They would be alive today if they followed this advice: Walter Scott, Mike Brown, Eric Garner,

[Ravi]

Resisting arrest is generally, at worst, a misdemeanor. You are sick if you think misdemeanors deserve summary execution as the penalty.

Is that what the op stated?

Yes. Any attempt to excuse police brutality is an attempt to blame the victims.

Is that what the op did? Where did the op excuse police brutality?

You can't read your own post now? Have you suffered an affliction since you posted it?

Yeah, whatever. I will ask you this question only once. If they had complied with the police do you believe they would be alive today? Not going to answer that are you?

No one knows. Apparently cops killed a man in Baltimore that didn't resist arrest.

 

[Publius1787]

Yeah, he's got comprehension problems and assumes facts not in evidence. This is why a reasonable conversation can never be sought with the left. They refuse to look at the facts as they stand, add their own nonexistent "facts" and make up their minds before all the facts are in. When a pivotal question is asked like "Would they be alive today if they had not resisted arrest" they flee for the hills, ignore you, and counter with a strawman.

Show me the use of deadly force rules that say it is permissible to shoot an unarmed man in the back who is running away on foot after a traffic stop.

Your "resisting arrest" nonsense is bullshit.

Would they be alive today had they not resisted arrest? Forget guilt of innocence for a moment. Would they be alive if they had complied with the police officer? That's the only point I want to prove.

 

[g5000]

Yeah, he's got comprehension problems and assumes facts not in evidence. This is why a reasonable conversation can never be sought with the left. They refuse to look at the facts as they stand, add their own nonexistent "facts" and make up their minds before all the facts are in. When a pivotal question is asked like "Would they be alive today if they had not resisted arrest" they flee for the hills, ignore you, and counter with a strawman.

Show me the use of deadly force rules that say it is permissible to shoot an unarmed man in the back who is running away on foot after a traffic stop.

Your "resisting arrest" nonsense is bullshit.

Would they be alive today had they not resisted arrest? Forget guilt of innocence for a moment. Would they be alive if they had complied with the police officer? That's the only point I want to prove.

Would Walter Scott be alive today if the cop had observed the rules for use of deadly force?

 

[g5000]

They had his car. A simple matter to find out where he lives.

The cop violated the rules for use of deadly force.

End of story.

 

[Publius1787]

Yeah, he's got comprehension problems and assumes facts not in evidence. This is why a reasonable conversation can never be sought with the left. They refuse to look at the facts as they stand, add their own nonexistent "facts" and make up their minds before all the facts are in. When a pivotal question is asked like "Would they be alive today if they had not resisted arrest" they flee for the hills, ignore you, and counter with a strawman.

Show me the use of deadly force rules that say it is permissible to shoot an unarmed man in the back who is running away on foot after a traffic stop.

Your "resisting arrest" nonsense is bullshit.

Would they be alive today had they not resisted arrest? Forget guilt of innocence for a moment. Would they be alive if they had complied with the police officer? That's the only point I want to prove.

Would Walter Scott be alive today if the cop had observed the rules for use of deadly force?

Very much likely. Now answer my question.

 

[g5000]

Yeah, he's got comprehension problems and assumes facts not in evidence. This is why a reasonable conversation can never be sought with the left. They refuse to look at the facts as they stand, add their own nonexistent "facts" and make up their minds before all the facts are in. When a pivotal question is asked like "Would they be alive today if they had not resisted arrest" they flee for the hills, ignore you, and counter with a strawman.

Show me the use of deadly force rules that say it is permissible to shoot an unarmed man in the back who is running away on foot after a traffic stop.

Your "resisting arrest" nonsense is bullshit.

Would they be alive today had they not resisted arrest? Forget guilt of innocence for a moment. Would they be alive if they had complied with the police officer? That's the only point I want to prove.

Would Walter Scott be alive today if the cop had observed the rules for use of deadly force?

Very much likely. Now answer my question.

If Scott had not run, the cop probably would not have murdered him.

He was not resisting arrest. You have to be under arrest to resist arrest. He was receiving a traffic citation.

Why did the cop shoot him for a traffic violation?

 

[Publius1787]

They had his car. A simple matter to find out where he lives.

The cop violated the rules for use of deadly force.

End of story.

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

 

[Nosmo King]

They had his car. A simple matter to find out where he lives.

The cop violated the rules for use of deadly force.

End of story.

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

 

[Publius1787]

Yeah, he's got comprehension problems and assumes facts not in evidence. This is why a reasonable conversation can never be sought with the left. They refuse to look at the facts as they stand, add their own nonexistent "facts" and make up their minds before all the facts are in. When a pivotal question is asked like "Would they be alive today if they had not resisted arrest" they flee for the hills, ignore you, and counter with a strawman.

Show me the use of deadly force rules that say it is permissible to shoot an unarmed man in the back who is running away on foot after a traffic stop.

Your "resisting arrest" nonsense is bullshit.

Would they be alive today had they not resisted arrest? Forget guilt of innocence for a moment. Would they be alive if they had complied with the police officer? That's the only point I want to prove.

Would Walter Scott be alive today if the cop had observed the rules for use of deadly force?

Very much likely. Now answer my question.

If Scott had not run, the cop probably would not have murdered him.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to hear. Resisting arrest and fighting police officers increases police mistakes dramatically. It may not be a justifiable, defensible, or righteous, but incidental/accidental deaths resulting from almost every incident of blacks getting killed by cops recently have been of those resisting arrest. So compliance would dramatically reduce the number of killings whereas the guilt or innocence of the officer making the arrest is in question.

 

[Publius1787]

They had his car. A simple matter to find out where he lives.

The cop violated the rules for use of deadly force.

End of story.

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

 

[Nosmo King]

They had his car. A simple matter to find out where he lives.

The cop violated the rules for use of deadly force.

End of story.

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

Eric Garner was under control. He was in an illegal choke hold. Walter Scott was shot inb the back, hardly acceptable police procedure. Tamir Rice was shot with 2 second of the arrival of the police. He was never given the opportunity to resist. The circumstances of Michael Brown's murder are not clear enough to render judgment on.

But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of poor policing, poor training, poor implementation of community police standards. And this pattern certainly provides a clearer snapshot of the discontent of the community, their suspicions and fears of police and our need to correct the problem before it gets worse, as it most certainly will

 

[Publius1787]

They had his car. A simple matter to find out where he lives.

The cop violated the rules for use of deadly force.

End of story.

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

Eric Garner was under control. He was in an illegal choke hold. Walter Scott was shot inb the back, hardly acceptable police procedure. Tamir Rice was shot with 2 second of the arrival of the police. He was never given the opportunity to resist. The circumstances of Michael Brown's murder are not clear enough to render judgment on.

But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of poor policing, poor training, poor implementation of community police standards. And this pattern certainly provides a clearer snapshot of the discontent of the community, their suspicions and fears of police and our need to correct the problem before it gets worse, as it most certainly will

Indeed, poor policing. Ok. Got it. But would they have been killed if they weren't resisting arrest?

 

[Nosmo King]

They had his car. A simple matter to find out where he lives.

The cop violated the rules for use of deadly force.

End of story.

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

Eric Garner was under control. He was in an illegal choke hold. Walter Scott was shot inb the back, hardly acceptable police procedure. Tamir Rice was shot with 2 second of the arrival of the police. He was never given the opportunity to resist. The circumstances of Michael Brown's murder are not clear enough to render judgment on.

But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of poor policing, poor training, poor implementation of community police standards. And this pattern certainly provides a clearer snapshot of the discontent of the community, their suspicions and fears of police and our need to correct the problem before it gets worse, as it most certainly will

Indeed, poor policing. Ok. Got it. But would they have been killed if they weren't resisting arrest?

They should not have been killed. It's not as if resisting arrest is a capital offense. If poorly trained police had not been on the scene, the answer is no.

Blaming the victim is not a responsible action.

 

[Publius1787]

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

Eric Garner was under control. He was in an illegal choke hold. Walter Scott was shot inb the back, hardly acceptable police procedure. Tamir Rice was shot with 2 second of the arrival of the police. He was never given the opportunity to resist. The circumstances of Michael Brown's murder are not clear enough to render judgment on.

But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of poor policing, poor training, poor implementation of community police standards. And this pattern certainly provides a clearer snapshot of the discontent of the community, their suspicions and fears of police and our need to correct the problem before it gets worse, as it most certainly will

Indeed, poor policing. Ok. Got it. But would they have been killed if they weren't resisting arrest?

They should not have been killed. It's not as if resisting arrest is a capital offense. If poorly trained police had not been on the scene, the answer is no.

Blaming the victim is not a responsible action.

You may very well be correct. No one here is blaming the victim. I asked would they be alive today had they not resisted arrest? It's a simple question that you refuse to answer. You haven't given me a yes or a no which means you know the answer but refuse to tell it to me. How about that?

 

[Nosmo King]

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

Eric Garner was under control. He was in an illegal choke hold. Walter Scott was shot inb the back, hardly acceptable police procedure. Tamir Rice was shot with 2 second of the arrival of the police. He was never given the opportunity to resist. The circumstances of Michael Brown's murder are not clear enough to render judgment on.

But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of poor policing, poor training, poor implementation of community police standards. And this pattern certainly provides a clearer snapshot of the discontent of the community, their suspicions and fears of police and our need to correct the problem before it gets worse, as it most certainly will

Indeed, poor policing. Ok. Got it. But would they have been killed if they weren't resisting arrest?

They should not have been killed. It's not as if resisting arrest is a capital offense. If poorly trained police had not been on the scene, the answer is no.

Blaming the victim is not a responsible action.

You may very well be correct. No one here is blaming the victim. I asked would they be alive today had they not resisted arrest? It's a simple question that you refuse to answer. You haven't given me a yes or a no which means you know the answer but refuse to tell it to me. How about that?

If they were resisting arrest, they SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN KILLED. Resisting arrest is the excuse used by inept police to cover their tracks. Would they still be alive had they not resisted arrest? Yes. Should the police used deadly force? Absolutely not.

Blaming their deaths on resisting arrest only serves to rationalize bad police tactics. And that's not a responsible action.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They had his car. A simple matter to find out where he lives.

The cop violated the rules for use of deadly force.

End of story.

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

Eric Garner was under control. He was in an illegal choke hold. Walter Scott was shot inb the back, hardly acceptable police procedure. Tamir Rice was shot with 2 second of the arrival of the police. He was never given the opportunity to resist. The circumstances of Michael Brown's murder are not clear enough to render judgment on.

But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of poor policing, poor training, poor implementation of community police standards. And this pattern certainly provides a clearer snapshot of the discontent of the community, their suspicions and fears of police and our need to correct the problem before it gets worse, as it most certainly will

Indeed, poor policing. Ok. Got it. But would they have been killed if they weren't resisting arrest?

The consequences for resisting isnt a broken back. You're framing it as if killing someone is the inevitable result of resisting.

Someone gets hit by a drunk driver and you can use the same slick questioning:

Yeah yeah, drunk ok...BUT would they have been killed if they werent walking?

 

[Publius1787]

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

Eric Garner was under control. He was in an illegal choke hold. Walter Scott was shot inb the back, hardly acceptable police procedure. Tamir Rice was shot with 2 second of the arrival of the police. He was never given the opportunity to resist. The circumstances of Michael Brown's murder are not clear enough to render judgment on.

But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of poor policing, poor training, poor implementation of community police standards. And this pattern certainly provides a clearer snapshot of the discontent of the community, their suspicions and fears of police and our need to correct the problem before it gets worse, as it most certainly will

Indeed, poor policing. Ok. Got it. But would they have been killed if they weren't resisting arrest?

They should not have been killed. It's not as if resisting arrest is a capital offense. If poorly trained police had not been on the scene, the answer is no.

Blaming the victim is not a responsible action.

You may very well be correct. No one here is blaming the victim. I asked would they be alive today had they not resisted arrest? It's a simple question that you refuse to answer. You haven't given me a yes or a no which means you know the answer but refuse to tell it to me. How about that?

If they were resisting arrest, they SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN KILLED. Resisting arrest is the excuse used by inept police to cover their tracks. Would they still be alive had they not resisted arrest? Yes. Should the police used deadly force? Absolutely not.

Agreed. Resisting arrest is not grounds for the use of deadly force so as long as they are not using deadly force in their attempt to resist arrest. However, the chances of an accident skyrockets when you resist arrest. With this in mind, and simply playing the numbers game, a certain amount of arrests on those resisting arrests will inevitably result in accidental or mistaken use of deadly force. No, it isn't justifiable. However, the chances of getting killed increases.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Random child gets shot:

Yeah yeah, flying bullets but let me ask: Would that child be alive if they werent in the line of gunfire?

 

[Publius1787]

Indeed, he may have. But, would the criminal have been killed if he had not resisted arrest?

Is resisting arrest a capital offense? Are there no bounds on police behavior? Should cops kill with impunity? Are police trained to shoot first, ask questions later?

Could the comportment of the police, their interactions with the community culpable in the eroding relationship between police and civilians?

I have answered all of these questions already in this thread. I likely answered them the same way you would have. The question was would they be alive had they not resisted arrest? Will you answer that one? Is that question to uncomfortable for to approach honestly?

Eric Garner was under control. He was in an illegal choke hold. Walter Scott was shot inb the back, hardly acceptable police procedure. Tamir Rice was shot with 2 second of the arrival of the police. He was never given the opportunity to resist. The circumstances of Michael Brown's murder are not clear enough to render judgment on.

But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of poor policing, poor training, poor implementation of community police standards. And this pattern certainly provides a clearer snapshot of the discontent of the community, their suspicions and fears of police and our need to correct the problem before it gets worse, as it most certainly will

Indeed, poor policing. Ok. Got it. But would they have been killed if they weren't resisting arrest?

The consequences for resisting isnt a broken back. You're framing it as if killing someone is the inevitable result of resisting.

Someone gets hit by a drunk driver and you can use the same slick questioning:

Yeah yeah, drunk ok...BUT would they have been killed if they werent walking?

Walking is legal the last time I checked. Both drinking and driving and resisting arrests is further grounds for arrest. Resisting arrests affords the cops a certain amount of force to bring a criminal into custody. Killing someone isn't an inevitable result of resisting arrest as most people who resist arrest don't die as a consequence. However, it will certainly increase the chances of an officer making a mistake. There will always be people who are killed resisting arrest because the nature of resisting arrest authorizes a certain amount of force. Playing the numbers game it is impossible to prevent all officers from mistakenly using deadly force whilst someone resists arrest. It will inevitably happen. The only point to be made to those being arrested is that by resisting arrest you are playing the numbers game. Indeed, all of these people would be alive today had they not resisted arrest.

 

[Publius1787]

Random child gets shot:

Yeah yeah, flying bullets but let me ask: Would that child be alive if they werent in the line of gunfire?

Yes. See how easy that was for me to answer? Why do I have such a hard time getting answers for my question?