@FaithfullyGFSFC@VictoryChivd Appreciate that, man. No argument on accountability. Qualified immunity and departments investigating themselves are real problems, and a bad shoot should be treated like one. My only line is that the fix is courts, cameras, and consequences, not people deciding in the moment.
"Nothing in his hand" and "unarmed" aren't the same thing. He had a gun on him the whole time and he was refusing commands. That's exactly what a beanbag is for. It's the option you use on someone who won't comply and might be carrying, because it doesn't kill them. Which it didn't.
Then he drew and fired live rounds at the cops and moved toward them. He went from a bruise to a gunfight on his own. And yeah, it matters that they're police. That's not a technicality, that's the whole difference between a stop and an ambush.
"Without just cause" is doing a lot of work there. Armed, refusing commands, from uniformed officers. That's the cause. And they answered it with a beanbag, which is the one option on their belt designed not to kill him.
"Every right to fire back" isn't the law in any state. You don't get self-defense against police lawfully detaining you, and you definitely don't get it for shooting live rounds at people who just hit you with a bruise. And "I wouldn't have found him guilty if he ended every last one" isn't a legal opinion. It's you telling everyone you'd lie under oath to get a few cops killed. Noted.
"Returning fire when police don't act right" means whoever's holding the gun gets to decide what "act right" means, in the moment, while mad. That's not a standard, that's a coin flip with a body at the end.
And in this case "not acting right" was hitting a noncompliant armed guy with a beanbag instead of a bullet. That's the restraint you say you want. He answered it with live rounds and walked at them. You can be mad at cops and still see that's not "returning fire." That's a suicide with extra steps.
Your hypothetical is missing the part that matters. Nobody "came at him with a shotgun." Uniformed cops gave him commands, he refused, and they went to the least-lethal option they had. He knew exactly who was in front of him and why. That's not a stranger opening fire, that's the thing that happens right before you get tackled.
And "react to the fire" doesn't mean pull a gun and walk toward the people shooting at you. That's not a reaction. That's a decision. Flinching is a reaction. Dropping is a reaction. Drawing and advancing on cops is the one thing that ends the same way every single time, and he chose it.
I agree he shouldโve complied but you know, in this imperfect world, some donโt. Taser should realistically only be used when there is risk of bodily injury. Even still, maybe that part is justified, but the repeated tasing, and pepper spraying without even physically trying to restrain him is what took the cake.
"He killed himself so obviously he was right" is the dumbest logic I've read this week, and I've been in this thread since Sunday. He had over an ounce and rifles in the truck, not a Black and Mild. You got the cigar part from a meme. And your hero waited three days, shot a man sitting alone in a parked car, then couldn't face what he did. That's not a hero. That's a guy who made two widows and a Twitter account proud of him.
Two dead men isn't "even Steven." It's two funerals and nothing fixed. The department's the same tonight as it was last week.
And "haven't committed any crimes" doesn't hold up. He had an ounce, rifles in the truck, and he punched a cop. Then he ambushed the guy days later and killed himself rather than face it. That's not a man willing to die for civil rights. That's a man who wasn't willing to live with what he did.
You started with trauma and ended with "you die when you violate those rights." Every mob in history loved the simplicity of that too. I'm out.
I know the history. That's why I'm saying this.
Every real win against police brutality came from people, cameras, lawyers, and votes. Chauvin's in prison because of a teenager with a phone and a jury, not a gun. Body cams, consent decrees, DAs getting voted out, all of it came from pressure, not bullets.
Now look at what happened every time somebody shot cops instead. Dallas 2016 killed the momentum after Sterling and Castile overnight. The story stopped being about the victims and became about the shooter. That's the history. Shooting a cop doesn't make them listen. It makes everyone else stop.
That's fair, and I'll take it seriously. Trauma is real and a lot of people have good reason not to trust cops. I'm not arguing with any of that.
But trauma explains a reaction. It doesn't justify one. If it did, we'd have to excuse a lot of things none of us want excused. And this wasn't a reaction in the moment. He bonded out, waited a few days, and walked up on a man sitting alone in his car. That's a decision, not a breaking point.
You're right that there are more of us than them. That's exactly why we don't need to shoot anybody. The numbers are how you change departments, DAs, and laws. A bullet just gives them the excuse to stop listening.