Police Killed An Unarmed White Man In Iowa And His Community Didn't Seem To Notice

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Metallicus
Sorry, it is outside the current parameters of a useful narrative for our media and controllers. It only matters if he is black. #whitelivesdonotmatter

So why don't y'all care enough to protest when police kill one of your family members? I don't see the "All Lives Matter" people doing anything either. Oh, that's right. Because they don't care about other Americans either. They only say "All Lives Matter" as a way to diminish "Black Lives Matter".

The honest truth is no one really cares unless it's in their community or someone they know. Then they speak up about change. There are flaws in both ways. The fact of the matter is regardless if it's BLM or ALM it's bringing much needed attention. Whether it's good or bad it doesn't matter, from here we need to work together to make it better. Then the true purpose of ALM will mean something.

originally posted by: crimsongod21
a reply to: butcherguy

when you are being stoped you stay in your car, or you face the repercushions normally this will result in you being yelled at and possibly tackled to the ground. Now when you have lead the officer on a chase and then exit your vehicle and approach the vehicle "with a purpose" you should just expect to be shot.

to be honest i am not a small man or a scared man i beleive i could hold my own in a fight, with that being said if i was in this officers shoes with the rash of cop killings and cop hate out there i am going to do everything that is in my legal right to keep my self safe and allow myself to go home when my shift was over.

Now put yourself in the officers shoes and tell me honestly what you would do, knowing what the current enviorment for cops are.

The cops put themselves in their "current environment". But, if I was a police officer, I would accept that my job is very dangerous. Just like I did in the military. Doesn't mean I shot suspicious people because they walked towards me "with purpose" whatever that means.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: TonyS

Very good.
Although some of us view our society as homogeneous, many don't, and the media contributes to the further division.

I have to ponder on whether in the long run its not a good thing they finally admit to and acknowledge the division. In many respects, it might go to solving a lot of problems.

a reply to: RomeByFire

True story? Any sources? Very curious.

originally posted by: crimsongod21
a reply to: butcherguy

when you are being stoped you stay in your car, or you face the repercushions normally this will result in you being yelled at and possibly tackled to the ground. Now when you have lead the officer on a chase and then exit your vehicle and approach the vehicle "with a purpose" you should just expect to be shot.

to be honest i am not a small man or a scared man i beleive i could hold my own in a fight, with that being said if i was in this officers shoes with the rash of cop killings and cop hate out there i am going to do everything that is in my legal right to keep my self safe and allow myself to go home when my shift was over.

Now put yourself in the officers shoes and tell me honestly what you would do, knowing what the current enviorment for cops are.

I'm not going to jump to conclusions on this one. There isn't any video showing what happened. After all the lies and falsified police reports we are suddenly believing the official story? ...ummmm, okay.

I'll just wait before I pass judgement on anyone and hope better information comes out.

a reply to: butcherguy

Technically speaking yes (stand your ground essentially means you have no duty to retreat). Your justification would need to meet the following:

An individual has no duty to retreat from any place he/she has a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if he/she reasonably believes he/she faces an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

* - Were you lawfully allowed to be in the location it occurred in?
* - Did you reasonably believe that you were in imminent/immediate threat of serious bodily harm / death?

* - Reasonably (there is that word again) - Reasonable Person Standard

A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability..

As with any shooting, whether it be law enforcement or civilian, an investigation occurs and the PA decides if your actions met the legal requirement for its use.

*** Laws will vary from state to state so the above information is in general. Do your due diligence and find out the laws where you reside to see how its laws read. ***

a reply to: Xcathdra
I might have no duty to retreat, but I do have a duty to my own conscience.
I will not use deadly force unless the person presents a danger to life and limb at the time that I use it.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcathdra
I might have no duty to retreat, but I do have a duty to my own conscience.
I will not use deadly force unless the person presents a danger to life and limb at the time that I use it.

Good for you... Nothing wrong with that.

With that said I answered your hypothetical statement to the best of my ability. Secondly, as a caution, people need to put their own personal beliefs in check when trying to evaluate the actions of others. A person who takes an action with legal ramifications has their actions reviewed based on the law and not what other people personally think.

Just because a person objects to a law or has moral objections does not make the laws in question invalid or the actions of the person illegal.

The more people use their own personal views the less they are going to understand the process.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If a cop pulls me over and I am scared, should I have my gun at the ready and shoot him if he dares to walk up to my car?

Being scared is a personal thing. I hope more cops take a personal stance like mine and choose to not shoot unarmed people that walk with a purpose if the officer has fear.

a reply to: butcherguy

Nope since the laws in question don't allow it. You can come up with as many stupid hypothetical as you want however it doesn't change the law or how its applied. Like I said the law requires the person firing to justify their actions.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: butcherguy

Nope since the laws in question don't allow it. You can come up with as many stupid hypothetical as you want however it doesn't change the law or how its applied. Like I said the law requires the person firing to justify their actions.

I think it is stupid to use the stand your ground laws to justify the pants-pissing female officer shooting a guy that was standing outside of her totally closed police car in an unarmed confition. He wasn't even swinging his fists.
Whatever, if you think it is proper for cops to shoot unarmed people if they get scared because of 'walking with purpose' and other such lame excuses, at least we know where you stand.
But you peon civilians better stay in your place and lick the boots of authority.

a reply to: butcherguy

The stand your ground law is not being used in the case of the officer since it doesnt apply. The standards there are completely different and as I stated time and time again its totality of circumstances, meaning you have to take everything into account from start to finish and not just her discharging her duty weapon.

originally posted by: butcherguy But you peon civilians better stay in your place and lick the boots of authority.

This is one of your more ignorant and asinine comments to date. Educate yourself please.

a reply to: butcherguy

You may be surprised, but I agree with your last post completely.

Your argument was wery eloquently stated as well.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am educated enough by reality to know that cops can and do get away with unjustified killings of civilians.
Civilians can and do get away with murder, but not because they are able have the evidence covered up by their own peers.

I didn't bring the stand your ground laws into the discussion.

I do know that you are defending a cop shooting an unarmed man standing outside of her car. She shot through the window. No cop was injured by the man.
One cop may have soiled her undies.... So, death penalty!

originally posted by: butcherguy
I am educated enough by reality to know that cops can and do get away with unjustified killings of civilians.
Civilians can and do get away with murder, but not because they are able have the evidence covered up by their own peers.

Not in this area you aren't. You and other refuse to view the situation in its entirety, from start to finish and instead fixate on the shooting.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I didn't bring the stand your ground laws into the discussion.

Actually you did - Your post in this thread here

So if I, as a civilian in a stand your ground state,

Your response to my response to Smurfy invoked stand your ground in your hypothetical. I pointed out it does not apply in this case because an officer was involved during the course of her duties.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I do know that you are defending a cop shooting an unarmed man standing outside of her car. She shot through the window. No cop was injured by the man.

Am I defending the cop or have I been explaining the laws and procedures involved? Did I defend the officer or have I stated we need to wait for the investigation to finish, from the agency involved and the independent agency brought in, and did I or did I not state we still dont have the full reports from the officers involved?

Your hatred and bias is blinding you to what I am saying. Again a person does not have to have a gun in order to justify the use of deadly force. I have pointed out various factors that had to be considered in addition to explaining the laws involved that were violated and how when you put all of those together you get a different view of what occurred.

I also provided a link to another media source that had more information involved, including showing the suspect vehicle and the police car it hit at the end.

originally posted by: butcherguy
One cop may have soiled her undies.... So, death penalty!

Your ignorance for the loss.

a reply to: Xcathdra
You point to my post as proof of me bringing 'stand your ground' into the discussion.... if you bother to read your post that I was responding to... you will that you brought it up first.
I haven't stooped to calling you ignorant yet.

a reply to: Xcathdra

My hypothetical was just to show that cops can shoot people when they get scared.
Peon citizens can't do that.
A guy will be arrested for shooting a person when the shooter was on his back being beaten by the bad guy.
Don't tell me that doesn't happen.

If there wasn't videotape of the cop shooting the man in the back down in South Carolina, he most likely would have been patted on the back and given an award for bravery.

a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah you invoked stand your ground and attributed it to the female officer. I am telling you stand your ground does not apply to law enforcement. Law Enforcement in states that have a duty to retreat does not apply to law enforcement. We are governed by more strict criteria than a civilian.

Because of that requirement we go back to the guideline SCOTUS established:

For an officer its "what did the officer perceive when force was used.
For a civilian its "what would a reasonable person do in the same situation".

The decision to use force was not based on just the guy approaching the officer's car. You must take the totality of circumstances from start up to the point she fired. You cant use the Michael Slager incident to compare this one against. They are a completely different set of facts.