Jumping Frog wrote:hillfighter wrote:It sounds like the deceased made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and not pull the trigger.
Sounds to me like pulling the weapon was a poor decision. Pulling the trigger on the LEO would have been a worse decision.
I actually have to disagree with this. Once he already made the clearly bad decision of pulling the gun it seems that pulling the trigger would have actually been one of the better things he could have done. It's certainly better than not pulling the trigger, which we see resulted in his death. Shooting first may have saved his life, so to say that it would have been worse doesn't make much sense. The determination of whether either of the individual choices, pulling the weapon and firing the weapon, is good or bad is independent of the other choice. Though i agree that as a whole his choice of actions were bad.
I find that I have to echo sentiment already expressed in this thread, and that is that the "take it up later in court/with their superiors" way of thinking is a perfectly rational plan, but execution of this plan is likely impossible for most or prone to failure. Most people
do not have the monetary means to take these issues up in court. Furthermore, the LEO are aware of this fact; they get "you'll hear from my lawyer" talk and know that most of it is hot air. I feel that the knowledge that most of the people you interact with literally can't challenge your actions in court would affect your behaviour. My other issue with this relates to reporting behaviour to superior officers. The code of silence is real and there is a lot of video evidence out there that shows LEOs obstrtucting citizens from lawfully filing complaints against officers when they feel mistreated. If you don't have the ability to go to court, can't file a complaint without exposing yourself to harassment, and can't be sure that your complaint will even be cared, what can you do to ensure that LEOs are held accountable for their actions? Pulling your gun on them on the side of the street clearly isn't the answer, but I do think something needs to be done.
A-R wrote:gringo pistolero wrote:On one side we have someone who apparently got through 70 years without major problems until Friday. On the other side, we have APD which can't seem to make it through a single year without allegations of excessive force.
I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see a video of the shooting, but if I have to pick a side, I'll play the odds.
So this one officer is guilty by association with and membership in APD? I sure am glad the antis don't treat all gun owners and NRA members the same way.
While gringo is taking guilty by association to a bit of an extreme, I can understand his point and think it helps no one to dismiss it outright. In fact, many members of this forum often trumpet how educated profiling can be one of your best observational/awareness tools and potentially save yourself. It's irrational to think that this tool has great value when it comes to youths, minorities, and other people who can often be seen as acting like criminals/thugs but that it's inappropriate when considering police officers. In fact, I'd take gringos thoughts to another place. I've meet lots of LEOs in my short life thanks to my god mother, who's a detective for HPD, and so far my next door neighbour, who is retired, is the the only certifiably bad cop I've met. However, most of these "good" cops, my god mother included, have freely admitted to knowing about other bad cops and doing nothing or letting other officers get away with breaking the law once they found out they were also LEOs. If the "good" cops are turning a blind eye to the rotten apples, what are we to do? Though they aren't the only ones, I'm sure we all work with some incompetent person who shouldn't have his job but say nothing because "he has a family" or "we still get by with him here", etc. But now i'm just off topic.