Philando Castile would disagree if he were still alive to do so.
And when non-felon citizens like Philando Castile and John Crawford are gunned down, what is your response? It's... to blame other black people somewhere else:
Again, I'm talking about the specific case with Daunte Wright. That's your problem, most of you extremist liberals try to lump every case together when they all have different circumstances. For the record and to be clear, in my opinion the officer in the Castile case should have been guilty. I am not familiar with the Crawford case you referenced.
So spare me this hand-wringing about how Wright was a Dangerous Violent Criminal. Even when it's a person with a spotless record, you still won't hold the police accountable. A police officer walked into a man's apartment and shot him dead for no reason, and all you could do was make excuses for her. The lives of these victims hold no value to you, regardless of any crime they may or may not have committed.
And she was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years. The issue at hand is that you think that she was out hunting a black man just because he was black and I think that she made a very grave mistake. In the end she was held accountable for her actions. The interesting part is that if Botham Jean was a white man, we wouldn't even be discussing it right now because you wouldn't care. It wouldn't fit your fake liberal storyline that "white people are hunting down and killing black people". So don't say you value the victims lives. You only value them if they're black. And you think I'm a racist, LMFAO....
I reject the premise; they were not a threat.
Who is "they"? Again we're talking about Daunte Wright. If he wasn't a threat, what was he doing in his car?
Entering your car is not a deadly action requiring lethal force in response. And neither is driving away!
Every act of disobedience of the directions of an officer is not immediately escalated to a deadly act requiring lethal force in response just because you can IMAGINE something more dangerous they might do later. Walking back into my house in contradiction to an officer's instructions does not itself justify an officer immediately shooting me multiple times in the back just because they think I might have a knife in my house.
It's clear that you understand this concept quite clearly when it comes to people disobeying orders to put on a mask, or disobeying orders to not invade the seat of our federal legislature. Those things are conveniently "not dangerous" in your eyes. But suddenly, when it comes to a black man getting in his car, Well Maybe He Has A Bomb In His Car And He's Going To Set It Off! Better kill him anyway, just in case!
Your
opinion doesn't matter. it's skewed by the leftist propaganda you've been indoctrinated with. The Dante Wright case meets both legal standards governing deadly force. I posted it again below and highlighted it jus
t to make sure you know the LEGAL standard. Again, your
opinion doesn't matter, this is a country of laws.
Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri St. Louis. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.
Spider, if you can't see the difference between an old lady at the mall not putting on a mask and a criminal felon assaulting law enforcement while resisting arrest and then jumping in his car. Then I really don't know what to tell you.
However, if 3 officers confront that lady with no mask. Run her ID and see that she's wanted for a violent felony involving firearms. And she resists arrest, assaults law enforcement, and starts digging in her purse in close quarters. I think lethal force would be justified if the officers feel that she's a threat.
Unlike you, I believe that the punishment for crimes - including being "taken off the streets" - should come after a trial and conviction. The fact that Wright previously served time for earlier convictions does not entitle police to summarily execute him.
He wasn't punished for a crime, nor was he executed. He was a threat to law enforcement and/or the public and they neutralized the threat. The officers involved tried to take him into custody for trial. But unfortunately Mr. Wright wasn't smart enough and/or had bad parents who didn't care enough to teach him how to make the correct decisions when dealing with a serious situation.
Author