Neither the article, or anything mentioned in these comments is claiming the victim’s ‘innocence’. They are however making the point that EVEN if you do all of those things you shouldn’t expect to be shot and killed.
Your comment sounds equivalent of claiming girls that dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It just isn’t the point. The point is that he should not have been killed.
People like to conveniently forget that we have the courtroom to decide someone’s innocence or guilt. The police should not be judge, jury, and executioner.
Your comment sounds equivalent of claiming girls that dress provocatively deserve to be raped.
My comment specifically states that killing him wasn’t the optimal solution here, so I can’t see how that’s your intrepretation of it.
Nobody ever deserves to be shot. That’s completely incompatible with my worldview. However, sometimes it’s justified.
EDIT: For context, the deleted comment said:
Can’t a man with a lengthy rap sheet even go on a night drive in a stolen(?) vehicle, ram a few police cars, and resist arrest without getting shot at these days?
In all seriousness, killing him clearly wasn’t the optimal solution, but it shows once again that the ‘innocent’ people getting shot by police are rarely so innocent after all.
My comment specifically states that killing him wasn’t the optimal solution here, so I can’t see how that’s your intrepretation of it.
That’s my interpretation of it because you’re basically saying that because he was breaking the law (maybe you’re saying that it’s because he was breaking specific laws), it’s justified that he was shot and killed.
Whether you want to pussyfoot around the distinction between him deserving it and it being justified is beside the point from my perspective because I don’t believe he did deserve it or that it was justified.
Seems like we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I haven’t exactly claimed it was justified either. I’m literally hearing about this for the first time, and all my knowledge comes from this single article, so I don’t have enough information to form an informed opinion on whether opening fire was justified or if they could’ve just moved out of the way or not been there in the first place. My comment was more about cases like this in general rather than this specific one.
Let’s be real here. The reason articles like this get so much media attention is because the victim was black, and the narrative of police being racist is a popular one. People, however, really struggle to acknowledge that, justified or not, the lifestyle of the majority of these infamous black people shot by police has been such that they themselves were likely fully aware it could be a possible outcome. Very rarely (though not never) does someone truly innocent get intentionally shot by police for no reason. This situation was perfectly avoidable.
Neither the article, or anything mentioned in these comments is claiming the victim’s ‘innocence’. They are however making the point that EVEN if you do all of those things you shouldn’t expect to be shot and killed.
Your comment sounds equivalent of claiming girls that dress provocatively deserve to be raped. It just isn’t the point. The point is that he should not have been killed.
People like to conveniently forget that we have the courtroom to decide someone’s innocence or guilt. The police should not be judge, jury, and executioner.
Fixed it for you.
What should we do if they decide they don’t want to stop rampaging around?
My comment specifically states that killing him wasn’t the optimal solution here, so I can’t see how that’s your intrepretation of it.
Nobody ever deserves to be shot. That’s completely incompatible with my worldview. However, sometimes it’s justified.
EDIT: For context, the deleted comment said:
“Murder is wrong, BUT” is a really weird hill to die on…
What’s your point?
I don’t think a murdered deserves to die but I think killing them in self defence is perfectly justfied.
That’s my interpretation of it because you’re basically saying that because he was breaking the law (maybe you’re saying that it’s because he was breaking specific laws), it’s justified that he was shot and killed.
Whether you want to pussyfoot around the distinction between him deserving it and it being justified is beside the point from my perspective because I don’t believe he did deserve it or that it was justified.
Seems like we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I haven’t exactly claimed it was justified either. I’m literally hearing about this for the first time, and all my knowledge comes from this single article, so I don’t have enough information to form an informed opinion on whether opening fire was justified or if they could’ve just moved out of the way or not been there in the first place. My comment was more about cases like this in general rather than this specific one.
Let’s be real here. The reason articles like this get so much media attention is because the victim was black, and the narrative of police being racist is a popular one. People, however, really struggle to acknowledge that, justified or not, the lifestyle of the majority of these infamous black people shot by police has been such that they themselves were likely fully aware it could be a possible outcome. Very rarely (though not never) does someone truly innocent get intentionally shot by police for no reason. This situation was perfectly avoidable.