So a cops is supposed to be a mind reader and know what the dude was going to do? So for the haters here, does the cop need to be shot, stabbed or assaulted FIRST before he earns the right to protect himself???
I’m just courious
I agree with you.
You’re exaggerating
It looks to me like the guy was just pulling into the gas station and was getting out of his car when the cop pulled up and asked for his license. The cop was definitely prejudice, I don’t think he would have done that if it was an old white lady but you know that is one of the products of the black holocaust instituted by Democrats. Cops and the public are so use to seeing blacks commit violent crimes that they assume the worst and now of course the race baiters will make matters worse by calling this racism when actually it was an act of prejudice.
So a cop has a right to shoot people just because he fears what they might do? He obviously never saw a gun, because there wasn’t one. No, he doesn’t need to be assaulted before he can defend himself, but he does need to have a reasonable perception of a deadly threat. Cops don’t have carte blanche to shoot someone who is making them nervous.
This isn’t Guadalcanal and we are not an occupied force of hostiles, cops cannot just kill everything that moves in front of them.
A citizen was stopped for a seat belt, and was gunned down while reaching for his license, at least entertain for a second, that perhaps something is wrong with the man who did the shooting.
At the very least, he needs to see the weapon first.
Cops don’t get stop someone, then shoot them because they THINK he might have a weapon.
“So for the haters here, does the cop need to be shot, stabbed or assaulted FIRST before he earns the right to protect himself???”
He needs to be THREATENED before he shoots. You can not “protect” yourself from nothing - there needs to be a THREAT. No one threatened the cop in any way.
The cop is not supposed to be a mind reader but he is supposed to handle the situation properly. The cop did not handle it properly.
Do we have to choose only one?
So a cops is supposed to be a mind reader and know what the dude was going to do? So for the haters here, does the cop need to be shot, stabbed or assaulted FIRST before he earns the right to protect himself???
I’m just courious
No you’re not.
The cop is supposed to take on the responsibility of evaluating the situation for a threat NOT simply, literally blindly shooting at the first thing the guy does that the cop doesn’t like. This is the facet of the Job that made it noble. Cops were one of us NOT overlords or a hostile occupying force.
What did cops do 50 years ago? They sure as hell weren’t pulling guns and shooting blindly as they are doing more and more today.
Any frightened little Fem can do as this guy did....piss her panties and blaze away.
No. Cops aren’t mind readers. Thus when a cop sees a traffic infraction and pulls a car, he should just shoot whoever is in the car immediately because he can’t divine what the people in the car might do.
I’m just courious..Be serious.
I think you got this one in the bag. Keep up the good work.
no,he just needs to shoot everybody he stops for his own saftey.a sceared man with a gun will kill you.i had rather be up aganist the bravest man in the world.and most cops are afraid of their own shadow.
No, and that's a tough call. The guy should have moved slowly and told the cop what he was going for; the cop should have waited long enough to see if a weapon was in hand. But I wasn't there; it's possible I might have done the same based on my perception of expected black male behavior. Unfair, yes, but it's the real world.
Actually yes - he should have at least seen a firearm or knife before opening fire. Everything else is just murder.
THere should be an actual threat. He can't just shoot first and then ask questions later. I would be up for an attempted murder charge, and justifyably so for making an error like that. He took the job. If he's that much of a ninny he's in the wrong line of work. Of course, we know he'll be absolved of all responsibly for this because he "feared for his safety", even though his fear was completely unjustifiable by anyone but a cop.
Did the LEO not ask to see his drivers license? Did the victim not comply?
Is it OK to shoot unarmed motorist? Did the victim have any weapon in his hand?
And if the LEO did not see weapon prior to firing at the victim, why did the LEO shoot the victim?
This was not even a felony stop. No crime was even committed by the victim.
Why would the LEO respond like this was some known extremely violent wanted person? Why would the LEO respond like this was an enemy combatant?
This was not justified by any stretch of the imagination and I hope anyone alleging it is justified, are not involved in law enforcement at any level.
The cop asks for his liscense, the guy goes into the car to get his license and you wonder what the guy is doing? The guy is complying with what the cop demands and the cop shoots him is somehow OK with you?
Of course not. But when you direct someone to get their ID there is a reasonable chance that it could be in the vehicle. Thus reaching into the vehicle should not have been unexpected.
The officers first mistake was not asking the driver if he had his ID on him. When he replied "No" then the officer should have had him stand in front of the vehicle while the officer recovered the ID.
At the point that the driver reached inside the vehicle (due to the officers poor handling of the situation up to that point) the officer was justified in pulling his weapon and taking cover, however he was not justified in using deadly force against someone holding a wallet that the officer requested he get.
This hot-rod was way to fast on the trigger and failed to properly identify the threat.