The Second Amendment

[Oneiric1975]

Typically, the shooter goes to jail.

I think it's the times that they don't that is the problem. And it happens more than not. It was actually kind of amazing that Chauvin got prison. If his actions hadn't been recorded by a young woman by-stander it was obvious that the whole event was going to be covered up as a "medical incident" (per the initial report that was filed).

 

[Belk]

Traffic Stops ARE a life or death situation. More police are shot during traffic stops than any other call except "Domestic Disturbance". Every traffic stop is potentially a felon with an illegal gun ready to shoot a police officer focused on a brake light or a speeding ticket. Sixty times per year, that is exactly how an officer gets shot and 12 of them die. One gets shot every week and one dies every month. The officer approaching your car knows those statistics. Is this HIS week? His month?

Do you know how many police officers are killed or wounded while making a traffic stop?

Do a quick search - look at the video's. Two of the most dangerous circumstances for police are domestic violence calls and traffic stops.

The Hazards of Traffic Stops

Conducted with everything from sunny smiles to shows of force, thousands of traffic stops take place daily across America's highways and byways. These detentions are effected by officers whose tactics are often sounder than those of their predecessors and whose patrol vehicles sport state-of-the-art safety features. Yet the traffic stop remains one of the most dangerous aspects of police work.
​

Ever wonder why police touch the drivers rear brake light?

Originally, another reason why cops touch tail lights was to leave their fingerprints on the vehicle. In case the officer found himself in a dangerous situation while pulling over the subject vehicle, fingerprint evidence would prove that he or she was present at the scene. The fingerprints would only be utilized if the interaction between the driver and the cop led to a criminal investigation, like a car accident or shooting. However, this isn’t always a sure-fire way to help an investigation some since the fingerprints can be smudged or tampered with, as well as washed away by rain or snow.

More often than not, there are better ways for police to obtain evidence from a vehicular crime scene than the fingerprints on the car.
​

Yes, this is my point. Why are traffic stops a life or death situation? Because if someone has a record or warrant they go into fight or flight mode. How about we stop searching for criminal records at traffic stops and just give a citation no matter what? This seems an easy way to de-escalate the situation from both sides.

 

[atpollard]

I think it's the times that they don't that is the problem. And it happens more than not. It was actually kind of amazing that Chauvin got prison. If his actions hadn't been recorded by a young woman by-stander it was obvious that the whole event was going to be covered up as a "medical incident" (per the initial report that was filed).

I think his conviction will be overturned. I do not think that Chauvin was innocent of all crimes, but the trial that he got was not "impartial" and some of the charges make no sense ... like he was attempting to deliberately harm multiple people and one of them died is what one of the convictions represents (like a drive-by shooting). I don't think that what he did was really like a drive-by shooting, so that conviction seems like a stretch.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Yes, this is my point. Why are traffic stops a life or death situation? Because if someone has a record or warrant they go into fight or flight mode. How about we stop searching for criminal records at traffic stops and just give a citation no matter what? This seems an easy way to de-escalate the situation from both sides.

What?!

There is a murderer driving, runs a stop sign and you do not want to arrest him/her? Or even do you due diligence as to whom you are about to talk to?

Why are traffic stops a life and death situation? Because violent criminals drive.

 

[Belk]

Typically, the shooter goes to jail.
What makes you think that I would defend anyone murdering with impunity?

Typically they do not go to jail. That is part of the problem and why our justice system is seen as problematic.

When you tell the police "I have a gun" they should not even need to tell you to keep your hands in plain sight. That is something that they teach in the MANDATORY Concealed Carry Classes to be allowed to carry a gun.

Concealed carry rules vary by state. My state requires no class and I obtained my license simply by filling out a form.

The way to avoid getting shot is to be certain that the officer has no reason to even wonder if you are attempting to draw the weapon. Tell them where it is and obey their instructions so they can secure it. That motorist, tragically, did not do what he was taught to do and a far too nervous officer escalated rather than de-escalated the problem.

Again, this is not always true and what we are discussing. There have been multiple cases where people followed instructions and were still shot.

I do not think he has the temperament to be an officer, but I leave it to others to pass criminal judgement on his actions. However, legal or illegal, the driver is still dead and he would probably be alive if he had remembered his gun safety training.

This is incorrect and the crux of the issue. You asked why I would think you "would defend anyone murdering with impunity". It is because you keep repeating the same story which is contradicted by real world evidence.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, this is my point. Why are traffic stops a life or death situation? Because if someone has a record or warrant they go into fight or flight mode. How about we stop searching for criminal records at traffic stops and just give a citation no matter what? This seems an easy way to de-escalate the situation from both sides.

... if they are driving an uninsured vehicle with no driver's license or registration (because it is stolen), just give them a ticket for their seat-belt and send them on their way?

If we just repealed the Laws, then the Police would not have to enforce them!

 

[renniks]

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?

False starting point. They can shoot someone because they had a gun or because they had intent to commit a crime with the gun?
When does a P.O. shoot as someone just for possession?

 

[atpollard]

Again, this is not always true and what we are discussing. There have been multiple cases where people followed instructions and were still shot.

... and the shooter arrested.

 

[Oneiric1975]

I think his conviction will be overturned.

That would be a very bad outcome.

I do not think that Chauvin was innocent of all crimes, but the trial that he got was not "impartial" and some of the charges make no sense

Everyone in the USA got to watch a man kill another man methodically on the street.

There was little controversial about this.

 

[Belk]

What?!

There is a murderer driving, runs a stop sign and you do not want to arrest him/her? Or even do you due diligence as to whom you are about to talk to?

Why are traffic stops a life and death situation? Because violent criminals drive.

Which is more important? Catching the one case in ten thousand were a murder ran a stop sign or stopping the one in a thousand cases were a criminal in fight or flight shoots a cop? Or the numerous cases were the traffic officer makes a mistake?

 

[Belk]

... and the shooter arrested.

Why do you keep ignoring the real world situations were they are not arrested and do not face justice?

 

[atpollard]

You asked why I would think you "would defend anyone murdering with impunity". It is because you keep repeating the same story which is contradicted by real world evidence.

Why do you keep ignoring the real world situations were they are not arrested and do not face justice?

Philandro Castile

Which way is it?
Am I repeating it or ignoring it?

When the officer clearly does wrong, they are charged with a crime and when the driver poses a perceived threat by not listening, the officer is not charged. What is the great mystery?

 

[Belk]

Philandro Castile

Which way is it?
Am I repeating it or ignoring it?

When the officer clearly does wrong, they are charged with a crime and when the driver poses a perceived threat by not listening, the officer is not charged. What is the great mystery?

That would be the multiple times where someone followed orders but was still shot.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That would be the multiple times where someone followed orders but was still shot.

You do realize that is opinion that can only be substantiated by trial.

The cases that keep being regurgitated here, the officers were found innocent after trial.

You can’t argue guilt after they are found innocent unless you adhere to some type of unsubstantiated conspiracy

 

[Oneiric1975]

You do realize that is opinion that can only be substantiated by trial.

The cases that keep being regurgitated here, the officers were found innocent after trial.

You can’t argue guilt after they are found innocent unless you adhere to some type of unsubstantiated conspiracy

...or perhaps systemic injustice. It happens. I agree that our justice system is a very good one, but when there are repeated cases where a group gets off and there's still a dead person who didn't do anything to deserve to die and nothing changes that there's going to be a problem.

Maybe the point is that we attempt to figure out what went wrong (because in many cases something DID go wrong on the part of the Police) and fix that problem. If the police shoot an unarmed kid because of a "mistake" perhaps we need to figure out why that mistake went to that level.

Because right now there's a very large number of people who feel that the police are a threat to them rather than the officers of peace and stability we want in our society. That is sub-optimal at best.

 

[Belk]

You do realize that is opinion that can only be substantiated by trial.

The cases that keep being regurgitated here, the officers were found innocent after trial.

You can’t argue guilt after they are found innocent unless you adhere to some type of unsubstantiated conspiracy

No person in the history of the US justice system has ever been found "innocent". They have only been found "not guilty". One of the major issues people have with our police force is that it is almost impossible for them to be brought to justice through our court system. To use that same court system and claim that it validates the system seems somewhat disingenuous.

 

[atpollard]

There was little controversial about this.

So you agree that the Police Officer was guilty of killing Floyd in a drive by shooting as he endangered the entire crowd? That was one of the charges of which he was convicted.

 

[atpollard]

That would be the multiple times where someone followed orders but was still shot.

When the officer clearly does wrong, they are charged with a crime and when the driver poses a perceived threat by not listening, the officer is not charged. What is the great mystery?

 

[atpollard]

Because right now there's a very large number of people who feel that the police are a threat to them rather than the officers of peace and stability we want in our society. That is sub-optimal at best.

Allow the population the freedom to arm itself and disband the Police. Let's see how that works instead. The BLM neighborhood can "police" itself without racist interference. That was the dream of Malcolm X.

 

[Belk]

When the officer clearly does wrong, they are charged with a crime and when the driver poses a perceived threat by not listening, the officer is not charged. What is the great mystery?

And in the instances where the officer clearly does wrong and is not charged or is cleared by the justice system?