Our Protectors??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CTgPf-KRhE

Why isnt every person in the country calling for blood?
If it were up to me, id arrest every single person involved in the dismissing of the charges agianst this straight up murderer. This is clear cut corruption.
Officers can make mistakes, i understand this. But to give them a free pass when they do so is not acceptable. This double standard is intolerable.

"

SkyCore wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CTgPf-KRhE

Why isnt every person in the country calling for blood?
If it were up to me, id arrest every single person involved in the dismissing of the charges agianst this straight up murderer. This is clear cut corruption.
Officers can make mistakes, i understand this. But to give them a free pass when they do so is not acceptable. This double standard is intolerable.

Things always seem more clear in hindsight, and looking at them from the outside is completely different from being immersed in a situation. It is why eyewitness reports can vary so much from what really happened and even among witnesses.

When psychologists have done tests and put non-police (journalists and others) in mock ups of these do or die situations, the non-police shot to kill far more often than the police did.

In the video you linked, it looks as if the driver was trying to get away, but also heading toward the officer and wasn't planning on stopping even if the officer was in the car's path.

A car can be a deadly weapon, and in this case was close to being one. If the driver had aimed a gun at the police officer and tried to pull the trigger, would you still feel the same outrage?

What the driver did was only a few moments, and a misstep from accomplishing the same thing as if the driver had fired a gun at the officer.

This also doesn't take into account whether the driver/passenger were actually involved in a possible drug buy as mentioned in the newscast in the video.

Actions have consequences, and threatening actions in the presence of a police officer can have dire consequences. There is no restart in town, and life is not a game. Lawyers and lawsuits are the best way to handle overzealous officers who exceed their authority and step out of line. To paraphrase the shadow - One good settlement is all it takes.

I like the commentary.

1st it was teens on a first date having ice cream. (awww...shux..softens the viewer up) Next it's revealed the female bought dope off an undercover.

Also, the commentary never states that the teen tried to hit the cop with his car. Just that he tried to speed off. IMO, he tried to hit the cop.

Nice editing by ABC.

I'd turn turn the sound off before watching it. Easier to form your own opinion.

"

That_which_has_no_life wrote:

I'd turn turn the sound off before watching it. Easier to form your own opinion.

So if you remove sound, cars suddenly gain the ability to move sideways?

If the officer had actually placed himself directly in front of the vehicle, is he not still liable for initiating the series of events? Try to get away and i will shoot you. Perhaps such confrontation is what is taught in police academies and this particular individual was just following instructions. But even then, blame should be assigned so as to force the system to change. Because it is unacceptable.

What if it had been someone you cared for in that car? Your son or your brother?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

This also doesn't take into account whether the driver/passenger were actually involved in a possible drug buy as mentioned in the newscast in the video.

So its 'ok' to shoot ppl invloved in buying pot?

I think you watch too much TV. Drugs do NOT make you any less human, despite the propaganda which attempts to dehumanize the individuals involved. It's easier to justify decades of prison time and a trillion dollars that way.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

That_which_has_no_life wrote:

What if it had been someone you cared for in that car? Your son or your brother?

My point was more how the newscast and the news station was trying to sway your judgement about the incident before it gave you the absolute facts.

Here's more... they tell you that's it's an unarmed teenager who got shot and killed and the photo they use is of him seeming like he's in a high school chem class. They refer to them as a young couple. So they want you to think he's some kind of high school kid and they're like a h.s. sweetheart couple out on an innocent first date out to get ice cream. Though they don't explicitly state this, that's the impression they want you to have. Later on they reveal he's 19 years old. and they refer to the buyer/passenger as a "woman", not a teen.

One other point... the newscast never plays the video through without interruptions or slow motion..so you never get a true feeling for how fast it actually happened.

I also believe the newscast was trying to sway people to think how stupid the drug war is when innocent "teens" get killed for what was probably a bag. on top of the "cops are bad" vibe emanating these days.

As to your question, that's kind of a liberal whining card but I'll play. If it was my brother that did a dumbass move like that, I'd say..what a dumbass. If it was my son, sure I'd be upset for a long time at the cop. But I'd be really upset at myself for raising a child who would put himself in that situation with some dumb whore who doesn't know to buy weed from a reliable source. But I also believe police actually do not want to kill people.

You know, once I talked with a cop friend (I know him from high school) about how he wants to kill all the criminals. I mean, he is well meant, but it doesn't stop it from being stupidly fascist.

There is a tightrope to walk in the whole making police accountable vs. demonizing them. Some people (specially poor people and minorities that are targeted more harshly than the rest) can become hateful because they are seen as the enemy. It's an unending cycle of violence.

Currently, I'd say we should be more tolerant with civilians and more harsh with the police, but in other time and situation I could have said the opposite.

The whole weed situation is prohibition 2.0, saying otherwise is just foolish.

I guess they should just cooperate with the cops instead of being entitled loudmouth jackasses. I'm not saying that the cops are doing the right thing, but it's something so easily avoidable lel

Oh and, ABC News xDDDDDDDD

The cop would have tried to put himself in front of the car so that they would stop and they could be arrested for breaking the law. One could say he did this to have the ability to shoot the guy. One could also say he did this so he wouldn't have to do a highspeed pursuit and put many other innocents in danger. Making an assumption like this and using it to determine your stance is nothing other than illogical and stupid. The fact of the matter is, the kid showed no signs of stopping when the officer tried to step in front of the car. In a split second decision the police officer made the call that ended the life of the guy. It's unfortunate, but it was all due to the guys decisions. If he had not ran he would not have been shot.

I don't necessarily agree it was the right call to do what the police officer did, but I can understand why it happened. Looking at it from a completely logical standpoint, without moral reasoning I see a cascade of events that, while unfortunate, have a logical conclusion.

Suspect purchases an illegal substance from an undercover officer. They begin pursuit on the perp. They pull the perp over and begin the processes of arrest. The perp commits another crime and tries to flee. The officer makes a motion to stop the car. The perp does not stop the car and in doing so makes the officer feel endangered by what is considered a deadly weapon. This gives the police officer reason to engage the perp. The police officer does so and ends the perps life.

For the argument "the car can't move sideways so he was in no danger!"; the entire car is a deadly weapon not just the front.

Also for the hypothetical you provided "if it was your X tha this happened to how would you feel?" I propose the hypotheical that if the officer did not shoot the perp and instead engaged in a highspeed chase. This chase led to a collision. This collision led to a multiple car pile-up. THis multiple care Pile-up led to the deaths of 50 people. Of these 50 people one of them was an important member in your family. How would you feel then?
Using hypthoticals to obfuscate the points that matter is something I can do as well.

Personally I feel that if a police officer tells you to do something, you do it. No exceptions. The moment you go against what is being said to you, you deserve whatever is coming.

Sure the officer could have done things differently like shoot the tires or engine block, but TBH he did what he thought was best at the time.

Also, the comments about the car moving sideways... Have you ever tried standing right next to a car when it's pulling a tight turn? You get knocked over.

"

Einkil wrote:

If he had not ran he would not have been shot.

Running away from danger should not be a death sentence. It is a biologically encoded INSTINCT. To expect every human to do as they are told and not run is ridiculous.

"

Einkil wrote:

For the argument "the car can't move sideways so he was in no danger!"; the entire car is a deadly weapon not just the front.

Deadly weapons. Let us define them. Anything which can puncture the skin has the potential to cut your throat. Likewise anything which can be broken into pieces which can puncture the skin. Which includes virtually every solid object in the universe. But for those solids which not included in the 'piercing' category; they can still be lodged into your windpipe. So EVERY solid object in the entirity of the cosmos is a deadly weapon.
But lets not stop there, liquids may be harnessed to cause combustion. Or corrosion. Or perhaps are toxic. Or perhaps can be combined to create any of the above. Which includes a vast number of liquids. But even those liquids which dont fall into the previous 'deadly weapon' category can still be used to drown you. Making every liquid in the entire universe a deadly weapon.
Likewise, every gas in the universe can also be used to sufficate you with the exception of molecular oxygen (which can be used to ignite your clothes and hair making it also a 'deadly weapon').
Plasma, the most common state of matter in the universe, is obviously a 'deadly weapon'.
So every single bit of matter in the entire known universe can concievable be considered a 'deadly weapon'. 'deadly weapons' are so ubiquitous that it is not even a meaningful term.

My very hands are 'deadly weapons'.

Let us hope that possession of 'deadly weapons' will never be reason enough alone for capital punishment. Or we are all screwed.