I’m not sure this is the right forum for this topic, since most of my threads get moved by the mod, but the latest high-profile police shooting has me wondering how it’s possible to get confused between a taser and a pistol. I’ve shot many pistols but never a taser. Anyone here who’s handled both who can opine on this apparent tragic confusion? From this pic, I can’t understand how this happened.
This is something I DO think makes a lot of sense, and although the narrative hasn’t taken complete hold yet it’s taking hold in the most vulnerable communities. Anything repeated often enough becomes perceived reality for a percentage of the population.
Never shot a pistol, let alone a taser. My guess is this type of shit happens in the spur of the moment, in a high stress situation. They probably train lethal force more than tasers, and muscle memory takes over during stress.
Ideally an officer should have the taser out as a pre emptive move, in case something negative develops.
I feel sorry for US police. A lot of nice cops get shot, if they don’t approach every traffic stop with the potential for something bad happening. New Mexico officer Darian Jarrot was killed that way, after he pulled over a car for having too dark, tinted windows.
I’ve tried to post a link, but I couldn’t get it to work. So try a search directly through your search engine. He gave the driver a little too much trust/ leeway, after he noticed firearms in the guy’s car.
You should totes try it out. It’s not illegal in Aus to visit a range.
It IS expensive though, as is everything else over here.
1 Like
I’d love too, but I’m banned from even setting foot on a gun range, or entering a gun store for 10 years since conviction. NSW laws are mega strict, not going to break them. QLD is only 5 years. Go figure? 
Would you care to post a link or two to those stories?
This is what dying in the line of duty looks like:
3 Likes
It’s not even that 99.9% of the time. These are almost always cases of criminals trying to avoid arrest. These confrontations end the same regardless of the suspect’s color but the media keeps that from people.
Hands up don’t shoot, proven to be a lie.
Weren’t half the cops involved black?
Not killed by the police but a so-called person of color.
I would argue that this isn’t exactly the case. What we are seeing is elites giving the people in these communities a bogeyman, a scapegoat, a villain, an excuse, etc., that they want to be true so they don’t have to face the reality that they share some responsibility for the state of their communities. The elites have basically given them someone to blame in order to feed a sense of perpetual victim-hood. All it really is, is a distraction from the truth. So it isn’t a case of being tricked into believing a perceived reality but willingly accepting an alternative reality as a coping mechanism.
2 Likes
It would. But, as a friend of mine has pointed out, you can tell Americans don’t fear the police…just look at how they behave towards them.
1 Like
This may be a distinction without a difference IMHO. There’s a lot of overlap here - the nature of said scapegoat is exactly that they’re “out to murder you”.
Probably a lot of truth to this. It is easier to trick someone who wants to be tricked. But it’s still a trick of sorts. And, when added on to decades of being told the same thing by elites as well as the background of actual racism, I don’t think 100% of the blame can be placed on the people as willingness to be given an alternate reality.
They have definitely been conditioned to believe in their lack of any control over their lives and to always default to the victim role. And, to put their destinies in the hands of democrats.
1 Like
The officer who shot and killed a black man on Sunday will be charged with 2nd degree manslaughter.
I am going to call this one early. She will be acquitted or the case will be dismissed. From MN’s 2nd degree manslaughter statutes:
Only (1) applies here, and requires creating an unreasonable risk AND consciously takes chances of causing death. That last part (consciously taking chances) can’t be proven at this point.
2 Likes
Tasers aren’t “non-lethal”, they are “less-lethal” weapons. Everytime it’s deployed the officer is taking a chance it will/wont cause death.
Also, it could be argued that the officer obviously never confirmed she was holding a taser instead of gun. She took a chance and fired it anyways.
I think the key is “unreasonable risk”. And personally I don’t see her intended use of force as unreasonable under the current code of conduct.
1 Like
It is really difficult to say she consciously did not do something though. Like she thought about looking, but made a decision not to. That is the burden the prosecution needs to show. I doubt they can do it.
If the taser would have killed the guy, would she also be facing man slaughter charges?
To me this situation is analogous to accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake and killing a pedestrian. No I’ll will was intended. The perp wasn’t breaking the law or acting unreasonably… It was a simple, honest mistake, but one with HUGE consequences.
The guy shouldn’t have been shot. Period. Everyone agrees with that except (likely racist) assholes. But I also don’t see the officer acting negligently or intentionally unreasonable. She accidentally hit the gas pedal instead of the brake.
1 Like
I guess my point is that in MN, that isn’t 2nd degree manslaughter. It requires intent (not to kill, but to purposefully do the dangerous act) in MN.
There is an AND, not an or.
Maybe in another state it isn’t a requirement. Maybe 2nd degree isn’t the correct charge?
Took an unreasonable risk by pulling and aiming at the guy without confirming she was using a taser. And then consciously fired a weapon that can cause death or great bodily harm at the guy.
That’s the argument.
That would suck if they try to make an example out of her. Every other high profile police shooting over the last year was worse imo.
The way I interpret the clause is that one needs to understand the potential consequences of the action they are about to take before doing so. I don’t think she knew, and I don’t think it is provable that she knew (unless she confessed to something I don’t know about or something). I think to prove that she understood the consequences would require showing that she knew she had a gun not a taser.
Breaking this down:
Yes, I agree.
I don’t think this is how the clause is interpreted. I think consciously refers to understanding that what is about to be done is unacceptably risky (and firing a taser isn’t considered unacceptably risky).
You agree her actions could be considered unreasonably risky, but not unacceptably risky? What’s the difference?