CDZ Police justified shootings

[harmonica]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

 

[BULLDOG]

You're 8 times more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.

 

[harmonica]

You're 8 times more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.

that does not prove this shooting was unjustified

 

[BS Filter]

You're 8 times more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.

Terrorists don't shoot people.

 

[Anathema]

You're 8 times more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.

No I'm not. I go out of my way not to give officers a reason to interact with me.

When they do I am overly polite and deferential.

If I am carrying a weapon when I interact with an officer. I inform them of that fact up front.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

To determine whether or not this shooting is “undeniably justified” depends first on the standard being used - governmental law, or actual human rights, as these are not one and the same. If a person believes man’s law is valid where it contradicts with natural law, they’re operating from a position of cognitive dissonance, and their uninformed opinion is not worthy of consideration.

I only read through the case briefly, so I don’t know every detail, but here are the relevant factors...

As per human rights, the interference of police (or any other human being) is not justified if AS was within his rights to threaten someone with a gun in the first place. Having the gun and selling the CD’s are not relevant, regardless of legalities, unless either of these items were stolen (not just bootlegged, as this is not immoral, unless they are being portrayed as genuine, and had been sold to an expressly unsatisfied party on this basis, which would be fraud). Do we know why he was threatening someone, or if he actually did?

If interference was justified, shooting him was not justified unless he actually attempted to attack the policemen either with the gun, or with other force which would require deadly force as an act of self-defense. Simply resisting the arrest is not escalation.

It seems unlikely that both of these standards were met, though, it’s possible, given what I’ve read. It’s very important that we hold police to a very high standard of accountability, as granting them unequal license to kill is extremely dangerous. Resisting arrest in itself is not a natural law crime, and is not morally punishable unless there is an overwhelming reason to believe the person committed an act of immoral aggression, or is a clear and present danger.

 

[harmonica]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

To determine whether or not this shooting is “undeniably justified” depends first on the standard being used - governmental law, or actual human rights, as these are not one and the same. If a person believes man’s law is valid where it contradicts with natural law, they’re operating from a position of cognitive dissonance, and their uninformed opinion is not worthy of consideration.

I only read through the case briefly, so I don’t know every detail, but here are the relevant factors...

As per human rights, the interference of police (or any other human being) is not justified if AS was within his rights to threaten someone with a gun in the first place. Having the gun and selling the CD’s are not relevant, regardless of legalities, unless either of these items were stolen (not just bootlegged, as this is not immoral, unless they are being portrayed as genuine, and had been sold to an expressly unsatisfied party on this basis, which would be fraud). Do we know why he was threatening someone, or if he actually did?

If interference was justified, shooting him was not justified unless he actually attempted to attack the policemen either with the gun, or with other force which would require deadly force as an act of self-defense. Simply resisting the arrest is not escalation.

It seems unlikely that both of these standards were met, though, it’s possible, given what I’ve read. It’s very important that we hold police to a very high standard of accountability, as granting them unequal license to kill is extremely dangerous. Resisting arrest in itself is not a natural law crime, and is not morally punishable unless there is an overwhelming reason to believe the person committed an act of immoral aggression, or is a clear and present danger.

he was resisting and had a gun
so--he resisted and kept resisting....if the cops stop trying to restrain him--guess what??
AS can pull out the gun and KILL the cops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WTF?? that was more than justifiable
the cops gave LEGAL commands and the jackass dumbshit did not
more than justifiable --it's called self defense

 

[harmonica]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

To determine whether or not this shooting is “undeniably justified” depends first on the standard being used - governmental law, or actual human rights, as these are not one and the same. If a person believes man’s law is valid where it contradicts with natural law, they’re operating from a position of cognitive dissonance, and their uninformed opinion is not worthy of consideration.

I only read through the case briefly, so I don’t know every detail, but here are the relevant factors...

As per human rights, the interference of police (or any other human being) is not justified if AS was within his rights to threaten someone with a gun in the first place. Having the gun and selling the CD’s are not relevant, regardless of legalities, unless either of these items were stolen (not just bootlegged, as this is not immoral, unless they are being portrayed as genuine, and had been sold to an expressly unsatisfied party on this basis, which would be fraud). Do we know why he was threatening someone, or if he actually did?

If interference was justified, shooting him was not justified unless he actually attempted to attack the policemen either with the gun, or with other force which would require deadly force as an act of self-defense. Simply resisting the arrest is not escalation.

It seems unlikely that both of these standards were met, though, it’s possible, given what I’ve read. It’s very important that we hold police to a very high standard of accountability, as granting them unequal license to kill is extremely dangerous. Resisting arrest in itself is not a natural law crime, and is not morally punishable unless there is an overwhelming reason to believe the person committed an act of immoral aggression, or is a clear and present danger.

so this jackass is continuing to resist----and you think after the cops just leave him alone, he will NOT take the gun out and shoot????!!!!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

To determine whether or not this shooting is “undeniably justified” depends first on the standard being used - governmental law, or actual human rights, as these are not one and the same. If a person believes man’s law is valid where it contradicts with natural law, they’re operating from a position of cognitive dissonance, and their uninformed opinion is not worthy of consideration.

I only read through the case briefly, so I don’t know every detail, but here are the relevant factors...

As per human rights, the interference of police (or any other human being) is not justified if AS was within his rights to threaten someone with a gun in the first place. Having the gun and selling the CD’s are not relevant, regardless of legalities, unless either of these items were stolen (not just bootlegged, as this is not immoral, unless they are being portrayed as genuine, and had been sold to an expressly unsatisfied party on this basis, which would be fraud). Do we know why he was threatening someone, or if he actually did?

If interference was justified, shooting him was not justified unless he actually attempted to attack the policemen either with the gun, or with other force which would require deadly force as an act of self-defense. Simply resisting the arrest is not escalation.

It seems unlikely that both of these standards were met, though, it’s possible, given what I’ve read. It’s very important that we hold police to a very high standard of accountability, as granting them unequal license to kill is extremely dangerous. Resisting arrest in itself is not a natural law crime, and is not morally punishable unless there is an overwhelming reason to believe the person committed an act of immoral aggression, or is a clear and present danger.

he was resisting and had a gun
so--he resisted and kept resisting....if the cops stop trying to restrain him--guess what??
AS can pull out the gun and KILL the cops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WTF?? that was more than justifiable
the cops gave LEGAL commands and the jackass dumbshit did not
more than justifiable --it's called self defense

Well, that’s why I described the other considerations. The legality of a command is irrelevant, the morality of the command is all that matters. In other words, if they had just cause for restraining him in the first place, then they have just cause to finish the job. It’s only self-defense if they were acting defensively the entire time - on behalf of themselves or another. If a mugger tries to rob you, he can’t claim self-defense if he shoots you while you’re fighting him off.

 

[BULLDOG]

You're 8 times more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.

When you act like a liberal idiot you deserve it. Please get shot!

Sounds like trolling to me.

 

[miketx]

I'm sorry, I didn't see it the clean zone. By all means go ahead and lie.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm sorry, I didn't see it the clean zone. By all means go ahead and lie.

Perhaps you would care to disprove my claim instead of just trolling?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

Suggesting put gun in groin inform him what going to happen. Suspect decides to comply. If not he is nuts...LOL...

 

[Dan Stubbs]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

To determine whether or not this shooting is “undeniably justified” depends first on the standard being used - governmental law, or actual human rights, as these are not one and the same. If a person believes man’s law is valid where it contradicts with natural law, they’re operating from a position of cognitive dissonance, and their uninformed opinion is not worthy of consideration.

I only read through the case briefly, so I don’t know every detail, but here are the relevant factors...

As per human rights, the interference of police (or any other human being) is not justified if AS was within his rights to threaten someone with a gun in the first place. Having the gun and selling the CD’s are not relevant, regardless of legalities, unless either of these items were stolen (not just bootlegged, as this is not immoral, unless they are being portrayed as genuine, and had been sold to an expressly unsatisfied party on this basis, which would be fraud). Do we know why he was threatening someone, or if he actually did?

If interference was justified, shooting him was not justified unless he actually attempted to attack the policemen either with the gun, or with other force which would require deadly force as an act of self-defense. Simply resisting the arrest is not escalation.

It seems unlikely that both of these standards were met, though, it’s possible, given what I’ve read. It’s very important that we hold police to a very high standard of accountability, as granting them unequal license to kill is extremely dangerous. Resisting arrest in itself is not a natural law crime, and is not morally punishable unless there is an overwhelming reason to believe the person committed an act of immoral aggression, or is a clear and present danger.

Having a gun has a lot of weight in the shooting, resist and get to gun shot cops seems to be the reason for the resisting. If you have a gun you need to give it a lot of thought before resisting don't you think.?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

To determine whether or not this shooting is “undeniably justified” depends first on the standard being used - governmental law, or actual human rights, as these are not one and the same. If a person believes man’s law is valid where it contradicts with natural law, they’re operating from a position of cognitive dissonance, and their uninformed opinion is not worthy of consideration.

I only read through the case briefly, so I don’t know every detail, but here are the relevant factors...

As per human rights, the interference of police (or any other human being) is not justified if AS was within his rights to threaten someone with a gun in the first place. Having the gun and selling the CD’s are not relevant, regardless of legalities, unless either of these items were stolen (not just bootlegged, as this is not immoral, unless they are being portrayed as genuine, and had been sold to an expressly unsatisfied party on this basis, which would be fraud). Do we know why he was threatening someone, or if he actually did?

If interference was justified, shooting him was not justified unless he actually attempted to attack the policemen either with the gun, or with other force which would require deadly force as an act of self-defense. Simply resisting the arrest is not escalation.

It seems unlikely that both of these standards were met, though, it’s possible, given what I’ve read. It’s very important that we hold police to a very high standard of accountability, as granting them unequal license to kill is extremely dangerous. Resisting arrest in itself is not a natural law crime, and is not morally punishable unless there is an overwhelming reason to believe the person committed an act of immoral aggression, or is a clear and present danger.

Having a gun has a lot of weight in the shooting, resist and get to gun shot cops seems to be the reason for the resisting. If you have a gun you need to give it a lot of thought before resisting don't you think.?

Yes, certainly. But prudence isn't what we're discussing. We're trying to figure out if this shooting was "undeniably justified".

 

[Leo123]

You're 8 times more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.

That has noting to do with the OP, you're trolling.....

 

[Leo123]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

To determine whether or not this shooting is “undeniably justified” depends first on the standard being used - governmental law, or actual human rights, as these are not one and the same. If a person believes man’s law is valid where it contradicts with natural law, they’re operating from a position of cognitive dissonance, and their uninformed opinion is not worthy of consideration.

I only read through the case briefly, so I don’t know every detail, but here are the relevant factors...

As per human rights, the interference of police (or any other human being) is not justified if AS was within his rights to threaten someone with a gun in the first place. Having the gun and selling the CD’s are not relevant, regardless of legalities, unless either of these items were stolen (not just bootlegged, as this is not immoral, unless they are being portrayed as genuine, and had been sold to an expressly unsatisfied party on this basis, which would be fraud). Do we know why he was threatening someone, or if he actually did?

If interference was justified, shooting him was not justified unless he actually attempted to attack the policemen either with the gun, or with other force which would require deadly force as an act of self-defense. Simply resisting the arrest is not escalation.

It seems unlikely that both of these standards were met, though, it’s possible, given what I’ve read. It’s very important that we hold police to a very high standard of accountability, as granting them unequal license to kill is extremely dangerous. Resisting arrest in itself is not a natural law crime, and is not morally punishable unless there is an overwhelming reason to believe the person committed an act of immoral aggression, or is a clear and present danger.

It seems to me that the weight of the consequences should fall on the shoulders of the one who made the complaint. What do you want the cops to do, just ignore the emergent problem?

 

[BULLDOG]

You're 8 times more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.

That has noting to do with the OP, you're trolling.....

It has everything to do with the OP. Quit whining.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

this is a spin off from the slavery thread--
obviously about police shootings--blacks

Alton Sterling shooting --the cops did everything NOT to shoot
they did everything right
remember--Sterling knows he has a gun!!!!

1. someone calls the police that they were threatened by someone with a GUN
--do the police get there and start shooting-?-no
2. the cops order AS to put his hands on the hood of a car---Sterling ESCALATES the problem by not complying
...do the police shoot now?--no
3.they try to taze AS and it doesn't work..AS still not complying
...do they shoot NOW---?
no!!!
4. AS ESCALATES the problem even MORE by continuing to struggle with the police--with AS knowing he has a gun!!
...do the police shoot NOW?
NO--and NO
they tackle him and try to subdue him
finally after all of these non-lethal measures are used, they are forced to shoot AS who is now seen to have a GUN and HAS BEEN struggling/fighting with police

if this isn't justified--NOTHING is
undeniably justified
Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

To determine whether or not this shooting is “undeniably justified” depends first on the standard being used - governmental law, or actual human rights, as these are not one and the same. If a person believes man’s law is valid where it contradicts with natural law, they’re operating from a position of cognitive dissonance, and their uninformed opinion is not worthy of consideration.

I only read through the case briefly, so I don’t know every detail, but here are the relevant factors...

As per human rights, the interference of police (or any other human being) is not justified if AS was within his rights to threaten someone with a gun in the first place. Having the gun and selling the CD’s are not relevant, regardless of legalities, unless either of these items were stolen (not just bootlegged, as this is not immoral, unless they are being portrayed as genuine, and had been sold to an expressly unsatisfied party on this basis, which would be fraud). Do we know why he was threatening someone, or if he actually did?

If interference was justified, shooting him was not justified unless he actually attempted to attack the policemen either with the gun, or with other force which would require deadly force as an act of self-defense. Simply resisting the arrest is not escalation.

It seems unlikely that both of these standards were met, though, it’s possible, given what I’ve read. It’s very important that we hold police to a very high standard of accountability, as granting them unequal license to kill is extremely dangerous. Resisting arrest in itself is not a natural law crime, and is not morally punishable unless there is an overwhelming reason to believe the person committed an act of immoral aggression, or is a clear and present danger.

It seems to me that the weight of the consequences should fall on the shoulders of the one who made the complaint. What do you want the cops to do, just ignore the emergent problem?

If the complaint was anonymous, then when the police arrived at the scene, if there was no present danger and no one was complaining, they should have left.

 

[Leo123]

You're 8 times more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.

That has noting to do with the OP, you're trolling.....

It has everything to do with the OP. Quit whining.

Nonsense...your comparing terrorists to cops was smug and shows leftist groupthink which amounts to trolling your opinion in unrelated threads.