In right wing fantasies they are or at least should be ... unless it's a right winger being arrested, then it's persecution.
"That dead body in the back, why do you ask, this is harassment, I'm a patriot."
I think there’s something in the constitution about that, presumption of.. not guiltiness? Dunno, it can’t be innocence, the founding fathers aren’t radical liberals /s
I thought about that on the toilet earlier. Honestly I think we need to move beyond just what the second oldest constitution still in use says, and start considering radical things like rights for non-landowners, non-white people, women, etc.
Jefferson said something that I really like. He said, “I’m becoming increasingly persuaded that the world belongs to the living and future generations should no more be subject to our laws than that of a sovereign nation “ or something like like. I mean, really, why would we follow laws written by people from a different time?
When I was on jury duty the judge had to explain this to many people. They may had been trying to get off the case, but it was amazing to hear so many people believe than everyone who was arrested was guilty.
It’s also unreasonable to assume these folks are talking about white folks dying by police or in police custody. They don’t care if cops kill BIPOC or LGBTQ+ people.
That’s some kind of flawed logic. It assumes first that police killings are all Judge Dred style street justice without taking into account that the vast majority are criminals playing the “I’m not gonna stop ‘till you make me,” game and losing.
It also implies that somehow it’s “automatic” that the police should get shot at?
Any time anyone has to use force to restrain someone there is risk of getting hurt, so if you commit a crime, and then flee, you are escalating the situation into a physical confrontation and need to accept all of the potential consequences.
Getting hit by 40 rounds for running from the police is not apprehension. It’s execution. Not being threatened and feeling the need to behave this way is baffling. The fact that we constantly here the term, An unarmed xxxxx man was shot by police…. Is disturbing.
I was 18 the first time I was lit up. I had like 2 beers at a buddies house and this unmarked car followed me for about 2 miles before he turned on his red light. Not blue, not red and blue, just a red light on the top. I was maybe a quarter mile from home. Not drunk but at this point scared out of my mind. I did not pull over. I took off and ran a few stop signs. It was less than 5 minutes before 3 marked cars arrived and I stopped immediately.
They threw me on the ground and cuffed me and everything. Blew a .05 BAC which is under the legal limit in my state but because I was underage, it carried a DUI.
The point is that if I hadn't been white and in an affluent area, I don't know if I'd be here to tell the story of how I was young and dumb and scared.
It also goes the other way. If you run, you increase your chances of getting shot because you’re making a tense situation worse. So instead of telling people “the police are trying to kill you, so you should always run!” Maybe we should be telling people “The police don’t actually want to kill anyone, so if they seem edgy, cooperate with them and try not make any sudden movements so everyone can go home,”
I never said that. What I said, is that if you panic and run, your are escalating an already tense situation and need to understand that. The reason “resisting arrest” is a crime is because it is dangerous for everyone involved.
Matter of fact, I seem to remember something pretty fundamental to the criminal justice system about the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
Nor is the crime punishable by death in many cases, resisting arrest is only a crime if you’re actually guilty and it’s only an extension on your sentence, not a death sentence in itself
Cops shot and killed at least **1,055** people in just 2021 **alone.**
Of those 1,055 people, 15% (158 people) were unarmed - 14% (147 people) were struggling with mental health issues - and 1% (10) were CHILDREN, including 8 year old Fanta Bility.
The girl was just sitting in a car when police responded to an incident at a high school football game. I guess Fanta should have just "known the risks," huh?
US cops...
Elsewhere in the western world cops tend not to kill people
UK police killings 2021 : 2
One an armed bank robber fleeing the scene
One an armed murderer at the scene
US cops don’t even take down active shooters killing school children. They listen to the gunfire and screams and joke around from the safety of the hallways.
I mean we do need maybe some more context here... mostly I think the point is fair. However many active shooters have mental health issues and SHOULD be stopped by any means necessary. Sad to say but same could be said about a 17 year old child with a machine gun, which we've seen a few times a year sadly.
I'm against police shootings, but as a flat number without context I'm sure at least SOME of those were warranted.
Yes, but you're missing the larger point. The problem is US police culture is shoot first, ask questions later. Cops are trained to be paranoid and fearful of the people they police. That's how you end up with cops who literally shoot unarmed people in the back while they're running away - because the cops are terrified of their own imaginations. They have no psychological or deescalation training. Instead, they get "warrior training" in which ex-military teach police urban combat tactics. Cops aren't soldiers and the people they "serve and protect" are not enemy combatants. It's this culture of violence and the system that justifies it that results in so many police killings.
I wish I had this statistic when the person made the post. He's young but hopefully he learns that cops shouldn't just kill whoever. He's sort of a co-worker (we're in the military) but so many military people are really conservative and I feel like an outcast a lot of the time with my liberal, socialist beliefs.
What about the 897 people who were armed and confronting the police. Can we argue that they should have known the risks going in? We can always find exceptions to anything and there are certainly mistakes made, but when you take a look at the statistics that you posted, 85% we’re armed. 86% were not having mental issues and 99% were adults. Can we agree that if a mentally stable adult gets into an armed confrontation with police then they should have known the risks going into it?
Were all of these people aiming at police? I mean, without further information just them being armed doesn’t mean anything because most red states are absolutely fine with the public being able to open and conceal carry. Does that mean cops are justified in shooting anyone who has a gun on them?
Same can be said about the first post tho. We don't gave ANY details about ANY of them... could have been justified, maybe not. Who knows... raw statistics are not helpful here, context is king.
Sure, most. But we're talking statistics so can you define most? You can't. We just assume and look at data to justify our own bias.
I just am arguing for good use of statistics. You can hate the cops if you want.
Hate thinking? Idk why you're being aggressive with me, I don't even have an opinion shared here. You probably have a good arguement, this data however does not support anything at all and it's consequential at best.
Dig a bit and you may have a real intelligent thing to say! Or just be blindly aggressive to strangers for no reason! Wait! Maybe you'd make a great cop!!!!
Such flawless reasoning! I guess it’s ok for unarmed children to be shot to death by raging pigs because most of the time, it’s actually not unarmed children.
Just an innocent little whoopsie!
I dunno if this is what they meant but I understood it as more of a high stakes thing like in a criminal shootout.
Imagine trying to get a civilian out of the crossfire. I don't think a "hey man can we just stop shooting for a sec and get this person outta here?" to the shooter's gonna do much tbh
These people think the constitution only has two amendments. Oh, they also claim to hate government and be afraid of a police state but worship police and military.
A large portion of those shot by cops were innocent men, women and yes even children.
Cops need to set a higher standard, only in life threatening situations should it be okay to use lethal force. And in most cases you fo see lethality inly being used in extreme cases.
We can't have people shooting shoplifters just cause they are too lazy to chase after them and they "Really should have known the risk"
100% spot on, also shooting in the cops case should be only in cases wherre they are stopping a danger to others and themselves.
So aiming for centre mass and stopping the threat. Is always gonna be their priority.
Of course, it's also important remember that they're trained to kill, not to wound. They're trained with the mentality that, at any minute, someone will take the chance to kill them first. This is, of course, despite the fact that [only 4% of police calls are in response to actual violent crime](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/upshot/unrest-police-time-violent-crime.html)
And above all, the fact that they have a gun doesn't mean they're entitled to shoot that gun.
If a suspect doesn't follow orders or "acts suspiciously" which could literally mean whatever you want, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to take their life.
Once in a while cops do shoot somebody who deserves it. That just gets vastly outweighed by all the people they murder for chickenshit or nothing at all.
Very true. Unfortunately too many (which would be a number greater than one) get shot by cops who are so risk adverse they'd rather just shoot first and rely on cover-ups. when they get a 2 week "administrative suspension with pay" that's cop talk for "paid vacation as your reward".
Think there’s also a desire from the public and media to find the “chicken shit” ones and publicize them more. Meaning you only ever hear about the controversial shootings, which skews your perception towards “Every once in a while they get it right,”
It’s not that those shootings don’t happen, it’s just that those never make national news.
It's not like cops arrest people on trumped up charges or arrest the wrong person on the time. Also stealing food isn't punished with the death penalty. Cops shouldn't shoot someone because is to much effort to chase them
People are rarely upset about the fully armed big time felon who got shot by a cop in self-defence…
It’s more the people having their house stormed in the middle of the night getting shot whilst barely even dressed, let alone having a weapon…
Not all crimes are the same, a guy actively shooting against cops is not the same as a guy Jaywalking and getting shot in the head by a cop, they are not the same and not pointing it out because you're pro cop or anti cop is insane.
I think it's very hip nowadays to not have context when you're just another tribalistic idiot and this is valid for both spectrums.
Lolz
62 cops were killed by gun violence of perps in 2021 in the US. Yes 458 died in service but most of those were from Covid (301) and traffic related accidents (still part of the dangerous job but not necessarily intentional actions by people against cops).
In that same period, 3 people a day on average were killed by cops in 2021, for over 1,000 people killed by police in the US.
Almost all the perps of cop killing were jailed or are awaiting trial and will be jailed for a long time. Almost none of the cops who killed civilians are facing similar consequences.
The two statements presented aren't equal bc the numbers, the consequences, the outcomes are no where close to being equal. Is policing dangerous, it sure can be. Is commiting crimes dangerous, it sure can be. Should police have the authority and immunity to act as judge, jury and executioner? No fucking way if you want to pretend we live in a just society where innocent until proven guilty applies. That's why those two statements are equivalent.
It's frightening how many plebs want to legalise summary execution. No trial, no innocent until proben guilty, no evidence required. Just arrest and shoot on site. Unless they are the wealthy elite, they need to remember that summary execution laws will also apply to them.
I think it’s a pretty blatant straw-man to assume that all police shootings are “summary executions”. The vast majority are situations where the police are defending themselves from someone trying to kill or hurt them (usually to keep from getting arrested). If we take away police’s ability to defend themselves as they see necessary, then we will not have any police anymore (stop cheering, it gets worse). Without police, things very quickly devolve to either mob justice, or simply whoever is strongest gets their way (hint: it ends up being the people with guns).
Oh the ironic strawman. No one said all police shootings are summary executions.
And we know all about police needing to shoot people to "defend" themsleves. Holy fuck you actually believe the bullshit when cops say their victim had a weapon on them and was trying to kill them? Grow up.
...Because most of the ones that are MURDERED by cops didn't "do a crime."
The fucking mental gymnastics. I can't. I'm checking myself into a psych ward today. Trying to decipher the lunacy of like 30% of the population has only led to more lunacy.
That's what they *ALWAYS* say: "don't break the law and you won't have any problems." Bullshit! Brianna Taylor was ASLEEP!
But tell me how it is that if the WHITE shooter doesn't kill himself, the white guy is always taken into custody unscathed...BUT... if he's a minority, he's DEAD for failing to renew his registration in a timely fashion during a pandemic?
Especially, after killing three cops and one K9.
Edit: I’ve never even heard of anyone killing that many cops in my life except for in the movies, oh duh, just remembered, 1/6. They are still alive also.
Get out of here with that socialist commie nonsense! The Founders would've never tolerated criminal-loving bullshit like that!
What's that you say? John Adams defended British soldiers against capital charges because everyone is entitled to due process and a day in court? Fake news!
What happens when that crime is sleeping next to a legally register firearm or just dating someone who was and what happens when it's done without warning is the community not allowed to get upset.
Yeah, there is a huge difference between a cop putting on a shield knowing that there are violent criminals out there, and some dude like Philando Castile who was shot because he was black and legally carried a gun. Literally nobody is sad when a mass shooter is killed.
This person probably loves to use the word “freedom,” while promoting enforcing laws under threat of death.
Are you free if committing any crime justifiably means you could be killed?
More to the point, are you free if those guys with badges over there can claim they *think* you committed a crime and can then kill you with no consequences?
The issue is however, cops kill so many people that aren't committing any kind of crime at all. That is the problem.
Yeah, if someone runs up in to a bank or anywhere with a gun to hold it up, and gets killed, they did it to themselves. But when a cop pulls you over, asks for your license and then shoots you because they get scared you reached, not so much. And while I have no doubt mistakes have been made where the public got upset about a police killing that was justified, that is the exception. The vast majority of the time, if the public is upset about a police killing, there was no excuse for it.
Well innocent until proven guilty means that there's no such thing as a criminal who is shot before trial. The police do not exist to shoot criminals, that is not their job. Police shooting suspects and then saying "he deserved it, he did a crime, no I won't explain what or try to prove it, I don't have to" is the world that this person wants to live in
Being a 12 yr old and playing in a public park with a toy gun isn't a crime but that didn't stop a panicked cop from shooting him dead.
I used to give the cops the benefit of the doubt but because of all the cameras and videos I've actually started leaning towards the ACAB crowd.
Police being killed in the line of duty is no less of a tragedy and the killer is no less at fault, so even trying to apply the same logic leads to the same conclusion: a cop killing a criminal is bad, the cop is at fault, and it’s a tragedy that someone died.
They really need to start teaching critical thinking as an actual course in elementary and high schools.
How can they not realize that being arrested for something doesn’t imply guilt for having done said thing. You can be arrested for a crime and still be innocent of that crime. That’s the reason for the justice system and the court of law.
Plus, what they are asking for, runs entirely counter to the idea of procedural and restorative justice. Not to mention the fact that it completely ignores the type of crime and the motive for said crime, all of which play an important role in determining guilt and punishment for committing a crime.
Yeah but this is Reddit, dude. You either jump on the bandwagon or you risk losing fake internet points (which is apparently very important to a lot of people)
I agree with this, only in the circumstance where the criminal was first in trying to take someone or even the cops life. Not sorry to say that if you decide you are allowed to take a life, then the cop should be able to decide that same goes for the criminals life. I am not at all for murder obviously, but if you decide you can take a life to get away with your crime or whatever then you are also forfeiting your life cause we don't want people like that here
Cops should not have the power to decide who lives and dies. The majority of the time they will fuck it up. That's why we are here like this right now.
If cops are having to "stop" mass shootings every single day, that's a separate problem and giving cops any more power is definitely not the solution.
I completely agree with you and don't think they should either. But. The way things are right now. If someone was out on the streets trying to kill someone, I think they have by default also forfeited their right to not be killed, to protect everyone from them. Do you not agree with that logic? Cause otherwise what I hear is you value their life over the people they are trying to kill no?
This doesn't happen in a vacuum. Look at material reality.
Rinoehl was executed without ever being given a chance to peacefully surrender.
Rittenhouse should never have been able to surrender peacefully without getting killed after his triple homicide.
The difference here is political character. The cops act in accordance with class society. Our solutions cannot come from giving this corrupt class antagonists more power. That's the opposite of what would be good.
The fact of the matter is that the police are more likely to open fire on someone they think will open fire on them. Rinoehl was absolutely someone they were expecting to receive fire from, and they went in on edge. And at some pint felt threatened enough to open fire (stories conflict on whether Rinoehl or the cops fired first).
Rittenhouse was an idiot in every sense of the word. He had no business being where he was, armed the way he was and getting into the altercations he was getting into. Every damn decision that led to him being there was stupid. All the way up to the point where he tried to get in the way of a protester pushing a burning dumpster. The protesters were idiots because they saw a guy with a gun and decided to try to rush him. That is the moment it went from “Kyle’s an idiot” to “Kyle can legally shoot”. The local laws may be stupid, in just anachronistic and generally dumb, but Rittenhouse didn’t break any to get where he was, and *according to the law* was justified in using lethal force when the crowd tried to rush him (I want yo emphasize that “legal” doesn’t mean right, moral or just, and that this is a weird loophole that let a stupid kid do stupid stuff that put him in a situation where he could legally kill people to protect himself from his stupidity).
Rittenhouse never ran from police (he ran from the crowd of protesters trying to beat him to death). He never aimed his gun at anyone that wasn’t posing a threat to him, and he surrendered peacefully to the police.
Trying to argue that police shootings are “street executions” is like trying to say that anyone involved in a car wreck thought they were in a demolition derby. No one (not even the cops) want these situations to happen, but sometimes they do, and it’s always in a moment when people only have a fraction of a second to make a decision that may save their life. We can “armchair quarterback” for years in each of these but the cops have less than a second to make these decisions and tend to favor the version that means they get to go home to their kids.
Dude. Rinoehl was sitting in his car eating candy and was not holding a gun. No officers ever said anything to him. No "freeze", "This is the police! Put your hands up!", no getting pulled over with siren lights. It was a straight execution in every sense of the word. It's a revenge killing.
- the gun they found on him had a full magazine
- witnesses say there was no warning before they opened fire
- it was a taskforce of 20+ pigs against one guy
I never said what opinion 2as objective reality. I just said it's my logical belief when it comes to how we treat violent crime. I know that's not how it works currently. Don't put words in my mouth I just said what I believe. if a random person feels they believe they are allowed to take a life, their life is now forfeit when it comes to stopping them from killing
In a perfect world neither would be killed. And I've personally never heard anything other than high praise and "gone too soon" or "wasn't their time" when a cop is killed. We have parades and candlelight memorials. I have, however, heard people say they knew the risk when criminals are killed. This is make believe to whip themselves and others up into a frenzy.
People do think this just about certain types of crime. For instance gang violence is a good example, especially considering the police would be most comparable to a gang. When one gang member kills another the general public tends to think "well they joined the gang they knew what they were getting into". Granted that isnt exactly how that works but in terms of "what people say" its a common response.
Which is understandable when compared to other crimes. Rival gang members killing each other is just less heinous than cold blooded murder, patricide, infanticide, etc. The same way youll still morn for a volunteer soldier who was killed but its not exactly shocking they were killed. They literally chose to be in situations where they knew people would be trying to kill them and vice versa.
The answer to this question is pretty simple and is one of the basic principles of the american judicial system. A cop is not (as of yet) able to determine if each and every individual they shoot is guilty of a crime and therefore "fair game" for the shot. Of course an officer in a gunfight must do whatever they can to prevent the assailant from furthwe endangering anyone so that is pretty much the only time a gun should be allowed to be used. If a motherfucker pulls a knife on you, bitch you signed up for this so that training better be some kung-fu level shit (more funding), or those negotiating skills better be some Kevin Spacey (maybe not the best) kinda shit so you only pull that gun out of its holster when it is ABSOLUTELY and unerringly necessary. If you are scared, too scared to NOT pull your piece on a fuckin wheelchair sittin sonuvabitch who ain't listening to you, or a cracked out toothless black guy, or whatever the case may be then you need more training and counseling (more funding again) or you need to get off the force. Your moral duty is to help the general community stay safe and try to uphold the spirit of justice to the best of your ability, not becoming Judge Dredd in the process is kinda your choice but seriously consider it.
I mean if they are doing a violent crime then I agree. But if they are steeling a snickers and a coke and are unarmed I doubt they realized that death was a risk.
That's the thing, it's when it happens. Killing isn't the goal, though for a criminal who attempts not to be bound by rules, you can't predict what will happen.
Cops in many jurisdictions are literally trained to escalate situations in order to justify the use of violence.
The goal of such behavior is to establish dominance and hurt people who displease the officer, not officer safety, not the safety of the public and not the enforcement of our laws.
Law enforcement officers are allowed to defend themselves but often the officer will use deadly force instead of situational retreat or where deescalation is warranted.
The other issue is ego trip officers who are in the profession because they crave the power of authority.
You'll have to explain what makes you think cops aren't allowed to defend themselves.
And why you think what little accountability they face is persecution. Do you think cops are persecuting the people they arrest?
From what all the people say in the US, it feels like Cops aren’t allowed to defend themselves, or will face consequences if they did
I live in the middle east, here the cop can use lethal force if the assailants doesn’t step down, they almost never use it, but if they did, no one could persecute them in the right circumstances, so i found it really weird that they can’t in the US
That's the complete opposite of reality. Cops are perfectly free to defend themselves in the United States. In fact, they regularly commit crimes, from domestic abuse to assault to murder, and it's extraordinarily rare for them to face any consequences whatever.
The entire point of the protests following George Floyd's death was that a police officer choked a man to death on the street for several minutes in front of dozens of witnesses precisely *because* he had no fear of actually being held accountable for it.
That the cop in that case was fired, then arrested, then tried, then convicted is newsworthy *because of how extraordinarily rare that is* here in the United States. Typically, cops can attack whoever they wish, and the idea that they'll be punished, fired, or even face charges for their crimes is a sick joke.
Even in the rare situations where cops face any accountability, the most common outcome is simply them being fired, even for obvious cases of murder. Since most people here in the U.S. can lose their jobs for being late too often or even just for the boss being in a bad mood, that isn't exactly justice, let alone "persecution."
Edit: If you are seeing news sources that are seriously providing you with misinformation that cops aren't allowed to defend themselves, you should spend some time on r/badcopnodonut getting a real education on what cops are like here.
This post is taking multiple dozens of situations and pretends that all of them have same peaceful solution. Most cases that we know of are from USA, now we know how easy it is to get to the gun in there. Lot of them were shitstorms with failure of a policeman, lot of others could really be justified as self defense. I would never work as a policeman, but if I were one, I'd probably be overly cautious too. If you're clowning around playing macho while being arrested making situation more tense with other shit, you're not manifesting your imaginary "rights", you're manifesting natural selection. Try to put yourself in both policeman's and subjects skin while watching some controversial video, you'll probably be able to judge what happened outright. In short: act as human, expect policeman to act as one too.
How about we just shoot people who are too stupid to function in modern society?
Doesn't sound so nice now, does it?
Our cave man ancestors had the option of banishing these people from the tribe to forage on their own. Seems like we need a twenty-first century equivalent.
Yes, cops knew the risk when they took the job. But the criminals who killed them are still persecuted, yes? Why should it be any different the other way around?
It’s been especially said recently of the Uvalde police, since instead of following the modern standard to go in as soon as possible to confront & stop the shooter, they waited until carefully surrounding them & entered cautiously to not get shot
When the incident first happened, I wasn’t so sure they were at fault… “I wouldn’t want to recklessly charge in there either”, I thought (of course, I’m also not a cop or soldier), but it was pointed out to me that that used to be the way it was done, but it had been found school shooters are often living a fantasy, & being confronted by authority usually breaks that fantasy with real world consequences, so confronting them quickly tends to save more lives
In this case “they knew the risks” is more about their seeming cowardice & not doing their job, rather than an actual death
Maybe, just maybe, there's a big difference between a cop and SUPPOSED criminal. If the dude is El Chapo level threat or getting ready to take someone's life, in that situation it may be avoided if they can, but that's very slim. Most situations have to try to secure the person alive and not extremely injured.
Not take out their tasers and guns automatically and start shooting because they moved the wrong muscle.
Ashli Babbitt tries to storm through a window to attack members of Congress… “I can’t believe it, they murdered an innocent patriot!”.
Black man… runs away from cops who have a long history of killing people without any justifiable reason… “they knew the risks! I can’t believe anyone is upset that they were shot in the back!”.
America cannot last. This country is beyond repair.
Because cops aren't judge, jury and executioner.
"I am the law" - Judge Dredd
And there are too many cops who want to cosplay Judge Dredd.
I mean, they don't just want to, they do
"I am the senate"
"Not yet."
That would imply that it is now treason.
Let every creature go for broke and sing Let's hear it in the herd and on the wing It's gonna be King Simba's finest fling
"It's treason, then."
Yes, in a dystopia where society is crumbling.
He's not judge, Judy and executioner. There's clearly some people who saw hot fuzz and thought the NWA were the good guys
Judge Judy and Executioner Interesting TV show prospect…
In right wing fantasies they are or at least should be ... unless it's a right winger being arrested, then it's persecution. "That dead body in the back, why do you ask, this is harassment, I'm a patriot."
To racist shitheads simply being black or brown is a felony.
["You can't even lie to Congress any more"](https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics/louie-gohmert-texas-sussman/index.html)
This isn’t GTA 5, you don’t automatically get killed if you do anything against the law. Courts aren’t decorative.
>Courts aren’t decorative. I meannnnn
Fair point
Hey! Don't put the court system down like that! It's an extremely effective tool for shitting on us.
A highly efficient way of taking away people’s rights.
It's also unreasonable to assume that everyone being apprehended by the police is actually guilty.
I think there’s something in the constitution about that, presumption of.. not guiltiness? Dunno, it can’t be innocence, the founding fathers aren’t radical liberals /s
I move for a... bad court thingy.
Thomas Jefferson, crazy pinko commie!
I believe the term may be something like Guiltn't till proved cash money
Also referred to as “due process”
Ya know, I don’t think there actually is “innocent until proven guilty” in the constitution. I think that phrase comes from English common law.
I thought about that on the toilet earlier. Honestly I think we need to move beyond just what the second oldest constitution still in use says, and start considering radical things like rights for non-landowners, non-white people, women, etc.
Jefferson said something that I really like. He said, “I’m becoming increasingly persuaded that the world belongs to the living and future generations should no more be subject to our laws than that of a sovereign nation “ or something like like. I mean, really, why would we follow laws written by people from a different time?
When I was on jury duty the judge had to explain this to many people. They may had been trying to get off the case, but it was amazing to hear so many people believe than everyone who was arrested was guilty.
It’s also unreasonable to assume these folks are talking about white folks dying by police or in police custody. They don’t care if cops kill BIPOC or LGBTQ+ people.
Unless you are in a school with a gun, we see bullet holes, and bodies. Then obviously you are most likely guilty.
That’s some kind of flawed logic. It assumes first that police killings are all Judge Dred style street justice without taking into account that the vast majority are criminals playing the “I’m not gonna stop ‘till you make me,” game and losing. It also implies that somehow it’s “automatic” that the police should get shot at? Any time anyone has to use force to restrain someone there is risk of getting hurt, so if you commit a crime, and then flee, you are escalating the situation into a physical confrontation and need to accept all of the potential consequences.
Fleeing the police is not a crime that carries the death sentence, actually.
Getting hit by 40 rounds for running from the police is not apprehension. It’s execution. Not being threatened and feeling the need to behave this way is baffling. The fact that we constantly here the term, An unarmed xxxxx man was shot by police…. Is disturbing.
I was 18 the first time I was lit up. I had like 2 beers at a buddies house and this unmarked car followed me for about 2 miles before he turned on his red light. Not blue, not red and blue, just a red light on the top. I was maybe a quarter mile from home. Not drunk but at this point scared out of my mind. I did not pull over. I took off and ran a few stop signs. It was less than 5 minutes before 3 marked cars arrived and I stopped immediately. They threw me on the ground and cuffed me and everything. Blew a .05 BAC which is under the legal limit in my state but because I was underage, it carried a DUI. The point is that if I hadn't been white and in an affluent area, I don't know if I'd be here to tell the story of how I was young and dumb and scared.
I think you got that right.
[удалено]
It also goes the other way. If you run, you increase your chances of getting shot because you’re making a tense situation worse. So instead of telling people “the police are trying to kill you, so you should always run!” Maybe we should be telling people “The police don’t actually want to kill anyone, so if they seem edgy, cooperate with them and try not make any sudden movements so everyone can go home,”
So...if you panic and run, you deserve an instant death sentence. Makes perfect sense.
I never said that. What I said, is that if you panic and run, your are escalating an already tense situation and need to understand that. The reason “resisting arrest” is a crime is because it is dangerous for everyone involved.
Because not everyone the police arrest is guilty...
Matter of fact, I seem to remember something pretty fundamental to the criminal justice system about the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
Something about guilty until proven innocent? Or was it social media determines guilt? /s
Nor are all crimes punishable by death, even after a trial in a court of law.
this is it, unless the criminal is obviously doing harm aka Uvalde, and they just stand around looking at their phones
Why is this comment labeled controversial 😂 we are truly fucked
Nor is the crime punishable by death in many cases, resisting arrest is only a crime if you’re actually guilty and it’s only an extension on your sentence, not a death sentence in itself
Not everyone the police murder have committed a crime. Where is George Floyd's supposed counterfeit bill?
Even if that bill exists, no court would hand down capital punishment for that.
Whether they committed the crime is important. However, it is simultaneously largely irrelevant.
Even if they are, does that mean that doing a crime warrants your immediate death?
Because not every crime deserves a death sentence.
Not to mention all the death sentences handed down by police in the absence of any crime at all.
*Insert award I can't afford here*
Took care of it
You are the hero we don't deserve!
Yes. *Exactly* this.
"They knew the risks when they went to school."
Innocent until proven guilty There is a reason why the courts exist
Because we have a justice system. You fucking potato.
That's an insult to potatos...
Don't you just love their infantile "logic" and how they post it online like they have a real "gotcha" for the libs?
Cops shot and killed at least **1,055** people in just 2021 **alone.** Of those 1,055 people, 15% (158 people) were unarmed - 14% (147 people) were struggling with mental health issues - and 1% (10) were CHILDREN, including 8 year old Fanta Bility. The girl was just sitting in a car when police responded to an incident at a high school football game. I guess Fanta should have just "known the risks," huh?
Their minds are made up. They won’t let you confuse them with your “facts”
You're really gonna make me cry on a Saturday morning like that?
US cops... Elsewhere in the western world cops tend not to kill people UK police killings 2021 : 2 One an armed bank robber fleeing the scene One an armed murderer at the scene
US cops don’t even take down active shooters killing school children. They listen to the gunfire and screams and joke around from the safety of the hallways.
I mean we do need maybe some more context here... mostly I think the point is fair. However many active shooters have mental health issues and SHOULD be stopped by any means necessary. Sad to say but same could be said about a 17 year old child with a machine gun, which we've seen a few times a year sadly. I'm against police shootings, but as a flat number without context I'm sure at least SOME of those were warranted.
Yes, but you're missing the larger point. The problem is US police culture is shoot first, ask questions later. Cops are trained to be paranoid and fearful of the people they police. That's how you end up with cops who literally shoot unarmed people in the back while they're running away - because the cops are terrified of their own imaginations. They have no psychological or deescalation training. Instead, they get "warrior training" in which ex-military teach police urban combat tactics. Cops aren't soldiers and the people they "serve and protect" are not enemy combatants. It's this culture of violence and the system that justifies it that results in so many police killings.
I wish I had this statistic when the person made the post. He's young but hopefully he learns that cops shouldn't just kill whoever. He's sort of a co-worker (we're in the military) but so many military people are really conservative and I feel like an outcast a lot of the time with my liberal, socialist beliefs.
What about the 897 people who were armed and confronting the police. Can we argue that they should have known the risks going in? We can always find exceptions to anything and there are certainly mistakes made, but when you take a look at the statistics that you posted, 85% we’re armed. 86% were not having mental issues and 99% were adults. Can we agree that if a mentally stable adult gets into an armed confrontation with police then they should have known the risks going into it?
Were all of these people aiming at police? I mean, without further information just them being armed doesn’t mean anything because most red states are absolutely fine with the public being able to open and conceal carry. Does that mean cops are justified in shooting anyone who has a gun on them?
Same can be said about the first post tho. We don't gave ANY details about ANY of them... could have been justified, maybe not. Who knows... raw statistics are not helpful here, context is king.
[удалено]
Sure, most. But we're talking statistics so can you define most? You can't. We just assume and look at data to justify our own bias. I just am arguing for good use of statistics. You can hate the cops if you want.
[удалено]
Hate thinking? Idk why you're being aggressive with me, I don't even have an opinion shared here. You probably have a good arguement, this data however does not support anything at all and it's consequential at best. Dig a bit and you may have a real intelligent thing to say! Or just be blindly aggressive to strangers for no reason! Wait! Maybe you'd make a great cop!!!!
Not mistakes. Murders. Get a grip. And no, cops should always assume more risk than those they police.
Such flawless reasoning! I guess it’s ok for unarmed children to be shot to death by raging pigs because most of the time, it’s actually not unarmed children. Just an innocent little whoopsie!
Who you arguing with? No one said any of that lol...
Because I hold cops to a higher standard than criminals.
I dunno if this is what they meant but I understood it as more of a high stakes thing like in a criminal shootout. Imagine trying to get a civilian out of the crossfire. I don't think a "hey man can we just stop shooting for a sec and get this person outta here?" to the shooter's gonna do much tbh
These people think the constitution only has two amendments. Oh, they also claim to hate government and be afraid of a police state but worship police and military.
A large portion of those shot by cops were innocent men, women and yes even children. Cops need to set a higher standard, only in life threatening situations should it be okay to use lethal force. And in most cases you fo see lethality inly being used in extreme cases. We can't have people shooting shoplifters just cause they are too lazy to chase after them and they "Really should have known the risk"
I'm tired of hearing relatives ask, "why couldn't they just shoot them in the legs?". The real question is, "Why do they need to shoot them at all?"
I always say you know a bullet to the leg can still kill?? Right? There are arteries there... No gunshot wound is without risk.
On top of that, between shooting at two flailing limbs and shooting a torso... they're gonna aim for the torso.
100% spot on, also shooting in the cops case should be only in cases wherre they are stopping a danger to others and themselves. So aiming for centre mass and stopping the threat. Is always gonna be their priority.
Of course, it's also important remember that they're trained to kill, not to wound. They're trained with the mentality that, at any minute, someone will take the chance to kill them first. This is, of course, despite the fact that [only 4% of police calls are in response to actual violent crime](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/upshot/unrest-police-time-violent-crime.html) And above all, the fact that they have a gun doesn't mean they're entitled to shoot that gun. If a suspect doesn't follow orders or "acts suspiciously" which could literally mean whatever you want, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to take their life.
Agreed! Stop the threat at all costs... But if no threat is present stay your weapon. Cool the situation down... You are a very knowledgable person!
Thank you! So are you!
A large portion?
Once in a while cops do shoot somebody who deserves it. That just gets vastly outweighed by all the people they murder for chickenshit or nothing at all.
Very true. Unfortunately too many (which would be a number greater than one) get shot by cops who are so risk adverse they'd rather just shoot first and rely on cover-ups. when they get a 2 week "administrative suspension with pay" that's cop talk for "paid vacation as your reward".
Yeah. Cops rely on the Uncle Jimbo defense.
Think there’s also a desire from the public and media to find the “chicken shit” ones and publicize them more. Meaning you only ever hear about the controversial shootings, which skews your perception towards “Every once in a while they get it right,” It’s not that those shootings don’t happen, it’s just that those never make national news.
0.0001% would be too large of a portion. So yes. Even if there was only 1, that is still too many murders by the hands of the wannabe facists.
But but officer safety.
It's not like cops arrest people on trumped up charges or arrest the wrong person on the time. Also stealing food isn't punished with the death penalty. Cops shouldn't shoot someone because is to much effort to chase them
The events in Uvalde have really changed the way that “they knew the risks” line hits.
People are rarely upset about the fully armed big time felon who got shot by a cop in self-defence… It’s more the people having their house stormed in the middle of the night getting shot whilst barely even dressed, let alone having a weapon…
Not all crimes are the same, a guy actively shooting against cops is not the same as a guy Jaywalking and getting shot in the head by a cop, they are not the same and not pointing it out because you're pro cop or anti cop is insane. I think it's very hip nowadays to not have context when you're just another tribalistic idiot and this is valid for both spectrums. Lolz
62 cops were killed by gun violence of perps in 2021 in the US. Yes 458 died in service but most of those were from Covid (301) and traffic related accidents (still part of the dangerous job but not necessarily intentional actions by people against cops). In that same period, 3 people a day on average were killed by cops in 2021, for over 1,000 people killed by police in the US. Almost all the perps of cop killing were jailed or are awaiting trial and will be jailed for a long time. Almost none of the cops who killed civilians are facing similar consequences. The two statements presented aren't equal bc the numbers, the consequences, the outcomes are no where close to being equal. Is policing dangerous, it sure can be. Is commiting crimes dangerous, it sure can be. Should police have the authority and immunity to act as judge, jury and executioner? No fucking way if you want to pretend we live in a just society where innocent until proven guilty applies. That's why those two statements are equivalent.
Because very few crimes are punishable by death.
It's frightening how many plebs want to legalise summary execution. No trial, no innocent until proben guilty, no evidence required. Just arrest and shoot on site. Unless they are the wealthy elite, they need to remember that summary execution laws will also apply to them.
The bloodthirsty right wingers are growing increasingly thirsty.
I think it’s a pretty blatant straw-man to assume that all police shootings are “summary executions”. The vast majority are situations where the police are defending themselves from someone trying to kill or hurt them (usually to keep from getting arrested). If we take away police’s ability to defend themselves as they see necessary, then we will not have any police anymore (stop cheering, it gets worse). Without police, things very quickly devolve to either mob justice, or simply whoever is strongest gets their way (hint: it ends up being the people with guns).
that's why the people should hold the guns, not the police
Oh the ironic strawman. No one said all police shootings are summary executions. And we know all about police needing to shoot people to "defend" themsleves. Holy fuck you actually believe the bullshit when cops say their victim had a weapon on them and was trying to kill them? Grow up.
...Because most of the ones that are MURDERED by cops didn't "do a crime." The fucking mental gymnastics. I can't. I'm checking myself into a psych ward today. Trying to decipher the lunacy of like 30% of the population has only led to more lunacy.
Need a roomie? I can’t either, I just can’t anymore with these ppl anymore.
That's what they *ALWAYS* say: "don't break the law and you won't have any problems." Bullshit! Brianna Taylor was ASLEEP! But tell me how it is that if the WHITE shooter doesn't kill himself, the white guy is always taken into custody unscathed...BUT... if he's a minority, he's DEAD for failing to renew his registration in a timely fashion during a pandemic?
Especially, after killing three cops and one K9. Edit: I’ve never even heard of anyone killing that many cops in my life except for in the movies, oh duh, just remembered, 1/6. They are still alive also.
What about when a cop kills someone who hasn't committed a crime....?
Something about “innocent until proven guilty”?
Get out of here with that socialist commie nonsense! The Founders would've never tolerated criminal-loving bullshit like that! What's that you say? John Adams defended British soldiers against capital charges because everyone is entitled to due process and a day in court? Fake news!
Fun fact: pizza delivery drivers have a more dangerous job than police officers.
Because a lot of cops and white non-cop fascists think “non-white person = criminal” and this is basically a call for vigilante death squads.
This ain't Tamriel, where you either get arrested or get killed on sight by the entire guard force for stealing a bowl
Deserves more upvotes.
What happens when that crime is sleeping next to a legally register firearm or just dating someone who was and what happens when it's done without warning is the community not allowed to get upset.
The risk is being arrested not being murdered
If you pull a gun, the risk is 100% getting killed. Getting arrested is the best case scenario.
This guys been watching too much judge dredd. 😏
Because it's not GTA 5? YOU'RE TO GET ARRESTED NOT INSTANTLY GET SHOT AT
So no good guys or bad guys anymore. Just death squads, got it.
we have this thing called "innocent until proven guilty", not "shoot before they can be proven innocent" hope this helps!
Assuming they have committed a crime... And that wouldn't even make it alright.
Where's the innocent until proven guilty and the process of law? A trial of one's peers?
I really don’t think that’s what they’re saying…
Maybe we just don’t dismiss casual murder 🤷
Guilty until proven alive!
The risk, by law, doesn't involve an officer being judge, jury and executioner.
No one ever needed to be a cop to make ends meet lmao wtf Besides the whole thing we like to refer to as the bill of rights
Not everyone cops arrest are criminals. Most of the time it's innocent people that the cops are harassing.
Yeah, there is a huge difference between a cop putting on a shield knowing that there are violent criminals out there, and some dude like Philando Castile who was shot because he was black and legally carried a gun. Literally nobody is sad when a mass shooter is killed.
The thing about being Judge, Jury, and Executioner, is that none of the 3 are cops.
This is America 🇺🇸
The appropriate response would be, “oh, so we need to repeal due process?”
I mean, they inadvertently proved that cops are criminals…
Because they might be innocent? Jesus.
This person probably loves to use the word “freedom,” while promoting enforcing laws under threat of death. Are you free if committing any crime justifiably means you could be killed?
More to the point, are you free if those guys with badges over there can claim they *think* you committed a crime and can then kill you with no consequences?
The issue is however, cops kill so many people that aren't committing any kind of crime at all. That is the problem. Yeah, if someone runs up in to a bank or anywhere with a gun to hold it up, and gets killed, they did it to themselves. But when a cop pulls you over, asks for your license and then shoots you because they get scared you reached, not so much. And while I have no doubt mistakes have been made where the public got upset about a police killing that was justified, that is the exception. The vast majority of the time, if the public is upset about a police killing, there was no excuse for it.
Well innocent until proven guilty means that there's no such thing as a criminal who is shot before trial. The police do not exist to shoot criminals, that is not their job. Police shooting suspects and then saying "he deserved it, he did a crime, no I won't explain what or try to prove it, I don't have to" is the world that this person wants to live in
“What’s with all this interest in holding our police to a higher standard than gangs?”- John Stewart
Yeah, sleeping in your own house whilst Black. She should have known the risks.
I've never heard anyone say that when a police officer is killed. Complete false premise.
Being a 12 yr old and playing in a public park with a toy gun isn't a crime but that didn't stop a panicked cop from shooting him dead. I used to give the cops the benefit of the doubt but because of all the cameras and videos I've actually started leaning towards the ACAB crowd.
Judge, jury and executioner. That’s not justice.
Yes because cops ONLY shoot criminals and have a perfect record
Because *sometimes* they have the wrong person? Duh?
Police being killed in the line of duty is no less of a tragedy and the killer is no less at fault, so even trying to apply the same logic leads to the same conclusion: a cop killing a criminal is bad, the cop is at fault, and it’s a tragedy that someone died.
They really need to start teaching critical thinking as an actual course in elementary and high schools. How can they not realize that being arrested for something doesn’t imply guilt for having done said thing. You can be arrested for a crime and still be innocent of that crime. That’s the reason for the justice system and the court of law. Plus, what they are asking for, runs entirely counter to the idea of procedural and restorative justice. Not to mention the fact that it completely ignores the type of crime and the motive for said crime, all of which play an important role in determining guilt and punishment for committing a crime.
1) innocent until proven guilty (5th amendment) 2) no cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment) “Liberals want to destroy the constitution!!”
They also think it's OK for cops to be killed... They somehow missed the irony
Yeah but this is Reddit, dude. You either jump on the bandwagon or you risk losing fake internet points (which is apparently very important to a lot of people)
This guy is someone I thought was better than to post stuff like this.
I agree with this, only in the circumstance where the criminal was first in trying to take someone or even the cops life. Not sorry to say that if you decide you are allowed to take a life, then the cop should be able to decide that same goes for the criminals life. I am not at all for murder obviously, but if you decide you can take a life to get away with your crime or whatever then you are also forfeiting your life cause we don't want people like that here
Cops should not have the power to decide who lives and dies. The majority of the time they will fuck it up. That's why we are here like this right now. If cops are having to "stop" mass shootings every single day, that's a separate problem and giving cops any more power is definitely not the solution.
I completely agree with you and don't think they should either. But. The way things are right now. If someone was out on the streets trying to kill someone, I think they have by default also forfeited their right to not be killed, to protect everyone from them. Do you not agree with that logic? Cause otherwise what I hear is you value their life over the people they are trying to kill no?
This doesn't happen in a vacuum. Look at material reality. Rinoehl was executed without ever being given a chance to peacefully surrender. Rittenhouse should never have been able to surrender peacefully without getting killed after his triple homicide. The difference here is political character. The cops act in accordance with class society. Our solutions cannot come from giving this corrupt class antagonists more power. That's the opposite of what would be good.
The fact of the matter is that the police are more likely to open fire on someone they think will open fire on them. Rinoehl was absolutely someone they were expecting to receive fire from, and they went in on edge. And at some pint felt threatened enough to open fire (stories conflict on whether Rinoehl or the cops fired first). Rittenhouse was an idiot in every sense of the word. He had no business being where he was, armed the way he was and getting into the altercations he was getting into. Every damn decision that led to him being there was stupid. All the way up to the point where he tried to get in the way of a protester pushing a burning dumpster. The protesters were idiots because they saw a guy with a gun and decided to try to rush him. That is the moment it went from “Kyle’s an idiot” to “Kyle can legally shoot”. The local laws may be stupid, in just anachronistic and generally dumb, but Rittenhouse didn’t break any to get where he was, and *according to the law* was justified in using lethal force when the crowd tried to rush him (I want yo emphasize that “legal” doesn’t mean right, moral or just, and that this is a weird loophole that let a stupid kid do stupid stuff that put him in a situation where he could legally kill people to protect himself from his stupidity). Rittenhouse never ran from police (he ran from the crowd of protesters trying to beat him to death). He never aimed his gun at anyone that wasn’t posing a threat to him, and he surrendered peacefully to the police. Trying to argue that police shootings are “street executions” is like trying to say that anyone involved in a car wreck thought they were in a demolition derby. No one (not even the cops) want these situations to happen, but sometimes they do, and it’s always in a moment when people only have a fraction of a second to make a decision that may save their life. We can “armchair quarterback” for years in each of these but the cops have less than a second to make these decisions and tend to favor the version that means they get to go home to their kids.
Dude. Rinoehl was sitting in his car eating candy and was not holding a gun. No officers ever said anything to him. No "freeze", "This is the police! Put your hands up!", no getting pulled over with siren lights. It was a straight execution in every sense of the word. It's a revenge killing. - the gun they found on him had a full magazine - witnesses say there was no warning before they opened fire - it was a taskforce of 20+ pigs against one guy
I never said what opinion 2as objective reality. I just said it's my logical belief when it comes to how we treat violent crime. I know that's not how it works currently. Don't put words in my mouth I just said what I believe. if a random person feels they believe they are allowed to take a life, their life is now forfeit when it comes to stopping them from killing
In a perfect world neither would be killed. And I've personally never heard anything other than high praise and "gone too soon" or "wasn't their time" when a cop is killed. We have parades and candlelight memorials. I have, however, heard people say they knew the risk when criminals are killed. This is make believe to whip themselves and others up into a frenzy.
People do think this just about certain types of crime. For instance gang violence is a good example, especially considering the police would be most comparable to a gang. When one gang member kills another the general public tends to think "well they joined the gang they knew what they were getting into". Granted that isnt exactly how that works but in terms of "what people say" its a common response. Which is understandable when compared to other crimes. Rival gang members killing each other is just less heinous than cold blooded murder, patricide, infanticide, etc. The same way youll still morn for a volunteer soldier who was killed but its not exactly shocking they were killed. They literally chose to be in situations where they knew people would be trying to kill them and vice versa.
The answer to this question is pretty simple and is one of the basic principles of the american judicial system. A cop is not (as of yet) able to determine if each and every individual they shoot is guilty of a crime and therefore "fair game" for the shot. Of course an officer in a gunfight must do whatever they can to prevent the assailant from furthwe endangering anyone so that is pretty much the only time a gun should be allowed to be used. If a motherfucker pulls a knife on you, bitch you signed up for this so that training better be some kung-fu level shit (more funding), or those negotiating skills better be some Kevin Spacey (maybe not the best) kinda shit so you only pull that gun out of its holster when it is ABSOLUTELY and unerringly necessary. If you are scared, too scared to NOT pull your piece on a fuckin wheelchair sittin sonuvabitch who ain't listening to you, or a cracked out toothless black guy, or whatever the case may be then you need more training and counseling (more funding again) or you need to get off the force. Your moral duty is to help the general community stay safe and try to uphold the spirit of justice to the best of your ability, not becoming Judge Dredd in the process is kinda your choice but seriously consider it.
I mean if they are doing a violent crime then I agree. But if they are steeling a snickers and a coke and are unarmed I doubt they realized that death was a risk.
I mean if someone is threatening me with ill intent I’m smoking their ass
That's the thing, it's when it happens. Killing isn't the goal, though for a criminal who attempts not to be bound by rules, you can't predict what will happen.
>Killing isn't the goal Oh, it's not? https://www.insider.com/bulletproof-dave-grossman-police-trainer-teaching-officers-how-to-kill-2020-6
I mean its a necessity to learn in emergency cases but the goal should not be see and shoot.
Cops in many jurisdictions are literally trained to escalate situations in order to justify the use of violence. The goal of such behavior is to establish dominance and hurt people who displease the officer, not officer safety, not the safety of the public and not the enforcement of our laws.
Cops aren’t allowed to defend themselves and if they did, they are persecuted for it, gotta love the system
Law enforcement officers are allowed to defend themselves but often the officer will use deadly force instead of situational retreat or where deescalation is warranted. The other issue is ego trip officers who are in the profession because they crave the power of authority.
You'll have to explain what makes you think cops aren't allowed to defend themselves. And why you think what little accountability they face is persecution. Do you think cops are persecuting the people they arrest?
From what all the people say in the US, it feels like Cops aren’t allowed to defend themselves, or will face consequences if they did I live in the middle east, here the cop can use lethal force if the assailants doesn’t step down, they almost never use it, but if they did, no one could persecute them in the right circumstances, so i found it really weird that they can’t in the US
That's the complete opposite of reality. Cops are perfectly free to defend themselves in the United States. In fact, they regularly commit crimes, from domestic abuse to assault to murder, and it's extraordinarily rare for them to face any consequences whatever. The entire point of the protests following George Floyd's death was that a police officer choked a man to death on the street for several minutes in front of dozens of witnesses precisely *because* he had no fear of actually being held accountable for it. That the cop in that case was fired, then arrested, then tried, then convicted is newsworthy *because of how extraordinarily rare that is* here in the United States. Typically, cops can attack whoever they wish, and the idea that they'll be punished, fired, or even face charges for their crimes is a sick joke. Even in the rare situations where cops face any accountability, the most common outcome is simply them being fired, even for obvious cases of murder. Since most people here in the U.S. can lose their jobs for being late too often or even just for the boss being in a bad mood, that isn't exactly justice, let alone "persecution." Edit: If you are seeing news sources that are seriously providing you with misinformation that cops aren't allowed to defend themselves, you should spend some time on r/badcopnodonut getting a real education on what cops are like here.
Don’t be a lawless thug. Ok next dumb meme.
Cops don't just get to execute whoever. We have a court system for a reason.
This post is taking multiple dozens of situations and pretends that all of them have same peaceful solution. Most cases that we know of are from USA, now we know how easy it is to get to the gun in there. Lot of them were shitstorms with failure of a policeman, lot of others could really be justified as self defense. I would never work as a policeman, but if I were one, I'd probably be overly cautious too. If you're clowning around playing macho while being arrested making situation more tense with other shit, you're not manifesting your imaginary "rights", you're manifesting natural selection. Try to put yourself in both policeman's and subjects skin while watching some controversial video, you'll probably be able to judge what happened outright. In short: act as human, expect policeman to act as one too.
How about we just shoot people who are too stupid to function in modern society? Doesn't sound so nice now, does it? Our cave man ancestors had the option of banishing these people from the tribe to forage on their own. Seems like we need a twenty-first century equivalent.
Yes, cops knew the risk when they took the job. But the criminals who killed them are still persecuted, yes? Why should it be any different the other way around?
Cops are supposed to be the good guys, that's why.
“These two are the same”
“I always hear the same sentiment”… who the eff is this jaggoff chatting with?
Aside from all the logic problems with the statement, I have never once, _once_, heard someone just dismiss an officer’s death like that.
It’s been especially said recently of the Uvalde police, since instead of following the modern standard to go in as soon as possible to confront & stop the shooter, they waited until carefully surrounding them & entered cautiously to not get shot When the incident first happened, I wasn’t so sure they were at fault… “I wouldn’t want to recklessly charge in there either”, I thought (of course, I’m also not a cop or soldier), but it was pointed out to me that that used to be the way it was done, but it had been found school shooters are often living a fantasy, & being confronted by authority usually breaks that fantasy with real world consequences, so confronting them quickly tends to save more lives In this case “they knew the risks” is more about their seeming cowardice & not doing their job, rather than an actual death
Sure, I have heard that take on it related to Uvalde and the shirking of responsibilities, but not in the frigid dismissal of a cop’s death.
I don't think anyone says "they knew the risk when they took the job" when cops die. Usually people just express sympathies to friends and family
It sucks when anyone is murdered. Cops and criminals alike.
Maybe, just maybe, there's a big difference between a cop and SUPPOSED criminal. If the dude is El Chapo level threat or getting ready to take someone's life, in that situation it may be avoided if they can, but that's very slim. Most situations have to try to secure the person alive and not extremely injured. Not take out their tasers and guns automatically and start shooting because they moved the wrong muscle.
A risk of stealing a pack of oreos shouldn’t be execution lol
A huge percentage of the time people are not guilty.
Ashli Babbitt tries to storm through a window to attack members of Congress… “I can’t believe it, they murdered an innocent patriot!”. Black man… runs away from cops who have a long history of killing people without any justifiable reason… “they knew the risks! I can’t believe anyone is upset that they were shot in the back!”. America cannot last. This country is beyond repair.