Is vilification of duties the problem?

[Trollgaard]

And the only way it can end is if police officers are given magic psychic powers, random would be heroes start wearing IFF tags or people stop playing hero and let the police do their jobs.

Out of the 3 only one is reasonable, likely or practical.

You missed the best option.

Disarm the police.

Lol, are police supposed to stop dudes with uzis with squirt bottles?



The police cannot be unarmed, or they would cease to function.

[Des-Bal]

If someone did nothing wrong but a negative outcome resulted punishing them doesn't make sense, the thing they're being penalized for isn't something they controlled.

You missed the best option.

Disarm the police.

Rather than point out any flaws with this reasoning I'd like to hear how your disarmed police would respond to a shooting in progress.

[Ifreann]

You missed the best option.

Disarm the police.

---

There's some parts of the world where you get put to death for shooting innocent people, but yeah, suspension without pay is also technically a punishment.

For manslaughter? I don’t think any place outside of the Middle East executes people for manslaughter, a few years in prison is most likely

Alabama executes more people than Texas some years.

---

For manslaughter? I don’t think any place outside of the Middle East executes people for manslaughter, a few years in prison is most likely

plus disarming the police would not only be the most idiotic choice ever made it would harm civilians even further so I think Ifreann should rethink that posting.

Police are civilians.

---

So when there's a shooting, people with guns should...lie down on the ground with their hands on their head?

Get to a hiding place, block it and if the shooter finds you shoot him.

But if you draw your gun the police will shoot you.

The fuck is the point of the right to self defence and a right to bear arms if the police will kill you for exercising them?

Being in a mass shooting and getting shot by police is still much less likely than being in a mass shooting, which itself is much less likely than being in some other situation where a gun will save your life.

So it doesn't matter that the police can legally kill people who are entirely legally exercising their rights because maybe sometimes they won't do that.

Cool.

---

You missed the best option.

Disarm the police.

Lol, are police supposed to stop dudes with uzis with squirt bottles?



The police cannot be unarmed, or they would cease to function.

The police sure wouldn't be killing innocent people with squirt bottles.

---

If someone did nothing wrong but a negative outcome resulted punishing them doesn't make sense, the thing they're being penalized for isn't something they controlled.

You missed the best option.

Disarm the police.

Rather than point out any flaws with this reasoning I'd like to hear how your disarmed police would respond to a shooting in progress.

Squirt bottles, obviously.

[Des-Bal]

Squirt bottles, obviously.

The neat thing about this statement is that if you're genuinely suggesting squirt bottles you have failed to offer a coherent answer but if you're being sarcastic you're failing to offer a coherent answer. "Disarm the police" is a pointless response, it's virtue signalling bullshit.

[Ifreann]

Squirt bottles, obviously.

The neat thing about this statement is that if you're genuinely suggesting squirt bottles you have failed to offer a coherent answer but if you're being sarcastic you're failing to offer a coherent answer. "Disarm the police" is a pointless response, it's virtue signalling bullshit.

Calling something virtue signalling bullshit is virtue signalling bullshit.

[Kowani]

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Well look, we had a good guy with a gun, and look what fucking happened!

[Bombadil]

It does not matter how many Americans die as long as it's Americans shooting Americans as opposed to terrorists or communists. Reducing the prevalence and casual use of guns will only ease the passage of caravans of terrorists into the US and that is clearly unacceptable.

It's a shame a lawful registered gun owner died here but he did so to ensure others live free.

As every other country in the world has shown, there is no solution to this, either own guns and shoot each other or be a communist, terrorist no-go zone country.. these are the only choices.

[Des-Bal]

Calling something virtue signalling bullshit is virtue signalling bullshit.

I'm not totally clear on why you post without actually attempting to say anything. You are suggesting the police be disarmed with no real thought given to what that would imply or how they would be able to do their jobs. It's nonsense and the only reason you're saying it is to announce you're unhappy with the police in a way people will pay attention to.

[Trollgaard]

It does not matter how many Americans die as long as it's Americans shooting Americans as opposed to terrorists or communists. Reducing the prevalence and casual use of guns will only ease the passage of caravans of terrorists into the US and that is clearly unacceptable.

It's a shame a lawful registered gun owner died here but he did so to ensure others live free.

As every other country in the world has shown, there is no solution to this, either own guns and shoot each other or be a communist, terrorist no-go zone country.. these are the only choices.

America isn't giving up its guns, sorry pal.

[Kowani]

Calling something virtue signalling bullshit is virtue signalling bullshit.

I'm not totally clear on why you post without actually attempting to say anything. You are suggesting the police be disarmed with no real thought given to what that would imply or how they would be able to do their jobs. It's nonsense and the only reason you're saying it is to announce you're unhappy with the police in a way people will pay attention to.

Remind me, what’s Britain’s homicide rate?

[Ifreann]

Calling something virtue signalling bullshit is virtue signalling bullshit.

I'm not totally clear on why you post without actually attempting to say anything. You are suggesting the police be disarmed with no real thought given to what that would imply or how they would be able to do their jobs. It's nonsense and the only reason you're saying it is to announce you're unhappy with the police in a way people will pay attention to.

I've given it plenty of thought, and posted about it on several occasions. But right now I'm more interested in how it can somehow be perfectly legal to entirely deliberately kill someone who was doing nothing even vaguely illegal.

[Auze]

So when there's a shooting, people with guns should...lie down on the ground with their hands on their head?

Get to a hiding place, block it and if the shooter finds you shoot him.

But if you draw your gun the police will shoot you.
[/quote]
You ignored the fact that the dude ran out into the scene, which is something that is considered a stupid idea when police are out in every country, not just the USA. It's a pretty stressful job, assuming that the policeman might not go with his reflex is a risk. As for dealing with this, I think the family should be compensated.

[Bombadil]

It does not matter how many Americans die as long as it's Americans shooting Americans as opposed to terrorists or communists. Reducing the prevalence and casual use of guns will only ease the passage of caravans of terrorists into the US and that is clearly unacceptable.

It's a shame a lawful registered gun owner died here but he did so to ensure others live free.

As every other country in the world has shown, there is no solution to this, either own guns and shoot each other or be a communist, terrorist no-go zone country.. these are the only choices.

America isn't giving up its guns, sorry pal.

Fully aware of that. However given that situation then these incidences will happen. As I remember in these cases it's dependent on the police officer's thinking at the time, which no one can truly know. So if the officer says they genuinely thought it a certain situation then that's pretty much all the evidence needed. I think that's the same for Stand your Ground, it's the shooters perception of their own safety that counts.

In this case it's understandable he thought the gun owner was the shooter, I don't know what justice can be given really. Americans kind of need to accept this is the outcome of allowing so many guns.

[Des-Bal]

I've given it plenty of thought, and posted about it on several occasions. But right now I'm more interested in how it can somehow be perfectly legal to entirely deliberately kill someone who was doing nothing even vaguely illegal.

It's fine if you don't want to talk about it, everybody who has declined to participate in the thread made the same decision, I'm just not sure why you're doing it so loudly.

To answer your question because a person can only operate based on what they believe and consequentialism makes for idiotic policy. Cop earnestly believes they or another person are about to be killed > cop shoots > accuracy of initial perception evaluated > punishment assessed or not assessed. The point at the facts come out is after every relevant choice has been made, tying punishment to that is nonsense.

Remind me, what’s Britain’s homicide rate?

Utterly immaterial.

[Bombadil]

The issue is that a police's life is considered more valuable than anyone else's. In the law's eyes their primary duty is to protect themselves rather than anyone else. Therefore they're justified in shooting anyone they deem a threat to them. That law should be adjusted frankly, to shoot anyone, given presumption of innocence, should be an utterly final resort and the shooter should have the burden on them to prove it was the last resort and no other options were available.

[Des-Bal]

The issue is that a police's life is considered more valuable than anyone else's. In the law's eyes their primary duty is to protect themselves rather than anyone else. Therefore they're justified in shooting anyone they deem a threat to them. That law should be adjusted frankly, to shoot anyone, given presumption of innocence, should be an utterly final resort and the shooter should have the burden on them to prove it was the last resort and no other options were available.

I'm not an expert on alabama law, could you point me to the statute that holds police to a lower standard?

[Bombadil]

The issue is that a police's life is considered more valuable than anyone else's. In the law's eyes their primary duty is to protect themselves rather than anyone else. Therefore they're justified in shooting anyone they deem a threat to them. That law should be adjusted frankly, to shoot anyone, given presumption of innocence, should be an utterly final resort and the shooter should have the burden on them to prove it was the last resort and no other options were available.

I'm not an expert on alabama law, could you point me to the statute that holds police to a lower standard?

Legally, what most matters in these shootings is whether police officers reasonably believed that their or others’ lives were in danger, not whether the shooting victim actually posed a threat.

In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.

Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

However it's essentially the cop's perception of the threat that counts.

The intention behind these legal standards is to give police officers leeway to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and bystanders. And although critics argue that these legal standards give law enforcement a license to kill innocent or unarmed people, police officers say they are essential to their safety.

'essential to their safety'.

[Fartsniffage]

Was the shot guy given a verbal warning? A command to drop his gun?

[Ifreann]

I've given it plenty of thought, and posted about it on several occasions. But right now I'm more interested in how it can somehow be perfectly legal to entirely deliberately kill someone who was doing nothing even vaguely illegal.

It's fine if you don't want to talk about it, everybody who has declined to participate in the thread made the same decision, I'm just not sure why you're doing it so loudly.

Being loud is fun.

To answer your question because a person can only operate based on what they believe and consequentialism makes for idiotic policy. Cop earnestly believes they or another person are about to be killed > cop shoots > accuracy of initial perception evaluated > punishment assessed or not assessed. The point at the facts come out is after every relevant choice has been made, tying punishment to that is nonsense.

A cop earnestly believed based on nothing that Emantic Bradford Jr. was a criminal, so it is nonsense to punish this failure of judgement.

[Kowani]

Was the shot guy given a verbal warning? A command to drop his gun?

I don’t believe so, no.

[Bombadil]

Was the shot guy given a verbal warning? A command to drop his gun?

Doesn't matter, its not required.

Only eight states require that a warning be given (where feasible) before lethal force is used, however no state meets the requirement for a warning under international standards: Connecticut; Florida, Indiana; Nevada; New Mexico; Tennessee; Utah and Washington.

Note 'where feasible', which is again given the perception of the police.

This shooting was in Alabama, which has among the lowest standards..

Alabama has laws that do not comply even with the lower standards set by US constitutional law on the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers.

[Gig em Aggies]

The issue is that a police's life is considered more valuable than anyone else's. In the law's eyes their primary duty is to protect themselves rather than anyone else. Therefore they're justified in shooting anyone they deem a threat to them. That law should be adjusted frankly, to shoot anyone, given presumption of innocence, should be an utterly final resort and the shooter should have the burden on them to prove it was the last resort and no other options were available.

But the officer didn't have the luxury to prove the guy wasn't involved as you can see in the video the guy was running towards gunfire facing away from the officers who had just arrived they didn't have the time to say oh this guy here isn't the shooter. Plus it's sad he died but he was stupid for doing what he did no matter his intentions to the cops all they saw was a plain clothed civilian with a gun and a shooting just happened so they put two and two together. I'm pretty sure the family won't get anything from the city. I wouldn't give them any money whatsoever because they haven't even buried there son and the lawyer they hired already is spewing the cop was racist bull shit as well as them they claim it was murder yet the definition says

mur·der
/ˈmərdər/Submit
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"
verb
1.
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
"somebody tried to murder Joe"

So there sons death cannot be ruled murder at most it can be ruled as

Justifiable homicide or privilege: Due to the circumstances, although a homicide occurs, the act of killing is not unlawful. For example, a killing on the battlefield during war is normally lawful, or a police officer may shoot a dangerous suspect in order to protect the officer's own life or the lives and safety of others.
The availability of defenses to a criminal charge following a homicide may affect the homicide rate. For example, it has been suggested that the availability of "stand your ground" defense has resulted in an increase in the homicide rate in U.S. jurisdictions that recognize the defense,[14] including Florida.

Plus another instance of this although the person didn't die was the Trolley Square mall shooting in Salt Lake City where police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden City Police Department helped end the shooting. He was there eating dinner w/his wife in plain cloths when the mass shooting happened. Had he and his wife not identified him as a police officer he to would have been shot by responding officers who perceive him as a threat.

[Fartsniffage]

Plus it's sad he died but he was stupid for doing what he did no matter his intentions to the cops all they saw was a plain clothed civilian with a gun and a shooting just happened so they put two and two together.

You believe it is stupid for a person carrying a legally permitted concealed weapon to try to intervene in a mass shooting event?

Are you sure that's the mast you want to nail your flag to?

[Bombadil]

*snip*

Like I say it's the price Americans pay for freedom.

Plus another instance of this although the person didn't die was the Trolley Square mall shooting in Salt Lake City where police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden City Police Department helped end the shooting. He was there eating dinner w/his wife in plain cloths when the mass shooting happened. Had he and his wife not identified him as a police officer he to would have been shot by responding officers who perceive him as a threat.

I'm sure it helped that Hammond was white. Studies show blacks are disproportionately shot without any interaction or warning in these circumstances.

[Des-Bal]

Legally, what most matters in these shootings is whether police officers reasonably believed that their or others’ lives were in danger, not whether the shooting victim actually posed a threat.

In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.

Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

However it's essentially the cop's perception of the threat that counts.

The intention behind these legal standards is to give police officers leeway to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and bystanders. And although critics argue that these legal standards give law enforcement a license to kill innocent or unarmed people, police officers say they are essential to their safety.

'essential to their safety'.

I'm sorry that's not really what I asked for.

So is masturbating but don't do it where I'm likely to see you.

"Based on nothing" is the issue there and it's why we evaluate the reasonableness of a belief. If the belief is based on nothing it is a failure of judgement and you are absolutely called to task for that failure of judgement. If however that belief is based on a reasonable logic and an objective person similarly situated would have made the same judgement there's no point in holding you liable because your judgement was fine despite ultimately being incorrect.

If that's a bit much to handle you are fabricating a problem, most likely because it's hard to articulate a problem with what actually exists.