|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 21, 2018 8:19:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 21, 2018 8:39:56 GMT
That's very sad.
|
|
Moviefan
Sophomore
@allaby
Posts: 565
Likes: 284
 
|
Post by Moviefan on Jun 22, 2018 1:35:47 GMT
That's awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 22, 2018 2:03:24 GMT
He wasn't smart to run and the article did state that guns were found in the vehicle. That said, there should always be some due provocation for the cops to shoot somebody in the back and the article doesn't really state anything in regards to this. We don't know the whole story. I guess it all depends on if fleeing the scene constitutes a death sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jun 22, 2018 16:34:22 GMT
Fleeing the scene? What was he running from???
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jun 22, 2018 16:45:10 GMT
i know i know the guns in the car were for flashing at girls as they cruised around the hood. and they were both actually on their way to their local homeless shelter to volunteer. as the parents proclaim, our sons would never ever be involved in anything resembling crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 22, 2018 20:26:40 GMT
You got to wear your bullet proof vest backwards if you're gonna run bro.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 22, 2018 23:03:08 GMT
Fleeing the scene? What was he running from??? Murderous cops? |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 22, 2018 23:05:21 GMT
i know i know the guns in the car were for flashing at girls as they cruised around the hood. and they were both actually on their way to their local homeless shelter to volunteer. as the parents proclaim, our sons would never ever be involved in anything resembling crime. So where would you suggest the line be drawn on police shooting unarmed teens in the back? |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 22, 2018 23:06:32 GMT
You got to wear your bullet proof vest backwards if you're gonna run bro. Apparently you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 23, 2018 0:38:55 GMT
i know i know the guns in the car were for flashing at girls as they cruised around the hood. and they were both actually on their way to their local homeless shelter to volunteer. as the parents proclaim, our sons would never ever be involved in anything resembling crime. So where would you suggest the line be drawn on police shooting unarmed teens in the back? I don't know... This was a kid that was involved in a shooting 13 minutes earlier... running from the cops. Where do you draw the line as to who gets away with a crime?  Seriously... The whole thing is just sad. I wouldn't blame the cops if they let him run.... I also can't blame the cops for not letting him run. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 23, 2018 0:42:50 GMT
Also... We gotta stop with the "unarmed" crap.
1) Actual arms can still do a lot of harm. (Not really specific for this case)
2) The cops never know if the guy that was just involved in a shooting is currently unarmed until after he is captured... until then, they kinda haveta assume that the person is still armed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 23, 2018 1:22:57 GMT
Where do you draw the line as to who gets away with a crime?
Hopefully we don't draw it at shooting unarmed teenagers in the back.
I wouldn't blame the cops if they let him run.... I also can't blame the cops for not letting him run.
I can't support a police force that utilizes deadly force as the first option. The kid posed no immediate threat to the officer or anyone else. Wasn't even running toward the officer in a threatening manner. He was running away and got shot 3 times in the back. I will blame the cop for this.
1) Actual arms can still do a lot of harm.
Not when they're running away.
2) The cops never know if the guy that was just involved in a shooting is currently unarmed until after he is captured... until then, they kinda haveta assume that the person is still armed.
So you support a cops right to kill based on the possibility that a suspect could potentially have a weapon even if that suspect poses no immediate threat to anyone including yourself and has never yet brandished such a weapon?
I don't know why people want to jump through hoops to defend this cop. He shot an unarmed kid in the back. I really didn't think Id have to say much more than that. Disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 23, 2018 13:04:54 GMT
Where do you draw the line as to who gets away with a crime?Hopefully we don't draw it at shooting unarmed teenagers in the back. They're not really just walking up to innocent people and shooting them in the back. Tell that to the guy that they shot 13 minutes earlier... Yeah.... He was running to escape justice. Do you blame prison guards for shooting escaping in unarmed convicts as they run away from prison? He was involved in a shooting 13 minutes earlier.... There are assumptions that can reasonably be understood...
Like I said.... If he chose not to shoot.... I'd understand why: He's a running kid. Him choosing to shoot?... I also understand why: He's a running criminal.
That's not really jumping through hoops.
Well.... You could have said "as he ran from the cops after being stopped for shooting a person" as more.... but... Once again. I think the whole thing is a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 23, 2018 14:01:52 GMT
This makes 3 police shootings recently that many people complained about, yet were probably justified.
The one in the topic, David George shot Tim Day (less complaints about that one, David George is a pastor), and one in Richmond you might not have seen in national news, the police shot a naked guy attacking them. What upset many people about that one is that a naked man couldn't possibly be hiding a gun. They did not understand that a person can kill or maim you even if he has no gun.
Shooting people, especially crazy "religious" people or communists, is the one talent the new administration has. They are ignorant of marriage and how to restore it to its former meaning. They are ignorant of economics. They are ignorant of religion. They are ignorant of the Middle East. They are ignorant of basic chemistry.
The only thing the Trump Republicans know how to do is kill people and the only thing the Democrats know how to do is whine about the police killing people. Isn't that really the only thing government should do? Kill and irritate people?
On the night of the presidential elections after news sources announced Trump had one, I said that it is going to leave a mark. I am sorry to say how very right I was. The only question now is how big a mark.
Republicans have had two years to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover. Why haven't they? The main reason is they do not want to because they are not religious. Secondly they are too stupid to overturn it even if they wanted to.
So yes, they are killing people and it does seem in many cases the ones they really need to. That is not however likely going to fix everything wrong with the country. Even so they will be praised by many people in both parties for being the government they have always depended upon for everything they have and know.
The only question now is how stupid it has to get before something finally and really changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 23, 2018 15:06:46 GMT
That's exactly what they're doing. Unless you think the cop is entitled to be judge jury and executioner, that is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Again...since when is the cop judge jury and executioner in a scenario with an unarmed, non aggressive suspect? I don't care if he killed puppies two days ago...at the time of the attempted arrest he was unarmed and running away from the situation.
Sure. But then what you do is you chase him and attempt to bring him to justice. What you DONT do is shoot him in the back.
I would actually. If the escaping convicts posed no immediate threat. I would suggest that the prison guards be held accountable for using deadly force where otherwise unnecessary. Especially if it were a reoccuring problem.
I don't find it reasonable that cop can assume an unarmed suspect who is fleeing the scene deserves the death sentence. That seems horribly unreasonable to me. A reasonable solution is to chase him...or put out an apb or whatevs. Hell they managed to snag the car in 13 minutes, right? Why all the sudden do we have to jump past the arrest and the trial and go right to the death sentence?
My point is i didn't think id have to go any further than cops shooting someone in the back while they posed no threat to anyone. And yes...i know he was supposedly involved in a shooting 13 minutes earlier...but at the time of the arrest he posed no threat to anyone. He had no gun, he was not attempting to attack the officer or anyone else in any way, he was just running and he got 3 bullets for it. I don't prefer our armed police to use this level of judgement when attempting to arrest our citizens. Maybe that's just me. If this thread is any indication it very well could be. Remember the only loss of life here came from the police officer to an unarmed suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jun 23, 2018 17:36:27 GMT
"murderous cops" is an obscene over generalization...
"murderous thugs" is an understatement...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 23, 2018 23:32:20 GMT
That's exactly what they're doing. Unless you think the cop is entitled to be judge jury and executioner, that is EXACTLY what they are doing. Again...since when is the cop judge jury and executioner in a scenario with an unarmed, non aggressive suspect? I don't care if he killed puppies two days ago...at the time of the attempted arrest he was unarmed and running away from the situation. Sure. But then what you do is you chase him and attempt to bring him to justice. What you DONT do is shoot him in the back. I would actually. If the escaping convicts posed no immediate threat. I would suggest that the prison guards be held accountable for using deadly force where otherwise unnecessary. Especially if it were a reoccuring problem. I don't find it reasonable that cop can assume an unarmed suspect who is fleeing the scene deserves the death sentence. That seems horribly unreasonable to me. A reasonable solution is to chase him...or put out an apb or whatevs. Hell they managed to snag the car in 13 minutes, right? Why all the sudden do we have to jump past the arrest and the trial and go right to the death sentence? My point is i didn't think id have to go any further than cops shooting someone in the back while they posed no threat to anyone. And yes...i know he was supposedly involved in a shooting 13 minutes earlier...but at the time of the arrest he posed no threat to anyone. He had no gun, he was not attempting to attack the officer or anyone else in any way, he was just running and he got 3 bullets for it. I don't prefer our armed police to use this level of judgement when attempting to arrest our citizens. Maybe that's just me. If this thread is any indication it very well could be. Remember the only loss of life here came from the police officer to an unarmed suspect. I can't say you're wrong about any of this... |
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 23, 2018 23:50:40 GMT
Here is my take on this:
I don't know if it's because of the internet and the fact that we are now aware of every little thing that goes on, but cops do seem to be either trigger happy or violence prone.
I was always under the impression that cops were trained to handle situations like the ones in the news. That preserving the lives of the public was to protect at all cost.
When I hear things like "they were scared for their lives" "she resisted arrest" or "he looked dangerous" I really have trouble with this.
It seems now the first reaction is to shoot and ask questions later. No time is taken to verify or analyse anything... they just react on their perceptions of a situation and we have to be ok with this because they feared for their lives.
I'm sorry but isn't danger part of the job description?
The other day there was this case about a drunk guy that was shot in his own garage while he was closing the garage door because they feared for their lives. The guy had a gun but the gun was in his waistband in the back of his pants... yes he was drunk and probably obnoxious but he was closing his garage door on them... where was the danger excatly? they shot him as he was closing the door... and were found not guilty? and the family was awarded 4 dollars for pain and suffering to add insult to injury.
People keep saying he shouldn't have run, but giving what's been on the news about people not running and not putting up a fight, a 17 year old knowing he had done something took his chances with running.
Because it seems you're damned if you do and damned if you don't anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 24, 2018 0:09:36 GMT
That's exactly what they're doing. Unless you think the cop is entitled to be judge jury and executioner, that is EXACTLY what they are doing. Again...since when is the cop judge jury and executioner in a scenario with an unarmed, non aggressive suspect? I don't care if he killed puppies two days ago...at the time of the attempted arrest he was unarmed and running away from the situation. Sure. But then what you do is you chase him and attempt to bring him to justice. What you DONT do is shoot him in the back. I would actually. If the escaping convicts posed no immediate threat. I would suggest that the prison guards be held accountable for using deadly force where otherwise unnecessary. Especially if it were a reoccuring problem. I don't find it reasonable that cop can assume an unarmed suspect who is fleeing the scene deserves the death sentence. That seems horribly unreasonable to me. A reasonable solution is to chase him...or put out an apb or whatevs. Hell they managed to snag the car in 13 minutes, right? Why all the sudden do we have to jump past the arrest and the trial and go right to the death sentence? My point is i didn't think id have to go any further than cops shooting someone in the back while they posed no threat to anyone. And yes...i know he was supposedly involved in a shooting 13 minutes earlier...but at the time of the arrest he posed no threat to anyone. He had no gun, he was not attempting to attack the officer or anyone else in any way, he was just running and he got 3 bullets for it. I don't prefer our armed police to use this level of judgement when attempting to arrest our citizens. Maybe that's just me. If this thread is any indication it very well could be. Remember the only loss of life here came from the police officer to an unarmed suspect. You make a lot of really good points. I would say though that it is not an easy job. I'm relieved I don't have that job. They have a lot of shoot/don't shoot drills and I suspect when the real situation happened I would think about it too long and get myself shot. Peter at the Pearly Gates would would be like, "Aren't you coming in?" And I'd be like, "I wasted a lot of the taxpayer's money, can we repay that first somehow?" Or worse yet I would get someone else shot by thinking about it too much. How can something like that ever be repaid? I'm glad that you're right, there usually are other solutions. I hope I have the grace to find them if that need ever happens in real life. It sure happens a lot in the movies though, doesn't it? |
|
