arma virumque cano (et alia)
Cops--those are the people you claim "do indeed need heavier firepower than civilians [ignoring for the moment that civilian police are 'civilians'] are allowed . . , " right?
That has nothing to do with whether, or not they use that force properly and legally. If cops are outgunned, we have a problem. When cops use deadly force when not necessary, we have a problem. These cops are highly trained; why can't 3, 4, 5 cops subdue and cuff one homeless guy, but instead just shoot him?
If cops are outgunned, we have a problem.||Nope--if we the people are outgunned, we have a problem. I'm willing to allow cops to have weapons parity with private citizens, but that's as big a concession as I'll ever offer.
That's typical for people who think cops are the enemy.
That's typical for people who think cops are the enemy.Why would anyone agree to their "enemy" having weapons parity with them?
The cops are not your enemy conspiracy theorists.
John, you're right. Kurt's comment was immediately off-topic. He cannot resist taking shots at some of my other arguments. The obvious answer is that I also call for tougher screening and training for cops, rendering them less likely to act badly.
The cops are not your enemy . . . Since you apparently missed it, that's what I said.John, you're right. Kurt's comment was immediately off-topic.Seems pretty on-topic to me (both "immediately," and in the long term). If cops are the violent, trigger-happy racists you so consistently portray them to be, it seems eminently logical to question your insistence on granting them firepower superiority over private citizens.The obvious answer is that I also call for tougher screening and training for cops, rendering them less likely to act badly.So you are advocating a precipitous drop in the number of cops? Because that's what you're going to get with the dramatically higher standards you want to impose.
The topic of this post was about the legitimacy of the shooting in LA. It was not about that other argument you referenced about arming cops adequately to do their job.Better screening and more training is the solution to police abuse.
If the topic is the legitimacy of cops' use of force, then the fact that you advocate letting them have more force available than you want available to their potential victims is quite relevant, all your dizzy spinning notwithstanding.Better screening and more training is the solution to police abuse.In a way, I suppose. Since stricter standards and more rigorous training will inevitably lead to significantly fewer cops, there will be fewer to commit those abuses.Of course, there will also be significantly fewer to enforce the massive "gun control" regime you have in mind. I do like the sound of that.
Better screening and more training is the solution to police abuse.By the way, does it trouble you that the nation seems to be moving in the exact opposite direction?“The recent events in many cities protesting law enforcement have also discouraged applicants because they know even if they do the right thing in a split-second decision that the media and others will spend years second-guessing them and many just feel that type of stress is not worth the meager salaries and reduction in benefits,” [National President of the Fraternal Order of Police Chuck] Canterbury explains. “Many cities are reducing the minimum standards to attract candidates and there is a general lack of applicants who have higher education or experience that is commensurate with the profession.”In other words, standards for cops are going down, and you can say all you want that this trend should be reversed, but how would you pay for all these paragons of virtue, particularly in light of all the additional cops you would need to enforce the approximately seven trillion, three-hundred forty-two billion, six-hundred thirty-seven million, two-hundred eleven thousand, eight-hundred twenty-two new gun laws you want them to enforce--and enforced at a rate of about thirty-two arrests per actual violation, as you seem to prefer?That, of course, is without even taking into account replacing all the officers who will have to be put in body bags while attempting to enforce these longed-for legal abominations of yours, and the commensurate even lower interest among those rare individuals qualified to do the job.
Besides the officer being quoted ordering him to drop the gun, for some reason no one at Huffpo remembered to include the report of the guy grabbing an officer's gun. If the report is true, is sounds like the escalation in force from the beginning was based on the homeless man's actions, to include the use of less than lethal force. Time will tell."Smith also said at least one of the officers was also wearing a body camera.The Los Angeles Times reported that witnesses identified the man by his street name, "Africa." One witness said the man had been fighting with someone else in his tent when police arrived. That witness said officers dragged the victim out of the tent before he began fighting. Other witnesses said the man punched and kicked the officers before reaching for their service weapons. "http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/02/video-purportedly-shows-police-officers-shooting-homeless-man-in-downtown-los/?intcmp=latestnews
The whole "drop the gun" thing sounds odd to me. What I could see is the cops blowing his ass away immediately after he grabbed a gun. There would have been no time to order him to drop it.
Have the videos from the body cams been released yet? There is likely more information to be had from them. So the delay in itself could be an indication of restraint in using deadly force. The warnings could have begun when the guy grabbed the holstered gun and before it cleared leather. Then the shooting didn't start until the gun was free of the holster.
Of course you are guessing, we don't know any of that yet SS.
So far it's looking like a justifiable shooting. And the details are being released pretty quickly. "LOS ANGELES (AP) — Police fatally shot a homeless man on Skid Row during a "brutal" videotaped struggle in which a rookie officer cried out that the man had grabbed his gun, the Los Angeles police chief said Monday.Video showed the man reaching toward the officer's waistband, Chief Charlie Beck said. The officer's gun was found partly cocked and jammed with a round of ammunition in the chamber and another in the ejection port, indicating a struggle for the weapon, Beck said."You can hear the young officer who was primarily engaged in the confrontation saying that 'He has my gun. He has my gun,'" Beck said. "He says it several times, with conviction."Then three other officers opened fire.The man was black, as is the rookie officer who was just short of completing his probationary year on the force, police said.Beck's narrative of the shooting, including photos from video showing the condition of the gun, was rare, emerging just 24 hours after an officer-involved shooting. It came amid heightened attention to killings by police officers that have led to protests, some violent, across the country.Sunday's violence had echoes of the August police shooting of 25-year-old Ezell Ford, whose death in a struggle with LA officers brought demonstrations in the city. Ford was unarmed. Police said he was shot after reaching for an officer's gun.""Beck said officers were in a tough situation and didn't know if the suspect was arming himself. Stun guns fired at the man had "appeared to have little effect and he continued to violently resist," Beck said.""As the man took swings, four officers wrestled him to the ground. Two other officers subdued and handcuffed a woman who had picked up a dropped baton.The struggle became blurry and distant, but shouting could be heard, followed by five apparent gunshots.Exactly what happened in the last moments of the struggle is unclear. The weapon of the young officer who yelled "he has my gun" was in a specialized holster with a rotating hood, designed to make it more difficult for someone to take it away, according to pictures provided by the LAPD." https://ph.news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-police-kill-man-struggle-captured-video-090428018.html
Yes, that sounds like it could have been legit. Unless a cop in that situation is at fault for failing to maintain control of his firearm. I'm not sure if that's a fair criticism. What do you think?
I believe they are being pretty open in putting out information and pretty quickly too. I'm pretty confident that the investigation will move much more quickly and openly than say Ferguson. Im keeping an open mind, I haven't had a chance to look at the photos they speak of yet. Keep in mind that in the shooting in Ferguson there were people who told stories that were born out to be false when it was compared to physical evidence.
In that melee the guy's hand might have gotten close to an officers gun, which doesn't mean he was reaching for, or trying to get a gun to shoot the cop. It's been proven over and over again, cops will, lie to protect each other.
And just when you thought you had a good handle on the facts, this shows up,"A homeless man who was killed by Los Angeles police on Skid Row was living under an assumed name and was wanted for violating probation terms for a bank robbery conviction, French and U.S. officials said Tuesday.A law enforcement official identified Charley Saturmin Robinet, 39, as the man police shot Sunday. The official wasn't authorized to speak publicly and talked to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.But Axel Cruau, the consul general for France in Los Angeles, said the man stole the identity of a French citizen and was living in the United States under an assumed name. He had applied for a French passport in the late 1990s to come to the United States to "pursue a career in acting."Using the name Robinet, the man was identified as a French national in 2000 when he was convicted of robbing a Wells Fargo branch and pistol-whipping an employee in an effort to pay for acting classes at the Beverly Hills Playhouse."http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/04/officials-say-man-shot-by-lapd-stole-frenchman-identity-was-wanted-by-us/?intcmp=latestnews
That still doesn't mean it was a justified shooting and we don't execute criminals, we apprehend them and let the courts decide.
It really doesn't matter where he was from. The shooting is being investigated regardless. I just saw this and included it because it's related to the thread.
An open mind SS? You don't read your own comments."sounds like the escalation in force from the beginning was based on the homeless man's actions""So far it's looking like a justifiable shooting"
Did you read the article I cited? If you have anything that contradicts what was briefed by law enforcement, we'd love to see it.
Nice diversion of a reply SS. I was pointing out your claim of neutrality, then quoted you being partial. Thanks for showing that consistent game playing reply tactic. Like your last reply saying it doesn't really matter where he's from, which I never brought up at all.