If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?
I think you are misunderstanding the reason that officers shoot someone, simply having a gun is not justification but having a gun and using it in a way that causes the officer to fear for his life does justify use of deadly force.If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?
The officer was not found guilty of any wrong doing in the Castile case. Bundy was not found guilty of anything either. Neither of these cases supports the ridiculous, inflammatory, narrative that The right to bear arms is only supported when the right kind of people bear arms; the not right people can be shot on the spot.Interesting question, I would say they did not have their right to bear arms. There is another thread on about a diner pulling a gun on protesters and the argument was that he could pull his gun because some of the protesters were armed. Of note, none of the protesters pointed their weapons at the man, yet people were arguing it was okay for him to point a weapon at people exercising their right to bear arms.
I think it's obvious that the right to bear arms is only seen as applicable to some people. Cliven Bundy and his group can't point their weapons at law enforcement and the usual suspects will defend them. Philando Castile will just inform you he has a gun is his car and be blown away and the usual suspects will defend the shooting. The right to bear arms is either a right or not, but from my observation, it is only supported when the right kind of people bear arms; the not right people can be shot on the spot.
Depends on the circumstances.
I'll preface this by saying from the outset that I'm not a fan of US gun laws, nor the adversarial approach to policing some US law enforcement agencies appear to take.
However, with a widely armed population and a very high rate of gun violence in the US, policing has taken on certain characteristics. One of those is the assumption that anyone wielding a gun intends to use it. This is not an unjustified assumption - there's plenty of evidence to support it - but applying it as a blanket assumption is not a good practice, as it leads to some 'shoot first, ask questions later' incidents.
For instance, the shootings of Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez. Both shootings of minors with 'airsoft' style guns, both occurred in under 30 seconds of police arriving, and neither involved any hostile action from the children involved. Similar examples could be raised for police shooting individuals who were seeking to run away.
Unfortunately, as with most things, there's a trade off. If you teach your officers to respond by not assuming someone bearing a gun - or even a fake gun- is going to use it, one day pretty soon a cop is going to get killed.
Police have to prioritize their own safety, I'm not going to disagree there. The questions are: where does the risk/reward line lie when it comes to the tradeoff between the lives of the public and the police?; and how do you change the approach of US law enforcement in a way that doesn't involve getting a bunch more cops shot?
Personally, my reading of history is that the Second Amendment was constructed as a doctrine for the defense of the nation against a foreign power (as the US initially didn't have much truck with standing armies), rather than a doctrine of individual access to firearms. That meaning changed in common and legal interpretation through the latter third of the 20th century, to mean (close to) unfettered personal firearms use, which was codified in DC vs Heller.
over all I agree with your post and feel it is well balanced. I do want to point out that in both the Rice and Lopez incidents the following:For instance, the shootings of Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez. Both shootings of minors with 'airsoft' style guns, both occurred in under 30 seconds of police arriving, and neither involved any hostile action from the children involved.
I do not know of anyone who cheered on the shooting of Rice or Castile, who are those people? Is there any evidence they exist? What is the point of this entire post? It is well known that white people shoot at police, what does that have to do with anything, is it another attempt at an excuse? Or some kind of justification?
This is everything wrong with the second amendment and who can bear arms. White guy pointing a gun at federal agents, yeah it's okay.
Or how about LaVoy Finicum who thought it would be smart to initiate a shootout with the government. The same people that cheer on the shooting of Tamir Rice and Philando Castile were livid about a man that wanted to go to his death in a shootout.
If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?
I think the Second Amendment needs to be altered to say that Americans have the right to carry toy guns until we learn how to behave around real guns...
What is wrong with us?
Do police have that right? To shoot someone merely because a gun is found on the person or the seat of his car? I don't think so.If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?
Whatever it is, it's not because guns exist or the people are allowed to have them. That's for sure. You referred to the attitude of some few gun owners, which is a clue to the underlying and only real issue.
Outlawing guns and repealing or amending the Second Amendment is not going to fix the problem. It's a matter of the mindset of the people involved, and it is perfectly obvious that new restrictions on ownership will not succeed because the cities (Chicago?) which have the highest rates of shootings are also the ones which already have laws that are supposed to prevent such acts.
Do police have that right? To shoot someone merely because a gun is found on the person or the seat of his car? I don't think so.
But if he brandishes it, if he points it at someone, that's a different matter, and we should all be able to see that it is.
Yet, mysteriously, every other developed nation on earth has a SIGNIFICANTLY lower gun homicide and gun violence rate than the US and they almost all, to a country, have more restrictive gun laws.
You are assuming that the one has caused the other. There is no reason to take that approach
, especially in view of the situation I referred you to in which American cities that have verrrrry strict gun laws also have thousands of shootings every year. The "quick fix" that you think is the solution obviously is missing something.