Yet another malicious prosecution of a police officer

[Jarhyn]

When you shoot, you shoot to kill. Any nonlethal shooting is best interpreted as an accidental outcome. This is the way anyone with government training is trained to view shooting their weapon. Even when equipped with a rifle or carbine that can pick off a quarter at 25 meters. With a pistol, things are FAR more difficult to hit.

If police shoot somebody and they survive, do they give them coup-de-grace? Or do they transport them to the hospital? Since the goal is to stop, not kill, the suspect is given medical care to counteract the effects of the shooting.
Now compare that to an execution. Since the goal is to kill, the lethal action is usually performed until death is verified by a physician.
Do not be as obtuse as ksen. You are better than that. Again, nobody is disputing that guns are lethal weapons and that "shoot to wound" is not practical (which is why I wrote "shoot to stop").

It seems your reflexes are not very good. Things keep going over your head and you keep failing to catch them.

When someone shoots a gun at someone the person has already decided to kill the person they are shooting at. They have accepted this outcome as acceptable and have attempted to force that fate on the person who they shot. Is is an attempted execution.

Now, just because they fail, just because they decide after the fact to stop going through with it, it doesn't change the fact that they just attempted an execution. They have taken all of the responsibility of executing someone because an action is right or wrong when taken (attempting to kill someone by discharging a firearm in their direction), not when the results are known.

 

[ksen]

Wrong. When a police officer pulls and fires his weapon the goal is to kill. That's how they are trained. Shit, that's how anyone is trained that's been trained in the use of firearms.

The goal is to stop the threat. Normally that involves exactly the same actions as shooting to kill would so you can't decide much on what they did.

meh, semantics

 

[Toni]

Wrong. When a police officer pulls and fires his weapon the goal is to kill. That's how they are trained. Shit, that's how anyone is trained that's been trained in the use of firearms.

The goal is to stop the threat. Normally that involves exactly the same actions as shooting to kill would so you can't decide much on what they did.

Yeah when 'stopping the threat' = killing someone. As it so often does in these cases. Maybe police officers need to be taught that 'black person' is not the same thing as 'threat.'

 

[ksen]

But Toni, this guy took his shirt off!! Can't you imagine how scared and envious that poor officer must have been?

eta: plus he could have put the officer's eye out by snapping his shirt at him like a towel

 

[Derec]

But Toni, this guy took his shirt off!! Can't you imagine how scared and envious that poor officer must have been?

eta: plus he could have put the officer's eye out by snapping his shirt at him like a towel

People who want to engage in fist/street fights will often take their shirt off, be it for freedom of movement or just for intimidation factor.
This guy was a threat, no question about it. The voluntary manslaughter conviction was wrong from the evidence I've seen.

 

[Derec]

Maybe police officers need to be taught that 'black person' is not the same thing as 'threat.'

When a person resists arrest, knocks your taser out of your hands and generally displays hostile and combative behavior than he is a threat no matter his race.
Why is it so difficult to admit that these shootings have everything to do with the behavior of people who are shot?

Just like that woman in Baltimore. She has her defenders even though she threatened police with a shotgun.

 

[ksen]

But Toni, this guy took his shirt off!! Can't you imagine how scared and envious that poor officer must have been?

eta: plus he could have put the officer's eye out by snapping his shirt at him like a towel

People who want to engage in fist/street fights will often take their shirt off, be it for freedom of movement or just for intimidation factor.
This guy was a threat, no question about it. The voluntary manslaughter conviction was wrong from the evidence I've seen.

Apparently a grand jury disagrees with you. And as we all know from the Michael Brown case whatever a grand jury decides it cannot be questioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe police officers need to be taught that 'black person' is not the same thing as 'threat.'

When a person resists arrest, knocks your taser out of your hands and generally displays hostile and combative behavior than he is a threat no matter his race.
Why is it so difficult to admit that these shootings have everything to do with the behavior of people who are shot?

Why is it so difficult to admit that not every threat must be met with lethal force?

Just like that woman in Baltimore. She has her defenders even though she threatened police with a shotgun.

tbf we only have the cop accounts of what happened there and as we've seen cops lie . . . a lot.

 

[Derec]

It seems your reflexes are not very good. Things keep going over your head and you keep failing to catch them.

I think you need new glasses because the points are flying above you and you don't even realize it.

When someone shoots a gun at someone the person has already decided to kill the person they are shooting at. They have accepted this outcome as acceptable and have attempted to force that fate on the person who they shot.

I think you are exactly right on the second formulation "accepted this outcome as acceptable" but not with "decided to kill the person". Killing the person is not the goal, but it is a somewhat likely (and regrettable) effect of stopping them with a gun.

Is is an attempted execution.

No. You execute people who you have in custody, who are not posing an immediate threat. That is very different from a suspect who is posing a threat and who has already disarmed you of one weapon.

Now, just because they fail, just because they decide after the fact to stop going through with it, it doesn't change the fact that they just attempted an execution. They have taken all of the responsibility of executing someone because an action is right or wrong when taken (attempting to kill someone by discharging a firearm in their direction), not when the results are known.

Again, shooting somebody who is posing a threat is very different than executing a prisoner. You,ksen and Toni are attempting semantic confusion but it is not working.

 

[ksen]

 Psychological projection

 

[Derec]

Apparently a grand jury disagrees with you. And as we all know from the Michael Brown case whatever a grand jury decides it cannot be questioned.

Unfortunately he was already convicted, so it is petit jury. And juries get shit wrong all the time. Especially when the judge allows friends of the deceased to talk to the jurors in the hallway.

Why is it so difficult to admit that not every threat must be met with lethal force?

He tried to use non-lethal force but the perp disarmed him of that weapon. Should he wait until he is disarmed of the gun as well?

tbf we only have the cop accounts of what happened there and as we've seen cops lie . . . a lot.

What do you think happened?

- - - Updated - - -

 Psychological projection

I support your efforts to better yourself and all, but self-diagnosis is dangerous.

 

[ksen]

Unfortunately he was already convicted, so it is petit jury. And juries get shit wrong all the time. Especially when the judge allows friends of the deceased to talk to the jurors in the hallway.

"unfortunately"

Why is it so difficult to admit that not every threat must be met with lethal force?

He tried to use non-lethal force but the perp disarmed him of that weapon. Should he wait until he is disarmed of the gun as well?

He tried to use a taser. He didn't exhaust his non-lethal tools. If only police were trained in ways to take down unarmed assailants that didn't involve a taser. I think Eastwood was kind of right when he said we're a generation of pussies. Because these cops that prematurely resort to their guns and then use the "I was scared" defense are just a bunch of roided out pussies.

tbf we only have the cop accounts of what happened there and as we've seen cops lie . . . a lot.

What do you think happened?

I don't know. But I'm more than 50% sure it didn't happen the way the police claimed it did. Why should I believe them when they've been caught lying to protect their own asses time and time again?

 

[Toni]

But Toni, this guy took his shirt off!! Can't you imagine how scared and envious that poor officer must have been?

eta: plus he could have put the officer's eye out by snapping his shirt at him like a towel

People who want to engage in fist/street fights will often take their shirt off, be it for freedom of movement or just for intimidation factor.
This guy was a threat, no question about it. The voluntary manslaughter conviction was wrong from the evidence I've seen.

Really. You know this because of the numerous street fights you take part in?

 

[Trausti]

People who want to engage in fist/street fights will often take their shirt off, be it for freedom of movement or just for intimidation factor.
This guy was a threat, no question about it. The voluntary manslaughter conviction was wrong from the evidence I've seen.

Really. You know this because of the numerous street fights you take part in?

youtube - street fights

 

[ksen]

streetfights.jpg

 

[Trausti]

You wanna piece of me?

But, yeah, shirtless. That's a tough-guy-wants-a-fight thing.

 

[zorq]

Nothing says justice like putting someone in the grave for shoplifting, taking off their shirt and preventing you from electrocuting them.

It is disgusting. These police officers. Waa waa waa. He didn't do what I told him to do. Waa waa waa. I was so scared. SO I RIPPED HIS TORSO TO SHREDS WITH MY BULLETS.

Somehow police in the UK manage to catch unarmed criminals without turning their internal organs into hamburger meat. Maybe that is a sign that cops in the US are doing it wrong.

 

[fast]

Nm

 

[ZiprHead]

How did he get his shirt off if he wouldn't take his hand out of his pocket?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The goal is to stop the threat. Normally that involves exactly the same actions as shooting to kill would so you can't decide much on what they did.

meh, semantics

Motivation is very important in the justice system.

The range of involuntary manslaughter/voluntary manslaughter/second degree murder/first degree murder is entirely a matter of motivation.

- - - Updated - - -

The goal is to stop the threat. Normally that involves exactly the same actions as shooting to kill would so you can't decide much on what they did.

Yeah when 'stopping the threat' = killing someone. As it so often does in these cases. Maybe police officers need to be taught that 'black person' is not the same thing as 'threat.'

Maybe SJWs need to be taught statistics.

A black in a confrontation with a cop is less likely to be killed than a white.

- - - Updated - - -

He tried to use a taser. He didn't exhaust his non-lethal tools. If only police were trained in ways to take down unarmed assailants that didn't involve a taser. I think Eastwood was kind of right when he said we're a generation of pussies. Because these cops that prematurely resort to their guns and then use the "I was scared" defense are just a bunch of roided out pussies.

What's the next step up from taser??


Gun.

 

[zorq]

He tried to use a taser. He didn't exhaust his non-lethal tools. If only police were trained in ways to take down unarmed assailants that didn't involve a taser. I think Eastwood was kind of right when he said we're a generation of pussies. Because these cops that prematurely resort to their guns and then use the "I was scared" defense are just a bunch of roided out pussies.

What's the next step up from taser??


Gun.

What makes you think a police officer should always "step up" their offensive? Stepping down is perfectly valid approach too. Think about it.