[Zack]

This doesn't make any sense to me. How could that Police Officer check the wrong box?

[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Well, this thread is oddly interesting - lots of people who are very quick to judge the police, and at the same time oddly unwilling to allow anyone to judge the person who was shot.

So, I'm confused; can someone perhaps tell me what the stance is? Is consensus that judging people based on a single action is wrong - or not?

It seems you're mostly referring to me, and maybe I should clarify: I wasn't judging the officer, either. I think he made a mistake, wouldn't have killed anyone if he didn't feel like he had to (this is based purely on what information we have, assuming the guy wasn't armed/threatening).

I just think we should respect people's lives a little more than some people show in this thread. I mean c'mon, I for one can't believe people actually think the guy "had it coming" or that it's not a big deal he was killed because he broke the law. Also, making value judgements on the deceased is really what was bothering me, assuming things about his character because of one incident of theft/battery that we know of.

But, my opinion goes like this: killing > theft, no matter intent.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

It seems you're mostly referring to me,

Not at all. More things like this:

Wow. That's effed up. They even shot his dog? That cop must have been waiting in line for a PS3 too and didn't get one.

The police apparently shot the guy for no apparent reason and this is not acceptable at all.

We're living in a police state. People are expendible.

I just see this as another example of police brutality.

=> the guy who committed the crime is innocent until proven guilty, but not the cops. It seems it's okay to have that mindset, as long as the person being criticised is part of the establishment? (I exaggerate, but responses like that had me staring at my screen in wonder)

Hm.

Of course, comments on both articles seem to often be to that effect, too, (though that's unrelated to my post, I made it before I read the article comments) especially those on the first one:

Regarding article comments - I read a few pages, it amused me in a cynical way that people couldn't fathom the slightest reason a dog might get shot. Nevermind dogs are sometimes even kept solely so they'll defend a premise. But no, the poor, poor dog, what could it possibly have done wrong? And instead, the evil, evil policemen, there is obviously no reason this could have been an unfortunate accident.

[portabello]

Originally Posted by Relek

if he hadn't committed the crime the cops wouldn't have come after him in the first place.

Says who?

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Well, this thread is oddly interesting - lots of people who are very quick to judge the police, and at the same time oddly unwilling to allow anyone to judge the person who was shot.

So, I'm confused; can someone perhaps tell me what the stance is? Is consensus that judging people based on a single action is wrong - or not?

It seems to me that people are quick to judge the police because this is not the first time something like this has happened. There are countless recorded incidents of police "accidentally" shooting unarmed criminals. USA cops have a pretty long history of corruption and brutality. Thats not to say that the police as a whole are worthy of scorn and other generally nasty thoughts, but stuff like this is common enough to elicit a knee-jerk anti-copper reactions.

And as they say: "fuck the pigs"

[Relek]

Originally Posted by portabello

Says who?

Says Mr. Logic. He dictates that had the crime not been committed then the police would not have never been sent after him, had they not been sent after him then this would have never happened. We are all responsible for our actions, even if the police were at fault (which they were) he still deserved it, he sowed the seeds of his own demise.

[portabello]

Originally Posted by Relek

Says Mr. Logic. He dictates that had the crime not been committed then the police would not have never been sent after him, had they not been sent after him then this would have never happened. We are all responsible for our actions, even if the police were at fault (which they were) he still deserved it, he sowed the seeds of his own demise.

There is a difference between commiting a criminal act and being suspected of commiting a criminal act. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz. The theft never had a chance to be proven in court.

[Relek]

Originally Posted by portabello

There is a difference between commiting a criminal act and being suspected of commiting a criminal act. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz. The theft never had a chance to be proven in court.

This is indeed true, I suppose I am too quick to assume that the accused actually committed the crime. If they find out that it wasn't him then I take back everything I said, but if it was him then I am glad that he got executed rather than given a slap on the wrist

[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by Relek

Says Mr. Logic. He dictates that had the crime not been committed then the police would not have never been sent after him, had they not been sent after him then this would have never happened. We are all responsible for our actions, even if the police were at fault (which they were) he still deserved it, he sowed the seeds of his own demise.

Blaming his death on his own actions when in fact he was shot dead by someone else, is stupid. Saying he deserved his death is also stupid, considering even in the legal system grand theft does not warrant a death penalty. To a certain extent it could said that if he hadn't committed the crime then he wouldn't be dead right now, because the police never would have come knocking on his door...but clearly whoever shot him, whether accidentally or not, is to blame for his death, not the kid (assuming he was unarmed and all that).