CrimzonSamurai
Member
The officer had no way of knowing that. If he keeps reaching for his waistband after repeated requests and then orders to stop, then what is the cop supposed to think he's doing? Scratching his nuts?
White cop shoots unarmed black man dead in Arizona
- Thread starter Renzoku
- Start date
- Status
The officer had no way of knowing that. If he keeps reaching for his waistband after repeated requests and then orders to stop, then what is the cop supposed to think he's doing? Scratching his nuts?
Coriolanus
Banned
Hrm, you're right.
The other one i saw was this, which i guess we can combine with this, gives us 15.64 for 100k cops in 2012.
Still quite safe.
Additionally, since in 2013 the number of fatalities decreased (while the number of cops most likely stayed the same or increased), it is fair to assume that the job is even safer nowadays. Or was until the riots started.
Yeah, this is probably the closest we'll get on cop fatality rates, since the wiki's source hasn't been updated yet.
According to the article, the man was shot because of various reasons including that he refused to comply to the officer's request to get on the ground. He wasn't shot specifically because he pulled his hand out of his pocket. The article implies that he was not at all trying to comply with the officer's request and instead engaged in a struggle with the officer. The cop said he was facing aggressive action and feared that a gun was present. Granted this could all be lies told by the police officer, but unfortunately we only have one side of the story.
It's sad that this is probably necessary, but I agree. It's also unfortunate that it'll cost a lot of money, but I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes to ensure that the police are kept in check.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
So you think everyone should be able to get one free shot off at a cop before the cop can shoot back? I'm not denying that police are overzealous with their right to fire, but this idea is just... nonsensical.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Asking police to use better judgement is one thing. Asking them to wait to die is another.
That seems to be what happened. The question is how does one make this judgement of immediate danger in a close quarters struggle though? Granted it doesn't have to be a gun but even a knife in that case.
Simon Belmont
Banned
I get ya guy. It's just so frustrating to read this shit over and over again. As a parent it bothers me to see people's lives being treated so callously.
That's just straight unreasonable. Noone should have to wait until they literally have a gun aimed at them to defend themselves. Are they going to Matrix dodge all of the bullets? In what world do we expect people to aim a gun and then do absolutely nothing? If I pulled a gun on someone, there is absolutely ZERO chance that I'm not pulling the trigger as soon as I'm over their body. You just do not aim a gun at someone without the intent to kill (a big reason why I'm anti-gun). I don't want to live in a world where people are pointing guns at each other willy nilly.
That being said, I do agree that it's BS how it's possible that cops can just kill people with no repercussions. That's why I'm a fan of equipping all cops with cameras. I think cops should be given certain liberties that normal civilians aren't when it comes to defending themselves and the public, but I also think that their punishment should be far more severe for abusing their power.
Whom_Gods_Annoy
Banned
Ridiculous hindsight bias in some of these comments.
Oh yes, I'm sure every one of us would wait for someone to have a gun completely pulled on us before we would take any decisive action. Oh yes, absolutely.
And whether or not he had one actually on him is beside the point. After repeatedly refusing to comply and me having the suspicion that he did indeed have a gun on him I would be guilty of the same actions the officer took.
I'm not condoning what the officer did, I'm just saying if I was in the his position I would not have acted very differently.
Oh yes, I'm sure every one of us would wait for someone to have a gun completely pulled on us before we would take any decisive action. Oh yes, absolutely.
And whether or not he had one actually on him is beside the point. After repeatedly refusing to comply and me having the suspicion that he did indeed have a gun on him I would be guilty of the same actions the officer took.
I'm not condoning what the officer did, I'm just saying if I was in the his position I would not have acted very differently.
flyinpiranha
Member
So only fatality rates are the consideration for "Safe". Most of the jobs listed the deaths are from negligence. Almost all equipment/human error related. Is roofing really dangerous? I would imagine not if OSHA rules are followed, but a lot of the time (my friend is a roofer and my brother in law owns a roofing company) do not follow those rules.
A vast majority of officer deaths are outside circumstances they are forced into because of the occupation. You can't just say "Roofing is more dangerous than a cop" because of the amount of deaths, it doesn't make sense unless you fine tune what caused the death. A person not using a safety harness and drinking isn't the same as a cop being shot.
Again, I'm not saying that all Roofers are drunks with a disregard for safety. I just think the conclusion you're trying to draw from the statistics aren't really relaying the message you're trying to say.
Simon Belmont
Banned
They have body armour and training. I don't think visual confirmation is too high a burden to place on them.
Simon Belmont
Banned
That's a differnent kind of bias, because none of us are trained to deal with that kind of situation.
You seem pretty brave. Maybe you should try to get on the force and show them how it's done.
I actually do condone what the officer did because it seems like he showed immense rerstraint, unlike recent cases in the news, and gave the guy who was fleeing and being combative plenty of opportunities to de-escalate the situation.
That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Life isn't a video game where a villain jumps out with a weapon aimed at you and you can still neatly react and get the miraculous drop on him.
It's not ridiculous at all, I'd argue it's necessary. The police cannot be trusted to use lethal force based on their judgement. It leads to far more civilian deaths than if police were forced to only use a gun in extreme circumstances.
Indeed it would put the officer's life at risk more often but by shooting at a suspect they're already putting a civilians life at massive risk, these aren't enemy combantants that need to be eliminated, threats that need to be neutralized its American citizens suspected of a crime.
Lethal force can't be justified on a hunch. Same should go for police.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
I would rather have a few cops who understand the dangers of their jobs than a bunch of cops who will shoot at anything that they might think is a gun or operate on the assumption that the person is armed.
I don't think that is unreasonable at all.
I don't think that is unreasonable at all.
Simon Belmont
Banned
Is this supposed to wound my ego?
I saw a video of a cop doing this once...
it was not easy to watch at all.
Or listen to.
Resident_UA
Member
He also had no way of knowing that that there was something in the car. I really don't get why people are defending police?
Yes, the guy who got shot was probably not a good guy but how does that justify that he was killed? Should we start killing everyone who acts stupid? The police officer's job is not to kill everyone. There's no way you can say that police handled their job well if an unarmed person was killed. There should be some consequences.
kame-sennin
Member
My father was a court officer in New York in the late seventies. He said every cop he knew carried two guns. One for protection, and one to drop on a dead suspect if their justification for deadly force might be questioned.
They don't do that now because of cameras, but your brush off is stupid and uninformed. Moreover, the man who was shot was not holding a gun. Was not reaching for a gun. Was not running towards his gun. The existence of a gun in a car the suspect was not in when he was shot is irrelevant to the determination that deadly force is or isn't necessary. All it shows is that the possibility that a black man committed a crime is enough to justify his murder in your eyes.
a secret-boss
Banned
OP did a Fox News
Lionheart1827
Member
loaf of bread
Member
So who's making the Cop Killing People OT
someone reaching for what could be a weapon in a situation where they've shown multiple indications of being hostile is absolutely an extreme circumstance so i'm not sure where you're going
unless you're just trying to pretend that civilians can't kill people
I can't believe this is a real opinion.
Are you seriously saying every cop should have to dodge a bullet before he can defend himself?
Simon Belmont
Banned
Running away is a hostile gesture?
Should be a real investigation. None of the story lines up imo.
But if he really did go through all that shit listed, instead of just cuffing guy on the spot for whatever reason, then I can't say that many wouldn't do the same. Be hostile, lead chase, fight, AND reach? That's asking for a lot.
I generally agree with your sentiment, but this statement right here I'm going to comment on. Police are trained extensively to do exactly what your claiming is not to be done. They are trained to responsibly use their firearm. They are trained to use it to diffuse dangerous scenarios, which may involve them actually pointing a gun without shooting it.
Although to your point, it appears that many police officers can't help themselves when presented on opportunity where their gun seems like the only option they have in their mind.
I also think its disingenuous (can't remember who made the comment) to say that a taser is not realistic as he was a moving target at a distance, and then shoot someone when your in a physical struggle with them. Too far for a taser but when your close enough you pull the trigger? Good grief.
obviously not
reread the article and you tell me what could come off hostile or threatening...
Coriolanus
Banned
You wanna argue that it is dangerous, it is up to you to bring more data.
And yes, until it it translates to more deaths, the fatality rate does, in fact, mean that a profession is more dangerous than another.
you're welcome to bring injury data if you wanna argue the point, tho.
At this point, unless you do that, it is concern trolling.
Also source on the fucking bolded.
Simon Belmont
Banned
It read to me like he was trying to get rid of evidence while he was running away. That's a situation cops encounter a lot more than being shot at.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Seems like an argument that police are doing the right thing by shooting first to kill rather than to be shot at.
Depends on the taser. I can't think of a taser that can hit someone a few meters away AND be used in a scuffle. People think that operating those things is easy but the truth is, if they were more reliable and easier to use, they'd be used more.
people reaching for waistbands is threatening as fuck lmao
again, none of the story makes sense to me but i'm not gonna pretend like a guy dangling his hands around his waste and yelling profanities while refusing commands is perfectly cool
Coriolanus
Banned
You don't wanna follow that logic. it ends on you justifying massive incarceration of black folk.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
Directly threatened or fired upon
the operative word being "or"
If a person is threatening then the officer obviously has the right to drop the guy for his own safety, and obviously when you are fired at you have 100% right to fire back.
But all I am saying really is the gun should be VISIBLE and the intention of use should be 100% clear before deciding to fire.
Just because the guy has a gun doesn't mean anything, imagine if you get pulled over for speeding, you go to get your registration and you have a gun in the glove box that's registered and perfectly legal to own, the cop could panic and drop you right there with the assumption that you were going for the gun when you were going for the registration.
Ya dig?
CrimzonSamurai
Member
He saw him reaching for something in the backseat (was probably the gun) and then when the suspect got out and started running/antagonizing the cop he kept motioning as if he was pulling a gun from his waistband. The officer told him not to put his hands there, and he kept doing it.
Like, seriously, what would you assume? You obviously have a pretty high standard of perception.
I don't really get why people are acting like the officer was completely unreasonable in defending himself from what was logically perceived as a threat on their life.
Whom_Gods_Annoy
Banned
Just hypothetically, what actions would you have taken that the officer did not that would have prevented this from happening?
Yes, it can be, especially in the manner described in the article.
karasu
Member
Being a police officer isn't really that dangerous physically. There were like 33 cops killed by firearms last year. They have a greater chance of dying in a car accident on their way home from work than they do of being shot on the job. It can fuck people up mentally though with the constant stress and fearing that something bad may happen.
That's fair enough, I won't pretend to be an expert on taser technology or their usefulness.
Am I wrong to assume that a taser could be used in the conditions of when the shooting actually occurred though?
I don't know, that seems to be your logic. Or else you're just drawing a correlation there that doesn't really exist.
POWERSPHERE
Member
Cops need to stop being so chicken shit scared of black guys.
What "could" be a weapon is an unknown, not a known threat on the officer's life. "Reaching" is taken as the cops word after the effect, when the person who could've said otherwise is dead. "Indications of being hostile" is... you see where this is going?
Civilians can definitely kill people, cops kill civilians a lot more and without consequence needing only shreds of proof compared to normal people. Even less so when dealing with a suspected criminal (see: black person).
Simon Belmont
Banned
Waiting for backup.
flyinpiranha
Member
Are you being serious? You're saying a job that people will actively fucking SHOOT YOU is the same as being negligent on the job and just not wearing a helmet and a tape measure is kicked off of a tall building and hits your head?
And don't use terms like "concern trolling". That makes you sound ridiculous.
I'm trying to point out that your reasoning is not sound. It just doesn't make sense. Most people die at home, home is the most dangerous place on earth.
This isn't about the death rate of the job, it's that when a roofer goes to work, he doesn't have to actively avoid dying every step within reason. He doesn't have to worry about some of the people he comes in contact with pulling out a weapon or physically trying to harm him. Can he get a ladder dropped on him? Sure, but that danger just isn't the same as what a cop does.
Exactly. Driving my car isn't "dangerous", but there are a TON of fatalities from driving.
Zoe
Member
I think the fallacy is equating "danger" with "fatality". You don't have to die for something to have been dangerous.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
I made the comment. Too far, you're out of the taser's range (it's like 18 or so feet), too close and you're equally likely to get shocked yourself. There are plenty of videos of cops getting shocked while using their taser. All the intended target has to do is touch you, and BAM the current jumps.
How much time do you think passes between a reach and a pull of the trigger? cmon man
I could've been used much earlier (if the story was in any way accurate) before the guy ran maybe. But distance comes into play there.
You aren't hitting a moving target with a taser and in a fight they're just.... most tasers I've seen shouldn't even be considered options in a fight.
I didn't know that actually, thanks.
- Status