Chicago Police kill unarmed black teenager

[Jtbrig7390]

I see you don't understand what a "rate" is. Total population is pretty irrelevant.

I see you don't understand what the word AND means.

Because I said the total pop AND the same crime rate. Canada has nether unless you want to prove me wrong.

[Spiffums]

Death generally is not the punishment for theft, at least not in Western countries. Shooting when you do not see a gun is also not something I support. If he flashed a gun, etc, that's another story.

It should be there would be less theives.

[Goondicker]

The only alternative is for the cops to shoot pre-emptively, in which case, why are they considered the "good guys", again? They're shooting people without cause.

Yes, giving suspects the benefit of the doubt will increase risk. But it's "better", if tragic, for a cop to get blindsided than it is for cops to gun down unarmed suspects for noncompliance.

I understand what you're saying. I agree with it, to an extent.

I also think that most police officers actually do practice their jobs in this manner.

I know there are some bad cops, but don't think it's fair to put the good ones in more danger because of it.

[Deleted]

I really have to disagree with the "high road" if it causes officer deaths over criminal deaths.

Maybe in this scenario the officers were completely wrong. If that's the case, I hope they are punished. If they acted reasonably, I hope they aren't and I hope the population can accept that instead of rioting.

A good way to extend your life expectancy is: Don't steal a car.

ldo.

pretty sure everyone with a little sense would agree on this. the discussion is wether or not they acted reasonably, if cops lives or anyone elses were at danger and so on. ur just stating the obvious. if they were wrong they should be punished, if not they should not is what ur saying. now thats a statement hard to disagree with.

[Endus]

The cause is he done endanger the cops once, what stops him from doing it again.

That's not how anything works, not even in the USA. Unless he is CURRENTLY presenting an imminent threat, there is no threat, and thus no justification for lethal force. You don't have free reign to shoot anyone who at any prior time posed any kind of a threat to anyone.

Of course you think it's better. People that think cops shouldn't ever be able to stop them think that, too.

I have no idea what you're even going on about. I've been questioned in the back of a cop car, before. I complied, was released, they offered to press charges against the guy who'd laid clearly false charges against me and my buddy.

I'm not anti-cop. I'm anti-unjustified-killing. It doesn't become not-murder just because the guy with a gun has a badge, too.

[Jtbrig7390]

Yeah pretty negligent behavior on the part of the police to start shooting at a guy in a residential area. Stray bullets have often killed civilians before.

They have and if they did they should face charges for it. Was it abit negligent yes, but once again it ended a threat and that threat was also a danger to everyone in that residential area.

What if someones kid was outside playing and this shitbag hit them with the car? People would be bitching that the cops didn't stop him sooner.

[Deleted]

Although after watching that.. that cop almost shot the other cop.. if the cop car was like 2 inches shorter he would have hit him.

I think that same cop also shot the hood of his own car. Probably adrenaline.

Same shit again though. Criminal trying to flee, if he didn't, he'd probably still be alive.

Can't wait to read the shitstorm tomorrow on the internet.

[Jtbrig7390]

That's not how anything works, not even in the USA. Unless he is CURRENTLY presenting an imminent threat, there is no threat, and thus no justification for lethal force. You don't have free reign to shoot anyone who at any prior time posed any kind of a threat to anyone.

Its best if you only comment about your side of the fence and not claim to know how this side works. I respect your opinion but you are wrong. If you are a thread you are a threat until it has ended.

[GreenJesus]

The only alternative is for the cops to shoot pre-emptively, in which case, why are they considered the "good guys", again? They're shooting people without cause.

Yes, giving suspects the benefit of the doubt will increase risk. But it's "better", if tragic, for a cop to get blindsided than it is for cops to gun down unarmed suspects for noncompliance.

You would rather a cop doing his job to die than to kill in self- defense? lul... Endus the #coplivesdontmatter king. You literally make no sense. I seriously think you are just a troll that got mod.

I am willing to take the infraction for this. Fuck you Endus. You have no respect for police officers. You would rather a criminal go free than a cop return to his family. You are the lowest of the low and I hope you die because a cop let a criminal go.

[Kellhound]

No matter how you look at it, shooting a fleeing person in the back is uncalled for by the police.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So the officers not only used undue force in subduing this guy who didn't even have a deadly weapon at the time that he was shot, but they took a whole lot of shooting just to take him down, meaning they could have potentially endangered the lives of other innocent people.

[I Push Buttons]

If he had died while driving the car into police cars, that would have been one thing. The threat of him ramming them with the car had been alleviated (At least I assume it had, I don't know, maybe you can enlighten me if it has been confirmed that he was carrying the car around in his back pocket still). But they shot him while on the run, no more danger was present to the officers.

In hindsight...

While this actually occurred the officers chasing him probably assumed he was armed since they had just heard gunshots twenty seconds before this.

Its remarkable how many godlike omnipotent people there are on this forum, with intricate knowledge of this situation that hasn't even been released or remarked on.

[Independent voter]

Let's just hope there isn't another angry military trained black man out there who decides to take revenge by shooting a dozen police.

[Endus]

I see you don't understand what the word AND means.

Because I said the total pop AND the same crime rate. Canada has nether unless you want to prove me wrong.

Total population is fundamentally irrelevant to this kind of discussion. All that matters is crime rate.

And you're again glossing over that the USA's culture promotes violence, which is a large contributor to why there's such a gap between our violent crime rates. The cop's use of violence is an example of that. You're not going to de-escalate the cycle of violence by stepping up police violence.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You would rather a cop doing his job to die than to kill in self- defense? lul... Endus the #coplivesdontmatter king. You literally make no sense. I seriously think you are just a troll that got mod.

I am willing to take the infraction for this. Fuck you Endus. You have no respect for police officers. You would rather a criminal go free than a cop return to his family. You are the lowest of the low and I hope you die because a cop let a criminal go.

It's clear your reading skills aren't up to par, as he's pretty clearly stated in the past that police can use force when there is a clear and present danger.

In this case an unarmed man was running away from them, but stick to your idiotic hyperbole.

[Endus]

Its best if you only comment about your side of the fence and not claim to know how this side works. I respect your opinion but you are wrong. If you are a thread you are a threat until it has ended.

If he doesn't have a weapon, he's not a threat. You don't get to shoot the guy who dropped his gun because he HAD a gun a second ago. That's the argument you're trying to make.

You would rather a cop doing his job to die than to kill in self- defense? lul... Endus the #coplivesdontmatter king. You literally make no sense. I seriously think you are just a troll that got mod.

We're not talking about self-defense. I've always supported an officer's right to defend themselves, if they can identify an actual threat. You see a guy drawing a gun and refusing to comply? Shoot him. No issue, there. But that's not what happened, here. We're talking about shooting an unarmed man in the back as he fled.

[FurryRedVixen]

Watched that article vid, and im surprised the one that almost got ran over looked like he only shot one time? Crazy

[Cthulhu 2020]

In hindsight...

While this actually occurred the officers chasing him probably assumed he was armed since they had just heard gunshots twenty seconds before this.

Its remarkable how many godlike omnipotent people there are on this forum, with intricate knowledge of this situation that hasn't even been released or remarked on.

It's strange how often police can hear and see guns in cases where they fatally shoot unarmed people. We should probably get psych evaluations for all of these hallucinations.

[tylenol]

If he doesn't have a weapon, he's not a threat. You don't get to shoot the guy who dropped his gun because he HAD a gun a second ago. That's the argument you're trying to make.



We're not talking about self-defense. We're talking about shooting an unarmed man in the back as he fled.

After nearly running over a cop...if he stopped to begin with, he'd probably still be alive but idiots will do idiot things

[enragedgorilla]

they shot him in the back.
regardless of the value of the car, unless they actually SEEN a gun, or came under fire from the accused, there is no justification on the planet for shooting someone in the back.

Small planet you live on.
Cops (and anyone else for that matter) can shoot you in the back if they believe you pose a continued threat(of death or bodily harm) to others.
To keep it short.