CDZ Police justified shootings

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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

Less than 1% of Police shootings are unjustified.
The Police have a tough job.
They can be murdered every time that they go to work.

 

[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.

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

If you continue with personal insults, I will report you

 

[Rambunctious]

Sounds like trolling to me

^^^so does that^^^

 

[Rambunctious]

If you continue with personal insults, I will report you

Are you the one ratting us all out?...

 

[BULLDOG]

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

Less than 1% of Police shootings are unjustified.
The Police have a tough job.
They can be murdered every time that they go to work.

Anybody can be murdered every time they have contact with some cops.

 

[BULLDOG]

If you continue with personal insults, I will report you

Are you the one ratting us all out?...

No. I usually don't do that.

 

[Rambunctious]

If you continue with personal insults, I will report you

Are you the one ratting us all out?...

No. I usually don't do that.

Usually?....come on man...grow a pair...we all get insulted here daily...have you seen what they call me? oh yeah wait you are one of them that call me that...lol

 

[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.

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.

what??!!so if the police get an anonymous complaint about a sniper at a Las Vegas hotel, or a shooter at a Parkland school, they should get there and just leave??

 

[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.

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".

someone with a gun is struggling/resisting with the police...you say the police are not justified in shooting??

 

[BULLDOG]

If you continue with personal insults, I will report you

Are you the one ratting us all out?...

No. I usually don't do that.

Usually?....come on man...grow a pair...we all get insulted here daily...have you seen what they call me? oh yeah wait you are one of them that call me that...lol

Quit whining. I got reported for making a gun nut cry in the rubber room. Now, back to the thread.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
2. violent and intimidating gang activity
   • street terrorism

Please note that the fundamental nature or morality of an act is not altered by its "legality". It's also worthy of note that the current trend in this country of police getting away with murder in the streets, while cop killers are hunted at any expense, is a purposeful attempt to send the public a message: "Our agents are untouchable. Disobedience - even self-defense - will not be tolerated." This is relevant because if Sterling didn't actually commit a moral crime, the police trying to arrest him was an act of aggression, thus self-defense would be justified.

Just sayin'.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

what??!! so if the police get an anonymous complaint about a sniper at a Las Vegas hotel, or a shooter at a Parkland school, they should get there and just leave??

"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." - Me

 

[harmonica]

what??!! so if the police get an anonymous complaint about a sniper at a Las Vegas hotel, or a shooter at a Parkland school, they should get there and just leave??

"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." - Me

so the complaint is someone has a gun.....they see AS and should just leave?? they should not investigate?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

someone with a gun is struggling/resisting with the police...you say the police are not justified in shooting??

Not unless their attempt to restrain him was morally justified. Otherwise, they're just attackers, and AS was acting in self-defense. Image they were not policemen, and instead were just concerned citizens. That helps us to get around the moral blind spot regarding government agents. All humans have the same rights - wearing a costume doesn't grant special rights or exemptions from morality.

 

[harmonica]

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

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
2. violent and intimidating gang activity
   • street terrorism

Please note that the fundamental nature or morality of an act is not altered by its "legality". It's also worthy of note that the current trend in this country of police getting away with murder in the streets, while cop killers are hunted at any expense, is a purposeful attempt to send the public a message: "Our agents are untouchable. Disobedience - even self-defense - will not be tolerated." This is relevant because if Sterling didn't actually commit a moral crime, the police trying to arrest him was an act of aggression, thus self-defense would be justified.

Just sayin'.

EGarner resisted arrest
so--I ask you--when someone resists arrest, the cops should say ''ok --we won't arrest you''??

 

[Brian Blackwell]

what??!! so if the police get an anonymous complaint about a sniper at a Las Vegas hotel, or a shooter at a Parkland school, they should get there and just leave??

"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." - Me

so the complaint is someone has a gun.....they see AS and should just leave?? they should not investigate?

Yes, investigate, and if there is no present danger, or anyone complaining, the investigation is over. They were attempting to restrain him. Again, I don't know all the facts of the case, but I didn't read anything about a present individual saying he did something wrong against them, or anything about him doing anything wrong when the police arrived.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
2. violent and intimidating gang activity
   • street terrorism

Please note that the fundamental nature or morality of an act is not altered by its "legality". It's also worthy of note that the current trend in this country of police getting away with murder in the streets, while cop killers are hunted at any expense, is a purposeful attempt to send the public a message: "Our agents are untouchable. Disobedience - even self-defense - will not be tolerated." This is relevant because if Sterling didn't actually commit a moral crime, the police trying to arrest him was an act of aggression, thus self-defense would be justified.

Just sayin'.

EGarner resisted arrest
so--I ask you--when someone resists arrest, the cops should say ''ok --we won't arrest you''??

Garner wasn't doing anything morally wrong, so yes, the cops should not attempt to arrest him. Their problem is that they've bought into the lie that "following orders", regardless of their moral nature, makes anything they do justifiable.

 

[harmonica]

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

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
2. violent and intimidating gang activity
   • street terrorism

Please note that the fundamental nature or morality of an act is not altered by its "legality". It's also worthy of note that the current trend in this country of police getting away with murder in the streets, while cop killers are hunted at any expense, is a purposeful attempt to send the public a message: "Our agents are untouchable. Disobedience - even self-defense - will not be tolerated." This is relevant because if Sterling didn't actually commit a moral crime, the police trying to arrest him was an act of aggression, thus self-defense would be justified.

Just sayin'.

EG over 30 arrests over many years
then he resists arrests
he's not a good example for your point

 

[harmonica]

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

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
2. violent and intimidating gang activity
   • street terrorism

Please note that the fundamental nature or morality of an act is not altered by its "legality". It's also worthy of note that the current trend in this country of police getting away with murder in the streets, while cop killers are hunted at any expense, is a purposeful attempt to send the public a message: "Our agents are untouchable. Disobedience - even self-defense - will not be tolerated." This is relevant because if Sterling didn't actually commit a moral crime, the police trying to arrest him was an act of aggression, thus self-defense would be justified.

Just sayin'.

EGarner resisted arrest
so--I ask you--when someone resists arrest, the cops should say ''ok --we won't arrest you''??

Garner wasn't doing anything morally wrong, so yes, the cops should not attempt to arrest him. Their problem is that they've bought into the lie that "following orders", regardless of their moral nature, makes anything they do justifiable.

morally has nothing to do with it ....the cops legally wanted to detain him and he resisted--simple

 

[harmonica]

what??!! so if the police get an anonymous complaint about a sniper at a Las Vegas hotel, or a shooter at a Parkland school, they should get there and just leave??

"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." - Me

so the complaint is someone has a gun.....they see AS and should just leave?? they should not investigate?

Yes, investigate, and if there is no present danger, or anyone complaining, the investigation is over. They were attempting to restrain him. Again, I don't know all the facts of the case, but I didn't read anything about a present individual saying he did something wrong against them, or anything about him doing anything wrong when the police arrived.

yes--you just said it--you don't know the facts
...but the people that investigated it and said the cops were justified, do know the facts
case closed ..you have no argument--see below
...so--
1. cops called for someone with a gun wearing a RED shirt selling CDs

At about 12:30 a.m. on July 5, someone called 911 to report that a black man wearing a red shirt and selling CDs had “pulled a pistol” and had a gun in his pocket. Salamoni and Lake responded and saw Sterling, dressed in a red shirt and standing by a table with a stack of CDs.

The encounter lasted less than 90 seconds from that moment until the firing of the final shot. Officers told Sterling to put his hands on the hood of a car, and when he did not, a struggle ensued.

Justice Department reveals decision not to charge officers in Alton Sterling case