18 yr old shoots at off-duty St. Louis cop, gets killed

[Spirit of Hope]

You are saying he should get fired, because the situation is "highly suspicious". You haven't waited for an investigation or a trial.

Police officers who use their guns on duty are usually put on temporary leave regardless of what happened.

Temporary leave is very different from firing him. Temporary leave usually doesn't mean you no longer have a job. The poster I am responding to thinks that because the situation was suspect the cop should simply be fired.

[Laerod]

I most certainly am not.

You are saying he should get fired, because the situation is "highly suspicious". You haven't waited for an investigation or a trial.

Don't lie:

2) Nope. What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go. An employee in the intelligence community won't keep their clearance if they become a sufficiently high risk. Given the role police play in our society, the character of a cop needs to be beyond reproach if they are to be trusted with a gun. Whether this particular case warrants any of that remains to be seen.

Mind you the italics in that last bit were there when I first posted it too.

[Spirit of Hope]

You are saying he should get fired, because the situation is "highly suspicious". You haven't waited for an investigation or a trial.

Don't lie:

2) Nope. What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go. An employee in the intelligence community won't keep their clearance if they become a sufficiently high risk. Given the role police play in our society, the character of a cop needs to be beyond reproach if they are to be trusted with a gun. Whether this particular case warrants any of that remains to be seen.

Mind you the italics in that last bit were there when I first posted it too.

ANd you have previously claimed this is a suspicious circumstance. So yes I have connected dots.

[Laerod]

Don't lie:

Mind you the italics in that last bit were there when I first posted it too.

ANd you have previously claimed this is a suspicious circumstance. So yes I have connected dots.

I've explicitely spelled out that I'm speaking in general terms that may or may not apply in this particular case. You're not "connecting dots", you're deluding yourself by believing I actually have the strawman positions you attribute to me.

[Spirit of Hope]

ANd you have previously claimed this is a suspicious circumstance. So yes I have connected dots.

I've explicitely spelled out that I'm speaking in general terms that may or may not apply in this particular case. You're not "connecting dots", you're deluding yourself by believing I actually have the strawman positions you attribute to me.

And you have explicitly stated that "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't apply to cops.

[Blazedtown]

A guy shoots at the cops and gets killed. People are some how shocked by this result?

[Laerod]

I've explicitely spelled out that I'm speaking in general terms that may or may not apply in this particular case. You're not "connecting dots", you're deluding yourself by believing I actually have the strawman positions you attribute to me.

And you have explicitly stated that "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't apply to cops.

Yeah. And you don't get to interpret what that meant in contradiction to the context it was stated in.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If he really did shoot at the cop then he had it coming.

[Spirit of Hope]

And you have explicitly stated that "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't apply to cops.

Yeah. And you don't get to interpret what that meant in contradiction to the context it was stated in.

A threa about a cop who shot a person in, possibly, suspect circumstances?

[Ifreann]

Given that we're most of us not in St. Louis we're not in a position to get aggressive with the police officers there. Or are you saying that we shouldn't be saying mean things about them?

Mostly I'm saying I think the people at the scene were in the wrong. Though I do think criticizing the police without information, especially since this looks like a justified shooting, is wrong.

Sounds a bit hypocritical. Why can't we criticise the police without information when you can criticise the deceased with no information?

Plus I was originally responding to the idea of forcing an officer to prove his innocence or be punished, which I find is a disturbing idea.

I don't think anyone actually suggested that.

---

1) Not the point. It's happened and there are mechanisms in place to prevent instances from being uncovered.
2) Nope. What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go. An employee in the intelligence community won't keep their clearance if they become a sufficiently high risk. Given the role police play in our society, the character of a cop needs to be beyond reproach if they are to be trusted with a gun. Whether this particular case warrants any of that remains to be seen.
3) The onus is most certainly not on us to trust them, it's on them to behave in a trustworthy manner. And some don't. At least not in the US.

America's police departments aren't the CIA. You can't just fire people because they got acquitted of wrongdoing.

In some states you can fire people for almost anything you want.

---

No matter what the cops say on this one the people there aren't going to believe it, even if they're telling the truth.

Except, of course, the people who believe the cops, even when they aren't telling the truth.

---

A guy shoots at the cops and gets killed. People are some how shocked by this result?

No, no one is shocked.

[New Chalcedon]

Mostly I'm saying I think the people at the scene were in the wrong. Though I do think criticizing the police without information, especially since this looks like a justified shooting, is wrong.

Sounds a bit hypocritical. Why can't we criticise the police without information when you can criticise the deceased with no information?

Plus I was originally responding to the idea of forcing an officer to prove his innocence or be punished, which I find is a disturbing idea.

I don't think anyone actually suggested that.

---

America's police departments aren't the CIA. You can't just fire people because they got acquitted of wrongdoing.

In some states you can fire people for almost anything you want.

---

No matter what the cops say on this one the people there aren't going to believe it, even if they're telling the truth.

Except, of course, the people who believe the cops, even when they aren't telling the truth.

---

A guy shoots at the cops and gets killed. People are some how shocked by this result?

No, no one is shocked.

Well, we have at least some information now...and it doesn't look too good for the cops. The "suspect" was unarmed minutes earlier, and the cops have changed their stories multiple times, including to (and away from) phyiscally-impossible accounts, such as Myers "leaping out of bushes" to attack the cops in an area without any bushes to leap out of.

[Lord Nuke Is So Kewl]

The Police have every right to execute dangerous criminals. If the criminal pulled a gun, he deserves to die as he is a threat. The Police safety is more important then criminal rights.

No, the police do not have the right to execute dangerous criminals. Execution cannot take place without due process. The police do have a right (and a duty) to kill in self-defense, or to protect innocents from immediate danger, which seems to be what happened here.

If you're a criminal you do deserve to die.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, the police do not have the right to execute dangerous criminals. Execution cannot take place without due process. The police do have a right (and a duty) to kill in self-defense, or to protect innocents from immediate danger, which seems to be what happened here.

If you're a criminal you do deserve to die.

Perhaps and perhaps not. I'm not arguing that point one way or the other. What I am saying is that the police are not in a position to make a final determination regarding guilt or innocence, nor to set a sentence of death, nor to carry out said sentence. This isn't Mega-City One.

[Anglo-California]

Some thug opened fire on the cop, the cop returned fire, taking him out. Why would someone protest this?

[Scomagia]

No, the police do not have the right to execute dangerous criminals. Execution cannot take place without due process. The police do have a right (and a duty) to kill in self-defense, or to protect innocents from immediate danger, which seems to be what happened here.

If you're a criminal you do deserve to die.

No.

[Anglo-California]

No matter what the cops say on this one the people there aren't going to believe it, even if they're telling the truth.

And somehow, shooting someone in self-defense will be construed as the left's favorite buzzword: institutional racism.

*cue creepy organ*
Dun! Dun! Dun!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Some thug opened fire on the cop, the cop returned fire, taking him out. Why would someone protest this?

Because the area is already understandably fraught with tension following the Ferguson fiasco, meaning that cops are unfairly going to be generalized about. Perhaps more understandably, most are treating the police side of the story with skepticism until more evidence comes to light.

[Anglo-California]

Some thug opened fire on the cop, the cop returned fire, taking him out. Why would someone protest this?

Because the area is already understandably fraught with tension following the Ferguson fiasco, meaning that cops are unfairly going to be generalized about. Perhaps more understandably, most are treating the police side of the story with skepticism until more evidence comes to light.

Meanwhile, no one bats an eye when the police are equipped with military hardware or during the countless examples of the 4th Amendment being egregiously violated by the police.

[Ifreann]

Sounds a bit hypocritical. Why can't we criticise the police without information when you can criticise the deceased with no information?

I don't think anyone actually suggested that.

---

In some states you can fire people for almost anything you want.

---

Except, of course, the people who believe the cops, even when they aren't telling the truth.

---

No, no one is shocked.

Well, we have at least some information now...and it doesn't look too good for the cops. The "suspect" was unarmed minutes earlier, and the cops have changed their stories multiple times, including to (and away from) phyiscally-impossible accounts, such as Myers "leaping out of bushes" to attack the cops in an area without any bushes to leap out of.

Presumably the bushes were taken away as evidence.

---

Some thug opened fire on the cop, the cop returned fire, taking him out. Why would someone protest this?

What makes you think that that's what happened? The police saying so? Because, as noted above, the police say a lot of shit.

---

Because the area is already understandably fraught with tension following the Ferguson fiasco, meaning that cops are unfairly going to be generalized about. Perhaps more understandably, most are treating the police side of the story with skepticism until more evidence comes to light.

Meanwhile, no one bats an eye when the police are equipped with military hardware or during the countless examples of the 4th Amendment being egregiously violated by the police.

Except that people do bat their eyes at that, and more. Sure seems like you've got a big ole chip on your shoulder there, buddy. You maybe lookin' for someone to knock it off for you?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Because the area is already understandably fraught with tension following the Ferguson fiasco, meaning that cops are unfairly going to be generalized about. Perhaps more understandably, most are treating the police side of the story with skepticism until more evidence comes to light.

Meanwhile, no one bats an eye when the police are equipped with military hardware or during the countless examples of the 4th Amendment being egregiously violated by the police.

The hell are you talking about? I've seen that all over the news lately. Even John Oliver did a whole huge bit on it.

[Spirit of Hope]

Mostly I'm saying I think the people at the scene were in the wrong. Though I do think criticizing the police without information, especially since this looks like a justified shooting, is wrong.

Sounds a bit hypocritical. Why can't we criticise the police without information when you can criticise the deceased with no information?

Plus I was originally responding to the idea of forcing an officer to prove his innocence or be punished, which I find is a disturbing idea.

I don't think anyone actually suggested that.

---

1) I'm not criticizing the deceased. Did I criticizes the deceased? Until we have information we shouldn't be throwing stones.

2)

What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go.

I.E. we don't have to prove your guilt, you are guilty if we are suspicious.

Well, we have at least some information now...and it doesn't look too good for the cops. The "suspect" was unarmed minutes earlier, and the cops have changed their stories multiple times, including to (and away from) phyiscally-impossible accounts, such as Myers "leaping out of bushes" to attack the cops in an area without any bushes to leap out of.

How does a guy selling a sandwich know if the person was armed or not? Reading through I didn't see any change to the statement that a gun was recovered from the scene, and that the whole affair began when the officer thought the man was holding a gun that was concealed in his pants?

Though you are right the police are changing their story and being rather inconsistent. Which I hate, you would think it would be easy to give out the pertinent details that you know at the time.

[Ifreann]

Sounds a bit hypocritical. Why can't we criticise the police without information when you can criticise the deceased with no information?

I don't think anyone actually suggested that.

---

1) I'm not criticizing the deceased. Did I criticizes the deceased? Until we have information we shouldn't be throwing stones.

Maybe it isn't criticism, per se, to say you think the people at the scene, i.e. the deceased and his friends, were in the wrong, but it is coming to a conclusion without information, something you appear to think is wrong.

2)

What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go.

I.E. we don't have to prove your guilt, you are guilty if we are suspicious.

I don't think you understand what Laerod was saying.

[United States of The One Percent]

Though you are right the police are changing their story and being rather inconsistent. Which I hate, you would think it would be easy to give out the pertinent details that you know at the time.

It would be a lot easier if the pertinent details weren't more or less like "white off-duty cop in uniform chased down random young black man, then shot him 17 times." That looks kinda bad don'cha know. Looks much better if he ripped off some store, or was acting uppity, or was suspicious like not having any ID when he was a passenger in a car stopped for a minor violation or trying to comply with an officer's order to get his license out of the car, or cocked a snook at a cop, or might of had a gun, or had a toy gun, or had a real gun, or shot a gun.

Frankly I tire of the "we don't have all the details, let's wait, don't rush justice" crowd. You all were quick enough to jump on the "that kid ripped off some smokes from a store" meme that these days is, well, iffy, or anything else for that matter that excuses white cops shooting, Tasing or beating black men. I. Tire.

[Spirit of Hope]

What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go.

I.E. we don't have to prove your guilt, you are guilty if we are suspicious.

I don't think you understand what Laerod was saying.[/quote]
Well enlighten me. If a hearing or investigation can't find evidence of wrong doing why should the officer be let go?

[New Chalcedon]

Though you are right the police are changing their story and being rather inconsistent. Which I hate, you would think it would be easy to give out the pertinent details that you know at the time.

It would be a lot easier if the pertinent details weren't more or less like "white off-duty cop in uniform chased down random young black man, then shot him 17 times." That looks kinda bad don'cha know. Looks much better if he ripped off some store, or was acting uppity, or was suspicious like not having any ID when he was a passenger in a car stopped for a minor violation or trying to comply with an officer's order to get his license out of the car, or cocked a snook at a cop, or might of had a gun, or had a toy gun, or had a real gun, or shot a gun.

Frankly I tire of the "we don't have all the details, let's wait, don't rush justice" crowd. You all were quick enough to jump on the "that kid ripped off some smokes from a store" meme that these days is, well, iffy, or anything else for that matter that excuses white cops shooting, Tasing or beating black men. I. Tire.

Basically. The double standard nauseates me - the whitesplaining brigade going on and on about how this black kid smoked pot (and therefore had it coming), or that black kid knocked over a store (and therefore had it coming), or the other talked sassily to cops (and therefore had it coming)....come on, racists - let's apply your own standards to the cops, shall we? You've been quick enough to indulge in character assassination of dead kids in order to justify their killers...sauce for the goose, after all.