Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Getting out of a vehicle, no video footage of him holding a gun, (they could made an honest mistake thinking he had a gun in his hands) no threatening action from the guy= shoot and kill?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Police Can't Shoot Black People
- Thread starter Neo Deist
- Start date
Getting out of a vehicle, no video footage of him holding a gun, (they could made an honest mistake thinking he had a gun in his hands) no threatening action from the guy= shoot and kill?
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
There is a big flaw in action-reaction, as far as I'm concerned... it is a free license to shoot and kill no matter what.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Well, legal experts and attorneys from all backgrounds from across the country disagree with you (myself included as a CSI) as it has been scientifically proven...I think we'll go with the professionals.
Feel free to apply for a position at the Court of Public Opinion.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Well, legal experts and attorneys from all backgrounds from across the country disagree with you also.
What exactly is "scientifically" proven? The gun with his fingerprints and DNA could have been found inside the vehicle. I see no evidence or video of him holding a gun, being threatening, or continuous dash cam footage of the gun being by his body.
As CSI, I can understand the bias towards law enforcement. They would always be given the benefit of the doubt. I also understand putting blind faith in their mere words and citing that as scientific evidence.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
You really require sources for attorneys or "experts" who disagree with the laws currently in place for police to kill?
There are plenty of litigation meetings, hearings always going on federally and in states to come up with better solutions/alterations to the current laws which "police are invisible mentality," "can kill based on belief mentality," and the "near impossibility to convict an officer." Look them up.
There are plenty of police brutality and police misconduct attorneys around the country. Look them up. The Scott family had groups of attorneys.
There are plenty of attorneys and experts who make a case for excessive and unnecessary force used in this example. Look them up.
Try not to see only one side.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
No, I require sources for your...claims...that are most likely made up off the top of your head.
You are arguing against a precedent that has long been established in court, backed by scientific data, and upheld at the highest levels of judicial review. Stop while you are ahead...
Last edited:
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Beliefs aren't backed up by scientific data. If an officer "believes" someone a threat, they can shoot anyone. They "believe" that someone is a threat. This warrants its justification. Yes that is law. Am I arguing this? No.
Length of establishment is irrelevant.
If someone saw a police officer with a gun and believed them to be a threat, is it legal for them to shoot them? What scientific data states that because someone is law enforcement, they have superior judgement, superior rights, warrant superior trust, warrant superior protection by law?
You really have no idea what I'm arguing, just making things up off the top of your head. I'm aware of both sides of the equation.
No charges should have been brought by the "shooting part." The officer, whether black or white is irrelevant. They acted on their judgement which always protects them.
The entire thing has nothing to do if the guy was black. It has nothing to do with race.
There is no evidence the guy had a gun in his hand. If there is no evidence of the guy having a gun in his hand, there is no evidence he was a threat. An officer "saying" he did is not evidence. Multiple officers saying he did is not evidence. It is faith on words. A picture of a gun laying on the ground is not evidence. It wouldn't be difficult at all to transfer to the gun from the car next to the body. There is no scientific data that suggests law enforcement are worthy of superior trust. Any crime scene investigator doesn't determine it as evidence that a guy has a gun in his hand because he is wearing a holster on his ankle. The cops could have mistook him in a honest mistake for having a gun in his hand, killed him, realized he didn't have a gun on him, realized their reputation and careers would be over, their precinct would look horrid, and covered that part up.
Whether you like it or not, there are so called "experts" and attorneys on the opposite side of the spectrum. Not everyone is blue biased and view them as superior in all that they do.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
I don't think anyone here has a clue what it is exactly that you are arguing.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
I guess a few things we agree on are that it isn't a matter of race, law enforcement can shoot and kill anyone they "believe" is a threat, that they shouldn't be charged for that particular act because it's a law they can always get away with for justification, there was a gun found at the scene in which had fingerprints and DNA(where I disagree is on the hard evidence that it was found in his hand and by the body, as the scene also involves the vehicle.) I also disagree about the judgement made by the shooting officer, as I didn't see evidence of the guy being a threat and worthy of being shot and killed a few seconds after getting out of his vehicle in which the "drop the gun" shouts were made while he was still in the vehicle. I also disagree that it is evidence that someone has a gun in their hand JUST because they have an empty holster on their ankle. I also disagree that every attorney and so-called professional or expert warrants superior trust. I also disagree that every attorney and so-called professional or expert live in the fairy tale world that law enforcement officers can shoot or kill anyone they want based on "beliefs" and always get away with it. I also disagree that many of the stuff you claim to be scientific data is truly blind faith, having to put trust in words as evidence, and claiming certain evidence when it's nothing more than blind faith. In which case, correct me if I am wrong, that you will always believe and put your trust in what the officials say happened.
Make more sense?
Last edited:
Not complying with a police officer's repeated commands to drop a gun that one is holding certainly justifies the officer's use of deadly force. Always.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
I disagree with your disagreements because when it comes to legal precedent, you are found lacking.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Sure, the key words being "that one is holding."
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
What is lacking, in your opinion? Vague response.
You cannot say that the guy was holding a gun outside of the vehicle with no hard evidence, you are found lacking. It is reasonable to think that with all of law enforcement vehicles and dash cams at the scene, not a single one has provided evidence the guy was holding the gun outside of the vehicle. It is just as plausible to think he did drop the gun inside of the car and came outside and was no threat.
You cannot say that because DNA and fingerprints were found on a gun at the scene, that the gun was in hand outside of the vehicle rather than inside of it.
I do agree, that with legality... law enforcers "mere words" are taken to be the same as 100% hard physical evidence to many and believed by many that law enforcers are superhumans in which they are never capable of lying, or covering up an honest error in judgement.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
That's really all that you have? Vague again.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
No, I am just moving on to more important things like taking a ****.
Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Best wishes on your quest, and thanks for the chat.
esmith
Veteran Member
Well it depends on the situation and how the LEO sees the situation.
So, if one has any sense one does not disobey the orders from a LEO, one does not exhibit a firearm in a critical situation when a LEO is present. And one does not present a threat to a LEO. I could go on but I think you get the point. But I'm sure that is not what you are looking for........
I think you are doing a little trolling here, No make that a lot of trolling.
esmith
Veteran Member
Until proven otherwise yes.