Police shot unarmed special needs man in philly

[Worffan101]

Yeah, I've seen Philly cops in action. Brought out a freaking "counter-terror unit" for a homeless guy wandering around on drugs.

This is 100% in-character for those gung-ho white fatasses.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

And that proves what exactly, other than you never being approached in what you percieve as a threatening manner?

Apparently that I'm less bloodthirsty and paranoid than Philly cops who receive formal training for this? Do those boots you lick taste salty or is it more of an umami flavor?

[Yukaphile]

Cops have shot unarmed people before citing the "I felt threatened" bullcrap. We all know the world is getting more dangerous, but if your first instinct is "shoot first, ask questions later," then maybe you shouldn't be part of the police force, you know? That's even ignoring that a lot of these might be racially motivated. Start a huge ethnic purge.

[Madner Kami]

And that proves what exactly, other than you never being approached in what you percieve as a threatening manner?

Apparently that I'm less bloodthirsty and paranoid than Philly cops who receive formal training for this? Do those boots you lick taste salty or is it more of an umami flavor?

Oh you are quite bloodthirsty. A few centuries ago, you'd happily cheer when the guilotine falls, I know your type. And where exactly do Phildelphian cops get training to shoot beggars? I am sure you can hint at the exact course, with your insider knowledge. And I don't need to lick a boot to understand the situation the cop was in. Should he have shot? No. Was he too trigger-happy? Yes. But I can both understand what went through his head and recognize your words for what they are.

[Darth Wedgius]

IMHO, "he startled me" can't be sufficient defense for shooting someone. I might take "imperfect self defense" if that applies to that jurisdiction, because I doubt the cop was after the man's life insurance or just hated him. That's a reason for a lesser sentence or a conviction of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder, but, barring mitigating factors I haven't heard of, this isn't a man I want armed.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

And that proves what exactly, other than you never being approached in what you percieve as a threatening manner?

Apparently that I'm less bloodthirsty and paranoid than Philly cops who receive formal training for this? Do those boots you lick taste salty or is it more of an umami flavor?

Oh you are quite bloodthirsty. A few centuries ago, you'd happily cheer when the guilotine falls, I know your type.

Really? Do you have evidence of that, and what type am I pray tell?

They get training to NOT shoot people. They get training on how to accurately assess threats, on how to manage situations, on a wide number of ways to respond that don't involve giving somebody a very deep improvised body piercing. Granted, they certainly could do with a lot MORE training in de-escalation and emphasis on same, and it doesn't help that some professionals literally give talks teaching cops to shoot first so they don't have to think up some questions later, but that's another topic itself.

[Yukaphile]

I mean, I have cheered on a few people's deaths, much to my ever-lasting shame.

[Admiral X]

IMHO, "he startled me" can't be sufficient defense for shooting someone. I might take "imperfect self defense" if that applies to that jurisdiction, because I doubt the cop was after the man's life insurance or just hated him. That's a reason for a lesser sentence or a conviction of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder, but, barring mitigating factors I haven't heard of, this isn't a man I want armed.

I agree, and I say that as the resident gun nut. Anyone who wasn't a cop would have been convicted of a felony if they'd shot someone just because they were startled.