Should Cops Be Allowed to Kill for Throwing Stones?

[Dos Equis]

  You actually want to debate whether police are trained to look in a person's hand when deciding whether or not to use force?

No.  I'm telling you that you don't know what the heck you're talking about (in general), make stuff up (all the time), and that if you want me to address what you claim is law enforcement training, give me a link. 

[polychronopolous]

Oh cops use the frame by frame shit to when it suits them.  I still remember watching the Rodney King trial where the cops went down frame by frame claiming that the tiniest of movement justified yet another blow.

I suspect Beach might just be a little bit uncomfortable after seeing that clear video just as I am.  We'll need to wait for all the facts, of course.

The problem I see with your argument is that we don't have to chase somebody down.  They do.  So we can't really compare it in that sense, more of a reasonable person sense.

Long hanging fruit.

Happened almost a quarter century ago and almost everyone will tell you the police were totally in the wrong on that one.

[Straw Man]

So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives?  I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I forget exactly what my bro told me, but I think they play games with the 'shoot to wound' shit.  It was something along the lines of they shoot to injure or maim or neutralize, not kill.  But, they shoot at center body mass.  The fact that all the vital organs are at center body mass is just tough shit.  Typical 4 yr old stuff, IMO.



Straw:

Yes, good point.  If I shot and killed somebody for throwing rocks at me, would a jury put me away for life?

if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free

Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force

[240 is Back]

if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free

Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force

Now, imagine if the man threw a rock at you - and you fired a few rounds at him (as the police did).

Then, he shits his pants, makes a 180 degree turn, and RUNS.

He runs across a road and starts down that sidewalk before YOU CATCH UP WITH HIM.

At this point, he raises his empty hands and stops, but you decide you'd better just keep shooting anyway.

Now... which prison would you prefer?  Cause your ass ain't beating that rap lol.  When you realize the cops actually crossed a road to catch him, never losing sight, and he'd already thrown the rock he had.

They just CANT keep pointing at the rock he threw.  He was no longer such a terrible threat lol.  They pursued.

[Archer77]

if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free

Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force

False equivalence. Appeal to probability.   Logical fallacy

[240 is Back]

So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives?  I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think you, me, and everyone else with a brain knows the guy with a rock wasn't going to kill them.  They knew it because they got out a tazer and hit him with it.  For whatever reason, it failed. 

They felt he was so little of a threat that they used a tazer.  They didn't go for a second tazer.  They didn't go for mace or beanbags or just whipping out clubs and taking out his knee from behind for an instant KO.

No, the rock magically moved from non-deadly (hence the tazer) to deadly (hench the 4 of them shooting at once).

That's troubling.  As most would see it, dude with a rock isn't going to kill them lol.  Yes, LEGALLY, they can exaplain and justify it, but morally... and realistically... and practically... they didn't think dude was about to kill them.  If they had, then they wouldn't have taken time to get out taser initally.

IMO, they were pissed off at this little prick.  They zapped him, and it didnt dorp him.  They could have zapped him more, or used other means... but when he threw a rock, they probably reinforced each other with "hey, we can shoot, that's deadly potentially..."

Looking fwd to their reports where all 4-5 of them shed tears and whine about "i feared the rock in his hand was about to end my life" LOL and "As I chased him across the street, all I could think of was, I must shoot him in case he finds another rock..."

It's weak shit all around.  And everyone sees it.  Some people would literally bend over if they saw a cop with blueballs.  but most people know those cops didn't fear for their lives, rather, they realized legally he'd just given then the justification to cap his punk ass.  And they tossed restraint out the window and went for it!

[Straw Man]

False equivalence. Appeal to probability.   Logical fallacy

fine

please point out the appeal to probability you're referring to and then the part of my post that demonstrates that

you can easily do that since there is no way to pretend to not know what post we are talking about

[Archer77]

fine

please point out the appeal to probability you're referring to and then the part of my post that demonstrates that

you can easily do that since there is no way to pretend to not know what post we are talking about

if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free

Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force

First sentence is both a false equivalency and an appeal to probability. It's also a framing fallacy. You leave out the previous incident of threatening a cop with a gun.  Also, cops chasing someone for throwing rocks, particularly one with a criminal history, is a completely different scenario than a civilian chasing a random guy throwing rocks.  Cops are suppose to chase the person, civilians aren't   The police might have access to information such as prior criminal history that a civilian didn't and that will impact how the police perceive the situation.

The second sentence is a false equivalency. The circumstances in your scenario and the shooting we are discussing are not the same. Isn't that obvious.  The only similarity is that rocks were thrown.

[Straw Man]

First sentence is both a false equivalency and an appeal to probability. It's also a framing fallacy. You leave out the previous incident of threatening a cop with a gun.  Also, cops chasing someone for throwing rocks, particularly one with a criminal history, is a completely different scenario than a civilian chasing a random guy throwing rocks.  Cops are suppose to chase the person, civilians aren't   The police might have access to information such as prior criminal history that a civilian didn't and that will impact how the police perceive the situation.

The second sentence is a false equivalency. The circumstances in your scenario and the shooting we are discussing are not the same. Isn't that obvious.  The only similarity is that rocks were thrown.

so if something can go wrong it will go wrong ?

that's what you think I was saying in respect to "appeal to probability" when I wrote  "if the situation was exactly the same"?

[Archer77]

so if something can go wrong it will go wrong ?

that's what you think I was saying in respect to "appeal to probability" when I wrote  "if the situation was exactly the same"?

it's not the same hence the framing fallacy and false equivalency

An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.

[Straw Man]

it's not the same hence the framing fallacy and false equivalency

An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductiveso  validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.

I asked you a specific question

so your answer is no?

did you notice the post I was responding to?

[Archer77]

I asked you a specific question

so your answer is no?

did you notice the post I was responding to?

An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.

You're taking your outcomes for granted based on a false equivalency and a framing fallacy. Specifically you're taking for granted that a cop who shot someone throwing rocks will receive a different punish than a civilian shooting someone throwing rocks. This is true on it's face but completely ignores extenuating circumstances.  In this case, it's a false equivalence for the reasons I've already stated.

if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free

Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force

[Straw Man]

An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.

You're taking your outcomes for granted based on a false equivalency and a framing fallacy. Specifically you're taking for granted that a cop who shot someone throwing rocks will receive a different punish than a civilian shooting someone throwing rocks. This is true on it's face but completely ignores extenuating circumstances.  In this case, it's a false equivalence for the reasons I've already stated.

if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free

Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force

I am ?

so you're saying I can't respond to Skips question without committing a false equivalency?

[Archer77]

I am ?

so you're saying I can't respond to Skips question without committing a false equivalency?

This is a fallacy called a false dilemma.  It's also a loaded question.  To simplify you're putting words in my mouth.

[Straw Man]

This is a fallacy called a false dilemma.  It's also a loaded question.  To simplify you're putting words in my mouth.

please state the words you think I am putting in your mouth

[Archer77]

please state the words you think I am putting in your mouth

the comment I responded to..  The question is also irrelevant because I never stated or implied what you suggested at all.   Oh, it also may qualify as a complex question fallacy.  Oh and the original comments you made that I replied to are also false analogies.

[AbrahamG]

Fortunately, no one of any value to the human race died.

I'm guessing you're a devout Christian.

[OzmO]

MSNBC asking if this is the next Ferguson.   

You can watch the grainy video at the link below.  He was definitely running away after throwing the rocks and appeared to maybe be surrendering, but it's hard to tell.

Tough call for the cops involved.



________________________ ________________________ _______

Hundreds protest against police after orchard worker was shot dead while 'running away' from cops he threw stones at
     ·Antonio Zambrano-Montes, 35, shot dead by police on Tuesday evening
     ·Officers say he refused to stop throwing rocks and a Taser did not work
     ·But multiple witnesses claim he was running away when he was killed
     ·Now, county coroner in southeastern Washington has declared he will order inquest into shooting in bid to defuse rising community tensions
     ·Fourth fatal shooting involving Tri-City officer in Pasco in last 6 months
     ·Officers have been cleared of any wrongdoing in all three previous cases


Hundreds of demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest against the police after officers shot a man dead because he threw stones at them.

Residents marched and staged 'die-ins' throughout Pasco, Washington, days after Antonio Zambrano-Montes, an orchard worker who was born in Mexico, was caught on a witness's cellphone being gunned down by officers at a busy intersection.

The 35-year-old's death last Tuesday has sparked outrage across the United States and Mexico with many claiming he was moving away from cops when he was shot multiple times.

It is the fourth fatal shooting by police in the city in the last six months and has caused heightened tensions within the community.

According to police, he had refused to stop hurling rocks - one of which was 'softball-sized' - at officers, despite having struck two of them. An attempt to Taser the man had apparently failed.

However, multiple witnesses have argued that Zambrano-Montes - who was not armed with either a gun or a knife - was running away from officers and had his back to them when he was killed at 5pm.

On Friday, the man's family filed a $25 million claim with the city of Pasco. It came as the president of Mexico reiterated his country's condemnation of the violence against a Mexican citizen.

Now, a county coroner in southeastern Washington has declared he will order an inquest into the shooting in a bid to defuse friction within the community.

Franklin County Coroner Dan Blasdel said his decision to proceed with an inquest - which will be open to the public - is intended to calm 'some of the fears and outrage of the community'.

On Wednesday, around 100 protesters marched outside Pasco City Hall, with some chanting 'It was only a rock,' according to KEPR. Later that day, more demonstrators gathered at the intersection.

'It's a stressful time for anybody who wears a badge,' said Sgt. Ken Lattin of Kennewick Police, spokesman for a group of outside police agencies investigating the shooting on Tuesday.

More at:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954492/Hundreds-protest-against-police-orchard-worker-shot-dead-running-away-threw-stones-cop.html#ixzz3S8J7f0Fo

I don't think the police should have shot him.  Based on what i could see from the video there were enough police there to subdue him without endangering the lives of the police.

It looks likes a wrongful death.

[240 is Back]

I don't think the police should have shot him.  Based on what i could see from the video there were enough police there to subdue him without endangering the lives of the police.

It looks likes a wrongful death.

they watched him throw the rock.  His hands were empty.  There is no "reload" button.  

They opened fire on him when he was a potentially deadly threat (rock in his hand).

When he ran with empty hands, he was no longer a deadly threat (no rock in hand).

They lacked that ability to "turn off" kill mode.  They decided once they started shooting, they were legally able to keep shooting until he was on the ground.  none of them realized their justification ends when the threat changes.  And they had a few seconds as he crossed the road and took off, to make this realization.

It's terrifying that some people justify cops being unable to "turn off" the kill mode when the threat changes.  I'd like to hear what distance these supporters would choose, as "no longer able to shoot the man for throwing a rock".  Looks like he traveled what, 30 or 40 feet? (to the road, across the road, halfway down a storefront on other side of road).   How many feet is it cool to shoot someone for throwing a rock?  If he ran 200 feet, can you still shoot him for it?  400 feet?  1000 feet? 

IMO, this police force is a scary thing.  Dude is TRYING to surrender.  They are trying to finish their "legal" shoot.  Video shows it.

[OzmO]

they watched him throw the rock.  His hands were empty.  There is no "reload" button.  

They opened fire on him when he was a potentially deadly threat (rock in his hand).

When he ran with empty hands, he was no longer a deadly threat (no rock in hand).

They lacked that ability to "turn off" kill mode.  They decided once they started shooting, they were legally able to keep shooting until he was on the ground.  none of them realized their justification ends when the threat changes.  And they had a few seconds as he crossed the road and took off, to make this realization.

It's terrifying that some people justify cops being unable to "turn off" the kill mode when the threat changes.  

The instance after he threw the rock he was no longer a deadly threat.  If he had a gun in hand, no matter how far he was away he could have been considered a deadly threat.  If he had a knife in hand and was close enough he could have been considered a deadly threat.

The man is only guilty of assaulting a police officer.

 It doesn't matter if they were in "kill" mode or not.  They weren't justifiably in any situation where their lives were in danger.  They were in danger of injury only.  Additionally, the man was running away.

This is a wrongful death plain and simple.

[240 is Back]

The instance after he threw the rock he was no longer a deadly threat.  If he had a gun in hand, no matter how far he was away he could have been considered a deadly threat.  If he had a knife in hand and was close enough he could have been considered a deadly threat.

The man is only guilty of assaulting a police officer.

 It doesn't matter if they were in "kill" mode or not.  They weren't justifiably in any situation where their lives were in danger.  They were in danger of injury only.  Additionally, the man was running away.

This is a wrongful death plain and simple.

yeah, there are some blue sack riders who are begging for a reason to make this shoot legal, but wow, it looks bad.

"We don't have all the info..."
"Well, he did have a record..."
"They might not have realized his rock was gone..."

These cops wanted to finish the shooting.  This man wanted to escape then surrender.  There was no rock when they shot him, and cops knew it.  This was one thing... cops finishing the shooting they started.  They believed once they have right to open fire, that right remains until dude is on the ground.  I'd love to see details of the other 3 recent fatal shootings they made. 

[blacken700]

hindsight is 20 20  ,let's remember this is a guy who is a known methamphetamine user and has threatened with a gun in the past,you have a split second to make that decision.moral of the story  ,no good comes of thowing rocks at cops

[240 is Back]

hindsight is 20 20  ,let's remember this is a guy who is a known methamphetamine user and has threatened with a gun in the past,you have a split second to make that decision.moral of the story  ,no good comes of thowing rocks at cops

If he was a free man, then he had paid his debt to society or was in the process of doing so.

"In the past" is a slipper slope... Presidents used to abuse illegal felony drugs lol.

The MINUTE you allow police to shoot unarmed people because of "their past", everything collapses dude.

[blacken700]

If he was a free man, then he had paid his debt to society or was in the process of doing so.

"In the past" is a slipper slope... Presidents used to abuse illegal felony drugs lol.

The MINUTE you allow police to shoot unarmed people because of "their past", everything collapses dude.

past is used all the time in police work, if he's known to carry a gun that will come up on their computer,police have to know this information before they confront these thugs.please you really don't know what the fuck your talking about

[polychronopolous]

If he was a free man, then he had paid his debt to society or was in the process of doing so.

"In the past" is a slipper slope... Presidents used to abuse illegal felony drugs lol.

The MINUTE you allow police to shoot unarmed people because of "their past", everything collapses dude.

A recorded history of meth use + prior threat with a gun + use of potentially deadly force = the guy basically signing his own death certificate

Put all those 3 factors together...This guy was a VERY dangerous individual.

A far cry from "stepping on a police officer's foot" at WalMart and then running away