The Glade 4.0

And by "this man", I mean the coward with the badge and the gun. Encounter begins at 12:45 and the shooting occurs at 17:08. I recommend you watch the whole 5 minute encounter to fully grasp just how obvious it is that the shooting was unjustified.



Police culture - and the broader public culture that results in a jury acquitting this guy - have serious freakin' problems.

He was acquitted by a jury of his peers. Them's the breaks of a jury system. The fact that he was a cop isn't really relevant. Some people will do that in a jury system.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hence my critique of the public culture that's so accepting of police violence.

He reached behind his back after being told to keep his hands in sight and what seemed very specific - "do not move them to the small of your back". I guess you’re claiming that no cop was ever shot by a suspect acting subservient and begging for his life?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

More interesting is that this occurred in Maricopa County and Joe Arpaio, who presumably hired this guy, is running for Senator now.

I am pretty sure that the jury heard more evidence from the defense than just "my client is not guilty because he is a police officer therefore this shooting was acceptable because reasons" and a reliance on "culture." That strikes me as an exceedingly inept strategy for a defense.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the oversimplified case for the prosecution presented in the press might be stronger than the actual case presented in court?

This guy was not let off by an administrative process or by a prosecutor refusing to indict. He was tried by a jury of his peers. The fact that the jury did not return the verdict you want does not mean there is some problem with "culture". The Glade conceit that any time the public does something we disagree with its because they're stupid plebeians is not unique here, but it is certainly one that is unusually strong here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If you watch closely you can see a movement to behind the head.

Now we've all seen Die Hard so if he was John McClane'ing...

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I feel bad for the kid but if someone holding a gun tells you not to reach behind your back, don't reach behind your **** back.

RD is spot on. First, the guy is clearly a coward. He's accepting no level of risk at all to avoid shooting this man. And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Second, it's absolutely the case that our culture of acceptance of police violence is what got him off. He was able to demonstrate that the perp putting his hand behind his back produced some level of risk to him, and therefore he was justified in the shooting. This issue of course is whether that "some level" which is true, and which will always be the case no matter the situation, should produce that justification. The fact that so many are ok with his use of force in this situation is a cultural concern.

Why exactly should someone accept any level of risk while performing a public service?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Because accepting that risk is an intrinsic part of the public service cops (like firefighters and soldiers) are supposed to be performing. That's why they get the hero treatment they get; no one holds a parade for loggers or utility lineman "killed in the line of duty". Hell, no one even uses the "line of duty" phrase in most any other context.

That’s circular logic - “they should accept risk because it’s a risky job” - and doesn’t answer the question of “why exactly should someone accept any level of risk...”. Just because there's risk doesn't mean it must be accepted, rather, it should be mitigated.

That, and you’ve advocated cowardice for the cop doing his job when he instructed the guy to not reach behind his back - you’re not here saying how heroic cops are, you’re calling them out as cowards for doing their job. You’ve denied the cop what you say is the reward of the job because he didn’t give someone the chance to shoot him. Also, loggers and utility linemen aren’t performing a public service, they’re employees of private companies, but that’s a minor quibble.

I would really like to know why someone should accept any level of risk while performing a public service... I sure don’t want them to. I want them to have all the equipment they need, the training to use it, and compensation commensurate with their performance. I don’t want parades for cops, I want them home every night with their families. I want the bad guys to be the ones at risk, not the cops.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

RD is not spot on. He was acquitted by a jury.

Period.

You are wrong. You do not get to disagree, dispute, or have a different opinion. You were not on the jury. They were people just like you and they found it not to be a crime. That's all there is to it.

The only "cultural concern" here is that you, like so many other people, think that there's an underlying problem any time the system returns a result you disagree with.

Stop thinking so much of yourself and you won't have this problem.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As Taskiss said, this does not translate to accepting any arbitrary level of risk. It translates to the risks the law and the relevant court decisions establish.

and this was one of them. He was acquitted by a jury of his peers.

Both you and Arathain are basically just saying you think there's a problem because the system returned a verdict you don't like.

It's nice to know you don't believe in jury trials.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/31/gunman-in-deadly-colorado-deputy-shooting-identified-as-iraq-war-vet-with-grudge-against-sheriff.html

Also, this is what happens when the ideas Elmo, and some of the rest of you, get put into practice.

Go on.

You know you want to.

You get your obituary on FOX News.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."