No Such Thing As An “UNARMED MAN”

[protectionist]

The media. Loaded with anti-police, liberal bias, love doing stories about cops shooting suspects whom they label as “unarmed”. Just last night, 60 Minutes did a segment on what they called a police officer shooting an “unarmed man”.

Actually, it makes no difference if a suspect has a gun or doesn’t have one. In reality, ALL suspects are armed. The distance between the cop and who he shoots, is really more relevant than what the suspect may be carrying. If a suspect is far away, and his hands are visible without a gun, it may make no sense to shoot him. Without possession of a gun and being far away, he would be no threat (at least temporarily). Rarely is this the case though in media reports of of police shootings of so-called “unarmed men”.

In every one that I recall (except the Walter Scott shooting), the suspect was within the infamous 21 foot zone, that crime experts assess as a danger zone distance.

There are a number of ways that a so-called “unarmed man” could still be a lethal threat, with or without a common weapon.


1. If his hands go out of sight, he could be reaching for a gun in his p0ocket, in a hidden holster, in a car. In a backpack, etc. Grabbing that gun and shooting take a fraction of a second.

2. A suspect without a gun (but within the 21 foot zone), could suddenly charge at an officer (or CCW holder), and fight him for HIS gun. So.. in a sense, at close range, potentially, the suspect is always armed, with the officer’s own gun.

3. A suspect, without a gun, could be armed in a multitude of ways – steel tipped shoes, cigarette lighter, golf ball, rocks, ball point pen, sharp stick, string, belt, poison, acid, etc., all with lethal consequences, if the suspect is given the opportunity to use these things (a one second hesitation could be enough).

 

[Fenton Lum]

The power of the corporate state to murder any citizen in the streets must be maintained and come to be seen by the masses as "normal". Yours is just another authoritarian society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another uninformed OP. Merely opinion.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The media. Loaded with anti-police, liberal bias, love doing stories about cops shooting suspects whom they label as “unarmed”. Just last night, 60 Minutes did a segment on what they called a police officer shooting an “unarmed man”.

Actually, it makes no difference if a suspect has a gun or doesn’t have one. In reality, ALL suspects are armed. The distance between the cop and who he shoots, is really more relevant than what the suspect may be carrying. If a suspect is far away, and his hands are visible without a gun, it may make no sense to shoot him. Without possession of a gun and being far away, he would be no threat (at least temporarily). Rarely is this the case though in media reports of of police shootings of so-called “unarmed men”.

In every one that I recall (except the Walter Scott shooting), the suspect was within the infamous 21 foot zone, that crime experts assess as a danger zone distance.

There are a number of ways that a so-called “unarmed man” could still be a lethal threat, with or without a common weapon.


1. If his hands go out of sight, he could be reaching for a gun in his p0ocket, in a hidden holster, in a car. In a backpack, etc. Grabbing that gun and shooting take a fraction of a second.

2. A suspect without a gun (but within the 21 foot zone), could suddenly charge at an officer (or CCW holder), and fight him for HIS gun. So.. in a sense, at close range, potentially, the suspect is always armed, with the officer’s own gun.

3. A suspect, without a gun, could be armed in a multitude of ways – steel tipped shoes, cigarette lighter, golf ball, rocks, ball point pen, sharp stick, string, belt, poison, acid, etc., all with lethal consequences, if the suspect is given the opportunity to use these things (a one second hesitation could be enough).

We're already murdering citizens on the streets of america because the could or might do something.

 

[protectionist]

The power of the corporate state to murder any citizen in the streets must be maintained and come to be seen by the masses as "normal". Yours is just another authoritarian society.

The power of blacks to exercise black privilege (affirmative action, commit crime, etc) must be maintained, and come to be seen by the masses as "normal". Yours is just another authoritarian society (ie, the racist black community)

 

[Fenton Lum]

The power of the corporate state to murder any citizen in the streets must be maintained and come to be seen by the masses as "normal". Yours is just another authoritarian society.

The power of blacks to exercise black privilege (affirmative action, commit crime, etc) must be maintained, and come to be seen by the masses as "normal". Yours is just another authoritarian society (ie, the racist black community)

Imagine if your founders hadn't been too deadassed lazy to do their own labor.

 

[protectionist]

Imagine if your founders hadn't been too deadassed lazy to do their own labor.

I'd rather imagine that liberal loons could stop acting like fools.

 

[protectionist]

We're already murdering citizens on the streets of america because the could or might do something.

YOU are ? (you said "we") Maybe you'r referring to all the killers of cops, huh ?

 

[protectionist]

If the liberal scatterbrains running our schools were really doing their jobs, they'd know that when a suspect's hands disapppear, cops cannot know if a gun will instantly appear and shoot them.

Cops, in self-defense, sometimes are compelled to shoot suspects, who allow their hands to disappear from view of the cop. This is as much , if not more, the fault of the cop-ignorant education system, as it is the ignorant suspect.