Evidently, "History of gun violence" seems to be the new police trigger phrase for "open fire!"
Before you condemn the police find out the facts.
Here's a fact. The police have yet to establish that there was a gun in the car, or that they saw him reaching for it. If there was such a thing, my nickel says that we would have heard about it long before now.
The police officer has the right to go home too. This person clearly is disobeying police orders.
The victim in this case had a right to go home also. And, it appeared that's what he was trying to do before he was prevented from doing so by the police when he had committed NO CRIME prior to being attacked by the police. He was there to break up the fight between the women. Disobeying police orders does not qualify you for a death sentence. If it did, there would be a crematorium on every street corner. Being a cop is no easy job. But, if they can't do it without shooting everyone who disagrees with them, then they need to find another line of work.
Try watching that video at post 57 of the PA troopers and see if that changes your opinion a bit.
He resisted arrest. From that point on, anything that happens to him is on him. The video shows how fast the situation can turn around on police officers who are just trying to do their duty. If people don’t want anymore police protection, keep supporting those who resist arrest. Soon we won’t have any.
You sound like a Libertarian
“Evidently, “History of gun violence” seems to be the new police trigger phrase for “open fire!”
- I see you change from the Gun Violence in a War Zone to just Gun Violence phrase. You are moving all over the place. If a person has a history of gun violence, the police should be ready for the guy to pull a gun. The police officers have a right to go home too.
Here’s a fact.
- There is no police report of what was in the car or why the officer fired.
- There is no context of why the police officer pull their guns (maybe he had a warrant and he refuse arrest). We need to wait that is why we have a justice system.
- We do not know what this person was trying to get into the car or trying to retrieve a weapon.
- We do know this guy pull a gun out in the past (police record).
It appears is a dangerous assumption. You do not know what happens before the video started. Were you there?
“The victim in this case had a right to go home also. And, it appeared that’s what he was trying to do before he was prevented from doing so by the police “
- Could the police be attempting to place this person under arrest?
- I guess criminals should be able to go home after committing a crime. The police do not have a right to arrest them.
“NO CRIME prior to being attacked by the police”
- You do not know if this person have committed a crime or had a warrant out for his arrest.
“Disobeying police orders does not qualify you for a death sentence.”
Why the Libertarian drama?
The guy is still alive, was that It Appears assumption. If the police were executing (death sentence) this person, they would have not to render first aid.
See post 57: If you let the person reach into his car this is what will happen.