Violence erupts after officer-involved shooting

[Teddy B 17,252]

Seems pretty murky to me. I don't think this is as clear cut as you're trying to make it. There could be many circumstances in which I'm sure a cop would come out squeaky clean shooting someone if they had enough indications to believe they were a threat, even if all they did until then was steal a car. It has happened and it will. Like I said we don't know their thought process unless we are them so we can't judge. It's a decision you only have a couple moments to make. It has nothing to do with being right or wrong on my part.

Well thankfully you don't get to decide.

Based on your original post below that I replied to, it is that clear cut.

Sheriff Clarke will have none of this I can guarantee you that. It won't be like Baltimore. My wife's step brother is actually a deputy and they are told "you do what you need to do, I'll take care of the rest".

BTW, this is not the first time in recent weeks we see outrage over some dude being shot for running away from the cops, armed or not. Since when are they not allowed to shoot at a suspected criminal who's running away without waiting for them to shoot first? Ridiculous.

[Ban Hammer 13,726]

[Teddy B 17,252]

I haven't seen anything that says Smith pointed the gun at police. Is there new evidence?

Everything I've read is consistent with the quote below.

Police body camera footage showed Smith holding a handgun during the encounter, Barrett said at a Sunday news conference. Police said the unidentified officer shot Smith after he failed to comply with orders to put his gun down. His gun was loaded with 23 rounds, more than the officer was carrying.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/us/milwaukee-violence-police-shooting/index.html

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

If he had a gun with w

23 rounds in it, he refused to pUT down, him pointing at the officer or not is really irrelevant.

Makes one scratch ones head

[OriZ 3,157]

I haven't seen anything that says Smith pointed the gun at police. Is there new evidence?

Everything I've read is consistent with the quote below.

I don't know if he pointed it, but from what I have heard(and wrote already) he turned around towards him. So the way I understand it, he fled, then turned towards the cop and got shot in the chest. While he did not fire at the officer, the officer did fire at him. Had you actually been paying attention to what I was saying instead of just trying to twist everything I post out of context, you would have been aware of that fact, as well as the fact that my original comment quoted by you was referring to this. So I'll repeat it again because I stand behind it 100%.

Since when are they not allowed to shoot at a suspected criminal who's running away without waiting for them to shoot first? Ridiculous.

I did not say shoot them in the back. Yo, it is legal for a cop to shoot at someone deemed a threat, without waiting for them to shoot at them first. To Val - that's not how we want it to be, it's how it already is. And good thing at that or you'd have no cops left.

Edited August 15, 2016 by OriZ

[OriZ 3,157]

If he had a gun with w

23 rounds in it, he refused to pUT down, him pointing at the officer or not is really irrelevant.

Makes one scratch ones head

There appears to be a severe case of DDS on steroids in here today.

[JayJayH 546]

This is why Black Lives Matter has lost so much of the support it originally had, like most leaderless organizations.

Here's what I see in Milwaukee:

An armed black man with a lengthy criminal history gets into a confrontation with a black police officer in a black neighborhood in a county with a black sheriff in a country with a black president. Protesters, without examining evidence or applying any form of reason, begin burning down black businesses in a black neighborhood, shouting anti-police rhetoric. "Racism!" once again thrown around like sour-tasting Halloween candy, rather than being applied as the serious allegation it should be.

Even if you think Sylville Smith was shot unnecessarily, explain to the American public how exactly BLM is helping improve the lives of black residents of Milwaukee, or race relations in America.

The officers who killed Freddie Gray, or the officer who shot the care taker in Texas, or the officer who shot an unarmed man in the back in South Carolina... They should all be in jail along with the protestors burning down innocent people's cars and businesses in Milwaukee.

Edited August 16, 2016 by JayJayH

[Boiler 46,371]

This is why Black Lives Matter has lost so much of the support it originally had, like most leaderless organizations.

Here's what I see in Milwaukee:

An armed black man with a lengthy criminal history gets into a confrontation with a black police officer in a black neighborhood in a county with a black sheriff in a country with a black president. Protesters, without examining evidence or applying any form of reason, begin burning down black businesses in a black neighborhood, shouting anti-police rhetoric. "Racism!" once again thrown around like sour-tasting Halloween candy, rather than being applied as the serious allegation it should be.

Even if you think Sylville Smith was shot unnecessarily, explain to the American public how exactly BLM is helping improve the lives of black residents of Milwaukee, or race relations in America.

The officers who killed Freddie Gray, or the officer who shot the care taker in Texas, or the officer who shot an unarmed man in the back in South Carolina... They should all be in jail along with the protestors burning down innocent people's cars and businesses in Milwaukee.

To be positive they did attack some involved white passersby s.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Since when are they not allowed to shoot at a suspected criminal who's running away without waiting for them to shoot first? Ridiculous.

You are correct, this statement as it stands is ridiculous. Which is why I pointed it out to you. Good that you've seen the err in your ways Oriz.

[OriZ 3,157]

You are correct, this statement as it stands is ridiculous. Which is why I pointed it out to you. Good that you've seen the err in your ways Oriz.

You want to keep trying to deflect and trying to take this conversation elsewhere, instead of where it was meant to be. I never once denied that they need to pose a threat. By definition, if they are a "dangerous suspect" they obviously pose a threat. Once we established that, do you agree that a cop is allowed to shoot the suspect if the suspect is running away, if that cop believes that the suspect is posing a threat to either the public, or that cop, even if the suspect did not shoot first? Geeze, it's like pulling teeth with you guys. As far as what counts as a threat the law might attempt to define that, however in real time when you have a split second to make a decision I'd still say it could be pretty subjective. If it ends up being "unlawful" there's always a million legit reasons a cop can give in court and still get off...like I said, hard to judge, not everything is black and white like you guys believe it is. At the end of the day it's to the cops discretion to determine, and good thing at that.

Now, my personal opinion is, if a cop deems you a threat and tries to apprehend you and you run away and get shot, it's 100% on you, not on the cop. You're free to disagree, wouldn't be the first time someone disagrees with me so it doesn't hurt my feelings, but it will remain my opinion nonetheless.

Edited August 16, 2016 by OriZ

[Teddy B 17,252]

This quote does not equal your original statement. There was no mention of a "dangerous suspect" or "posing a threat". That had never been established in your original statement.

You want to keep trying to deflect and trying to take this conversation elsewhere, instead of where it was meant to be. I never once denied that they need to pose a threat. By definition, if they are a "dangerous suspect" they obviously pose a threat. Once we established that, do you agree that a cop is allowed to shoot the suspect if the suspect is running away, if that cop believes that the suspect is posing a threat to either the public, or that cop, even if the suspect did not shoot first?

This is your original statement, which as it stands is ridiculous, incorrect and illegal. You can contort it any way you'd like, but the post below was your original statement and in no way resembles the post above.

BTW, this is not the first time in recent weeks we see outrage over some dude being shot for running away from the cops, armed or not. Since when are they not allowed to shoot at a suspected criminal who's running away without waiting for them to shoot first? Ridiculous.

[OriZ 3,157]

This quote does not equal your original statement. There was no mention of a "dangerous suspect" or "posing a threat". That had never been established in your original statement.

This is your original statement, which as it stands is ridiculous, incorrect and illegal. You can contort it any way you'd like, but the post below was your original statement and in no way resembles the post above.

I'll explain it for the 4th and last time. The relevance was for this particular situation. Hence, the question was asked in this thread. The only thing here you can "get" me on is the "Armed or not" part - but that doesn't mean that in the other instances they weren't believed to be dangerous, either. It was only after the fact that they found out that they were not armed. The assumption is already there that they were deemed dangerous, whether for a good reason or a bad one, in this case and in others. I didn't feel in a forum with actual adults everything needs spelling out. But, then again, when you take it out of the context of this thread I guess it does.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I'll explain it for the 4th and last time. The relevance was for this particular situation. Hence, the question was asked in this thread. The only thing here you can "get" me on is the "Armed or not" part - but that doesn't mean that in the other instances they weren't believed to be dangerous, either. It was only after the fact that they found out that they were not armed. The assumption is already there that they were deemed dangerous, whether for a good reason or a bad one, in this case and in others. I didn't feel in a forum with actual adults everything needs spelling out. But, then again, when you take it out of the context of this thread I guess it does.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[OriZ 3,157]

Yup, back to retorting to the only thing you guys know. I'm shocked.