NFL jumping the shark and kissing #BLM's ass

[laughing dog]

Anyone, of any color, who tells a cop that they have a gun and then, in the process of getting arrested, jumps into their vehicle is very likely to get shot. Regardless of color. Indeed, many white people get shot by the police every year.

Frequency of occurrence does not make it right or an acceptable outcome. Police should not be given carte blanche to open fire because someone MIGHT have a weapon in their hand.

 

[J842P]

Anyone, of any color, who tells a cop that they have a gun and then, in the process of getting arrested, jumps into their vehicle is very likely to get shot. Regardless of color. Indeed, many white people get shot by the police every year.

Frequency of occurrence does not make it right or an acceptable outcome. Police should not be given carte blanche to open fire because someone MIGHT have a weapon in their hand.

After fighting with the cop, then jumping into the car to possibly retrieve a gun? That should be acceptable. That isn't "carte blanche".

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone, of any color, who tells a cop that they have a gun and then, in the process of getting arrested, jumps into their vehicle is very likely to get shot. Regardless of color. Indeed, many white people get shot by the police every year.

Frequency of occurrence does not make it right or an acceptable outcome. Police should not be given carte blanche to open fire because someone MIGHT have a weapon in their hand.

After fighting with the cop, then jumping into the car to possibly retrieve a gun? That should be acceptable. That isn't "carte blanche".

There you go again - conflating your conclusion with reality. While it might be likely he was going to get his gun, we don't know. When one is condoning a lethal shooting, the standard should not be "I presumed I was in danger". The suspect did not have a gun in his hand. Which means at the time of the shooting, the suspect was incapable of actually being a lethal threat.

 

[J842P]

After fighting with the cop, then jumping into the car to possibly retrieve a gun? That should be acceptable. That isn't "carte blanche".

There you go again - conflating your conclusion with reality. While it might be likely he was going to get his gun, we don't know. When one is condoning a lethal shooting, the standard should not be "I presumed I was in danger". The suspect did not have a gun in his hand. Which means at the time of the shooting, the suspect was incapable of actually being a lethal threat.

I didn't conflate anything. I explicitly stated it was a possibility. And and any reasonable person would say it is a possibility.

I disagree that a suspect has to have a gun in their hand to be justifiably shot.

 

[laughing dog]

After fighting with the cop, then jumping into the car to possibly retrieve a gun? That should be acceptable. That isn't "carte blanche".

There you go again - conflating your conclusion with reality. While it might be likely he was going to get his gun, we don't know. When one is condoning a lethal shooting, the standard should not be "I presumed I was in danger". The suspect did not have a gun in his hand. Which means at the time of the shooting, the suspect was incapable of actually being a lethal threat.

I didn't conflate anything. I explicitly stated it was a possibility. And and any reasonable person would say it is a possibility.

A "possibility" should not be an acceptable rationale for shooting someone.

I disagree that a suspect has to have a gun in their hand to be justifiably shot.

And you are not alone in that position. Doesn't make it right in my view. There are too many tragic shootings by agents of the state that are justified by people who use the argument of "a possibility" (or its variant - "the police did not know it wasn't a weapon").

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's pretty much always possible that a suspect could be going for a gun. I mean, you stop a black guy who was speeding. He reaches in his glove compartment to get registration. Or you stop a black guy because you broke his headlight. He reaches into his pocket to get his license. It's possible he is reaching for a gun. A deaf black man is in a bathroom with diarrhea. People call the police because they knock and he doesn't answer. It's possible he is in there with a gun, just waiting to finish his diarrhea, so he can run around shooting everyone. It's better to shoot them all because it's possible they have guns. Apparently.

Can we not consider some other police policy choices rather than possibly? Here are some: plausibly, viably, reasonably, probably, convincingly, definitely...

 

[J842P]

It's pretty much always possible that a suspect could be going for a gun. I mean, you stop a black guy who was speeding. He reaches in his glove compartment to get registration. Or you stop a black guy because you broke his headlight. He reaches into his pocket to get his license. It's possible he is reaching for a gun. A deaf black man is in a bathroom with diarrhea. People call the police because they knock and he doesn't answer. It's possible he is in there with a gun, just waiting to finish his diarrhea, so he can run around shooting everyone. It's better to shoot them all because it's possible they have guns. Apparently.

Can we not consider some other police policy choices rather than possibly? Here are some: plausibly, viably, reasonably, probably, convincingly, definitely...

It isn't mere possibility. It is generally "reasonably". And I would say it is reasonable to assume that the suspect in this case was heading for their gun.

Also, again with trying to make this about race, but this happens to white people all the time.

 

[Derec]

It's pretty much always possible that a suspect could be going for a gun.

But in this case there is quite a bit more reason to believe he was going for his illegally carried gun than mere possibility.

Can we not consider some other police policy choices rather than possibly? Here are some: plausibly, viably, reasonably, probably, convincingly, definitely...

Plausibly, viably, reasonably and probably certainly apply here.

 

[Derec]

I didn't conflate anything. I explicitly stated it was a possibility. And and any reasonable person would say it is a possibility.

A "possibility" should not be an acceptable rationale for shooting someone.

I disagree that a suspect has to have a gun in their hand to be justifiably shot.

And you are not alone in that position. Doesn't make it right in my view. There are too many tragic shootings by agents of the state that are justified by people who use the argument of "a possibility" (or its variant - "the police did not know it wasn't a weapon").

There is quite a bit of room between mere possibility and definite knowledge, which you seem to be demanding. He was most likely going for his gun based on his actions. Full stop.

 

[laughing dog]

A "possibility" should not be an acceptable rationale for shooting someone.
And you are not alone in that position. Doesn't make it right in my view. There are too many tragic shootings by agents of the state that are justified by people who use the argument of "a possibility" (or its variant - "the police did not know it wasn't a weapon").

There is quite a bit of room between mere possibility and definite knowledge, which you seem to be demanding. He was most likely going for his gun based on his actions. Full stop.

Until the gun is in his hand, IMO, presumption is not sufficient to start shooting.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's pretty much always possible that a suspect could be going for a gun.

But in this case there is quite a bit more reason to believe he was going for his illegally carried gun than mere possibility.

That isn't what was stated though! "POSSIBLE" is what was stated.

#wordsmatter

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... his gun ...

what gun?

 

[Derec]

... his gun ...

what gun?

The Glock 26 he was illegally carrying in his jacket.
Do try to keep up.

 

[Derec]

It's pretty much always possible that a suspect could be going for a gun.

But in this case there is quite a bit more reason to believe he was going for his illegally carried gun than mere possibility.

That isn't what was stated though! "POSSIBLE" is what was stated.

By whom? Watch the video for yourself. JJ going for his gun is much more than merely "possible". It is a reasonable assumption.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That isn't what was stated though! "POSSIBLE" is what was stated.

By whom? Watch the video for yourself. JJ going for his gun is much more than merely "possible". It is a reasonable assumption.

The person I was responding to. Keep up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... his gun ...

what gun?

The Glock 26 he was illegally carrying in his jacket.
Do try to keep up.

I am allowed to ask questions.

 

[Derec]

If he had a gun in his jacket, why is it probable he was getting one from his vehicle, presumed through allegation he was "leaning" into the car?

The jacket was in the car. He wasn't wearing it.

Do you know how to be skeptical and think critically?

Do you know how to watch a video? All your questions would be answered if you did.

Asking questions and pointing out racist facebook rumors is a good practice.

No "racist facebook" rumors here.
Again, watch the fucking video or otherwise inform yourself about the facts of the case, or stop commenting in this thread.

 

[Derec]

The person I was responding to. Keep up.

It was a rhetorical question. Watch the video and see for yourself.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So basically he was trying to drive away. Then he likely tried to drive away again after getting in an accident. Police let him die after being shot.

One can try to argue that he should have been shot on the basis of proximity to gun but his whole demeanor was Flight, not Fight. Now even if you try to argue it's POSSIBLE he was going for a gun, leaving him to die slowly is unacceptable to me.

 

[fromderinside]

Derec, your 'analysis' in https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...sing-BLM-s-ass&p=831042&viewfull=1#post831042 is as flawed as the rest or your posts.

Show me one post by you about a black being shot that didn't involve him being ordered out of the car. That's the point. they are all ordered out of the car, persons of color are alls scared of the police. So the police will always order them out of the car. Procedures need to change. People who have been abused will always be afraid.

Cops with all those weapons attached at their disposal need to change tactics and keep those persons of color safe when police encounter them in a car or on the street. Cops should call Call legal support while advising those they stopped that they are only are asking for intermediaries to aid them. When intermediaries (negotiators and volunteer unarmed negotiators) arrive on the scene they will intercede making the police task much less likely to be violent. Costs a lot less than Armored HumVees, lawsuit pay offs and the like, and saves lives.

As for the shoulda woulda couldas like possible this and possible that and inflicting "watch the video at every turn". That's the road to a polarized police state. It's better to understand the dynamic and adjust practices accordingly. That does not mean get better armed when you know they are going to act out of fear.