I can understand your point. You’re saying, that sometimes when people break laws, especially when we know they are at a boiling point- even if it is dangerous, the presence of force, the use or armed officers to try to restore compliance, and the use or threat of force serve to escalate the situation? That we should not escalate these situations? Kinda like the feds in Portland right? The officer here, kinda forced the guy into a situation where anyone with a brain should realize that he’d be backed up and it would escalate?
Negative, I'm saying that force should only be applied or threatened by law enforcement in the face of direct and immediate harm.
Cop: I shot him 17 times because he coughed in my direction and that could potentially kill my newborn child"
Me: 2nd degree murder, 25 to life or execution.
Or
Cop: I shot him 17 times because he was about to hurl a molotov at a courthouse he just barricaded a dozen people inside of.
Me: Thank you for your service, I'm sorry that monster made your action necessary. Mandatory counseling and consider taking some paid leave while the investigation kicks off.
Oh. This is the confusion we were discussing. So you think this officer should be thanked, apologized to, and given counseling for what the suspect forced him to do? Not sure how everyone’s out of date English is. “Affray” means fight. You see- an officer saw a man breaking a lawful order. The man refused to comply. The officer fired a warning shot- a police policy at the time and still used by many departments today- and then a man attacked a peace officer who was enforcing law.
Or are you saying that if a police officer is attacked by a civilian, that the officer does not have the right to defend themselves with their side arm? I’m confused here. Because that’s what happened. A minor criminal refused a lawful order and then attacked a cop. The cop defended themselves from the assault. So make up your mind here- is a citizen within their rights to use violence against police and the police are not within their rights to defend with lethal force, or did this officer do his job by the standard of his time and the law of the land and had the right to defend himself from a criminal attacker?
Wisser closed in on him is what the post says. I wasn't there and I doubt you were also but it sounds like he approached the officer who had already fired a warning shot. Probably not the best idea. Not saying he deserved to be shot but there was some provocation after the weapon had been drawn and discharged.
That ain't provocation. It was him responding to a threat to his life. You always keep that rifle low and that sidearm holstered until you absolutely are about to kill someone.
Yeah, cops really should follow your advice. Unfortunately there's plenty of videos of cops pulling their guns out in a situation that doesn't warrant it (remember that video of the guy pickup up trash in front of his dorm that got the cops called on him ? yeah.).
And by the way, that's part of the problem the protests against police brutality are against you know. But it's funny how cops shooting people are 'justified' until you disagree with the 'reason' they shot (and btw, I'll add that before you misinterpret my words : I don't think shooting someone because they're not wearing a mask is justified). So no, not everyone who believes masks should be mandatory because it's a matter of public health believes you should be shot if you don't.
@famousone@fullback: “Wessler closed in on him and IN THE SUCCEEDING AFFRAY....”
again, I forgive contemporary speakers for not being well versed in archaic English from a century ago- that says: “Wessler closed in on him and they fought. In the fight....” So as per my original comment which remains un answered @famousone- did this officer have justification to shoot or not when a man was attacking him while enforcing a lawful order and following established police procedures? If an officers gun is drawn and a person begins to fight them physically- do they have justification to fire if they feel threatened by that attack?
"In the succeeding affray", succeeding means following or later, right? So AFTER the officer made an unprovoked and unjust life threat, his target attempted to close the distance and fight for his life.
Of course if the suspect charged the officer after refusing a lawful order, he'd win his prize for playing a stupid game, but that didn't happen. The officer jumped straight to lethal force when there is no indication that the other man was anything more than civilly disobedient.
You always have the right to use lethal force in response to a life threat, unless you started the death match.
I can shoot a man who breaks into my home, I cannot break into another man's home and shoot him when he tries to defend himself. Not justly, that is.
Now if I'm wrong and "succeeding" in this context does mean that the suspect started a physical altercation, PRIOR to the officer threatening his life over a piece of cloth, then I'm wrong.
And yeah, I was entirely with the PEACEFUL PROTESTERS when it was about police brutality. Then it stopped being peaceful, and it stopped being about improving officers. As I've said before about the issue, exactly zero people who are responsible for the laws, policies, training practices, hiring, discipline, and management of those officers that killed George Floyd have been fired. None have been charged with crimes. No policy has changed that would have substantially altered that situation. No one in leadership has indicated that they will even attempt to change the culture of the police department.
We have a single and incomplete article. We only have the facts in front of us on the altercation. You are adding facts to the incident that did not occur. Nothing in the article expresses outrage or that the officer did wrong. So based on the facts we have and minimal assumption- if the officer escalated to force the officer felt threatened. If the officer was attacked it seems he was right to feel threatened.
Sorry. Deleted those because I know they’d confuse you. Didn’t see you had replied. Gonna try again. But they did confuse you by your replies. So better I deleted them.
Here is what we know:
A man was breaking the law. An officer of the law saw this and ordered he comply with a lawful order. The criminal refused. We do not know if the officer felt threatened or not. We cannot speculate on that. We do know that he made it clear that he would use force to enforce the law. The criminal attacked the officer. The officer shot the criminal in self defense non fatally. Now- can we agree on those facts as what are contained in this article- there are no assumptions or anything there which isn’t in this article?
He threatened the suspect's life first, as there is no mention of prior provocation aside from maybe civil disobedience.
Here's what we know.
1. A man was breaking a law, no violence was initiated at this point because none was stated in the article.
2. An officer gave an order.
3. The man refused, peacefully because it is not otherwise stated.
4. The officer drew his weapon and fired.
5. The suspect attempted to close distance with the officer.
6. The officer used lethal force to neutralize the percieved threat.
Between 3 and 4 is where the issue lies, not 1, 2, 5, or 6. Between 3 and 4 is what invalidates everything past the man's nonviolent noncompliance.
No such thing as non-lethal intent when the guns come out. No such thing as self-defense when you initiate the life threat.
We don't shoot jaywalkers, we don't shoot shoplifters, we don't even shoot murderers unless they can't be apprehended before posing an immediate threat to someone's life.
Your synopsis is invalid for the discussion. It contains speculation. “Because it is not stated- <assumption>” well- it also does not state he was non violent. It does not state what the man said to the officer when he refused either. “Because it isn’t stated what the guys reply was and because the officer felt the need to fire a shot- the guy must have made a threat...” speculation is a two way street. Let’s remove all speculation and just discuss what we KNOW happened. You may set the events f you like providing you re write them to not include any speculation. My original sequence of events included mention of information beyond the events to illustrate an example of where you are speculating. You are still speculating. Here is an example of no speculation, just stated fact:
I gotta agree with famousone here. The guy SHOULD have worn his mask- but, the concept that you should wear a mask to avoid being shot is extreme. The sentiment that if he would have complied he didn’t have to get hurt- that’s dangerous. Citizens sometimes are belligerent. They resist, lawfully and unlawfully. We may arrest people, sometimes it’s smart to not arrest them then and there, let things cool off, her back up or set things up to avoid a dangerous situation like this one- but pandemic or no- the shooting here could have been avoided and should have been.
Masks are more to prevent the wearer from spreading the disease than to protect the wearer. Has anyone been paying attention? We currently have a pandemic where the underlying virus can be spread before the carrier is symptomatic. Everyone not wearing a mask is totally fine killing grandparents. Don’t be a dick, wear a mask.
Masks are more to prevent the wearer from spreading the disease than to protect the wearer. Has anyone been paying attention? We currently have a pandemic where the underlying virus can be spread before the carrier is symptomatic. Everyone not wearing a mask is totally fine killing grandparents. Don’t be a dick, wear a mask.
Less than .3 percent mortality in the US, even with inflated numbers.
Cotton masks are less than effective against droplets, completely useless if airborne (as mounting evidence suggests Covid-19 is).
And many of the dead infectees, grandparents especially, were killed by other already lethal conditions (cancer, pneumonia, multiple gunshots, TB, the common cold, car accidents, etc).
Even if it is .1% mortality that is 300,000 people if a sizable chunk of the US caught it. Statistically of moderate significance, especially compared to other causes of death- but most things which have the potential for that body count carry some form of regulation- especially when they endanger others. But that 300,000 is meaningful to anyone who loses someone important to them, or if we lose great leaders or thinkers or doers.
As for death, death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a person, and if we want to speak of emerging but unproven research- increasing studies suggest Covid can manifest in other ways including the form of nerve and brain damage, causing permanent health or function reduction- and possibly contributing to or causing death years or decades later. We don’t really know. So we can run in like a bunch of shirtless morons, or we can be cautious based on what we know at the given time and adjust as we discover more.
The effectiveness of masks thing I’m not going to argue with you. Been there done that. Cloth masks aren’t positive pressure bio suits or even N95 level protection- but surgeons and doctors past and present have used and still do use cloth masks- especially when modern medical grade masks are not available or practical. It’s not a perfect solution. The closest we have to that is to lock down the whole country on curfew. Few people want that. This is the compromise.
Countries around the world took this thing seriously, wore the mask because health professionals said it was the right thing to do (and made it mandatory, because it is a public health concern). People didn't try to make this a "im being oppressed ! HELP !" thing, because they understand it's not only about themselves. And now those countries are going back to normal and have the epidemic under control.
Meanwhile the US is hitting new highs everyday, and are considering re-opening schools despite every health professional pointing out there is NO WAY to do so in a safe manner. But yeah, masks aren't effective, they just happened to work everywhere they were used.
Well said. Personally, I get that in many things people try to say “XYZ country does this and it works for them!” And what system of government or what crime prevention or whatever works one place doesn’t work another always. I’m not sure Yellow Knife Alaska would be enriched by a Paris style metro- but this is a virus, this is science not sociology. Much like flying an airplane there are nuances in how to go about it but there are simple and universal means that demonstratively work and are agreed upon by experts to be the way to go. If you lose more commercial flights than anyone else, “it’s only .3%” of all air traffic...” isn’t a valid defense. And when someone says: “maybe you need to require pilots to have training like we do?”
It is idiotic to say “I would never curtail my pilots freedom.” Or “that will take time and we want to fly now!” Or “training actually might be more dangerous! We don’t know. There haven’t been sufficient studies in the dangers of training pilots for me to endorse that!” Come on guys.
@famousone totally with guest_ on the response to the "only 3% mortality" thing. My husband has a friend that "recovered" from Covid-19. He now has lunch condition that kills 70% of the people who have it within 3 years. I had a bit with viral bronchitis in college. I never was hospitalized or given any medication. It spread to my gallbladder which led to it's eventual removal and all kinds of gastrointestinal issues and the coughing screwed up my upper digestive tract to where I have constant heartburn. I'm not even 35 and I have to have conversations like, "Should I have the heartburn surgery?" How long can I struggle with heartburn before I have to worry about throat cancer?" Viruses really screw the body over. We're looking at long-term damage that will have an expensive impact on the world.
Cop: I shot him 17 times because he coughed in my direction and that could potentially kill my newborn child"
Me: 2nd degree murder, 25 to life or execution.
Or
Cop: I shot him 17 times because he was about to hurl a molotov at a courthouse he just barricaded a dozen people inside of.
Me: Thank you for your service, I'm sorry that monster made your action necessary. Mandatory counseling and consider taking some paid leave while the investigation kicks off.
And by the way, that's part of the problem the protests against police brutality are against you know. But it's funny how cops shooting people are 'justified' until you disagree with the 'reason' they shot (and btw, I'll add that before you misinterpret my words : I don't think shooting someone because they're not wearing a mask is justified). So no, not everyone who believes masks should be mandatory because it's a matter of public health believes you should be shot if you don't.
again, I forgive contemporary speakers for not being well versed in archaic English from a century ago- that says: “Wessler closed in on him and they fought. In the fight....” So as per my original comment which remains un answered @famousone- did this officer have justification to shoot or not when a man was attacking him while enforcing a lawful order and following established police procedures? If an officers gun is drawn and a person begins to fight them physically- do they have justification to fire if they feel threatened by that attack?
Of course if the suspect charged the officer after refusing a lawful order, he'd win his prize for playing a stupid game, but that didn't happen. The officer jumped straight to lethal force when there is no indication that the other man was anything more than civilly disobedient.
You always have the right to use lethal force in response to a life threat, unless you started the death match.
I can shoot a man who breaks into my home, I cannot break into another man's home and shoot him when he tries to defend himself. Not justly, that is.
Now if I'm wrong and "succeeding" in this context does mean that the suspect started a physical altercation, PRIOR to the officer threatening his life over a piece of cloth, then I'm wrong.
A man was breaking the law. An officer of the law saw this and ordered he comply with a lawful order. The criminal refused. We do not know if the officer felt threatened or not. We cannot speculate on that. We do know that he made it clear that he would use force to enforce the law. The criminal attacked the officer. The officer shot the criminal in self defense non fatally. Now- can we agree on those facts as what are contained in this article- there are no assumptions or anything there which isn’t in this article?
Here's what we know.
1. A man was breaking a law, no violence was initiated at this point because none was stated in the article.
2. An officer gave an order.
3. The man refused, peacefully because it is not otherwise stated.
4. The officer drew his weapon and fired.
5. The suspect attempted to close distance with the officer.
6. The officer used lethal force to neutralize the percieved threat.
Between 3 and 4 is where the issue lies, not 1, 2, 5, or 6. Between 3 and 4 is what invalidates everything past the man's nonviolent noncompliance.
No such thing as non-lethal intent when the guns come out. No such thing as self-defense when you initiate the life threat.
We don't shoot jaywalkers, we don't shoot shoplifters, we don't even shoot murderers unless they can't be apprehended before posing an immediate threat to someone's life.
-police officer orders compliance with law.
-man refuses lawful order.
-police officer fires warning shot.
-man attacks police officer.
-police officer shoots man non fatally.
Cotton masks are less than effective against droplets, completely useless if airborne (as mounting evidence suggests Covid-19 is).
And many of the dead infectees, grandparents especially, were killed by other already lethal conditions (cancer, pneumonia, multiple gunshots, TB, the common cold, car accidents, etc).
Meanwhile the US is hitting new highs everyday, and are considering re-opening schools despite every health professional pointing out there is NO WAY to do so in a safe manner. But yeah, masks aren't effective, they just happened to work everywhere they were used.