Posted on 09/21/2016 9:10:14 AM PDT by Morgana
Kinsey said when he asked the officer why he fired his weapon, the cop responded, “I don’t know.”
I think you understood my point. No need to dig in. The guy should be sitting in a holding cell or a detox center right now, not a morgue. He would be if this had been handled in any one of a dozen different ways. Now its a big mess for the cops and for public trust.
“Shots fired” means a firearm has been discharged. That raises the priority of things, no matter who did the shooting. The idea being that if the suspect did it, that is an attempt on the life of an officer, while if the cop did it, that is assumed (initially) to be in self defense.
Gets people rolling.
Had you not heard that story? It was all over the news for a while. There's even a video.
Well, here's the way I see it. Respecting the police, and the difficult job that they do, that's a characteristic of a conservative.
But it's also a characteristic of a conservative to want limitations placed on the power of the police. So in sad cases like this one, good conservatives will disagree.
Agreed, this one seems a bit of grey area.... Cops are clearly telling him to stop, he keeps disobeying, gets to the car... and did something... whether window was rolled up or not... don’t know, nor did the cops on scene I am sure.. so if they believed he was reaching into the vehicle they were going to react to that...
The fact he was tazed and shot at the same time, clearly shows that cops perceived some action he engaged in as threatening.
I am not defending an innocent man being killed, but I don’t care who you are, or what color your skin is, if you disobey multiple armed officers repeatedly when they are giving you orders, the odds of it not going well for you increases.
I know if I was a cop on sight and a suspect was returning to his vehicle and defying orders, and I perceived him reaching into his vehicle, odds are pretty high I’d shoot as well, regardless of skin color of the suspect.
At risk? Let’s talk about “at risk” shall we?
This man is dead but Acmed the undead terrorist was taken ALIVE in New York.
This man had no gun, was not violent, had his hands up and had half the police force around him when he died and they could not take him?
Acmad the undead terrorist blew up trash cans all over the place, and if we think of their MO it’s usualy to have a body bomb to take themselves and everyone else around them to aller when they go. Yet, he was taken alive. If you ask me, he was the one who needed a bullet to the brain like a rabid dog. He put the officers lives in danger. Yet, he is the one taken away on a stretcher and this black man in a body bag?
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.
When ya got nothing you call them a liberal.
You might want to make an appointment with your ophthalmologist.
No, not all of them. However, clearly there are some citizens who wish they were.
You have made this rebuttal before, and it is partially true.
However, I note an absolute rebellion against the rule of law with these folks, as well as a rebellion against common courtesy.
.
Looks to me like the window is down.
You can see the grayish seat back, and the seat belt hanging out through the open window.
What are you selling today?
.
You might want to make an appointment with your ophthalmologist.
.
>> “But that still means that two dozen or so were not justified. Shouldn’t something happen to the police officer in those cases?” <<
Do you understand statistics at all?
What if all 12 were bad shoots?
In a nation of 320,000,000 people that is statistically lower than noise! 1 in 25,000,000 is almost no chance at all.
.
.
>> “You might want to make an appointment with your ophthalmologist.” <<
.
I certainly wouldn’t want to waste my money going to yours!
.
That logic isn't what the government applies to other citizens who shoot and kill another person. Plenty of people are in prison for "a mistake". The use of deadly force, by anybody, requires great care. Trained police officers, particularly when they have a whole team of other officers present, should be held to higher standards than somebody awakened in their house at 3 AM, or approached on a darkened street. Not the reverse.
The self-preservation force is strong, strong enough to justify their reactions.
But don’t police have a responsibility to ensure that Crutcher represented a threat to their safety or the safety of others before they shot him? Isn’t that the threshold for using deadly force? Where was the threat?
_________________________________________
Just how close to actually carrying out a deadly threat must be permitted before an officer can conclude that action must be taken to ensure it doesn’t happen?
If he was doped up, it’s a lesson about the importance of sobriety when you go out in public. Knowing there are trigger happy cops out there you need to keep your wits about you.
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.