It's Unconstitutional for the Police to Kill People

[account_inactive]

I'll stop the derail now. Don't want to get in trouble!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AlPi08RNJh4

[RobertE]

I'll stop the derail now. Don't want to get in trouble!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AlPi08RNJh4

My apologies too..

[Minimalist]

After watching the footage released by the widow of the deceased, what does she mean by this:

Rakeyia Scott tells her husband to get out of his white pickup truck and repeatedly yells, “Keith, don’t you do it! Don’t you do it, Keith!”

She tells her husband to get out of the car, and in the next breath tells him "not to do it." Can someone explain the "don't you do it"? Don't do what exactly, get out of the car, when she ordered him to? I am a bit confused.

I think "don't you do it" was addressed at the cops.  And of course they did it.

[abaris]

So, yeah.  When some trigger happy cop blows someone away that is not "due process of law."

I'm the last one to defend trigger happy cops. But don't you see how stupid this is? How detrimental to the general discussion, since it's that ludicrous? It's obvious that at some times weapons use by the police is not only justified but warranted. In every country for that mattter.

That they tend to overstep the line and - at the very least - give the impression of racial profiling when overstepping the line, is written on a different page. A page that should be constantly discussed and pointed out, but not on that kind of ridiculous level, since this thread insinuates that weapons use is unconstitutional, period. Which it certainly isn't. Resorting to this kind of argument is embarrassing and only turns the ones using it into jokes.

[RobertE]

After watching the footage released by the widow of the deceased, what does she mean by this:

She tells her husband to get out of the car, and in the next breath tells him "not to do it." Can someone explain the "don't you do it"? Don't do what exactly, get out of the car, when she ordered him to? I am a bit confused.

I think "don't you do it" was addressed at the cops.  And of course they did it.

It can be taken either way to be honest. Since you have used the work "think", this means that you are uncertain, and I too am uncertain in what context and who she was shouting that to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Take a look at this photo.

A white guy with an assault rifle reaches for his pistol while a cop stands there and.... what?  Tells him to calm down?
Note the second cop in the back who also does not seem to feel the need to pull his gun as cops are trained to use a two handed grip and his left arm is clearly visible.




Now, suppose the guy had been black?  How many SWAT teams would have been summoned?

No SWAT teams ... but one ambulance.

[Minimalist]

I'm the last one to defend trigger happy cops. But don't you see how stupid this is? How detrimental to the general discussion, since it's that ludicrous? It's obvious that at some times weapons use by the police is not only justified but warranted. In every country for that mattter.

Is it?

We have seen multiple situations, in Charlotte and in Tulsa and in Chicago where there were a whole bunch of cops around and only one fired.  We can't know what that one cop thought he saw that his colleagues did not see but I am perfectly content with the word "trigger-happy."

How the fuck can you be that afraid of a man with his arms down and facing away from you that you just have to shoot him in the back?  And no one else perceived the threat?  Come on.

[Minimalist]

I think "don't you do it" was addressed at the cops.  And of course they did it.

It can be taken either way to be honest. Since you have used the work "think", this means that you are uncertain, and I too am uncertain in what context and who she was shouting that to.

Of course its a guess. Only she knows what was in her mind but she was both calling his name and telling the cops not to shoot him in the moments leading up to the shooting.  I wouldn't blame her for being a little confused at that moment.

[abaris]

We have seen multiple situations, in Charlotte and in Tulsa and in Chicago where there were a whole bunch of cops around and only one fired.  We can't know what that one cop thought he saw that his colleagues did not see but I am perfectly content with the word "trigger-happy."

Entirely different discussion. Turned into a laughing stock by a ridiculous OP. Trigger happiness got nothing to do with a constitutional ban on cops using weapons at all. Under all circumstances unless a judge and jury allows it, if it were indeed a constitutional ban.

It's not a point to be discussed unless one wants to drag the whole discussion over a very real problem into the field of satire. Which really isn't helping matters.

[Minimalist]

I disagree, Abs.  The constitution clearly states that no one shall be deprived of life et al except by due process of law.  Some fucking flatfoot with an itchy trigger finger is the very definition of such deprivation.