The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is your side assumes police shootings are always wrong, when in practice they are usually justified even when the person doesn't have a gun.

Of the ones that aren't most seem to be a case of having their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't have--blame the police academies for this.

Sterling did have a gun and appeared to be going for it. Being black doesn't magically make it an unjustified shooting.

The thing is, your side is just you.

There are no 'sides' here; There are a wide range of different sets of opinions.

Your oversimplification of things into a set of false dichotomies helps no one. Just because you assume that police shootings are always right, that is not a reason for you to imagine that there are two 'sides', and that everyone is either on your side, or on the other side which holds exactly the opposite position. Some people - I would go so far as to say almost ALL people - think that some police shootings are justified, and some are not; and amongst those people there is a huge diversity of opinions regarding the various criteria that render a given case justified or unjustified.

Reality isn't simple, and you do nobody any favours when you pretend that it is.

You're avoiding the basic reality: He had a gun, he appeared to be reaching for it. How can you call it an unjustified shooting?

 

[Bronzeage]

The thing is, your side is just you.

There are no 'sides' here; There are a wide range of different sets of opinions.

Your oversimplification of things into a set of false dichotomies helps no one. Just because you assume that police shootings are always right, that is not a reason for you to imagine that there are two 'sides', and that everyone is either on your side, or on the other side which holds exactly the opposite position. Some people - I would go so far as to say almost ALL people - think that some police shootings are justified, and some are not; and amongst those people there is a huge diversity of opinions regarding the various criteria that render a given case justified or unjustified.

Reality isn't simple, and you do nobody any favours when you pretend that it is.

You're avoiding the basic reality: He had a gun, he appeared to be reaching for it. How can you call it an unjustified shooting?

Because they take points off for creating the circumstances that put you in a situation where you are scared somebody might shoot you and you shoot first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're avoiding the basic reality: He had a gun, he appeared to be reaching for it. How can you call it an unjustified shooting?

Because they take points off for creating the circumstances that put you in a situation where you are scared somebody might shoot you and you shoot first.

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

It's not a sporting event!

 

[laughing dog]

The thing is, your side is just you.

There are no 'sides' here; There are a wide range of different sets of opinions.

Your oversimplification of things into a set of false dichotomies helps no one. Just because you assume that police shootings are always right, that is not a reason for you to imagine that there are two 'sides', and that everyone is either on your side, or on the other side which holds exactly the opposite position. Some people - I would go so far as to say almost ALL people - think that some police shootings are justified, and some are not; and amongst those people there is a huge diversity of opinions regarding the various criteria that render a given case justified or unjustified.

Reality isn't simple, and you do nobody any favours when you pretend that it is.

You're avoiding the basic reality: He had a gun, he appeared to be reaching for it. How can you call it an unjustified shooting?

The basic reality is that your response does not address a single item in bilby's post which was not about Alton Sterling but your oversimplification of things into a set of false dichotomies.

 

[Juma]

Because they take points off for creating the circumstances that put you in a situation where you are scared somebody might shoot you and you shoot first.

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

You arr begging the question by presupposing that they are crooks. They are people. They are you and me.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

You arr begging the question by presupposing that they are crooks. They are people. They are you and me.

Loren is implying that cops are a special class of citizen, and that in their presence you are the bad guy because they are the good guys. If they tell you to jump you are supposed to jump, no hesitation or questions.

 

[Juma]

Not really. I can appreciate an actual threat. What you are doing is to continue to supporting almost any police shooting and will flip your brain inside out to come up with a justification even if even the Police admit wrong doing.

The thing is your side assumes police shootings are always wrong, when in practice they are usually justified even when the person doesn't have a gun.

Of the ones that aren't most seem to be a case of having their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't have--blame the police academies for this.

Sterling did have a gun and appeared to be going for it. Being black doesn't magically make it an unjustified shooting.

Police shootings ARE always wrong. A police shooting taking place means that we, all of us, lost.
Please see to the bigger picture.

 

[bilby]

The thing is, your side is just you.

There are no 'sides' here; There are a wide range of different sets of opinions.

Your oversimplification of things into a set of false dichotomies helps no one. Just because you assume that police shootings are always right, that is not a reason for you to imagine that there are two 'sides', and that everyone is either on your side, or on the other side which holds exactly the opposite position. Some people - I would go so far as to say almost ALL people - think that some police shootings are justified, and some are not; and amongst those people there is a huge diversity of opinions regarding the various criteria that render a given case justified or unjustified.

Reality isn't simple, and you do nobody any favours when you pretend that it is.

You're avoiding the basic reality: He had a gun, he appeared to be reaching for it. How can you call it an unjustified shooting?

I didn't; So why do you think I did, or would?

Perhaps you could try reading what I wrote, and respond to that - rather than to whatever the voices in your head are telling you that I should have written.

I have yet to express any opinion on the particular case you are discussing; Rather than challenging your conclusions in any specific case, I am challenging your entire methodology.

 

[Bronzeage]

Because they take points off for creating the circumstances that put you in a situation where you are scared somebody might shoot you and you shoot first.

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

It's not a sporting event!

Actually, it's called "parity between citizens and cops."

This is a situation where two policemen put themselves in danger, and then reacted with deadly force.

What is to prevent you or I from being killed in a similar situation? I know that being a white man provides a huge amount of protection from being shot by a policeman, but it's ironclad guarantee. If the police are not held responsible for the outcome of situations they create, no one is safe from poor training, poor judgment, and poor results.

Just for discussion sake, imagine that I walk up to you in a parking lot, pull out a pistol, put it to your head and threaten to kill you. What is your immediate thought? What is your immediate reaction?

Now, imagine the same thing, but I am wearing a police uniform. What is your immediate reaction?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because they take points off for creating the circumstances that put you in a situation where you are scared somebody might shoot you and you shoot first.

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

 

[Rayschism]

So you want parity between the crooks and the cops?

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

You really should have shelled out a few more bucks for the Advanced Trolling book.

 

[Malintent]

1. The media is yet again focusing on race even though there is no reason to assume it is race related.
2. Don't struggle/fight with police. It usually doesn't end well. And no, even if the shooting turns out to be unjustified (and of course that is still a possibility as we do not know everything) it still was a bad idea to resist. Police going to prison is not going to bring him back from the dead.
2a. Especially if you have a gun. The police were called because he threatened somebody with said gun.
2b. Red shirt? He was tempting fate.
3. Selling CDs/DVDs out of his trunk? Did he have a license for that? Were they pirated or genuine?

A black man laying on the ground being restrained by two police officers was shot to death by one of said officers and Derec thinks it is ok because he may have been selling dvd's out of his trunk. And then he wonders why people think he is an authoritarian racist.

Where is your fucking outrage now?

You even quote what you are commenting on so everyone can plainly see that what is quoted is absent of what you accuse it of...

You said that Derec said that it's ok to shoot a black guy if he is selling dvds... but what he said was noting even in that ballpark....

you are why we have Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

I don't know. Why do you think, Comrade?

 

[Rayschism]

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

You really should have shelled out a few more bucks for the Advanced Trolling book.

I wasn't trolling. I'm dead serious.

- - - Updated - - -

A black man laying on the ground being restrained by two police officers was shot to death by one of said officers and Derec thinks it is ok because he may have been selling dvd's out of his trunk. And then he wonders why people think he is an authoritarian racist.

Where is your fucking outrage now?

i don't believe they are that special.

I don't believe in putting anyone on a pedestal. That only causes stupid problems in the long run.

You even quote what you are commenting on so everyone can plainly see that what is quoted is absent of what you accuse it of...

You said that Derec said that it's ok to shoot a black guy if he is selling dvds... but what he said was noting even in that ballpark....

you are why we have Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

I don't know. Why do you think, Comrade?

I don't believe in putting anyone on a pedestal. That only causes stupid problems and encourages discrimination.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

You really should have shelled out a few more bucks for the Advanced Trolling book.

I've asked the same question before.

Police are one of our political sacred cows. It seems we aren't allowed to ask whether a policeman's life is comparable to an ordinary citizen's life. The "A policeman has the right to go home at night," has become some kind of magic spell which ends the discussion. In reality, it is an formula which means, any police officer's life is worth more than whoever happened to die at his hands.

The spell is always invoked after someone is shot by a police officer, and assumes the shooting was necessary for the officer to live.

We have, in practice, granted our police a license to kill. Along with this licence, there should be an increased scrutiny when someone is killed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You really should have shelled out a few more bucks for the Advanced Trolling book.

I've asked the same question before.

Police are one of our political sacred cows. It seems we aren't allowed to ask whether a policeman's life is comparable to an ordinary citizen's life. The "A policeman has the right to go home at night," has become some kind of magic spell which ends the discussion. In reality, it is an formula which means, any police officer's life is worth more than whoever happened to die at his hands.

Not necessarily. I think the Police have a right to go home from their job which does involve dealing with dangerous people at times. It is the later issue where Police Officers need to take their safety into account of how they approach situations. In the Tamir Rice case, the officer immediately leaps from his vehicle before it even stops, out in the open. Had Tamir Rice had a gun and wanted to kill an officer, none better time and opportunity than that. The officer put his own life at risk, which apparently is according to acceptable operational procedures in Cleveland. But for us proles out in the real world, it seemed like an unacceptable and needless risk, which not only endangered the officer's life, but obviously the life of that teen that didn't even have a gun... and would be shot almost immediately in major part due to the potential danger the officer put himself in.

The spell is always invoked after someone is shot by a police officer, and assumes the shooting was necessary for the officer to live.

And I've noted that as well. A lot of whites think if an officer shoots a person, it had to be a legit shooting because an officer shot someone. Very circular!

We have, in practice, granted out police a license to kill. Along with this licence, there should be an increased scrutiny when someone is killed.

Officers used to die in higher numbers in the 60s, which created a certain mindset among some officers that is no longer compatible with the times we live in.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've asked the same question before.

Police are one of our political sacred cows. It seems we aren't allowed to ask whether a policeman's life is comparable to an ordinary citizen's life. The "A policeman has the right to go home at night," has become some kind of magic spell which ends the discussion. In reality, it is an formula which means, any police officer's life is worth more than whoever happened to die at his hands.

Not necessarily. I think the Police have a right to go home from their job which does involve dealing with dangerous people at times. It is the later issue where Police Officers need to take their safety into account of how they approach situations. In the Tamir Rice case, the officer immediately leaps from his vehicle before it even stops, out in the open. Had Tamir Rice had a gun and wanted to kill an officer, none better time and opportunity than that. The officer put his own life at risk, which apparently is according to acceptable operational procedures in Cleveland. But for us proles out in the real world, it seemed like an unacceptable and needless risk, which not only endangered the officer's life, but obviously the life of that teen that didn't even have a gun... and would be shot almost immediately in major part due to the potential danger the officer put himself in.

The spell is always invoked after someone is shot by a police officer, and assumes the shooting was necessary for the officer to live.

And I've noted that as well. A lot of whites think if an officer shoots a person, it had to be a legit shooting because an officer shot someone. Very circular!

We have, in practice, granted out police a license to kill. Along with this licence, there should be an increased scrutiny when someone is killed.

Officers used to die in higher numbers in the 60s, which created a certain mindset among some officers that is no longer compatible with the times we live in.

It would be interesting to compare the numbers of officers who were shot in the 60's with the numbers of citizens who were shot boy police in the 60's.

The only real difference between today and anytime in the past, as far as police involved shootings is concerned, is we now have onsite video for so many incidents. It stretches credibility to claim that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is a new phenomena. One thing all the recent incidents have in common is that the initial police statement is contradicted by the video evidence.

I've been called to jury duty several times and a common question for prospective jurors is, "Would you give more weight to the testimony of a police officer, because they are a police officer?" It strikes me as a strange question. Why would anyone think a police officer has more credibility than any one else?

Imagine an expose' news show rigs a car with cameras under the hood and takes the car to a shop for repairs. The video clearly shows no work was done, after the bill is presented to the customer. Does anyone believe or trust the mechanic after this. If it were a pattern, reproduced across the country, time after time, would anyone trust any mechanic?

Is there any compelling reason to accept the word of a police officer who has just shot a citizen?

 

[Rayschism]

Not necessarily. I think the Police have a right to go home from their job which does involve dealing with dangerous people at times. It is the later issue where Police Officers need to take their safety into account of how they approach situations. In the Tamir Rice case, the officer immediately leaps from his vehicle before it even stops, out in the open. Had Tamir Rice had a gun and wanted to kill an officer, none better time and opportunity than that. The officer put his own life at risk, which apparently is according to acceptable operational procedures in Cleveland. But for us proles out in the real world, it seemed like an unacceptable and needless risk, which not only endangered the officer's life, but obviously the life of that teen that didn't even have a gun... and would be shot almost immediately in major part due to the potential danger the officer put himself in.

The spell is always invoked after someone is shot by a police officer, and assumes the shooting was necessary for the officer to live.

And I've noted that as well. A lot of whites think if an officer shoots a person, it had to be a legit shooting because an officer shot someone. Very circular!

We have, in practice, granted out police a license to kill. Along with this licence, there should be an increased scrutiny when someone is killed.

Officers used to die in higher numbers in the 60s, which created a certain mindset among some officers that is no longer compatible with the times we live in.

It would be interesting to compare the numbers of officers who were shot in the 60's with the numbers of citizens who were shot boy police in the 60's.

The only real difference between today and anytime in the past, as far as police involved shootings is concerned, is we now have onsite video for so many incidents. It stretches credibility to claim that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is a new phenomena. One thing all the recent incidents have in common is that the initial police statement is contradicted by the video evidence.

I've been called to jury duty several times and a common question for prospective jurors is, "Would you give more weight to the testimony of a police officer, because they are a police officer?" It strikes me as a strange question. Why would anyone think a police officer has more credibility than any one else?

Imagine an expose' news show rigs a car with cameras under the hood and takes the car to a shop for repairs. The video clearly shows no work was done, after the bill is presented to the customer. Does anyone believe or trust the mechanic after this. If it were a pattern, reproduced across the country, time after time, would anyone trust any mechanic?

Is there any compelling reason to accept the word of a police officer who has just shot a citizen?

There is no more reason to accept the word of the civilian either.

What should count are facts and evidence, which most people ignore in favor of either knee jerk over the top emotional hyperbole, or hero worship or cop hate.

Just my two cents anyhow.

 

[LordKiran]

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

Ideally everyone should get to go home safely at night. The reason he lead with that statement was to cut off accusations that "He hates cops." or some-such.

 

[Rayschism]

I want cops to go home safely every night. This likelihood isn't increased by acting recklessly and putting themselves in to needless positions of danger, where they then need to kill someone.

One will note that almost none of these cases involved imminent danger (actual danger of losing their life, not your bullshit hypothetical sticks and stones crap), a case where a man was firing at cops or in a position where such an action was possible. We have seen time after time when unarmed people were shot by a cop because either of bad decision making in the moment or an officer putting themselves in a position where they jeopardized their own safety, for no strategic gain. We've seen officers shoot a man who was surrounded by officers. We've seen an officer fuck up and accidentally shoot people in a couple cases (in one, the guy wasn't even an officer!). We've seen officers storm onto site and blast away immediately like a video game. We've seen officers shoot a teen with a fake gun product that was sold at the store. There was even a case of shooting a naked man who was mentally ill. Now I realize that you'll say these were all cases where officers were doomed to being murdered on the job, but that is bullshit. Your standard for use of deadly force is abhorrently low. There was a case in NYC, where a mentally ill homeless man armed with a knife on a subway and was subdued by unarmed vacationing Swedish officers. Officers subdue people all the time, yet when some officers really fuck up, you are always there to defend them.

It's not a sporting event!

Odd, because your long term behavior and reactions to these cases are like a partisan sports fan, where everything that goes against your team is "bullshit" and the refs are "fucking idiots".

Why are cops so special that they get to go home safely every night?

Ideally everyone should get to go home safely at night. The reason he lead with that statement was to cut off accusations that "He hates cops." or some-such.

Too much safety leads to tyranny.

The most oppressive forms of government are those who want to make things safe for its citizens.