• seang96@spgrn.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Not trying to discredit or anything but in #4 1 shot is surely good compared to emptying his clip, but shooting or aiming a gun at somebody, the intent can’t be “non-lethal”.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      If you can be shot and killed for possession of a gun then we don’t have the second amendment right to a gun.

      We need to address this. Because our second amendment rights are being violated especially if you are black.

      The far right keep telling us we have this right any time we try pass any type of guy law. Yet cops kill people with guns and even with toy guns or no.

      When do we get the right to defend ourselves from these thugs?

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        The 2nd amendment is a farce and the US would be a much better place if it were abolished.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          While there is much to debate about the 2nd amendment, so long as we continue to claim we have one, possession of a gun alone makes no sense as justification to shoot somebody.

          Either we have a second amendment or we don’t. We don’t have one if every person with a gun is immediately fair game for execution by police.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Possessing a gun, and brandishing a gun are very different.

            I’m not here to defend the cop or 2A (neither should exist in there current form), but the kid was brandishing, which is super dangerous with both real and real looking guns.

        • PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think everyone here would agree with you however whether the second amendment should be abolished or not is not the subject of conversation.

          This person does have a second amendment right to carry a firearm.

          You should not be able to shoot someone for exercising their right to carry a firearm.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Also, there’s houses all around them. Any shot could easily injure or kill someone else. This wasn’t a “good shoot”. It could easily have resulted in tragedy.

    • CptEnder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah the first thing you learn about firearms whether you’re hunting or in the military is do not flag someone unless you are prepared to kill them. Even if you don’t intend to.

      I agree though it is good to hear the cop managed to only shoot one round.

      • JonEFive@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yep. 2 very simple rules for dealing with guns

        1. A gun is always loaded (even when it’s not)
        2. Never point your gun at something you don’t intend to destroy
    • Subverb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I agree with you and want to strengthen your argument in the future when talking to gun folks, so I want to correct you so that gun nerds don’t roll their eyes and dismiss you out of hand in the future.

      It’s not called a clip, it’s called a magazine.

      To gun folks it’s an important distinction.

    • Christer Enfors@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not trying to discredit or anything but in #4 1 shot is surely good compared to emptying his clip, but shooting or aiming a gun at somebody, the intent can’t be “non-lethal”.

      I’m honestly confused by what you mean here. Cops in my country will intentionally shoot people in the leg as per policy in certain situations, such as when someone threatens them with a knife from certain distances. So it seems to me you can indeed point a gun at someone with non-lethal intent.

      • seang96@spgrn.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Look at the other responses. The golden rule in firearms training (police, military, or for personal use) if you aim at someone with a gun it’s with intent to kill.

        Aiming for the leg can hit an artery. Aiming for the leg can cause a misfire and hit somebody else or ricochet. Any number of things can happen and if you get shot there is a decent chance of dying. Also, it’s common practice if your shooting someone to aim for their chest. It’s the easiest place to hit and less likely to hit somebody else because your less likely to miss.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I disagree that there’s no such thing as a “non-lethal” intent when it comes to shooting. You should never point a gun at anything you don’t want to kill is the advice to prevent tragedy – it’s not some “law” about what happens.

      No shooting is ever a good thing, especially in an urban area. Nobody is happy this happened (and I’d preemptively wager the officer is second only to the kid and his family). If you watch the video that officer didn’t come off as “angry” looking to start a fight or for someone to “make his day.” This wasn’t like the videos where a cop walks up to someone sitting on a motorcycle gun drawn or shoots someone sitting in their truck.

      The reality is that he had a real reason to believe that kid was a threat to his life, had very little time to react, and he wouldn’t be the first police officer we’ve lost if he did nothing and it turned out to be a real gun (which again, he had every reason to believe it was one). In a lot of department’s training that kid would’ve been shot in the chest – not the riskier shot of the hand (I’m not entirely sure this guy didn’t “break policy” specifically in an attempt to make sure this kid lived).

      The right answer here is ultimately to get the guns out of the hands of these kids; that’s a problem that goes far beyond this particular police officer though and has a lot of complex issues.

      The new mayor is a big community policing advocate … maybe if this officer had known this kid the reaction would’ve been better. But ultimately, the underlying problem is this kid had something indistinguishable from a firearm (under the mistaken assumption that, that would make him somehow safer – he says in the video he’s carrying the fake gun to feel safe) and that’s what started this whole chain of events.

      The whole thing is a tragedy, through and through.