• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan cop on Black man's back, fatally shot him

I asked a question.

It happens to be true that police officers are NOT permitted to indulge their own penchant for "profiling".
Which has what to do with this scenario?
 
Which has what to do with this scenario?
That a cop of the lower racial caste had the audacity to pull over an anointed one for expired tags. I myself got nailed for expired tags a year ago, but white privilege just doesnt get you what it used to.

The logic is that Pregnant Woman Beater was "PROFILED", pulled over and treated like a criminal JUST FOR BEING BLACK. Of course he WAS a violent criminal both before and after the altercation but thats not relevant. The racism in this Cops heart when he pulled over this pillar of the community and said "sir do you know your tags are out of date" was so vile and evil that Pregnant Woman Beater just had to get away with it. And when the Cop had the nerve to pursue the man fleeing a traffic stop it became in his mind AGGRESSION against him. What is this country coming to when a man can get pulled over for a traffic violation, run away, and the cops chase you. If he were white I tell ya.

Then in the course of very racistly attempting to arrest Pregnant Woman Beater he had the unthinkable nerve to try and Taze him. Which in his mind is yet more AGGRESSION, which justified attempting to and later succeeding at disarming the cop.
 
I was commenting on your defence of the police officer and not on the conduct of the person that the police officer killed.
Right you said disarming the cop was "hitting back" Im just trying to figure what you think the initial "hit" from the cop was. It couldnt be like in the ridiculous caricature of you above, that you literally think that attempting to arrest someone who flees a traffic stop is aggression for which disarming the cop was "hitting back" in other words, he was defending himself.
 
Oh, blaming the victim... where have I seen that before... perpetually.
 
Oh, blaming the victim... where have I seen that before... perpetually.
Idk, this is off topic but I have a weird feeling that if this thread was instead about Black on White crime or Rotherham grooming gangs or something youd have all kinds of blame for the victims. I personally believe that if the subject was not a member of a sacred and special protected group absolutely no one defending him in this thread would give a shit.
 
Idk, this is off topic but I have a weird feeling that if this thread was instead about Black on White crime or Rotherham grooming gangs or something youd have all kinds of blame for the victims. I personally believe that if the subject was not a member of a sacred and special protected group absolutely no one defending him in this thread would give a shit.
Well you are right. If this thread wasn;t about a member of a sacred and specially protected group,,i.e. police, there would be much less consternation about it.

But frankly that makes sense. Since police are authorized by the citizenry and PAID by the citizens to protect and serve. It makes sense that the citizens should demand that their government employees be just.
 
Well you are right. If this thread wasn;t about a member of a sacred and specially protected group,,i.e. police, there would be much less consternation about it.

But frankly that makes sense. Since police are authorized by the citizenry and PAID by the citizens to protect and serve. It makes sense that the citizens should demand that their government employees be just.
What would be unjust is if the law demanded this man simply allow someone who had stolen his weapon to use it on him rather than recognizing it as a reasonable cause to fear for your life and your right to act when your life is in danger. Cops dont have LESS rights in violent situations they have MORE because they have no duty to retreat. Any legal precedent on what a cop cant do in a self defense situation applies the same to you, your wife, your kids and your 70 year old mee maw.

Your wife has a taser and is also concealed carrying a gun and a grown ass strange man disarms her of the taser. Are you actually telling me, you do not think it is right and justified for a woman in this situation to shoot the man who is in all reasonable likelihood going to tase her and then do god knows ****ing what? This is the exact same principle.
 
What would be unjust is if the law demanded this man simply allow someone who had stolen his weapon to use it on him rather than recognizing it as a reasonable cause to fear for your life and your right to act when your life is in danger. Cops dont have LESS rights in violent situations they have MORE because they have no duty to retreat. Any legal precedent on what a cop cant do in a self defense situation applies the same to you, your wife, your kids and your 70 year old mee maw.

Your wife has a taser and is also concealed carrying a gun and a grown ass strange man disarms her of the taser. Are you actually telling me, you do not think it is right and justified for a woman in this situation to shoot the man who is in all reasonable likelihood going to tase her and then do god knows ****ing what? This is the exact same principle.
ummm...

You mean the taser that was deployed twice? A NON LETHAL weapon?.
Which only had drive stun function which even the manufacturer states is NOT incapacitating?

PS..

I like how you made it "my wife"... and not me.. a full grown man that has police training and was a reserve police officer..

Oh and lets leave out that the policeman was on top of the mans back with the man on all fours and his weight on his hands.. etc.


Like you show.. the policeman is being placed in a special protected class.
 
ummm...

You mean the taser that was deployed twice? A NON LETHAL weapon?.
Which only had drive stun function which even the manufacturer states is NOT incapacitating?

PS..

I like how you made it "my wife"... and not me.. a full grown man that has police training and was a reserve police officer..

Oh and lets leave out that the policeman was on top of the mans back with the man on all fours and his weight on his hands.. etc.


Like you show.. the policeman is being placed in a special protected class.

I understand theres a rule against ad hominem on this board, but if people keep puling out hits like "Getting tased is no biggie bro trust me I was a RESERVE POLICE OFFICER" Im not gonna make it. Please tell me how often you got tazed directing traffic for parades, please.

First of all, "non lethal" isnt used anymore they call it "less than lethal" after a series or controversial deaths. This also lead to Tasers being classified as lethal weapons in many states. Im not sure if they are in MI rn but it doesnt matter anyways because someone trying to taze you is 100% justification to respond with lethal force. You dont know what the hell this lunatic with a taser plans to do to you.

The reason I used "your wife" in this scenario is because the legal precedent youre arguing for would apply to her just as much to him. You dont think being tazed is a reason to fear for your life or grevious bodily harm. Ergo if a strange man came up to your wife and pointed a tazer at her she would not be justified using lethal force to defend herself. She just has to take it. Just like you say this cop should have.

The reason the shot being in the back or the man being on the ground dont mattter is, first of all, self defense situations are not Klingon Honor Duels. It doesnt matter if it was a *fair fight* what matters is if the man shot posed a threat to the cop which he did. If Shooting a gun while on the ground, and the act of turning around arent really that hard. So no, being on the ground and grappling w this cop doesnt really undo the fact that he was a weapon. And if the cop didnt have control or was losing control, which is what it actually looks like in the video with the cop panicking and shouting to drop the weapon.
 
I understand theres a rule against ad hominem on this board, but if people keep puling out hits like "Getting tased is no biggie bro trust me I was a RESERVE POLICE OFFICER" Im not gonna make it. Please tell me how often you got tazed directing traffic for parades, please.

First of all, "non lethal" isnt used anymore they call it "less than lethal" after a series or controversial deaths. This also lead to Tasers being classified as lethal weapons in many states. Im not sure if they are in MI rn but it doesnt matter anyways because someone trying to taze you is 100% justification to respond with lethal force. You dont know what the hell this lunatic with a taser plans to do to you.

The reason I used "your wife" in this scenario is because the legal precedent youre arguing for would apply to her just as much to him. You dont think being tazed is a reason to fear for your life or grevious bodily harm. Ergo if a strange man came up to your wife and pointed a tazer at her she would not be justified using lethal force to defend herself. She just has to take it. Just like you say this cop should have.

The reason the shot being in the back or the man being on the ground dont mattter is, first of all, self defense situations are not Klingon Honor Duels. It doesnt matter if it was a *fair fight* what matters is if the man shot posed a threat to the cop which he did. If Shooting a gun while on the ground, and the act of turning around arent really that hard. So no, being on the ground and grappling w this cop doesnt really undo the fact that he was a weapon. And if the cop didnt have control or was losing control, which is what it actually looks like in the video with the cop panicking and shouting to drop the weapon.
Pooh.
You said a lot of meaningless junk
You used my wife because she is a woman and smaller.
The taser in question had ready been deployed twice. So all it had was drive stun.
The suspect was in no position to even try to use it.because he was on his hands and knees with the officers weight on him and when last seen on video he had the taser. by the barrel.
I said nothing about fair fights or klingons on whatever bs you are slinging.
Under the law..the officer has to reasonable believe they are in imminent danger of death or grave body harm to use deadly force.
That was not met when the officer killed the suspect.
 
Pooh.
You said a lot of meaningless junk
You used my wife because she is a woman and smaller.
The taser in question had ready been deployed twice. So all it had was drive stun.
The suspect was in no position to even try to use it.because he was on his hands and knees with the officers weight on him and when last seen on video he had the taser. by the barrel.
I said nothing about fair fights or klingons on whatever bs you are slinging.
Under the law..the officer has to reasonable believe they are in imminent danger of death or grave body harm to use deadly force.
That was not met when the officer killed the suspect.
Yes I like to point out how the legal standard you apply to a grown man would also apply to your wife, or an elderly man or woman. This is my entire point because you are not the only person with wife or kids or elderly people they care about and the legal standard you want applied would make them all less safe. This wasnt some sneaky underhanded thing I slipped in there it was actually my main point.

So ok, a stranger comes up to you with a "deployed twice" taser that only has "drive stun." Are you, your wife, or your elderly memaw allowed to use lethal force to prevent this, or do they just have to let it happen? This is not a hypothetical question Id like an answer and the only reason youd continue to refuse to answer it is because you know Im right and you dont want to admit it.

So far you havent answered my question. Just because the dude was on his hands and knees doesnt mean that situation couldnt change quickly, as it already had been if you watched the whole video and the extended grappling match that got them where they were. It was completely reasonable to fear that this person who had been fighting with the officer extensively and been consistently slipping out of his attempts to incapacitate him would continue to do exactly that and the second his hands were free would use the weapon that he had.

Again, youre an ordinary dude, someone else attacks you with a weapon. You grapple them to the ground but they dont let go of the weapon and continue to struggle with you. Are you actually suggesting in this situation the person who was attacked doesnt have a resonable fear of being attacked again? By the time Pregnant Woman Beater was on the ground he had already attempted one disarm and then successfully disarmed the officer. Is the fight really over because hes pinned?
 
Yes I like to point out how the legal standard you apply to a grown man would also apply to your wife, or an elderly man or woman. This is my entire point because you are not the only person with wife or kids or elderly people they care about and the legal standard you want applied would make them all less safe. This wasnt some sneaky underhanded thing I slipped in there it was actually my main point.

So ok, a stranger comes up to you with a "deployed twice" taser that only has "drive stun." Are you, your wife, or your elderly memaw allowed to use lethal force to prevent this, or do they just have to let it happen? This is not a hypothetical question Id like an answer and the only reason youd continue to refuse to answer it is because you know Im right and you dont want to admit it.

So far you havent answered my question. Just because the dude was on his hands and knees doesnt mean that situation couldnt change quickly, as it already had been if you watched the whole video and the extended grappling match that got them where they were. It was completely reasonable to fear that this person who had been fighting with the officer extensively and been consistently slipping out of his attempts to incapacitate him would continue to do exactly that and the second his hands were free would use the weapon that he had.

Again, youre an ordinary dude, someone else attacks you with a weapon. You grapple them to the ground but they dont let go of the weapon and continue to struggle with you. Are you actually suggesting in this situation the person who was attacked doesnt have a resonable fear of being attacked again? By the time Pregnant Woman Beater was on the ground he had already attempted one disarm and then successfully disarmed the officer. Is the fight really over because hes pinned?
Well. Let's start with the fact that it's not my elderly grandmother..the suspect here didn't come up to them etc.
Your scenario isn't anything like what happened.
For the scenario to be analogous...My me maw would have to have tackled the man..tried to use the taser twice.. would be on their back keeping them down and etc.
However..
A man approaches me with a drive stun capable weapon intent on hitting me with it.?
Can I use deadly force? Questionable.
I am a large strong man trained in poli? ce tactics and martial arts.
A lot more would have to be known.
What's the size of the man in front of me.. ?
Do I have room to manuever..? Etc.
Frankly the drive stun in q stand up fight is probably less deadly than say taking a kick or knee to the head..
What I do know is that as a Leo. I faced such scenarios with suspects coming at me with weapons deadlier than driv stuns..knives and improvised clubs and I didn't have to kill them.

As I stated earlier.. in the scenario with this police officer ? If the suspect had gotten to his feet..was holding the deployed taser in a way to use it and turned on the officer and came at him?
And the officer shot him? I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the officer.

But that's not what happened. The officer was on top of the suspect with his weight fully on him ..with the suspect on his hands and knees and I don't believe holding the taser in a way it could be used.
 
Well. Let's start with the fact that it's not my elderly grandmother..the suspect here didn't come up to them etc.
Your scenario isn't anything like what happened.
For the scenario to be analogous...My me maw would have to have tackled the man..tried to use the taser twice.. would be on their back keeping them down and etc.
However..
A man approaches me with a drive stun capable weapon intent on hitting me with it.?
Can I use deadly force? Questionable.
I am a large strong man trained in poli? ce tactics and martial arts.
A lot more would have to be known.
What's the size of the man in front of me.. ?
Do I have room to manuever..? Etc.
Frankly the drive stun in q stand up fight is probably less deadly than say taking a kick or knee to the head..
What I do know is that as a Leo. I faced such scenarios with suspects coming at me with weapons deadlier than driv stuns..knives and improvised clubs and I didn't have to kill them.

As I stated earlier.. in the scenario with this police officer ? If the suspect had gotten to his feet..was holding the deployed taser in a way to use it and turned on the officer and came at him?
And the officer shot him? I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the officer.

But that's not what happened. The officer was on top of the suspect with his weight fully on him ..with the suspect on his hands and knees and I don't believe holding the taser in a way it could be used.
clearly, that over-matched cop did not have your incredibly developed ninja skills
the cop was never able to control the actions of the perp
my speculation is he was feeling close to spent, after wrestling with the drunk bruiser and still unable to seperate him from the taser
while the cop held the superior position in the match, he could not take advantage of it
the perp would not relinquish possession of the taser and was slowly gaining an advantage in their grappling match
the possibility that the perp would soon be able to overcome the cop and use the taser to the perp's advantage is something the cop had to have been pondering
he used his advantage while he still held it
that strikes me as a valid self defense argument

unfortunately, those of us without the exotic ninja training that reserve members of the police force enjoy, have to play by real-world experience. like this survivor did
 
Well. Let's start with the fact that it's not my elderly grandmother..the suspect here didn't come up to them etc.
Your scenario isn't anything like what happened.
For the scenario to be analogous...My me maw would have to have tackled the man..tried to use the taser twice.. would be on their back keeping them down and etc.
However..
A man approaches me with a drive stun capable weapon intent on hitting me with it.?
Can I use deadly force? Questionable.
I am a large strong man trained in poli? ce tactics and martial arts.
A lot more would have to be known.
What's the size of the man in front of me.. ?
Do I have room to manuever..? Etc.
Frankly the drive stun in q stand up fight is probably less deadly than say taking a kick or knee to the head..
What I do know is that as a Leo. I faced such scenarios with suspects coming at me with weapons deadlier than driv stuns..knives and improvised clubs and I didn't have to kill them.

As I stated earlier.. in the scenario with this police officer ? If the suspect had gotten to his feet..was holding the deployed taser in a way to use it and turned on the officer and came at him?
And the officer shot him? I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the officer.

But that's not what happened. The officer was on top of the suspect with his weight fully on him ..with the suspect on his hands and knees and I don't believe holding the taser in a way it could be used.

Bro Im going to be straight. I do not believe that you, in fulfilling your duties as a RESERVE POLICE OFFICER, have ever been attacked with a knife. And regardless of if your Paul Blart fantasy is true, that is a scenario in which you are absolutely justified blowing someones brains out. Theres no *Batman Pacifism* clause to reasonable fear. If someone is coming at you with a knife unless there are ridiculous circumstances, like him being a double amputee crawling up a flight of stairs after you with a knife, absolutely nobody is going to ask you why you didnt attempt to kung fu the knife out of their hand instead of shooting them.

The weapon being in drive stun doesnt matter because once again, this is not an *honor duel.* It doesnt have to be a fair fight. The idea of, legally requiring someone to hand to hand fight someone while being stunned because using a gun is *not fair* is insane. Its requiring people in a self defense scenario to give an advantage to the attacker and not use whatever means they have to stay alive and unharmed. You have every reason to believe someone trying to use a stun gun on you intends to do bad things to you and you dont have some legal obligation to play pattycake or attempt to mall ninja the weapon away.

People who play Xenos Arrow with duty to retreat/restraint are always doing it in bad faith. Change the stun gun in this scenario to a firearm. Do you have to wait for this person who has already attacked you and has a weapon they arent dropping to level the gun at your face before you are allowed to use lethal force?
 
Bro Im going to be straight. I do not believe that you, in fulfilling your duties as a RESERVE POLICE OFFICER, have ever been attacked with a knife. And regardless of if your Paul Blart fantasy is true, that is a scenario in which you are absolutely justified blowing someones brains out. Theres no *Batman Pacifism* clause to reasonable fear. If someone is coming at you with a knife unless there are ridiculous circumstances, like him being a double amputee crawling up a flight of stairs after you with a knife, absolutely nobody is going to ask you why you didnt attempt to kung fu the knife out of their hand instead of shooting them.

The weapon being in drive stun doesnt matter because once again, this is not an *honor duel.* It doesnt have to be a fair fight. The idea of, legally requiring someone to hand to hand fight someone while being stunned because using a gun is *not fair* is insane. Its requiring people in a self defense scenario to give an advantage to the attacker and not use whatever means they have to stay alive and unharmed. You have every reason to believe someone trying to use a stun gun on you intends to do bad things to you and you dont have some legal obligation to play pattycake or attempt to mall ninja the weapon away.

People who play Xenos Arrow with duty to retreat/restraint are always doing it in bad faith. Change the stun gun in this scenario to a firearm. Do you have to wait for this person who has already attacked you and has a weapon they arent dropping to level the gun at your face before you are allowed to use lethal force?
Yeah..here is the problem with your " it doesn't have to be a fair fight.
The law requires to use deadly force..you must reasonably believe that you are in imminent dangerr of death or grave bodily harm.
That was not met here.

You keep making some pretty stupid stuff up.
: it doesn't matter if a person has a firearm or the drive stun?
That's just doesnt make sense.
A guy twenty feet away from me with a drive stun.
A guy twenty feet with a firearm.
And you tell me I am just as much in danger from the drive stun?
Yeah..you should stop posting.
 
Yeah..here is the problem with your " it doesn't have to be a fair fight.
The law requures to use deadly force..you must reasonably believe that you are in imminent dangerr of death or grave bodily harm.
That was not met here.
He didnt have a reasonable fear that this struggling armed man would use his weapon? Again, by the point someone is attempting to stun gun you theyve already given you a reasonable fear.
 
clearly, that over-matched cop did not have your incredibly developed ninja skills
the cop was never able to control the actions of the perp
my speculation is he was feeling close to spent, after wrestling with the drunk bruiser and still unable to seperate him from the taser
while the cop held the superior position in the match, he could not take advantage of it
the perp would not relinquish possession of the taser and was slowly gaining an advantage in their grappling match
the possibility that the perp would soon be able to overcome the cop and use the taser to the perp's advantage is something the cop had to have been pondering
he used his advantage while he still held it
that strikes me as a valid self defense argument

unfortunately, those of us without the exotic ninja training that reserve members of the police force enjoy, have to play by real-world experience. like this survivor did
Yeah no. The officer was simply not in imminent danger of death.when he killed the man. It why you have to do several.."would couldas " to hypothesize in the future he might be in danger.
By the way.. this officer made every tactical error in the book.
He should never have tried to subdue the suspect in the first place.
 
He didnt have a reasonable fear that this struggling armed man would use his weapon? Again, by the point someone is attempting to stun gun you theyve already given you a reasonable fear.
Exactly. Therexwas absolutely no reasonable fear .
Let's see..to get his weapon..
The man would have to " perform a ninja like move to take his weight and the officers . off his hands. Then twist his arm at a humanly impossible angle to even contact the officer.. assuming of course he even knows how to use a taser..then when the officer recoil from the pain..
And backs up...
Wait..what then...hmmm..
He has to manage to get to the officer and then.." get his gun".. without getting shot.
Yeah okay......
 
Exactly. Therexwas absolutely no reasonable fear .
Let's see..to get his weapon..
The man would have to " perform a ninja like move to take his weight and the officer's hands. off his hands. Then twist his arm at a humanly impossible angle to even contact the officer.. assuming of course he even knows how to use a taser..then when the officer recoil from the pain..
And backs up...
Wait..what then...hmmm..
He has to manage to get to the officer and then.." get his gun".. without getting shot.
Yeah okay......

So in your Xenos Arrow interpretation of restraint he does in fact literally have to wait until he actually gets attacked with the weapon until hes allowed to use his own
 
Bro like, have you considered that your Cop friends lied to you about the situations where youre allowed to use a gun because they didnt want you to pull a gun on someone during a parade.
 
So in your Xenos Arrow interpretation of restraint he does in fact literally have to wait until he actually gets attacked with the weapon until hes allowed to use his own
Well the point is you ridiculous dude..in the position the suspect was in...HE COULD NOT IN ANY WAY ATTACK THE OFFICER WITH THE DRIVE STUN!
 
Yeah no. The officer was simply not in imminent danger of death.when he killed the man. It why you have to do several.."would couldas " to hypothesize in the future he might be in danger.
By the way.. this officer made every tactical error in the book.
He should never have tried to subdue the suspect in the first place.
not having been a cop, let me ask:

what should that police officer done instead?
 
Bro like, have you considered that your Cop friends lied to you about the situations where youre allowed to use a gun because they didnt want you to pull a gun on someone during a parade.
According to you I would have been justified in shooting most of the people I came in contact with since probably 1/3 were carrying a firearm.

But I like your rationale..since I believe in following the law and procedure..it makes me more likely to shoot people in a parade.
 
not having been a cop, let me ask:

what should that police officer done instead?
I already answered this but.
He should have let the guy walk away. Secured the friend in the car and the car..thus having a secured both the potential stolen car and accomplice...and all evidence..
Then waited for back up and then gone after the man on foot .
Instead he tried to take down tge suspect..giving the potential accomplice time to either 1. Simply drive off with possibly stolen car.
2. Come up and kill him while he is engaged with the first suspect.. and they both drive off with stolen car.
 
Back
Top Bottom