Can’t a man with a lengthy rap sheet even go on a night drive in a stolen(?) vehicle, ram a few police cars, and resist arrest without getting shot at these days?
In all seriousness, killing him clearly wasn’t the optimal solution, but it shows once again that the ‘innocent’ people getting shot by police are rarely so innocent after all.
Kind of like how most children who are violently beaten by their owners/parents did something wrong. Yes it’s illegal, and it’s over the top, but it’s very useful to point out that beaten children have probably done something bad. It’s so useful, it really informs my judgement.
Neither the article, or anything mentioned in these comments is claiming the victim’s ‘imnocence’. They are however making the point that EVEN if you do all of those things you shouldn’t expect to be shot and killed.
Your comment sounds equivalent of claiming girls that dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It just isn’t the point. The point is that he should not have been killed.
People like to conveniently forget that we have the courtroom to decide someone’s innocence or guilt. The police should not be judge, jury, and executioner.
My comment specifically states that killing him wasn’t the optimal solution here, so I can’t see how that’s your intrepretation of it.
That’s my interpretation of it because you’re basically saying that because he was breaking the law (maybe you’re saying that it’s because he was breaking specific laws), it’s justified that he was shot and killed.
Whether you want to pussyfoot around the distinction between him deserving it and it being justified is beside the point from my perspective because I don’t believe he did deserve it or that it was justified.
Seems like we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Can’t a man with a lengthy rap sheet even go on a night drive in a stolen(?) vehicle, ram a few police cars, and resist arrest without getting shot at these days?
In all seriousness, killing him clearly wasn’t the optimal solution, but it shows once again that the ‘innocent’ people getting shot by police are rarely so innocent after all.
Kind of like how most children who are violently beaten by their owners/parents did something wrong. Yes it’s illegal, and it’s over the top, but it’s very useful to point out that beaten children have probably done something bad. It’s so useful, it really informs my judgement.
Neither the article, or anything mentioned in these comments is claiming the victim’s ‘imnocence’. They are however making the point that EVEN if you do all of those things you shouldn’t expect to be shot and killed.
Your comment sounds equivalent of claiming girls that dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It just isn’t the point. The point is that he should not have been killed.
People like to conveniently forget that we have the courtroom to decide someone’s innocence or guilt. The police should not be judge, jury, and executioner.
My comment specifically states that killing him wasn’t the optimal solution here, so I can’t see how that’s your intrepretation of it.
Nobody ever deserves to be shot. That’s completely incompatible with my worldview. However, sometimes it’s justified.
That’s my interpretation of it because you’re basically saying that because he was breaking the law (maybe you’re saying that it’s because he was breaking specific laws), it’s justified that he was shot and killed.
Whether you want to pussyfoot around the distinction between him deserving it and it being justified is beside the point from my perspective because I don’t believe he did deserve it or that it was justified.
Seems like we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
“Murder is wrong, BUT” is a really weird hill to die on…
What’s your point?
I don’t think a murdered deserves to die but I think killing them in self defence is perfectly justfied.
Imagine announcing to the world that you’re and absolute fucking moron.