Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[Cow Poke]

Sort of like the argument you made in the Arbery case. "I'm not saying he needed to die, but it was a direct result of decisions he made." Sound familiar?

Well, in this particular case, if he hadn't done the stupid thing after 45 minutes of the police being very patient, professional and respectful, he'd still be alive. I'm pro-life.

But I guess it's more important to you for him to be dead so he can serve as a debate topic for you.

[MaxVel]

Summary of thread so far:

Ox, JimL: "RACIST MURDERRRRRR!!" "If you even doubt any assertions made about how awful this case was, you are A RACIST!!"

Leonhard: "I don't think this was an ideal outcome. I don't get why the cops didn't try something else"

Cow Poke, MM, Rumtumtugger: "Let's look at the evidence, like videos, stills, etc"

Myth: "Here's what I know about how police operate, based on my actual personal knowledge and experience of being a LEO. And here's what the law says..."

Ox: "I'm going to go with the 'racist murder' assertion, cause I know better than actual LEOs and former LEOs, and people who look at the evidence. After all, racism is a real thing, you know, so this case must be racism too."

[Mountain Man]

Well, in this particular case, if he hadn't done the stupid thing after 45 minutes of the police being very patient, professional and respectful, he'd still be alive. I'm pro-life.

But I guess it's more important to you for him to be dead so he can serve as a debate topic for you.

The sticking point for me is the claim that anybody here is saying that he "needed" to die. Just because his death was a direct result of his own decisions does not mean that, therefore, his death was necessary.

[JimL]

Another false assumption. About half the cops I know, including myself, have been at least one situation in which we COULD have chosen to use deadly force and would been perfectly in the right to do so, but our natural aversion AGAINST killing another human being caused us to hesitant long enough for the situation to evolve in a different direction. You've clearly never found yourself advancing on a drunk guy with who's been terrorizing his own family, with a rifle propped up in reach in while he ignores your commands to raise his hands and starts reaching into his pockets, inside of which you've been told he has a pistol. You've not felt the training kick in as your you place your finger into the trigger guard and start to squeeze the trigger, and then pause for a fraction of second to calculate if you can get close enough to grab his arm before he could get the gun out of his pocket, knowing full well that your pause to try every means to keep from killing him is within a fraction of a second from getting you or your co-workers shot.

The willingness to kill to defend yourself and others is not the same thing as a lack of regard for human life. This is a distinction (like many others), that you fail to make. That last part of your statement is wholly without factual basis as well. Try again, using facts. Maybe you could try using Google and looking for academic literature, or is that too complicated for you?

Interesting how you switch to an alternative situation in order to make your case. No one is saying that there aren't circumstances in which police have no choice. This case isn't one of them and there are obviously many more such cases in which police have a choice and shoot anyway, as we have recently seen over and over again.

[JimL]

About the instant he was shot -- have you even watched the video, or ever fired a gun? I'm asking because I've explained this aspect of the shooting multiple times, and it's had no impact on you. So you either can't comprehend what I'm saying, or have failed to try. I'd like to think you're just not trying.

Serious question here, do you think what happened in Floyd's case HAS been tolerated?

Most likely would have been tolerated by criminal investigators, swept under the rug if you will, had it not been filmed by a citizen.

[JimL]

Well, in this particular case, if he hadn't done the stupid thing after 45 minutes of the police being very patient, professional and respectful, he'd still be alive. I'm pro-life.

But I guess it's more important to you for him to be dead so he can serve as a debate topic for you.

Yes, the deceased was very patient and respectful as well, until doing something completely idiotic. But that has nothing to do with whether it was a ligit, not to mention a moral shooting. He should still be alive, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

[JimL]

Summary of thread so far:

Ox, JimL: "RACIST MURDERRRRRR!!" "If you even doubt any assertions made about how awful this case was, you are A RACIST!!"

That's an outright lie, Max.

Leonhard: "I don't think this was an ideal outcome. I don't get why the cops didn't try something else"

Leonard is basically making the same argument against the shooting.

Cow Poke, MM, Rumtumtugger: "Let's look at the evidence, like videos, stills, etc"

The usual 'Lets look at the facts while we condemn the victim argument.'

Myth: "Here's what I know about how police operate, based on my actual personal knowledge and experience of being a LEO. And here's what the law says..."

Obviousl, like CP, being in law enforcement, biased to begin with.

Ox: "I'm going to go with the 'racist murder' assertion, cause I know better than actual LEOs and former LEOs, and people who look at the evidence. After all, racism is a real thing, you know, so this case must be racism too."

I haven't read all of Jims posts, but from what I have that isn't his argument at all. The basic argument is that you don't shoot a fleeing suspect in the back unless there is good reason to believe that he is a serious threat to the officer or the public. He wasn't, his only purpose was to flee. Stupid, but not worthy of death.

[JimL]

The sticking point for me is the claim that anybody here is saying that he "needed" to die. Just because his death was a direct result of his own decisions does not mean that, therefore, his death was necessary.

His death was a direct result of the officer having little regard for human life and shooting him in the back as he fled instead of letting him go. He didn't even fire a warning shot.

[Mountain Man]

His death was a direct result of the officer having little regard for human life and shooting him in the back as he fled instead of letting him go. He didn't even fire a warning shot.

A warning shot?!

Are you really that ignorant? Next you're going to ask why they didn't shoot the gun out of his hand like the Lone Ranger!

[Darth Ovious]

I just can't believe the things that are happening now. Why? Just why?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ework-him.html

This is the shocking moment a 66-year-old homeless man was attacked with a firework as he slept on a New York street.

Video footage shows a man light up the explosive before hurling it in the direction of a blanket.

[Cow Poke]

The sticking point for me is the claim that anybody here is saying that he "needed" to die. Just because his death was a direct result of his own decisions does not mean that, therefore, his death was necessary.

That's where liberals go when they can't deal with facts. It turns into an emotional rant.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, the deceased was very patient and respectful as well, until doing something completely idiotic.

You're overlooking the series of really STUPID things he did leading up to his encounter with the police.

But that has nothing to do with whether it was a ligit, not to mention a moral shooting. He should still be alive,

Yes, he should still be alive -- but a SERIES of really stupid things he did led up to this crisis.
HE chose to drive drunk, HE put himself in that Wendy's drivethru -
HE was the one calling attention to himself for doing really really stupid things.
HE was the one who decided to initiate a battle with armed police.

and I'm pretty sure you know that

I know he certainly is NOT the poster boy for "cops hunted him down and killed him".

[Cow Poke]

Most likely would have been tolerated by criminal investigators, swept under the rug if you will, had it not been filmed by a citizen.

Jim, put it down - that's a bong, not a crystal ball.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, the deceased was very patient and respectful as well, until doing something completely idiotic.

Why, Jimmy, it almost sounds like you're blaming the victim. I have it on good authority that makes you a racist.

[Sparko]

Another false assumption. About half the cops I know, including myself, have been at least one situation in which we COULD have chosen to use deadly force and would been perfectly in the right to do so, but our natural aversion AGAINST killing another human being caused us to hesitant long enough for the situation to evolve in a different direction. You've clearly never found yourself advancing on a drunk guy with who's been terrorizing his own family, with a rifle propped up in reach in while he ignores your commands to raise his hands and starts reaching into his pockets, inside of which you've been told he has a pistol. You've not felt the training kick in as your you place your finger into the trigger guard and start to squeeze the trigger, and then pause for a fraction of second to calculate if you can get close enough to grab his arm before he could get the gun out of his pocket, knowing full well that your pause to try every means to keep from killing him is within a fraction of a second from getting you or your co-workers shot.

The willingness to kill to defend yourself and others is not the same thing as a lack of regard for human life. This is a distinction (like many others), that you fail to make. That last part of your statement is wholly without factual basis as well. Try again, using facts. Maybe you could try using Google and looking for academic literature, or is that too complicated for you?

JimL needs to take one of those gun training courses with the shoot/no shoot scenarios and see how he does. Until he can walk a mile in a cops shoes, even in simulation, he has no basis for his armchair quarterbacking.