Father had hands up when police opened fire, killing 6-year-old Marksville boy, lawyer says

[ksen]

In the comments at the link some discussion was about how if it were a black guy and his kid shot there would be riots and how that looks bad on black people.

My response is that the lack of riots on the part of white people to police over aggression is the real shame.

Sometimes you just have to burn shit down to get your voice heard.

^^ Most moronic thing I have heard in ages.

apparently you don't read your own posts

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

In the comments at the link some discussion was about how if it were a black guy and his kid shot there would be riots and how that looks bad on black people.

My response is that the lack of riots on the part of white people to police over aggression is the real shame.

Sometimes you just have to burn shit down to get your voice heard.

I was shocked that the officers were arrested. Until I clicked on their photos.

Sadly, I am not shocked by the murder of a six year old boy by police officers.

And sadly, I am beginning to understand the point of right to carry nut jobs. Maybe we do all need to be armed and prepared to defen ourselves against the state.

That is the opposite of rational. If guns are a problem, the solution is seldom found in giving the problem to everyone. A better approach might be to remove the problem from the irresponsible. There used to be a time when police didn't carry guns, just a smallish baseball bat. Non-lethal technologies are currently available and being improved upon every day.

aa

 

[ronburgundy]

It also may help that there appears to be rock solid body cam video of the incident. It's not released yet; but the impression is that it's unambiguously incriminating.

Don't worry. We have a few members in here that can spin it.

Still waiting for these imaginary "members who can spin it" to claim this shooting was justified. Their absence is actually predictable since their arguments in other cases are usually based in the facts of those cases that point to culpability of the "victim", and the facts here have nothing in common with those cases (including that this was not even a cop-involved shooting, if the shooters were off-duty). Your presumption that those members would have the same response here is rooted in the fact that you have the same response because your response has nothing to do with the facts of the cases, and thus doesn't vary with the varying facts.

BTW, despite Toni's and laughing dog's misrepresentation of "fast"'s post, fast in no way implied that the those shot in this event we're at all culpable. He merely pointed out the stark objective difference between this and other cases where dangerous criminal actions of those shot have been blindly ignored in the rioting hysteria, and how that has escalated cop-civilian tensions to a point where unjustified shootings are actually more likely.

 

[Nexus]

That is the opposite of rational. If guns are a problem, the solution is seldom found in giving the problem to everyone.

Guns aren't the problem thug police are. They would still be murdering people by suffocating them or with night sticks and tazers etc.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That is the opposite of rational. If guns are a problem, the solution is seldom found in giving the problem to everyone.

Guns aren't the problem thug police are. They would still be murdering people by suffocating them or with night sticks and tazers etc.

Ya, but that's much harder to do and it causes far less collateral damage to innocent bystanders and children.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

That is the opposite of rational. If guns are a problem, the solution is seldom found in giving the problem to everyone.

Guns aren't the problem thug police are. They would still be murdering people by suffocating them or with night sticks and tazers etc.

Thug police are also a problem (and in fairness that seems to be the case here). But the issue I'm attempting to address is the "problem solver" located in a holster on the police officer's hip that seems to the go-to solution for what might otherwise be a decent cop in too many non-life threatening situations.

aa

 

[Toni]

I was shocked that the officers were arrested. Until I clicked on their photos.

Sadly, I am not shocked by the murder of a six year old boy by police officers.

And sadly, I am beginning to understand the point of right to carry nut jobs. Maybe we do all need to be armed and prepared to defen ourselves against the state.

That is the opposite of rational. If guns are a problem, the solution is seldom found in giving the problem to everyone. A better approach might be to remove the problem from the irresponsible. There used to be a time when police didn't carry guns, just a smallish baseball bat. Non-lethal technologies are currently available and being improved upon every day.

aa

I am doing a lot of fly by postings these days--lots of family stuff going on at the moment, so please forgive me for haphazard replies, posts, etc.

Mentioned here as I did a poor job of expressing myself in the post you quoted.


This incident is exactly the sort of incident that is used rationalize right to carry proponents. In principle, I agree with the right to own and carry firearms, although I don't own or carry firearms and have not for many years now. I grew up in a family of hunters and grew up with the idea that firearms were dangerous and that one must always always always use every precaution, and above all common sense if one is going to be around firearms in any capacity.

The thing is, there is no hint these days that carrying firearms needs to be under the condition of sufficient intelligence, mental and emotional stability, and common sense. And decency. All of which seem to be in too short a supply these days and especially in situations such as every single time we've talked about a cop or wannabe cop killing someone.

I am beginning to understand the reasons that some use to justify open carry and concealed carry and the rights of citizens to bear arms in the face of a government that might be oppressive and dangerous to the life and liberty and rights of citizens.

I don't agree. But I am beginning to see the glimmer. If merely being a police officer gives one the right to summarily execute anyone who is not sufficiently and completely immediately obedient to any command from an officer, even if such are conflicting, misunderstood, incomprehensible or illegal, why should we not all carry firearms to protect ourselves?

It's not how I feel and it's not what I believe, and I think it's a terrible response, but I can see the point.

And that terrifies me.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't agree. But I am beginning to see the glimmer. If merely being a police officer gives one the right to summarily execute anyone who is not sufficiently and completely immediately obedient to any command from an officer, even if such are conflicting, misunderstood, incomprehensible or illegal, why should we not all carry firearms to protect ourselves?

Well, here's a reason:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying.

If someone has a gun on you, trying to pull a gun on him in return is the worst mistake you can make in regards to your own safety. That doesn't change if it's the cop who has the gun and especially doesn't change if the cop is operating in an environment where he knows people are actively trying to shoot back at him and is quicker to fire as a result.

Your best bet if you find yourself in that kind of situation is to hope you survive and then sic a rabid pack of lawyers on him afterwards.

 

[Malintent]

^^ Most moronic thing I have heard in ages.

apparently you don't read your own posts

good one! wait, which one?

- - - Updated - - -

Guns aren't the problem thug police are. They would still be murdering people by suffocating them or with night sticks and tazers etc.

Thug police are also a problem (and in fairness that seems to be the case here). But the issue I'm attempting to address is the "problem solver" located in a holster on the police officer's hip that seems to the go-to solution for what might otherwise be a decent cop in too many non-life threatening situations.

aa

change "thug police" to just "thugs" and I agree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/11/father_had_his_hands_up_when_p.html

Police body camera video shows the father of a 6-year-old autistic boy had his hands up and posed no threat as police opened fire, severely wounding the motorist and killing the boy, the man's lawyer said Monday.

"This was not a threatening situation for the police," said Mark Jeansonne, the attorney for Chris Few, who remained hospitalized, missing the family's funeral for 6-year-old Jeremy Mardis.

rope . . . lamppost

Keywords: "lawyer says".

The most likely scenario is that the lawyer is trying the case in the press--and when they do that it's because they can't win in the courtroom. When you see proclamations like this figure they're likely false.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/11/father_had_his_hands_up_when_p.html



rope . . . lamppost

Keywords: "lawyer says".

The most likely scenario is that the lawyer is trying the case in the press--and when they do that it's because they can't win in the courtroom. When you see proclamations like this figure they're likely false.

Ya, that's probably why the other cops and DAs who've seen the video decided to arrest these marshalls for murder. It's because they don't think they can win the case in the courtroom.

 

[Toni]

Well, here's a reason:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying.

If someone has a gun on you, trying to pull a gun on him in return is the worst mistake you can make in regards to your own safety. That doesn't change if it's the cop who has the gun and especially doesn't change if the cop is operating in an environment where he knows people are actively trying to shoot back at him and is quicker to fire as a result.

Your best bet if you find yourself in that kind of situation is to hope you survive and then sic a rabid pack of lawyers on him afterwards.

Again: I don't carry firearms, have had none in my home since before I had kids. I don't agree with open carry laws or right to carry nut jobs but I am beginning to see--not share but see--where they are coming from.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, here's a reason:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association



If someone has a gun on you, trying to pull a gun on him in return is the worst mistake you can make in regards to your own safety. That doesn't change if it's the cop who has the gun and especially doesn't change if the cop is operating in an environment where he knows people are actively trying to shoot back at him and is quicker to fire as a result.

Your best bet if you find yourself in that kind of situation is to hope you survive and then sic a rabid pack of lawyers on him afterwards.

Again: I don't carry firearms, have had none in my home since before I had kids. I don't agree with open carry laws or right to carry nut jobs but I am beginning to see--not share but see--where they are coming from.

Ya, me too. What I'm saying, however, is that this would be the worst possible way for them to handle it in terms of getting the results they'd be hoping for.

 

[Trausti]

Well, here's a reason:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association



If someone has a gun on you, trying to pull a gun on him in return is the worst mistake you can make in regards to your own safety. That doesn't change if it's the cop who has the gun and especially doesn't change if the cop is operating in an environment where he knows people are actively trying to shoot back at him and is quicker to fire as a result.

Your best bet if you find yourself in that kind of situation is to hope you survive and then sic a rabid pack of lawyers on him afterwards.

Again: I don't carry firearms, have had none in my home since before I had kids. I don't agree with open carry laws or right to carry nut jobs but I am beginning to see--not share but see--where they are coming from.

I don't own a gun and am wary of open carry, but the right to own and (conceal) carry is just a basic tenet of being a free person. All government, and the actors who make up government, are just other people. Government is not inherently good or bad. If government is behaving with good intentions, it should not fear an armed citizenry.

- - - Updated - - -

This looks less like renegade police and more like an assassination attempt. At least one of the cops knew the father and there was a grudge over . . . . . . . a woman. (This makes it very distinguishable from other media-hyped cop shootings.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3312285/Police-investigating-one-cops-shot-six-year-old-boy-dead-grudge-father-emerges-officer-messaging-fianc-e-Facebook-visited-house.html

 

[Toni]

Again: I don't carry firearms, have had none in my home since before I had kids. I don't agree with open carry laws or right to carry nut jobs but I am beginning to see--not share but see--where they are coming from.

I don't own a gun and am wary of open carry, but the right to own and (conceal) carry is just a basic tenet of being a free person. All government, and the actors who make up government, are just other people. Government is not inherently good or bad. If government is behaving with good intentions, it should not fear an armed citizenry.

The thing is: I fear an armed citizenry because so many people have so little common sense and so many are not emotionally stable.

 

[prideandfall]

Again: I don't carry firearms, have had none in my home since before I had kids. I don't agree with open carry laws or right to carry nut jobs but I am beginning to see--not share but see--where they are coming from.

i have to wonder about this, because it seems like a really clear case of arms escalation to me in such a gob-smackingly obvious manner that i can't believe more people don't see it.

step 1: criminals and cops get their hands on guns and use them to bully citizens.
step 2: citizens get paranoid and start carrying guns.
step 3: both cops and criminals observe that citizens are getting paranoid and starting to carry guns.
step 4: both cops and criminals skip the part where they bully you and go straight to shooting you in the fucking face, just in case you have a gun.

so... how does people having guns help, if all it does is escalate the initial action from aggressors from "threaten with gun" to "murder with gun"?
the aggressor (whether it be cops or criminals) ALWAYS has the initial advantage of intent, so unless your plan is that everyone gets a gun and then just shoots everyone they come in contact with in order to prevent that other person from being able to shoot them, i can't see any scenario wherein more people having guns results in anything other than more people being murdered by guns.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't own a gun and am wary of open carry, but the right to own and (conceal) carry is just a basic tenet of being a free person. All government, and the actors who make up government, are just other people. Government is not inherently good or bad. If government is behaving with good intentions, it should not fear an armed citizenry.

The thing is: I fear an armed citizenry because so many people have so little common sense and so many are not emotionally stable.

Which is the main problem I have with the availability of guns. Regardless of all the arguments about how safe they may be if properly stored and the owners get proper training, yada, yada, yada, the more people there are who have them, the more there are going to be who are emotionally unstable and who have little common sense. Restricting the availability of guns restricts the ability of those people to get their hands on them and have their problems end with people dead.

Any argument involving "we need more guns" inevitably includes putting more guns in the hands of people like this.

 

[Toni]

Again: I don't carry firearms, have had none in my home since before I had kids. I don't agree with open carry laws or right to carry nut jobs but I am beginning to see--not share but see--where they are coming from.

i have to wonder about this, because it seems like a really clear case of arms escalation to me in such a gob-smackingly obvious manner that i can't believe more people don't see it.

step 1: criminals and cops get their hands on guns and use them to bully citizens.
step 2: citizens get paranoid and start carrying guns.
step 3: both cops and criminals observe that citizens are getting paranoid and starting to carry guns.
step 4: both cops and criminals skip the part where they bully you and go straight to shooting you in the fucking face, just in case you have a gun.

so... how does people having guns help, if all it does is escalate the initial action from aggressors from "threaten with gun" to "murder with gun"?
the aggressor (whether it be cops or criminals) ALWAYS has the initial advantage of intent, so unless your plan is that everyone gets a gun and then just shoots everyone they come in contact with in order to prevent that other person from being able to shoot them, i can't see any scenario wherein more people having guns results in anything other than more people being murdered by guns.

I do not disagree.

 

[prideandfall]

I do not disagree.

mmmkay, so where's the part in the gun nut argument that you're beginning to see where they're coming from?

 

[Toni]

I do not disagree.

mmmkay, so where's the part in the gun nut argument that you're beginning to see where they're coming from?

It is possible to understand someone's point of view without sharing it.