Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Really, need to change the use of force from 'reasonable threat' to 'absolutely neccessary'

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.

But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.

Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.

Becoming a cop represents a significant investment of time and energy. Automatically losing their job because of a death is unreasonable.

Sometimes, it really is "kill or be killed".

 skyth wrote:
Really, need to change the use of force from 'reasonable threat' to 'absolutely neccessary'

"Reasonable threat" is easier to define in a court of law than "Absolutely necessary".

 feeder wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Really, need to change the use of force from 'reasonable threat' to 'absolutely neccessary'

"Reasonable threat" is easier to define in a court of law than "Absolutely necessary".

Probably about the same. It works for Europe.

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.

But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.

Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.

Becoming a cop represents a significant investment of time and energy. Automatically losing their job because of a death is unreasonable.

Sometimes, it really is "kill or be killed".

I agree, it is a tough position and a tough call. I want the people making that call thinking about it, not knowing they get a get out of jail card.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I agree, it is a tough position and a tough call. I want the people making that call thinking about it, not knowing they get a get out of jail card.

Except sometimes it isn't possible to think about it. If someone starts shooting at you (or at innocent victims) you aren't going to have time to think "should I shoot back, or should I be concerned about my career". And the simple fact is that sometimes the use of force, even lethal force, by the police is entirely justified and not controversial at all. A blanket "you lose your career if you are involved in one of these cases" policy does not work at all.

 skyth wrote:
One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.

Open Carry in NC means in a visible holster or slung (long arm), NOT in your hand with the cops repeatedly yelling at you to Drop It! (as the wife's video clearly shows they do).

And you MUST be a legal hand gun owner to open carry. His record may well have precluded that capability.

And in NC you need a permit to legally buy a handgun. And to get a permit you must take a course which very clearly lays out the relevant laws for you.

So, no, NC being an Open Carry state is not grounds to vindicate his behavior.

 whembly wrote:

Just a friendly reminder...

It's not 'thou shalt not kill'... it's 'thou shalt not murder'.

Not to start a theological/biblical debate, but which translation are you using for that, and are you using that exact same translated edition for all things, or are you just picking and choosing from different translations like so many others do to support their preferred arguments?

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.

Open Carry in NC means in a visible holster or slung (long arm), NOT in your hand with the cops repeatedly yelling at you to Drop It! (as the wife's video clearly shows they do).

And you MUST be a legal hand gun owner to open carry. His record may well have precluded that capability.

And in NC you need a permit to legally buy a handgun. And to get a permit you must take a course which very clearly lays out the relevant laws for you.

So, no, NC being an Open Carry state is not grounds to vindicate his behavior.

Like I said, not familiar with the NC laws and brought the topic up for discussion. I haven't seen any reputable source that he was brandishing...just that he allegedly had a gun. Granted, I haven't been paying all that much attention to the details of the shooting. It's not really relevant to the riots. It may be the flashpoint, but it's not really the root cause.

To end a theological/biblical debate, the original Hebrew word is ratzakh (literally r-s-h because ancient Hebrew has no written vowels). The word most directly means kill, and the total wording of the Sixth commandment literally reads as "no killing whatsoever."

However there are different words for "kill" in the Bible. Ratzakh is for example never used in the context of war. The Hebrews did not have a word for "murder" at this time, but generally when ratzakh is invoked it is interpreted as meaning "unlawful killing." So basically murder. The Bible has a whole host of rules about when it is and is not lawful to kill.

The more you know!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Just a friendly reminder...

It's not 'thou shalt not kill'... it's 'thou shalt not murder'.

Not to start a theological/biblical debate, but which translation are you using for that, and are you using that exact same translated edition for all things, or are you just picking and choosing from different translations like so many others do to support their preferred arguments?

The 10 commandment and early scriptures (old testament) was written in old Hebrew... as such "murder" (ratzah I think) was distinct from "kill".

New King James Version Bible also says uses "murder" (Exodus 20:13)... although, I'm pretty sure the original King James had "kill" (I could be wrong... going from memory here).

So, from a philosophical standpoint, when someone says they believe in the principle of "thou shalt not kill" it's a bit ambiguous... because it implies strongly that taking life in every case is a sin. Which doesn't square with the new/old testaments as there are plenty of prescription of righteous killings.

So, the proper scriptural context to "thou shalt not murder", is simply a prohibition against unlawful killing.


EDIT: oh snap! ninja'ed by lordy!

And yet, somehow, both of you completely missed the actual point I was making.
I already know full well what you both said. My point, which I thought was obviously stated in the second half of what I posted, was the hypocrisy of using different versions to justify different arguments.
But, I'm thinking this thread is not the place to further that discussion.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And yet, somehow, both of you completely missed the actual point I was making.
I already know full well what you both said. My point, which I thought was obviously stated in the second half of what I posted, was the hypocrisy of using different versions to justify different arguments.
But, I'm thinking this thread is not the place to further that discussion.

I don't think it's "picking and choosing" which versions to justify different arguments.

The tenets of "thou shalt not kill" was always understood(theologically) to mean unjustified killing.

Regardless, it's not really relevant. We live in the United States of America under the rule of law, not the Kingdom of Israel under the law of God's will. We are freely able to interpret for ourselves what defines unjustified killing here.

The debate is over the accusation that we define that too loosely, and people are dying who do not need to.

Who cares what the book said? It has no place in US Law.

Watching the wife's video in the Scott case clarified absolutely nothing. I have no idea, or opinion, what happened there.

 Ouze wrote:
Watching the wife's video in the Scott case clarified absolutely nothing. I have no idea, or opinion, what happened there.

Really? No opinion on a convicted felon illegally in possession of a firearm being repeatedly told to drop it for a long-ass time, with said firearm both visible on camera and recovered at the scene with fingerprints and DNA, getting shot after failing to comply?

hmmm...I read that someone else has a video showing the 'gun on the ground next to the body was actually a black glove thrown by a police officer.

I don't think all the speculating is really productive. Eventually the police will release an official statement with their full version of what happened. Maybe that'll be disputed, maybe not. Right now I think we're just going to run ourselves in circles more than anything. What happened here is even murkier than a lot of other cases, simply because there seems to be so much rumor about what happened.

I would like to see what he was doing to cause the wife to switch from "don't shot him!" To "don't do it!" Addressing the husband.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I would like to see what he was doing to cause the wife to switch from "don't shot him!" To "don't do it!" Addressing the husband.

Yes, there was a real suspicious tone shift there - it definitely seemed to me she went from addressing the cops to addressing him. I wish it was more clear what was going on. Maybe the dashcam video gives a better picture.

 skyth wrote:
hmmm...I read that someone else has a video showing the 'gun on the ground next to the body was actually a black glove thrown by a police officer.

Officer in red goes over the gun after the shooting and stays there.

Police recovered a gun at the scene. Either he had one, or they planted it.

 skyth wrote:
hmmm...I read that someone else has a video showing the 'gun on the ground next to the body was actually a black glove thrown by a police officer.

The object I (and others) believed could be a gun in the wife's cell phone video may be a glove. That does not preclude a gun having been found. Obviously that video does not show everything.

I strongly suspect that the wife/family/their lawyer would have REALLY made a stink of it all if after watching the dash cam video genuinely did not think Scott had a gun. The fact they didn't do so is an indicator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sounds like cops agreed to release the dash cam video, so we'll see/know more soon.

Charlotte PD finally released the videos:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article103973781.html

 whembly wrote:
Charlotte PD finally released the videos:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article103973781.html

Is that the only video? The officer's head blocks the camera at the moment of import XD Literally everything we would want to see to know what happened is obscured, either by the officer's head blocking the camera, or another officer blocking our line of sight to Mr. Scott. It looks like the officer in the red shirt might be crouching down and reaching for the ground, but before we can see if he's doing that or something else he leaves the field of view. EDIT: Looking more closely at the very (very) brief moment we can actually see Scott outside his car, it looks like he's looking away (no hands raised), and then turns to look at the officer who came from behind his vehicle. Then the next time we see him he's on the ground, standing a little bit further back from where we first saw him.

This video does not make this look like a good shoot.

Actually I'm curious about this;

Officers were going to continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.

“It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm,” Putney said. “There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.”

What exactly was unlawful about Scott having a firearm? He wasn't an excon as far as I know, and how does just having a firearm make it evident he committed some other crime? Is there more to this quote? The interview with the police chief is honestly shady as feth. He completely side steps all questions about the firearm that Scott was supposed to have, and I don't see it anywhere on the body came video. It's clearly not in his right hand in the brief moment we see him standing outside his car, and I don't see it anywhere on the ground in the video.

It could be there of course. The video quality is pretty shoddy, the officer's head continually obstructs what we can see, and Scott seems to be wearing dark pants that are well colored to obscure a "tactical' (dark colored ) weapon.

They say they noticed him rolling a joint, so that's the "crime" that was exacerbated by having a gun.

 d-usa wrote:
They say they noticed him rolling a joint, so that's the "crime" that was exacerbated by having a gun.

Ah okay.

 LordofHats wrote:
He wasn't an excon as far as I know

I thought he was?

 CptJake wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
He wasn't an excon as far as I know

I thought he was?

I haven't seen any mention of it thus far that he was.

Reviewing the wife's cell phone footage, I still don't see a gun, but her tone does definitely change significantly to address her husband, but the whole time she's doing that the camera is either at the ground or getting a nice shot of some cars.

On the other hand, I was totally right that things have not gotten better in Charlotte (since I lived in the area);

Scott’s fatal shooting ― the sixth by Charlotte police in the past 12 months ―

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.

But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.

Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.

Becoming a cop represents a significant investment of time and energy. Automatically losing their job because of a death is unreasonable.

Sometimes, it really is "kill or be killed".

It requires as little as a 2 year degree and sixteen weeks of training. Being a cop is not all that difficult, not given the amount of power (literally the power of life and death) placed into their hands.