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.
No, the argument is that just because a person doesn't comply isn't a reason to just shoot them.
I haven't seen anyone say that someone who is uncooperative needs to be shot. I'm all for people refusing breathalyzers, not consenting to vehicle searches or being rude to the police if they want. In most cases, the dumbest thing a person can do is answer questions. It's not like the police are looking for reasons to hand out a prize.
The line for me is violence or the threat of violence. Cops stop you and you pull a gun or knife? You just gave them carte blanche to shoot you if they want. That's not even a moral argument - that's a legal fact. A person doesn't have to prove that their life was in danger to use lethal force. They just needed to have reason to believe it was at the time.
I haven't seen anyone say that someone who is uncooperative needs to be shot.
Generally it's more of a "they got what they deserved".
Quote:
I'm all for people refusing breathalyzers, not consenting to vehicle searches or being rude to the police if they want. In most cases, the dumbest thing a person can do is answer questions. It's not like the police are looking for reasons to hand out a prize.
The line for me is violence or the threat of violence. Cops stop you and you pull a gun or knife? You just gave them carte blanche to shoot you if they want. That's not even a moral argument - that's a legal fact. A person doesn't have to prove that their life was in danger to use lethal force. They just needed to have reason to believe it was at the time.
No. That is not a good standard. Cops have used that to get away with unjustified shootings for decades. " I was afraid he would run me down with his car" after shooting him after driving away.
Nobody is talking about when an officer has a gun pulled on him.
I was reading that a TV station in Minnesota was able to get a copy of the police call that lead up to the shooting. The officer states that he is pulling over the car because the driver matches the description of someone wanted for robbery. He had a "wide set nose".
He lied about the tail light. Now I am fine with anyone dismissing this until further verified but no one should get pulled over for something like that.
But they won't. They believe it's their right to challenge unlawful acts from LE that violate their basic rights. They believe that they don't need to comply, bow their heads, kowtow to authority figures just to make those agents feel comfortable.
But they damn sure believe YOU should bc you don't deserve those rights. You don't deserve that freedom to defend yourself and demand fair and equal treatment. That type of America is for them, not you.
How else do you explain their vigilance against tyranny and oppressive govt, yet circling the wagons around cops who shoot children, unarmed citizens, and the elderly for not doing exactly what they were told? Isn't that last bit a hallmark of tyranny -- authorities demanding obedience or death?
It's okay. They know what their intention is. It isn't to help you survive the next encounter. It isn't to build up relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve. It's too remind you that the America you want is not for you to enjoy and prosper. It's for them. Your America isn't about freedom, justice, equality. Those things are for them. You just make sure you do what you're told and comply, if you want to survive.
No. That is not a good standard. Cops have used that to get away with unjustified shootings for decades. " I was afraid he would run me down with his car" after shooting him after driving away.
I agree that it's not a perfect standard, or perhaps even a good standard. It can be abused and im sure is abused. But that is what the law is for everyone, civilians included.
The standard can't be that a person must prove their life was in danger for lethal force to be used. Most times it will be impossible to know until after the fact.
This is why body cameras are so crucial. This will help objectively determine if an officer can justify feeling like they were in danger.
I agree that it's not a perfect standard, or perhaps even a good standard. It can be abused and im sure is abused. But that is what the law is for everyone, civilians included.
No, you actually reasonably have to be at risk.
Quote:
The standard can't be that a person must prove their life was in danger for lethal force to be used. Most times it will be impossible to know until after the fact.
If they are running away, your life wasn't at risk.
Quote:
This is why body cameras are so crucial. This will help objectively determine if an officer can justify feeling like they were in danger.
Body cameras are good as long as they don't get turned off.
One man takes a stand against what he feels are unjust fines levied against him by the state and passively resists efforts by said state to collect those fines...
If he's White, he's Cliven Bundy and gets the support of Conservative America
If he's Black, he's Eric Garner and gets denounced for not complying with law enforcement.
Of course liberal America does the exact opposite.
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.
