White cop shoots unarmed black man dead in Arizona

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shake Appeal said:
Incidentally, the penalty for being an "armed drug dealer" isn't death, nor should it be. For a country that prides itself on its "freedom," we're far too quick to excuse violence by the authorities.
Click to expand...

This guy wasn't killed for being a drug dealer, he got himself killed for fighting with a cop and making the officer scared for his life by trying to get something in his pocket during the struggle that resembled a gun.

Police are humans too you know, they are not invulnerable and when they fear that their life is in danger they do what any other human does: they defend themselves. I personally know many police officers and the stories they tell me from their daily lives is nothing short of horrifying. Just treat police like human beings and with respect and your chances of scaring them into shooting you go down by like 99%. The other 1% is for the bullying racist cops that we all have seen exist as of late.
 
Tawpgun said:
*interesting to note, the story says a gun and pills were found in the SUV, but they didn't mention if anything was found on the guy. What was the handle he felt*
Click to expand...

Pills were on the guy, the gun and pot were in the car. That's probably what the cop felt.

Police said Brisbon was carrying oxycodone pills, and that a semi-automatic handgun and a jar of what is believed to be marijuana were found in the SUV. The 30-year-old officer was not injured, police added in the statement.
Click to expand...
 
Shake Appeal said:
And yet...
Click to expand...

Well, 1. As far as I know British police don't carry guns and don't need to because they aren't constantly going up against people who own guns.

And 2. Albuquerque is the single worst example they could have picked to use a comparison, they deliberately chose the city with the single highest rate of officer involved shootings in the country. The city is under federal investigation for just that reason. So, y'know, that's kind of bullshit that they did that. Not that I doubt you're still statistically more likely to get shop by a cop in America than the UK, but that's inflated for rhetorical purposes.
 
Mengy said:
This guy wasn't killed for being a drug dealer, he got himself killed for fighting with a cop and making the officer scared for his life by trying to get something in his pocket during the struggle that resembled a gun.

Police are humans too you know, they are not invulnerable and when they fear that their life is in danger they do what any other human does: they defend themselves. I personally know many police officers and the stories they tell me from their daily lives is nothing short of horrifying. Just treat police like human beings and with respect and your chances of scaring them into shooting you go down by like 99%. The other 1% is for the bullying racist cops that we all have seen exist as of late.
Click to expand...

Scaring a cop isn't an executable defense.
 
ICKE said:
It isn't but when said drug dealer tries to escape and then violently resists law enforcement, and the arresting officer has reason to believe he is armed, then I don't really see how you can imply that he was part of some war against black people and the shooting was unjustified. That's definitely the angle with this "white cop shoots unarmed black man" headline.
Click to expand...

Why should we believe the cop version of the incident?
You are talking in authoritative terms,as if the police version is the gospel truth. Lots of people made that mistaje in the case of the Cleveland boy getting shot and the video evidence showed the police story to be misleading and deceptive.
Im not prepared to believe the deceased was a martyr but nor am I prepared to swallow the cop story wholesale. They have shown over and over they will lie, exaggerate, or omit facts if they think they can get away with it.
 
Zuhzuhzombie!! said:
Scaring a cop isn't an executable defense.
Click to expand...

executable is quite the charged word.

But you're wrong.

If a cop has just cause for believing you are capable of seriously harming or killing the cop or anyone else. If the cop believes his life and the public around him is in danger he has the right to use deadly force.
 
Sounds like the cop was actively trying to NOT shoot him, even struggling with him extensivley if the article is to be believed. This is why we need body cams ASAP.
 
Tawpgun said:
executable is quite the charged word.

But you're wrong.

If a cop has just cause for believing you are capable of seriously harming or killing the cop or anyone else. If the cop believes his life and the public around him is in danger he has the right to use deadly force.
Click to expand...

"I thought he had a gun" isn't just cause.

Especially when the victim didn't and the cop never saw one.

Especially since owning a gun isn't illegal.
 
Tawpgun said:
executable is quite the charged word.

But you're wrong.

If a cop has just cause for believing you are capable of seriously harming or killing the cop or anyone else. If the cop believes his life and the public around him is in danger he has the right to use deadly force.
Click to expand...
That's what needs to change. He can't have just believe or judge. Cops must be held to a standard of proof.

Yes, this will result with cops in more danger and more opportunities for the worst of worst criminals to kill them first, but cops have proven themselves not worthy of the benefit of the doubt towards their belief and judgement. It needs to happen.
 
Crosseyes said:
That's what needs to change. He can't have just believe or judge. Cops must be held to a standard of proof.

Yes, this will result with cops in more danger and more opportunities for the worst of worst criminals to kill them first, but cops have proven themselves not worthy of the benefit of the doubt towards their belief and judgement. It needs to happen.
Click to expand...

That and if they're not prepared for the risk of the job then they need to be removed from the job.
 
Zuhzuhzombie!! said:
That and if they're not prepared for the risk of the job then they need to be removed from the job.
Click to expand...

Well if you're going to ask them to just stand there and get shot you're probably 1. going to have to pay them a hell of a lot more, and 2. have to deal with way less of them than necessary to respond to big events, and 3. have them all be sociopathic fucks.
 
Zuhzuhzombie!! said:
"I thought he had a gun" isn't just cause.

Especially when the victim didn't and the cop never saw one.

Especially since owning a gun isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

Crosseyes said:
That's what needs to change. He can't have just believe or judge. Cops must be held to a standard of proof.

Yes, this will result with cops in more danger and more opportunities for the worst of worst criminals to kill them first, but cops have proven themselves not worthy of the benefit of the doubt towards their belief and judgement. It needs to happen.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, sometimes by the time a cop sees a gun it will be too late. Then the cop and/or someone innocent can be dead.

It's a tough call for sure. It might even be worth having this conversation. But in my personal opinion, if a cop tells you to freeze and put your hands up, and you instead reach into your car and put something in your waistband... Well.... Just reaching into your car is fucking dangerous enough.

as for the bolded... What the fuck. Cops are humans too. You are going to let some statistically TINY situations where cops killed someone unjustifiably or were out of line in order to change policy and punish all cops by putting them in more danger. Wtf dude that's messed up.

I don't deny there needs to be more police accountability and structual racism needs to be addressed. But not by endangering police lives.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Well if you're going to ask them to just stand there and get shot you're probably 1. going to have to pay them a hell of a lot more, and 2. have to deal with way less of them than necessary to respond to big events, and 3. have them all be sociopathic fucks.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with paying more money for fewer but more professional and competent police.


You are going to let some statistically TINY situations
Click to expand...

It is approximately 10% of murders committed in the US. That isn't statistically tiny.
 
Crosseyes said:
That's what needs to change. He can't have just believe or judge. Cops must be held to a standard of proof.

Yes, this will result with cops in more danger and more opportunities for the worst of worst criminals to kill them first, but cops have proven themselves not worthy of the benefit of the doubt towards their belief and judgement. It needs to happen.
Click to expand...
What in the actual fuck....
 
Chie Satonaka said:
I see a lot of Grand Juror hopefuls in this thread. :)
Click to expand...

Owning and displaying a gun in an open carry state = legal. Unless you're black then = scary =
Icon.17745.png





ed

Should have typed displaying, not brandishing.
 
Shake Appeal said:
Incidentally, the penalty for being an "armed drug dealer" isn't death, nor should it be. For a country that prides itself on its "freedom," we're far too quick to excuse violence by the authorities.
Click to expand...

I think you left out the part that makes that sentiment relevant with the actual chain of events that occurred.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Actually in most states brandishing is illegal for everyone.
Click to expand...

How was the kid that this thread about brandishing a weapon when he didn't even have one on his person?


jediyoshi said:
I think you left out the part that makes that sentiment relevant with the actual chain of events that occurred.
Click to expand...

They had a vehicle and an ID on the kid. Let him run and then pick him up later in a botched raid that ends up with a 2 year old dead and a 98 year old grand mother horribly maimed because THEY WERE COMING RIGHT FOR US
 
Scoot2005 said:
SOooooo.... What about those tasers the police have. Did they take them away or something? Pepper spray maybe?As he ran away? I understand that the officer was going on a gut feeling but why is it that out of all the tools they are given they just resort to the gun? This is coming from someone who supports responsible firearm ownership. Like were there really no other options?

Edit - Or just conk the dude over the head with the baton?
Click to expand...

It's funny how many tried to fight police having tasers as they were being used too much.
 
It should also be pointed out that Arizona is an open carry state. Even if the guy had a gun on him(which he didn't) doesn't give the cop the right to open fire.
 
Zuhzuhzombie!! said:
Owning and brandishing a gun in an open carry state = legal. Unless you're black then = scary =
Icon.17745.png
Click to expand...

If one were thinking in critical terms, you'd wonder why "he reached for my weapon/he had a gun/i was in fear of my life" seems to be an overwhelming theme when it comes to these kinds of shootings. But instead of thinking in those terms, we have people who support and defend it with no questions asked.

I wonder why that is...?
 
Crosseyes said:
That's what needs to change. He can't have just believe or judge. Cops must be held to a standard of proof.

Yes, this will result with cops in more danger and more opportunities for the worst of worst criminals to kill them first, but cops have proven themselves not worthy of the benefit of the doubt towards their belief and judgement. It needs to happen.
Click to expand...

So more cops should die so fine outstanding citizens like this drug dealer don't get shot when they decide to flee and brawl with cops.

Wonderful.

Mother. Fucking. Wonderful.
 
googleplex said:
It should also be pointed out that Arizona is an open carry state. Even if the guy had a gun on him(which he didn't) doesn't give the cop the right to open fire.
Click to expand...

He wasn't being chased because he had a gun, but because he was selling drugs. Having the gun made him a "threat". Kinda different from just shooting him because he supposedly had a gun. Open carry also does not mean you can brandish a weapon, it just means you can carry it on your person visibly and not concealed.
 
UFO said:
So more cops should die so fine outstanding citizens like this drug dealer don't get shot when they decide to flee and brawl with cops.

Wonderful.

Mother. Fucking. Wonderful.
Click to expand...

What in the blue hell are you talking about? A cop over active sense of security is not worth the price of my civil liberties!
 
googleplex said:
It should also be pointed out that Arizona is an open carry state. Even if the guy had a gun on him(which he didn't) doesn't give the cop the right to open fire.
Click to expand...

Well, if you had read the thread you might have seen that possession of a gun while distributing narcotics is a Class 3 felony.

Also, he didn't just open fire, he tried to subdue him physically first.
 
Zuhzuhzombie!! said:
It is and they do in every other country that isn't America.
Click to expand...
Yea in countries with way fewer guns in the wild.

Smh at your cop hate, calm down and actually think about what you're spewing.

No one is arguing that there has been an inexcusable amount of police misconduct (and racism). But the U.S. probably has the most lax gun control and most prevalent amount of civilian gun owners in the developed world. You cannot be naive and really think a "wait for them to draw the gun" approach is feasible. It's as ludicrous as the "shoot the gun out of his hand" camp.
 
googleplex said:
What in the blue hell are you talking about? A cop over active sense of security is not worth the price of my civil liberties!
Click to expand...

The joke here is that police sign up for this line of work.

People who zealously defend police officers for putting their lives at risk are ridiculous because they're signing up for danger. That's the point. It's certainly not about unnecessary danger, but the problem is that we don't get to determine if that's what's happening because the "threat" IS ALWAYS NEUTRALIZED.

And some people are more concerned with the potential, once again, of a cop laying down their life for the job they signed up for than the idea of unarmed people who should get a second chance or FLAT OUT INNOCENTS being dead.

Like you said, that fear shouldn't excuse our rights and protections and civil liberties, but people don't care about that because they're so far away from the problem they can remain willfully ignorant and plug up their ears and scream "LALALALALA NO DEAD COPS" over you.

These threads, once again, are just a deeper insight as to why there will never be any significant police regulation. People will fight tooth and nail to protect police, but not the citizens who they "serve".
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Per the supreme court, if officers perceive that they are under threat of loss of life or limb, they can shoot.

So, yeah, it actually kind of is.

Also, just a stupid thing to do with anyone holding a gun, scare them.
Click to expand...

Is there a link to that ruling? I would very much like to read it.

So far though, I do not see the outrage of the encounter. The man fought with the police after ignoring multiple commands and made articulable hand movements around his waist area where a weapon could be concealed. Tragic but justified.
 
googleplex said:
It should also be pointed out that Arizona is an open carry state. Even if the guy had a gun on him(which he didn't) doesn't give the cop the right to open fire.
Click to expand...
If the guy was just chilling, holding a gun, then no the cop didn't have the right to fire. But if you're actively resisting and even fighting back against a cop, and the cop believes you had a gun... well you won't find many sympathizers.
 
Chie Satonaka said:
The joke here is that police sign up for this line of work.

People who zealously defend police officers for putting their lives at risk are ridiculous because they're signing up for danger. That's the point. It's certainly not about unnecessary danger, but the problem is that we don't get to determine if that's what's happening because the "threat" IS ALWAYS NEUTRALIZED.

And some people are more concerned with the potential, once again, of a cop laying down their life for the job they signed up for than the idea of unarmed people who should get a second chance or FLAT OUT INNOCENTS being dead.

Like you said, that fear shouldn't excuse our rights and protections and civil liberties, but people don't care about that because they're so far away from the problem they can remain willfully ignorant and plug up their ears and scream "LALALALALA NO DEAD COPS" over you.

These threads, once again, are just a deeper insight as to why there will never be any significant police regulation. People will fight tooth and nail to protect police, but not the citizens who they "serve".
Click to expand...
Just because someone signs up to be a cop, it doesn't mean that they're supposed to let someone pull a gun and take the first shot. Cops don't sign up to die. There isn't an occupation in the world where you sign up to die.

All corruption, fuckery, etc aside... geez

A lot of people here are arguing things way outside of this specific event too (where it doesn't matter if the guy was the pope or a baby eater tbqh). People really need to separate the two.
 
DY_nasty said:
Just because someone signs up to be a cop, it doesn't mean that they're supposed to let someone pull a gun and take the first shot. Cops don't sign up to die. There isn't an occupation in the world where you sign up to die.

All corruption, fuckery, etc aside... geez

A lot of people here are arguing things way outside of this specific event too (where it doesn't matter if the guy was the pope or a baby eater tbqh). People really need to separate the two.
Click to expand...

...

Did you not see where I said that a police officer is signing up for a dangerous job by virtue of being a police officer, and that it's not about taking unnecessary risks?

I'm not advocating for cops to throw out procedures which will keep them safe when dealing with criminals. I'm saying that the automatic response of shooting because someone "reaches for a weapon" or "he has a gun!" or "stop resisting" or any of the other myriad excuses that happen when unarmed people are getting shot need more scrutiny. We don't disagree.
 
Chie Satonaka said:
...

Did you not see where I said that a police officer is signing up for a dangerous job by virtue of being a police officer, and that it's not about taking unnecessary risks?

I'm not advocating for cops to throw out procedures which will keep them safe when dealing with criminals. I'm saying that the automatic response of shooting because someone "reaches for a weapon" or "he has a gun!" or "stop resisting" or any of the other myriad excuses that happen when unarmed people are getting shot need more scrutiny. We don't disagree.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with this thread then?
 
Chie Satonaka said:
...

Did you not see where I said that a police officer is signing up for a dangerous job by virtue of being a police officer, and that it's not about taking unnecessary risks?

I'm not advocating for cops to throw out procedures which will keep them safe when dealing with criminals. I'm saying that the automatic response of shooting because someone "reaches for a weapon" or "he has a gun!" or "stop resisting" or any of the other myriad excuses that happen when unarmed people are getting shot need more scrutiny. We don't disagree.
Click to expand...

I apologize then. Maybe the wording struck me as off. In this event, until something else comes out, I mean... it is what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sony’s Spider-Man universe is dead
31
2K
Doom85 replied
“Single WHITE Female” remake in development
2
69
4K
Hudo replied
How's Arizona Bros
37
2K
SpiceRacz replied
Snow & White | Review Thread
Community  2
80
5K
GymWolf replied
Gene Hackman and wife found dead, in their home
2 3 4 5
214
14K
Rentahamster replied
Top Bottom