Baton Rouge officer: Alton Sterling reached for a gun before he was shot

[Reeve]

Come on.... police wont be found civilly liable when using certain amounts of force, ie "pistol whipping" (lol) someone, when resisting arrest, if that person is being lawfully detained by police officers with reasonable suspension that a crime had been committed.

I think pistol whipping is generally not considered acceptable use of force. I mean pistol whipping someone can kill or maim them, or leave them in a coma if you hit them wrong.

[Daymanmb]

Perhaps those neighborhoods are being traveled more by police officers because the crime rate in that part of town is far higher?

Just food for thought.

So because youre poor and cant afford to live else where, its the poors fault for being poor and consequently, living in high poverty areas where crime and drugs are always more prevalent, in all cultures, we need to again, clump everyone into your narrow bias of who these people are, based on where they live. So whether we're talking about racial disenfranchisement or class disenfranchisement, we're essentially talking about the same problem.

[Noxx79]

No, what I meant is.. crime is something that happens. Are more blacks committing crime or are more whites committing crime?

Again, this is rhetorical because even with those who choose to put their heads in the sand.. I'm sure they know the answer. Saying that's a racist thought is equally as retarded. You can quickly Google this statistic.

There's an enormous difference between the the rate a race commits crime and the chance that person is s criminal. I know it's hard to get through your racist, thick, uneducated pile of gravel you call a head.

You showed a black group of people with guns. I showed a group of white people with guns. You said the white people will my get arrested , whereas the back people will.

Perhaps it's time for you to look at what you've done in your life to get to such a twisted, racist state, but you may want to take some personal responsibility for your choices instead of cowering in fear of people with different skin than you.

[dubious_doomhammer]

I would imagine with age, and more schooling, you will come around and see what's really happening. Perhaps when you have a family of your own, children, a wife. These things all make you look at life differently. When you're part of a community, have a steady job, etc.

Right now, you're just some SJW kid posting on a gaming forum desperately trying to be confrontational and trying even harder to be controversial.

It's a phase, you'll grow out of it. I did. Most people do.

- - - Updated - - -



Well take a look at the criminals are police officers have to deal with. The paranoia is real.

It's sad that you talk about age and schooling, but you literally have zero understanding of what really happening. You don't look at any of the underlying issues - you look at incarceration rates, or crime rates which are the end result of those underlying issues and use it to try and justify your backwards thinking.

You think that the people here that arguing for better police training, or not being so quick to shoot, don't have families or jobs, or are part of a community ... really?

So it's controversial now to hold police to a high standard, and make sure they're doing everything the can before using lethal force?

Man ...

[Gib Lover]

Forty million were gunned down? Proof?

Now back to the fact of the matter. The guy up north that was shot going for his I.D. should never have happend and I cant see why the cop would have had his gun trained on him to start with. There is a special place in hell for that cop. The guy in Baton Rouge I wasnt there, neither were you so I will stay out of it til something more concrete is presented.

Exactly this. The cop in the ID situation fucked up big time and should be punished as harshly as possible. The family of the deceased should be entitled to a ton of money for the police fucking up that badly and robbing them of a loved one. However, his death should not be some sort of "wake up call" to the problem of police shooting innocent people. It's going to happen no matter what, we are a country of over 350 million people. Cops are going to fuck up every now and then and kill someone who shouldn't have died. The rate that it happens is so low, it is statistically irrelevant.
It's one of those harsh realities that when it happens we should mourn, punish the perpetrators, reinforce to everyone how it SHOULD go down and reduce that level of police shootings as low as it can possibly go. Which, again, is already really really really fucking low.

- - - Updated - - -

There's an enormous difference between the the rate a race commits crime and the chance that person is s criminal. I know it's hard to get through your racist, thick, uneducated pile of gravel you call a head.

You showed a black group of people with guns. I showed a group of white people with guns. You said the white people will my get arrested , whereas the back people will.

Perhaps it's time for you to look at what you've done in your life to get to such a twisted, racist state, but you may want to take some personal responsibility for your choices instead of cowering in fear of people with different skin than you.

You can explain your feelings without flaming, please stop being so hostile. It's just a video game forum.

[Daymanmb]

I think pistol whipping is generally not considered acceptable use of force. I mean pistol whipping someone can kill or maim them, or leave them in a coma if you hit them wrong.

So can shooting someone instead 10 times in the chest. What are you arguing here, use of force or whether pistol whipping is appropriate?
That use of force would be sanctioned, Im sure of it, in most police forces and courts in responding to a belligerent suspect who is resisting arrest, who you attempted to detain under reasonable suspicion that that the suspect committed a crime. If using a baton to retrain a suspect, under those conditions, is okay, the only problem I see with pistol whipping, (which Im going to stop debating because its far fetched when safer tools are available, like a baton) is that your weapon could discharge incidentally.

If its just the pistol whipping, get off it, it was an example of use of force. Arguing pistol whipping in particular is semantical.

[Reeve]

So can shooting someone instead 10 times in the chest. What are you arguing here, use of force or whether pistol whipping is appropriate?
That use of force would be sanctioned, Im sure of it, in most police forces and courts in responding to a belligerent suspect who is resisting arrest, who you attempted to detain under reasonable suspicion that that the suspect committed a crime. If using a baton to retrain a suspect, under those conditions, is okay, the only problem I see with pistol whipping, (which Im going to stop debating because its far fetched when safer tools are available, like a baton) is that your weapon could discharge incidentally.

If its just the pistol whipping, get off it, it was an example of use of force. Arguing pistol whipping in particular is semantical.

Yeah, shooting someone 10 times in the chest is likely to kill them, though, which means you won't have to face them in court later. Do something that has the potential for maiming or death, but isn't necessarily going to cause death, means they can argue that you might have killed them in court, while still being alive to describe what they went through to a jury.

[Daymanmb]

Exactly this. The cop in the ID situation fucked up big time and should be punished as harshly as possible.

Honestly, man, and I promise you Im not just trying to argue, sincerely, but we dont know this with any certainty. It looks bad, really bad but both sides of the story exist with both of these stories. Id like to argue that in most of these cases, lethal force wasnt necessary in fulfilling these officers duty to protect and serve.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, shooting someone 10 times in the chest is likely to kill them, though, which means you won't have to face them in court later.

means they can argue that you might have killed them in court, while still being alive to describe what they went through to a jury

This is my concern when it comes to perceived threat and the stand your ground laws. The survivor has to convince a jury what they thought was about to happen.. Mind Police much?

[Gib Lover]

Honestly, man, and I promise you Im not just trying to argue, sincerely, but we dont know this with any certainty. It looks bad, really bad but both sides of the story exist with both of these stories. Id like to argue that in most of these cases,lethal force wasnt necessary in fulfilling these officers duty to protect and serve.

Agreed, until all the details are out we should reserve judgement. For that particular case though, it's looking real bad for police.

I'd just like to reiterate, that even if every single high profile police shooting turned out to be excessive force and unjustified, there would still be a statistically irrelevant number of unjustified police killings. We work ourselves up, form organizations, come up with catchy little slogans for something that mathematically doesn't matter. If people want to argue that there is inherent racism and minorities are targeted for random stops for (something I know BLM argues, just to be fair), that actually has an argument to be made and that SHOULD be looked at.

[Reeve]

This is my concern when it comes to perceived threat and the stand your ground laws.

I've never owned a gun, and likely never will, but from a young age (like maybe 6 or 7 years old), my mother always taught me that if I'm going to shoot someone (for like home defense or whatever), I'd better shoot them dead, so that they don't come back at me with a legal suit.

[Themius]

Do all those countries allow their citizens to carry firearms like the United States of America?

Are you ignoring the large portion of the post that focused on police training?

[Daymanmb]

I've never owned a gun, and likely never will, but from a young age (like maybe 6 or 7 years old), my mother always taught me that if I'm going to shoot someone (for like home defense or whatever), I'd better shoot them dead, so that they don't come back at me with a legal suit.

I think we should hold police to higher standards than your mother's good morals and Im not being an asshole here. I also suspect that your mom might have instilled the value of taking someones life, in succession to the first moral, and that youd better be damn sure that your life is very plainly in danger, that there's very real justification in taking someones life when they are attempting to take yours! Attempting is the key word, here.

I just do not think shooting is the appropriate response to suspects apparently reaching for what officers thought to be weapons! Stand your ground needs to go. We dont want people to have the power to gun us down because they think something bad is about to happen, do we?

The other problem with stand your ground laws is that, suddenly citizens, who only had find committing arrest powers prior, can now kill when a perceived threat to their lives or others exist, as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you ignoring the large portion of the post that focused on police training?

Also, its well know that other countries have as many weapons, per capita as the USA, yet have much lower gun violence and crime. What types of guns that are availbe are also much more controlled in comparable countries.

[Reeve]

We just need to invent nonlethal weapons that are as effective as guns at subduing someone consistently and quickly. Where are my phasers, dammit?

[Daymanmb]

Also, its well know that other countries have as many weapons, per capita as the USA, yet have much lower gun violence and crime. What types of guns that are availbe are also much more controlled in comparable countries.

Im actually pretty wrong about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number...ita_by_country

There is no country comparable to amount of guns per capita.

This is interesting though: "According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all.[7] In the same article: "But that doesn't mean every man, woman and child has a gun. The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes." The graph shows a decline from 50% in 1975 to 31% in recent years."

One in three households is armed? Holy...

[Deleted]

Most black people do not commit crimes. So, yes, you are being racist.

every 14 hours a black man shoots another black man.. in chicago alone.

As a distant onlooker it seems to me the cops are going after the exceptionally high crime represented minority groups, that's not racism- that's just common sense. That being said I have no idea if there is actual racism, but the way this discussion is going is beyond absurd. Sucks for the people that are abiding by the law and are unlucky to belong to a minority group that has a high contribution to crime (no matter what color they are).

But thats no reason to not keep them under closer scrutiny.

None of this adresses the overarching concern that a high availability of guns leads to a more violent society which leads to jumpy cops because everything they do can be a lethal encounter

[Daymanmb]

every 14 hours a black man shoots another black man.. in chicago alone.

Is your argument that its concentrated in some areas more than others? This doesnt change the fact that most black people are not criminals, you know?

- - - Updated - - -

As a distant onlooker it seems to me the cops are going after the exceptionally high crime represented minority groups, that's not racism- that's just common sense.

"Going after the minority groups in areas with the higher crime" is racial profiling by definition, as you describe it. I dont believe that is the Police's intent. Police have a higher presence in these areas, sure, but their aim should not be to go after minority groups in these areas, ever.

[TwoNineMarine]

I've never owned a gun, and likely never will, but from a young age (like maybe 6 or 7 years old), my mother always taught me that if I'm going to shoot someone (for like home defense or whatever), I'd better shoot them dead, so that they don't come back at me with a legal suit.

Well the sad part behind that kind of reasoning is because of courts siding with the criminal in a lot of those cases. Some douche breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you shoot them and YOU get in trouble. Rather silly.

[Daymanmb]

None of this adresses the overarching concern that a high availability of guns leads to a more violent society which leads to jumpy cops because everything they do can be a lethal encounter

I agree with you here, in that it is a very dynamic and systemic problem, thats not been appropriately addressed as of yet. Not that people arent trying on both sides, but I dont think we'll find a suitable solution until we start asking the right questions.

[TwoNineMarine]

Im actually pretty wrong about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number...ita_by_country

There is no country comparable to amount of guns per capita.

This is interesting though: "According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all.[7] In the same article: "But that doesn't mean every man, woman and child has a gun. The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes." The graph shows a decline from 50% in 1975 to 31% in recent years."

One in three households is armed? Holy...

And yet out of those 400 million or so weapons in the US there are only about 10k deaths due to firearms a year (subtracting suicide of course).

It's barely a fraction of a percent.

It's almost as though the overwhelming majority of people are good and don't go shooting people.

[Breccia]

And yet out of those 400 million or so weapons in the US there are only about 10k deaths due to firearms a year (subtracting suicide of course).

It's barely a fraction of a percent.

It's almost as though the overwhelming majority of people are good and don't go shooting people.

Only ten thousand murders? That's only slightly more than drunk driving!