Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That kid was a threat to the general public and to the officer. Would you be defending the kid if the officer didn't shoot and that kid shoots or kidnaps your child?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A
Not when you're protecting yourself, your fellow officers, or the general public.
The law doesnt work that way. The kid has to be a DIRECT threat to an actual person. Meaning he has to be running towards someone with the gun for the cop to shoot. Thats why the Walter Scott case resulted in a murder conviction. They dont work on abstracts, for abstract people. These policies were made because of police screwing up and killing people unjustly.
The cop is supposed to chase him down, not stand still and shoot at someone that is running away.
Im sure you like to see cops kill minorities, but they cant just kill people because you enjoy the police state mentality.
They're protesting that they want justice but they got justice. Dip**** kid got shot and brought it on himself. Commit a crime and you are taking your life in your hands.
That kid was a threat to the general public and to the officer. Would you be defending the kid if the officer didn't shoot and that kid shoots or kidnaps your child?
How can someone be a credible threat when they are running away from you?
If a civilian did this and tried to claim they felt threatened, they would be laughed out of the courtroom, prosecutors would ask how they could be a threat if they are running AWAY.
He was NO threat to the general public either, pretty sure it not acceptable to shoot someone based on what they COULD or MAY do. lol
Yes, he was - but the entire scope of the crime has to be taken into account before you fire. Running away from an unoccupied stolen while armed is different from running away from a triple homicide while armed. It’s pretty hairy, so you have to look at everything in a shooting like this.
America's gun culture makes it more dangerous for cops AND civilians. Cops must automatically assume that any person, whether in public or at home, is armed to the teeth as a result of America's extremely lax gun laws.
The kid has to be a DIRECT threat to an actual person.
No he doesn't. For an officer to be justified in shooting someone, he must reasonably believe that the person is a danger to himself or the public.
Quote:
Meaning he has to be running towards someone with the gun for the cop to shoot.
Again, no he doesn't.
Quote:
Thats why the Walter Scott case resulted in a murder conviction.
The Walter Scott case ended in a murder conviction because at the time, Scott wasn't armed. In this case, the kid had a realistic replica gun in his hand and he can turn around and shoot.
Quote:
They dont work on abstracts, for abstract people. These policies were made because of police screwing up and killing people unjustly.
The cop is supposed to chase him down, not stand still and shoot at someone that is running away.
Im sure you like to see cops kill minorities, but they cant just kill people because you enjoy the police state mentality.
Nice accusation of character. As it turns out, I'm black.
How can someone be a credible threat when they are running away from you?
for one, he could either turn around and shoot at the cop at any second or turn a corner and set up an ambush. For another, he could take someone hostage, shoot, kidnap, rob, or otherwise harm another person who wasn't involved.
Quote:
If a civilian did this and tried to claim they felt threatened, they would be laughed out of the courtroom, prosecutors would ask how they could be a threat if they are running AWAY.
Civilians aren't tasked or trained to chase and arrest bad guys. Even then, since the kid had a realistic looking toy gun in his hand, with the right defense and jury, a civilian can make a solid case. But back to your main point, your argument is faulty at it's core. If someone who isn't a doctor operated on someone, he would be charged with practicing without a license.
Quote:
He was NO threat to the general public either, pretty sure it not acceptable to shoot someone based on what they COULD or MAY do. lol
He most certainly was a threat. He was holding a realistic looking toy gun in his hand. That makes his crime of braking into the car armed burglary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
