It's Unconstitutional for the Police to Kill People

[RobertE]

There are individuals with hundreds.

What kind of incentive (consistent with the laws of physics as we know them in this universe) can you offer to them to turn them all in ??

Seriously.

Did I say gradually?

[vorlon13]

How long would it take for Bob Klann over here to turn in one of his 300 guns ??

How long you willing to wait on all of them ??

[Rhondazvous]

Nobody seems to realize that when the police shoot a person, the police is acting as judge, jury and executioner, depriving the person of life without due process of law.

You know, I hope you aren't serious. We've got a thread running with the usual suspects defending the police at all costs. That's one extreme. This would be the other. If someone draws a weapon on them or if there's a clear and present danger, they're entitled to defend themselves just like any other person. They're also tasked with protecting society.

So, please, can we keep that discussion on a less embarrassing level. The fact that they overstep their borders quite a lot these days doesn't mean that violence isn't justified or unconstitutional even.

If only we were talking about the police killing people who draw guns on them, or who pose a clear threat. But we are talking about little kids, mentally disturbed people, people who in the process of showing the police that they are cooperating, people who are already in police custody and have no weapon. It is unconstitutional to have those who are supposed to be protecting us, gunning us down. It's like a social auto-immune disease.

[paulpablo]

You didn't see a gun but you can see an ankle holster in some parts of some video clips you can also see what looks like a gun, the police say they recovered the gun and a lab analysis linked Keith Scott to the gun unless you think that was a conspiracy.

That is not what they claimed.... and frankly, just between us, have you ever heard of a "drop-piece"?  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...op%20Piece


http://fox59.com/2016/09/20/charlotte-po...g-protest/

“The subject got back out of the vehicle armed with a firearm and posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said.

That is not apparent from the video, which the chief reluctantly has admitted.  Still, they are sticking to their story.  

I saw nothing in the video that looked like a gun and in the audio all I can hear is cops shouting for handcuffs.  Not one says anything about securing a gun.  My guess is that they didn't plant it until later.

You can see in one of the videos there's an officer in red who stands over a gun shaped object.  It's inbetween both his legs and he stands over it seemingly to prevent it being kicked or moved and to prevent anyone else walking near it.

Also you can see a gun holster in a different clip on Keith Scott's leg.

And this is a person who's already had convictions for carrying a concealed weapon and shooting someone.

The narritive that the left wing right now believe that happened is that this man was just about to turn over a new leaf after having a pretty bad criminal record, he was in the car reading the quran which wasn't found, and he didn't have a gun, which was found and forensically linked to him along with a gun holster on his ankle.
So the police must have shot him, tied a gun holster to his leg then planted the gun while being filmed from various different angles and being watched from various different witnesses.

[account_inactive]

It's unconstitutional for the government to allow people to run loose with a proven potentiality for killing other people.

I know that I am not flavour of the month here, but I do agree with that statement. If only the American police forces could adopt a UK/Australian model of getting rid of weapons, and giving licences out to all and sundry, perhaps the need for cops to have guns might diminish over time. The cops don't need guns, and neither do the citizens.

Both should be armed.

[Catholic_Lady]

If it is legitimate self defense where no other options are available, I'd say the killing is justified.

[RobertE]

I know that I am not flavour of the month here, but I do agree with that statement. If only the American police forces could adopt a UK/Australian model of getting rid of weapons, and giving licences out to all and sundry, perhaps the need for cops to have guns might diminish over time. The cops don't need guns, and neither do the citizens.

Both should be armed.

With respect to all Americans here, do you really want another country like the United States full of weapons, both for the police and for the citizens?

[RobertE]

If it is legitimate self defense where no other options are available, I'd say the killing is justified.

I am not so sure CL. If you think about the man that got shot and had his hands by his side. I have watched the video and I have perfect 20/20 vision, yet not even I can make out if he had a gun in his hand or not. We can only take the policemans word that he had a gun (I mean for what other reason would he shoot, since the force has to be justified and if the guy is just mouthing off, then that doesn't justify the shooting) and we can only take the word of eyewitnesses that he didn't have a gun. The proof from both chest cam and dashcam are not conclusive to state one or the other. Either way, there is a strong possibility that by default, the policeman will get off.

[Catholic_Lady]

If it is legitimate self defense where no other options are available, I'd say the killing is justified.

I am not so sure CL. If you think about the man that got shot and had his hands by his side. I have watched the video and I have perfect 20/20 vision, yet not even I can make out if he had a gun in his hand or not. We can only take the policemans word that he had a gun (I mean for what other reason would he shoot, since the force has to be justified and if the guy is just mouthing off, then that doesn't justify the shooting) and we can only take the word of eyewitnesses that he didn't have a gun. The proof from both chest cam and dashcam are not conclusive to state one or the other. Either way, there is a strong possibility that by default, the policeman will get off.

I wasn't referring to any particular scenario. I don't know enough about what happened to make a judgement call on whether it actually was self defense or not. But if it was, I do believe that it is justified.

[RobertE]

I am not so sure CL. If you think about the man that got shot and had his hands by his side. I have watched the video and I have perfect 20/20 vision, yet not even I can make out if he had a gun in his hand or not. We can only take the policemans word that he had a gun (I mean for what other reason would he shoot, since the force has to be justified and if the guy is just mouthing off, then that doesn't justify the shooting) and we can only take the word of eyewitnesses that he didn't have a gun. The proof from both chest cam and dashcam are not conclusive to state one or the other. Either way, there is a strong possibility that by default, the policeman will get off.

I wasn't referring to any particular scenario. I don't know enough about what happened to make a judgement call on whether it actually was self defense or not. But if it was, I do believe that it is justified.

I hear what you are saying, but it is a bit like a fight outside of a nightclub or anywhere for that matter. It is a question of who started it first and what weapon they used i.e. knife, pint glass etc. Only video evidence can show this, but with the quality of bodycams or dashcams from a long distance (I mean, take a look at the dash cams in the Russian youtube videos and they are high quality) being terrible, it is very hard to judge who is at fault. Only sound and good picture can settle any particular situation.