|
|
Post by easye on Jun 28, 2023 9:28:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 28, 2023 14:47:01 GMT -5
French police has always been violence happy, this isn't a US export. What hopefully is different, is that the officer gets appropriately punished.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jun 28, 2023 20:21:55 GMT -5
I'm curious what the actual circumstances were that led to the shooting. The CNN article doesn't really explain any of the details. It's pretty crappy for the President to make a statement calling it unjustifiable when it's still being investigated. That doesn't inspire confidence in the fairness of the proceedings. Macron also said “Nothing, nothing justifies the death of a young man.” That may just be a poor translation, but if he really feels that nothing can justify lethal force, France should probably stop arming their police.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jun 28, 2023 20:33:47 GMT -5
But if you allow concealed carry holders (even in states with permitless concealed carry?) you introduce legal guns and provide a justification for having a gun there. Remember that what every mass shooter is completely legal and part of the "well regulated militia" right up until the point they start shooting, and at that point it's too late. If all guns are illegal in a space, then you can arrest someone for having a gun there *before* they start shooting, and actually save lives. Introducing more guns may help bring down the shooter, assuming the good guy with gun is suitably trained and in the right place, but it's likely you'd just introduce more confusion. After hearing shots in a mall, you draw your gun and run out, you see a guy with a gun - is he the good guy or the bad guy? How do the cops know who to shoot if a good guy has a gun drawn when they pull up? Of course that provides a mechanism for legally having a gun there. That's the point. However, it is far from true that every mass shooter is completely legal up until the point where they start shooting. Many times they are not legal, such as the examples of mass shooters who have targeted "gun free zones" or other locations where legal concealed carry is not allowed. "Gun free zones" that do not allow licensed concealed carry is a mistake in my opinion, because it only ensures that potential attackers are less likely to encounter armed resistance, and the whole purpose of issuing concealed carry licenses is to vet people who meet the qualifications too do so. If someone brings a gun into an illegal space with the intent to do harm, someone will likely have to employ force before arresting them. In regards to how the police (or any other good guy with a gun) knows who to shoot, basic situational awareness on the part of anyone who is armed (both police and non-LE citizens) is required. It's the same way police are able to avoid shooting off-duty police officers for the most part. If the armed person isn't shooting at you, shooting at other unarmed people, or otherwise taking hostile action or demonstrating hostile intent, you don't shoot them. Which is another reason why making all guns illegal in a space is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jun 28, 2023 20:57:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jun 28, 2023 21:05:27 GMT -5
To be clear, I'm not saying it was justified. I would just like to know what actually happened before passing judgement. The "did not conform to the rules of engagement" comment and the pending manslaughter charges make me wonder if it was a negligent discharge. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jun 28, 2023 21:15:19 GMT -5
I'm not saying you did, I'm saying multiple officials have called this shooting out as wrong. The video also shows at least one officer having their gun out awfully early on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jun 28, 2023 21:23:31 GMT -5
I'm not saying you did, I'm saying multiple officials have called this shooting out as wrong. The video also shows at least one officer having their gun out awfully early on. I know, just trying to ensure it wasn't taken that way by anyone. I just found a video of the shooting. Both officers have their guns out when the video I saw starts. It's hard to tell if the shot was deliberate or a negligent discharge. The officer who shot was leaning on the car and appeared to get pushed briefly by the vehicle before he shot. |
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 488
|
Post by skyth on Jun 28, 2023 22:42:20 GMT -5
Yeah, it's not like another person with a gun would likely be mistaken for the active shooter in a confusing situation and be shot by police/other people with a gun. Old chestnut that a gun-free zone is somehow less safe is basically a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jun 28, 2023 23:30:52 GMT -5
Yeah, it's not like another person with a gun would likely be mistaken for the active shooter in a confusing situation and be shot by police/other people with a gun. Old chestnut that a gun-free zone is somehow less safe is basically a lie. I think it's pointless to bring this up. I've brought it up several times and each time it gets ignored. And let's be honest, if guns made everyone safer, we'd hand out buckets of guns at every single place the president goes in order to make it "safer" right? |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 29, 2023 0:04:04 GMT -5
I think that the presumption of innocence went out the window with the video. Given what we are shown, a stopped car with two officers leaning in with aimed guns, one of the officers shouting he is going to shoot the driver in the head? You could forgive a 17 year old or anyone for trying to flee such a situation. The shot came after they tried to drive off, there appears to be no immenent risk at the moment of the shot, with the officer seemingly hanging on to the car a few seconds to get the shot off?
|
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Jun 29, 2023 6:40:00 GMT -5
It's telling that most of the rest of the world has a better approach to police shooting civilians. In this case he's taken into custody for an investigation, in the UK any police officer who shoots someone is automatically suspended pending an investigation.
In the US they don't even pretend it's a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Jun 29, 2023 6:48:33 GMT -5
Of course that provides a mechanism for legally having a gun there. That's the point. However, it is far from true that every mass shooter is completely legal up until the point where they start shooting. Many times they are not legal, such as the examples of mass shooters who have targeted "gun free zones" or other locations where legal concealed carry is not allowed. "Gun free zones" that do not allow licensed concealed carry is a mistake in my opinion, because it only ensures that potential attackers are less likely to encounter armed resistance, and the whole purpose of issuing concealed carry licenses is to vet people who meet the qualifications too do so. If someone brings a gun into an illegal space with the intent to do harm, someone will likely have to employ force before arresting them. In regards to how the police (or any other good guy with a gun) knows who to shoot, basic situational awareness on the part of anyone who is armed (both police and non-LE citizens) is required. It's the same way police are able to avoid shooting off-duty police officers for the most part. If the armed person isn't shooting at you, shooting at other unarmed people, or otherwise taking hostile action or demonstrating hostile intent, you don't shoot them. Which is another reason why making all guns illegal in a space is a bad idea. Those claims seem contradictory. You've essentially confirmed that gun free zones work as I described - having a gun in one is in itself illegal and thus the police can arrest someone with a gun. Outside the gun free zone then the gun is totally legal until they shoot someone.
The police can't really do anything with a legally held gun, and lack of registry makes it virtually impossible for the police to identify a stolen weapon, thus any weapon is assumed to be legal outwith jurisdictions where licenses are required.
How do you tell the difference between someone bringing a gun into an illegal space with the intent to do harm, and someone bringing a gun into an illegal space with the intend to defend themselves from someone they perceive is intending to do harm?
You seem to think that "basic situational awareness" is enough to distinguish between good guys and bad guys with a gun, but there are a few flaws there: Do the police have a basic situational awareness? There are numerous instances where the police turn up and shoot the wrong person, or shoot someone who isn't actually a risk. There are cases where cops have shot someone within single digit seconds of arriving at the scene.
Given trained cops are crap at it, how do you expect a random civilian with no training to get on?
How can you tell which guy holding a gun hiding behind a bench is the good guy and which isn't? You've got less time to decide than it took you to read the question.
All of your arguments would make perfect sense if you only allowed trained, vetted people to carry guns. A well regulated militia, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Jun 29, 2023 11:58:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jun 29, 2023 15:17:28 GMT -5
Yeah, it's not like another person with a gun would likely be mistaken for the active shooter in a confusing situation and be shot by police/other people with a gun. Old chestnut that a gun-free zone is somehow less safe is basically a lie. Confusion is a concern and it's something both police and armed non-LE citizens should be mindful of. That being said, it's pretty straightforward to tell who the active shooter is. They're the one shooting at unarmed people and/or police. If there is an armed person who is not taking hostile actions or exhibiting hostile intent, then there is no reason or justification to shoot them, because they are probably either an off-duty or plainclothes police officer or an armed non-LE citizen. I'm not sure how a gun-free zone being less safe is a lie? Mass shooters have deliberately targeted gun free zones because they know they're less likely to encounter armed resistance (at least until the police arrive). Licensed concealed carriers certainly don't make an area more dangerous. They're statistically more law-abiding than police officers. |
|
