another dumbass doesn't follow police officers instructions..

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have not taught a class in seven years, and when I did I did not express any political ideas whatever.
However, Walter Scott should not have been shot in any circumstance at all. He was no threat to anyone.

You are defending the idea that everyone must prostrate themselves for handcuffing by any policeman that orders it.

And somehow you say you are all for "freedom"and defend the right to strut about armed to defy government oppression.

Ypou make no sense at all.

[sirs]

What I criticize is the idea that a professor of students would think that complying with an officer's instructions is tantamount to being rounded up by the Government for mass extermination.   

What I defend is the idea, IN GENERAL, & not specific to any case, that when an officer gives you instructions, YOU COMPLY. 
If you think you're being treated inappropriate, YOU STILL COMPLY.  You can then report the officer after the fact. 
If you think you're being falsely arrested, YOU STILL COMPLY.  You can then sue the pants off the dept and city for wrongful arrest, after the fact.  Yes, you might be inconvenienced, even humiliated, but you'll stay alive to reap the rewards of a winning a lawsuit for wrongful arrest

WHAT YOU DON'T DO IS RESIST ARREST, THERBY INCREASING THE POTENTIAL OF A TRAGIC OUTCOME, INCLUDING THE REMOTE POSSIBILILTY OF DEATH

NOR IS ANY SUCH TRAGIC ACCIDENT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE IN COMPARSION TO THE IDEA OF BEING ROUNDED UP BY THE MILITARY FOR MASS MURDER.  And for a professor to harbor such a mindset, is what truly makes no sense, but does help validate the why to the current state of our education system

[Plane]

  It is totally a matter of degrees and possibilities.

    For Travon Martin there was no possibility of anything but shooting once he began to be a deadly threat to the guy with the gun. I notice that Travon Martin was not hurt before he was shot , perhaps he could have stopped short of assault and just gone home, but this is speculation of what could have been at a time earlier than his smashing his victims head into the pavement, might as well speculate about his victim and him both deciding to stay at home and watch a football game.  Whatever happened earlier once the point of deadly assault was achieved the possibilities narrow.

    For Walter Scott it would have been wiser for him to not resist arrest, but when he was getting away there was a possibility for the policeman to decide a lot better than to shoot him. If the policeman had of just let him run down the street Mr. Scott would have been caught and charged with resisting arrest, hardly any chance of anything worse or better.  When that policeman chose to shoot and strike Mr. Scott fatally all other possibilities evaporated  , but at the point that he shot , he had the choice and the potential to do better.

     I want to have some sympathy for the survivors of these altercations , it is far easier for me to second guess them now with months of time to weigh the facts and apply hindsight.

     I hope that if I am ever in a combat with my life at stake , that I can be strong enough to prevail and cool enough to make the best decision to close the incident.

      This seems like it would never be easy, when struggling a little less might get me killed and struggling a little too long might make me guilty of a grievous crime.

         With the facts I have been presented , I would vote that Mr. Zimmerman is innocent because at the time that he shot , shooting was the best choice available to him and the possibility that he could be killed was real and immanent.

          With the facts I have been presented , I would vote that officer Michael Slager is guilty of a crime because at the time that he shot there were better choices open and that the danger to himself was over, the danger to anyone else was not evident nor real.

        God grant me lots of presence of mind if anything like this ever happens to me.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What you are saying is that if a cop behaves irrationally, you must comply or expect to be killed.

I agree that this is a wise choice. If someone tells you to hand over your money or they will shoot you, it is also wise to comply with that request as well.
I would be inclined to comply and then sure the pants off the municipality for false arrest.

The victim of a police bully is still a victim.
Making fun of the victim for not complying with police bullying is what this is about.

[Christians4LessGvt]

I have not taught a class in seven years

do you miss the classroom?

[sirs]

What you are saying is that if a cop behaves irrationally, you must comply or expect to be killed.

Nope, not even close that what I'm saying....but no surprise there.  To make the above accurate, we need to modify it without your mutation....as in if a cop behaves irrationally, you should comply or the possibility of scenarios outside you simply being arrested for resisting arrest increases exponentially, which could include being accidentally killed.  THAT's what I'm saying

 

Making fun of the victim for not complying with police bullying is what this is about.

In the annals of making up stuff that has nothing to do with the point being made, you are indeed the professor.  Who here is "making fun" of anyone that was tragically killed while in police custody??....if that is indeed "what this is about"

[Xavier_Onassis]

The shooting of Walter Scott did not look like an "accident" to me.
Did it look like one to you?
If so, you are delusional.

[sirs]

What's delusional, if not pathological, is this ongoing twisting of what are people saying into something they never did.  Case in point;  Scott was accidentally killed, which is what I did say.  NOT accidentally shot

[Xavier_Onassis]

Scott was accidentally killed, which is what I did say.  NOT accidentally shot
He was "accidentally" killed with a policeman's pistol.  The policeman took aim and didn't really mean to hit anyone. The cop figured that when he heard to gun go off, he would play possum".

Is that what you said?

[sirs]

He was "accidentally" killed with a policeman's pistol.  The policeman took aim and didn't really mean to hit anyone. The cop figured that when he heard to gun go off, he would play possum".

Is that what you said?

No, that's not what I said.  You have such ignorance when it comes to law enforcement, and the the use of a gun.  The police don't "shoot to kill".  They shoot to stop a perceived threat.  Now, I'm not defending the officer's actions.  Based on the video alone, it definitely appears he demonstrated extremely poor judgement.  But he wasn't trying to kill anyone.  The gun is a tool...in the hands of law enforcement, its a tool to stop a threat.  It can kill, but if it does, without being able to read the officer's mind, I doubt very seriously he was trying to kill Mr Scott....ergo, he was accidentally killed.

[sirs]

....couldn't help but also notice that if "making fun of victims" is what "this is all about", not one example was presented when asked.  I guess we shouldn't be surprised about that, either

[Xavier_Onassis]

A fifty years old guy running away is NOT in any way a "perceived threat" . The cop shot him deliberately, not accidentally.

What do they always say about guns?  "Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill". I heard that when I was 11, in the Boy Scouts.

[sirs]

A fifty years old guy running away is NOT in any way a "perceived threat" . The cop shot him deliberately, not accidentally.

ANY TIME a police officer fires their gun, they're doing it deliberately        That doesn't mean he was trying to shoot to kill.  It was wholly irresponsible, and likely criminal, what this officer did, but not murder... in other words, accidentally killed

What do they always say about guns?  "Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill".

Not quite, but close.  Never point a gun at anything you're not WILLING to destroy.  BIG difference in intend vs willing.  It's all about intent

I heard that when I was 11, in the Boy Scouts.

You weren't paying attention, then