I’m sure that Grant will be repainted in the liberal media as a loving, church-going father, generally the types of people that get themselves into these scrapes are hard-boiled criminals.
I don’t know if Grant’s shooting was justified or not, but I do know that if he wasn’t an ex-con who was picking fights on the subway, he wouldn’t have got himself into the predicament that he did.
You know, I’m more afraid of people like you than I am of actual criminals. So, in your United States, all it takes to get you shot in cold blood by LEOs is to have committed some crime in the past and to happen to be on a subway car in which an altercation (which multiple witnesses say you were not a part of) has occurred?
I’ll take my chances with druggies, thanks.
Amen, Brother.
You can, I am sure, provide bountiful examples of the liberal media doing this in the past.
Maybe you can start another thread where you can bitch about that and make provocative comments that cause others to post? This isn’t the place for it.