429
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago

How did the cop think he had a real gun when he didn't?

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Look, you can look through my post history if you don't believe me, I'm no simp for cops or authoritarians, but this is kind of a bullshitty line of reasoning. Maybe it's because I was raised around guns and was taught gun safety, or I have a friend who was a deputy (he quit under Trump for ethical and moral reasons), but what you're proposing isn't all that simple. It's like asking someone to discern if a dollar bill is a counterfeit by showing it to them from out of arm's reach for five seconds without warning them first; sure, some dollar bills, like the one my kid made, will very clearly be fake, but even a half decent fake would pass the sniff test under those conditions. For some folks, a subset of monopoly money might pass under those conditions. There's a much greater personal risk involved in assuming a gun is fake than assuming it's real; after all, enough people have been shot by "fake", "unloaded" guns purely by accident.

A personal story: I'm a paramedic. Once we got called to someone having altered mental status. When we get there, it's an older guy who's clearly acutely confused; he came out to the ambulance, pointed at a component on our door, and asked if it was a camera (it very clearly was not) and then went inside without waiting for an answer. He was agitated, talking nonsensically, confused, and not following commands. As I'm trying to calm him down enough to get him to come with us, he wanders into the kitchen, and I follow. He stands next to what is very clearly the grip of a pistol sticking out from under some paper; only the barrel and slide are hidden. I wedged myself in between him and the pistol and blocked his access to it. My partner later came back to check and found it was an airsoft pistol. Mind you, I've played airsoft, I've used airsoft pistols, but for all I could tell in the moment, it was a real gun. Now, do you think it would have been smarter for me to stop and closely examine the pistol first? Doesn't it make more sense to assume the more dangerous possibility until it's ruled out?

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

My point is that the cop (who shouldn't even be on the force anyway with his history) didn't do any investigation, didn't see him brandishing, didn't even talk to the kid before he assumed he was a threat.

If we have a right to carry guns in this country (which SCOTUS says we do, right or wrong), then shooting someone for suspected possession of a gun is using violence against a person who is exercising their rights. However, for some reason I just can't put my finger on, conservatives rush to defend the police in cases like this.

I understand your point, and it's well made, but I was saying something different in my post.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

Hmmm... Alright. That's not what I got out of it, sorry for the miscommunication. Yeah, cops harassing, arresting, and murdering people for exercising their constitutional rights is whack.

this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
429 points (98.2% liked)

News

23284 readers
1478 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS