Just to state, my argument above was in favor of this very thing. Any time there is a police shooting, it SHOULD be slanted towards the citizen, as the police have the power of the State behind them and are there to protect all citizens. And it is irrelevant whether he had a gun or not if he is in the process of running from the police. That is not justification for a summary execution by the police. They can be screaming "HALT! THIS IS THE POLICE!" and they still would not be justified in shooting a man running from them unless he was about to harm another person. Everything should be slanted and biased towards the civilian/citizen.
https://sports.yahoo.com/body-cam-footage-shows-california-200507367.html That seems like a jump, to me. Pretty major assumption to base shooting someone on.
Why does anything need to be biased or slanted towards anyone? Just talk about the facts of the case, imo.
Because the police ARE the Government. They have all the power. The only power the citizen has is the press and voting. Any time there is a police shooting, we should look at the police first, question them, demand they justify the shooting. The public should not rally around the cops like we do, in general. Yes, the public has outcries against this, and that is true. But a larger portion of the people, particularly those with power, have a tendency to worship the police and think the person shot should have to justify not being shot, if that makes sense. This is not pointed at you (though I do think you almost always seem to be an advocate for the police in these discussions, whether as s devil's advocate or as a true defender, only you can answer).
Again, in what way have I "advocated" for the police? By not joining the mob and jumping to the immediate conclusion that they were in the wrong before all of the relevant information is available? I'm not rallying around the police. I just don't see any benefit in comments like the one you made earlier about running being a crime punishable by death. I don't mind the idea of "slanting" towards the victim, but count me out if it means making stuff up or creating false information to support innocence. There's a reason there's always a ton of misinformation surrounding cases like these. There's a reason we are questioning whether he had a gun or not, something that can be definitively proven or disproven.
I'm not sure what information would change my mind that shooting someone running away from you pointing a gun at them in the back is wrong. I guess if he had a bomb or somehow posed an imminent threat to others or myself? But it is on video. That was not the case.
After watching the surveillance footage, the explanation that they felt he was running for cover to shoot at them makes a little more sense, but I still think it's too far of a leap to justify shooting and killing him right then and there. The above video/statement from the Chief, though, suggests that he pulled the gun out when they pulled up and began approaching the vehicle, which is what led to them exiting the vehicle with guns drawn. That seems plausible to me. Does anyone have a link to the full body cam footage? EDIT: had the wrong link in this post initially. I updated it with the correct link.
I can see them get out of the car and shoot him within 3 seconds as he ran away in the video you watched. "approaching" from over 20 ft away after they rolled by and stopped? Sure looked like they were looking to drop him then and there.
The initial link I posted wasn't correct. I updated it with what I originally intended to post. They were called about a man walking around in the parking lot with a hand gun. They pulled up, and the man pulled out the gun and began approaching the vehicle. Not wanting to get pinned in the vehicle by gunfire, they exited the vehicle with their weapons drawn (because he was walking towards them with a gun). That seems like a plausible explanation/reaction to me. Shooting him while he's retreating still doesn't seem very justifiable to me. They said he looked back, which I guess they consider an initial step in turning around to shoot them. But that seems like a stretch. They also say he's running for cover, which they feared he could use to then shoot at them. The second part of that also feels like a stretch. He could have just as easily have been searching for cover to protect himself and not shoot at them. The only real "evidence" they have to suggest they feared he would shoot them was his initial approach of the vehicle after pulling out the gun. But nothing else after that really suggests he intended to shoot them. Never raised the gun. Never fired it.
What are they training for? What evil are they so concerned about that they have to go out into the desert and play police/army? I find it very strange.
It’s going to be a rough decade with 3 major historical cycles hitting at once but I don’t see what they’re getting from that unless we’re going back to fighting like Roman Legion style.
I just wanna know how these people have so much spare time in the first place to be doing anything like this? I just don’t see how people cram their political hobbies/causes/beliefs into their schedule. Between family, personal relationships and business-life is just too damn busy to be gathering with others simply on the basis of political beliefs as a way to reenact Facebook feed political groupthink in real life
I distrust the government and there's no way in hell I would want to be a cop. I'm with you, I want to know why lethal force was necessary there
