Thread: "Please Tase me bro?" - Alaska police shooting invokes Trayvon Martin-style questions

Originally Posted by leftlegmoderate

The police certainly have the right to use lethal force when threatened with a weapon. Doesn't sound that this was the case in this incident, by what's offered in the article anyways.

I guess it should also be noted that the Anchorage Daily News is owned by The McClatchy Company, a liberal news conglomerate based in California. If this cop turns out to be white, consider his or her ass transferred to Bush Alaska for the rest of his/her career.

Originally Posted by paco

I guess it should also be noted that the Anchorage Daily News is owned by The McClatchy Company, a liberal news conglomerate based in California. If this cop turns out to be white, consider his or her ass transferred to Bush Alaska for the rest of his/her career.

They could always insist that he is. Did this incident happen to occur in a 'gated community' which is nothing more than an apartment complex?

shooting a giant stick wielding maniac is hard to question....obviously it would be great if they could try the tazer first, or even a leg shot ....but a guy who rushes a cop with a stick, even though the cop has a gun, wouldnt be long for this world anyway

Originally Posted by leftlegmoderate

The police certainly have the right to use lethal force when threatened with a weapon. Doesn't sound that this was the case in this incident, by what's offered in the article anyways.

Here's a video of an incident where a guy toting a crow bar got aggressive towards an officer after being maced, and paid the ultimate price. Video contains graphic violence/language.

Thanks for the warning

Originally Posted by The Mello Guy

shooting a giant stick wielding maniac is hard to question....obviously it would be great if they could try the tazer first, or even a leg shot ....but a guy who rushes a cop with a stick, even though the cop has a gun, wouldnt be long for this world anyway

I think the main issue in the OP is whether the cop was actually in danger or not. There is one of the main eyewitnesses quoted in the article as saying that the cop was not in danger and that Tasi should not have been shot dead. This is where I saw the parallel between this and the Martin/Zimmerman case, since that case really comes down to whether or not Zimmerman was in life-threatening danger enough to use the SYG defense; bare it all down to the bone and that is the most basic gist of Trayvon vs. George.

This case is a little different in that it involves an actual cop, with more cops present and on the scene, and numerous eyewitnesses since the incident happened in broad daylight in a public neighborhood, not a "gated community".

What really bugs me about this and the Trayvon vs. George incident isn't the actual incidents themselves, but that once again, the liberal media is right there ready and waiting to publicly decide the case for us before it even goes to trial. You see it here with the reporter questioning the eyewitness, and reporting that Tasi didn't deserve to get shot because he wasn't threatening the police officer. The way that it was reported in the OP, the general public that only takes a passing glance at the incident via the news article will automatically assume that the cop shot a guy that wasn't threatening him, which will invoke racism, police brutality, etc. This is the standard liberal media tactic, especially coming from a rag like the Anchorage Daily News, which has been struggling to sell more newspapers in recent years. I call it irresponsible news reporting, but the liberal media calls it the norm.

Originally Posted by paco

I think the main issue in the OP is whether the cop was actually in danger or not. There is one of the main eyewitnesses quoted in the article as saying that the cop was not in danger and that Tasi should not have been shot dead. This is where I saw the parallel between this and the Martin/Zimmerman case, since that case really comes down to whether or not Zimmerman was in life-threatening danger enough to use the SYG defense; bare it all down to the bone and that is the most basic gist of Trayvon vs. George.

This case is a little different in that it involves an actual cop, with more cops present and on the scene, and numerous eyewitnesses since the incident happened in broad daylight in a public neighborhood, not a "gated community".

What really bugs me about this and the Trayvon vs. George incident isn't the actual incidents themselves, but that once again, the liberal media is right there ready and waiting to publicly decide the case for us before it even goes to trial. You see it here with the reporter questioning the eyewitness, and reporting that Tasi didn't deserve to get shot because he wasn't threatening the police officer. The way that it was reported in the OP, the general public that only takes a passing glance at the incident via the news article will automatically assume that the cop shot a guy that wasn't threatening him, which will invoke racism, police brutality, etc. This is the standard liberal media tactic, especially coming from a rag like the Anchorage Daily News, which has been struggling to sell more newspapers in recent years. I call it irresponsible news reporting, but the liberal media calls it the norm.

so the media sides with the dead/powerless opposed to those in power....what your own mind invokes from reading it isnt there fault

I don't see how this is Zimmerman related ...

Originally Posted by DonGlock26

Thank God, they didn't tase him.
_

Yep. For those longing for the good-old days when crazies weren't safely taken down with tasers by cops then this appears to be the alternative. This guy got old-school justice.

Originally Posted by glitch

Yep. For those longing for the good-old days when crazies weren't safely taken down with tasers by cops then this appears to be the alternative. This guy got old-school justice.

while im not losing any sleep over this guy...I dont think more police shootings are the good old days

im ok with shooting crazy guy with a stick, but id still prefer a non lethal approach first

Originally Posted by The Mello Guy

so the media sides with the dead/powerless opposed to those in power....what your own mind invokes from reading it isnt there fault

So you're saying that the liberal media is free to railroad someone that might have simply been defending their own life, as punishment for defending their own life by taking the life of an aggressor, without any type of punishment at all? Why do you believe that the media should be afforded the right to destroy the life of a living person as opposed to a dead person whose life has already ended?