19 Unarmed White Victims of Police Shootings in 2016

[jonny5]

One instance? How about the many more that don't get an inquiry?


But hey if you don't care the government shoots unarmed people without consequences the majority of the time, that's your opinion and nothing I say wil change it.

Show me these many more that dont get an inquiry. From what Ive seen, all shootings are investigated, even if they are clearly legit. Stop with the hyperbole.

 

[jonny5]

Citizens are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. Not sure if you're aware but that's actually one of the cornerstones of society.

Nobody is a criminal until they have been tried as such. The job of the police is to apprehend these people. Not kill them.

The right to defend your life trumps legal procedure. That is also a cornerstone.

 

[Nilly]

The right to defend your life trumps legal procedure. That is also a cornerstone.

If the police are under siege they have every right to defend themselves, just as you or I do. The only time police open fire is when they feel they are at risk, or that the public is in danger. For example, police have not just every right to, but the absolute responsibility to kill a mass murderer if they arrive at a scene when he is in the act.

According to your logic, if someone is threatening me in my home, and points a gun to my head, I cannot retaliate because the burglar hasn't been tried in a court of law. That's a laughable misunderstanding of the issues at play.

Oh and:

Your baseless ad hominem is noted.

Except the bolded is clearly not the case, or if it is the case, then the police are woefully inept at estimating risk.

In most these cases, the policemen aren't 'under siege'. Of course people (inc police) can defend themselves, but it has to actually be in self defense, not simply just because you feel like you're at risk. I've said this in another thread, but a common pro gun argument is that "your right to 'feel safe' does not trump my right to have a gun". That's fine, but it also applies here. Any persons (inc a criminals) right to life trumps a policemans right to 'feel safe'.

Obviously there's some wiggle room here, because at what point does 'feeling unsafe' actually translate to 'being in danger'? This, obviously, is a problem that doesn't just apply to LEO, but to everyone in self defence situations in general. That said, we should be holding our police to a higher standard than the average citizen in these situations. Part of their job description is that they need to be able to tolerate higher risk situations better than the average person, and they need to act rationally in such situations. Right now, given that if civilians had been doing these shootings instead of cops, they'd likely be going away for a long time, it seems to me like we're holding our police to a lower standard. That's unacceptable.

 

[jonny5]

Except the bolded is clearly not the case, or if it is the case, then the police are woefully inept at estimating risk.

In most these cases, the policemen aren't 'under siege'. Of course people (inc police) can defend themselves, but it has to actually be in self defense, not simply just because you feel like you're at risk. I've said this in another thread, but a common pro gun argument is that "your right to 'feel safe' does not trump my right to have a gun". That's fine, but it also applies here. Any persons (inc a criminals) right to life trumps a policemans right to 'feel safe'.

Obviously there's some wiggle room here, because at what point does 'feeling unsafe' actually translate to 'being in danger'? This, obviously, is a problem that doesn't just apply to LEO, but to everyone in self defence situations in general. That said, we should be holding our police to a higher standard than the average citizen in these situations. Part of their job description is that they need to be able to tolerate higher risk situations better than the average person, and they need to act rationally in such situations. Right now, given that if civilians had been doing these shootings instead of cops, they'd likely be going away for a long time, it seems to me like we're holding our police to a lower standard. That's unacceptable.

Of course, but due process came after right to life and liberty, and in fact exists to ensure the former. The police are given the power to decide when deadly force is required to defend life, and due process comes after. Its entirely arguable that they are not making the right decisions. But thats why we have courts and legislators.

 

[TobyOne]

I don't think they lose reason and rational thought. I think they're just stupid to begin with.

People tend to lose reason and rational thought when all they can focus on is skin color.

 

[TobyOne]

Police have their own set of rules of engagement and guidelines for use of lethal force. When they start violating those guidelines en masse get back to us.

One instance? How about the many more that don't get an inquiry?


But hey if you don't care the government shoots unarmed people without consequences the majority of the time, that's your opinion and nothing I say wil change it.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Except the bolded is clearly not the case, or if it is the case, then the police are woefully inept at estimating risk.

In most these cases, the policemen aren't 'under siege'. Of course people (inc police) can defend themselves, but it has to actually be in self defense, not simply just because you feel like you're at risk. I've said this in another thread, but a common pro gun argument is that "your right to 'feel safe' does not trump my right to have a gun". That's fine, but it also applies here. Any persons (inc a criminals) right to life trumps a policemans right to 'feel safe'.

Obviously there's some wiggle room here, because at what point does 'feeling unsafe' actually translate to 'being in danger'? This, obviously, is a problem that doesn't just apply to LEO, but to everyone in self defence situations in general. That said, we should be holding our police to a higher standard than the average citizen in these situations. Part of their job description is that they need to be able to tolerate higher risk situations better than the average person, and they need to act rationally in such situations. Right now, given that if civilians had been doing these shootings instead of cops, they'd likely be going away for a long time, it seems to me like we're holding our police to a lower standard. That's unacceptable.

I believe you're making a statistical fallacy by assuming that police are being held to a lower standard than the average citizen. Police are statistically put in such situations at a much higher frequency than the average person. Police are people, too. Sure, they are trained to an extent and given some specific tooling, but they are people like you and me. They may react quite reasonably in the first 100+ situations, but after years of stress and mounting anxiety their situational awareness can become compromised, they make a bad reaction in the moment, and things go to ****.

Despite the knowledge and training and tools, they are placed in situations of extreme stress while existing in an environment of chronic stress. They pay the price for that in the damage to their lives, always chronically and sometimes acutely when harmed in the line of duty. We as a society pay the price for that in the poor decisions that sometimes get made in situations like the kind that have received so much attention lately. I don't believe anyone wins when people take a confrontational stance against the entirety of "the police." I think an "Us vs. Them" mentality does little but exacerbate the stress they face on a daily basis and does more harm than good to all parties.

To a certain extent, we get the type of policing we deserve. If we are going to be hostile and aggressive to police we will receive the same in return. Obviously that is a generalization and there will be individual situations that will be unfair, but overall why would you expect anything else? In the end, the badge doesn't make them any less human.

 

[mike2810]

No, where's the white community and the white leaders? Don't any of you care enough that the police are brutally killing unarmed citizens?

I care when what you state happens. From what I have seen the majority of the shootings were justified. Your statement of "Don't any of you care enough that the police are brutally killing unarmed citizens?" is way to generalized. (Are you taking lessons from Hilary on how to generalize?):mrgreen:

Interesting how the one recent shooting went from the person was out of the vehicle holding a book, to no book was found but a gun was).

Maybe the "white community" is smart enough to know that it does no good to burn down private businesses, destroy public property (police vehicle) in order to promote change.
Maybe the "white community" is smart enough to wait for the investigation to conclude and findings are released before rushing to judgement regarding the LEO's actions.

 

[Nilly]

Of course, but due process came after right to life and liberty, and in fact exists to ensure the former. The police are given the power to decide when deadly force is required to defend life, and due process comes after. Its entirely arguable that they are not making the right decisions. But thats why we have courts and legislators.

The bolded is exactly the argument that I, and a lot of other people, are making. Courts and legislators can offer nothing to the victims and families of victims of these tragic events. That's why something needs to be done at the source of the issue, with the police themselves. In the overall equation, the police force is the only thing we have control over, so that's where we have to make inroads.

I believe you're making a statistical fallacy by assuming that police are being held to a lower standard than the average citizen. Police are statistically put in such situations at a much higher frequency than the average person. Police are people, too. Sure, they are trained to an extent and given some specific tooling, but they are people like you and me. They may react quite reasonably in the first 100+ situations, but after years of stress and mounting anxiety their situational awareness can become compromised, they make a bad reaction in the moment, and things go to ****.

Despite the knowledge and training and tools, they are placed in situations of extreme stress while existing in an environment of chronic stress. They pay the price for that in the damage to their lives, always chronically and sometimes acutely when harmed in the line of duty. We as a society pay the price for that in the poor decisions that sometimes get made in situations like the kind that have received so much attention lately. I don't believe anyone wins when people take a confrontational stance against the entirety of "the police." I think an "Us vs. Them" mentality does little but exacerbate the stress they face on a daily basis and does more harm than good to all parties.

To a certain extent, we get the type of policing we deserve. If we are going to be hostile and aggressive to police we will receive the same in return. Obviously that is a generalization and there will be individual situations that will be unfair, but overall why would you expect anything else? In the end, the badge doesn't make them any less human.

That's definitely a factor that I hadn't really taken into account, and I think you have a good point, we do see a lot of the bad cases when in actual fact the number is small compared to the good instances. I think there's an important caveat there though in that see far more of this happening in the US compared to other countries. We don't even have to look towards other countries to learn why their LEO's aren't killing citizens, we can look at the forces in the US that are performing well.

I'm really not trying to portray it as an us vs them, even if it comes across that way. My uncle and aunt are both police officers, and I have the utmost respect for the work that they do. I'm just using 'police' here as a general term for 'bad police'. As for being hostile to police, yes, then you can expect hostile behaviour back. But on many occasions, police are simply escalating the situation. Stories like this are becoming far too common:

https://hdp.press/to-the-4-white-ma...ck-black-man-in-their-8d77789fb24d#.g6k481qyv


(note: it's my understanding the cop in the video is off-duty? - but i'm not 100% sure)

What would you do if the girl in pink was your sister or daughter?

 

[truthatallcost]

No, where's the white community and the white leaders? Don't any of you care enough that the police are brutally killing unarmed citizens?

White people have to go to work tomorrow, there's no time for them to protest. :mrgreen:

 

[Kal'Stang]

(note: it's my understanding the cop in the video is off-duty? - but i'm not 100% sure)

What would you do if the girl in pink was your sister or daughter?

I'd have told her to start following the cops orders and be polite. Otherwise that wouldn't have happened. She obviously tried to take off before the officers were done with her. When you get chased down by the cops you don't sit there talk to them for a minute and then try and take off before the cops tell you that you can leave.

And PS: The cop obviously is not off duty. He was in uniform and driving a cop car.

 

[Nilly]

I'd have told her to start following the cops orders and be polite. Otherwise that wouldn't have happened. She obviously tried to take off before the officers were done with her. When you get chased down by the cops you don't sit there talk to them for a minute and then try and take off before the cops tell you that you can leave.

And PS: The cop obviously is not off duty. He was in uniform and driving a cop car.

OK so what about if you were to arrive at the point immediately after that, where he starts tossing her around, or at the point he throws her to the ground and tazes her? That's the part I'm talking about. Even if she has tried to ride away, the amount of force that is used is clearly excessive. Police should only use force in response to force, that's what de-escalation is, and she poses zero threat to him. It looks like that he's just had a bad day and has decided to take it out on her.

As for the off duty part - the lawsuit that's come forward with this video seems to suggest that the cop was off duty and working as a security guard. I don't know the full story, but I didn't want to omit it and be accused of deliberately witholding information.

 

[americanwoman]

White people have to go to work tomorrow, there's no time for them to protest. :mrgreen:

Y'all aint got time for anything!

 

[rhinefire]

How many police stops occur in any day and measure that against the number of shootings. 99% of the incidents are caused by the civilians not obeying the cops.

 

[jonny5]

The bolded is exactly the argument that I, and a lot of other people, are making. Courts and legislators can offer nothing to the victims and families of victims of these tragic events. That's why something needs to be done at the source of the issue, with the police themselves. In the overall equation, the police force is the only thing we have control over, so that's where we have to make inroads.

What control do you have? Courts and legislators.

 

[Kal'Stang]

OK so what about if you were to arrive at the point immediately after that, where he starts tossing her around, or at the point he throws her to the ground and tazes her? That's the part I'm talking about. Even if she has tried to ride away, the amount of force that is used is clearly excessive. Police should only use force in response to force, that's what de-escalation is, and she poses zero threat to him. It looks like that he's just had a bad day and has decided to take it out on her.

As for the off duty part - the lawsuit that's come forward with this video seems to suggest that the cop was off duty and working as a security guard. I don't know the full story, but I didn't want to omit it and be accused of deliberately witholding information.

Through out that video I saw her continue to try and resist. She's the one that escalated things. I have no problem with anything I saw in that video beyond that of the girl continuing to act like she didn't have to obey lawful orders of a cop.

 

[Nilly]

Through out that video I saw her continue to try and resist. She's the one that escalated things. I have no problem with anything I saw in that video beyond that of the girl continuing to act like she didn't have to obey lawful orders of a cop.

Frankly appalled that you think that's appropriate use of force against a minor. It's human instinct to defend yourself when you're being thrown against the ground, dragged around by your hair and pinned up by your neck to a car. Hell she has a right to defend herself. You might think what happened in the video is acceptable but I certainly don't and will always be on the side of people who try to prevent that kind of depraved behavior.

FYI, the girl was cleared of any wrongdoing, although I don't know the result of her new lawsuit where she's sueing. But it seems you're pretty anomalous in thinking that the girl was in the wrong.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Frankly appalled that you think that's appropriate use of force against a minor. It's human instinct to defend yourself when you're being thrown against the ground, dragged around by your hair and pinned up by your neck to a car. Hell she has a right to defend herself. You might think what happened in the video is acceptable but I certainly don't and will always be on the side of people who try to prevent that kind of depraved behavior.

FYI, the girl was cleared of any wrongdoing, although I don't know the result of her new lawsuit where she's sueing. But it seems you're pretty anomalous in thinking that the girl was in the wrong.

Yeah, there will always be people that will look at the "minor" part and thinks it excuses them of not obeying lawful orders or that it excuses them of trying to bash peoples skulls in (ex: Trayvon Martin).

And the fact that she was "cleared of any wrongdoing" does not mean that she didn't do something wrong. It just means that the DA didn't prosecute.

 

[rcart76]

I'm not concerned when criminals are killed by police, whether they're white, black or any other race is irrelevant.
The entire media campaign and the premises behind this activism, which is really just anti-police propaganda, are not just misleading but false. Only a fraction of those killed by police are unarmed, and of those who are killed by police while being unarmed, a high percentage attacked the police in some way.

There are only a few genuine instances of people being killed for no sufficient reason, and in these cases I back our court system to deal with the responsible officers in a fair way, in an environment where the rule of law reigns supreme and innocence is presumed, rather than engage in a frenzied case of mob rule and witch hunt which is what the media is encouraging.

So by your logic, you are concerned by the shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte right?

 

[rcart76]

They arent, so no. Problems are investigated and dealt with in a peaceful, judicial way, without consideration of race.

They also treat them to Burger King.

 

[Malloy]

So by your logic, you are concerned by the shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte right?

I'm concerned by the rioting, looting and destruction by the "protesters".

 

[Lutherf]

No, where's the white community and the white leaders? Don't any of you care enough that the police are brutally killing unarmed citizens?

Nah. We just kind of figure that if you're stupid enough to get in a fight with the cops and they punch your ticket then we didn't really need you around anyway....though we will send your mother flowers at your funeral.

 

[Lutherf]

Citizens are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. Not sure if you're aware but that's actually one of the cornerstones of society.

Nobody is a criminal until they have been tried as such. The job of the police is to apprehend these people. Not kill them.

If only life were that simple.

Here's a hypothetical for you - You're walking through Walmart one day and as you round an aisle you see someone stuffing items into a diaper bag they're carrying. When they see you they turn around and run out the door with their toddler in tow. When they hit the parking lot a store security officer tries to apprehend them by grabbing their arm. At that point the runner pulls out a knife and stabs the security officer then threatens to kill the kid if anyone follows them. Right at that point a cop pulls up and gets out of the car. Should the cop -

a. Start taking a survey of the customers in the parking lot to determine whether or not a crime was committed?
b. Politely request that the shoplifter/assailant/kidnapper drop their weapon while acknowledging that he isn't making a value judgment.?
c. Start a drum circle and chant for peace, unity and love?
d. Arrest the store manager for keeping prices so high that people can't afford the necessities of life...such as KitKat bars and Monster energy drink?
e. Get back in the car and drive away before he gets involved in something that will likely get him put on social media?

This is why I sincerely believe that every police patrol have a SJW riding in the passenger seat and that said SJW be the first to contact every suspect the cops engage.

 

[VanceMack]

They also treat them to Burger King.

If it helps them to keep the guy talking? Sure they do.

oh...wait...you were parroting part of Shannon Sharps idiotic argument, werent you. You were parroting the part were he said how come Alton Stirling got shot while Dylan Roof got arrested alive. Cuz...you know...a situation with an armed man that had just threatened another man with a gun and who had been tazed twice and was still fighting to reach a loaded gun in his pocket is the exact same comparison with regard to a suspect that surrenders peacefully sitting unarmed on a couch in his living room.

:lamo

Is there any wonder your arguments arent taken seriously?

 

[Wiggen]

I'm not concerned when criminals are killed by police, whether they're white, black or any other race is irrelevant.

The entire media campaign and the premises behind this activism, which is really just anti-police propaganda, are not just misleading but false. Only a fraction of those killed by police are unarmed, and of those who are killed by police while being unarmed, a high percentage attacked the police in some way.

There are only a few genuine instances of people being killed for no sufficient reason, and in these cases I back our court system to deal with the responsible officers in a fair way, in an environment where the rule of law reigns supreme and innocence is presumed, rather than engage in a frenzied case of mob rule and witch hunt which is what the media is encouraging.

The simple fact is that a percentage of cops are nothing more than thugs with badges. You just pray to God every day that you don't encounter one of them. They also lie through their teeth to protect each other, so good luck ever getting one convicted. For every one that is actually ever charged, a hundred more skate.