3 ms·
Of those 1000 civilians who were shot dead, how many of them were in immediate risk of harming others? Just saying "1000 civilians every year" as if policemen h
by tprnz 8y ago
Of those 1000 civilians who were shot dead, how many of them were in immediate risk of harming others? Just saying "1000 civilians every year" as if policemen had simply assassinated them is dishonest to say the least.
- rhizome 8y agoThe police will tell you that 100% of the killed were about to harm others.
- HarryHirsch 8y agoLike those two women doing the newspaper delivery during the Dorner manhunt: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-shooting-newspaper-delivery-women-dorner-manhunt-20160127-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-...
- rhizome 8y agoAnd here we see the famous "we didn't know they weren't dangerous" excuse: "There is no evidence to suggest that the officers did not honestly believe that Dorner was in the vehicle, nor is there evidence to suggest that the officers did not honestly believe they were being fired upon."
- alphabettsy 8y agoWhere are the adjudicated results of these incidents available where there are reasonable and transparent investigatory and evidentiary standards in place? Otherwise we’re relying on a biased parties description of events alone. What would be an acceptable figure of those that aren’t immediately at risk of harming others being killed? What about injured? The media rightly tends to focus on killings, but what about unnecessary shootings or use of force that don’t result in death. Currently that’s a non-zero number and we know that the man killed in this case was not a threat as well.