Nobody who complains about NFL players taking a knee during the anthem stands up for it at home

[the_randomizer]

Killing someone on the spot, no matter how obviously guilty, denies them their rights. Even if they are killing people and thus robbing them of their right to live.

It would be an open and shut case. Send them to the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, gallows, hell I don't care how the execution is handled as long as they are still granted their right to a trial.

They lost their "rights" the second they decided to kill innocent people. Just don't keep them in prison for twenty years and then "oh let's give him the chair". Execute them on the spot. Who the hell cares about a gunman's rights? They lost
their privileges to rights the second they decide to be psychopath. I hope the people accused of murder in prison get their ass raped and torture the most horrific ways for killing people. F*** murderers.

Are you seriously saying that it's better that the gunman kill and then brought to "justice" is more humane than to save people?

 

[TotalInsanity4]

And I totally understand the officers are the problem. The point I'm making is that until the jumpy, unfit officers are removed from the equation, a way needs to be determined to stay safe in these scenarios, and I think the best way is to stand out of your car so it's clear where your hands are, and what you're reaching for.

I'd argue it's not just "jumpy" officers, because there are also the people who join the force because they get off on being more powerful than other people. Those officers could be steel-tempered and still walk up to a car and shoot someone if they weren't "following orders"

 

[Deleted member 377734]

As someone who lives outside the US, and looks at the situation with a clear perspective, I say that both sides are at fault. the police are doing their jobs, but are too eager to pull the trigger ( WTF happened to Tasers ? ) and a lot of the black people in those neighborhoods belong to gangs. those officers aren't going to nicely ask them to identify themselves when someone's firing at them.
but at he same time, I've heard more than a few stories about a rookie cop shooting a black person who was reaching for his wallet to show some ID. case in point the story of a black gun owner. I've forgotten his name, but the details are in my mind.

the dude was driving with his girlfriend when they got pulled over by a cop, when asking for license and ID, he informed the police officer that he had a gun, and was about to also tell him that he had a license for it when the cop shot him. his girlfriend told the news that that was supposed to be an in joke at his gun safety classes, but got him killed.
the exact line the man said was : " Officer, I am a carrying a gun, but I have my license for it here" when he got to "gun" the officer, who already had his pistol out, shot him.

 

[MaverickWellington]

Shooting to kill is shooting to miss; specific aiming instead of aiming for center mass means you're more likely to fail. Shooting to incapacitate has non-negligible odds of also being a death sentence; it's why shooting people in general is bad. If you don't think spending the rest of your life in jail is a deterrent, which it clearly isn't for some people, what makes you think shooting to kill is some sort of more meaningful deterrent? You've heard of "suicide by cop", right? You've heard of war, right? Clearly people make a choice to do things that risk or even motivate their own death.

I understand your anger. I understand that you want people who are monsters to suffer. But being a monster to monsters doesn't solve anything. If it did, our rule of law would be heading towards barbarism and the crime rates would go down. I don't mean that figuratively. That sort of system would be abused, like all systems are, and the result upon the innocent would be as that done by criminals today.

Shooting at a gunman in an active shooter scenario is not barbaric, it's something you basically have to do. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm assuming you think I meant that it's a deterrent that will stop 100% of people, which isn't what I said at all. You then go off on a tangent about being monsters as an umbrella term and I'm just not gonna bother addressing it, as it's irrelevant.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

They lost their "rights" the second they decided to kill innocent people. Just don't keep them in prison for twenty years and then "oh let's give him the chair". Execute them on the spot. Who the hell cares about a gunman's rights? They lost
their privileges to rights the second they decide to be psychopath. I hope the people accused of murder in prison get their ass raped and torture the most horrific ways for killing people.

That mentality is almost just as dangerous as his. The elimination of a threat is something that should be done out of necessity due to circumstances, rather than for the joy of executing a criminal. Far to many people join the police force with that fantasy in mind, and that's part of what's causing the constant string of brutality that we're seeing today

 

[MaverickWellington]

Killing someone on the spot, no matter how obviously guilty, denies them their rights. Even if they are killing people and thus robbing them of their right to live.

It would be an open and shut case. Send them to the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, gallows, hell I don't care how the execution is handled as long as they are still granted their right to a trial.

Executing someone in general denies them their rights to life and happiness but go off I guess

 

[the_randomizer]

That mentality is almost just as dangerous as his. The elimination of a threat is something that should be done out of necessity due to circumstances, rather than for the joy of executing a criminal. Far to many people join the police force with that fantasy in mind, and that's part of what's causing the constant string of brutality that we're seeing today

Are you seriously saying that it's better that the gunman get away with killing more people, get caught (or having him shoot himself to take the coward's way out), have said person brought to "justice", is more humane, than it is to have him neutralized in order to save more people? If they do get caught, they get caught up in the "justice" system for decades, at the taxpayer's expense, and then euthanized by lethal inject, yeah, sounds right.

 

[MaverickWellington]

That mentality is almost just as dangerous as his. The elimination of a threat is something that should be done out of necessity due to circumstances, rather than for the joy of executing a criminal. Far to many people join the police force with that fantasy in mind, and that's part of what's causing the constant string of brutality that we're seeing today

Basically, see this guy?

Don't be this guy. Don't enable this guy. Push and protest to have him kicked out of the police.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

case in point the story of a black gun owner. I've forgotten his name, but the details are in my mind.

the dude was driving with his girlfriend when they got pulled over by a cop, when asking for license and ID, he informed the police officer that he had a gun, and was about to also tell him that he had a license for it when the cop shot him. his girlfriend told the news that that was supposed to be an in joke at his gun safety classes, but got him killed.
the exact line the man said was : " Officer, I am a carrying a gun, but I have my license for it here" when he got to "gun" the officer, who already had his pistol out, shot him.

Philandro Castile

 

[MaverickWellington]

Are you seriously saying that it's better that the gunman kill more people, get caught, have said person brought to "justice", is more humane, than it is to have him neutralized in order to save more people?

No, what he's saying that looking forward to it with the prospect of enjoying executing them is just as bad as not killing them at all ever, because on both sides it just enables psychopathy or at minimum sociopathy, which is the last thing we need determining our laws.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Are you seriously saying that it's better that the gunman kill more people, get caught, have said person brought to "justice", is more humane, than it is to have him neutralized in order to save more people?

No. I'm saying that "neutralizing" him for the sake of saving others shouldn't EVER be done with the intention of proudly calling it an "execution"

 

[the_randomizer]

No, what he's saying that looking forward to it with the prospect of enjoying executing them is just as bad as not killing them at all ever, because on both sides it just enables psychopathy or at minimum sociopathy, which is the last thing we need determining our laws.

I never said people would enjoy neutralizing or had to enjoy executing the gunman, or getting a joy from it. I'm just saying that someone should be there, like a security guard, or something.

No. I'm saying that "neutralizing" him for the sake of saving others shouldn't EVER be done with the intention of proudly calling it an "execution"

Fine, then I redact that portion. All the same, the threat should be neutralized by local authorities. If criminals decide to act by killing people, how on earth can they even be deemed innocent?

 

[MaverickWellington]

Philandro Castile

Now I know nothing about the situation so I'm just going off that guy's summary but maybe a joke about owning a gun while an officer is close, pointing a gun at your head isn't the best joke to make at that time.

The cop shouldn't have had the gun on his head in the first fucking place though, that makes me really angry.
EDIT: To further clarify, situations like this are precisely why I propose getting out of your car and just letting them search it. Yeah, it's shitty, and you shouldn't have to, but in situations like this I'd much rather choose living than privacy as much as I'd fucking love to have both. If it keeps some trigger happy dickhead from busting a cap in my cracker ass, hey, search away homie.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Now I know nothing about the situation so I'm just going off that guy's summary but maybe a joke about owning a gun while an officer is close, pointing a gun at your head isn't the best joke to make at that time.

The cop shouldn't have had the gun on his head in the first fucking place though, that makes me really angry.
EDIT: To further clarify, situations like this are precisely why I propose getting out of your car and just letting them search it. Yeah, it's shitty, and you shouldn't have to, but in situations like this I'd much rather choose living than privacy as much as I'd fucking love to have both. If it keeps some trigger happy dickhead from busting a cap in my cracker ass, hey, search away homie.

The worst part is he didn't joke about anything. He informed the officer that he is a registered gun ownership and that there is a gun in his glove compartment, the officer screams for him to get his ID, Castile informs the officer that his ID is in the glove compartment, and in the time where he is (slowly) reaching for the ID the cop yells at him to stop reaching for the gun and shoots him 3(?) times

In a situation like that, where the officer is ready to shoot at the slightest of movements, I REALLY don't see how stepping out of the car would have done anything

 

[PuNKeMoN]

All the same, the threat should be neutralized by local authorities. If criminals decide to act by killing people, how on earth can they even be deemed innocent?

Neutralizing doesn't have to be cold-blooded killing. Incapacitation is an option, and should be the #1 go to plan, either by using non-lethal weapons or by shooting to injure.
It is not a police officer's job to decide who dies. I believe a good many people don't wish to live in a state where the police have that much power.

 

[MaverickWellington]

The worst part is he didn't joke about anything. He informed the officer that he is a registered gun ownership and that there is a gun in his glove compartment, the officer screams for him to get his ID, Castile informs the officer that his ID is in the glove compartment, and in the time where he is (slowly) reaching for the ID the cop yells at him to stop reaching for the gun and shoots him 3(?) times

In a situation like that, where the officer is ready to shoot at the slightest of movements, I REALLY don't see how stepping out of the car would have done anything

"Officer, I would like to step out of the vehicle so that you can see I am not armed. You may search me" or something. I've never been stopped nor have I ever had a gun held to my face by an officer so I wouldn't know the best way to react there, I'm just going off guesses, but I don't see how even the jumpiest of officers would hear "I am stepping out of the vehicle so you may search me" and shoot.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Neutralizing doesn't have to be cold-blooded killing. Incapacitation is an option, and should be the #1 go to plan, either by using non-lethal weapons or by shooting to injure.
It is not a police officer's job to decide who dies. I believe a good many people don't wish to live in a state where the police have that much power.

Yeah but then you get left disabled for life. What about muh rights? I have a right to not get shot in the lungs and have a disabled lung for the rest of my life, or to lose a kneecap. I mean come on!

 

[Deleted member 377734]

Neutralizing doesn't have to be cold-blooded killing. Incapacitation is an option, and should be the #1 go to plan, either by using non-lethal weapons or by shooting to injure.
It is not a police officer's job to decide who dies. I believe a good many people don't wish to live in a state where the police have that much power.

Now this is something I agree with, an officer should ONLY shoot to kill if someone actually shoots at them, or they have an active hostage situation. barring a few exceptions, I believe Tasers are a FAR better option that pulling a gun on someone.

 

[PuNKeMoN]

Yeah but then you get left disabled for life. What about muh rights? I have a right to not get shot in the lungs and have a disabled lung for the rest of my life, or to lose a kneecap. I mean come on!

A lifetime with a debilitating injury seems like a pretty good deterrent to me. Depending on the situation that could quite possibly be a fair punishment as well. As I recall a lot of these mass shooters are expecting to die anyway. Shooting to kill them doesn't give them time to reflect on their crime, it just gives them what they want.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

"Officer, I would like to step out of the vehicle so that you can see I am not armed. You may search me" or something. I've never been stopped nor have I ever had a gun held to my face by an officer so I wouldn't know the best way to react there, I'm just going off guesses, but I don't see how even the jumpiest of officers would hear "I am stepping out of the vehicle so you may search me" and shoot.

First off, that completely disregards your right not to be searched, but secondly, I will respectfully disagree; I can think of numerous hypothetical scenarios that a jumpy cop could use to mentally justify shooting someone for getting out of a car, including "standing outside of a car makes it easier for this guy to shoot me if he IS armed" and "getting out of the car enables this guy to potentially run away"

Obviously, neither of those are GOOD justifications, but then rarely are any others that we've seen up to this point

 

[smf]

Americans are weird. Kneeling is a sign of respect.

It's not like they are burning the american flag (which is also how you respectfully dispose of it)

I can think of numerous hypothetical scenarios that a jumpy cop could use to mentally justify shooting someone for getting out of a car, including "standing outside of a car makes it easier for this guy to shoot me if he IS armed" and "getting out of the car enables this guy to potentially run away"

You don't need hypothetical scenarios, the police in the US come up with all the crazy scenarios by themselves. Getting rid of guns would solve their problems, at least start with the police as they all seem to end up there because they can't cope getting a job anywhere else.

Now this is something I agree with, an officer should ONLY shoot to kill if someone actually shoots at them, or they have an active hostage situation. barring a few exceptions, I believe Tasers are a FAR better option that pulling a gun on someone.

If you can ever justify killing someone then you shouldn't be allowed access to a gun, if you are absolutely forced into taking the decision to kill someone to protect others then that should weigh heavily on your heart for the rest of your life.