bad cop, no doughnut...
Posted on 09/21/2016 9:10:14 AM PDT by Morgana
As I said, evidence that he posed a threat to the life and the safety of the officers on the scene would be nice. As has been determined he had no gun on his person or in the car. What exactly were they threatened by? Enough to determine that using deadly force was the only option available to them? What did he do to justify it? And don't say "he refused their orders" because on those grounds the police should have started shooting the moment he walked away from them. There was no weapon of any kind present. He wasn't within arms reach of the police. Why did they have to shoot him?
Most of these cops shooting people get cleared up once all videos, dash cams, body cams, audios and other evidence is made public.
So I reserve judgment until that time. I have read the guy’s car was stopped in the opposite lane (facing wrong way IIRC) and acted like he was on PCP and didn’t follow officer’s commands.
Other than that, it isn’t clear or obvious. Officer was female, that there is not a good thing. Sure, some women can be good cops, but most really needs to be in a different line of work or at a desk or other type LE position.
Ah, I thought all those comments were yours! No italics or line separating them!
Now I’m not sure.....
Basically, from everything I’ve read and I read every story about cops killing someone that I run across, almost every single instance is the person who got killed refused to do what the cop told him to do.
I’ll admit, this story is fresh to me. I did see a dashcam video of it this morning, and read some headlines and some of this back-and-forth.
We have the standard “white cop MURDERS dindu nuffin black guy” BLM narrative, of course, which is why this is in the news.
So let’s throw that out, shall we? Let’s not assume black guy was an innocent angel and that the cops were sneering fascists looking for a juicy victim to blast away at.
Now, let’s unpack what happened according to what I saw and what was claimed.
First off, the law enforcement officer who seemed to be on point was a white female, and the suspect was a large black man.
I don’t know how long the female LEO had served, but if she was a rookie, her experience wouldn’t have overridden her biological fear. She would would have been jacked up on adrenaline big time, with a weapon.
The black man was unarmed during the encounter and had his hands up. However, he was not standing absolutely still when several policemen pointed weapons at him. He either didn’t know (mentally incompetent) or didn’t care (bad intentions) about the situation at hand.
One thing I noticed that nobody has talked about is how the black man’s vehicle is in the middle of the road instead of off to the side. If I have car trouble, I pull over as far as I can to avoid further accidents. This black man didn’t do that.
The officers did not know at the time what possessions the black man had in his automobile. When the black man disobediently (and against good judgment) walked toward the driver’s side of his car, he could have been trying to get back into it, either to rest, to escape, or to retrieve a weapon of his own to do harm to the officers. There was no way to know until after the fact.
The driver’s side window being up or down has nothing to do with anything. It’s a red herring thrown into the narrative to get people to argue about nothing.
The discovery of PCP may or may not be true. The best we can say about it is if the black man was under the influence of PCP, it would explain some of his strange behavior and/or desire not to get caught.
Good shoot or bad shoot? Hard call, considering everything. It’ll have to be a court of law that works it out, not some jackleg like myself viewing 3 minutes of video.
“And where was the threat here? Was he advancing? No. Did he show a weapon? No. Did he enter his car? No. Your bar for your perceived threat is set so low that the officers could have shot him at any time.”
I do not know, and I was not there. It may be that a jury will decide.
I was explained what the legal standard is.
I did not say it was met.
“I was explained” should be “I explained”
cops used to be taught to wound people not to shoot to kill
when did that attitude change?..
and why?....
we put these cops in terrible situations where they have to make split second decisions with a dangerous subset of people and what do we expect...
Why did they have to shoot him?
_______________________________
Well, the police didn’t have to shoot him, they could have held their fire and waited to see what he was going to do. It was their decision to make, and many people will examine the facts and, like you, conclude they made the wrong decision. And you may be right. But I’m always hesitant to judge the actions of someone who believes he or she is involved in a life-threatening situation.
My question is what would happen to John Q. Public in the same circumstance? Police should be held to the same standard, if not a higher standard. Three guesses as to what would happen to a regular person who shot an unarmed individual—and paid leave of absence ain’t one of them...
bad cop, no doughnut...
My question is what would happen to John Q. Public in the same circumstance? Police should be held to the same standard, if not a higher standard. Three guesses as to what would happen to a regular person who shot an unarmed individual—and paid leave of absence ain’t one of them...
_______
Yep, I have to say that’s a damn good point. But on the other hand, whenever there is an altercation that leads to a killing, the culpability of the killer depends on the unique set of circumstances of that specific altercation, which is (usually) the basis for the verdict in a court of law.
THIS IS A VIDEO ALL LAW ABIDING PEOPLE MUST SEE AND REALIZE FOR ITS TRUTHFULNESS!!
Why Do Police Sometimes Shoot Unarmed People?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.