I am trying to decide how 3 police officers can shoot an unarmed man who has done nothing wrong, 50 times, at his own wedding, and I cannot.
Now, I definitely don't think it is "race" because 2 of the 3 cops were black. However, it does appear that this is a 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of case.
Look...I by NO means am defending these guys ( cops ) However...Look at the facts of the case. The guy tried to run over the cops with a car, after they had identified themselves as cops. It took 50 shots because the guy was in a 4000lb steel car...so...on the surface it would seem extremely excessive, but look a little deeper.
The fact that two of the three officers were black doesn't mean the situation isn't affected by race. The fact is that the victims of police violence are always more likely to be minorities, whether the police happen to be white or not.
You beat me to it. It is the mentality of police that minorities are threatening whether the cops are black,asian, latino, etc or not. That is the disturbing trend in police nowdays. People say that police are in a stressful job and we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I think police should not be allowed to shoot unless they actually see a gun. 'Think or thought they saw a gun' isn't going to cut it. If they can't handle the pressure, then choose another career!!
This statement is also true: "The fact is that the victims of police violence are always more likely to be male, whether the police happen to be male or not.
The obvious (rhetorical) question: So what?
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
So a car aimed at police is not a weapon? Because that's what happened. Guns are not the only things that can be used as weapons (most people's response to that would be "DUH!").
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
I think it amounts to the same thing. They can "think they saw a gun", but they'd just better be right. It is - no pun intended - a "bang bang" call, with a lot at stake.
I sometimes think that percentage may be higher than the general public. When I was in Air Force basic training in the mid 60's it was the lowest IQ enlistees who ended up going to AP training. All of the kids from my 350 member high school class that went into law enforcement were either at the bottom of the class or were the gang members and trouble makers of the class.
On the other side, why would anyone with half a brain want to put their life at risk every day for a population that either hates you outright or simply has no respect for what you have to put up with. There isn't enough money in the world to pay me to do their job. It is probably the most thankless job in the world.
This case though really stinks and sounds like the cops were totally out of control.
I understand the "car as weapon" explanation... However, that's not why they opened fire. It was a quick motion that "looked" like someone was going for a gun. I am concerned that such a hypothesis leads to a hail of gun fire. Bell had 0% chance of living. Even the prosecutor found the police tactics in need of revising. This situation was probably not born strictly or mostly of racism. The root cause is likely flaws in police training.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.