Iirc Manson et all were picked up on vehicular theft charges.
It was a jailhouse confession to another inmate which tied them to the murders.
Imho, “red-handed” would mean that they had red hands from the blood of the murder—e.g. with direct evidence in plain sight
You may want to fish around for another anecdote for your case.
“Police administering justice” sounds good until you realize that they might mistake you, your nephew, or your daughter for someone "caught red handed. "
My first thought, too. And there was also Richard Kimble. Had he been killed, the one armed man might still be loose today.
Considering the alarming frequency of innocent, unarmed black people murdered by police officers (and yes, some white people too, like that recent Australian lady), I am surprised every time someone like Dylan Roof is apprehended alive.
So in the sense of 'if police are telling the truth about fearing for their lives every time a black man attempts to buy a toy gun in Walmart, or an unarmed autistic person is sitting in a parking lot with a Tonka truck, then to be consistent, a lot more murder suspects should be killed during arrest, if not all of them".
That doesn’t mean I actually support extrajudicial killing. It just means I see right through the “feared for my life” bullshit. If you don’t fear for your life when arresting Dylan Roof, or when talking to this guy, there’s no way you feared for your life when you executed a 12 year old on sight for carrying a BB gun.
Roof was arrested after a traffic stop, there is no information I have heard that he brandished any guns during the stop. Why should the arresting officers fear a skinny kid with no weapon? Also, I don’t think the same officers were involved in the other two incidents.
Oh, I don’t think this would be a good idea. Being a “murder suspect” doesn’t mean that you actually did anything. The cops don’t need to be executioners! We need a proper trial and conviction here in the USA. At least, I’d like to think so…
Has somebody been reading Deepak Chopra and watching “What the bleep do we know?”
I like what Murray Gell-Mann called it, “Quantum Flapdoodle”.
Maybe? Perhaps police misconduct only exists when there is an outside observer too?
Damn, wrong thread. Past edit window. Sorry folks, nothing to see here.
Manson, also, didn’t actually do the killing. So, there was a legitimate issue for a trial concerning his role. (the jury got it right, in my view, but I don’t think a trial was a waste of effort.)
If the OP’s policy had been in place, Charles Manson would still be loose today. As I noted in my previous post, Manson was identified by other suspects who had been arrested. If the OP had his way, those suspects would have been killed at their arrests and wouldn’t have had an opportunity to later identify Manson. The police would have done Manson a pretty big favor by killing off the witnesses against him.
Police should not kill anyone, ever.
Remember the Ferguson and Baltimore riots? That is the direct result of police killing suspects.
The constitution guarantees a fair trial to anyone suspected of a crime. Let’s follow the lead of countries like Iceland and New Zealand, where police don’t carry guns. The end result is much less death on both sides of the law.
Having guns can even make police officer into targets. The Boston Marathon bombers murdered Officer Collier for the express purpose of stealing his gun.
Too late, we observed it, the cat’s out of the opaque box.
It seems clear to me that if we’re going to empower people to autonomously decide people are guilty of things and execute them in the heat of the moment, the only people honorable and worthy enough to hold this role is me, myself, alone. And since I am not a policeman, I don’t think policemen should be allowed to murder suspects.
Police don’t carry guns in New Zealand except when they do.
Here are the first links I have found about men who were arrested, tried and convicted, only to be found innocent years later.
The Innocence Project has exonerated 351 people.
Only an idiot can think that the police only arrest guilty people. Or that juries only convict guilty people.
Many left wingers seem to mind guns only when owned by law-abiding people. Criminals are a different story.
So apparently the left is in favor of summarily executing anyone bearing arms, except when that person has been convicted of a crime?
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
That statement is, uh, something. Since this is GD and not the Pit, can you please provide a cite that left-wingers mind when guns are in the hands of law-abiding people and don’t mind when they are in the hands of criminals?
Can you further explain why you’re hijacking your own thread with that sort of inflammatory statement?
And, can you describe whether you’ve changed your mind at all about extra-judicial killing by the police based on the responses in this thread? What’s the point of creating a Debate thread where you don’t join the debate at all?
Some law-abiding people become criminals. In a fact, all criminals were once law-abiding.