In a situation like this, if you're not sure what the officers want you freeze.
Making a sudden, violent motion with guns pointed at you is asking for a bullet no matter who is pointing the gun at you.
-
Features
Another unarmed man killed by police
- Thread starter repoman
- Start date
In a situation like this, if you're not sure what the officers want you freeze.
Making a sudden, violent motion with guns pointed at you is asking for a bullet no matter who is pointing the gun at you.
Testy Calibrate
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 491
- Location
- a pretty sidestreet in Happiness
- Basic Beliefs
- complicated
I bet you will change your tune if you are ever confronted by the likes of Jerame Reid.
I kind of doubt it. I got a negative comment on that post by jimmy someone saying hate against an entire group is bad. I would just like to point out that this particular group is an armed military force which routinely abuses people with physical violence. The only thing that makes them a group is their willingness to commit violence on others.
Okay, Officer Dystopian, if you say so. I was trained by the military on how to handle firearms, but I am sure your police training is more applicable than mine.
I, too, was in the military. And military firearms training and police firearms training ought to be two different animals since the military has a different purpose than the police . . . or should anyways.
The military arrests POWs, the police arrest criminals. I would think the procedures would be similar.
untermensche
Contributor
Standing up with your hands visible and empty is not a violent motion.
And police are supposed to be trained professionals.
If a person thinks standing up with your hands raised is a violent motion they have no right wielding a gun in public.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Yet you felt compelled to state that we can believe the claim, because we have video of it. Video that you're now saying doesn't actually show that.
Yes, and then he steps aside and the door opens a second later instead of right away as would happen if the passenger was "slamming" the door into the cop.
No. I just see an attempt to open a door and a crazy person trying to prevent it.
The door does not open "as soon" as the cop removes his hand from the door. There's a noticeable if small delay. The cop certainly doesn't look like he's thrown off balance; and if he was... that again just further damns his actions as it's hugely irresponsible to open fire when there's other people who could be in the line of fire when you're still off balance (since the shots were fired just a second later). Certainly, a gun wielder who'se been thrown off balance couldn't possibly be able to guarantee his shots wouldn't hit either the driver or the other cop; which makes your previous attempt to justify the cop opening fire based on the vague notion that he might have a clear line of fire fall apart.
First of all, that's a timeframe of about half a second. There is no way you are ever going to convince me that it is reasonable for the cop to open fire because he couldn't see the the guy's hands for a grand total of 0.5 seconds even though immediately *after* this period, the guy had his empty hands in the air for the whole world to see. Not going to happen.
But he didn't, and the cop could clearly see so in the moment *after* the door opened.
And that is flat-out insane. This is why American law enforcement is the laughing stock of the world. And it is even more unbelievable in the eyes of the rest of the world that American cops have somehow been able to convince some people that this sort of thing is actually justified. Seriously, think about what you're doing here. You're saying that it is perfectly *justified* for a cop to shoot nine or more rounds at an unarmed man who had his empty hands in the air and who didn't pose an *actual* threat on the sole basis that the cop had already made the (wrong) decision that the guy was armed and so wasn't looking at the guy's empty hands."
Seriously, think about that. That's like Stockholm Syndrome level shit going on there. Nowhere else in the world do you see people trying to justify cops messing up in this way quite the way some Americans do.
Incidentally, by definition; for this to be a *justified* shooting, it would require there to have been an actual gun in one of those hands and the intent to use it. "I thought he had a gun" may rationalize the cop's actions (however incompetent), but it doesn't make it a justified shooting.
Excuse me, but at what point in that video was the guy being violent? Yes, he committed a violent felony in the past; so fucking what? He was not being violent when he was shot nine times.
Yeah, when he was a dumb kid 20 years ago. Again; he was not being violent here. No matter what his history; it does not excuse the cop's behavior or incompetence on display here.
Allegedly since contrary to your conclusion that's hardly an established fact.
Because A) he was given conflicting orders, because B) the cop threatened to fucking kill him, and because C) he quite understandably thought that if he got out and on the ground the cops might calm the fuck down instead of shouting at him that they were going to kill him.
Bullshit. There were *two* cops who *constantly* had their guns trained at him as he stepped out of the vehicle. Something which he did *with his hands in the air*; even if he did have a gun and intended to use it, the cops would have more than enough time to react the moment he'd lower his arm to point it at one of them.
Again; think about what you're doing here. You're saying that it's perfectly okay for a cop to empty his clip into someone based merely on the *suspicion* that he *might* have a gun. That is utterly ridiculous.
No, it's not equivalent because as we've already established; the cop could clearly see that there was no gun in those hands just a second later. But I guess if the cops treated *my* society the way that an abusive husband treats his battered housewife, I too might just not know any better than to pretend that it's okay for them to kill someone who has his empty hands in the air because, in your own words; "I think the cop made the decision to fire as soon as he backed away from the door, and he was justified to do so. He then took aim, and at that point he would be concentrating on where he is aiming. He may have never seen the passengers hands as he zeroed in on the target. This happened in seconds, and the passenger was shot before he had the chance to stand up completely."
Let's see; you think that criminals are so fucking stupid that they would actually get out in front of a couple of cops pointing their weapons at them with their empty hands in the air, only to then try and surprise them by lowering their hands and reaching behind to pull out a gun....
...and accuse me of a failure of imagination...
...but couldn't possibly imagine someone not following some of the incoherent screamed orders of gun-wielding cops threatening to kill them, while simultaneously trying follow some of the *other* incoherent orders that were shouted at them and calmly try to get out with their hands in the air while telling the cops that they're going to get down on the ground in order to try and defuse the situation. Because apparently only people intent on getting killed by the police could do something like that.
The military explicitly trains you to check your fucking targets before shooting them. This to prevent you from killing civilians and allies. So I'm confused as to what your point is. Are you claiming that the military does *not* train people to not recklessly endanger civilians and allies? Because that's simply false. Are you perhaps saying that law enforcement agencies do not? Because that would be mindboggingly absurd if true. Either way, pointing to the military doesn't refute my point; it only strengthens it. So maybe there's some other group of professionals with guns that *doesn't* train responsible target selection and awareness? Go on; I'm intensely curious what sort of "professional" group you can find that doesn't.
Cop shoots unarmed man nine times.
You: This was totally justified! I mean sure, he COULD have seen the dude was unarmed; but he couldn't do that because he had already decided to shoot the guy and then it got like tunnel-vision or something because I guess he was in the zone or something man so he couldn't see those empty hands because he was just concentrating being all pew-pew-pew.
Me: Yep, you're totally not leaping to that cop's defense or anything.
Sorry, but it absolutely *is* similar. It's the exact same debating tactic. Fundamentally there's no difference between someone saying; "My opinion that black people should shut the fuck up doesn't make me a racist because some of my best friends are black"; and someone saying "I'm unbiased when I'm trying to justify a cop shooting an unarmed man because I was arrested and convicted once (or however many times)."; it's the same tactic meant to convince people that your position is unbiased because it's somehow balanced out. It doesn't work that way.
Not being able to understand/acknowledge that many innocent people would react to the pressures of the situation the way that the guy in the video did *does* demonstrate a lack of empathy. Not being able to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes is pretty much the literal definition of the term "lack of empathy". So either you're lacking in empathy on account of the fact that you can't imagine why someone would behave that way; or you're refusing to acknowledge that you *can* imagine it because to do so would make the victim someone who'se more relateable; which is the result of having empathy but not liking how it feels and trying to supress said empathy.
Either one of those, or you're just denying it because you don't want to cede part of the argument.
1) Shoving the cop aside to get out of the car is definitely violent.
2) Anyway, in this case I was using "violent" to mean quick and forceful (9definition #1 or #3: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violent?s=t ), not necessarily attacking. Don't do *ANYTHING* suddenly when you're at gunpoint!
untermensche
Contributor
That cop was overly frightened because he knew the history and apparently found a gun.
But that is what tasers are for.
I thought we had entered the age of non-lethal alternatives for the cops.
If all he did was taze the guy nobody would have batted an eye.
No. Tasers are for overcoming resistance, not for self defense.
laughing dog
Contributor
Funny, that is not what taser manufacturers claim (see http://www.taser.com/ - there is a lives saved meter).
When you follow that link the associated video is where a cop used it to stop a suicide. The guy was no threat unless the officer intervened to save him.
laughing dog
Contributor
FFS, the "lives saved" meter exceeds 13,000. Are you seriously claiming that the vendor is implying that tasers have been used to prevent over 13,000 suicides? Really?
TacticalLoco
New member
Well it sure didn't take long for conspiracy theories. Shades of Vonderrit Myers or Antonio Martin.
Repeat after me Derec, "He was charging! He was charging!"
Oh, and you might as well chant Benghazi a few times for good measure.
I don't know what they are counting. All I know is their only example involved a suicide.
laughing dog
Contributor
That is false:
http://www.taser.com/videos/i-saved-a-life-with-a-taser/i-saved-a-life-with-a-taser-01.
There are multitudes of consumer reviews and testimonials (http://store.taser.com/taser-c2-p116.aspx?ShowReviews=True is but one link - each consumer product has such a link). Here is one testimonial
So it is obvious that tasers are marketed for self-defense purposes.
A weapon's purpose/effectiveness ratio can get highly subjective. A gun is far more effective than a tazer for self defense but the tazer is far better for a nonlethal solution. So law enforcement has to find the balance between safely subduing suspects and risk while doing so to the officers.
That 13,000 number probably comes from law enforcement personnel that are more on the hero side of the spectrum ie willing to risk their safety for the public good. Loren with his pro-authoritarian cop above all else can't conceive of the tazer being used unless there is no danger to the cops. To him its merely a compliance tool for non dangerous suspects. Despite the manufactures marketing it as more.
That 13,000 number probably comes from law enforcement personnel that are more on the hero side of the spectrum ie willing to risk their safety for the public good. Loren with his pro-authoritarian cop above all else can't conceive of the tazer being used unless there is no danger to the cops. To him its merely a compliance tool for non dangerous suspects. Despite the manufactures marketing it as more.
EPresence2
Member
It does seem a little crazy that the passenger would be reaching for a gun around his door while a gun was being trained on him. But it's also not unheard of during encounters with armed "suspects" with violent histories. Officer Day is clearly concerned every time the passenger lowers an arm to open the door. The passenger is also clearly pushing against the door while the officer is trying to keep it closed (with his offhand). The other officer isn't saying anything about what he sees with the gun light - can he see that the passenger isn't reaching for another gun? Of course he has to keep watching the driver. And it's pretty clearly a gun being thrown from the glove compartment.
Officer Day doesn't have a gun light to see more clearly what's in the passenger's hand when he quickly exits the vehicle after Day shuffles backward. There was very little time to think about why the passenger would insist on getting out of the vehicle despite being ordered not to. It could easily have been a ploy to get to another gun... by someone known to have shot at police in the past. The other officer was on the driver who was sticking his clearly empty hands out the window. The passenger seemed to have his mind made up to get out of the car while the officer seemed to have mind made up to shoot him if he did. The directive to not move and get hands in the air was abundantly clear. In the fraction of a second it took to check whether the exiting passenger had a gun, the officer could have been shot himself. That's probably all Day was thinking about. Should he have been thinking more? I really can't say for sure - how can you?
Some would prefer to risk shooting it out than go to jail. Remember, this is a guy who shot it out before.
Derec
Contributor
And he surely would be going back to prison as he isn't allowed to own a gun with his record.