GRAPHIC FOOTAGE: COP FATALLY SHOOTS FLEEING, ARMED SUSPECT [video=youtube;HojfIVFm6CY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HojfIVFm6CY[/video] http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/graphic-footage-cop-fatally-shoots-fleeing-armed-suspect/ Darwin's latest awardee. Of course it was justified. And thank God for the body cam! EDIT: Good marksmanship, too!
Not enough information to make a judgement. And with the history of the media, we never will have the correct story. However, if the guy took off running when the cops showed up, why would he do that?
Probably because he had a gun on him, and didn't want his face slammed down into the pavement once the cop found it. Looked like the gun fell out as he fled, and picking up meant he was dead. Just another person killed by cops. No big deal. It's just a human life, and that don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) today. Not in this society. The only life that has value is your own. And that's just the way it is.
The question was actually rhetorical, but you're right, I do value my life. That's why when confronted by Law Enforcement Officers, I follow their instructions and show them respect.
As you should, for if you show disrespect you very well could end up full of bullets. I do the same. If I get stopped, I make like I am in hitlers Germany and the gestapo just pulled me over. I don't see much difference. Not in how the outcome might be. I sure don't act today with cops the way I acted back in the 50s. They are not the same sort of cops.
That is true. We will end up with a population of sheep. It will get us ready for the oligarcy we live in. The police state corporate state. We basically did the same with the Indians. We killed out all their warriors. so only the cowards, the weak were left. That is how it works. That is probably why our military is full of foreigners, for americans are already sheep. Now go and do as you are told. No back talk.
No, we will end up with people smart enough not to run from police or point weapons at them and eventually people who are smart enough to not commit crimes. Its a slow but very effective process. The guy in the video wont be passing on anymore of his genes into the gene pool.
This brings up the question: when is it okay for police to shoot? And if police can shoot in that situation, what about a non-police? Is a private citizen allowed to shoot a criminal running away? When exactly is it okay to shoot? And we're not even talking self-defense here. I personally lean toward the idea that the law should give private citizens as much rights as police, at least theoretically. I really question whether it is okay for anyone to be shooting a fleeing suspect in the back... unless maybe if they are carrying stolen property of significant value.
Threats and coercion (which is essentially what you are advocating) only go so far. But they can backfire as well. If all sorts of petty crimes were not so over-punished as they are today, there would probably be far fewer incidences of criminals putting up resistance. When a criminal knows the police will likely shoot him in the back if he tries to flee, he is more apt to just shoot the police officer. Of course, the police have to use serious force when it's a suspected murderer or bank robber, but the way things are they are routinely using deadly force for all sorts of other suspected crimes as well. In some neighborhoods, there is a big problem of police arresting people too often, without adequate evidence. Whereupon they can sit in jail for many months. I wonder how much this contributes to the problem of suspects pointing guns at police, out of sheer resentment and refusal to open themselves up to vulnerability. (again, not a problem everywhere, but in neighborhoods where there's more crime, more innocent people get arrested, and in some neighborhoods there's a lot of crime) This thought occurred to me also, probably explains why most everyone in society is so civilized, despite the savagery of our ancient ancestors. Though on the other side of the coin, do we really want everyone turned into docile sheep?
I think it was a justified shot... even if the gun wasn't loaded and he had no intention of shooting the cop, the cop had no way to know glad to see them wearing cop cams now .
civilized doesn't equate to docile sheep in my opinion. Its why we have the ability to turn the middle east into a parking lot with nuclear weapons but choose not to yet they attempt to fight us by beheading our citizens for not believing in an imaginary being. They are cavemen with electricity.
I would say you would need to be wearing a cop cam to make it a valid shoot, when a gunman is running as a citizen I would not chase them, call the police, less risk involved from the criminal and the legal system
My problem with all this is the potential of reciprocity. I mean, if a police officer can shoot someone reaching for a gun, it could work the other way around as well. And how can an individual even be absolutely sure that someone who is wearing a police uniform is indeed really a police officer? It is the principle of the thing. I am not sure I have a solution, other than politicians should stop passing so many laws so police have fewer reasons to be stopping people.
It's worth thinking about it. Every day state politicians are in session what are they doing ? Passing more laws, creating more criminals and taking away more individual freedoms. Maybe if state politicians would spend some time repealing some of the laws that are on the books living in America would feel like the 1950's and early 60's again.
If the suspect is armed, and you are chasing them, they could turn around in the blink of an eye and shoot you. What was the cop supposed to do after the armed suspect didn't stop? Chase after him and hope he doesn't turn back around and shoot him(the cop)? It's one thing if it's an unarmed fleeing suspect, but that's not the case here.
Entirely true. But the same logic can also apply the other way around. Not even talking about legal rights here, let's talk about ethical rights. Someone starts running towards you and reaches for their gun. Just hypothetically, suppose they were not a police officer.
After watching the video three times, it was a justifiable shooting, the perp dropped a handgun and bent down and picked it up while facing the officer. Good shooting. Also the officer was a good marksman. For you who have no experience in LE you noticed the officer kept shooting (4 rounds) until the perp was down and no longer a threat to anyone. Now I hope that the civilian in the black shirt and white tie was arrested and charged for interfering with the duties of a law enforcement officer and gets 12 months in the county jail.
Yes, yes. But I'm just asking what if it had been the other way around? I mean, do the police always have the right to shoot someone just because they have a gun in their hand? The question being posed here might seem ridiculous, but I think it does have important ethical and political theory ramifications. I know the answer seems obvious: "What else as the police officer supposed to do?", but we can expand this type of situation to other hypotheticals. What if, for example, it wasn't one suspect, but a large group of men holding guns? Does it depend on what the police officer believes their intent to be? You can see how the dilemma is not necessarily a simple one. I'm not trying to argue the police officer acted wrongly, here, but I am trying to point out that a police officer's right to shoot just because the suspect is armed is not a black and white fundamental principle. Any time one armed person intrudes onto another armed person, there is the potential for deadly conflict. Some Progressives want to make everything simple and make it the police officer who is the only one allowed to have the gun, so if there is any conflict it is a clear black-and-white issue, the armed suspect is automatically in the wrong. This may be simple and exceedingly practical, most of the time, but this type of concept can lead to fundamental problems in some situations. I think this fundamental line of thinking of this concept needs to be closely examined, instead of just passing seemingly obvious laws that assume a simple right-and-wrong.
Maybe they should put Black police officers in Black neighborhoods. Then there wouldn't be any issues. Or at least no perceived issues. (Diversity isn't always such a good think, it can create mistrust and social division)
I always assume that everyone is armed, may explain why I'm still around today. Mr. Scott should have assumed that the cop was armed, if he did this thread wouldn't exist.
