• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

PhDeac said:
Why is it people who hate gun control think it’s OK for the state to kill someone for having a gun?
Click to expand...

2nd amendment people are fascists. They have a saying, "an armed society is a polite scociety", which basically tries to mandate orderly behavior with the threat of shooting any offenders. They want the second amendment to override every other right, even though they'll sometimes act like the only reason that the government doesn't censor their speech is that they have 5 assault rifles.
 
Junebug said:
No, it doesn’t. What matters is whether the cop reasonably thought he had a gun. Here, they did.

And yes, he had a gun.
Click to expand...

The cops say he did. The dead suspects lawyers say he didn’t. The man was running away, junebug. They shot him in the back. Horrible police work and an investigation is warranted.
 
WakeandBake said:
The cops say he did. The dead suspects lawyers say he didn’t. The man was running away, junebug. They shot him in the back. Horrible police work and an investigation is warranted.
Click to expand...

Every police shooting should get a basic investigation at a minimum.

When I went through the police academy, we were taught AOJ for shootings . That stands for ability, opportunity and jeopardy. Just because someone has a gun, it doesn’t mean they are a threat. If they are running away then you are not really in jeopardy any more. All three should be present for a good shoot in my eyes.
 
Junebug said:
No consideration of the safety of the community? This guy matched the description of an armed robber?
Click to expand...

Have to weigh that against shooting into the community yourself. How good was the description? Was he threatening the community or just running away. An officer can’t just start shooting bc someone fits a description. You may be right in this situation, I am not up to speed on this particular case. In general though, it is VERY hard to justify shooting someone in the back.
 
forensicdeac said:
Have to weigh that against shooting into the community yourself. How good was the description? Was he threatening the community or just running away. An officer can’t just start shooting bc someone fits a description. You may be right in this situation, I am not up to speed on this particular case. In general though, it is VERY hard to justify shooting someone in the back.
Click to expand...

This. And the police have more than one option. The man was on foot and the police have myriad tools to contain fleeing suspects without murdering them by shooting them in the back.
 
You are right. Shoot to kill and then do your investigation after the fact. Fuck that noise. If getting away with a crime is a worse option for you than killing someone, then you have a warped sense of the justice system. That way of thinking is exactly why people don’t trust police and then run when they shouldn’t have to in he first place.
 
Junebug said:
Ah, the old “let them go and catch up with them later” argument. There are so many problems with it:

1. The suspect can dispose of the gun and other evidence, thus making conviction harder
2. The suspect can dispose of the gun, possibly in way that poses a threat to innocent members of the community
3. The suspect can get in a vehicle or otherwise evade the police
4. If people know the police won’t chase them, they will flee more often

I’m not persuaded. Here’s a better idea — don’t run.
Click to expand...

So people who run from cops should be murdered, then. Read what you are saying. You are advocating for community police to kill people who run away who a) have not brandished a weapon and b) may not even be the suspect they are searching for.

The cops have plenty of other ways to avoid danger for themselves and the community than to just murder citizens. It is their obligation to only use deadly force when absolutely necessary, as a cop on this thread just told you. His situation did not meet that criteria. But hey if killing Americans
 
Junebug’s #1 as a justification for shooting someone in the back is pretty unsettling.
 
Junebug said:
Ah, the old �let them go and catch up with them later� argument. There are so many problems with it:

1. The suspect can dispose of the gun and other evidence, thus making conviction harder
2. The suspect can dispose of the gun, possibly in way that poses a threat to innocent members of the community
3. The suspect can get in a vehicle or otherwise evade the police
4. If people know the police won�t chase them, they will flee more often

I�m not persuaded. Here�s a better idea � don�t run.
Click to expand...

Would you throw your hands up and say this about a family member shot in the back and killed or is it easier to say this because you have no connection to the person killed by the State?

“Uncle Junebug deserved to get shot and killed while running from a cop. Sorry nephews. He could�ve gotten away even though we aren’t positive he did anything wrong. Here’s a twenty.”
 
A representative of the state who can get away with killing citizens is more of a threat to the community than someone who has disposed of a gun.
 
forensicdeac said:
Every police shooting should get a basic investigation at a minimum.

When I went through the police academy, we were taught AOJ for shootings . That stands for ability, opportunity and jeopardy. Just because someone has a gun, it doesn’t mean they are a threat. If they are running away then you are not really in jeopardy any more. All three should be present for a good shoot in my eyes.
Click to expand...

forensicdeac said:
Have to weigh that against shooting into the community yourself. How good was the description? Was he threatening the community or just running away. An officer can’t just start shooting bc someone fits a description. You may be right in this situation, I am not up to speed on this particular case. In general though, it is VERY hard to justify shooting someone in the back.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry. I think your thoughts are less valuable than those of a Greensboro employment lawyer.
 
Have you guys consider that if the police just shot and killed more or even all suspects there’d be far fewer expensive trials and there’d be far fewer not guilty verdicts on technicalities? The massive expense of the judicial system would be brought way down...fewer judges, prosecutors, public defenders. Why not just kill more suspects upfront and avoid the expensive trials and possible acquittals? It’s the truly small government conservative way.
 
Junebug said:
It’s actually really easy to avoid getting killed by a cop.
Click to expand...

Not really. Cops are everywhere. People like you believe whatever cops say to justify killing someone. Sometimes killer cops are considered heroes because they can tell their own story. If a cop decides to kill someone, the cop will probably get away with it. We are at the mercy of the whims of cops.
 
There are over 1000 a year. The number varies on the source. Media agencies have to cobble together counts from newspaper write ups. The fact we don’t keep state and federal state on this shows how little we value life and don’t think state actors killing people is a problem.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
I haven’t seen an update on this number, but back when Mike Brown was shot, there were 409 officer involved deaths per year. .
Click to expand...

This number is way off. Maybe be better informed before you make terrible arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top