Atlanta Shooting

I supported that crazy hotel hallway vicitim, Indiana facebook live shot victim, Aurora old man with hearing aid victim, george, etc. However, this guy in Atlanta IS NOT A VICTIM. HE IS A CRAZY CRIMINAL who stole other person's (this case, it happened to be a police) weapon and try to use against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Be pretty tough to have a trial if law breakers can freely run away without any repercussion.

The big concern there is that law breakers with a handicap or other medical issue will be clearly treated unequally and that's just not fair. Can't have that.

---

I should be more clear when responding to Bob. I'm not talking about this Atlanta shooting. But the idea in general that all you have to do is not break laws to avoid police contact is generally false.

ETA: Obviously confusing, given that it's in the Atlanta shooting thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I should be more clear when responding to Bob. I'm not talking about this Atlanta shooting. But the idea in general that all you have to do is not break laws to avoid police contact is generally false.

---

What about the aspect of compliance vs. resistance effecting the outcome if you do find yourself in an interaction with LE? Do you feel that that is generally a fallacy as well?

I think we're getting into the weeds here. I'd say that generally when you're not breaking the law, your chances of contact with law enforcement are lower.
I'd say that generally when you do have contact with law enforcement, compliance gets you a better outcome than resistance.

But I'd also say that generally your chances of having a decent encounter with law enforcement in either of the previous two statements goes up when you're white. The statistics might be small (like mass shootings, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks), but when they do happen they are generally serious and people tend to remember. Is that fair enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I think we're getting into the weeds here. I'd say that generally when you're not breaking the law, your chances of contact with law enforcement are lower.
I'd say that generally when you do have contact with law enforcement, compliance gets you a better outcome than resistance.

But I'd also say that generally your chances of having a decent encounter with law enforcement in either of the previous two statements goes up when you're white. The statistics might be small (like mass shootings, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks), but when they do happen they are generally serious and people tend to remember. Is that fair enough?

---

You planted this particular garden. I think your first and second statements are generally fair. You kind of lose me on the third one by over-valuing the virtue of color. You even follow it up with a qualifier that it is basically statistically insignificant.

Short version: Try to be a law abiding citizen, and if encountered by LE, be courteous, respectful and compliant. Your chances of leaving the scene unscathed increase exponentially regardless of race, color, creed or religion. Fair enough?

Yes.

I have a hard time with the statistically insignificant stuff, because I think that, in the end, most things are statistically insignificant, given enough time or distance from the event. Example: the deaths from 9/11 would be statistically insignificant measured against just about any metric that counts ways, or how many people die from one cause. But, you'd have to go a long way away from the US in distance, time, or both, to find a person who would admit to feeling that way.

Well, if we're going to be honest, black males represent about 6 or 7 percent of the population. They commit a bit over 50% of all homicides. (Latest stats I could find) They also kill police officers at a much higher rate than whites. (Can't find that stat at the moment...it's significantly higher.)

Maybe there's a reason besides racism that black vs white encounters are more favorable to whites. Assuming that's even the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

One could maybe argue they should have realized he was firing the Tazer instead of a lethal firearm and held fire but I'm not going to second-guess a split-second decision in a circumstance I've never faced.

---

I'd venture to guess that a deadly force response is authorized by just about every dept in the country when a suspect attempts to tase or even pepper spray an officer. Didn't have tasers when I was working the street but policy in all 3 depts where I worked was explicit...if someone uses a chemical weapon against you (ie: pepper spray) deadly force was an allowed option (obviously depending on the totality of the circumstances). Reason being that obviously tasers and chemical sprays have the potential to completely incapacitate the officer.

So you're comparing a large scale terrorist act (9/11) as being statisticallly insignificant, so long you get to cherry-pick the comparison metrics, to a police brutality trigger event that is being bandied happily about by the left and the msm to foment unrest, all while other instances of (for the sake of this protest) blacks being murdered, whites being murdered and police of all colors are being murdered and given practically ZERO attention by the left and msm?

Statistical insignificance aside, what you should have a problem with is that a single event is being used to turn almost the entire world upside down, with no regard for the final cost, while other egregious actions happening IN THE SAME TIME FRAME are almost totally ignored unless they can be used/spun to further the agenda. And that, is DECIDEDLY NOT insignificant, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEvMc-K8XHY&t=26s

Chris Rock and MLK