4 ms·
If police kill an unarmed individual every 3 days, I would actually say that they do, in fact, regularly murder people. And that's ignoring any of the armed in
by kyralis 2y ago
If police kill an unarmed individual every 3 days, I would actually say that they do, in fact, regularly murder people.
And that's ignoring any of the armed individuals who are not, in fact, threatening anyone or committing a crime.
And the people for whom a crime may be being committed, but for which "death" is not an appropriate punishment - even ignoring the police being judge, jury, and executioner in a society where we presume innocence and require conviction by a jury of our peers.
- bruce511 2y agoI'd add that "armed" doesn't mean necessarily a firearm. I don't know what threshold is used in after-action reports (written by those involved or others), but presumably finding a pocket knife on someone counts as "armed". Would personal protection devices (mace, batons etc) count as armed. Call me a cynic, but 104 people being 'unarmed' makes me think the reports in those cases simply lack creativity in defining "arms" and, (again cynically) I expect some number of the other cases the individuals were either helpfully discovered to be armed after the fact. (And in some cases actually provided with arms after the fact.)