8 ms·

>it seems just as plausible that the police shot at him, he shot back, and then they hit him multiple times. I think for something to be deemed “just as plausi

>it seems just as plausible that the police shot at him, he shot back, and then they hit him multiple times. I think for something to be deemed “just as plausible”, you would need to demonstrate that by in large police fire on subjects first when unprovoked at a greater rate than when provoked. I am not saying that police never act unprovoked, but I’d bet it is statistically higher that when there is a weapons discharge involving police, there was a provocation from someone first.

woodruffw 4y ago
> you would need to demonstrate that by in large police fire on subjects first when unprovoked at a greater rate than when provoked. Not exactly: I'd only need to demonstrate that police do fire on citizens with some regularity, without regard for whether they also happen to fire on people shooting at them (which I'd expect them to!). And indeed, they do[1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
- kcplate 4y ago
  Sure it happens, but if it doesn’t happen more often than unprovoked shootings. So you resort to having to multiply entities beyond necessity to make your scenario “just as plausible”. Your scenario, while perhaps remotely possible, seems to be the most unlikely scenario within the known evidence. The most likely scenario was he took his gun and shot a cop and was promptly shot for that action which took his life. Whether or not he shot first really doesn’t matter to the situation. I am sure he was aware that a police presence in his area was possible given the protest. I think it’s likely that police identified themselves before any gunfire took place (it’s what they do, because it generally helps protect them by warning folks around them that they are police). If he was shot first, it’s entirely reasonable to believe he was aware that he was shot by police, still engaged, fired, and shot a cop.

woodruffw 4y ago

> you would need to demonstrate that by in large police fire on subjects first when unprovoked at a greater rate than when provoked. Not exactly: I'd only need to demonstrate that police do fire on citizens with some regularity, without regard for whether they also happen to fire on people shooting at them (which I'd expect them to!). And indeed, they do[1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...

kcplate 4y ago
Sure it happens, but if it doesn’t happen more often than unprovoked shootings. So you resort to having to multiply entities beyond necessity to make your scenario “just as plausible”. Your scenario, while perhaps remotely possible, seems to be the most unlikely scenario within the known evidence. The most likely scenario was he took his gun and shot a cop and was promptly shot for that action which took his life. Whether or not he shot first really doesn’t matter to the situation. I am sure he was aware that a police presence in his area was possible given the protest. I think it’s likely that police identified themselves before any gunfire took place (it’s what they do, because it generally helps protect them by warning folks around them that they are police). If he was shot first, it’s entirely reasonable to believe he was aware that he was shot by police, still engaged, fired, and shot a cop.