110 comments

54
Yes he would be alive. But since when is the penalty for resisting arrest the death sentence
10
It’s most times a death penalty for an officer when someone else is resisting arrest or surrendering. That rarely gets past local news though.
-17
[deleted]
-1
Since when is an accident the same as the death penalty? It's almost like you're intentionally misusing inflammatory language to elicit emotional responses.
15
Negligence is by definition different than an accident, you can't accidentally draw a gun, point it and pull the trigger.
-1
Negligence isn't an intentional murder so it's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to intentionally misuse inflammatory language and insinuate that the man was killed by police intentionally.
1
Exactly, she did it on purpose... you literally arrived at the only possible conclusion by yourself and then just decided no.
2
Your response feels like a 12-year-old desperate for a *gotcha* moment. Negligence doesn't imply that it was intentional.
6
No one said intentional murder. He is guilty of manslaughter. The only one misusing language is you
3
I find when people use talking points they've very obviously gotten somewhere else it's best to ignore it and directly push the subject. Otherwise it gives them a comfortable point to pivot on and even when you make sense that perspective is already set.
1
Numerous people have said that in this thread. Why are you lying?
7
As soon as you enter a vehicle while actively resisting arrest that vehicle can and is frequently considered a deadly weapon ifirc. Running away on foot is another story, then you just have an additional warrant out for your arrest.
27
I don't think any state punishes resisting arrest with the death penalty so how is your statement accurate?
15
He’d be alive because he’d be cuffed, booked and probably released within a day or two. But instead, he chose to tussle with cops and the cop fucked up and ended his life. So, OP’s statement is accurate - if he didn’t resist arrest, he’d be alive right now.
-6
There's an overwhelming amount of cases where there is no resistance and an officer still ends up murdering who they should be arresting. So no, saying don't resist will never be enough.
6
>There's an overwhelming amount of cases where there is no resistance and an officer still ends up murdering who they should be arresting. You have been *thoroughly* brainwashed. It's extremely rare. Resisting arrest is a good way to make the situation more dangerous though.
3
Not gonna argue about who here is brainwashed. But we can take a step back and see how other countries are able to subdue even armed assailants without killing them more often than not. Then compare that to the way US police handle similar situations and find ways to improve on both. If there is a way to be better than what stands is unacceptable.
6
>Not gonna argue about who here is brainwashed. You said that there is an "overwhelming amount of cases where there is no resistance and an officer still ends up murdering who they should be arresting." What is your definition for "overwhelming" in this context? >But we can take a step back and see how other countries are able to subdue even armed assailants without killing them more often than not. That's the case here. Obviously. Seriously, look up some numbers.
2
"Okay Google, Commence Brainwashing" https://mapping_policeviolence.org/
3
Where is the data for "no resistance"?
2
Still no data?
6
No there's not. There's a handful of isolated incidents that get blown out of proportion by the media and you're too lazy to do any research see how often it *actually* happens.
2
There's independent third party organizations devoted to documenting this, need to set the filters for the chart yourself but you can see how many "outliers" there actually are. https://mappingpoliceviolence._org/ I used an underscore before the org because I'm not sure about link rules on this sub.
9
The data that organization provides was actually very useful when I was doing my own research to see how often this actually happens. Have you bothered to look through that data to see how many of the people shot by police were actually unarmed and nonviolent?
-6
Resisting arrest isn’t a capitol crime and cops are not street executioners. Also, people have been killed by cops who didn’t resist arrest. Your statement is an illogical assumption, not a statement of fact.
12
Yes yes, starting a fistfight with the armed and armored police is a perfectly rational response. *For a moron that wants to know what lead tastes like.*
-6
I didn’t say the kid wasn’t a moron, I said he didn’t commit a capitol offense. I also said cops are not street executioners. I will add this to my sentiment: bloodthirsty scum who think a 20 year old kid deserves to get shot dead for trying to evade arrest are a far worse a stain on society than a stupid 20 year old with a misdemeanor warrant. Right?
11
Wrong. You imply the police have been trained to give a second chance. They haven't and in case you missed the first part...*try not to pick a fist fight with the person that has a GUN.* Regardless of training, they will win the fight. Because you were a moron that threw hands at someone that has A GUN.
-3
Couple problems with your position but one part you have right. We’ll start with the wrong. Cops are not people, they are agents of the government. As agents of the government they are supposed to ARREST people who commit crimes, not execute them in the street. The part you have right is that cops are trained to react. In this case she either reacted according to training or against training? Which do you think? I think she reacted according to her training... which is the problem. She wasn’t trained to arrest stupid kids safely, she was trained to arrest stupid kids in the most violent way possible.
9
An accident that occurred because someone was resisting arrest isn't the same as execution. Are you intentionally misusing inflammatory language to elicit emotional responses or are you just poorly informed about what happened?
-2
Accident? Hey, I have a bridge for sale. Cheap. Interested?
8
Too scared to answer my question?
3
I thought I was pretty clear. What happened was not an accident. You actually believe someone who carries a pistol every day for 26 years accidentally shot someone in the back? As I asked earlier: I have a bridge for sale, in Brooklyn. Cheap. Are you interested in buying my bridge?
5
>shot someone in the back She didn't shoot him in the back. What do you think her intent was? Do you think she shouted "Taser! Taser! Taser!" while knowing that she was holding a gun?
0
I think she is stupid and had no business being entrusted with lethal force police powers if she couldn’t tell the difference between her pistol and taser... or she is really smart and yelled “taser” knowing she had her pistol in her hand. In either case, procedure should be to not resort to escalation of violence when the suspect is trying to leave. Procedure should be to let them go, follow and then arrest them after they are able to think instead of react based on instinct ie “fight or flight”. Stupid kids react on instinct, trained veteran cops shouldn’t.
0
>In either case, procedure should be to not resort to escalation of violence when the suspect is trying to leave. No, they should beat their motherfucking asses in until they submit. I don't give a shit about someone who doesn't care about justice, I care about law-abiding people who could potentially be harmed by a suspect fleeing. We're lucky he didn't crash into someone else. Getting arrested is not a negotiation. Part of the problem is that cops have to be so hands-off with suspects today. A cop can't choke-hold or punch someone resisting arrest, but they can empty a mag into someone if they threaten a cop.
0
And you finally admit you are not concerned with justice and proportional response but want nothing but submission to government through violence. You are now assigned to reflect on your irrational and tyrannical desire for violence and submission to authority. Maybe get some professional help?
1
>And you finally admit you are not concerned with justice You're really dumb. I care about justice. Daunte did not. The officer will participate in the justice system. >proportional response This wasn't about if the response was proportional or not, it was an accident as far as we can tell. >but want nothing but submission to government through violence Yep, that's how the police work. If you want to negotiate this fact in the field you might end up like Daunte. >You are now assigned to reflect on your irrational and tyrannical desire for violence and submission to authority. How is a right to a fair trial "tyranny"?
0
You assume it was an accident. I assume nothing. She either did it on purpose or on accident. In either case it is her fault. Your assertion that it was an accident is based on nothing other than speculation. If you can’t understand this then nothing I say will be understood. Sorry.
0
>You assume it was an accident. Yes because she shouted "Taser! Taser! Taser!" and has basically no motivation to shoot him. >In either case it is her fault. It can be both her fault and an accident.
0
There is a possibility that she yelled taser while drawing her pistol on purpose. Do you understand? Apparently not.
1
What would be her motivation for doing so?
0
Motivation is for the jury to decide and is irrelevant to our discussion.
1
>Your assertion that it was an accident is based on nothing other than speculation No, it's based on what she said and the fact that there is no motivation to shoot someone in that circumstance.
1
You are assuming to know her state of mind. You a mind reader? My bad for not knowing you are psychic.
1
You would agree that there is more evidence that this was an accident than not, right?
1
Absolutely not. I have carried the same tool at my side for over 20 years and would know it by feel if I were blind folded and getting beaten with a baseball bat about the head and neck.
1
Why did she wait 26 years to shoot a black man?
1
You are the psychic one, why ask me? I stopped wondering why stupid people do stupid things a long time ago. It is irrelevant anyway.
1
Because that's a fucking stupid line of reasoning.
1
Right, I am stupid to not assume but you are smart to guess at what was going through the killer’s head. Do red crayons taste different than yellow?
1
Given the context clues, yes, you are stupid.
1
Context? You are stupid for thinking you know the context. Wait, I forgot. You are psychic. 🤦‍♂️
1
There's literally zero reason to think that it wasn't an accident, seems like you've consumed way too much propaganda.
1
26 years of carrying a pistol PROFESSIONALLY is PLENTY of reason to suspect it wasn’t an accident. Or are you suggesting she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol that dulled her ability to differentiate between the weight, balance and feel of her pistol and the completely different weight, balance and feel of her taser?
0
It's safe to assume you've never been in a life or death situation where you had to make split second decisions. If you were, you'd understand how easy it is to make mistakes with dire consequences. Again, there's literally zero reason to believe it wasn't an accident.
0
You would be completely wrong. Stop assuming.
0
Lol, the person making assumptions wants other people to stop making assumptions
0
I speak of probabilities while you assume conclusions.
2
No, you made an assumption based on nothing then got offended when conclusions were drawn about the type of person you are.
0
What did I assume?
2
Are you forgetful or are you feigning ignorance?
0
You clearly are using an incorrect definition for the word “assumption” so I need to identify what you think is an assumption so I can school you further.
1
Feigning ignorance like a coward lol
0
You are feigning knowledge like an idiot.
1
That was a pretty dumb response, you want to try again or maybe edit that so you don't look so stupid?
0
Let me be clear: you are too fucking stupid to understand that you are assuming someone’s state of mind. You are NOT psychic. For real.
1
"Let me be clear: you are too fucking stupid to understand that you are assuming someone’s state of mind. You are NOT psychic. For real." If you projected any more you'd be sitting on a rolly cart in the corner of a classroom
0
More info from our psychic connection? You should take your shtick on the road... the lack of revenue generated might be more convincing than I that you are clueless.
1
Congratulations, you made one comment without projecting
0
It is good that you recognize that you are clueless. That is the first step to acquiring one.
-2
There would have been no need to reach for a tazer and he would still be alive. Again, he didn't want justice, he was running from it.
1
Still not a capitol offense. Let him get in his car and drive away. Follow him. Pick him up later. No one dies. Simple.
5
You're not getting it. I'm not advocating that he should have been shot. I'm saying that it would have never happened if he didn't resist arrest. I can't emphasize this enough: If you want justice, don't run from the justice system.
1
You aren’t getting it. He could have followed their orders to the letter and still got shot. You are making assumptions.
3
No not at all. If he followed orders no one would have reached for a taser.
1
You assume no one would have reached for a taser. 🤷‍♂️
2
You are making baseless assumptions. OP is simply stating a fact. But once again, Democrats seem allergic to facts. They oppose factual information at every corner, focusing exclusively on narrative and biased, narrow-minded assumptions.
1
I assume nothing. The OP assumes the officer would take a specific action. Words have meaning.
1
[deleted]
1
I assume no specific action would have happened had the stupid kid acted differently. He could have been shot while following orders, it has happened. My point is that cops are trained to be violent and escalate instead of de-escalate.
4
An accident that could've been avoided had the individual not resisted arrest isn't the same thing as the death penalty so how is your statement accurate?
1
Because your rights don't magically dissappear when you commit a crime especially in a country where even if theres witnesses and video footage you're still innocent until a court of law says otherwise.
7
Your right to not get tased by a police officer disappears when you're resisting arrest. Since we don't live in a perfect world accidents happen, in this case the officer accidentally grabbed her pistol instead of her taser. What you're doing is intentionally misusing inflammatory language to insinuate that this man was intentionally killed by the police when there's no proof of that. It's disingenuous and it's intellectually dishonest.
3
A taser is meant to only be used as a substitute for lethal force not to subdue a suspect. This was not a case where lethal force would be deemed necessary. Furthermore just because it has been being used wrongly since it was instilled does not mean we should excuse it if we have the knowledge and power to change that.
1
Your response doesn't really make any sense.
10
This is a shitty situation because he should not have resisted arrest and the dumbass cop should have known what a taser feels like. He would be alive if he did not resist arrest, but he would also be alive if their police department had the funding to properly train and screen its officers. Seriously, how fucking incompetent do you have to be to think your gun is a taser? The guy did not deserve death, he deserved severe injury at most, followed by a long time in prison.
0
So much this. Everyone involved made really stupid decisions that led to this guy's death. The officer needs to be charged with something, but the burden of this isn't ENTIRELY on her. He caused her to reach for her weapon, but she shouldn't have been such an absolute dumb bitch. I can't wrap my head around someone who has been a cop that long making this mistake. It's mind boggling.
3
The thing that bothers me most about the social media reaction is when that woman got shot in the capitol half the people said "well she shouldn't have refused the orders of the officer. She should have complied." while the other half said "she was unarmed! This is bullshit!". Now with this situation (and most others) the two sides are saying what the other side said. The hypocrisy of all this is absolutely crushing. These people just use these situations to further their political agenda. They decide their response based on who was shot, not what happened.
1
That’s because everyone is a hypocritical idiot condemning those outside of their cult while justifying their own cults actions. It’s easy to see what intentions were evil, good, selfish, selfless etc.. when you don’t first wish to learn an individuals race, job, age or voting patterns. Everyone should remember regardless of stats there is someone on the other side who is a better person then you. There is a cop better then you, there is a criminal better then you, there is a liberal better then you and a conservative better then you. Wether thats donating your time or money or effort etc by all metrics there will be someone better then you on any side. So stop condemning individuals for their group.
1
If you get arrested, don't resist physically. Prove your innocence in court.
1
That doesn't really always work out either, though. There's dozens of innocent people behind bars.
1
Also depends on the cops not killing you in the number one way cops die, motor vehicle accidents. Or they don't just murder you before you see a court date.
2
And by resisting arrest you've guaranteed that you aren't innocent and you will be behind bars.
1
Exactly! comply or die.
0
American conservatives: fuck yeah, freedom rules, we're the most free country in the world unlike those europoor police states. Also American conservatives: if you resist arrest the police have every right to murder you. You do not have the freedom to resist arrest without worrying about your life, because not being worried about your life is literally communism
1
>You do not have the freedom to resist arrest Correct.
0
Lmao what a shit country where I'm from I can resist arrest and be pretty confident it won't result in my fucking death How are you guys the same ones who say you need guns to resist tyranny but then also say police have the right to kill you if you don't comply lmfaooo
1
How are you this dumb? We don't have tyranny, we have a judicial system. Running from the police is running from the judicial system.
1
Yes, and the punishment for doing that in other developed countries is normally a longer sentence, not a death sentence.
1
That's also the case in the US. Being shot for running from the police is very rare and obviously not allowed. Your brain has been melted from propaganda.
1
.... so then stop justifying the killing of people who are resisting arrest lol Like I agree the media overblows these incidents and that in most cases, the police probably don't execute those resisting arrest. But when it does happen and you justify it with "but he was resisting arrest", you're implying execution is an appropriate response to resisting arrest. Which it is not. Like you literally acknowledged it's not allowed for police to execute people who are running away, yet you are still justifying this shooting, simply because the left thinks the shooting was wrong. If anyone's brain has been melted by propaganda, it's yours
1
>.... so then stop justifying the killing of people who are resisting arrest lol I didn't. You're mistaking cause and effect with justification.
1
It's a bit silly to bring up cause and effect in this context lmao. Like yeah, if he didn't resist arrest, maybe he wouldn't have died. But also if he didn't go out that day maybe he wouldn't have died. If the cop was moderately competent, maybe he wouldnt have died. Like if your daughter/sister/mother went to a party and got raped, it would be correct to say that if she hadn't gone to the party, she probably wouldn't have gotten raped. But its still fucking re*arded to say that in response to someone saying "wow that rapist should go to jail"
1
>Like yeah, if he didn't resist arrest, maybe he wouldn't have died. Illegal. >But also if he didn't go out that day maybe he wouldn't have died. Not illegal. >If the cop was moderately competent, maybe he wouldnt have died. Also true. >Like if your daughter/sister/mother went to a party and got raped, it would be correct to say that if she hadn't gone to the party, she probably wouldn't have gotten raped. Do you not understand that it's against the law to resist arrest?
1
Do you not understand it's illegal to execute someone for resisting arrest? Like yeah, he shouldn't have resisted arrest. That's bad from him. He deserved to have a longer sentence for resisting arrest. But he didn't get a longer sentence, he got fucking executed, which you agree is not just. Also I could easily change the rape analogy to be your daughter was drinking while at a party and she was only 20 and she got raped. There, now it's valid for me to say that if she wasn't breaking the law, she wouldn't have gotten raped. Which is a true statement, but it's still dumb to point it out and detracting from the point that raping is far worse than underage drinking, and executing someone is far worse than resisting arrest.
1
>Do you not understand it's illegal to execute someone for resisting arrest? No one is disputing that. >Also I could easily change the rape analogy to be your daughter was drinking while at a party and she was only 20 and she got raped. Drinking doesn't harm others. Evading arrest does.
1
Your specific argument was that the difference is that it's illegal, not that it causes harm. This is what we call moving the goalposts. I'd also argue evading arrest in and of itself doesn't cause harm but whatever, it's besides the point. We both agree the officer shouldn't have executed a man for evading arrest, and we both agree said man shouldn't have been evading arrest in the first place. The only place where we disagree is that you seem to think it's appropriate to bring up a dead man's crimes when discussing the unjust nature of his death. Have a great day
1
>Your specific argument was that the difference is that it's illegal, not that it causes harm. This is what we call moving the goalposts. Usually illegal things do cause harm. If you feel more comfortable with only focusing on the harmful part and not the illegal part, that's fine. >I'd also argue evading arrest in and of itself doesn't cause harm but whatever, it's besides the point. Of course you would. If evading arrest was legal then we wouldn't have a justice system.
-2
[deleted]