• 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!

Police Shoot Unarmed Man With His Hands Up

Vox said:
With automatic weapons, one accidental touch to the trigger can fire three shots.

It doesn't take three pulls.

So IF they were carrying M-16s, for example, that could explain an accidental three shots.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that any automatic weapons were on scene but if there were and if some cop had his selector on "rock and roll" that would definitely be something to talk about.
 
Ikari said:
And this is one of the major problems with police training. Cops escalate. There was a video not so long ago about some punk kid who gets pulled over. The cop is talking to him, but the kid is pulling the "these are my rights" "I refuse to talk" blah blah things that punk kids do. The officer escalates the situation, something where he could have called in backup, could have let the kid sit there in the car until then, but instead pulls the "respect my authority" thing. Eventually there is a scuffle. The cop improperly tazes the kid, who jumps up, and then the cop shoots the kid dead.

Cop gets away with it because the kid threw a punch, but that all could have been avoided if cops were trained NOT to escalate.
Click to expand...

Cops are not trained to "escalate" a situation. They are taught to "control" situations. When you have an argumentative suspect there comes a point where force becomes a warranted method for gaining control.
 
Josie said:
I'm not defending anyone.
Click to expand...

Lol, your first post sought to ease the level of responsibility the cop has for this. Remember, you believe it to be an 'accident'.

I'm interested in knowing the facts and details of the case before coming to a decision. You've already indicted and convicted the police officer.
Click to expand...

Says the person who can't believe Hillary is still walking around freely.
 
Hatuey said:
She is working really hard to defend shooting a man on the ground while his hands are up, let her.
Click to expand...

Josie isn't defending the cops. She's saying that she doesn't have enough information to know whether the shooting was justified or not and she's correct. At this point all any of us can do is speculate and ask questions to get a better understanding.
 
Hatuey said:
Lol, your first post sought to ease the level of responsibility the cop has for this. Remember, you believe it to be an 'accident'.
Click to expand...

That was my first thought since the guy was shot in the leg. I'm not defending the police officer even though you want me to be.
 
Lutherf said:
Cops are not trained to "escalate" a situation. They are taught to "control" situations. When you have an argumentative suspect there comes a point where force becomes a warranted method for gaining control.
Click to expand...

When they escalate matters to the point of killing people...they've escalated it situation, not controlled it.
 
Josie said:
If he pulled the trigger three times then the officer obviously shot the guy's leg on purpose. You can't accidentally pull a trigger three times.
Click to expand...

Just a guess here but when this comes out in the wash my bet is that the cop who shot was actually aiming at the kid, not the guy on the ground.
 
Lutherf said:
Just a guess here but when this comes out in the wash my bet is that the cop who shot was actually aiming at the kid, not the guy on the ground.
Click to expand...

So the cop fired three times, missed his target, and hit another civilian complying with orders? Maybe in addition to teaching them to control, not escalate, situations we can teach them how to use a gun.
 
BrewerBob said:
I have zero problem believing a police officer mishandled this situation. I have a cousin with Down Syndrom who was beaten by cops because they felt they knew better than the special ed coach how to deal with his emotional outburst at a sporting event. By the time the cops showed up the coach, with training in the matter, had everything under control. But the cops specialize in escalation and they ignored the coach's advice and instead marched right up to my cousin and grabbed him and started yelling questions at him. With untrained thugs like that my cousin is lucky he only ended up in the hospital.
Click to expand...

It certainly seems to be more the case these days with militarization of America. It won't be a problem easily solved. First, the nation must agree that it is a problem.
 
Risky Thicket said:
It certainly seems to be more the case these days with militarization of America. It won't be a problem easily solved. First, the nation must agree that it is a problem.
Click to expand...

And after we need civilian oversight. And body cameras.
 
Ikari said:
When they escalate matters to the point of killing people...they've escalated it situation, not controlled it.
Click to expand...

That, obviously, depends on the situation.

There is no doubt that some cops walk around with their dick in their hand, showing it off to everyone they come across. That, however, is no part of any police training I've experienced or heard of.

You also have to keep in mind that while it may look like a cop is unnecessarily confrontational that level of confrontation may well be necessary. For example, the cops get a call about an armed robbery suspect in jeans, a t shirt and a baseball cap. They spot you walking down the street, dressed to match that description, and you happen to be hustling along because you're running late for an appointment. When the cops see that their thought is "that could be our guy" so when they stop you you'll likely be looking down the barrel of a gun and you're probably going to be on the pavement right away if you decide to question them. Their idea of control at that point is FIRST to stop an armed suspect and later in the process find out if the suspect they stopped is the right guy.
 
Ikari said:
Exactly, and the police aren't running around with fully automatic weapons, their service weapons are semi-automatic. One pull, one bullet. Possibly decked out SWAT has fully automatic, but even that I doubt.
Click to expand...

Lots of PDs have surplus M-16s (fully automatic).
 
Josie said:
That was my first thought since the guy was shot in the leg. I'm not defending the police officer even though you want me to be.
Click to expand...

So not enough information, but enough to believe it was an accident, and you're not defending the cop? Lol. You're being facetious.

Lutherf said:
Josie isn't defending the cops. She's saying that she doesn't have enough information to know whether the shooting was justified or not and she's correct. At this point all any of us can do is speculate and ask questions to get a better understanding.
Click to expand...

She has enough information to believe it to be an accident and immediately lessen the culpability of the cop.
 
Ikari said:
So the cop fired three times, missed his target, and hit another civilian complying with orders? Maybe in addition to teaching them to control, not escalate, situations we can teach them how to use a gun.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, my guess is that the cop just plain lost it. I bet he didn't even consciously pull the trigger.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
You don't even see the shooting. Generally training is the way to go, but are you sure that training would have helped? The therapist did not look very dangerous. Or do you think they just missed the fellow sitting there?
Click to expand...

They would not have shot with the therapist in the line of fire.

They wouldn't have shot a man in the leg.

That's why it looks more and more like an accident.

We need to see video of the actual time of the shot.
 
Assuming it occurred as stated, and I currently believe it did, it looks like the "black lives matter" group finally found a legitimate case to get behind. This is only like the second or third in their history.
 
Hatuey said:
So not enough information, but enough to believe it was an accident, and you're not defending the cop? Lol. You're being facetious.



She has enough information to believe it to be an accident and immediately lessen the culpability of the cop.
Click to expand...


What's the difference between believing it was an accident and believing it was intentional? Both are just opinions based on your own individual perspective.
 
They would not have shot with the therapist in the line of fire.

They wouldn't have shot a man in the leg.

That's why it looks more and more like an accident.
 
Vox said:
They would not have shot with the therapist in the line of fire.

They wouldn't have shot a man in the leg.

That's why it looks more and more like an accident.

We need to see video of the actual time of the shot.
Click to expand...

From what you can see in the vid the police could have just walked up and cuffed him without any problem. I wonder how it looked out of the police officer's head cam.
 
buck said:
Assuming it occurred as stated, and I currently believe it did, it looks like the "black lives matter" group finally found a legitimate case to get behind. This is only like the second or third in their history.
Click to expand...

If it turns out to be an accident they won't have anything with this case either.
 
Lutherf said:
What's the difference between believing it was an accident and believing it was intentional?
Click to expand...

Ask people who are convicted of murder in the first degree, and those convicted of manslaughter. Is that a serious question?

Both are just opinions based on your own individual perspective.
Click to expand...

Lmao, I chucked it up to bad training. I didn't say whether it was intentional or unintentional. It's clearly bad police work though.
 
TheGoverness said:
And after we need civilian oversight. And body cameras.
Click to expand...

Why?

I'm not asking that from the perspective that we don't need those things but I really want to know how those tools would be used.

My take on cameras is that they can be an excellent forensic tool for a lot of these situations but my concern is that the public is going to demand the footage not for forensic purposes but to sate their own voyeuristic desires. The camera can only tell part of the story and people need to understand that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom