[QUOTE=gastyne;48348478]Advocating for not murdering another human isn't dumb, what the hell[/QUOTE]
But hes not
[QUOTE=formatme;48349278]But hes not[/QUOTE]
Are you saying the cop did not murder the victim in this case?
Then how did he die and end up with a bullethole in his head?
[QUOTE=Flameon;48349186]Fine, an officer should be prepared to respond with force when they see a gun. But just becuse they have a sneaking suspicion that someone has a gun is not solid grounds for them to open fire.
He ran because he wanted to get away from the police. Thats it.
The officer wasn't left with much choice? He could have NOT SHOT HIM. He could have backed up, let go of the car. He could have not dived into the vehicle when he heard it started moving? You are commending the officer for 'defusing the situation'? Are you shitting me dude? you have no idea if this was gonna turn into a high-speed chase, and the pre-emptive attitude that we are giving police officers - that they can use lethal force BEFORE the situation turns dangerous is absolutely disgusting. By this logic, all criminals ought be shot on sight because who KNOWS what they might do when officers try to apprehend them. Maybe they have a knife hidden? Better be safe then sorry, so we better light them up!
Blaming him for getting shot is absurd. It is only the suspect's fault if you think that running from the police should carry with it a death sentence. yeah, he ran and didn't comply, that shouldn't be grounds to be murdered. It is a suspects choice to steal, or vandalize, or loiter - that doesn't mean I think killing them should be the appropriate response to those actions. Aparently you do?[/QUOTE]
I've already stated that I'm unsure if it was the right decision to simply shoot the guy. However, we need to understand that in America if you refuse to cooperate you escalate the situation and police officers are trained to use more force in escalating situations. Should he have been shot? Ideally no, but ideally he wouldn't have attempted to flee in the first place. That doesn't mean the shooting is correct but I also won't crucify a cop for doing his job. Stopping a dangerous situation. It's unfortunate someone died as a result but again, wouldn't have happened if he didn't run. Running from police only makes your life harder. Plus there are claims that the officer's arm was stuck in the car. What should you do in that situation? Politely ask the guy who has been uncooperative to stop?
If there was even the smallest chance he'd be dragged under the car, his life was sufficiently in danger and he was justified in the use of his weapon.
I will reiterate, NONE of this would have happened if the dude simply cooperated. Death is obviously not the answer, but when you have milliseconds to act and the decision can result in life or death, I can understand why the officer did what he did.
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;48347473]What's the point in closely looking at what both people did in this and that exact millisecond?
From a bigger perspective the black guy simply tried to bail and for some people in here that justifiably equals the death penalty.
At least that's what the people who argue in favor of the cop think is right.
In Europe a cop would only pull his gun when his own life is directly in danger (only reason: the criminal points a weapon at the policeman), so this entire scenario looks
fucked up from a european perspective.
How american cops handle everything with their gun is a horrid mentality in the first place and is the reason why shit like this happens.[/QUOTE]
In a country where people don't fight back or try to kill cops, I can see how your police would be less aggressive. Here in the US though that won't work. Here, [i]every[/i] car a cop pulls over has the potential to be carrying someone willing to kill that cop. This is why it's imperative people maintain their composure and cooperate. That way the cop can see you aren't a real threat.
A guy who is willing to start his car and try to drive away with a cop standing right there is definitely a threat. There's nothing a guy like that wouldn't do. There are plenty of videos on Liveleak proving the point, guys who run from cops will ram into and run over whoever they need to in order to get away.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;48349332]In a country where people don't fight back or try to kill cops, I can see how your police would be less aggressive. Here in the US though that won't work. Here, [i]every[/i] car a cop pulls over has the potential to be carrying someone willing to kill that cop. This is why it's imperative people maintain their composure and cooperate. That way the cop can see you aren't a real threat.
A guy who is willing to start his car and try to drive away with a cop standing right there is definitely a threat. There's nothing a guy like that wouldn't do. There are plenty of videos on Liveleak proving the point, guys who run from cops will ram into and run over whoever they need to in order to get away.[/QUOTE]
Basically this.
[QUOTE=gastyne;48349294]Are you saying the cop did not murder the victim in this case?
Then how did he die and end up with a bullethole in his head?[/QUOTE]
He got shot...
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;48349332]
[B][U]A guy who is willing to start his car and try to drive away with a cop standing right there is definitely a threat. There's nothing a guy like that wouldn't do[/U][/B]. There are plenty of videos on Liveleak proving the point, guys who run from cops will ram into and run over whoever they need to in order to get away.[/QUOTE]
Dude, how dare you. Seriously. This is exactly the problem!
"Oh Fuck if he is willing to run away from the police, he must also be willing to MURDER innocents/police! Since running away from police reveals that hes a threat to be, we absolutely need to shoot him NOW so he doesn't shoot us later!"
RUNNING AWAY FROM THE POLCE =/= INTENT TO DO VIOLENCE. They aren't even compareable. And it exactly this 'cops vs the world' mentality which justifies this bullshit! Yes, being a police officer is difficult. NO, not everyone you pull over wants you dead so stop THREATENING / TAKING LIVES for no reason!
[QUOTE=Flameon;48349577]Dude, how dare you. Seriously. This is exactly the problem!
"Oh Fuck if he is willing to run away from the police, he must also be willing to MURDER innocents/police! Since running away from police reveals that hes a threat to be, we absolutely need to shoot him NOW so he doesn't shoot us later!"
RUNNING AWAY FROM THE POLCE =/= INTENT TO DO VIOLENCE. They aren't even compareable. And it exactly this 'cops vs the world' mentality which justifies this bullshit! Yes, being a police officer is difficult. NO, not everyone you pull over wants you dead so stop THREATENING / TAKING LIVES for no reason![/QUOTE]
Ok, can we just agree that nobody is in the right here? Otherwise we'll be arguing in circles for the next 10 pages. I think we're in agreeance here. A gun should never be pulled unless it's the absolute last resort. But likewise, don't run from police just cause you don't like them. Save you grievances for the courtroom where you can make your case on why the police are so full of shit.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;48349295]I've already stated that I'm unsure if it was the right decision to simply shoot the guy. However, we need to understand that in America if you refuse to cooperate you escalate the situation and police officers are trained to use more force in escalating situations. Should he have been shot? Ideally no, but ideally he wouldn't have attempted to flee in the first place. That doesn't mean the shooting is correct but I also won't crucify a cop for doing his job. Stopping a dangerous situation. It's unfortunate someone died as a result but again, wouldn't have happened if he didn't run. Running from police only makes your life harder. Plus there are claims that the officer's arm was stuck in the car. What should you do in that situation? Politely ask the guy who has been uncooperative to stop?
If there was even the smallest chance he'd be dragged under the car, his life was sufficiently in danger and he was justified in the use of his weapon.
I will reiterate, NONE of this would have happened if the dude simply cooperated. Death is obviously not the answer, but when you have milliseconds to act and the decision can result in life or death, I can understand why the officer did what he did.[/QUOTE]
I also can understand WHY the officer did what he did, and thats also exactly why I'm CONDMENING IT. Given the fucked up logic police officers are trained in (and also the logic people in this spread are spewing) I can understand how running away can be thought of as a threat. That doesn't mean it IS A THREAT, and thats also why we need to reform the police and raise the threshold for when they can do lethal force. Just because you understand his logic doesn't mean you can't CONDEMN IT. I also understand the logic that goes behind people that join ISIS, I know *why* they do it, they have reasons. I can still DISAGREE just as you should in this case.
Saying none of this would have happened if the dude cooperated is a cop-out. You are right, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime which is exactly what this discussion is about. Yes, he deserved to be punished for running from the police. NO, that punishment should not have been death! Stop with this line of arguement because it is begging the question.
Also his arm was stuck in the car? Bullshit dude, after he shot the guy he managed to get his arm out! This is just an alibi police officers are trying to use to make the shooting credible. But even IF, EVEN IF HIS ARM WAS STUCK IN THE CAR: why does that warrant shooting the driver?? That doesn't even make any sense! That fact that the officer could decide in 1 second to use lethal force is the problem.
[editline]1st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;48349603]Ok, can we just agree that nobody is in the right here? Otherwise we'll be arguing in circles for the next 10 pages. I think we're in agreeance here. A gun should never be pulled unless it's the absolute last resort. But likewise, don't run from police just cause you don't like them. Save you grievances for the courtroom where you can make your case on why the police are so full of shit.[/QUOTE]
Obviously people shouldn't run from the police. People also shouldn't commit crimes! But the focus we need to prioritize here is that a life was taken for a stupid reason (running from the police). that is what should give us anger, because the impact was much more severe.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48349577]"Oh Fuck if he is willing to run away from the police, he must also be willing to MURDER innocents/police!"[/QUOTE]
This is objectively true though, even if the person running refuses to accept it; unless he plans on obeying every traffic law while "running" then he is willing to accept the very real risk of killing bystanders, police, or themselves. Because, shockingly, breaking traffic laws while fleeing from police endangers the lives of everyone in the area.
Good read: [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/30/police-pursuits-fatal-injuries/30187827/[/url]
Which is why this attitude confuses me:
[QUOTE=Flameon;48349186]The officer wasn't left with much choice? He could have NOT SHOT HIM. He could have backed up, let go of the car. He could have not dived into the vehicle when he heard it started moving? You are commending the officer for 'defusing the situation'?[/quote]
Given the alternative was a pursuit, attempting to stop it by turning off the vehicle was attempting to "defusing the situation". That attempted failed and the officer was (supposedly) was stuck being dragged by the vehicle, so he shot the person. He didn't "dive" into the vehicle and shoot the guy point blank right to start with.
[quote]Are you shitting me dude? you have no idea if this was gonna turn into a high-speed chase.[/QUOTE]
Uhh? So he's just going to drive around obeying traffic laws while the police follow him around? Not to say that hasn't happened before, but to act like such cases are the rule, and not the rare exception, is disingenuous. Also, it doesn't have to be "high speed" to be dangerous, driving through red lights at 30 MPH is still very dangerous.
[QUOTE=gastyne;48349294]Are you saying the cop did not murder the victim in this case?
Then how did he die and end up with a bullethole in his head?[/QUOTE]
In America, there's a very clear definition of murder "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.", which I suspect the prosecutor will have a very hard job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt for this case. Manslaughter, which is "the unlawful killing of a human being without malice." seems more fitting, if you consider the officer's actions unlawful.
Side note: the murder happened in Ohio. You are citing federal law. In Ohio, Murder is: "No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy."
[url]http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.02[/url]
DaMasterz did you even read the thing you linked me?
1.) It says the vast majority of deaths in a police chase are the drivers
2.) It says the second most common fatality is the passanger in the driver's vehicle
3.) The entire article is making a plea why officers should not engage in police chases at all... "Recent cases show the danger of the longstanding police practice of chasing minor offenders."
This article isn't making a case that police officers should pre-emptively end a police chase by terminating the driver with lethal force before a chase starts - how you got that from this article is absolutely beyond me.
[quote]That attempted failed and the officer was (supposedly) was stuck being dragged by the vehicle, so he shot the person. He didn't "dive" into the vehicle and shoot the guy point blank right to start with.[/quote]
Two seconds after his hand is in the vehicle Debose is shot in the head. It is pretty damn close to diving in and shooting him point blank.
IF HE WAS BEING DRAGGED, WHY WOULD SHOOTING DEBOSE RESOLVE THAT?!?! This doesn't make any SENSE. The officer got pissed that Debose didn't follow his order or he (somehow??) thought his life as in danger so he shot him. In either case, the officer took it upon himself to inflict the penalty of death for a chicken-shit crime (driving without a license + resisting arrest).
[editline]1st August 2015[/editline]
Did you even read the article you linked me?..
[img]http://imgur.com/uohd0IR.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Flameon;48350280]Side note: the murder happened in Ohio. You are citing federal law. In Ohio, Murder is: "No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy."
[URL]http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.02[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Ah, my bad.
[quote]
DaMasterz did you even read the thing you linked me?
1.) It says the vast majority of deaths in a police chase are the drivers
2.) It says the second most common fatality is the passanger in the driver's vehicle
3.) The entire article is making a plea why officers should not engage in police chases at all... "Recent cases show the danger of the longstanding police practice of chasing minor offenders."[/quote]
I'll agree with 1 and 2, as those are facts based on statistics; with the third, the article is just presenting information about the current situation, the dangers of pursuits, and what police departments are doing in an attempt to reduce pursuit related fatalities.
[quote]
This article isn't making a case that police officers should pre-emptively end a police chase by terminating the driver with lethal force before a chase starts - how you got that from this article is absolutely beyond me.
[/quote]
I understand that, and my point of linking it wasn't "police should preempt chases by 'terminating the driver'", it was chases are dangerous and ideally should be stopped before they start, which is why the officer's attempt to turn off the vehicle had merit.
Note that:
[quote]Fleeing drivers typically continue speeding for a minute or two after police stop their chase, studies show.[/quote]
[quote]"I thought to myself, it's not enough that we have a policy that tells our officers to terminate pursuits when they become unsafe. That was the industry standard," Flynn said. "I needed an extra line to stop the pursuit in the first place, not because the officers were driving recklessly, but because we can't control the behavior for those who refuse to stop for police."[/quote]
Also, the problem in this case remains:
[quote]"We don't know that the person in that car is just speeding or just had a headlight out ... [or] if they had just committed a felony,"[/quote]
[quote]
Two seconds after his hand is in the vehicle Debose is shot in the head. It is pretty damn close to diving in and shooting him point blank.
[/quote]
I don't see what the span of time has to do with this; if the original intent was to turn off the vehicle, and in two seconds that had failed and the officer is being dragged, how would that happening over more time change anything?
[quote]
IF HE WAS BEING DRAGGED, WHY WOULD SHOOTING DEBOSE RESOLVE THAT?!?!
[/quote]
He didn't have many options at that point; doing nothing wasn't going to change anything, shooting might (and did).
[quote]
Did you even read the article you linked me?..
[/quote]
Did you? [quote]A device that shoots a small, adhesive GPS tag onto a car exterior was introduced for police in 2010, but [B]is used by only 20 of the nation's 18,000[/B] police departments.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Tone Float;48327000]"Didn't want to be searched for whatever reason"? Do you default to wanting to be searched?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but most people won't actively take steps against being searched.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48350280]Side note: the murder happened in Ohio. You are citing federal law. In Ohio, Murder is: "No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy."
[URL]http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.02[/URL]
DaMasterz did you even read the thing you linked me?
1.) It says the vast majority of deaths in a police chase are the drivers
2.) It says the second most common fatality is the passanger in the driver's vehicle
3.) The entire article is making a plea why officers should not engage in police chases at all... "Recent cases show the danger of the longstanding police practice of chasing minor offenders."
This article isn't making a case that police officers should pre-emptively end a police chase by terminating the driver with lethal force before a chase starts - how you got that from this article is absolutely beyond me.
Two seconds after his hand is in the vehicle Debose is shot in the head. It is pretty damn close to diving in and shooting him point blank.
IF HE WAS BEING DRAGGED, WHY WOULD SHOOTING DEBOSE RESOLVE THAT?!?! This doesn't make any SENSE. The officer got pissed that Debose didn't follow his order or he (somehow??) thought his life as in danger so he shot him. In either case, the officer took it upon himself to inflict the penalty of death for a chicken-shit crime (driving without a license + resisting arrest).
[editline]1st August 2015[/editline]
Did you even read the article you linked me?..
[/QUOTE]
Top it under perspective
Actions of the driver
a) Disobeyed direct order from a cop\
b) Turned on the engine and was obviously trying to get away
c) floored the engine
After which he was shot. That's actually a very legitimate action from the cop, due to how potentially said driver can be.
As to those tag devices - they're great when you're tagging someone for something relatively unimportant, where they aren't already endangering traffic all around them. Tagging someone who's already a danger won't stop them from being dangerous on the road though.
I dont even know whats going on in this thread anymore its so off track
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48326855]So because a criminal is going to flee cops pull out weapons? That's kinda scary to think about.[/QUOTE]
Philly last year saw three officers killed by people using cars.
[editline]1st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Flameon;48349577]Dude, how dare you. Seriously. This is exactly the problem!
"Oh Fuck if he is willing to run away from the police, he must also be willing to MURDER innocents/police! Since running away from police reveals that hes a threat to be, we absolutely need to shoot him NOW so he doesn't shoot us later!"
RUNNING AWAY FROM THE POLCE =/= INTENT TO DO VIOLENCE. They aren't even compareable. And it exactly this 'cops vs the world' mentality which justifies this bullshit! Yes, being a police officer is difficult. NO, not everyone you pull over wants you dead so stop THREATENING / TAKING LIVES for no reason![/QUOTE]
Actually no, for the most part the bigger danger is that someone will get injured during the chase or the driver themselves will be killed. It seems counterintutiative but the priority is prevent collateral damage.
bit late to the discussion but after watching the video the officer just grabbed the drivers left arm after he turned on the ignition and shot him?.. Really?... I mean I could potentially understand if the driver was reaching down or between the seats but he wasn't.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;48350070]This is objectively true though, even if the person running refuses to accept it; unless he plans on obeying every traffic law while "running" then he is willing to accept the very real risk of killing bystanders, police, or themselves. Because, shockingly, breaking traffic laws while fleeing from police endangers the lives of everyone in the area.
Good read: [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/30/police-pursuits-fatal-injuries/30187827/[/url]
Which is why this attitude confuses me:
Given the alternative was a pursuit, attempting to stop it by turning off the vehicle was attempting to "defusing the situation". That attempted failed and the officer was (supposedly) was stuck being dragged by the vehicle, so he shot the person. He didn't "dive" into the vehicle and shoot the guy point blank right to start with.
Uhh? So he's just going to drive around obeying traffic laws while the police follow him around? Not to say that hasn't happened before, but to act like such cases are the rule, and not the rare exception, is disingenuous. Also, it doesn't have to be "high speed" to be dangerous, driving through red lights at 30 MPH is still very dangerous.
[/QUOTE]
Slow speed chases do happen all the time where the suspect refuses to stop
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;48351112]
As to those tag devices - they're great when you're tagging someone for something relatively unimportant, where they aren't already endangering traffic all around them. Tagging someone who's already a danger won't stop them from being dangerous on the road though.[/QUOTE]
I doubt most would keep driving like an asshole for long if all the cops just disappeared and pulled away.. Eventually he would try to hide
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
Also I'm not really taking a stance on this situation because theres too much gray area but I would like to remind everyone that when a vehicle is operated unsafely (e.g starting the vehicle and flooring it with someone's limbs in the window) it unfortunately does become a weapon.
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;48353632]Its nice to see that so many people are experts on reading people's intentions through a shaky video and are able to actively forget about hindsight bias.[/QUOTE]
But he should've just shot the gun from the victims hands!!11
Ok guys, we all have to accept that arguing with flareon is like talking to a brick walls, and gystine or whatever is just as dense too. I'd say they are very dedicated trolls.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;48351112]Yeah, but most people won't actively take steps against being searched.
Top it under perspective
Actions of the driver
a) Disobeyed direct order from a cop\
b) Turned on the engine and was obviously trying to get away
c) floored the engine
After which he was shot. That's actually a very legitimate action from the cop, due to how potentially said driver can be.
As to those tag devices - they're great when you're tagging someone for something relatively unimportant, where they aren't already endangering traffic all around them. Tagging someone who's already a danger won't stop them from being dangerous on the road though.[/QUOTE]
Just because the guy disobeyed a police officer and tried to get the fuck out of danger, DOES NOT enable the officer to shoot the guy.
Clearly he was trying to flee, clearly he was not being violent or hostile towards the officer. Yet the officer still decided to draw his weapon, aim at the victim and fire the rounds. This means he removed the safety (so we can rule out "The car taking off forced him to fire a shot". He was intending to shoot because he had the gun ready to fire and was taking active aim.)
I CLEARLY saw the guy reach for the shifter and the keys. I heard the ignition time and I KNEW he was not hostile but fleeing.
Straight up. The officer was in the wrong.
American Police Officers should not carry weapons in my opinion, unless special circumstances permit. I know the argument that many Americans have guns and therefore it would paint the cops as easy targets, but that's what you get with the hate they've garnered.
If police acted like what they were supposed to be, civil servants and keepers of the peace, then they would approach situations with a LOT more tact and respect. Every personal encounter with a cop has been awkward, tense, or down right disappointing.
If they don't know if I have a gun and all they have is a taser, spray, nightstick; Then they're going to work much harder to be your public #1.
I have no problem with SWAT and special forces operating strictly with weapons. But the common Patrol/Street cop? Yes. Too many untrained hot-heads who get drunk on power and sick on society.
Resisting arrest should not automatically equal capital punishment on the spot.
[QUOTE=Keys;48356287]Just because the guy disobeyed a police officer and tried to get the fuck out of danger, DOES NOT enable the officer to shoot the guy.
Clearly he was trying to flee, clearly he was not being violent or hostile towards the officer. Yet the officer still decided to draw his weapon, aim at the victim and fire the rounds. This means he removed the safety (so we can rule out "The car taking off forced him to fire a shot". He was intending to shoot because he had the gun ready to fire and was taking active aim.)
I CLEARLY saw the guy reach for the shifter and the keys. I heard the ignition time and I KNEW he was not hostile but fleeing.
Straight up. The officer was in the wrong.
American Police Officers should not carry weapons in my opinion, unless special circumstances permit. I know the argument that many Americans have guns and therefore it would paint the cops as easy targets, but that's what you get with the hate they've garnered.
If police acted like what they were supposed to be, civil servants and keepers of the peace, then they would approach situations with a LOT more tact and respect. Every personal encounter with a cop has been awkward, tense, or down right disappointing.
If they don't know if I have a gun and all they have is a taser, spray, nightstick; Then they're going to work much harder to be your public #1.
I have no problem with SWAT and special forces operating strictly with weapons. But the common Patrol/Street cop? Yes. Too many untrained hot-heads who get drunk on power and sick on society.[/QUOTE]
I like how you're suggesting criminals should have the right to attempt to flee, and that all cops deserve to be disarmed and killed because of "the hate they've garnered." :incredible: Also, if all of your encounters with police have been "awkward, tense, or down right disappointing," maybe you're the problem not them.
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Olanov;48356375]Resisting arrest should not automatically equal capital punishment on the spot.[/QUOTE]
Resisting arrest shouldn't be done. Nobody gets shot for complying.
[QUOTE=Olanov;48356375]Resisting arrest should not automatically equal capital punishment on the spot.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, how dare the cops bring out a judge and jury and have a trial to give him the death penalty on the spot?????
[QUOTE=shad0w440;48333444]Have you ever seen a high speed chase where someone running from law enforcement stops at a stop light?, All the ones I see they always attempt to drive around obstacles if they even slow down at all.
Not to mention 65 years ago the idea of an officer NOT drawing their weapon on an unarmed detained civilian that chose to run was more or less unheard of.
If people simply cooperated there would be no need for lethal force to factor into the interaction at all. The only difference nowadays is people feel that arguing with police or resisting detainment is somehow going to work out for them, if you think you did nothing wrong we have a place for you to talk about that, a courthouse. Not to mention bodycams can support a civilians argument just as much as it can an officers in a peaceful arrest without any incidents.
If you HAVE to absolutely blame someone for how police handle situations, blame the trigger happy criminals through the years that warranted and justified the need for such drastic sounding measures to be taken to ensure the safety of the officer.[/QUOTE]
that's why there are almost no highspeed chases in the other civilized countries of the world
[QUOTE=Apache249;48356382]Resisting arrest shouldn't be done. Nobody gets shot for complying.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it absolutely shouldn't be done but that's not to say they should get shot on the spot either.
[QUOTE=Apache249;48356382]
Resisting arrest shouldn't be done. Nobody gets shot for complying.[/QUOTE]
ok yes but that has nothing to do with being shot
The sad reality of the matter is that when you choose to resist in any way, you are voluntarily putting your priority of life below that of everyone else.
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killuah;48356440]ok yes but that has nothing to do with being shot[/QUOTE]
Actually it has everything to do with it. He wasn't shot for resisting, but he wouldn't even have been in that situation if he hadn't resisted. He made a conscious decision to resist, therefore putting his own life in danger. You could say that the officer made the conscious decision to endanger the man's life by drawing his weapon, but then you'd be excusing the man of his own actions, suggesting that it's okay to resist, when it isn't.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48356440]ok yes but that has nothing to do with being shot[/QUOTE]
"The nuance of the situation doesn't matter because it doesn't fully support my position."
[QUOTE=Apache249;48356466]Actually it has everything to do with it. He wasn't shot for resisting, but he wouldn't even have been in that situation if he hadn't resisted. He made a conscious decision to resist, therefore putting his own life in danger. You could say that the officer made the conscious decision to endanger the man's life by drawing his weapon, but then you'd be excusing the man of his own actions, suggesting that it's okay to resist, when it isn't.[/QUOTE]
wtf
I don't think anyone's here excusing the guy for resisting arrest, but the dude in no way posed a clear or an imminent threat to the cop. It doesn't justify getting his brains blown out.
[QUOTE=Olanov;48356583]wtf
I don't think anyone's here excusing the guy for resisting arrest, but the dude in no way posed a clear or an imminent threat to the cop. It doesn't justify getting his brains blown out.[/QUOTE]
Funny, if you search this thread for indictment there is only one person saying it was completely justified and should have no punishment. Pretty sure no one is saying shooting the gun was the right decision, it was just a reflex due to circumstance.
His arm was stuck in the damm car, so when the car jetted off, he could have been run over AKA serious body harm/death
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
