• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man tries to run over Pa. police, shot dead

If a police officer is overpowered and has his weapon turned against him there are procedural issues that should be addressed.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Anyone can be overpowered by anyone. All it takes is some other underlying factor. You could slip, heck, there's a million factors that could play into someone overpowering a cop. The facts remain, that Michael Brown, attempted murderer, got exactly what he had coming to him. Easiest grand jury decision in history.
 
What a ridiculous thing to say. Anyone can be overpowered by anyone. All it takes is some other underlying factor. You could slip, heck, there's a million factors that could play into someone overpowering a cop. The facts remain, that Michael Brown, attempted murderer, got exactly what he had coming to him. Easiest grand jury decision in history.
While the grand jury agrees that the law wasn't broken, the speed of escalation and killing of a citizen without jury should alarm you. Whether you feel the correct outcome was reached, the process should be corrected to ensure better than retroactive review of killings.
 
While the grand jury agrees that the law wasn't broken, the speed of escalation and killing of a citizen without jury should alarm you. Whether you feel the correct outcome was reached, the process should be corrected to ensure better than retroactive review of killings.

The only thing alarming is that are people so stupid that they would try and kill a police officer and expect to get out alive. Those of us with brains know not to do something like that. He must have had some kind of mental disorder. Who else would he kill? His mother?
 
The only thing alarming is that are people so stupid that they would try and kill a police officer and expect to get out alive. Those of us with brains know not to do something like that. He must have had some kind of mental disorder. Who else would he kill? His mother?
Stupidity shouldn't be grounds for being killed by cops.
 
Stupidity shouldn't be grounds for being killed by cops.

Stupidity isn't. Trying to murder them is. It just so happens that trying to murder cops ALSO happens to be stupid. On a much higher level of course. I can't believe you're trying to deny this.
 
Stupidity isn't. Trying to murder them is. It just so happens that trying to murder cops ALSO happens to be stupid. On a much higher level of course. I can't believe you're trying to deny this.
I am a civilian. I want protections for civilians. I expect the police to not kill civilians except under absolutely unavoidable situations. This wasn't an unavoidable situation.
 
If a police officer is overpowered and has his weapon turned against him there are procedural issues that should be addressed.

If an officer is overpowered, and his weapon turned against him, he is dead. Period. But let me get this straight, are you saying the incidents we are talking about, the officers were overpowered in your view? Come on Unrep....That was a lazy answer....I asked you two simple questions for anyone making the declarative statements you made, and come to find out through this answer here, you clearly don't have a clue, but rather just repeat talking points you hear....

Please try again and prove me wrong....
 
I am a civilian. I want protections for civilians. I expect the police to not kill civilians except under absolutely unavoidable situations. This wasn't an unavoidable situation.

What part was unavoidable? The officer about to die? Because that part wasn't. Brown made sure of that. Lucky for us, the officer was prepared.
 
What part was unavoidable? The officer about to die? Because that part wasn't. Brown made sure of that. Lucky for us, the officer was prepared.

Apparently in HUDS world, if a thug attempts to murder a cop, and gets away, he should be allowed to get away.
 
If an officer is overpowered, and his weapon turned against him, he is dead. Period. But let me get this straight, are you saying the incidents we are talking about, the officers were overpowered in your view? Come on Unrep....That was a lazy answer....I asked you two simple questions for anyone making the declarative statements you made, and come to find out through this answer here, you clearly don't have a clue, but rather just repeat talking points you hear....

Please try again and prove me wrong....
If the officer was overpowered and disarmed he was improperly prepared, trained, or supported. This improper training, preparation, or support contributed to escalating a simple arrest into a death.
What part was unavoidable? The officer about to die? Because that part wasn't. Brown made sure of that. Lucky for us, the officer was prepared.
The officer wasn't prepared. A prepared officer wouldn't have allowed a deadly weapon into his attacker's hands, or been limited to deadly force to deal with an escalating conflict.
 
If the officer was overpowered and disarmed he was improperly prepared, trained, or supported. This improper training, preparation, or support contributed to escalating a simple arrest into a death.

The officer wasn't prepared. A prepared officer wouldn't have allowed a deadly weapon into his attacker's hands, or been limited to deadly force to deal with an escalating conflict.

Can you cite your sources for the absurd claim you just made? He didn't allow anything. If he DID allow it, then he would be dead. The best outcome happened. A murderous thug died, and an officer prevailed.
 
Can you cite your sources for the absurd claim you just made? He didn't allow anything. If he DID allow it, then he would be dead. The best outcome happened. A murderous thug died, and an officer prevailed.
You're stuck on the procedures and narrative rather than examining whether those procedures are legitimate outside the context of this narrative.
 
If the officer was overpowered and disarmed he was improperly prepared, trained, or supported. This improper training, preparation, or support contributed to escalating a simple arrest into a death.

That's just nonsense. If you are speaking of the Brown case, unpredictable things happen all the time in Urban America. Second guessing the event after the fact is for those who don't know squat. If you are talking about the man in this thread who tried to run over cops trying to effect a warrant then I would also say they acted exactly right.
 
You're stuck on the procedures and narrative rather than examining whether those procedures are legitimate outside the context of this narrative.

If the cop is in danger, and the suspect won't comply then yes, the procedure is correct.
 
I admittedly have unorthodox views on the legitimacy of self defense laws.

I don't like either side of the officer/citizen equation being killed, however, being a civilian, I will side on the priorities of protecting civilians first. Officers are paid to protect and serve, citizens are unpaid for their risks in encountering law enforcement.

I don't disagree that resisting arrest should be prosecuted. I disagree that resisting arrest should result in dead citizens.
.

So a post based on 'your feelings' and not dealing with the facts...life and death of cops and the public and the realities of self defense. So glad I bothered. /sarcasm
 
Unarmed men shouldn't be able to disarm police officers. I expect law enforcement to be better trained than that.

My sentence was a bit vaguely worded. I'm fine with supporting evidence, but feel it should be something a jury should review, rather than a police officer making a unilateral, irreversible decision about.

Again, ignoring the reality that I presented....esp. in today's climate....that cop would have had his career destroyed and possibly ended up in jail had he even drawn his weapon. Surviving violence isnt a science. And sure...even cop's judgement can be faulty. Too bad Officer Herzog died because he gave someone the benefit of the doubt.
 
If a police officer is overpowered and has his weapon turned against him there are procedural issues that should be addressed.

I hope that all the criminals know that you believe ambushes should be against the law. And more than one suspect attacking at once...that's also a bummer huh? That should also be against the law :doh
 
If a police officer is overpowered and has his weapon turned against him there are procedural issues that should be addressed.

There are. Once very specific. Suspects are ordered to get down on the ground and put their hands behind their heads.

That's a procedure for EXACTLY that purpose. And you know what? Michael Brown didnt do that. So he remained a threat. One that had already attacked an armed officer. And he paid the price instead of the officer. (Who ended up paying a very high price for doing his job properly.)
 
Larger men shouldn't have less ability to have a jury of their peers decide their fate than smaller men.

I have very high expectations for what police should be able to do. Preventing a violent man from accessing a deadly weapon is one of them.

"Disparity of force" is recognized by law, in the courts, in self defense cases.

It can be size, weapons, age, mobility, etc. It absolutely plays into the level of a threat and response.
 
My sentence was a bit vaguely worded. I'm fine with supporting evidence, but feel it should be something a jury should review, rather than a police officer making a unilateral, irreversible decision about.

The bold is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read regarding self-defense.

??? :doh The cop makes a split decision to save a life...his own or the public. In those circumstances, NO ONE else can assess the actual threat in that instance. Gee whiz, I hope he lives to provide evidence in court! Those of us, cops or anyone else, can only PRAY PRAY PRAY that we have physical evidence to support our actions if we ever need to use lethal force. Because otherwise, just like the cop in Ferguson, we can end up screwed anyway. Legally or financially (the legal defense costs often cost people their houses).
 
I am a civilian. I want protections for civilians. I expect the police to not kill civilians except under absolutely unavoidable situations. This wasn't an unavoidable situation.

That is the standard for lethal force and the evidence showed it was unavoidable.

Please tell us how the officer could have avoided it while doing his job?
 
You're stuck on the procedures and narrative rather than examining whether those procedures are legitimate outside the context of this narrative.

The narrative is super easy to follow. The police officer confronted brown for breaking the law, brown went on the offensive and TRIED to murder the police officer, the police officer (as he should have) killed the attempted murderer.

Super simple, and carried out successfully. Well done to the officer.
 
That's just nonsense. If you are speaking of the Brown case, unpredictable things happen all the time in Urban America. Second guessing the event after the fact is for those who don't know squat. If you are talking about the man in this thread who tried to run over cops trying to effect a warrant then I would also say they acted exactly right.
I'm for avoiding second guessing whether a person should've been killed. I'm against law enforcement using lethal force in all but a handful of situations.
If the cop is in danger, and the suspect won't comply then yes, the procedure is correct.
The procedure is legal. Legal doesn't equal correct.

.

So a post based on 'your feelings' and not dealing with the facts...life and death of cops and the public and the realities of self defense. So glad I bothered. /sarcasm

My post is based on my political view that a government given permission to kill its citizens is a bad thing. We gave this officer permission to execute a citizen without trial.

I hope that all the criminals know that you believe ambushes should be against the law. And more than one suspect attacking at once...that's also a bummer huh? That should also be against the law :doh
If criminals intend to commit crimes against officers, being armed won't protect them.

There are. Once very specific. Suspects are ordered to get down on the ground and put their hands behind their heads.

That's a procedure for EXACTLY that purpose. And you know what? Michael Brown didnt do that. So he remained a threat. One that had already attacked an armed officer. And he paid the price instead of the officer. (Who ended up paying a very high price for doing his job properly.)

The lack of anything between plan a (arrest) and plan b (death) should be more bothersome to more people.

"Disparity of force" is recognized by law, in the courts, in self defense cases.

It can be size, weapons, age, mobility, etc. It absolutely plays into the level of a threat and response.

Yes. We've discussed self defense and how I believe it's morality questionable to permit it.
The bold is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read regarding self-defense.

??? :doh The cop makes a split decision to save a life...his own or the public. In those circumstances, NO ONE else can assess the actual threat in that instance. Gee whiz, I hope he lives to provide evidence in court! Those of us, cops or anyone else, can only PRAY PRAY PRAY that we have physical evidence to support our actions if we ever need to use lethal force. Because otherwise, just like the cop in Ferguson, we can end up screwed anyway. Legally or financially (the legal defense costs often cost people their houses).
Giving anyone unilateral authority to kill a citizen should be more bothersome to more people.
 
Yes. We've discussed self defense and how I believe it's morality questionable to permit it.

Giving anyone unilateral authority to kill a citizen should be more bothersome to more people.

No one has unilateral authority to kill anyone....you choose to ignore that, consistently. You can only use lethal force to protect yourself from death or gross bodily harm. It's a little hard to convence a jury *while that is occurring.* (This constant implication on your part just seems like idiocy.) For police it extends to doing so to protect the public as well.

And since you would deny people of the basic human right of self-defense, it's pretty clear why I consider everything you write on this topic is fantasy and nonsense. Certainly you are welcome to that perspective but I'm glad that it will not be imposed on the rest of us.
 
No one has unilateral authority to kill anyone....you choose to ignore that, consistently. You can only use lethal force to protect yourself from death or gross bodily harm. It's a little hard to convence a jury *while that is occurring.* (This constant implication on your part just seems like idiocy.) For police it extends to doing so to protect the public as well.

And since you would deny people of the basic human right of self-defense, it's pretty clear why I consider everything you write on this topic is fantasy and nonsense. Certainly you are welcome to that perspective but I'm glad that it will not be imposed on the rest of us.

It is unilateral when one person is authorized to kill instead of granting the person a trial by jury of peers. If they're an authorized government official doing this it is even more immoral IMO. If a person deserves justice, it should be determined through the justice system.
 
Back
Top Bottom