So Pointing a Gun is Justification for Deadly Force

[BehindBlueI's]

Context. While I know you like to pretend that every circumstance is the same, it isn't.

Scenario #1:
I pull up to a military base and a random guy in Class B's comes running out, points a rifle at my car, and tells me to stop or he'll shoot.

Scenario #2:
I pull up to a military base and a random guy wearing a white dress and a vest runs out of a nearby wooded area, points a rifle at me and tells me to stop or he'll shoot.

Scenario #3:
I stop at a stop sign in a rural area. A random guy wearing a ragged flannel shirt and cut off BDU pants runs out of the wooded area, points a rifle out me, and tells me to stop or he'll shoot.

Scenario #4:
I stop at a red light in an urban area. A random guy with no shirt and his pants falling off runs out of a house, points a rifle at me, and tells me to stop or he'll shoot.


Instinctively, I think we all realize that the context of one of these scenarios is quite a bit different. In Scenario #1, you should realize you aren't about to be murdered or carjacked. You'll probably latch on to the idea your car matches a terrorism suspect or the like and that you're about to be inconvenienced but if you comply you're going to survive the encounter. In the other three, you'll realize there the likely scenario is you are about to be the victim of a crime, and will react differently to protect yourself. This is done instinctively. The human brain seeks an explanation for things and fits it into known facts, it does not take an isolated fact and ignore the rest without trying to piece it into an overall hypothesis of what's occurring.

What the OP suggests here and in other threads is that we completely ignore both instinct and context when looking at these scenarios. Even in the Ferguson thread the individuals threatened did not react in fear. They did not cower, flee, or cease their activity. In fact, they continued to engage and taunt with the person that the OP would have us believe they thought was going to kill them. Even someone involved in a protest against supposed police brutality did not really believe they would be shot and killed while complying, or at least not threatening or attacking, a uniformed police officer.

 

[hornadylnl]

Context. While I know you like to pretend that every circumstance is the same, it isn't.

Scenario #1:
I pull up to a military base and a random guy in Class B's comes running out, points a rifle at my car, and tells me to stop or he'll shoot.

Scenario #2:
I pull up to a military base and a random guy wearing a white dress and a vest runs out of a nearby wooded area, points a rifle at me and tells me to stop or he'll shoot.

Scenario #3:
I stop at a stop sign in a rural area. A random guy wearing a ragged flannel shirt and cut off BDU pants runs out of the wooded area, points a rifle out me, and tells me to stop or he'll shoot.

Scenario #4:
I stop at a red light in an urban area. A random guy with no shirt and his pants falling off runs out of a house, points a rifle at me, and tells me to stop or he'll shoot.


Instinctively, I think we all realize that the context of one of these scenarios is quite a bit different. In Scenario #1, you should realize you aren't about to be murdered or carjacked. You'll probably latch on to the idea your car matches a terrorism suspect or the like and that you're about to be inconvenienced but if you comply you're going to survive the encounter. In the other three, you'll realize there the likely scenario is you are about to be the victim of a crime, and will react differently to protect yourself. This is done instinctively. The human brain seeks an explanation for things and fits it into known facts, it does not take an isolated fact and ignore the rest without trying to piece it into an overall hypothesis of what's occurring.

What the OP suggests here and in other threads is that we completely ignore both instinct and context when looking at these scenarios. Even in the Ferguson thread the individuals threatened did not react in fear. They did not cower, flee, or cease their activity. In fact, they continued to engage and taunt with the person that the OP would have us believe they thought was going to kill them. Even someone involved in a protest against supposed police brutality did not really believe they would be shot and killed while complying, or at least not threatening or attacking, a uniformed police officer.

With the evidence out there now, I currently believe the Brown shooting was justified and I've stated as such. So the purpose of the OP was not to denigrate the officer who shot him.

You're trying to say Officer Go **** Yourself fits into scenario 1. Assuming the guy in class b's is exiting a guard shack, it is protocol to stop. Guy in class b's is acting according to that protocol. What protocol allows a cop to sweep an entire crowd with a rifle while screaming he will ****ing kill you and telling everyone to go **** themselves? Guy in class b's has not done anything to demonstrate that he's lost his mind like Officer Go **** Yourself has. They are not the same no matter how much you try to say it is.

ETA: Would I have drawn on that cop and fired? Not at all because I know at that moment, no matter how wrong he is, the law is on his side.

 

[public servant]

I'd be satisfied if a single officer would state UNEQUIVOCALLY that the officer I've been talking about was in the wrong.

Few things in life are unequivocal. I will say that if there was nothing going on outside of the view of the camera, then yes...that officer was absolutely, positively wrong.

That's the best I can answer. In fact, several people have already give you that answer. So, clearly that's good enough.

Now...it's my turn. Is there the possibility that there may have been extenuating circumstances outside the camera view?

 

[billt]

I'd be satisfied if a single officer would state UNEQUIVOCALLY that the officer I've been talking about was in the wrong.

I would feel much the same way if a black person in Ferguson would state UNEQUIVOCALLY that Michael Brown was in the wrong.

 

[hornadylnl]

Few things in life are unequivocal. I will say that if there was nothing going on outside of the view of the camera, then yes...that officer was absolutely, positively wrong.

That's the best I can answer. In fact, several people have already give you that answer. So, clearly that's good enough.

Now...it's my turn. Is there the possibility that there may have been extenuating circumstances outside the camera view?

Of course it's a possibility. But when you factor in the level of crime needed to justify such a reaction and both officers walked away without arresting the criminal, that possibility is very slim.

From this point forward, I'll await to see what the disciplinary action is against him.

 

[public servant]

Of course it's a possibility. But when you factor in the level of crime needed to justify such a reaction and both officers walked away without arresting the criminal, that possibility is very slim.

I don't disagree. Personally, I think he ****ed up. But that's merely my opinion.

 

[hornadylnl]

I would feel much the same way if a black person in Ferguson would state UNEQUIVOCALLY that Michael Brown was in the wrong.

If Ferguson officers were wearing their body cameras, maybe they could. At this point, I don't see any evidence that Brown wasn't in the wrong. The autopsy blew the witnesses story out of the water.

Saw this article this morning on body cameras. I can't understand why every officer in the nation isn't beating down the doors of their superiors demanding cameras.

That 1 city's complaints went down 89% after using body cameras speaks volumes.

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't disagree. Personally, I think he ****ed up. But that's merely my opinion.

All I want is some faith in the system that he will be dealt with appropriately. Ultimately, that's what this whole fiasco in Ferguson is about. Lack of faith in the justice system. Obviously they picked the wrong incident to go to war with.

There are at least 3 officers from that area that are now on suspension. If nothing happens to all 3, it will only reinforce what the people of Ferguson already believe. Should all 3 be fired and imprisoned? I doubt it.

 

[public servant]

I think the one in the video you're referencing should be fired...at a minimum. Nothing extenuating, throw him in jail...I don't care. I think the one involved in shooting the guy with the knife will be found justified in his actions. I'm concerned the one involved in the Brown shooting will be found unjustified...no matter what. I think the politicians are afraid to find out what will happen otherwise.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think the one in the video you're referencing should be fired...at a minimum. Nothing extenuating, throw him in jail...I don't care. I think the one involved in shooting the guy with the knife will be found justified in his actions. I'm concerned the one involved in the Brown shooting will be found unjustified...no matter what. I think the politicians are afraid to find out what will happen otherwise.

Have t watched the video of the shooting of the guy with a knife. If it's as everybody here states, good shoot.
(Not a fan of watching people die so I don't knowingly watch that stuff).

As for Brown, it's an absolute shame that they had cameras and they weren't being used. At this point, I have no reason to believe that cop was in the wrong. We have ABSOLUTE doubt about the original narrative from the witness. I think the problem with the Brown incident is that the department could have been much more forthcoming with information. I don't think any one piece of this puzzle was capable of setting off this **** storm by itself. You have the witnesses bogus story, the fact that no ambulance was on scene in any reasonable time (compare that to in pd's efforts to save Renn's murderer. Not saying anything could have been done to save Brown but it's the appearance), letting him lay in the streets for hours, hauling him off in an SUV, etc.

Would the sharptons of the world still cry foul had it been handled perfectly? No doubt but I don't think the aftermath would be the same.

 

[printcraft]

........ You have the witnesses bogus story, the fact that no ambulance was on scene in any reasonable time (compare that to in pd's efforts to save Renn's murderer. Not saying anything could have been done to save Brown but it's the appearance), letting him lay in the streets for hours, hauling him off in an SUV, etc.

Would the sharptons of the world still cry foul had it been handled perfectly? No doubt but I don't think the aftermath would be the same.

Let's dispel that bogus talking point........

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/u...meline-4-hours-on-a-ferguson-street.html?_r=0

According to police logs, the county police received a report of the shooting at 12:07, and their officers began arriving around 12:15. Videos taken by bystanders show that in the first minutes after Mr. Brown’s death, officers quickly secured the area with yellow tape. In one video, several police cars were on the scene, and officers were standing close to their cars, a distance away from Mr. Brown’s body.

Around 12:10, a paramedic who happened to be nearby on another call approached Mr. Brown’s body, checked for a pulse, and observed the blood and “injuries incompatible with life,” said his supervisor, Chris Cebollero, the chief of emergency medical services at Christian Hospital. He estimated that it had been around 12:15 when a sheet was retrieved from an ambulance and used to cover Mr. Brown.

 

[hornadylnl]

Let's dispel that bogus talking point........

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/u...meline-4-hours-on-a-ferguson-street.html?_r=0

Myth dispelled.


What Officer Wilson and the Ferguson PD wouldn't give right now for video evidence that shows Brown initiating the assault and continuing the assault until the fatal shot was received. With said video, only those out of their mind would still believe the shoot was unjustified. No amount of verbal judo on the officers part would justify a non cop to initiate an assault on a cop. Without video, it's Officer Wilson's word against the witnesses which leaves room for doubt. As more evidence comes forwarded, that window of doubt is getting smaller. It's a shame it's taking days or weeks to eliminate the doubt.

 

[billt]

If Ferguson officers were wearing their body cameras, maybe they could. At this point, I don't see any evidence that Brown wasn't in the wrong. The autopsy blew the witnesses story out of the water.

Saw this article this morning on body cameras. I can't understand why every officer in the nation isn't beating down the doors of their superiors demanding cameras.

That 1 city's complaints went down 89% after using body cameras speaks volumes.

I agree. I shouldn't have said "unequivocal" in my post. I would be happy to see just one black person lean to the side that Michael Brown was at fault. Instead many of the blacks that were interviewed want the officer hung without a trial. That's nothing more than lynch mob mentality.

 

[billt]

As far as video cameras, I would be happy just to see a picture of the officers injuries. I keep hearing about all of these "orbital eye socket injuries". Well as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. If that picture exists, Brown is as guilty as sin. Nowhere in America is it permissible to pound on a cop until you break bones, and turn him black and blue, and not expect to get shot in the process.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You're trying to say Officer Go **** Yourself fits into scenario 1.

Yes and no. He fits scenario #1 in the fact that he's not a genuine threat. He does not fit scenario #1 in being justified, at least as far as I can tell from what's in the video. Both points I made in the original thread. Not even the people being threatened reacted with fear because they don't believe that cops = robbers.

My point is that changing one key fact, in this case that the person is a police officer, changes the whole scenario in the same way that the person is a gate guard. To remove the guns from the equation, you react differently to someone obstructing traffic with an orange vest, hard hat, and stop sign than you do someone in rags shaking a cup of coins. That one key fact, the person who's doing it, changes the whole scenario.

As such these attempts at drawing a parallel are intellectually dishonest, the same as saying you'd react the same to all four of the above scenarios and that you'd be equally justified because "pointing a gun is justification for deadly force." If you don't truly believe it, why play these games?

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes and no. He fits scenario #1 in the fact that he's not a genuine threat. He does not fit scenario #1 in being justified, at least as far as I can tell from what's in the video. Both points I made in the original thread. Not even the people being threatened reacted with fear because they don't believe that cops = robbers.

My point is that changing one key fact, in this case that the person is a police officer, changes the whole scenario in the same way that the person is a gate guard. To remove the guns from the equation, you react differently to someone obstructing traffic with an orange vest, hard hat, and stop sign than you do someone in rags shaking a cup of coins. That one key fact, the person who's doing it, changes the whole scenario.

As such these attempts at drawing a parallel are intellectually dishonest, the same as saying you'd react the same to all four of the above scenarios and that you'd be equally justified because "pointing a gun is justification for deadly force." If you don't truly believe it, why play these games?

Reasonable cops aren't robbers. This cop was out of his mind. He snapped and he was no longer rational. In my opinion, at that point he ceased being a police officer and became a criminal. Could you reasonably tell that no one in that crowd was in fear for their life?

 

[Denny347]

I'd be satisfied if a single officer would state UNEQUIVOCALLY that the officer I've been talking about was in the wrong.

Ummmmmm...I thought I did.

 

[billt]

The first post in this thread commented that, "If you point a gun at a policeman, you WILL get shot." I'm not seeing anything earthshaking being reveled in that statement. Who hasn't known that to be a fact over the last three quarters of a century or longer?

 

[public servant]

Ummmmmm...I thought I did.

You did. There is a dead horse that needed beating.

 

[churchmouse]

The first post in this thread commented that, "If you point a gun at a policeman, you WILL get shot." I'm not seeing anything earthshaking being reveled in that statement. Who hasn't known that to be a fact over the last three quarters of a century or longer?

I can not see anything different happening in this scenario.
Point one at me and see what happens.