This Is Why Police Shoot Runners
There is constant crying on these forums and from liberals about police shooting fleeing suspects. Well, now you see why they do it. This guy fled when the cops showed up, they went after him (without showering him in a hail of gunfire the instant he turned to run as they should have) he ran into some bushes to hide, so they got dogs. He got a good firing position, shot the dog, shot the dog handler, and shot 3 additional cops before being shot himself. So, there you go. That is why cops need to shoot fleeing suspects. Moral of the story: People who run are guilty and should be shot. If you aren't guilty, don't run. If you are guilty, and want to run, better hope you are quick and good at dodging bullets. Here is the story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16/four-cops-shot-in-south-carolina.html A non Fox News link for the liberals: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/York-County-Officers-Shot-Responding-Domestic-Violence-Call-South-Carolina-469512453.html
11 comments
It’s not running suspects that people complain about when they get shot. It’s suspects complying, with the hands in the air, doing everything they are told, but STILL getting shot, that people complain about.
People who run might be panicking. You don’t know how you will react, until you’re in that situation yourself.
More like “A non-Fox News link for people living in this reality, rather than in Alternative World”.
People who run are guilty and should be shot.
Right so next time there’s a fire, a mass shooting, any sort of public panic, or a jogger with headphones, or police just tell people to clear the area and they actually try to leave to avoid getting caught in the danger zone they deserve what they get. Even if the police started shooting before they started running and it was being shot at that caused them to run.
Couple things: First off you’ve got the sequence of events out of whack. McCall had fled the scene long before police ever got there. You speak as if they had him in their sights and he turned tail. They didn’t have the opportunity to shoot him in the back like you’re saying they should have, he was already in hiding and the first they saw of him was when the dog found him. If he was waiting in ambush as it sounds a shoot on sight order wouldn’t matter because he saw them first. And they were already on the offensive rather than reacting. So that fucks your narrative right over.
Second it’s funny how siccing dogs trained to bite throats out on a guy doesn’t seem like basically the same thing as opening fire. Is it even normal to call out the K-9 unit on a domestic violence call? It’s an immediate and potentially fatal escalation. I’m going to give police the benefit of the doubt and assume they determined he was potentially armed and violent from the start and police were already prepared to use lethal force at the first twitch. Which is again a sledgehammer to your narrative about police going in too soft and does not involve uncertainty about a suspect.
You’re equating this scenario and an active manhunt to just anybody who shows fear of the police whether it’s a call with known suspects and risks or a random stop, which as @Swede pointed out is itself more than likely a deliberate mischaracterization of police confrontations that turn deadly where the police - and not the suspect - escalate a situation beyond all rational sense. You think this is appropriate force, you think this is too SOFT for situations like that? I’d like to know who you think would stand still if a snarling dog jumps up at them and starts biting. Whose instinct is it to stay still and let them chew through an artery instead of fighting for their life? I wonder how you would react to the police in some of the video I’ve seen? Would you accept it as your own stupid fault the moment you took one step backwards in surprise at deliberate hostility including being suddenly tackled without warning and wound up riddled with bullets?
If assholes like you had their way police work would be indistinguishable from a drive by shooting and legal rights would be a forgotten concept. If everyone expected police to simply shoot on sight anyone they don’t like the look of there’s no reason to ever comply with them, innocent or guilty and their only guarantee of safety would be to shoot first themselves and look at every cop as a potential executioner rather than a peacekeeper. It would be gang mentality writ large.
People who run are guilty and should be shot.
Right!
Because everybody that runs deserves the death penalty, without a trial, without a judge, without any chance of repeal. Any ‘ol cop can just act as DA, judge, jury, and executioner. People who run are guilty, right? So they all deserve immediate capital punishment, even if all they did was shoplift a candy bar. Guilty is guilty, kill ’em.
He actually included a link to Fox Noize as a legit link, & expects to be taken seriously.
Just wait until this waste of space has a gun pointed at him. He’ll crap himself & faint.
What just happened in Santa Clarita nary 12 hours ago.
So kids should run towards shooters...?!
...oh, and the Birmingham Six would like a word with you, OP.
I work as an emergency dispatcher (police, fire, ambulance), and I’m going to be honest, I think people who run from the cops are scum.
Not if “I had my headphones and I didn’t hear you,” or “there’s a crisis and I’m running in panic.” I get those. But if they’re trying to pull someone over, and they take off at 100 MPH; or if a cop identifies themselves and says they’re wanted and they’re placing them under arrest, and they start running on foot, then they’re scum. And I would shed no tears for any fate that befell them.
But I still oppose shooting fleeing suspects, most of the time, out of pragmatic reasons if not moral ones.
You want to live in a free country do you? That would not be a place where the police get to be judge, jury and executioner - although of course I don’t endorse cop killing. ATM my country is reeling from the shooting of a black man named Kumunjayi Walker, by a policeman, so to me, this is an extremely SORE SUBJECT.
@Volcheka #18964
I might have let a bias born of seeing the aftermath of a dog mauling and a personal fear of animals with powerful jaws colour my perception of what would happen when a dog is outright ordered to bite someone. And probably also unthinkingly conflated some media depictions with reality which is unfair and irresponsible of me. Still though, it’s undeniably a physical attack and when something gets bitey I doubt there are too many people that would be able to suppress their panic.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
