5 ms·

So, why weren't the police charged for opening fire on an unarmed civilian?

cpncrunch 8y ago
Perhaps do some google research before jumping to conclusions? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wichita-officer-who-killed-andrew-finch-swatting-mistake-won-t-n865626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wichita-officer-who-kil...
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  And yet multiple (ten) other officers in exactly the same location did not open fire, because they saw no gun, no threat. This one cop supposedly did see him reaching for his (non-existent) gun and opened fire. "The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun." His poor lyin' eyes...
  - cpncrunch 8y ago
    >Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun But they did see him put his hand down to his waist, and one thought "that’s not a good idea. . . don’t be lifting, tugging at your waistband.” >His poor lyin' eyes... Unfortunately that's the nature of the human brain. The officer did exactly what he was trained to do.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      So therein lies the rub. If one officer shot, they all should have shot, if that's what their training says. Yet only one felt the need to open fire, despite the same visual stimulus. So if he was doing what he was trained to do, respond to a threat, then the other nine officers failed to appropriately respond to a threat.
      - cpncrunch 8y ago
        It was a split second decision, and in hindsight he made the wrong decision. The same could have happened to anyone. The only way to prevent that is to force a delay of a few seconds before making a decision, but of course there is a reason they are trained not to do that...
- forgot-my-pw 8y ago
  But that's exactly what the article says: 1. The police officer shot an unarmed civilian 2. The police officer did not get charged
  - cpncrunch 8y ago
    And it explains why the officer wasn't charged.
- justherefortart 8y ago
  Perhaps use your brain before making stupid comments?
  - cpncrunch 8y ago
    It's not a stupid comment to give a link explaining why the officers weren't charged when someone says "why weren't they charged".
    - justherefortart 8y ago
      It's the comment before the link and the subsequent comment I'm referring to. Also, fuck the pigs. Dude killed someone for no reason. Maybe you'll experience the same then you'll get some empathy for the guy that died and his family because Johnny Pig couldn't keep his trigger finger under control where the rest of them could. Nah, Piggie wanted to be the HERO! I TOOK THAT GUY DOWN! You're why Pigs can kill with impunity, just like the rest of the fucking military/police/authority worshiping ignorant fucks in this country.
  - dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Perhaps do some google research before jumping to conclusions? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wichita-officer-who-killed-andrew-finch-swatting-mistake-won-t-n865626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wichita-officer-who-kil...

FireBeyond 8y ago
And yet multiple (ten) other officers in exactly the same location did not open fire, because they saw no gun, no threat. This one cop supposedly did see him reaching for his (non-existent) gun and opened fire. "The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun." His poor lyin' eyes...
- cpncrunch 8y ago
  >Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun But they did see him put his hand down to his waist, and one thought "that’s not a good idea. . . don’t be lifting, tugging at your waistband.” >His poor lyin' eyes... Unfortunately that's the nature of the human brain. The officer did exactly what he was trained to do.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    So therein lies the rub. If one officer shot, they all should have shot, if that's what their training says. Yet only one felt the need to open fire, despite the same visual stimulus. So if he was doing what he was trained to do, respond to a threat, then the other nine officers failed to appropriately respond to a threat.
    - cpncrunch 8y ago
      It was a split second decision, and in hindsight he made the wrong decision. The same could have happened to anyone. The only way to prevent that is to force a delay of a few seconds before making a decision, but of course there is a reason they are trained not to do that...
forgot-my-pw 8y ago
But that's exactly what the article says: 1. The police officer shot an unarmed civilian 2. The police officer did not get charged
- cpncrunch 8y ago
  And it explains why the officer wasn't charged.
justherefortart 8y ago
Perhaps use your brain before making stupid comments?
- cpncrunch 8y ago
  It's not a stupid comment to give a link explaining why the officers weren't charged when someone says "why weren't they charged".
  - justherefortart 8y ago
    It's the comment before the link and the subsequent comment I'm referring to. Also, fuck the pigs. Dude killed someone for no reason. Maybe you'll experience the same then you'll get some empathy for the guy that died and his family because Johnny Pig couldn't keep his trigger finger under control where the rest of them could. Nah, Piggie wanted to be the HERO! I TOOK THAT GUY DOWN! You're why Pigs can kill with impunity, just like the rest of the fucking military/police/authority worshiping ignorant fucks in this country.
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html