https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ryan-p...officer-involved-shooting-fired-philadelphia/ I know Philly isn't any better than many other big cities and seems to be more concerned about the criminals than those who uphold the law, but I'm still surprised about this decision. So, a perp can struggle with a cop over a deadly weapon and all he has to do is get further than 10' away and the officer can't use deadly force? How is the officer supposed to know he doesn't have more than one weapon? Is it any wonder that police are beginning to avoid situations where they might be in harms way or where SJW will scream bloody murder?
By that logic, any policeman would be allowed to shoot anyone at any time without any repercussions, because "oh, they might be armed!".
He was armed with a gun. And was justified to shoot during the struggle. His actions show he was willing to put the officer's life in danger.
But the policeman did not shoot during the struggle. He shot the person in the back when said person was running away after having dropped his weapon. The policeman shot an unarmed man who was running away from him. That is murder.
I do kinda think that when you draw on a cop, you've pretty much signed a waiver of liability, and can expect to be shot...
Last time I checked, a cop has the authority to arrest a person, and bring it to a trial. A cop aint no judge dread where it has the authority to execute a suspect.
I think police should just shut down their precincts in garbage neighborhoods. Let them police themselves. Problem solved.
Or because the cop did not like the look of him; or because the cop's hemorrhoids were hurting; or because the cop was morally constipated; or because the cop was intellectually disadvantaged.
So it's perfectly OK that the perp fought the officer over his illegally carried gun? Yeah, such an innocent black man killed for being black.
No, he should be arrested and charged. Since, however, american policemen are not actually executioners free to ignore the law, they are not allowed to just kill a person running away from them after having dropped a gun just because they feel like it. You don't really have to make such racist statements, we can all do without them.
Ah yes; the "Taking my toys and going home!"-solution. If the police aren't allowed to kill people whenever they bloody well want, they should just stop policing areas entirely.
When people become more concerned about the lives of criminals over the lives of cops, then who would blame them for not sticking their necks out. It might open your eyes if you saw the video I did recently of dash cam videos of cops being killed. It showed just how fast things can happen, the cops have almost no time to react. It's easy for you to judge, it's not your life on the line.
Yeah, so? The article even says he was justified to shoot during the struggle. In my OP I said what my opinion was pertaining to the shooting after he dropped the gun.
After he dropped the gun your lives of criminals over the lives of cops" complaint flew out the window. The cop's life was no longer in danger. Now, maybe some state law allows the cop to shoot a suspect fleeing the scene of a felony, but short of that, you complaint has no merit.
It's supposed to be "sticking their necks out" to NOT shoot a fleeing, unarmed, man in the back? Give me a break.
So, no imprisonment, no trial, just allowing the police to execute people at will? No, that should not be the case.
It is interesting that the police commissioner stressed the video made it clear to him the shooting was unjustified - but decided no one should be able to see this video. I won't make my decision unless I see the actual video. But the written account this all happened in seconds. If the officer's gun didn't fire and he was desperately trying to solve that against an ARMED resisting suspect, his 100% fixation would have been on his pistol, not on the armed now assailant. The PANIC level in that officer reasonably would be OFF THE CHARTS! Armed assailant, him entirely should fire but his pistol fails? PANIC! That officer now has split seconds to decide what to do. Did he see the gunman's gun is gone? Is their a crazed gunman going to turn and shoot? Or shot without turning? You do NOT have to be facing someone to shoot the person. Yes, you can shoot someone BEHIND your back. There also is the HOLLYWOOD myth that the officer could wait until the suspect turned to shoot - certain that in that 1/10th of a second the officer could then shoot the suspect who would instantly fall to the ground death the millisecond the first bullet hit the suspect. In fact, at 10 yards, nearly anyone shooting a handgun could not drop a person before that person could turn and fire multiple shots at you too - even if the suspect (and you) then both died of gunshot wounds. Pistols have little stopping power. There actually is a measurable (and surprisingly long) delay between when the brain makes a decision and command to muscles for muscles to respond. All physical actions are after-the-fact of mental commands to muscles. JUST on the written report, I do not see the officer having committed a crime. The officer did not initiate the violent. The officer did not initiate the gun threat. The officer had been put into a fear-for-his-life intense self survival mode. Only fools think there can be a reasonable micro second to micro second analysed as to the officers motive. But again, I'd have to see the actual video. His firing is likely as simple as a superior decision to dealing with riots, ie a PC and reality decision, nothing else.
Trying posting about the topic and message, not about the other poster and then attacking mods. Instead, posting on the topic might actually work for you on this forum.
In my 1054 posts I've had three deleted, two in this thread. I'm not one to groundlessly attack another poster. My intent is never to attack a mod either, just an FYI to why I will not continue this thread.
