Cops shooting unarmed man

I am going to play Devil's advocate here as I am interested to know the responses.

Would you have put "Cop shoot sunarmed black man" if the Officer/Ex officer was also black?

Also would the news stations in America report it as much? I haven't been to America for a long time and apart from watching the recent riots over the last shooting don't really know what the general feeling is at the moment?

And no before anyone asks, I'm not racist or trying to defend the officer/ex officer. He was well in the wrong and deserves to get whatever punishment is awarded to him.
 
Nix said:
Devil's advocate. Ever heard of it?
Click to expand...

It's not though, it's pure nonsense. even if we didn't know what he got pulled for that a silly statement.
You wouldn't ask for a license and nothing condones shooting him, with his hands raised. Nothing devils advocate about it.

Just a trigger happy idiot whos a risk to the public and hopefully will be locked up. And I wouldn't be surprised if race does play a big part of why he did what he did.
 
Orionaut said:
And that is the point really.

You (And everybody else) have the advantage of being able to view the situation more objectively and multiple times from a position of total safety! The Cop only got to watch it the first time with his life very much on the line!

If the driver had been going for a gun and the policeman had hesitated, even for a second, then this would likely be a story about an Officer killed in the line of duty!

(Something that happens more than once a week across the USA. I am actually surprised the figure isn't higher, but then If Policemen took more "Care" in situations like this then perhaps it would be! :( )

When you have less than a second to make a decision on which your life might well depend it is difficult to see how anybody would be prepared to wait and see!

(A quick goggle suggests that not only is Columbia right near the top for crime rates in USA cities, but that while the area where this event took place was a relitively low crime area of the city it was immediately adjacent to some very high crime areas so I can imagine that the cop might well have been a bit more jumpy than normal!)

For my part, If I were confronted by a US policeman I would be very polite and move very slowly! (And then, only when I was told to do so, keeping my hands in view at all times!)

Diving into the car was a bad move and he is lucky to be alive!
Click to expand...

But you also have to remember that this was an innocent civilian who's life he put in danger with his reaction. It's a fine balance, but you can't be able to shoot anyone and ignore the consequences of your actions. The police are in a trusted position, but that doesnt excuse poor decision making.
If he thought the guy was going for a gun, why didn't he draw his gun and tell him to freeze? Why run up and miss 3 of your 4 shots at point blank? Was that the only response available? If the man had a gun, the cop would be dead anyway. As I said earlier, police aren't the only ones who have to make urgent decisions that get raked over in hindsight. There are allowed a lot of slack for making the wrong decisions when the area is grey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/24/john-crawford-iii_n_5876574.html ), but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
 
Freefaller said:
It's not about being politically correct - in fact I often think people are too sensitive. However, in this case I don't see race as being relevant. For example, recently we had another thread title about a gay man being being attacked with a hammer - the fact is that the reason for the attack was because he was gay (his housemate was making disparaging remarks about his sexuality) so it's perfectly relevant.

In this case, I just don't see how the race is an issue. It's more of the fact it is down to negligent or poor policing.

If you think I've got the wrong end of the stick then I'll happily amend the title back, however, I'm quite keen to keep the forums as neutral as possible without diluting individuality and forced censorship, and for this reason I think the title was misleading and unnecessary.

I think the OP could mention that he was black and that in your opinion is the likely reason why the shots were fired, but your title almost made the point that he was only shot because he was black, which I think taints the flavour of the thread a little unfairly.

I'm open minded enough to accept I may be wrong in this instance, so bear with me - happy to be challenged in fair and constructive way, without a toys out of the pram argument of PC stuff. I'm not a fan of excessive mollycoddling but at the same time I don't want the skew to be complete anarchy either - I hope you understand my reasoning.
Click to expand...

I think you have it wrong.

The gay hammer attack one should have been amended. It was IIRC "Gay man survives hammer attack". His being gay was not relevant to his survival, so should not have appeared in the title (in that form, at least).

In this case, that we have yet another case of police brutality toward a black male IS relevant to our reading of the case, with institutional racism in US policing a very hot topic. And the situation itself is hard to reconcile without adding in the likelyhood that the cop's actions were predicated on his assumptions based on the victim's race. He was shot, and it's likely he was shot, in part, due to his race.
 
Glaucus said:
It's not though, it's pure nonsense. even if we didn't know what he got pulled for that a silly statement.
You wouldn't ask for a license and nothing condones shooting him, with his hands raised. Nothing devils advocate about it.

Just a trigger happy idiot whos a risk to the public and hopefully will be locked up. And I wouldn't be surprised if race does play a big part of why he did what he did.
Click to expand...

It was. :rolleyes:

Other posters have pointed out the seatbelt thing. Try reading the thread before jumping in and being a rude pleb next time, yeah?
 
Glaucus said:
And I wouldn't be surprised if race does play a big part of why he did what he did.
Click to expand...

It did. It's just not politically correct to say so.

I must admit when he turned into his car it did cross my mind for a second maybe he was reaching for a gun.

I thought that the correct protocol for when being stopped by the police in the USA that you were not to exit your vehicle and to keep your hands on the stearing wheel or is that a state thing ?
 
Nix said:
It was. :rolleyes:

Other posters have pointed out the seatbelt thing. Try reading the thread before jumping in and being a rude pleb next time, yeah?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
What are you even talking about. I know it was seat belt, you missed that and even if you missed that, you should know it wasn't pulled over for the devils advocate reason you gave.
 
I watched the video, I gave my opinion then I played the advocate, other posters pointed out the seatbelt thing afterwards. What is so hard to understand?

Are you done because I really can't be bothered to be entertaining your idiocy today.
 
RedDanDoc said:
I thought that the correct protocol for when being stopped by the police in the USA that you were not to exit your vehicle and to keep your hands on the stearing wheel or is that a state thing ?
Click to expand...

He'd already gotten out of the car when he was accosted by the cop.
 
Nix said:
I watched the video, I gave my opinion then I played the advocate, other posters pointed out the seatbelt thing afterwards. What is so hard to understand?

Are you done because I really can't be bothered to be entertaining your idiocy today.
Click to expand...

But you'r devils advocate was totally stupid. It made zero sense.

Why would you ask for a license in your scenario?
Why shoot them with hands in the air, obviously nit a risk.

As I said your devils advocate made zero sense and as such was pointless. If you can't handle being pulled upon it . Then that's upto you, but it was a Willits statement.
 
I've explained it twice now. What are you finding so hard to comprehend?

The information about the seatbelt came after the post. The post made perfect sense prior to that.
 
Nix said:
I've explained it twice now. What are you finding so hard to comprehend?

The information about the seatbelt came after the post. The post made perfect sense prior to that.
Click to expand...

It really didn't.

Why ask for a license if he was being pulled over on suspicion of armed and dangerous.
It makes zero sense and you know it.
 
cheesyboy said:
I think you have it wrong.

The gay hammer attack one should have been amended. It was IIRC "Gay man survives hammer attack". His being gay was not relevant to his survival, so should not have appeared in the title (in that form, at least).

In this case, that we have yet another case of police brutality toward a black male IS relevant to our reading of the case, with institutional racism in US policing a very hot topic. And the situation itself is hard to reconcile without adding in the likelyhood that the cop's actions were predicated on his assumptions based on the victim's race. He was shot, and it's likely he was shot, in part, due to his race.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree if the title was "gay man survives" then yes it is irrelevant, but I think the BBC article mentions the fact he was gay as the reason for the attack which was true.

In this instance we can only imply or assume that it was because he was black, it isn't a fact. Yes he was black, but was that the reason for the attack? WE don't know. Is it relevant to the story? Perhaps if you look at things from that perception. Is this more a case of negligent policing? I'd say so.

I'd have thought the title of "Trigger happy cop shots man" is more apt, and then you can mention race in the OP as being a potential reason.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Of course if the cop was known for being racist, then it does become more relevant, but we do not know this. The police officer is being taken to court and will undoubtedly be fired and / or imprisoned.
 
I don't know how officers do things and I don't know how that officer does things.

He may have had reason to believe that the victim was armed. Another poster pointed out the surrounding crime statistics. That would frame his attitude coming into the encounter even if the suspect didn't pose an immediate threat thus the over-reaction.

You're misunderstanding what I meant by armed and potentially dangerous. If he was expected to pull a gun, then yes it makes little sense but the point I was making was more towards the biases surrounding the encounter.
 
Those state troopers are jumpy (probably with good reason to be fair) - nearly ended up the same way when I was on holiday early morning and a bit lost ran into a trooper who thought we were trying to rob some place - reached into the pockets of my combat/cargo trousers without thinking next thing I know his gun is out and ready to fire - I'm 99% sure if I hadn't immediately complied he would have shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom