Anti-police protesters don't care about facts: Salt Lake City edition

[laughing dog]

It's in the DA's report, for fuck's sake!

FFS - it is based on the word of the police.

As I said, using the most broad sense of the word yes. But in the context of a criminal investigation, it is misleading as in this context "victim" refers to victims of a crime. Which BPC wasn't.

It is intellectually dishonest to deny BPC was a victim.

I do not. Do you? And these relations are irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified.

They relevant to the reactions and motivations of the protesters. We don't know the shooting was justified because there was no independent investigation.

If the case was controversial, I'd say good idea. But the perp was armed and refused to drop it. Therefore there is no need.

Of course there is need. An independent investigation from a disinterested party is likely to regain the trust of the police when the investigation confirms the police story. And when it does not, then the officers are likely to face disciplinary action or criminal charges. In either case, it helps to community to regain trust in the system, process and the police.

We need to get away from the idea that an angry violent mob should dictate official actions or affect investigations.

And we need to get away from swallowing police reports whole.

What makes him a "person of color"? Why is he entitled to the privileged "person of color" status but George Zimmerman was dismissed as "white" by the media and activists?

The fact he was a person of color. Duh.

So you admit that whether a shooting is justified matters not one but to the anti-police rioters. They just hate police.

I am saying that
1) "justified" is in the eye of the beholder, especially when the justification comes from a party with a clear conflict of interest, and
2) the anti-police protesters distrust the police.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only context necessary is bodies on the ground. Much like I keep saying, this is all the more reason that people in charge of law and order and peace in society should not be more ready to shoot someone than an actual soldier.

Which is why an awful lot of us don't think much of BLM.

It's not about bodies on the ground, it's about whether the police were acting properly.

Sorry, but this loser pointed a gun at the cops after committing an armed robbery. That's a mistake you generally only make once.

 

[TSwizzle]

It takes far less energy to shoot than to continue running.

He was far more intent on running than he was on shooting.

He certainly had no intention of giving up, which is why he made sure to pick up the gun when he dropped it.

As I said, he most likely would have had to give up when he couldn’t run any longer due to exhaustion. He could barely walk never mind run.

News flash: human beings are animals. And especially in stressful situations, like being cornered or wounded, we tend to act on that animal instinct.

Flight or fight and BCP was definitely in the former.

If BCP wanted to give up because he was exhausted from running a couple of blocks (he was 22, why such low stamina?) all he had to do was not pick up the dropped gun and raise his hands and surrender. But he didn't want to go to jail, so he went to the morgue instead. That was his choice.

The police could have handled it better but oh no, they had to fill the guy with lead.

Speaking of which, whatever you think of BPC himself, what do you think about the violent protesters wilding in SLC?

I haven’t thought about that because I didn’t look at that aspect of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you admit that you, just like these rioters, do not care about facts of the case. You don't care that the guy was armed with a firearm, refused to drop it as ordered multiple times, and even raised the firearm to shoot after he was already shot but alive.


How do you propose police deal with armed thugs who refuse to drop their gun? Let them go?

I propose not shooting people until they have first shot at you. Could a cop die? Maybe. But they are supposed to be professionals. Them taking that risk is why they ought get respected. If they don't take that risk, they are just trigger happy thugs.

Don't expect cops to have anything to do with armed suspects under such rules.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because he was running away does not mean he was not a threat to police and others.

He was not much of a threat as he was running AWAY from the police, i.e. away from danger. He was clearly running out of steam and probably did not have the strength to run much further. He could barely pick himself up after he fell. And then after he had been shot and was down, several more shots were fired into him.

How you justify this shit is beyond me.

So you threaten a cop with a gun and you get a free pass to escape.

Think about the implications of your positions!

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Ho hum - another boring rant about the BLM and other groups protesting about a person of color killed by the police with the "appropriate context"/smear of the victim.

It ought to obvious to anyone that the police (as an institution) are no longer trusted by a large segment of the population, so that the fact the police claim something is "justified" is not trusted. The real issues here are trust and accountability.

Yep. If the social compact is broken, the other side of that is that citizens don't just break and steal shit and kill people because they trust that the justice system will balance the wrongs.

So what is left is the justification for being lawful is gone. Now what?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't expect cops to have anything to do with armed suspects under such rules.

So....we lose all the people who will only cop if they get an unchallenged right to shoot first if it even looks like they hold a gun?

I am okay with that. The kid shot for holding a toy would be okay with it, if he wasn't dead.
That adult shot for holding a toy gun in WalMart would be okay with it. If...
The autistic kid shot for, um , screaming? And the cop threw out 'i feared for my life' faster than a white house aide yells 'national security? Yeah.

 

[laughing dog]

Just because he was running away does not mean he was not a threat to police and others.

He was not much of a threat as he was running AWAY from the police, i.e. away from danger. He was clearly running out of steam and probably did not have the strength to run much further. He could barely pick himself up after he fell. And then after he had been shot and was down, several more shots were fired into him.

How you justify this shit is beyond me.

So you threaten a cop with a gun and you get a free pass to escape.

The guy could barely stand up - that is according to the involved officers. Which suggest he was not going to escape unless the officers were complete incompetents.

We don't know if he actually threatened an officer because there has no been no independent verification of the involved officer's stories - that is the real problem here.

Think about the implications of your positions!

Says the tacit defender of police brutality.

 

[Derec]

Yep. If the social compact is broken,

It is not broken, even if there are extremists (remember, #BLM is a Marxist organization) that want to destroy it.

the other side of that is that citizens don't just break and steal shit and kill people because they trust that the justice system will balance the wrongs.

We have here a guy who was robbing people. Then he would not drop the gun. Police is there to protect all of us from scum like BPC!

So what is left is the justification for being lawful is gone. Now what?

Why would you think that the justification for being lawful is gone?

 

[Derec]

He was far more intent on running than he was on shooting.

He was intent on retrieving his gun after he dropped it. Had he not done so, he'd still be alive.

As I said, he most likely would have had to give up when he couldn’t run any longer due to exhaustion. He could barely walk never mind run.

Give up or try to shoot it out with police? If he had any intention to surrender, he would not have picked up the gun.

Flight or fight and BCP was definitely in the former.

He was running out of gas to flee, but he had means (gun) to fight. That's was my point with the "cornered animal" analogy. If flight is not possible, fight is the remaining option. And he had a gun.

The police could have handled it better but oh no, they had to fill the guy with lead.

I do not see how, but let's stipulate that there was a course of action available to them that was better than the one they took.
We do not prosecute people for not handling an issue perfectly; we prosecute people for breaking the law.

I haven’t thought about that because I didn’t look at that aspect of it.

Violent riots breaking out in support of this armed robber who flunked PE is a big part of this thread though.

 

[Derec]

The guy could barely stand up - that is according to the involved officers. Which suggest he was not going to escape unless the officers were complete incompetents.

Escape, no. But he could still shoot it out. He amply demonstrated that he had no intention of giving up. Otherwise, he'd have dropped his gun or else not have picked it up when he dropped it accidentally.

We don't know if he actually threatened an officer because there has no been no independent verification of the involved officer's stories - that is the real problem here.

In a criminal prosecution you would have to prove that the cops acted illegally beyond a reasonable doubt. The cops do not have to prove their innocence.
That said, there is the video and while dark and shaky, it was analyzed frame by frame I am sure. And the DA still decided that the shooting was justified.

Says the tacit defender of police brutality.

Nobody here is defending police brutality.

 

[Derec]

I am okay with that. The kid shot for holding a toy would be okay with it, if he wasn't dead.

I am not surprised you are ok with dead cops. And those replicas (not really toys) look very realistic and have been used by people like Darius Smith, Quanice Hayes and Tyre King to rob people.
Not to mention that Jarhyn's idea would also mean that police are not allowed to shoot at perps armed with real gun unless they start shooting at police first.

That adult shot for holding a toy gun in WalMart would be okay with it. If...
The autistic kid shot for, um , screaming? And the cop threw out 'i feared for my life' faster than a white house aide yells 'national security? Yeah.

Those are a small percentage of all police shootings. Vast majority are justified and most involve perps armed with firearms.

 

[laughing dog]

Escape, no. But he could still shoot it out. He amply demonstrated that he had no intention of giving up. Otherwise, he'd have dropped his gun or else not have picked it up when he dropped it accidentally.

You don't know that.

In a criminal prosecution you would have to prove that the cops acted illegally beyond a reasonable doubt. The cops do not have to prove their innocence.
That said, there is the video and while dark and shaky, it was analyzed frame by frame I am sure. And the DA still decided that the shooting was justified.

The DA has the appearance of a conflict of interest so the DA is not a trustworthy judge. That is the point - the police and the DA have lost the trust of a significant portion of the community.

We don't know the history of police relations with people of color in Salt Lake City. Given the history of the Mormon church, I would not be surprised if the history is not a particularly good one.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what motivates some or all of the protesters. Unlike you, I think these protests indicate a real problem with relations between the police and their community. It is a problem that can only be solved by rebuilding the necessary trust which does not occur through name calling or shows of force by anyone.

 

[TSwizzle]

He was intent on retrieving his gun after he dropped it. Had he not done so, he'd still be alive.

If the police hadn’t shot him 12 times he’d still be alive.

Give up or try to shoot it out with police? If he had any intention to surrender, he would not have picked up the gun.

He could have surrendered immediately or try to shoot it out immediately, the first time, the second time or the third time but he didn’t he just tried to keep running away.

He was running out of gas to flee, but he had means (gun) to fight. That's was my point with the "cornered animal" analogy. If flight is not possible, fight is the remaining option. And he had a gun.

It’s possible he could have just given up.

I do not see how, but let's stipulate that there was a course of action available to them that was better than the one they took.

This guy was not going very far. The cops could have and should have backed off a little bit and let him run himself into the ground and see how things played out. Shooting someone should be a last resort

Violent riots breaking out in support of this armed robber who flunked PE is a big part of this thread though.

I think these people are idiots.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't expect cops to have anything to do with armed suspects under such rules.

So....we lose all the people who will only cop if they get an unchallenged right to shoot first if it even looks like they hold a gun?

I am okay with that. The kid shot for holding a toy would be okay with it, if he wasn't dead.
That adult shot for holding a toy gun in WalMart would be okay with it. If...
The autistic kid shot for, um , screaming? And the cop threw out 'i feared for my life' faster than a white house aide yells 'national security? Yeah.

You would be ok with basically handing society over to the armed criminals? A cop couldn't do anything about them, the cops would simply run away.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't expect cops to have anything to do with armed suspects under such rules.

So....we lose all the people who will only cop if they get an unchallenged right to shoot first if it even looks like they hold a gun?

I am okay with that. The kid shot for holding a toy would be okay with it, if he wasn't dead.
That adult shot for holding a toy gun in WalMart would be okay with it. If...
The autistic kid shot for, um , screaming? And the cop threw out 'i feared for my life' faster than a white house aide yells 'national security? Yeah.

You would be ok with basically handing society over to the armed criminals?
A cop couldn't do anything about them, the cops would simply run away.

yes, right. because 'cops don't shoot FIRST' is exactly the same thing as 'cops never EVER point the gun at bad guys.'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you threaten a cop with a gun and you get a free pass to escape.

The guy could barely stand up - that is according to the involved officers. Which suggest he was not going to escape unless the officers were complete incompetents.

We don't know if he actually threatened an officer because there has no been no independent verification of the involved officer's stories - that is the real problem here.

Think about the implications of your positions!

Says the tacit defender of police brutality.

You don't need to be able to stand up to use a gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Escape, no. But he could still shoot it out. He amply demonstrated that he had no intention of giving up. Otherwise, he'd have dropped his gun or else not have picked it up when he dropped it accidentally.

You don't know that.

And you don't know he didn't. He tried very hard to keep his gun, that suggests he would use it.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what motivates some or all of the protesters. Unlike you, I think these protests indicate a real problem with relations between the police and their community. It is a problem that can only be solved by rebuilding the necessary trust which does not occur through name calling or shows of force by anyone.

The protesters are motivated by those who get their position by stirring up racial hatred.

 

[laughing dog]

The guy could barely stand up - that is according to the involved officers. Which suggest he was not going to escape unless the officers were complete incompetents.

We don't know if he actually threatened an officer because there has no been no independent verification of the involved officer's stories - that is the real problem here.
Says the tacit defender of police brutality.

You don't need to be able to stand up to use a gun.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Do you have a relevant point?

 

[laughing dog]

And you don't know he didn't. He tried very hard to keep his gun, that suggests he would use it.

He didn't use it when he plenty of opportunity to use which suggests he would not use it. There is no evidence that he pointed his weapon at the police. He was running and falling down. Maybe he would have ended up pointing his weapon at them or shooting his firearm, but up to that point, he had not.

We don't live in "Minority Report" times where the police know what a suspect is going to do.

The protesters are motivated by those who get their position by stirring up racial hatred.

You have no idea what motivates these protesters. None.