• 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!

Police found guilty of murder...really?

Which is different then shooting a person in his house sitting on a couch with a gun to his own head is it not

Details do matter, the guy was primarily a threat to himself, at the time of being shot. If that situation changed then shooting him might have been justified.
I guess it really depends on details. Maybe the cop told him to put his gun down...and he didn't. And I am not entirely sure that the gun was pointed strictly at his own head the entire time. He could have made some slight movement with it, and the cop perceived that to be a threat.
 
I guess it really depends on details. Maybe the cop told him to put his gun down...and he didn't. And I am not entirely sure that the gun was pointed strictly at his own head the entire time. He could have made some slight movement with it, and the cop perceived that to be a threat.

There was another cop there before the one that got convicted, that cop was in the room working to calm everything down. This one barged in and shot the guy in all of 11 seconds. The cowardly cop could have walked back outside and waited behind his car,
 
There was another cop there before the one that got convicted, that cop was in the room working to calm everything down. This one barged in and shot the guy in all of 11 seconds. The cowardly cop could have walked back outside and waited behind his car,
Calm everyone down? Was there more than the suicidal man and the cop in the house? Also, why did the 2nd cop just barge in? Sounds like a miscommunication to me. The cop that was in the house first should have given him some info about the situation first.

Of course, I only have a very rough idea of how it works in terms of law enforcement.
 
Calm everyone down? Was there more than the suicidal man and the cop in the house? Also, why did the 2nd cop just barge in? Sounds like a miscommunication to me. The cop that was in the house first should have given him some info about the situation first.

Of course, I only have a very rough idea of how it works in terms of law enforcement.


Based on what I read

The suicidal guy called 9/11 saying he was going to kill himself. A female cop arrived first and was talking to the man, working to calm him down, a second cop arrives late with a shotgun charges into the room orders the guy to put down the gun then shoots the guy. The second cop shoots the guy within 11 seconds of arriving, I do not recall how long the first cop was on the scene before the second one shows up
 
I guess it really depends on details. Maybe the cop told him to put his gun down...and he didn't. And I am not entirely sure that the gun was pointed strictly at his own head the entire time. He could have made some slight movement with it, and the cop perceived that to be a threat.

Yeah, "shotgun wielding cop startles suicidal man holding gun to his own head" sums up the thread quite nicely.

Well done. :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, shotgun wielding cop startles suicidal man holding gun to his own head sums up the thread quite nicely.

Well done. :rolleyes:
I am not sure what you are trying to say.
 
Based on what I read

The suicidal guy called 9/11 saying he was going to kill himself. A female cop arrived first and was talking to the man, working to calm him down, a second cop arrives late with a shotgun charges into the room orders the guy to put down the gun then shoots the guy. The second cop shoots the guy within 11 seconds of arriving, I do not recall how long the first cop was on the scene before the second one shows up
Why was the 2nd cop using a shotgun though? Seems like an over-kill to me. Are cops usually outfitted with shotguns? I thought they used revolvers or some types of hand-guns.
 
I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Also, to Lord Tammerlain:

Why was the 2nd cop using a shotgun though? Seems like an over-kill to me. Are cops usually outfitted with shotguns? I thought they used revolvers or some types of hand-guns.


The Calgary Police used to have a shotgun in each squad car (20 years ago) not sure if they do now but I expect they do
 
The Calgary Police used to have a shotgun in each squad car (20 years ago) not sure if they do now but I expect they do
My understanding of a shotgun is that it "sprays". It's very imprecise, and the target that gets shot at, if he doesn't die from the shot, it's very difficult for his life to go back to normal, he would be very badly injured, and I believe this is one of the reasons that a lot of forces phased out shotguns in favor of arms that create smaller exit wounds and less damage.
 
Agree? Disagree?
The jury came to the correct verdict.

“Jurors saw video of the shooting taken from police body cameras, and Darby testified that he feared seeing “one of my officers” get hurt and fired after Parker only shrugged when ordered to put down the gun he was holding to his own head.”
 
Calm everyone down? Was there more than the suicidal man and the cop in the house? Also, why did the 2nd cop just barge in? Sounds like a miscommunication to me. The cop that was in the house first should have given him some info about the situation first.

Of course, I only have a very rough idea of how it works in terms of law enforcement.
And an even rougher understanding of the facts involved.
 
So, if there is a madman running around waving a knife menacingly, but he hasn't killed anybody yet. He might kill someone soon, maybe, we don't know, but the cop shouldn't do anything to stop him, because it would be wrong, according to you. The only time a cop should try and subdue someone is till after he has harmed or killed someone.
The man in the OP had a gun and was distraught. He called 911 because he knew he needed HELP. If he was going to suddenly murder random passerbys and police, he wouldn't have been sitting in his living room.

"mentally unstable people" (your words) is such a ridiculously broad description. The vast majority of mental illnesses do not involve an increased chance of sudden unpredictable murder sprees. Suicidal feelings certainly don't. That man was no more a threat to the public than an average gun owner

Also, this is the proper response to a madman threatening people with a knife. Frankly, I think it's the proper response to many dangerous situations with "mentally unstable people".


Based on what you've written in this thread, you probably think he should have been shot immediately because he was a threat to the officers. After all, "he might kill someone soon, maybe, we don't know"
 
Last edited:
There was no need to kill that man, so it was murder.
 
So, if there is a madman running around waving a knife menacingly, but he hasn't killed anybody yet. He might kill someone soon, maybe, we don't know, but the cop shouldn't do anything to stop him, because it would be wrong, according to you. The only time a cop should try and subdue someone is till after he has harmed or killed someone.
There is more reaction time with a knife. If there is an aggressive move toward someone maybe shoot. Until then it would certainly be rash.
 
Anybody agree or disagree?
Pretzel logic for sure. Well you see he was going to shoot himself in the head so I saved him the bullet. Is there any proof that shows if the cop had walked out the guy would have shot himself?
 

First, I assume the victim was not black or this would have been a world wide exploited case.

Anyway, basically he storms in to a residence where a man is holding a gun on himself threatening suicide. He orders the man to drop his gun, when he doesn't the officer shoots him dead.

IMO most people are going to extremes on these kinds of cases, either calling it murder (like the jury did) or saying it's justified and defending the cops like the local police did.

I think society should often take a middle road on these kinds of cases. No matter how well trained or normally cool and logical a cop ((or soldier) is, the survival instincts can cause them to act prematurely when deadly force is present possibly against them.

If we expect perfection and robotic precision from cops and understandable misjudgements result in prison, smart people will not become cops.

This suicidal person obviously was emotionally unstable, and could have at any moment turned the gun and shot both cops. The cop then would have been second guessed why he didn't stop the threat.

It was bad policing, and he should have been banned from that kind of work, but murder is too much.

The locals expect this to be overturned, not sure why.
Every worker makes mistakes on their jobs, some small, some costing their employers lots of money, and in dangerous professions some can even cost lives. As some idiot lefty on here once pointed out to me that law enforcement and airline pilots aren't allowed to make mistakes that cost lives. I was actually taken aback by that statement because the leading cause of airplane crashes is pilot error and yet we don't go throwing surviving pilots in jail if they make a mistake that winds up killing people (unless they were under the influence). So, that was really stupid of them to compare these but it works out well for the counter argument. If we actually want police officers to protect us then we can't be throwing them in jail or giving them a bunch of shit if they make a wrong split second decision that winds up costing a life or lives. That's what civil cases are for, if someone was wrongly killed by law enforcement. Now, if they do something really egregious that goes past just making a mistake, that's a different ballgame.
 
Don't kill yourself! I'll handle that for you!
 
The man in the OP had a gun and was distraught. He called 911 because he knew he needed HELP.
I dont have too much experience with mental health, but shouldn't a suicidal person call a suicide prevention hotline? How is calling the police going to help him? Cops aren't experts on mental health.

If he was going to suddenly murder random passerbys and police, he wouldn't have been sitting in his living room.
The fact that he was sitting in his living room is no guarantee that he wouldn't kill bystanders.

By the way I never used the word "murder". I said "kill".
"mentally unstable people" (your words) is such a ridiculously broad description. The vast majority of mental illnesses do not involve an increased chance of sudden unpredictable murder sprees. Suicidal feelings certainly don't. That man was no more a threat to the public than an average gun owner
I never said that mental illnesses have an increased chance of murder sprees. And in fact I never mentioned mental illnesses. I said mentally/emotionally unstable.
Also, this is the proper response to a madman threatening people with a knife. Frankly, I think it's the proper response to many dangerous situations with "mentally unstable people".

Maybe in the UK. But in my country, I believe when police officers encounter someone who is waving a weapon menacingly and who wont' put it when police instruct him to, they shoot.

I think they reason they do this now is because in the past police officers have been killed trying disarm such sort of dangerous people.
Based on what you've written in this thread, you probably think he should have been shot immediately because he was a threat to the officers. After all, "he might kill someone soon, maybe, we don't know"
No, I didn't say "immediately". Also, "he might kill someone soon, maybe, we don't know" isn't entirely accurate. It all depends on what was happening at the time, maybe the cop who shot him had reasons to believe that he could be a threat to others, we don't know. Now that someone brought up that the second cop shot him after having interacted with him for a total of 11 seconds, now that changes things a bit.
 
Every worker makes mistakes on their jobs, some small, some costing their employers lots of money, and in dangerous professions some can even cost lives. As some idiot lefty on here once pointed out to me that law enforcement and airline pilots aren't allowed to make mistakes that cost lives. I was actually taken aback by that statement because the leading cause of airplane crashes is pilot error and yet we don't go throwing surviving pilots in jail if they make a mistake that winds up killing people (unless they were under the influence). So, that was really stupid of them to compare these but it works out well for the counter argument. If we actually want police officers to protect us then we can't be throwing them in jail or giving them a bunch of shit if they make a wrong split second decision that winds up costing a life or lives. That's what civil cases are for, if someone was wrongly killed by law enforcement. Now, if they do something really egregious that goes past just making a mistake, that's a different ballgame.
This is well said. I would add that sometimes a mistake may mean you loose the right to be a cop.
 
Pretzel logic for sure. Well you see he was going to shoot himself in the head so I saved him the bullet. Is there any proof that shows if the cop had walked out the guy would have shot himself?
The defense was a mentally unstable man with a gun refusing to lower it , constitutes a high life danger situation in which deadly force is justified.

I disagree it justified shooting but it posed enough of a threatening situation to consider it just a tragic mistake. Cops are going to make mistakes under high situations.

Nearly all cops would eventually make a mistake like this one if put in enough high stress situations. It should not be considered a crime but it is reason for lawsuits and firing.
 
The defense was a mentally unstable man with a gun refusing to lower it , constitutes a high life danger situation in which deadly force is justified.

I disagree it justified shooting but it posed enough of a threatening situation to consider it just a tragic mistake. Cops are going to make mistakes under high situations.

Nearly all cops would eventually make a mistake like this one if put in enough high stress situations. It should not be considered a crime but it is reason for lawsuits and firing.
Killing someone unjustifiably, goes far beyond a simple mistake.
 
The defense was a mentally unstable man with a gun refusing to lower it , constitutes a high life danger situation in which deadly force is justified.

I disagree it justified shooting but it posed enough of a threatening situation to consider it just a tragic mistake. Cops are going to make mistakes under high situations.

Nearly all cops would eventually make a mistake like this one if put in enough high stress situations. It should not be considered a crime but it is reason for lawsuits and firing.
So the senior officer who was there de escalating the situation was ordered by the junior officer, darby, to point her weapon at the guy on the couch who called them there in the first place. Darby's own body cam shows the guy was not pointing his weapon at anyone when he was shot. A mistake is one thing, shooting someone within eleven seconds of entry is so much more than a mistake. Seems the jury agreed.
 
You shouldn't just post to exchange verbal potshots. Try to have a point.
There was a point to my criticism of your posts; you aren’t paying attention to the reported facts in OP’s opening post.

You’re supposing thoughts and actions of those involved in direct contradiction of reported facts, trying to justify the murder of Parker by Darby.

We know, based on reporting, that there was at least one other (senior) police officer already on the scene talking with Parker in an attempt to deescalate the situation when Darby came into the house with a shotgun.

We also know that the jury was presented with body cam video showing Parker sitting on a couch with a gun to his own head, not threatening anyone but himself, and when Parker shrugged his shoulders at Darby’s order to put his gun down, Darby shot him in the face.

Darby Murdered Parker. The eyewitness testimony of the senior police officer present and the video of the murder prove it.

Contrary to an earlier comment by you, police may not shoot/kill someone because they might present a danger. American law doesn’t allow for that, and I’d be willing to wager that Canadian law doesn’t either.
 
So, if there is a madman running around waving a knife menacingly, but he hasn't killed anybody yet. He might kill someone soon, maybe, we don't know, but the cop shouldn't do anything to stop him, because it would be wrong, according to you. The only time a cop should try and subdue someone is till after he has harmed or killed someone.

You might have a gun hidden up your butt. The next cop who pulls you over for a traffic offense doesn't know that you don't, and so from his perspective, you might whip out your butt gun and shoot him at any second. Good police work if he wastes you were you sit, y'know, because he doesn't know you aren't going to kill him.

:rolleyes:



"Might" talk isn't good faith argument. It's just another way of saying that you do not care.
 
Back
Top Bottom