FL Police Officer Shoots Air Force Airman To Death for Answering Apartment Door While holding a Gun by his side.

[Aufan59 83]

On 5/12/2024 at 2:27 PM, I_M4_AU said:

A person in his own home and the police storm in, the person thinks he is being invaded and is shot.  Like this case, if it was at the wrong address, the home owner is protecting his property lawfully and is shot.

Do you think it’s constitutional for “the police to storm in”?

[Gowebb11 9,429]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

The body cam footage is what has the cop in hot water. What is happening around the country is unfortunate, but this case isn't about that.  This is about a young man needlessly losing his life at the hands of law enforcement.  The officer is allowed to stop and detain someone on the street.  He is allowed to carry a weapon anywhere and he is given the authority to detain and imprison someone.  The public places trust in the officer.  The officer has a responsibility to not abuse that trust. This type of shooting makes the lives of police officers more difficult, not less.  These type of shootings erode that trust.

I am not anti cop and 8 times out of 10 defend their actions.  This particular shooting is simply difficult, if not impossible, to defend.

We can certainly agree that it is a tragic event. One life was lost and another permanently changed. 

[Mims44 1,896]

20 hours ago, AUDub said:

Thing is, yeah, I very much sympathize with the cop here. The ACAB crowd was always going to have a field day with this one, but people just don’t ******* get that the cops here are in a s*** situation too. We, as a society, have put them in an absolutely awful situation over the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms” that was written when rifling was a novelty and semi automatic fire was a a pipe dream being applied in a day and age when said arms are instant death if you choose option B rather than option A. 

The deputy made a bad decision that was clearly in error after the fact. ****, he literally killed a person. I can’t imagine what he’s dealing with right now. Personally, that would wreck my psyche for the rest of my days.

But feel free to Monday Morning QB that. I just can’t. 

18 hours ago, AUDub said:

It’s patently lazy to be going “hurr durr bill of rahts second amendment should have waited a second or two to gauge intent blah blah blah blah blah” when you see your death in palm of someone’s hand should they will it at the drop of a hat and EXPECT a human, errors in judgement, faults and all that all humans have, to put his life on the line and get it right 100% if the time. 

Cops are human beings. Weigh that carefully. 

18 hours ago, AUDub said:

Neither of which kills with a flick of the wrist and the pull of a trigger. You’re comparing apples and airplanes. Not all rights can be inherently equivocated. It’s  fallacy to try and do so. Well meaning people are dying or killing through no inherent fault of their own because there’s no squaring that circle.

I would argue it’s an inherent result. No normal person wants to pick between dying or killing someone under the kind of pressure the police (law ENFORCEMENT, mind you) has to weigh with mere seconds, usually less, to decide.

We did to ourselves. Until we come up with police drones (lol) this will be the result. 

Only grabbed three, but man Dub... you got some wild takes in this thread.

I generally like your posts but this is, kinda off the rails.

[AUDub 11,204]

3 hours ago, Mims44 said:

Only grabbed three, but man Dub... you got some wild takes in this thread.

I generally like your posts but this is, kinda off the rails.

There should be some kind of rule for telling someone they’re wrong without spelling out why. 

[Mims44 1,896]

44 minutes ago, AUDub said:

There should be some kind of rule for telling someone they’re wrong without spelling out why. 

It's admittedly a bit much to unpack all at once.

I get the feeling you want so badly to blame the 2nd amendment that giving this dude a pass is OK with you.

 

We, as a society, have put them in an absolutely awful situation over the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms”

But feel free to Monday Morning QB that. I just can’t.  ~Dub

Not that awful honestly, the vast majority do ok with it. But childish with the ending.

 

It’s patently lazy to be going “hurr durr bill of rahts second amendment should have waited a second or two to gauge intent blah blah blah blah blah” when you see your death in palm of someone’s hand should they will it at the drop of a hat and EXPECT a human, errors in judgement, faults and all that all humans have, to put his life on the line and get it right 100% if the time. Cops are human beings. Weigh that carefully. ~Dub

More silliness. more childlike tones in reply.

 

Neither of which kills with a flick of the wrist and the pull of a trigger. You’re comparing apples and airplanes. Not all rights can be inherently equivocated. It’s  fallacy to try and do so. Well meaning people are dying or killing through no inherent fault of their own because there’s no squaring that circle. I would argue it’s an inherent result. No normal person wants to pick between dying or killing someone under the kind of pressure the police (law ENFORCEMENT, mind you) has to weigh with mere seconds, usually less, to decide. ~Dub

Avoiding the point made previously and then trying to establish a different point... which is very weak and setting a false premise. At least for a lot of people.

 

The only time in the thread I can say you were spot on is when you said the cop will get no jail time. I 100% believe that. If cops bust in our house right now and kill us in our beds it would be the same. Playing out this narrative to where a normal response to seeing another human with a weapon is "must kill now" is silly.

99% of people don't do that. If a civilian or hell, even a veteran was to do this and claim "I saw another human with gun, so I started blastin'" They would have 0 chance in a court. It's a bad look that we say cops are given some modicum of training for this situation, and therefore are almost always justified when going straight to deadly force.

 

 

 

I hope that's a bit more of a response to your liking. It's late, and like you I got gangs of kids that tire me out  

[cbo 7,979]

Catching up and this is an interesting, thoughtful conversation. 

This country is filled with people that are on edge and carrying guns. We will only see more of this. 

I do not think it is smart to open the door for a cop with a gun in your hand.

I think it is a call for reform IF the majority believe a cop is justified in killing a man that did not violate a single law. 

The police have tremendous power. Even Spiderman knows "with great power comes great responsibility."

It should be more difficult to become a cop. Higher standards for weapons proficiency, problem solving skills, personality tests, physical tests, background checks, etc. Then give them better resources and training when they are on the job, including mental health therapy. If this means there are less cops, that's fine. 

 

 

[aubaseball 2,673]

On 5/13/2024 at 11:34 AM, Aufan59 said:

I don’t think it’s apples and airplanes.  They are rights guaranteed by the constitution.

 

If you can be legally murdered by government when exercising a right in your own home, then I think it’s fair to say that it isn’t really a right.

 

I agree we’ve backed ourselves into a corner with the second amendment.  There is no good answer to this, except amending the constitution, of which I would be in favor.

 

But the fascinating part is the contradicting place this puts conservatives in(and this is not directed at you specifically):  The second amendment is constantly argued as necessary, especially to empower the people against a tyrannical government.  However they somehow defend the government coming to your door and murdering you when you exercise this right.

 

And it is fascinating that any conservative could end up defending the government murdering its citizens for exercising their rights.  

 

 

I agree.   I’m not saying that the officer is not without fault.   What I don’t understand is why a person would put himself in that position 

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

22 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Do you think it’s constitutional for “the police to storm in”?

The law and constitutional rights are sometimes at odds.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Careless error by the police in this instance. They need to be held to a standard and heads need to roll (figuratively). Pathetic display of policing. 

[AUDub 11,204]

3 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Careless error by the police in this instance. They need to be held to a standard and heads need to roll (figuratively). Pathetic display of policing.

They need to be willing to die to uphold the second amendment is what it comes down to. 

Edited May 14 by AUDub

[autigeremt 6,776]

On 5/14/2024 at 5:22 PM, AUDub said:

They need to be willing to die to uphold the second amendment is what it comes down to. 

I’m willing. I swore an oath and went on an international tour with my “band” to prove it. 

[AUDub 11,204]

43 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I’m willing. I swore an oath and went on an international tour with my “band” to prove it. 

Yes yes you’re very bad ass thank you. 

[homersapien 11,513]

The following is a direct quote of a letter to the editor from the latest "The Atlantic" responding to their piece on the Marjorie Stone Douglas High School, in which a 60-year-old policeman stood by while the mass shooting unfolded.

I sums up the reality of guns and America nicely:

 

"The American people relate to guns as addicts relate to drugs. Addicts change everything in their life to accommodate their drug use. They filter their relationships, alter their schedule, and change their living situation - all to facilitate their access to the substance. They blame everything and everyone for what goes wrong, but never the drug.

And so it is with guns in the United States. Law enforcement officers should alter their techniques because of shootings. Teachers should carry weapons to protect themselves and their students. Sixty-year-old men should be trained to run into the line of fire.  Children should learn when to duck and when to run. Everyone attending a public event should know where the exits are. We are willing to put everything second to our need for guns.

The U.S. has a gun addiction. Until the American people wake up to the fact that our drug is killing us, until we stop enabling our addiction, we will continue to see tragedies like that at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

Please tell me how the war on drugs has improved America’s addiction.  The left’s example of America having a *gun addiction* is misplaced.  What would the left do as a result?  Look at Oregon, Washington and California.  They would make sure everyone had a gun just like those states are giving drug addicts free drugs or decriminalizing drugs.  California is even giving free alchol to alcoholics.

You might want to look for another analogy.

[AU9377 5,136]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Please tell me how the war on drugs has improved America’s addiction.  The left’s example of America having a *gun addiction* is misplaced.  What would the left do as a result?  Look at Oregon, Washington and California.  They would make sure everyone had a gun just like those states are giving drug addicts free drugs or decriminalizing drugs.  California is even giving free alchol to alcoholics.

You might want to look for another analogy.

We would have been much better off had we not chosen to lie to people for decades about certain drugs.  All drugs are not equal in their impact, yet for decades we told young people that marijuana was just as deadly as heroin.  That was a mistake.

When someone does have an addiction problem, the solution isn't always to just lock them up.  Programs that provide needles to addicts help prevent the spread of diseases that are easily spread by sharing needles.  This is no different than the health department giving out free condoms.   Your view of the West coast is always negative.  There are some crazy ideas and some bad policy decisions that come from California, but sometimes they find something that works.  The goal is to impact a problem in a way that is good for the individual and for the community.  Finding a real solution.

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

35 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Your view of the West coast is always negative. 

True.

36 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There are some crazy ideas and some bad policy decisions that come from California, but sometimes they find something that works

Is the crazy worth the few times they may get it right?  Newsom is living in his own little fantasy world and makes policy without consequences.  How’s their homeless problem going?  How about their ever increasing debt?  Have the state pension funds caught up?

Alls they do is throw money at the problem.  No follow through.

America doesn’t have a gun addiction as the previous poster suggested.

[auburnatl1 5,253]

53 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

America doesn’t have a gun addiction as the previous poster suggested.

What would you call it then?

https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/gun-ownership-by-country

Edited May 17 by auburnatl1

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

25 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

What would call it then?

https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/gun-ownership-by-country

 

 

[auburnatl1 5,253]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

While being disemboweled. Fantastic. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,227]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

While being disemboweled. Fantastic. 

 Unintentional symbolism by I_M4 right there. 

 

 

[auburnatl1 5,253]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 Unintentional symbolism by I_M4 right there. 

 

 

Either that or he’s a closet gun control advocate, speaking in code, crying to come out.

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Either that or he’s a closet gun control advocate, speaking in code, crying to come out.

You guys can misinterpret with the best of them.   Well done.  We have *freedoms* other countries don’t and you sheep want to take it away.

[auburnatl1 5,253]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You guys can misinterpret with the best of them.   Well done.  We have *freedoms* other countries don’t and you sheep want to take it away.

I support the second amendment (though I do have a problem with certain types of guns). But when a country has more guns than people (including infants) and over twice as many as  the #2 country… Yemen - and it’s not an addiction….

Let’s be honest, it’s dysfunctional nuts.

[I_M4_AU 8,056]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I support the second amendment (though I do have a problem with certain types of guns). But when a country has more guns than people (including infants) and over twice as many as  the #2 country… Yemen - and it’s not an addiction….

Let’s be honest, it’s dysfunctional nuts.

What ever you do, don’t buy another gun. You could destroy the ones you have to prove you’re not addicted.  Then you can blame others for the problem and be a hero at the same time.

[auburnatl1 5,253]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What ever you do, don’t buy another gun. You could destroy the ones you have to prove you’re not addicted.  Then you can blame others for the problem and be a hero at the same time.

You acknowledged it’s a problem PLUS offered a tip on how to blame others. A 2fer!