Dude pointed a pipe at police in a manner that simulated a shooting attack. Doesn’t matter what race he was, he was going to get shot. Also, blunt objects kill people every day, so it is a straight up lie to say that he was unarmed.
Which is what burns me up. No one cares about black youth deaths ... until white kids die. Even Hogg had to be reminded of this by some of his own, African-American students too.
Actually, while originally questioning the police, and arguing that any time the police -- who are an instrument of the state -- are in a group, they should wait for the suspect to actually fire first (I don't expect law abiding citizens to wait though**, or possibly a single cop to do so), the latest video footage tells me a white person would have been shot too.
He was frightening people who didn't live in the neighborhood left and right. The locals knew who he was, but he didn't pull this type of stunt before. He usually kept it in his pocket.
Well, there is the argument that the police are agents of the state, and they should have to justify why they shoot first. Especially when they outnumber the suspects 3, 4 or even 5-to-1 in this case.
i believe california is trying to pass a law right now to change when an officer can shoot someone
The law introduced by a San Diego lawmaker would set the bar at imminent bodily injury or death. The issue is going to be how that is decided. Is it going to be that it is objectively reasonable that any officer in that position would believe there was an imminent threat, or is it going to be a looser standard that will be defined by whatever the prosecutor can convince the jury is right. If the latter, I think that’s a mistake and you’ll have a number of good officers destroyed until (and if) the legislation clearly defines the standard. TV shows complicate the issue immensely because we’ve all seen the great number of shows where a suspect is standing there pointing a gun at officers without firing while officers tell him to drop the gun. This doesn’t happen in real life. IRL, the suspect starts pulling the trigger more often than not and officers end up dead. Numbers don’t matter either. What does a gun care if there is 1 officer there or 5? If the suspect pulls the trigger, at least 1 may end up dead and that is not acceptable. So the gray line of what constitutes imminent danger needs to be drawn very clearly. The worry, of course, is that the law introduced is a rapid reaction to the Clark shooting and they won’t work all the variations through to the end.
At first, I thought this too. I said a group of cops should wait for a criminal to fire first, especially when it was 5 on 1.
Do you really think they aren’t trained on this? You have no credibility on armed vs unarmed and constantly ignore any context in all of these situations. I’d love to see you go through the simulators and see if you can tell the difference between someone pointing a pipe at you and a gun. To see how you handle when you are in a life and death situation and the person you are telling to not move continues reaching for something. Maybe you should take a few minutes of your out of your ignorant, lazy life and look up the videos where police officers are being overly patient with a suspect while they reach for a phone or a lighter but grab a gun and kill that officer.
Why would you ever make this policy? That bullet the criminal fires has a very real chance of killing someone, police or not. What if it goes through a window on the other side of the road and kills someone. This isn’t the goddamn movies, every shot can and will kill someone. Why make a policy that could require people to be killed before the police can do anything. Police also aren’t there to get killed before they can enforce laws and we should not be asking them to do that.
While I agree, I have been critical.
And I completely concede this.
Then it does.
And I'm the first one who says such too. The movies portray cops running around with guns already pulled and aimed, when cops don't pull and aim unless they intent to shoot.
Understand and I’ll give you credit. On the one instance we can agree to disagree.And I completely concede this.
Then it does.
I don't expect you to understand. I'm a Libertarian, and unless a criminal points what appears to be a gun, I don't want cops shooting him/her. It's better to have 9 criminals commit a crime than kill one that wasn't.
Listen, I defended the cop that shot the 5'7" hooded man who turned out to be a young teen, because he was pointing a replica of a gun. That was sad, but expected.
And I'm defending the cops here, because the guy not only took a 2-handed stance with it, but was already doing so to non-locals (as much as locals) beforehand. The locals should have stopped him from doing so. The locals were irresponsible in not stopping him prior.
But in general ... sorry, my Libertarian views say, unless someone points what at least looks like a gun, they shouldn't shoot. I'm sorry, but that's my view.
It's unfair to cops. It's unfair to the community they protect. But it's just how I feel.
And I'm the first one who says such too. The movies portray cops running around with guns already pulled and aimed, when cops don't pull and aim unless they intent to shoot.
I know this.
So, I'm fine if people disagree with me. Just understand I am conceding the fact that my view will get more police killed, and possibly more innocent people too.
One-on-one, I understand why both cops and law abiding citizens will shoot. But in 3, 4 or 5-on-1, I'm asking for police restraint. Because unlike a law abiding citizen, who will be often charged by the courts, and have to claim self-defense, the police have internal affairs and other things to clear them.
I know it sucks. I know cops aren't paid worth squat. I know they have one of the highest mortality rates of any job. But if you become a police officer, I'm at the point that group on single criminal should show some restraint.
That said, this is not that case, and the police were justified in this case. So credit me there.
Appreciate it. I am being very unfair to police, and I recognize that too.
I love how it's always the same, 3rd grade level Progressive media sheep that say this, especially when you really don't want to have to agree with me.
Did you know he was a Libertarian?
