Texas cop shoots 93 year old woman to death- justified?

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: smithjustinb

Let me be sure I understand what you're saying?

The cop isn't sure what the old lady is going to do, so he kills her.....just in case.

You've got to be kidding right?

You got it. No. I'm not joking. If you don't want to be shot by a cop, don't point a gun at him. This is how cops are trained. I completely understand it.

Let me ask you, which makes you feel safer: a law enforcement officer or a criminal pointing a gun at you?

They both make me feel equally unsafe.

a reply to: smithjustinb

I hope you never find your self in a situation where something is in your hands and the cop doesn't know what you are going to do... It won't end well and you will be ok with that.....
And I am the idiot lol

The lady did not point the gun at the cop, she brandished it. MASSIVE difference.
No article I read stated that the gun was pointed at the officer, care to show me where you are getting that info?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: smithjustinb

I hope you never find your self in a situation where something is in your hands and the cop doesn't know what you are going to do...

You don't have to worry about that.

It won't end well and you will be ok with that.....

I will neither be okay with it nor not okay. Ill be dead.

And I am the idiot lol

lol...

The lady did not point the gun at the cop, she brandished it. MASSIVE difference.
No article I read stated that the gun was pointed at the officer, care to show me where you are getting that info?

It doesn't matter if she pointed it at him or whipped it out real fast and pointed it at the ground or waved it around. It was a hostile gesture. You should never do any of that. If you have a gun on you, and a cop walks up to you, you keep your hands where he/she can see them and you let the cop know you have a gun. Don't make any sudden moves. That's the rule. The rule is widely recognized and is implemented for the cops safety. If the rule gets broken, the cops are recognized as being in an unsafe situation, and they do what they have to do to ensure their safety.

I mean, do you honestly think that someone who is trusted to handle these difficult situations should just never use force at all? Where do you draw the line? When they're already getting shot at? That's the stupidest damn thing I've ever heard. That puts their life in the hands of criminals who may or may not have good aim. Yeah... that would be good. To be a successful criminal, now all you have to do is go to the shooting range and become an accurate shooter. You just want to see police men die don't you? Is that what this is about? That's the only way I can rationalize your line of thought.

a reply to: smithjustinb

The cop isn't sure what the old lady is going to do, so he kills her.....just in case.

And you say that is fine...

You got it. No. I'm not joking.

And you then want to state this?

You just want to see police men die don't you?

... you do see that I am one defending the person that died right?
You are the one promoting death, as long as the cops think that they were in danger you think it is ok for them to kill people..
So I ask you, do you just want to see people who cops deem dangerous die? Is that what this is about?
That's the only way I can rationalize your line of thought
I am the one defending life here.
Seems you are promoting the opposite

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: smithjustinb

... you do see that I am one defending the person that died right?

I see you defending injustice.

You are the one promoting death,

No. I'm promoting law and justice. I'm glad the cop didn't die. Because he could have if he wouldn't have protected himself.

as long as the cops think that they were in danger you think it is ok for them to kill people..
So I ask you, do you just want to see people who cops deem dangerous die? Is that what this is about?

I don't want to see anyone die. But if it comes down to it, and a person is waving a gun around in front of a cop and gets killed, I support the officer's decision to eliminate the threat.

I am the one defending life here.

You are defending the life of the suspect. You couldn't care less about the cop. You think the cop should have just waited to see if he'd get shot before he decided to shoot. You think a woman waving a gun around doesn't justify a cop shooting her; that she would have to do something more extreme than that before the cop had the right! Seems you just would have rather seen the cop get killed instead. You didn't click this thread because you love life. You clicked this thread because you hate cops. I clicked this thread to support justice.

Seems you are promoting the opposite

You lack the capacity to understand what I'm promoting.

a reply to: smithjustinb

The only injustice here is that this kid didn't know how to handle the situation so he pulled the trigger cause he was scared.
And you are ok with that....
You are ok with cops killing anyone that they deem a "threat" apparently.

You are correct that I am defending the life of a suspect, just like that officer took an oath to do as well. But it seems he forgot that oath and killed her.
Again, she had the right to due process, as does every american.
That is the cops job, to get the person in front of a judge. THAT is their ultimate goal. NOT to kill people they deem a threat.
I don't want cops to die, I want cops to stop killing people. I have never advocated for cops to die.
Yes I said that IMO that cops should have strict rules as to when they can shoot and getting shot at would be a great starting point. And that has been taken and blown out of context by you and another poster.
Cause again, anybody can point the gun at some one, it takes something extra to pull that trigger.
I wouldn't expect you to understand that if you have never pointed a gun at some one tho.
Our men and women over seas in war zones have stricter rules of engagement then cops
Seems we get faaar more stories of cops killing people the people killing cops.. Not sure where the justice is in that.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
...And the law is what exactly? Wave a gun around and you will die? You people are insane.

I say this all the time on here, American citizens will continue to be murdered by their own police force because there are so many of them who think that cops have a right to kill when they see fit.

Show me any country on this earth that is supposedly "free" and that allows its police force to execute people on the street.

I'm not usually one to say things like this but people who say this killing, and hundreds like it every year, are "justified" are either callous narcissists or in extreme denial about the state of their homeland. [/quote]

If a person pulls a gun out, threatens someone with it, and is then waving it around, thus threatening others, yes, they can be shot, and rightly so. Such a person would be likely to shoot bystanders, or even the police. What she was doing was not responsible gun ownership, from the details we have. I am all for gun rights, staunchly so, and I see no issues with the police shooting someone under those circumstances. Shooting an armed threat isn't an execution, and police in other countries would do exactly the same thing. Not all police shootings are of this variety.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: smithjustinb

The only injustice here is that this kid didn't know how to handle the situation so he pulled the trigger cause he was scared.
And you are ok with that....

The cop handled the situation as he was trained to do by those who are employed by your and my tax dollars to train him.

You are ok with cops killing anyone that they deem a "threat" apparently.

No. I know that exaggeration is what you want to believe so that you feel like your point is justified, but that is not the case. I am okay with cops killing anyone behaving in a manner that the courts of law have determined is a threatening manner.

I don't want cops to die, I want cops to stop killing people.

If everyone thought like you, the cops wouldn't have guns at all. Unfortunately,we don't live in a dream world of sunshine and rainbows.

I have never advocated for cops to die.

But you would rather the suspects have the advantage of the first shot? You did say:

IMO cops should have to wait to be fired at till they can shoot, they know what they singed up for, if you don't want to put your life on the line for your fellow man then don't be a cop

Yes I said that IMO that cops should have strict rules as to when they can shoot and getting shot at would be a great starting point. And that has been taken and blown out of context by you and another poster.

I don't think anything was taken out of context here. You said what you said. You said you would rather a criminal have the upper hand advantage of first shot. You've got a twisted sense of justice. But again, I think you just clicked this thread so you could rant about how much you hate law enforcement officers. Pathetic.

originally posted by: Lichter daraus
a reply to: jburg6
I think shooting her could have been justified but not shooting to kill.
This pig shot and killed before, he needs to be investigated and then maybe a mental evaluation.
Ive seen snipers disarm people with one shot and nobody had to die.
This crap is just getting ridiculously outta control.

Peace

There's no such thing. A gun is a tool that's designed to kill, you don't pull a gun out unless you intend to kill someone with it that goes for military, cops, and civilians. If you do have to shoot, you shoot until the person goes down. If they die they die, if they live then great. There's not enough information here to say if the cop was quick to pull the trigger, but the woman was holding a gun and wouldn't put it down when the cop asked so that's strike one.

There's also a massive difference between a trooper on scene with a handgun and a trained sniper. Trained snipers are something that mainly belong to SWAT. Are you now saying SWAT should have been called on the woman?

a reply to: smithjustinb

Yes i said that cops should have to wait to be shot, that is not advocating for them to be killed.
It is advocating them putting their life's on the line instead of just shooting everyone before they commit the crime the cops THINKS they are going to do.
Again that is what they signed up for, to protect and serve all and make sure they get due process.
When they kill you, it goes against ALL of that.
So once the perp has actually made an attempt at the officers life, then he has the right to take one.
Until then, they use our tax dollars to train them in other ways of dealing with a situation then shooting the person they may or may not hurt someone else or the officer.
Cops should never be allowed to assume that some one is going to commit a violent act.
Or that assumption needs to not end in the death.

And that is my parting word.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
I would argure that the 20 year old didn't deserve to get shot either, unless he pointed the gun AT the cop.
Age does matter, and so does intent. Did she really have intent to kill some one?

If you pull a handgun out you have intent to kill someone. That's basic respect for firearms. If she wasn't capable of understanding that, then she shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

If she did fire a shot then this killing would have been justified.... But she didn't...
We have another person dead for what they MIGHT have done, not what they DID

No. She's dead for what she did. She was threatening people with a gun, then she refused to disarm when the cop asked.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, pulling out a hand gun is not intent to kill some one, shooting at someone is intent to kill that person.
Stabbing them with a knife is intent to kill that person.
Pulling the trigger shows intent
Pointing the gun is intimidation.

So was she dead for pointing the gun at other people or for not listening to the cop?
Age does come into a factor when we start talking about hearing.
I am still not sold she knew for a fact that the cop was there. The report doesn't go into how long after his commands did he shoot.
If it was 1 or 2 commands and then shot, that is unacceptable. Easily in the realm of possibility that she could not hear him, or comprehend what he is saying. So is it still justified if she could not hear him?
You ever hear of the expression" i saw red"? Or tunnel vision?
Yes she was threatening people with a gun and that is a crime. And since she committed a crime,that she has the RIGHT to DUE PROCESS.
That is the cops job, to detain her and start the process. To protect and serve our constitutional rights, due process being one of those.
When he KILLS her, he deprives her the right of due process since he has now become the judge and decided that she was a threat to everyone around her and the officer and needed to be eliminated by the same guy that is now the executioner..

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: smithjustinb

Yes i said that cops should have to wait to be shot, that is not advocating for them to be killed.

If you really think that, then you have a poor capacity to think logically.

It is advocating them putting their life's on the line

to get shot at first before they can shoot. Better hope criminals don't have good aim. You're not really thinking this through are you?

instead of just shooting everyone before they commit the crime the cops THINKS they are going to do.
Again that is what they signed up for, to protect and serve all and make sure they get due process.
When they kill you, it goes against ALL of that.

In the world I and 300,000,000 other Americans live in, how it goes is- if you pull out a gun in front of a cop, you are wavering your right to due process. But obviously, you don't live in the same world as we do. Idk where you live. A parallel dimension, maybe?

So once the perp has actually made an attempt at the officers life, then he has the right to take one.

Don't know why you want criminals to have the upper hand against law enforcement officers, but okay.

Cops should never be allowed to assume that some one is going to commit a violent act.

Pulling a gun out in front of a cop is considered a violent act. They are trained to eliminate the threat by any means, whether that ends up being the death of the person, or not. Its how they are trained. Its what they do. It is justified in court. You are from a parallel dimension.

And that is my parting word.

Yes. Go back to your dimension.

a reply to: Aazadan
He could have shot her in the hand she was holding the gun in. He didnt have to shoot to kill.
Now maybe she pointed the gun at the officer, that would be different.
But im not gonna argue with you its my opinion of the situation and you and anybody else is not gonna change that.



Ps. So next time I take my gun out target shooting does that mean I gitta kill something because I took my gun out?