Texas Police Officer shoots 93 year old woman - Polidicks

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;44793966]It's easier and "safer" for them to just terminate him instead of dealing with the potential flak and ending up with another Zimmerman style case where everyone basically attempts to burn an innocent at the stake. If they didn't terminate him they would also get flak for letting him stay, putting their own positions in jeopardy. It's easier to fire someone and deal with a "wrongful termination" style issue than it is to deal with a "they are letting a racist old person killing pig run free after brutally murdering a poor innocent old lady" type issue.[/QUOTE] Yes it's easier to re-establish community relations between the city and the people living in it instead of having it spiral out of control resulting eventually in the exasperated distrust of police officers by certain people who already feel targeted unfairly. It's also like, the right thing to do?

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;44793966] It's easier to fire someone and deal with a "wrongful termination" style issue than it is to deal with a [B]"they are letting a racist old-person-killing pig run free after brutally murdering a poor innocent old lady"[/B] type issue.[/QUOTE] Again, people absolutely refuse to give any validity to anyone who might have been upset by this incident. Anyone who feels like this cop should have been fired isn't someone who merely thought this shooting was unjustified, they're all dumb and goddamn crazy lunatics who think cops are out to get them. Why of course their feelings are entirely unreasonable. I disagree with this thread's verdict but I certainly haven't dismissed anyone who thinks his termination was unjustified as cop-fetishists who want officers to be able to do whatever they want. Apparently it's too much to expect that courtesy to go both ways...

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793988]I don't want to hang out with a person who's completely cool with being shot at, and is willing to write it off as "oh lol it's just an old black lady, she's no threat".[/QUOTE] Okay I wouldn't want to hang out with a person who goes on forums making sure everyone knows how much he doesn't care about teenagers getting killed, that's besides the point however. Police officers serve the community, if the community feels unsafe with that officer then he shouldn't be there. The idea is to create harmony again between the community, not establish one party as the "right" one and another as the "wrong" one. Obviously you don't care about harmony and safety within the community, or have a bad way of showing you do; but please try to understand you are in the minority in that regard no matter how wrong you think the protesters are.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44793988] YES, LET'S FIRE ALL THE COPS WHO HAVE TO DO THEIR JOBS, BECAUSE GOD FORBID SOMEONE HAS TO DO THEIR JOB. Maybe the community has a mistrust of the police because the media consistently portrays the police as "racist evil pigs" over and over and over. Maybe the comunity has a mistrust of the police because they are consistently raised that you can't trust the police, even though this isn't the 60's any more, and johnny law isn't out there to go arrest the "violent blacks".[/QUOTE] You can debate all the reasons you want, but if you think you can create a functional society where people distrust the police then look at areas where black people don't even want to call the police because they fear being unfairly victimised by them. The primary goal is to create a community which can trust each-other and have a stable relationship with infrastructure such as the police.

[QUOTE=niel12_5D;44793987]Yes it's easier to re-establish community relations between the city and the people living in it instead of having it spiral out of control resulting eventually in the exasperated distrust of police officers by certain people who already feel targeted unfairly. It's also like, the right thing to do?[/QUOTE] So what are they supposed to do then? Just let people break the law to avoid damaging community relations? They're supposed to let people fire guns off out in the open while they threaten their own family?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794031]Except it wasn't the entire community, it was a very vocal minority, there was no mass vote, there was no survey done. It wasn't the community who doomed this guy, it was a group of people who sat there and said "she was 93 years old and black, she couldn't have done any wrong at all, it must be that evil racist pig cop".[/QUOTE] A dead 93 year old black woman is a failure on the part of the community and the police. Why would a woman like that have a gun in the first place? Was she mentally ill? Did she need services that the community couldn't provide? Did she feel unsafe and couldn't trust the police officers? These are the questions you should be asking.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794031]Except it wasn't the entire community, it was a very vocal minority, there was no mass vote, there was no survey done. It wasn't the community who doomed this guy, it was a group of people who sat there and said "she was 93 years old and black, she couldn't have done any wrong at all, it must be that evil racist pig cop". [/QUOTE] Yo dog you made that quote up. That's not a real quote. Of course you're going to side with the cop when you [b]ABSOLUTELY REFUSE[/b] to believe that anyone who would criticize him might have a reasonable point to make. "No they're all just idiots who think that cops are all racist pigs. Of course their opinions are invalid." Don't you see the error in your logic here? Don't you see [i]the way in which[/i] you're preferencing one side over the other?

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;44794050]So what are they supposed to do then? Just let people break the law to avoid damaging community relations? They're supposed to let people fire guns off out in the open while they threaten their own family?[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're talking about because I was responding to you saying it was easier for the officer to be dismissed.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794057]And to do that we'll fire every cop that arrests/shoots a black person, no matter if it's justified or not, because that's totally not going to create animosity towards the black community.[/QUOTE] If you truly believe that police officers and black people in the United States cannot co-exist in a functional and harmonious way then you have a lower opinion of police than I have.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794057]And to do that we'll fire every cop that arrests/shoots a black person, no matter if it's justified or not, because that's totally not going to create animosity towards the black community.[/QUOTE] Now you reveal your underlying belief that the "black community" is inevitably going to be unreasonable. Of course the article makes no indication that it's specifically "the black community" that's upset, but you can go ahead and assume that it is the "black community" who are in the wrong here because "of course they are."

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794079]Yes, this is true, but saying "oh he shouldn't have shot her, she totally wasn't a threat" is just as ignorant as saying that the police are always going to help you.[/QUOTE] Either the police is supposed to always help you, or you cannot trust the police and need to carry your own weapons, not to mention there's a strongly likely-hood that if not herself then at least her family members have been targeted and victimised by the police themselves. I want you to think about that, really think about that.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794087]No I [B]ABSOLUTELY REFUSE[/B] to think that it's [B]REMOTELY FAIR[/B] to terminate him before the investigation concludes.[/QUOTE] I don't know why that's such a big deal. They would have only terminated him if there was reasonable suspicion that the shooting was unjustified, and if he is not guilty it's easy to reinstate him. Plus that would make the city council liable to be sued (if he is found to be justified), and I'm pretty sure that a local government can't easily afford being sued.

[QUOTE=niel12_5D;44794058]A dead 93 year old black woman is a failure on the part of the community and the police. Why would a woman like that have a gun in the first place? Was she mentally ill? Did she need services that the community couldn't provide? Did she feel unsafe and couldn't trust the police officers? These are the questions you should be asking.[/QUOTE] The video says she was mentally fine. She was pissed off because DPS refused to renew her drivers license. Her son took her home, and she had the gun because her son had taken her keys and wouldn't give them back. [QUOTE=niel12_5D;44794071]I don't know what you're talking about because I was responding to you saying it was easier for the officer to be dismissed.[/QUOTE] I'm saying what if the issue occurred again? What if another person gets pissed off and starts waving a gun around too? Do they just not shoot even if they are in danger? Being an officer isn't simply community service. An officer uses his job to help pay, for his family. If an officer can't do his job they way he's supposed to due to the threat of community outlast and wrongful termination, how can they effectively uphold the peace? In this situation, if they do their job, they lose their job. How is that fair? [QUOTE=niel12_5D;44794105]Either the police is supposed to always help you, or you cannot trust the police and need to carry your own weapons, not to mention there's a strongly likely-hood that if not herself then at least her family members have been targeted and victimised by the police themselves. I want you to think about that, really think about that.[/QUOTE] Her son was the on that called police, so I don't think he's too afraid of them since he was reliant on them. People carry weapons for home defense because police aren't super heroes. It actually takes them time to get to a house. You're leaping through hoops here to try and justify why this would happen, when simply someone with a weapon refused to listen to police. Whether they be white, black, asian, 12 years old, whatever, If someone fire a gun after police order you to drop it multiple times, you're going to be shot.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794099] At the end of the day, the law should be put above "community relations".[/QUOTE] ? Law's exist to protect community relations, without community relations you have no society. The only reason we have police is to protect the community relations with an impartial third-party. This is sociology 101. All police institutions exist to maintain community relations and harmonies so people can go to work, raise children, grow old etc. If the community feels unsafe and unable to do those things then the police institution isn't working along with whatever social situation is occurring.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794122]Or they would have terminated him because there was a bunch of really fucking pissed off people who could care less if the shooting was justified or not.[/QUOTE] I haven't read about any massive groups of citizens lobbying that city council, have you?

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;44794114]The video says she was mentally fine. She was pissed off because DPS refused to renew her drivers license. Her son took her home, and she had the gun because her son had taken her keys and wouldn't give them back.[/QUOTE] That doesn't seem mentally fine to me at all. [QUOTE=LittleDogX;44794114]I'm saying what if the issue occurred again? What if another person gets pissed off and starts waving a gun around too? Do they just not shoot even if they are in danger? Being an officer isn't simply community service. An officer uses his job to help pay, for his family. If an officer can't do his job they way he's supposed to due to the threat of community outlast and wrongful termination, how can they effectively uphold the peace? In this situation, if they do their job, they lose their job. How is that fair?[/QUOTE] It's not fair, but restoring community relationships isn't about being fair.

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;44794114] I'm saying what if the issue occurred again? What if another person gets pissed off and starts waving a gun around too? Do they just not shoot even if they are in danger?[/QUOTE] There are a number of different ways to deal with an armed, mentally ill person that don't involve closing to firefight distance and pointing a gun at them. The police call was made by a family member and the woman was in her own home so it's not like she was moving around and pointing her gun at random people on the street; sending regular officers to confront someone like that escalates the situation.

[QUOTE=niel12_5D;44794145]That doesn't seem mentally fine to me at all.[/QUOTE] Because people never do stupid things based on heat of the moment emotions? [QUOTE=niel12_5D;44794145]It's not fair, but restoring community relationships isn't about being fair.[/QUOTE] The "community relationships" were destroyed when cops now have to fear for losing their jobs when they attempt to help. Cops will be less willing to help in fear of losing their jobs. The community will blame them for not helping.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;44794162]There are a number of different ways to deal with an armed, mentally ill person that don't involve closing to firefight distance and pointing a gun at them. The police call was made by a family member and the woman was in her own home so it's not like she was moving around and pointing her gun at random people on the street; sending regular officers to confront someone like that escalates the situation.[/QUOTE] But she wasn't "in" her own home. Her and her son were arguing outside, then she went into the house and came back outside with the gun. She then fired 2 shots, and he returned fire.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794172]What's the point of having rule of law if you're not going to be fair? Why have the law only affect one group of people and not another. The basis of modern law IS being fair, and the community needs to realize that law exists TO BE FAIR, not to "only be fair when it's being applied to other groups, we deserve special treatment".[/QUOTE] I don't know what the basis of modern law is but the community can't realise anything either, it's not a cognitive agent. The point of having a rule of law is to codify how the community has dealt with things in the past. Fairness is often not a good basis for anything because people are always likely to find their own ideas of what's fair. [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] And I don't know what special treatment means because all groups require special treatment since they have their own unique social circumstances. You wouldn't expect a Native American community to have the same treatment as an average suburb, you'd destroy that community.

[QUOTE=niel12_5D;44794204]I don't know what the basis of modern law is but the community can't realise anything either, it's not a cognitive agent. The point of having a rule of law is to codify how the community has dealt with things in the past. Fairness is often not a good basis for anything because people are always likely to find their own ideas of what's fair.[/QUOTE] Then lets ignore "fair" and simply go by law. What he did was legal. What she did was illegal. What the City Council did is essentially wrongful termination. They are attempting to play the race, sex, and age cards against him, but they have no ground. The community is now slandering his name (which is illegal) simply due to their knee-jerk reaction. Not only all of that, he may now have issues in the future to find a job. A simple google search of his name would come up with "old black lady killer", and why would someone want to hire him? If they hire him, they may also be on the receiving end of "community outcry" since they hired the "old black lady killer".

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;44794235]Then lets ignore "fair" and simply go by law. What he did was legal. What she did was illegal. What the City Council did is essentially wrongful termination. They are attempting to play the race, sex, and age cards against him, but they have no ground. The community is now slandering his name (which is illegal) simply due to their knee-jerk reaction.[/QUOTE] Well I'm not a law-weenie, I'm a anthropo-weenie. I just wanted to say what I thought about the function of police in communities and why the Police will sometimes have to bear a responsibility in restoring the function of a community even if it's unfair.

I'm sure someone will interpret that as anti-police, but I know that we live in a centralised-state community and you need Police to make that function.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44794268]So it's OK to break the law, as long as it's going to make people feel good? [/QUOTE] I'm going to leave that up to other people who read my stuff and they can judge for themselves if I'd think that's okay. Please drop your myopic insistence of some kind of cosmic win of an argument, what I'm saying is kind-of cool to think and learn about; at least I think so.

[QUOTE=niel12_5D;44794252]Well I'm not a law-weenie, I'm a anthropo-weenie. I just wanted to say what I thought about the function of police in communities and why the Police will sometimes have to bear a responsibility in restoring the function of a community even if it's unfair.[/QUOTE] Just because a community thinks it's right doesn't mean it is. People thought they were right when they burned people at the stake. People thought they were right when they wanted Zimmerman charged for murder. Just because people think they are right, does not make it okay to punish that way. He have laws and courts for a reason.

I just realised, that sons last memory of his mother was her threatening him with a gun (and shooting). Like, fuck, what a horribly depressing last conversation/moment/memory.