Wisconin police officer shoots and kills unarmed 19 yr old black man

[ksen]

Then they're idiots even more deserving of our derision.

 

[KeepTalking]

How does this even remotely address what you quoted?

The point is that you focus on "unarmed"--and the reality is that cops do not consider any hand to hand fight to be armed because their gun could be taken.

The simple solution there would be to not hand out guns to every cop.

 

[laughing dog]

How does this even remotely address what you quoted?

The point is that you focus on "unarmed"--and the reality is that cops do not consider any hand to hand fight to be armed because their gun could be taken.

And this automatically justifies the shooting to death of an unarmed person because....?

 

[Derec]

Did he know the guy was a police officer?

Well maybe he thought he was a male stripper in a policeman costume.

What circumstance allowed the officer into the house?

Pursuing a suspect.

The question was had he committed a crime when the Police responded. Your response was he committed one before. That is a crap answer.

It was one of the things that he did wrong. I listed others. Apparently you do not think anything he did was actually wrong.

I'm worried about an unannounced officer breaking into a home... like my home. And when I'm defending what I think is an invasion, I get shot and killed.

Then I suggest you do not do what this guy did before he fled to his apartment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well maybe he thought he was a male stripper in a policeman costume.

If someone breaks into your home, isn't the best defense a stealth offense... not a step out and size up the guy?

What circumstance allowed the officer into the house?

Pursuing a suspect.

Not according to the officer.

The question was had he committed a crime when the Police responded. Your response was he committed one before. That is a crap answer.

It was one of the things that he did wrong. I listed others. Apparently you do not think anything he did was actually wrong.

OK, so all previous history is well known to the officer? Otherwise, your response is bunk.

I'm worried about an unannounced officer breaking into a home... like my home. And when I'm defending what I think is an invasion, I get shot and killed.

Then I suggest you do not do what this guy did before he fled to his apartment.

And if a cop goes into the wrong home? Goodness you give police officers a huge chunk of leeway without knowing bunk.

 

[Derec]

If someone breaks into your home, isn't the best defense a stealth offense... not a step out and size up the guy?

And you run a danger that you assault a police officer. Especially if you had just come back from committing crimes because that makes it more likely the "intruder" is a cop.

Not according to the officer.

Huh?

OK, so all previous history is well known to the officer? Otherwise, your response is bunk.

Doesn't have to be. We discussed that before where your side (always blame police) wants to discount the criminal and/or violent history of the person who was killed by the police. But Tony's history of violent crime does two things for us
- it tells us something about the man and his character. I.e. his predisposition to violent crime makes it more likely he gave the cop sufficient reason to shoot
- he was on probation and getting arrested meant he was going back to prison on the armed robbery charge. That gives him a strong motive to attack the cop.

And if a cop goes into the wrong home? Goodness you give police officers a huge chunk of leeway without knowing bunk.

Except that he didn't. So leave this for the tragic cases where there is a mistake because that is not the case here.
By the way, are you still insisting that Tony did nothing wrong?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And you run a danger that you assault a police officer.

Yeah, so you aren't safe in your home from the police then?

Especially if you had just come back from committing crimes because that makes it more likely the "intruder" is a cop.

So now Americans need the power of omniscience to be safe in their homes especially if the police may think that you have committed a crime.

OK, so all previous history is well known to the officer? Otherwise, your response is bunk.

Doesn't have to be.

*bangs head on wall*

We discussed that before where your side (always blame police)...

I don't always blame the police officer. If you paid any attention you'd know that. My question in this from the beginning was whether the officer made his identity clear. If not, he is not only responsible for the assault against him, but also for the resulting shooting death. If he did make his identity clear, then the officer was allegedly assaulted and then used self defense in what could be deemed a justified shooting. The crucial thing is was he clearly identifying himself. You don't seem to think that matters. You just want to make this about race, because you aren't racist or anything, you just like bringing it up... and anyone who isn't lockstep with you are a bunch of reverse racists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For those who think an unarmed man is no threat to a cop with a gun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXanA17uQ9I

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For those who think an unarmed man is no threat to a cop with a gun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXanA17uQ9I

Lethal force if the officer's life is in danger and there are no other viable options. This is the bar. Is it that hard to understand?

 

[laughing dog]

For those who think an unarmed man is no threat to a cop with a gun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXanA17uQ9I

Is there any evidence that this is relevant to this specific situation?

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you notice in the video Loren posted the guy tries to remove the officers gun and fails? Police holsters are designed to make it virtually impossible for anyone other than the person wearing the holster to remove the weapon. Of course Loren has been informed of this but keeps bringing up that the officer's gun can be taken. That can happen only if the officer has already pulled the weapon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For those who think an unarmed man is no threat to a cop with a gun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXanA17uQ9I

Is there any evidence that this is relevant to this specific situation?

The point is she was taken down with multiple broken bones because she didn't shoot.

 

[laughing dog]

Is there any evidence that this is relevant to this specific situation?

The point is she was taken down with multiple broken bones because she didn't shoot.

There is mo female officer in the OP. Why do you think your example is relevant in this situation? Do you have even an iota of evidence this young man was trying to get this officer's weapon? Because if you don't, your example is irrelevant.

 

[PyramidHead]

Is there any evidence that this is relevant to this specific situation?

The point is she was taken down with multiple broken bones because she didn't shoot.

A cop with broken bones is a better outcome than a dead teenager, all other things being equal. And at this point, we don't have enough information to assume all else wasn't equal.

 

[Derec]

So now Americans need the power of omniscience to be safe in their homes especially if the police may think that you have committed a crime.

You are assuming the police officer didn't announce himself as such. Also, he was in uniform.

*bangs head on wall*

I am tempted to do the same over your refusal to understand that his history of violent crime is relevant here.

I don't always blame the police officer. If you paid any attention you'd know that.

No? Why then do you keep insisting that the dead guy did nothing wrong, when there is plenty he did wrong?

My question in this from the beginning was whether the officer made his identity clear. If not, he is not only responsible for the assault against him, but also for the resulting shooting death.

I see no evidence that he didn't/ Why then speculate to that effect when we have plenty of evidence that the dead guy did wrong, and no evidence that the police officer did anything wrong.

If he did make his identity clear, then the officer was allegedly assaulted and then used self defense in what could be deemed a justified shooting. The crucial thing is was he clearly identifying himself. You don't seem to think that matters.

It's not that I don't think it matters, but that there is no indication that he didn't identify himself. The only reason to speculate in that direction is bias against the police, especially when the dead guy is a convicted armed robber on probation who assaulted two people before fleeing to the apartment.

You just want to make this about race, because you aren't racist or anything, you just like bringing it up... and anyone who isn't lockstep with you are a bunch of reverse racists.

It's actually laughing dog who made it all about race by titling his OP the way he did. But thanks for playing.

Btw, do you still think the dead guy did nothing wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

A cop with broken bones is a better outcome than a dead teenager, all other things being equal. And at this point, we don't have enough information to assume all else wasn't equal.

Nonsense. Police officers do not give up their right to self defense just by being a cop. We would not even expect a civilian to endure broken bones before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense, so why should a police officer be required to?

 

[Sarpedon]

Lethal force if the officer's life is in danger and there are no other viable options.

Or member of the public!

kthxbye

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are assuming the police officer didn't announce himself as such. Also, he was in uniform.

Am I?

If the officer failed to clearly note who he was...

That was my first post in the thread. It is the second post, hard to miss.

I don't always blame the police officer. If you paid any attention you'd know that.

No? Why then do you keep insisting that the dead guy did nothing wrong, when there is plenty he did wrong?

Where did I say the man killed did nothing wrong? All I have noted is that no crimes have been established yet, just allegations. Why is it that a rape accusation receives the most stringent of questioning from you, but any other crime seems to be "well, if they claim it was an assault it must have been"?

My question in this from the beginning was whether the officer made his identity clear. If not, he is not only responsible for the assault against him, but also for the resulting shooting death.

I see no evidence that he didn't/

That'd be a god in the gaps thing. The issue I raised, which is the crux of whether the killed man was defending himself or intentionally assaulting an officer, is entirely unaddressed.

Why then speculate to that effect when we have plenty of evidence that the dead guy did wrong, and no evidence that the police officer did anything wrong.

Because it is a reasonable interpretation of the events that occurred. Why did the person attack the officer? Because he didn't know he was an officer. Very well could have gone the other way, and he knowingly attacked an officer. And once again we are left with a situation where we have a single officer doing the job of what multiple officers should have been involved with. There was no reason for him to do this alone. Wait for backup and then try and get the person. Only enter the home if you strongly suspect there is trouble inside.

If he did make his identity clear, then the officer was allegedly assaulted and then used self defense in what could be deemed a justified shooting. The crucial thing is was he clearly identifying himself. You don't seem to think that matters.

It's not that I don't think it matters, but that there is no indication that he didn't identify himself.

The evidence would be that he was attacked by the person that was killed. It is one of two likely possibilities.

You just want to make this about race, because you aren't racist or anything, you just like bringing it up... and anyone who isn't lockstep with you are a bunch of reverse racists.

Btw, do you still think the dead guy did nothing wrong?

Has it been established that he did assault two people?

 

[Nexus]

The point is she was taken down with multiple broken bones because she didn't shoot.

Did you even listen to the video? It explains right there her mistakes. She didn't keep a safe distance and was sucker punched by a much stronger opponent. She told him to place his hands on the car to either search him or arrest him. And he turns a sucker punches her. Basically you're arguing police should shoot at any hint of aggression because he wasn't physically combative until his first devastating strike.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The point is she was taken down with multiple broken bones because she didn't shoot.

Did you even listen to the video? It explains right there her mistakes. She didn't keep a safe distance and was sucker punched by a much stronger opponent. She told him to place his hands on the car to either search him or arrest him. And he turns a sucker punches her. Basically you're arguing police should shoot at any hint of aggression because he wasn't physically combative until his first devastating strike.

Actually, why even pull them over, just drive them off the road and kill them in a car accident like those jerk cops in Need for Speed Most Wanted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is she was taken down with multiple broken bones because she didn't shoot.

A cop with broken bones is a better outcome than a dead teenager, all other things being equal. And at this point, we don't have enough information to assume all else wasn't equal.

That's not how the law sees it. A civilian would have been legal in shooting to avoid the level of harm incurred in that video.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is she was taken down with multiple broken bones because she didn't shoot.

Did you even listen to the video? It explains right there her mistakes. She didn't keep a safe distance and was sucker punched by a much stronger opponent. She told him to place his hands on the car to either search him or arrest him. And he turns a sucker punches her. Basically you're arguing police should shoot at any hint of aggression because he wasn't physically combative until his first devastating strike.

Yeah, she made a big mistake. That doesn't change the fact that she was taken down by an unarmed opponent.