This Cop Is Getting $2,500 a Month Because Killing an Unarmed Man in a Hotel Hallway Gave Him PTSD

It's a strawman. You have nothing except fallacies.

 

Oh, you've discussed it. That must make you some kind of expert then.

 

Yes I'm not sure exactly how they are trained either. I'm sure there would be variables that make each circumstance different but generally speaking what is procedure for detaining a suspect?

I wish we had someone in the police force here who could shed more light on it

 

Generally speaking, the detention of a suspect should be governed by a continuum of force, using the minimal and proportional level of force necessary to detain the suspect.

In this case, the officer escalated from verbal commands to lethal force based on nothing more than an ambiguous hand movement.

According to any reasonable interpretation of use of force principles, that was a criminal escalation of violence on the part of the officer. There is simply no way this can be justified. The only people who think this is okay or legal are people that do not understand established use of force principles.

 

Did prosecutor reach to much with charges?

I agree with what your writing I just didn't know

Seems like slam dunk involuntarily manslaughter if nothing else.

 

Yum....tastes like leather!

 

Not in my opinion.

Second degree murder is intentional killing absent premeditation. And this officer killed that man intentionally.

If something like this had happened during the times of our founders, this police officer would be hanging from a rope in the public square.

 

Yes in a perfect justice system I agree with you. But these guys having alot of backing through the unions and with their intimate relationships with the judicial system and I'd love the world to work how it should but in my life it doesn't sometimes you can be right and still be wrong. I'd have liked the guy to get something out of screw up that caused the loss of life

 

What's the strawman? Y'all are arguing that the Marine Corps is more concerned about the safety of Iraqi civilians than the American police are to Americans. I think this is a ridiculous, false on it's face, argument, and one that no leftist should be caught dead making or going along with.

The Marine Corps is institutionally and culturally far worse than every single American policing institution.

No, it just means I know more than "jack ****."

 

Have I said a single positive thing about American police other than they're not as bad as the Marine Corps?

Not exactly lofty praise.

 

The argument is based on reality.

US police forces are allowed to shoot Americans even when there is no weapon. But US Marines in Iraq could only shoot Iraqis if a weapon was positively identified. That alone proves that US forces in Iraq had more concern for the lives of Iraqis. And that is not an endorsement of the US Marines, but a condemnation of police forces in America.

You know nothing that is relevant to this discussion, that's for sure.

 

Ultimately, it's a cultural problem. That spirit of ruggedness, individualism, and independence that characterized the American revolution has been slowly diminished over time. And now we're just another empire with a bloated, authoritarian government breathing down our necks and propagandizing us.

 

Your defense of this murderous cop necessarily implies a relatively positive attitude towards law enforcement agencies in this country.

 

And what do actual civilian body counts prove?

 

No, it doesn't "imply" that. Either you're being disingenuous or you don't know what implication is. It might suggest that. It's an erroneous suggestion.

 

Well, I killed zero civilians while I was over there. Didn't even fire my weapon once, even though I was in constant danger. And nobody in my squad was killed or injured the entire time. Wow. We must have magic powers or something.

 

Alright, cool. Now we just need to go tally all the cops who've never killed anybody, and we'll be getting somewhere.

Get serious. Numbers talk.

 

It does imply that. If you think there is anything defensible about this shooting, anything at all, then your view of law enforcement can be fairly described as positive.

 

Why would we need to do that when the thread topic is about a cop who killed an innocent civilian for no legitimate reason?

The numbers show that police are becoming increasingly militarized, and that their increasing militarization is harming American society.

 

What do you mean by "defensible?" Do I think that this jumpy cop thought the guy was reaching, and shot him? Yeah, that's what I think. Do I think most cops wouldn't have shot? Probably. Does that make it "defensible?"

 

not true as the video in this thread shows, the police issued a warning about cell phone gun cases as they said they woudl not know if it was a real gun - why do that if they did not see guns as a threat?

the second part I agree with, but we all know in real life many cops are not like that, they see a gun and feel threatened and that gives them permission to shoot

 

Because you're drawing an absurd comparison between Marines in Iraq and police in America.

Yeah, I agree. They also show that they don't kill nearly as many innocent Americans as the US marines killed innocent civilians in Iraq. It's not even in the same ballpark, man.

If you want to get off this stupid ****ing comparison, that's fine, it was dumb from the beginning.

 

Do you believe this cop was guilty of murder? If not, then you're defending his actions on some level.

Lots of murderers are "jumpy" people. Lots of murderers misinterpret reality. Doesn't make them any less guilty of murder though.

If true, then you've basically admitted that police forces in America constitute a grave and immediate threat to American civil society.

You tell me.

 

The girl followed instructions without a problem. The guy put his hands behind his back once and he was told if he did it again they would shoot. He put his right hand behind him a second time.

How to keep from getting shot? Do what you are instructed to do. Police have to deal with the dregs of society and liars on a daily basis and people that carry illegally. They also want to go home to their families. There is a reason they do what they do.

 

They see guns as a threat. But they are wrong. That is my point. The mere presence of a firearm is not an actual threat. Most firearms in this country are lawfully possessed. Millions of decent Americans are armed. They are not threats to anyone. Treating them as threats is legally prejudiced and a violation of the second amendment.

I agree with you that cops will treat guns automatically as threats and massively overreact to their presence. I'm simply saying that they're wrong to do so. There is a big difference between an imaginary threat and an actual threat. Cops are supposed to be able to make that distinction under pressure. If they cannot or will not do it, then they need to be fired immediately.