or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 387

post #5791 of 6081
Things are not going well in Charlotte. A black protestor was just shot and killed by another protestor.
post #5792 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Things are not going well in Charlotte. A black protestor was just shot and killed by another protestor.

Protesters or criminals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnGalt View Post

While the dude obviously should've put the damn gun down, what seems to be missing is whether or not he pointed it at them. Since when is the mere presence of a gun reason to shoot?

Seems to be the case above.
post #5793 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnGalt View Post

Since when is the mere presence of a gun reason to shoot?

 

 

2014-12-01-JOHNCRAWFORDPHOTO-thumb.jpg

 

 

CLEVELAND-web3-blog427.jpg 

post #5794 of 6081
It doesn't even take a gun ( or any weapon for that matter ),

Ask Akai Gurley, oh wait......
post #5795 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnGalt View Post

While the dude obviously should've put the damn gun down, what seems to be missing is whether or not he pointed it at them. Since when is the mere presence of a gun reason to shoot?

THIS. Police should never shoot first. They need to wait until the "civilian" demonstrates aggressive intent by pointing the gun at them or actually pulling the trigger. That's what body armor's for.
post #5796 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

THIS. Police should never shoot first. They need to wait until the "civilian" demonstrates aggressive intent by pointing the gun at them or actually pulling the trigger. That's what body armor's for.

So if Scott got out of his car and pointed his gun at the cops, it was a good shoot.

But, if Scott got out of his car, and repeatedly failed to follow commands to drop the gun, while having it at his side, then it was a bad shoot if they shot him without his raising of the gun.

Is this what you're saying? I sense that whatever the video shows, the cop is going to say that he perceived a threat to his life.

You're a lawyer. Doesn't the law now say something like "the officer has the right to defend himself if he reasonably fears for his life?" And it doesn't take much for the cop to perceive a threat.

So, what would have to happen is a changing of the law. If that's what the public wants, it would be fine with me if the proponents can get a law like that passed..

We can call it The Florida Mountain Law.
post #5797 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


Their cause would be better served if they focused on those cases. I agree with them about police needing different scrutiny than other professions because of the unique position they're in to kill you as part of their job. The message has been clouded with false alarms, rioting and looting following some of those false alarms, and the murder of innocent police officers.

 

I think Piob was talking about this a few weeks back - BLM and other groups do themselves a disservice by defending/protesting every incident, rather than being selective and choosing just the ones that will give them the highest win % and highest moral ground. It really does hurt their cause and makes it earlier for their opponents to discredit and smear them.

post #5798 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

couldnt they just shot him in the legs though, he wasn't moving and they were 3-4m apart confused.gif it's not uncommon for police here to shot to say 'disarm' if it's possible

My understanding, from the BBC report, was that he'd already been tasered, and was thus incapacitated before they shot him.

post #5799 of 6081
Shooting a prone tazed inert mofo. Despicable..
post #5800 of 6081
Apparently a pre-condition of getting hired as a LEO is a 24/7 fear for their life.
post #5801 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

So if Scott got out of his car and pointed his gun at the cops, it was a good shoot.

But, if Scott got out of his car, and repeatedly failed to follow commands to drop the gun, while having it at his side, then it was a bad shoot if they shot him without his raising of the gun.

Is this what you're saying? I sense that whatever the video shows, the cop is going to say that he perceived a threat to his life.

You're a lawyer. Doesn't the law now say something like "the officer has the right to defend himself if he reasonably fears for his life?" And it doesn't take much for the cop to perceive a threat.

So, what would have to happen is a changing of the law. If that's what the public wants, it would be fine with me if the proponents can get a law like that passed..

We can call it The Florida Mountain Law.

It's possible that FLMM was not being 100% serious.
post #5802 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Apparently a pre-condition of getting hired as a LEO is a 24/7 fear for their life.
In fairness, I can see -- at least in many communities -- how easy it would be for them to develop this on the job if they weren't hard-wired for it already. Some of that probably comes from the hyped up "thin blue line" feedback loop, but it's not without some basis in reality. All the more reason agencies -- dare I say "institutions" need to recognize those natural human tendencies and account for them in their training, policies, etc. (Which many presumably do, to varying extents.)
post #5803 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

In fairness, I can see -- at least in many communities -- how easy it would be for them to develop this on the job if they weren't hard-wired for it already. Some of that probably comes from the hyped up "thin blue line" feedback loop, but it's not without some basis in reality. All the more reason agencies -- dare I say "institutions" need to recognize those natural human tendencies and account for them in their training, policies, etc. (Which many presumably do, to varying extents.)

From the police training I've read about, it seems they actually over emphasize the degree to which the general populace is a threat to them. I'm not that surprised with the amount of police shootings if they're trained to think that every non compliant action is a potentially lethal threat against them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/
post #5804 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post
 

 

I think Piob was talking about this a few weeks back - BLM and other groups do themselves a disservice by defending/protesting every incident, rather than being selective and choosing just the ones that will give them the highest win % and highest moral ground. It really does hurt their cause and makes it earlier for their opponents to discredit and smear them.

 

iirc Piob was saying something slightly different, so i'll just address this on its own.

 

imo this type of statement belies an extremely precarious moral position for what is - i assume - an outside observer. whether BLM discriminates or privileges one *type* of incident over another doesn't matter as a purely political position, one that is as far as i can tell valid unto itself. and of course the incidents themselves are obviously highly circumstantial, and the pesky details that illuminate the immediate morality at play are usually disputed. 

 

you could easily be right that it hurts the cause. but if as a matter of political and philosophical truth the cause necessarily encircles those incidents that you deem as a low %, low moral ground, etc. then to cherry pick (as you suggest) would be a bit of a poison pill, no? - and maybe that would be politically expedient, but to what moral end?

 

imo the key is to strive to understand exactly what this political message is and deal with that as directly as possible one way or another. this business of armchair quarterbacking doesn't answer the actual challenge that is posed by BLM. $.02.

post #5805 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post



imo the key is to strive to understand exactly what this political message is and deal with that as directly as possible one way or another. this business of armchair quarterbacking doesn't answer the actual challenge that is posed by BLM. $.02.

There is BLM, which is a loosely organized group, and then within that group there is a smaller subset of opportunists, anarchists, communists, thugs and criminals who piggyback on the movement as a way to justify their behavior. As long as the latter exists within the larger group, the former is never going to have a message that will be perceived as legitimate by the overall public. And we should probably also mention that as long as the statistics prove that their gripes are vastly overblown and sometimes built on complete falsehoods, it's unlikely the truthful part of their message will ever be heard.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?