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.
I think he in all likelihood was up to no good and a winner of the Darwin Award. But that still doesn't mean the cops weren't trigger happy when they opened fire on him so give them a Darwin Award as well. You send a police dog in to chow down on his genitals and beat his empty noggin with a night stick, you don't open fire in a panic like they did.
Given that one of the cops was black and race wasn't an issue, give those playing the race card a Darwin award as well.
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.
Police really had no choice except to shoot. They were pursuing a man who was fleeing police by jumping over fences. They told the man to stop and show his hands. He ran. They pursued and again told him to show his hands and to stop. It was dark, and they saw what appeared to be a gun in his hand. If he had raised his hands they could have taken the time to see what was in his hands, but he didn't. They did what they were trained to do, and that is to shoot first when pursuing a suspect who does not respond to orders and who has what appears to be a gun.
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?
What is relevant is that a suspect was fleeing police and disobeying their orders to stop and show his hands. Had he stopped and put his hands in the air, he would be alive.
What is relevant is that a suspect was fleeing police and disobeying their orders to stop and show his hands. Had he stopped and put his hands in the air, he would be alive.
The way they should have handled this was to take cover behind the corner of the wall and order him to walk out into the middle of the backyard with his hands up and his back facing the officers.
The way they should have handled this was to take cover behind the corner of the wall and order him to walk out into the middle of the backyard with his hands up and his back facing the officers.
The suspect was ordered to stop, but he ran. He was ordered to show his hands, and he did not. Police ran after him. If police had decided to hide behind a wall, the suspect would have jumped over more fences and disappeared. That would mean that police were not doing their jobs.
Police really had no choice except to shoot. They were pursuing a man who was fleeing police by jumping over fences. They told the man to stop and show his hands. He ran. They pursued and again told him to show his hands and to stop. It was dark, and they saw what appeared to be a gun in his hand. If he had raised his hands they could have taken the time to see what was in his hands, but he didn't. They did what they were trained to do, and that is to shoot first when pursuing a suspect who does not respond to orders and who has what appears to be a gun.
In the final incident ---
Within seconds of coming face to face with Clark, the cop shouted more orders — “Show me your hands!” — and finally yelled, “Gun, gun, gun!”
I see no evidence that he was not doing exactly as they said and they shot him for it. When he showed them his hands he had the cellphone which spooked them into the Gun, gun, gun and the shooting.
I don't think that is what the other posters are saying.
Instead, they are logically pointing out that the suspect put himself into that situation, and he alone bares the blame for what befell him.
So neither crime (vandalism or fleeing the police) meant he deserved to die, far from it. However the choice he made created a situation that cause the LEO's to think they were in danger, thus he was shot.
As to the BLM rubbish, they are leftist/liberal malcontents who run around with a racial chip on their shoulders. Thus they look for reasons to exploit, and would like not give a flip had the victim been of a different color, or the LEO who shot was black.
`
Sickening to see people support a group that acts as judge, jury and executioner. Completely anti-American.
My point is he doesn't sound all that innocent to me.
Because he was in his backyard at night?
Scandalous I tell ya!
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.
