The Second Amendment

[Pommer]

They were plain clothes police that followed him in the dark as he walked home. Amadou Diallo was murdered because he was a young black man walking home, thus he was a suspect.

He died trying to get his wallet, that had his identification, that would show that “he belongs here”, but never got that chance.

 

[disciple Clint]

A man, not from here, being startled by cops shouting for him to do what couldn't be done is hardly making him "incapable", just human. Do you think the cops were "incapable of understanding" that a man holding a phone or a wallet is not dangerous to them?

The Cops believed it was a gun, all he had to do was even say its a phone, or just follow instructions and put it down, his brain was full functioning he could follow commands.

 

[morningstar2651]

The Cops believed it was a gun, all he had to do was even say its a phone, or just follow instructions and put it down, his brain was full functioning he could follow commands.

The consensus of this poll appears to be that believing someone has a gun is not enough justification for a police officer to shoot them, or that we don't have a constitutionally protected right to have guns.

 

[disciple Clint]

The consensus of this poll appears to be that believing someone has a gun is not enough justification for a police officer to shoot them, or that we don't have a constitutionally protected right to have guns.

Holding something that the officer perceives to be a gun constitutes a potential threat to the life of the officer, failing to put that item down when ordered to do so substantiates that threat.

 

[morningstar2651]

Holding something that the officer perceives to be a gun constitutes a potential threat to the life of the officer, failing to put that item down when ordered to do so substantiates that threat.

I'd argue that the armed police officer posed a greater threat than the unarmed person they shot. One of these two people was more likely to kill someone.

 

[morningstar2651]

A police officer that shoots someone "because they thought they had a gun" is worse than a police officer that shoots someone "because they had a gun".

 

[disciple Clint]

I'd argue that the armed police officer posed a greater threat than the unarmed person they shot. One of these two people was more likely to kill someone.

See how easy it is to make decisions after the event when all the facts are known and someone can sit around a week while that person and five other people discuss the event and decide what the officer should have done BUT when you think a gun is pointed at you there is no time to sit back, get all the fact, contemplate what the possible potential actions could be and select the best one.

 

[98cwitr]

We do not possess “inalienable” rights under our Constitution.

We most certainly do: https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/

 

[Always in His Presence]

They were plain clothes police that followed him in the dark as he walked home. Amadou Diallo was murdered because he was a young black man walking home, thus he was a suspect.

Thank you for opinion. I don’t agree.

I have to go with the facts that the officers were found innocent of all charges after a jury trial. Plain and simple.

 

[atpollard]

If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun"

Since this first part is not true. People are not shot for simple gun ownership, they are shot for threatening harm with a gun.

did that person really have the right to bear arms?

Since the first part (the IF) is false, the second part of the question (THEN) cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

Yes, that person had a right to bear arms. They did not have a right to threaten the police with those arms with impunity. Even the British Army shot at the Colonial Citizens when they exercised their inalienable right to rebel. If one is going to "take up arms" against the government and Law enforcement, one should expect a response in kind.

 

[pgp_protector]

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.

And what if I'm in fear of my life from trigger happy police?

 

[pgp_protector]

Holding something that the officer perceives to be a gun constitutes a potential threat to the life of the officer, failing to put that item down when ordered to do so substantiates that threat.

No, holding a phone / wallet Does NOT constitutes a potential threat to the life of the officer.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Since this first part is not true. People are not shot for simple gun ownership, they are shot for threatening harm with a gun.

Like Philandro Castile?

Yes, that person had a right to bear arms.

Philandro Castile would like to register his voice in this...oops...he can't.

They did not have a right to threaten the police with those arms with impunity.

Sitting in a car and calmly telling the police that he had a gun which was fully licensed and permitted is hard to characterize as "threatening" the police...but I'm not a professional.

Even the British Army shot at the Colonial Citizens when they exercised their inalienable right to rebel.

Something tells me that the British Colonists did NOT have the inalienable right to rebel.

If one is going to "take up arms" against the government and Law enforcement, one should expect a response in kind.

...or if they sit calmly in a car, or be a child playing with a toy gun, or holding a phone, or....

 

[DaisyDay]

The Cops believed it was a gun, all he had to do was even say its a phone, or just follow instructions and put it down, his brain was full functioning he could follow commands.

And he knew that he had no gun to put down which was the instruction he was given. He had his wallet to show his is. Even fully functioning brains can be temporarily confused when startled. The cops were confused but you excuse them even though in their confusion they killed an innocent man. Their immediate response was to shoot the guy until he was dead.

 

[Oneiric1975]

And he knew that he had no gun to put down which was the instruction he was given. He had his wallet to show his is. Even fully functioning brains can be temporarily confused when startled. The cops were confused but you excuse them even though in their confusion they killed an innocent man. Their immediate response was to shoot the guy until he was dead.

If only the party without the gun was allowed to be startled and act "in the heat of the moment". Alas, that is not our society.

 

[disciple Clint]

A man, not from here, being startled by cops shouting for him to do what couldn't be done is hardly making him "incapable", just human. Do you think the cops were "incapable of understanding" that a man holding a phone or a wallet is not dangerous to them?

Avoiding the fact that the officer believed it to be a gun is not helpful to the truth.

 

[disciple Clint]

They were plain clothes police that followed him in the dark as he walked home. Amadou Diallo was murdered because he was a young black man walking home, thus he was a suspect.

Here we are once again with the false narrative that the police are out to murder black people just because they are black. The facts and statistics just do not validate that story.

 

[disciple Clint]

And what if I'm in fear of my life from trigger happy police?

Then you should follow commands, not resist arrest, not make any sudden threatening movements and you will have nothing to be concerned about. As I have said several time 5 black people per year are killed in questionable circumstances, you have almost as much chance of being struck by lightning in a cave.

 

[pgp_protector]

Then you should follow commands, not resist arrest, not make any sudden threatening movements and you will have nothing to be concerned about. As I have said several time 5 black people per year are killed in questionable circumstances, you have almost as much chance of being struck by lightning in a cave.

Ah so I can't do anything If I fear for my life, but the police are free to shoot if they're in fear of their life.

Got it.

 

[disciple Clint]

No, holding a phone / wallet Does NOT constitutes a potential threat to the life of the officer.

Why is this so difficult to understand, everyone knows that after the fact, but the officer has to deal with what things appear to be at the time along with the actions of the person they are dealing with. Officers are human they do not have enhanced vision.