re: Chicago Police train station shooting is triggering people

quote:

---

Is it your opinion that if someone flees cops or resists arrest in any way, cops should just shoot them (no matter what lead to their attempt to arrest in the first place)?

It's a yes or no question.

---

No, it’s not a yes or no question. You don’t give enough context. This man wasn’t just fleeing, he was fighting with the cops. So if you ask - If a perp is arrested by the police, and resists arrest strenuously and for an extended time, and the police can no longer control him, and he strikes the police officer, should the police be allowed to shoot him? I would answer Yes. Now, the second shot in the back was a bad move for which the cop should be disciplined.

quote:

---

You do understand that this incredible power you're willing to give cops flies directly in the face of the "don't tread on me", "less govt with less power", etc mantra that so many of you evangelize. And to respond to your post, if a guy strikes a cop the cop cannot just pull out his gun and shoot him. He needs to be in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed, or if he escapes there needs to be imminent threat of harm or death to others. That's the dividing line the law uses, which you would be looking to essentiallyl completely remove in your move to give the state more power.

---

Part of me sees what this guy is trying to support but in this case it really is a yes/no question because it looks like the officers failed to use deadly force the entire video until the perp turned his back on them and ran away. I'm no civil rights expert but I'm pretty sure that's not going to bode well for said shooter.

quote:

---

She shot him twice. If hew dies that is MURDER.

Assumptions: he is unarmed and running away.

frick those POS untrained assholes.

---

Criminals roam our streets with impunity, why are we shooting high dudes who are unarmed?

Is he a murder/rape/child molestation suspect? If not - who really gives a shite, pick him up later. I'd love to live in a world where cops successfully arrest everyone for everything no matter how much of a public threat there is, but shooting this guy will cost the public money and (subject to the question above) didn't make the public any safer.

quote:

---

IMO the shooting was justified because these lesser lethal options were deployed to no avail.

---

That's not how this works. Shooting is only justified if the suspect poses a deadly threat to the officers or the public. This would mean that the suspect has just committed a violent crime or is being arrested for a violent crime (murder suspect for instance). Just because a taser doesn't work doesn't mean you get to employ deadly force on an uncooperative jaywalker. If this dude had just killed someone and fled, it might be a different story because it is reasonable to assume he poses a threat to the public and officers.

The big problem here is these Cops needed backup which didn't get there fast enough. This was a 3-4 man job.

No I am not defending him resisting arrest, I hate that shite (it almost never works first of all), but I don't think resisting should be an automatic death sentence, especially for jaywalking.