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.
Running is not cause for lethal force.
Disobedience is not cause for lethal force.
At least not in civilized countries.
Yes it is if they tell you to show your hands and you disobey to pull something out of your pockets. For some reason you skipped over the pulling out something that looked like a gun part. Why did you forget that part? And the vandalism. That's the problem with you BLM people. You compulsively lie about all these cases.
This reminds me of a kid who stole a jeep and the police were chasing him. The kid lost control and crashed. He survived but was a vegetable and in a coma, eventually he died. The parents claimed racism and tried suing the police department, they said the police shouldn't have chased him. They lost the case.
The same as in this case where both would still be alive if they didn't commit criminal acts. One being chased, dying because he lost control of the car he stole, the other who was vandalizing and when caught the police felt threatened and they shot him.
I would make a strong guess that in this case the government will pay off. The will not be willing to let a jury decide if the 20 shots were reasonable. Too much risk of a huge judgement.
Yes it is if they tell you to show your hands and you disobey to pull something out of your pockets. For some reason you skipped over the pulling out something that looked like a gun part. Why did you forget that part? And the vandalism. That's the problem with you BLM people. You compulsively lie about all these cases.
So therfore, if I'm deaf, learning disabled, or physically impaired, I deserve to be shot!
What is it with this enthusiastic support of state actors carrying out extrajudicial killings, anyway? I thought you guys normally argue that the Blessed Second Amendment stops that sort of thing?
He had the phone in his hand. There is no report he pulled it out of his pocket.
He made a menacing face, he wiggled his toes in a threatening manner, he failed to immediately understand that he was now in a situation where a second's hesitation or false movement is instant death for him.
I would make a strong guess that in this case the government will pay off. The will not be willing to let a jury decide if the 20 shots were reasonable. Too much risk of a huge judgement.
You mean the taxpayers will pay off. Like they are always forced to do.
What is it with this enthusiastic support of state actors carrying out extrajudicial killings, anyway? I thought you guys normally argue that the Blessed Second Amendment stops that sort of thing?
Of course the vandalism is relevant. So you don't know what happened but are taking the side of the CRIMINAL and not the cops!? It proves he's a criminal and the cops would not have been called out if it weren't for the vandalism. It is part of the story and if he was a criminal, it hurts his credibility and public perception. There would be less protestors.
So therfore, if I'm deaf, learning disabled, or physically impaired, I deserve to be shot!
Utterly delusional!
Replace the word deserve with justified. He wasn't deaf! and if He was deaf I would keep that in mind when running from cops and vandalizing and pulling a gun on cops. You don't get a free pass. Being shot would certainly be justified! If you are deaf and try to shoot a cop you deserve to be shot.
What does this have to do with the post that you quoted? I'm lost.
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.