• 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 Shoot Unarmed Man With His Hands Up

Ask people who are convicted of murder in the first degree, and those convicted of manslaughter. Is that a serious question?



Lmao, I chucked it up to bad training. I didn't say whether it was intentional or unintentional. It's clearly bad police work though.

See, that's the problem. it isn't "clearly" bad police work because we clearly don't have all the information and we're missing the most important part of the information which is the actual shooting. What we're doing now is speculating and we need to be careful in that speculation about which parts of this are really "clear".
 
See, that's the problem. it isn't "clearly" bad police work because we clearly don't have all the information and we're missing the most important part of the information which is the actual shooting. What we're doing now is speculating and we need to be careful in that speculation about which parts of this are really "clear".

If you shoot somebody laying on the ground with their hands up, it's clearly bad police work. Keep trying to pull this timid defense Luther, it's funny.
 
Lmao, I chucked it up to bad training. I didn't say whether it was intentional or unintentional. It's clearly bad police work though.

Looks more and more like accident.

Possibly due to lack of training with the M16.

Ordinary patrol officers may have been issued M16s due to the recent attacks on police and may not be as familiar with them as they should be.

The maintenance of the M16s may not even be up to standards due to being in storage for a long time.

Lots of possibilities for this mishap.
 
And after we need civilian oversight. And body cameras.

Yes, we need both. And communities need police.

Right now, we have a generation or more of children who primarily only know about heavy handed cops who shoot, choke, or brutalize people and/or do the same to family pets. The media is partially to blame for that as are most Americans.

Today's police are responding to that generation of children who are now adults; adults who have rational reasons for not respecting militarized police. Whatever the solution(s) may be, if they are going to have any measure of success the changes must involve national will, and patience.
 
Looks more and more like accident.

You're trying too hard to defend the cop based on less evidence than Josie has to claim it was an accident. That whole M16 thing? You've made it up not knowing what guns were used.
 
Why?

I'm not asking that from the perspective that we don't need those things but I really want to know how those tools would be used.

My take on cameras is that they can be an excellent forensic tool for a lot of these situations but my concern is that the public is going to demand the footage not for forensic purposes but to sate their own voyeuristic desires. The camera can only tell part of the story and people need to understand that.

Well, here are some reasons why I think cops should be required to wear body cameras:

1. The necessity to record every interaction with residents is bound to minimize complaints about police officer behavior and the unnecessary use of force, because interactions are captured for everyone to see.

2. Use of the cameras while on-duty provides hard video evidence of decisions made by officers in high intensity situations. And seeing things from the officers perspective goes a long way.

3. Video recorded by body cameras protects officers from any false accusations of misconduct or abuse.

4. Bodycams will increase the transparency and accountability of officers.

5. It can help prevent and de-escalate confrontational situations between officers and civilians.

6. It can provide valuable evidence in obtaining accurate witness and victim statements.

7. Video footage captured by officers may help to speed up court proceedings by providing indisputable proof of certain situations.
 
Last edited:
You're trying too hard to defend the cop based on less evidence than Josie has to claim it was an accident. That whole M16 thing? You've made it up not knowing what guns were used.

As I said in the other thread, this is either a bonehead move, or an accident.
 
You're trying too hard to defend the cop based on less evidence than Josie has to claim it was an accident. That whole M16 thing? You've made it up not knowing what guns were used.

I draw no conclusions, just offer what MAY have happened.

Looks more and more like accident.

Possibly due to lack of training with the M16.

Ordinary patrol officers may have been issued M16s due to the recent attacks on police and may not be as familiar with them as they should be.

The maintenance of the M16s may not even be up to standards due to being in storage for a long time.

Lots of possibilities for this mishap.
 
If you shoot somebody laying on the ground with their hands up, it's clearly bad police work. Keep trying to pull this timid defense Luther, it's funny.

If that's what happened it's bad police work. Since we only have footage of before the shooting and after the shooting we really don't know what was happening during the shooting. That's why we're speculating and that's why, at this point, this really isn't a clear case of anything.
 
I draw no conclusions, just offer what MAY have happened.

Lmao, what may have happened based on your belief that a specific gun was used even though you have no evidence it was. I've seen desperation, but that's a lot of pirouettes.
 
Lmao, what may have happened based on your belief that a specific gun was used even though you have no evidence it was. I've seen desperation, but that's a lot of pirouettes.

The evidence is that three shots were fired and a man was hit in the leg.

Not likely with anything but an automatic weapon.

Likely with a cop with a newly issued M16.
 
Lots of PDs have surplus M-16s (fully automatic).

If the dude was shot in the leg with an M-16, I think he would have felt more than a mosquito bite. And as standard, they aren't walking around with automatic weapons. What cop, as part of his regular beat equipment, is strapping a fully automatic M-16 to their body? None.
 
Wow. In an interview on his hospital bed, the therapist said he asked the cop "why did you shoot me?" to which the officer just shook his head and said, "I don't know."

Which means..........nothing.
 
Like I said earlier, my guess is that the cop just plain lost it. I bet he didn't even consciously pull the trigger.

Well that's some great training.
 
If the dude was shot in the leg with an M-16, I think he would have felt more than a mosquito bite. And as standard, they aren't walking around with automatic weapons. What cop, as part of his regular beat equipment, is strapping a fully automatic M-16 to their body? None.

The AR15 uses the same round as the M16.

He may have been hit with bullet fragments off the pavement.

Since the recent attacks on police, more automatic weapons have been issued to cops who don't normally have them.
 
The AR15 uses the same round as the M16.

He may have been hit with bullet fragments off the pavement.

Since the recent attacks on police, more automatic weapons have been issued to cops who don't normally have them.

And if this were somehow a fully automatic (doubt it), we see why they shouldn't be issued fully automatic weapons.

But I highly doubt some cop on his regular patrol is carrying around fully automatic weapons.
 
It means the cop didn't know why he shot.

Did the cop say it?

Was he misunderstood by a wounded man?

Did the man make it up to enhance the possibility of a cash settlement?

Thus it really means nothing at this point.
 
I have zero problem believing a police officer mishandled this situation. I have a cousin with Down Syndrom who was beaten by cops because they felt they knew better than the special ed coach how to deal with his emotional outburst at a sporting event. By the time the cops showed up the coach, with training in the matter, had everything under control. But the cops specialize in escalation and they ignored the coach's advice and instead marched right up to my cousin and grabbed him and started yelling questions at him. With untrained thugs like that my cousin is lucky he only ended up in the hospital.

These right-wingers don't understand that sometimes it is the cops who are the thugs.
 
The evidence is that three shots were fired and a man was hit in the leg. Not likely with anything but an automatic weapon.

This doesn't tell us anything about what guns were used. Lmao, I don't know much about guns, but you do know that in the 21st century, our guns can hold more than 1 bullet at a time without being automatic?
 
And if this were somehow a fully automatic (doubt it), we see why they shouldn't be issued fully automatic weapons.

But I highly doubt some cop on his regular patrol is carrying around fully automatic weapons.

They carry them in the trunk of the car and get them out at a gun incident. They were advised that this was a man with a gun incident on the radio.
 
Back
Top Bottom