General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUnder what circumstances should a cop be able to shoot a suspect?
Should the suspect have to be armed? If unarmed, should the cop use his gun at all? Was Michael Brown armed?
In what world would anyone, cop or otherwise, be justified in shooting an unarmed person six times?
If the cop kills someone, not in self-defense, should he be tried in the same justice system as you or I? If not, why not?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and wouldn't respond to commands or got physically threatening, I suppose he could have been tasered, maybe.
IsItJustMe
(7,012 posts)a reason to shoot someone. There can be many reasons why a person may not be able to respond to an officer properly. Mental illness, hearing impared, mentally challenged or suffering from type of other medical condition.
God help us all when the police have the right to shoot you dead because a person is incapable of following that officers orders.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Does a cop need to wait for the suspect to draw a weapon? Fire the weapon? (If they have to wait until the suspect starts shooting, you'll have a lot fewer shootings of unarmed people and a few more shootings of bystanders and cops... that's a difficult political line to walk.)
In what world would anyone, cop or otherwise, be justified in shooting an unarmed person six times?
In a lot of departments, the training is that once you start shooting you empty your magazine (there's no "non-deadly" use of a firearm envisioned). This means that if an officer starts a bad shoot, like this one certainly seems to be, he will probably keep going. The premise is that firearms are a last and definitive resort.
Your question is important but if we want to stop this we need to concentrate on the cop's POV, since the cops are the ones shooting: how certain of the existence of a weapon does a cop need to be before he shoots?
onecaliberal
(32,493 posts)Is unarmed and or running away.
MADem
(135,425 posts)a guy chasing another guy, and capturing him with a gigantic butterfly net.
Well, that's probably not the way to do it in real life, but why in hell can't someone come up with a non-lethal way to capture people? Hell, the gladiators used nets to immobilize their opponents, surely there has got to be a better way than killing someone every time there's a confrontation?
A person accused of murder needs to go to court and answer the charges--what one does for a living has nothing to do with it.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Should the suspect have to be armed? No, a person can use bare hands to strangle you or another.
If unarmed, should the cop use his gun at all? If the other person has a knife and about to use it, or is strangling you.
Was Michael Brown armed? We don't know, it doesn't seem he was, neither does it seem that he was close enough to be a threat with his bare hands.
In what world would anyone, cop or otherwise, be justified in shooting an unarmed person six times? Again, that person would have to be an immediate deadly threat in the process of carrying out that violent act.
If the cop kills someone, not in self-defense, should he be tried in the same justice system as you or I? Not sure.
If not, why not? Because, if anything, they should be held to a higher standard (but they are not).
Thus, they might be tried in the same system but only if we could really guarantee that it's done fairly, which would require considerable change in some jurisdictions.
Alternatively, we could create a different system for their trials, but that could just as easily go awry.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Like, shooter is pointing and/using a weapon.
maxrandb
(15,193 posts)and nearly 3/4 of their police don't carry guns.
My thoughts are you are allowed to shoot someone, if they have a gun pointed at you.
If you are in a fistfight, you might get your ass kicked, but that's one of the dangers of being a cop...and it's also why you are able to call for back-up.
We've made it way to easy to kill somebody in this country. Our love of guns and idiotic interpretation of the 2ND Amendment, combined with a tsunami or guns and "stand your ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws, means that shooting someone has now become the FIRST OPTION, instead of the last resort.
We have basically said; "you can kill someone if you 'feel' threatened...AND EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE IS A THREAT, as long as you "feel" they are!
Basically, you can kill someone who you think is a threat...and a threat is whatever the fuck you think it is!
that's a fucking dangerous combination.
SaltyBro
(198 posts)There is no other excuse to take another human's life.
ancianita
(35,817 posts)for police to shoot in my experience. Many places are conceal and carry, these days, so to me, simply being armed and a suspect just doesn't justify cops' use of deadly force.
The two young men who held me up have since been found guilty. Even though they pointed the Glock three inches from my chest, I'm glad they're not dead and will have a life allowing them to contemplate their choices. One of those that day was to let me live.
Random, maybe. But the cops' behavior wasn't.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Ban all Guns!!! then this issue would be moot.