Posted on 06/16/2009 11:17:30 AM PDT by Born Conservative
Um no, crazy does not imply innocence. Crazy people commit crimes all the time. Sometimes they know what they are doing is wrong, sometimes they can’t, but regardless of their ability to distinguish right from wrong their ability be an imminent threat is undiminished.
And for that matter guilt or innocence has nothing to do with causing an imminent threat or self defense.
Cops aren’t supposed to be deciding innocence or guilt in the first place, much less shooting or not shooting people based on their assessment of same.
That is a straw man argument.
Every time you post, you make me think less of the police.
Cops aren't supposes to be deciding innocence or guilt? How comforting. NOT. I would say that you must mean that they aren't supposed to be handing out the final sentence, but then you say:
much less shooting or not shooting people based on their assessment of same.
Sentences don't get more final than that.
When it becomes common practice for the police to shoot innocent people because a certain formula allowed it, then we need to get rid of the police. Hell, anyone can go around shooting innocent people, why do we need to pay people to do it?
As police are citizens like everyone else, I think its always prudent to ask what the reaction to an incident would be if it were carried out by a non-badged citizen. The merit of an action should not be judged by who did it, but rather what they did. Let's look at a few recent incidents in that light:
1. Four physically fit men confront a woman who's been acting crazy. She's found naked, pumped full of bullets from three of the four. They say that she surprised them by acting irrationally, approaching them with a knife.
2. A man has a brief inconsequential issue of right of way with an ambulance. Screaming profanities and refusing to talk to the supervisor of the ambulance about the incident, he physically attacks the supervisor.
3. A man comes out of a restaurant and sees a group of teenagers playing loud music. He thinks one of them is holding a rifle and pointing it at another group of kids. He pulls his gun and yells at the kid with the "gun". Despite the obvious loud music and no one acknowledging him, he fires from across the parking lot. He hits the kid in the arm. Post incident it is determined to be a pellet gun and that he was pointing at a sign.
4. A man shoots an unarmed teenager in the face. The man says the teenager was running right at him and wouldn't stop.
Its hard to imagine the above incidents not resulting in at least an arrest isn't it? I assume that you would be defending the decision to make arrests.
The ability of the police to effectively investigate their own shootings is certainly questionable, so the more openness the better.
Self-defense shooting is based on threat assessment, not assessment of innocence or guilt. That is a straw man argument.
You simply confuse and conflate multiple issues because you want to hate cops and blame them for everything. You are biased and blinkered and not using logic to think through the logic of use of force.
It has an established logic, until you understand it, you really have no business criticizing and debating about it. You are more interested in insult than information.
Quite to the contrary, you want to label everyone that thinks that the police must obey the same laws as everyone else as a "cop hater".
I notice that you didn't answer the question concerning whether you think any other citizen would have walked away without at least an arrest in the listed instances.
Whether the police are to be held to the same standard of law and justification as everyone else is very much the point, hardly a straw man argument.
Indeed, if the point of having a police force is to increase safety, don't you think it logical that they might be expected to come prepared to such calls? You completely ignored that question previously.
i.e. I call the police and tell them that my neighbor bill is off his meds and sitting on his porch with an ax. They come out and as they walk up he starts trotting toward them with the Ax. They then shoot him 22 times in self-defense. What exactly was the point of calling the police? I could have shot Bill from my front porch and saved them the trip. Would you not at all question why they didn't come prepared with a shotgun full of non-lethals and a stun gun? Is their lack of thought not responsible in any way for Bill doubling as a colander?
Case in point. Barney comes in the front door and there is a two year old holding a sawed off shotgun. Should Barney:
A. Shoot lower than usual.
B. Shoot more than usual, as the vital area is small.
C. Scream at the kid to drop it, and if he doesn't respond instantly revert to A&B.
D. Take the additional risk to protect himself and get the shotgun away from the toddler, knowing that there is a chance he may be killed, but realizing that the toddler is someone he is supposed to protect.
IF, big IF, you chose answer "D", why would you say that was? Could if have anything to do with innocence?
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.