Why aren't the Anti's as mad at cops who shoot unarmed people as they are at zimmerman??

[Logical]

Seems like there are cops shooting unarmed people every year and never a word here or on the GD from the main Anti gun people about how awful the cop shooting was.

And the cops are rarely ever charged with a bad shoot. Almost every cop shooting is ruled "justified" and the cops never seem to get fired or punished.

Honestly, at this point I think zimmerman was wrong. But it still does not explain why the anti's seems to think every cop shooting is justified.

Hmmmm......maybe a anti-CC license bias here?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I think you will find it difficult to substantiate that assertion.

I cannot substantiate the following, it is just my opinion, but generally the same people speaking out against this brutal atrocity speak out against police atrocities, and another different set of people can't quite bring themselves around to condemning either sort of event.

[Logical]

6. There are a couple of real vocal posters here. I will search their posts for bad cop shootings.

[ellisonz]

10. Here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4724654

LAT: Inglewood police repeatedly resorting to deadly force

Inglewood police repeatedly resorting to deadly force
A Times investigation shows that the problem of Inglewood police officers shooting unarmed suspects isn't new.

By Jack Leonard and Victoria Kim
12:35 PM PST, December 27, 2008
One summer evening in 2005, an Inglewood police officer stood with his gun aimed at a schizophrenic man who had been stopped for drinking beer in public.

The officer ordered Jule Dexter to put his hands on the hood of the police car, but Dexter's baggy pants started slipping.

"Please let me pull my pants up," Dexter pleaded, according to a witness' sworn testimony.

"Don't move!" the officer yelled.

But Dexter, 27, reached to pull up his pants, witnesses said. The officer fired four shots into Dexter's back and head, killing him.

Over the last six years, Inglewood police officers have repeatedly resorted to physical or deadly force against suspects who were unarmed or accused of minor offenses, a Times investigation found.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-inglewood28-200...

Take away the damn tasers and change the use of deadly force to not simply shoot to kill but rather to more judgment based approach. There is no reason they need to be trained to automatically empty their clip (see Amadou Diallo).

They need to rebuild these departments from the ground up...

I'm on record

[ellisonz]

24. *crickets*

I can't get no respect.

[gejohnston]

25. my theory

is that they don't become media money makers and circuses.

[Ian David]

2. And you have polling data to back this up? n/t

[JackintheGreen]

3. A simple search: "cop shoots unarmed man"

here on DU brings up 466 results in less than a second. I only skimmed a few of them, but a lot of them seemed to express exactly the thing you say hasn't been expressed here or on GD.

If we were to assume that your complaint was justified (and I doubt we can) and I were to posit an explanation, I'd say maybe it's because people are raised to believe that the police are highly trained and extensively practiced in practical, in the moment risk assessment where citizens (even those with CC) are not. Maybe there is an assumption that police know their business, a business they practice actively 50 and 60 hours a week, a damn sight better than some yahoo with a gun and what sounds like from the reports released so far an axe to grind.

But I think you're probably wrong. I seem to remember reading with my own eyes plenty of DUers aggrieved when a cop shoots an unarmed man. But do the search yourself and see what people have to say right here on DU.

[marybourg]

4. Very well said.

[Logical]

5. So the posters were the most vocal anti's here? Great, I will research some of them.

[ret5hd]

7. So, really what you are saying is...

maybe Logical should shop around for a new user name?

[Logical]

8. Well, searched the first 30 and found none of the usual suspects from this forum. Maybe....

you can point me to a few!

[TPaine7]

17. Are you saying that it's more acceptable for those

who are "highly trained and extensively practiced in practical, in the moment risk assessment" to screw up and kill without justification? Why would the "assumption that police know their business, a business they practice actively 50 and 60 hours a week, a damn sight better than some yahoo with a gun" mean that it is MORE acceptable for them to mess up than it is for the yahoo?

[JackintheGreen]

20. You misunderstand

The OP asked why Antis "here or on the GD" don't opine when cops shoot an unarmed person [but are going nuts over the Trayvon Martin killing].

First, I rejected then OP's assertion. Antis *do*, in fact, object when unarmed folks are shot by the police.

But then, taking as writ the OP's assertion for argument's sake, I posited a possible explanation: i.e. *if* antis don't complain so loudly when a cop shoots an unarmed man (and remember, I think they do), then *maybe* it's because there is a socialized perception among the general population that cops AREN'T AS LIKELY TO SCREW UP.

You set up a bit of a straw argument. You seem to be starting from the assumption of an instance of a "bad shoot." Your assuming a specific case - perhaps even the Miller case - in which the shooting was apparently unjustified. The OP was speaking in general terms, and so was I. I was speaking in hypotheticals and never once expressly stated my own opinion on a specific instance, only on the justness of the OP's assertion.

[TPaine7]

22. Hmmmm...

The OP asked why Antis "here or on the GD" don't opine when cops shoot an unarmed person .

Actually, the OP asked "Why aren't the Anti's as mad at cops who shoot unarmed people"--which implies fault on the cop's part. The OP aknowledges that they are mad, just not as mad.

You set up a bit of a straw argument. You seem to be starting from the assumption of an instance of a "bad shoot." Your assuming a specific case - perhaps even the Miller case - in which the shooting was apparently unjustified. The OP was speaking in general terms, and so was I. I was speaking in hypotheticals and never once expressly stated my own opinion on a specific instance, only on the justness of the OP's assertion.

I see no strawman. Of course I assumed a "bad shoot" on the cop's part to match the (reasonably assumed for purposes of discussion) bad shoot on the part of Zimmerman.

I see the OP as speaking in specific terms. I even see you speaking in specific terms--"some yahoo with a gun". Both of you speak in specific terms regarding the civilian shooting--it's assumed to be unjustified. I simply read the OP as also positing a presumably unjustified police shooting--apples to apples--and asking why is there less outrage.

And, to my mind at least, "the police are more trained and experienced" doesn't logically fit.

[JackintheGreen]

23. I'm only really going to address your last sentence.

And, to my mind at least, "the police are more trained and experienced" doesn't logically fit.

I never claimed this was true. I posited that it was a widely socialized assumption. I neither suggested it was logical nor true, just a commonly held belief.

Everything else you say seems to be splitting hairs that needn't be split. But I do think your assumption of a bad shoot is wrong. The OP wrote:

Seems like there are cops shooting unarmed people every year

Not shooting them unjustifiably. Just shooting them. The fact that more often than not such shootings are cleared by the brass is actually a strong argument against your assumption.

Fact is, we're both making assumptions about the OP's intent. Unless he chimed in later and I missed it, or chooses to do so now, further musing about this pointless.

[ileus]

9. Rule #1 Guns should only be in government hands.

To them all guns are evil and they kill people...

[Hoyt]

11. At least police get investigated when they shoot unarmed kid.

[gejohnston]

12. this is being investigated too

by Sanford PD, FDLE, and is now in the hands of the State's Attorney. Hopefully, the FBI will be part of it too.
So ummmmmmmm, no.

[Hoyt]

13. It dang sure would not have been without some folks raising heck.

[gejohnston]

14. nonsense

Last edited Mon Mar 19, 2012, 01:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Most people in Florida are first or second generation transplants from the northeast and Ohio. Your "redneck racist" meme might be valid in Chiefland, Cedar Key (which is near Rosewood), or the panhandle. It has little validity in Metro Orlando, where racism was learned up north.

[Hoyt]

15. If circumstances were reversed, unarmed teenager would be under jail.

[gejohnston]

16. maybe

I'm not big on jumping to conclusions based on whatever the media says. It sounds like Sanford PD is biased or stupid.
That is what Al Sharpton and others claimed about the Bernhard Goetz case. Goetz was white and his four attackers were not. The jury ruled that is was self defense but he was convicted of having and carrying a gun with without license or registration.
Some politician even claimed "I think that if a black had shot four whites, the cry for the death penalty would have been almost automatic"
But if they did any research, they would have found Austin Weeks. Mr. Weeks (who was black) who shot and killed one of two white attackers. The grand jury did not indict him for even the illegal gun charge.
Zimmerman sounds like a racist asshole, or just an authoritarian asshole at the least. Either way, the DA can only work with what the cops gives him or her. I sat on a jury that had to let a guy walk, even when we all thought he did it, because the cops did such a shitty job investigating the defense did not have to call witnesses. Race was not an issue because the only minorities were a couple of my fellow jurors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz
I knew a guy that was on the Chicago Seven jury. He told me that when he noticed that media reports did not match most of the facts in the court room, he learned never to take everything at face value. That is why I'm trying not to jump on either band wagon.

[Logical]

19. LOL....you really think so? And 99.9% of the time get found "justified".

[Callisto32]

18. More likely it is pro-authority.

[BiggJawn]

26. +1

"The Police are our PROTECTORS".

There was a stink raised when Oscar Grant was killed (and I never bought the "Oops! I meant to grab my Taser!" defense. Tasers are yellow and usually carried on the weak side) and again after he got his wrists slapped, but nowhere near what Zimmerman is getting.

There's a popular mythology in this country that if you're arrested, then you must be guilty (trials are just a waste of money), and I could see how this could spread into a "police shootings are ALWAYS justified" mindset, too.

[The Straight Story]

21. Some people have been conditioned to trust government more than fellow citizens

So while they see such things happen it is always 'that particular cop doing it' but when a non-government person does it the story changes to 'everyone is a potential mass murderer and I am scared of them'.