I agree. We're starting to see that it does not matter who the person approaching is. It use to be that Michael Brown was a thug, so was Treyvon Martin and that was enough for them to be seen as threats. Then, Castille happened and it was no longer about him being a thug, but allegedly reaching for a gun in a situation they had zero need to as he was lawfully in possession of his gun.
Now, it's simply because some people with guns are scary even if they're law abiding officers. They can be shot if the time of day, visibility and jumpiness is right.
Definitely would cause concern if you are in civilian clothes and come up with a visible gun. But it does sound like the off duty officer did everything ordered to him.
This is going to be tough case.
All of the above?
My first thought was about hos the arriving/shooting officer should have assessed the situation and concluded that the other officers had it in hand.
As the events played out. Officers responded to a stolen vehicle call.
Occupants of the stolen vehicle attempt to run and shot at law enforcement.
Cops finally stopped the occupants of the vehicle.
Armed 'citizen' appears trying to help, is ordered to the ground (with a firearm).
Cops recognize 'citizen' as a cop, tell him to get up and to assist.
Newly arriving officer, aware only that the cops were arresting suspects that had shot at them, sees an armed 'suspect' get up and approach with a gun'
Newly arriving officer fires, thinking it is a suspect, approaching cops with a gun.
Does that sound like the scenario as it played out?
An off-duty officer who lives nearby heard the commotion, grabbed his service pistol and headed to the scene to assist his fellow officers. He arrived as the other officers were carrying out the arrest.
The other officers ordered the off-duty officer to the ground, then recognized him as a fellow policeman and told him to stand up and walk toward them.
As he approached, another officer arrived and shot the off-duty officer in the arm, “apparently not recognizing” him, police told the Associated Press.
No, as he was shot in the arm.
No mention he was on the ground when the Officer arrived.
I think you may have missed this???
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-top-stories_pn-offduty-1255pm:homepage/story
I included all of that in the scenario I posted. Is it possible the officer that shot him LEGITIMATELY thought the suspect that was on the ground with a gun got up and started approaching the cops or did he just shoot because he was black, and hey...any chance to shoot a black guy.No, as he was shot in the arm.
No mention he was on the ground when the Officer arrived.
I think you may have missed this???
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-top-stories_pn-offduty-1255pm:homepage/story
You arent suggesting I am defending or excusing the shooting are you?The stuff some people will bend over backwards to defend is nuts. We can now have cops be shot simply because they are seen as a threat by somebody who apparently didn't have all of the facts.
This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
I included all of that in the scenario I posted. Is it possible the officer that shot him LEGITIMATELY thought the suspect that was on the ground with a gun got up and started approaching the cops or did he just shoot because he was black, and hey...any chance to shoot a black guy.
I'm not excusing anything...I am just trying to see the scenario in an unbiased manner. I think its rather reasonable to see this is as piss poor communication by officers on the site and a really big (inexcusable) mistake.
Filters tend to cause people to do that.I read it differently, thus my reply.
Meh, plenty of these shootings were of unarmed black folk. The power of the state is outta control. Good thing you cut your hair.
Link please.
You arent suggesting I am defending or excusing the shooting are you?
A link to cops shooting unarmed black folk? Surely you jest.
Um, no. A link to Bob's haircut.
Filters tend to cause people to do that.
The off-duty officer heard the commotion from his home nearby and rushed to the scene with his department-issued weapon. Two officers ordered the off-duty officer to the ground, but then recognized him and told him to stand up and walk toward them. As he was doing so, another officer arrived and shot the off-duty officer "apparently not recognizing" him, police said.
The officer who shot the off-duty officer is 36 years old and has been with the department more than eight years.
Fox News:
Black off-duty St. Louis officer shot by white officer | Fox News
Officer is cleared by two other officers, fourth officer arrives, no idea what is going on, shoots black officer. What did he use to determine that this guy was a threat that the other two people didn't have? Why did he determine him to be a threat when two other officers did not? We have a precise statistic on how many officers thought this guy was a threat, and proof that the third officer did not have all of the facts when making his decision, but there are people here still defending him.
Let the pretzel logic begin.
:lol:
That is because the shooter believed that all blacks are bad criminals and it is OK to shoot them.
That belief is absolutely shared by all the defenders of the shooter cop on DP.
Im not desperately trying to do anything. Certainly not avoiding anything. I are you suggesting I am defending or excusing the shooting?You're desperately trying to ignore what I actually said. Was this cop a threat?
This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
Im not desperately trying to do anything. Certainly not avoiding anything. I are you suggesting I am defending or excusing the shooting?
https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...r-shot-him-post1067346584.html#post1067346584Find a post where I've addressed such a post?
https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...r-shot-him-post1067346584.html#post1067346584
I dont know if you meant me or not. Thats why I asked.