4 ms·

First: citation needed. Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, ple

First: citation needed. Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, please paste here one example from the list of shootings on the article's main page where an officer shoots a civilian without any provocation.

LordKano 11y ago
Admittedly, I don't think it's on the article's main page but if you were paying attention, you'd know about this one. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-crawford/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-...
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. So what? Cops don't know the law and aren't expected to know the law. The fact that a cop didn't know the law is a legal defense if you accuse him of messing up.
- raarts 11y ago
  Cops aren't expected to know the law? Does that hold for civilians as well? As a comparison, here in The Netherlands, all citizens are expected to know the law. Not knowing it is never an argument as far as I know.
  - wolf550e 11y ago
    Not knowing that what you are doing is illegal is not a defense for you, true. But when a cop arrests you for doing something they believe is illegal but in fact is legal, you are not allowed to resists arrest. You must allow yourself to get arrested (and searched) and then explain later, at the precinct. You'll lose a few hours, people will be worried about you, you might lose your job, and the police don't owe you anything, because cops do not have to know the law. Only prosecutors are supposed to know the law, and then only if a judge is willing to shame the prosecutor (not a given).
  - notdonspaulding 11y ago
    Yes, cops in the US are expected to have an above-average working knowledge of the law. If you have a question about the legality of something, you're more likely to get the correct answer asking a random cop than a random civilian.
- afarrell 11y ago
  Where are you are taking this from? There is a recent Supreme Court opinion (the name of which I forget) relating to the 4th amendment that I recall touches on this, but the exclusionary rule of evidence isn't what we are talking about here.
enraged_camel 11y ago
>>Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Way to miss the point. Of course being armed isn't against the law. But most states don't allow open-carry, and if someone is reporting you to the cops and saying you're armed, that means you just broke the law by failing to conceal your weapon. Furthermore, if the person reporting you says you're acting suspiciously or in a threatening manner, that's enough justification for most cops to shoot you.
- djloche 11y ago
  Open carry is only disallowed in 5 states. That said, I agree that the police are more likely to shoot first and ask questions later no matter the situation.
- daveguy 11y ago
  On the contrary, in the US most states do allow open-carry. Only 9/50 states prohibit or restrict licensing to effectively prohibit open carry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_State...
  - talmand 11y ago
    Hard to believe but Texas just now joined that list. Keep waiting on the massive shoot-outs I've been told to expect. Still haven't seen someone open carry.
bobwaycott 11y ago
To your third: How exactly do you define "provocation"? I'm curious because you seem to have a very lenient definition when talking about police using deadly force. This is remarkable to me when there have been a number of highly reported incidents involving police shooting a civilian without provocation that warrants deadly force (by my definition and video evidence). Here are a few to consider: 1. Tamir Rice 2. John Crawford III 3. Levar Jones 4. Laquan McDonald Seriously, I could go on. It happens far too frequently that Americans are killed by police firearms when they are not posing an immediate and credible mortal threat. Sadly, there are too many high-profile cases in which cops fire before even bothering to assess the situation. Videos of these incidents abound. Now, I assume we all agree that police are charged with serving and protecting their communities, right? I believe that also includes suspects and criminals. The bar for determining provocation that warrants deadly force should be very high. If we are being rational and reasonable, I think there are behaviors that we can agree are not provocations of mortal danger. A few such behaviors: 1. Running away from police 2. Verbal altercations 3. Suspicious behaviors of any kind that are not posing credible mortal threat to other persons or officers 4. Reaching for waistbands (of what are too often excessively sagging pants that frequently need to be pulled up) I think it is reasonable to have a civil, national conversation about better training for police, and a national charge and expectation to keep every potential suspect alive until a situation is properly assessed and resolved. If ranchers in a standoff, or bikers in a gun battle, can make it out alive, I think many more can, too. Funny story from my childhood in Southern California, around 1990: I was playing in the yard with my toy gun. I hated the orange cap at the end of the barrel and had pulled it out with pliers. It was a metal rifle. A cop came down the neighborhood street, and I took cover behind a tree and pretended to shoot, as if he was my new imaginary enemy. He slowed down and stopped in front of the yard. I was within earshot, so he called out to me in a friendly way. Asked if I was shooting at bad guys. I nodded. He asked if I'd like to see his gun and might be interested in a trade. I thought that was cool, and ran over to his car with my metal toy rifle. He opened his car door to me and stepped out, asking if he could see my gun. I handed it right over, and he invited me to sit in the drivers seat of his squad car. Looking back, I'm sure he was checking if I had a real firearm. He then showed me the shotgun he had secured between the front seats. He talked to me about being careful with guns. Then he suggested there were some bad guys sneaking around my house, and I should go get them with my gun. And I ran off to chase them down. I shudder to think what would happen to my 12-year-old in the same situation today.

LordKano 11y ago

Admittedly, I don't think it's on the article's main page but if you were paying attention, you'd know about this one. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-crawford/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-...

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. So what? Cops don't know the law and aren't expected to know the law. The fact that a cop didn't know the law is a legal defense if you accuse him of messing up.

raarts 11y ago
Cops aren't expected to know the law? Does that hold for civilians as well? As a comparison, here in The Netherlands, all citizens are expected to know the law. Not knowing it is never an argument as far as I know.
- wolf550e 11y ago
  Not knowing that what you are doing is illegal is not a defense for you, true. But when a cop arrests you for doing something they believe is illegal but in fact is legal, you are not allowed to resists arrest. You must allow yourself to get arrested (and searched) and then explain later, at the precinct. You'll lose a few hours, people will be worried about you, you might lose your job, and the police don't owe you anything, because cops do not have to know the law. Only prosecutors are supposed to know the law, and then only if a judge is willing to shame the prosecutor (not a given).
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  Yes, cops in the US are expected to have an above-average working knowledge of the law. If you have a question about the legality of something, you're more likely to get the correct answer asking a random cop than a random civilian.
afarrell 11y ago
Where are you are taking this from? There is a recent Supreme Court opinion (the name of which I forget) relating to the 4th amendment that I recall touches on this, but the exclusionary rule of evidence isn't what we are talking about here.

enraged_camel 11y ago

>>Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Way to miss the point. Of course being armed isn't against the law. But most states don't allow open-carry, and if someone is reporting you to the cops and saying you're armed, that means you just broke the law by failing to conceal your weapon. Furthermore, if the person reporting you says you're acting suspiciously or in a threatening manner, that's enough justification for most cops to shoot you.

djloche 11y ago
Open carry is only disallowed in 5 states. That said, I agree that the police are more likely to shoot first and ask questions later no matter the situation.
daveguy 11y ago
On the contrary, in the US most states do allow open-carry. Only 9/50 states prohibit or restrict licensing to effectively prohibit open carry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_State...
- talmand 11y ago
  Hard to believe but Texas just now joined that list. Keep waiting on the massive shoot-outs I've been told to expect. Still haven't seen someone open carry.

bobwaycott 11y ago

To your third: How exactly do you define "provocation"? I'm curious because you seem to have a very lenient definition when talking about police using deadly force. This is remarkable to me when there have been a number of highly reported incidents involving police shooting a civilian without provocation that warrants deadly force (by my definition and video evidence). Here are a few to consider: 1. Tamir Rice 2. John Crawford III 3. Levar Jones 4. Laquan McDonald Seriously, I could go on. It happens far too frequently that Americans are killed by police firearms when they are not posing an immediate and credible mortal threat. Sadly, there are too many high-profile cases in which cops fire before even bothering to assess the situation. Videos of these incidents abound. Now, I assume we all agree that police are charged with serving and protecting their communities, right? I believe that also includes suspects and criminals. The bar for determining provocation that warrants deadly force should be very high. If we are being rational and reasonable, I think there are behaviors that we can agree are not provocations of mortal danger. A few such behaviors: 1. Running away from police 2. Verbal altercations 3. Suspicious behaviors of any kind that are not posing credible mortal threat to other persons or officers 4. Reaching for waistbands (of what are too often excessively sagging pants that frequently need to be pulled up) I think it is reasonable to have a civil, national conversation about better training for police, and a national charge and expectation to keep every potential suspect alive until a situation is properly assessed and resolved. If ranchers in a standoff, or bikers in a gun battle, can make it out alive, I think many more can, too. Funny story from my childhood in Southern California, around 1990: I was playing in the yard with my toy gun. I hated the orange cap at the end of the barrel and had pulled it out with pliers. It was a metal rifle. A cop came down the neighborhood street, and I took cover behind a tree and pretended to shoot, as if he was my new imaginary enemy. He slowed down and stopped in front of the yard. I was within earshot, so he called out to me in a friendly way. Asked if I was shooting at bad guys. I nodded. He asked if I'd like to see his gun and might be interested in a trade. I thought that was cool, and ran over to his car with my metal toy rifle. He opened his car door to me and stepped out, asking if he could see my gun. I handed it right over, and he invited me to sit in the drivers seat of his squad car. Looking back, I'm sure he was checking if I had a real firearm. He then showed me the shotgun he had secured between the front seats. He talked to me about being careful with guns. Then he suggested there were some bad guys sneaking around my house, and I should go get them with my gun. And I ran off to chase them down. I shudder to think what would happen to my 12-year-old in the same situation today.