Police in Utah gun down black cosplayer

[Loren Pechtel]

He attacked the cop. He then ran towards other people. The cop has to assume violent intent.

Your narrative assumes facts not in evidence. Attacking a cop does not require a reaction of lethal force as marc's evidence shows. Nor is it clear he ran towards anyone else. So the police did not have to assume any violent intent.

Attack a cop with lethal force (and a sword counts as such, even if it doesn't have an edge) and the reply will almost certainly be lethal force. Some examples where the guy was *NOT* a threat aren't rebuttals.

 

[laughing dog]

Your narrative assumes facts not in evidence. Attacking a cop does not require a reaction of lethal force as marc's evidence shows. Nor is it clear he ran towards anyone else. So the police did not have to assume any violent intent.

Attack a cop with lethal force (and a sword counts as such, even if it doesn't have an edge) and the reply will almost certainly be lethal force.

The victim did not attack the police with lethal force.

Some examples where the guy was *NOT* a threat aren't rebuttals.

Situation where the guy had a fire arm is an obvious rebuttal. The entire point is the police in those 3 instances did not quickly use lethal force and in this case they did. You cannot have it both ways - either the police were justified in using lethal force in all 4 cases or the police should not have used lethal force in all 4 cases.

 

[marc]

Should note that my research was not extensive. More like 30 second search on 'gunman' and 'taser', and picking three of the first links to show up. Could have done more, but I'm busy, and doubt better evidence would do anything to sway people who seem to think that cops shooting unarmed people is justified.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Situation where the guy had a fire arm is an obvious rebuttal. The entire point is the police in those 3 instances did not quickly use lethal force and in this case they did. You cannot have it both ways - either the police were justified in using lethal force in all 4 cases or the police should not have used lethal force in all 4 cases.

Should note that my research was not extensive. More like 30 second search on 'gunman' and 'taser', and picking three of the first links to show up. Could have done more, but I'm busy, and doubt better evidence would do anything to sway people who seem to think that cops shooting unarmed people is justified.

What you are both missing is that in the first two cases the cops could see there was no threat, in the third the guy wasn't threatening them with the gun.

Furthermore, nothing says the guy with the taser wasn't backed up by another cop with a gun--that is a tactic they sometimes use but it's only something they can do when they plan it. It can't be used in these sudden encounters.

 

[laughing dog]

Should note that my research was not extensive. More like 30 second search on 'gunman' and 'taser', and picking three of the first links to show up. Could have done more, but I'm busy, and doubt better evidence would do anything to sway people who seem to think that cops shooting unarmed people is justified.

What you are both missing is that in the first two cases the cops could see there was no threat, in the third the guy wasn't threatening them with the gun.

He tried to fire the gun, so you are misinformed. I agree that in all those cases, the police acted as if there was not a lethal threat. That was the entire point of the examples.

Furthermore, nothing says the guy with the taser wasn't backed up by another cop with a gun--that is a tactic they sometimes use but it's only something they can do when they plan it. It can't be used in these sudden encounters.

In this shooting, there were two police officers. So one could have used a taser and been backed up by the other with a gun, so it seems the excuse you pulled out of the air raises more questions than it answers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are both missing is that in the first two cases the cops could see there was no threat, in the third the guy wasn't threatening them with the gun.

He tried to fire the gun, so you are misinformed. I agree that in all those cases, the police acted as if there was not a lethal threat. That was the entire point of the examples.

And you misunderstood the situation. As you say, he tried to fire the gun. Emphasis on tried. The gun didn't work, the cop knew it didn't work. No lethal threat.

Furthermore, nothing says the guy with the taser wasn't backed up by another cop with a gun--that is a tactic they sometimes use but it's only something they can do when they plan it. It can't be used in these sudden encounters.

In this shooting, there were two police officers. So one could have used a taser and been backed up by the other with a gun, so it seems the excuse you pulled out of the air raises more questions than it answers.

Only if they agreed that A will cover with a gun while B tries the taser. It's reasonable in some sort of standoff, it's not reasonable in a sudden encounter.

 

[laughing dog]

He tried to fire the gun, so you are misinformed. I agree that in all those cases, the police acted as if there was not a lethal threat. That was the entire point of the examples.

And you misunderstood the situation. As you say, he tried to fire the gun. Emphasis on tried. The gun didn't work, the cop knew it didn't work. No lethal threat.

Just because it didn't fire once, did not mean it wouldn't fire again. And, you can beat someone to death with a gun just as well with a replica sword. Try again.

Only if they agreed that A will cover with a gun while B tries the taser. It's reasonable in some sort of standoff, it's not reasonable in a sudden encounter.

It wasn't a sudden encounter, certainly no more sudden that the example with the gun. So your excuses still raise more questions than they answer.

 

[ksen]

were the tasered guys white?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you misunderstood the situation. As you say, he tried to fire the gun. Emphasis on tried. The gun didn't work, the cop knew it didn't work. No lethal threat.

Just because it didn't fire once, did not mean it wouldn't fire again. And, you can beat someone to death with a gun just as well with a replica sword. Try again.

Only if they agreed that A will cover with a gun while B tries the taser. It's reasonable in some sort of standoff, it's not reasonable in a sudden encounter.

It wasn't a sudden encounter, certainly no more sudden that the example with the gun. So your excuses still raise more questions than they answer.

It was sudden--the guy attacked. No time to coordinate.

 

[ksen]

maybe they could have coordinated while he was running away instead of firing in the direction of innocent bystanders

 

[Loren Pechtel]

maybe they could have coordinated while he was running away instead of firing in the direction of innocent bystanders

And maybe the cop is a wizard who could cast Time Stop in order to have enough time to do that.

 

[laughing dog]

Just because it didn't fire once, did not mean it wouldn't fire again. And, you can beat someone to death with a gun just as well with a replica sword. Try again.

Only if they agreed that A will cover with a gun while B tries the taser. It's reasonable in some sort of standoff, it's not reasonable in a sudden encounter.

It wasn't a sudden encounter, certainly no more sudden that the example with the gun. So your excuses still raise more questions than they answer.

It was sudden--the guy attacked. No time to coordinate.

How do you know that? And how do you know that the police who tasered the man with a gun had time to co-ordinate? It seems you are literally manufacturing flimsy excuses to defend your flimsy reasoning.

 

[crispy]

Just because it didn't fire once, did not mean it wouldn't fire again. And, you can beat someone to death with a gun just as well with a replica sword. Try again.

Only if they agreed that A will cover with a gun while B tries the taser. It's reasonable in some sort of standoff, it's not reasonable in a sudden encounter.

It wasn't a sudden encounter, certainly no more sudden that the example with the gun. So your excuses still raise more questions than they answer.

It was sudden--the guy attacked. No time to coordinate.

How do you know that? And how do you know that the police who tasered the man with a gun had time to co-ordinate? It seems you are literally manufacturing flimsy excuses to defend your flimsy reasoning.

Its very easy - if a black guy is gunned down by police its because they are so ninja fast that its the only possible move to make. Thus the reasoning is: the police shot him, so he must have been too fast.

 

[Shadowy Man]

He tried to fire the gun, so you are misinformed. I agree that in all those cases, the police acted as if there was not a lethal threat. That was the entire point of the examples.

And you misunderstood the situation. As you say, he tried to fire the gun. Emphasis on tried. The gun didn't work, the cop knew it didn't work. No lethal threat.

But the cop didn't know it didn't work until after he tried to fire it. Now compare this to the guy who was shot in the store with a "toy" gun that wasn't loaded and never tried to shoot at the police.

 

[laughing dog]

And you misunderstood the situation. As you say, he tried to fire the gun. Emphasis on tried. The gun didn't work, the cop knew it didn't work. No lethal threat.

But the cop didn't know it didn't work until after he tried to fire it. Now compare this to the guy who was shot in the store with a "toy" gun that wasn't loaded and never tried to shoot at the police.

If anyone had watched the video with that link, they would have learned that the reason the gun did not fire was because there was not a bullet in the chamber. So, if the shooter had tried again, it would have worked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you misunderstood the situation. As you say, he tried to fire the gun. Emphasis on tried. The gun didn't work, the cop knew it didn't work. No lethal threat.

But the cop didn't know it didn't work until after he tried to fire it. Now compare this to the guy who was shot in the store with a "toy" gun that wasn't loaded and never tried to shoot at the police.

No. The cop saw the guy try to fire it and fail.

 

[RavenSky]

Just because it didn't fire once, did not mean it wouldn't fire again. And, you can beat someone to death with a gun just as well with a replica sword. Try again.

Only if they agreed that A will cover with a gun while B tries the taser. It's reasonable in some sort of standoff, it's not reasonable in a sudden encounter.

It wasn't a sudden encounter, certainly no more sudden that the example with the gun. So your excuses still raise more questions than they answer.

It was sudden--the guy attacked. No time to coordinate.

How do you know that? And how do you know that the police who tasered the man with a gun had time to co-ordinate? It seems you are literally manufacturing flimsy excuses to defend your flimsy reasoning.

Its very easy - if a black guy is gunned down by police its because they are so ninja fast that its the only possible move to make. Thus the reasoning is: the police shot him, so he must have been too fast.

That explanation is consistent with other situations too. Example, the black man who was gunned down for seeking help from police officers following a car accident.

 

[Malintent]

Because all of the shots did not pass through his arms. According to the person who conducted the autopsy:

While Skyes contends five of the six wounds were from the back, Dr. Graham told FOX 13 News that he can only conclusively say three of them came from behind. More testing is required to confirm the others.

(http://fox13now.com/2014/10/17/family-releases-autopsy-results-of-darrien-hunt-who-was-fatally-shot-by-police/)

The purpose of stating that they were in "the back", is not to imply they penetrated near the spine, etc... it is to say the suspect was fleeing, in that he wasn;t facing the officer when shot. The "back of the arm" is "from the back".

 

[ksen]

Just because it didn't fire once, did not mean it wouldn't fire again. And, you can beat someone to death with a gun just as well with a replica sword. Try again.

Only if they agreed that A will cover with a gun while B tries the taser. It's reasonable in some sort of standoff, it's not reasonable in a sudden encounter.

It wasn't a sudden encounter, certainly no more sudden that the example with the gun. So your excuses still raise more questions than they answer.

It was sudden--the guy attacked. No time to coordinate.

How do you know that? And how do you know that the police who tasered the man with a gun had time to co-ordinate? It seems you are literally manufacturing flimsy excuses to defend your flimsy reasoning.

Its very easy - if a black guy is gunned down by police its because they are so ninja fast that its the only possible move to make. Thus the reasoning is: the police shot him, so he must have been too fast.

That explanation is consistent with other situations too. Example, the black man who was gunned down for seeking help from police officers following a car accident.

And that black guy that was shot for reaching for his drivers license after the police officer told him to reach for his drivers license.

 

[laughing dog]

Because all of the shots did not pass through his arms. According to the person who conducted the autopsy:

(http://fox13now.com/2014/10/17/family-releases-autopsy-results-of-darrien-hunt-who-was-fatally-shot-by-police/)

The purpose of stating that they were in "the back", is not to imply they penetrated near the spine, etc... it is to say the suspect was fleeing, in that he wasn;t facing the officer when shot. The "back of the arm" is "from the back".

Until you can show that the coroner indicated that all of the shots went through the arm, your claim is unsubstantiated.