So, OP, if we were to pause for a quick mid-thread review, how do you feel this experiment in owning the libs is going?

Just watched it and wow this is the worst one I’ve ever seen. She wasn’t threatening at all.

And later BOTH officers pointed their guns at her and I was shocked. Why not retreat some more if you’re that uncomfortable? Leave her and drive off if you have to. It’s not like they needed to stick around to save anybody or make an arrest.

Can't have minorities running loose with weapons of mass destruction like boiling water, yo. Protect and serve.

I made this exact point. Some people, and I suspect that OP may be one of them, don't think that police officers should have to be this cautious. In other words, some people's attitude seems to be that, so long as you can make a reasonable case that the shooting wouldn't have happened if the person had followed instructions properly, and so long as the officer didn't walk into the situation with a premeditated plan to shoot someone, then the shooting is presumptively OK.

I obviously don't agree with that perspective, but I think that it is the way a lot of people approach these situations.

Italy had less than 50 cops killed by criminal in action in 43 years. And that includes anti-mafia operations. The USA has like 50 per year, and that's with the insane (for europeans) rules of engagement you have.

Usa is "only" 5.5x the population, yet it has approx 50x cop deaths, with far safer (for the cops) rules of engagement.

I have no idea about the specific case being discussed nor i care enough to watch videos and whatnot so i am not commenting on that, but in general the case for rules of engangement that allow cops to shoot at any sign of danger makes sense for the USA , given the absolutely exceptional propensity to crime of the population (compared to european countries).

One officer even had his gun pointed at the shooter a couple of times. And I thought he should have told the shooter to put his gun away instead of pulling his gun out too.

I don’t have any training with weapons but I assume that your weapon should never be facing another officer.

I wonder what their story would be if there was no video.

Police deaths in the U.S. are partly a function of how well-armed the U.S. civilian population is compared to countries like Italy.

This situation involved a woman and a pot of boiling water, not a man and a gun.

It just never seemed anywhere near a situation that could be threatening or dangerous. Unless you are the woman in that situation.

Is anyone actually defending the officer besides trolls?

Only the OP.

Not going to speculate on what their story is, all though I am pretty sure that one of the cops involved had mentioned ''self inflicted wounds''.

Aren't American cops known for having pretty bad training overall? It's also interesting that someone discharged from the army for a serious offense and a handful of other problems including DUI's ends up being a cop.

OP made 1 good choice this entire debacle, and that's to finally leave the thread and accept the L.

Hey guys, didn't read OP or rest of the thread, but just wanted to pop in to say that boy, you guys over there in the USA sure do have a high propensity to crime, wink wink. Kthxbye.

rococo made a generic comment about which rules of engagement make sense for cops, and i answered to that clarifying it wasn't about the specific case discussed.

Some countries in eastern europe have higher propensity to crime as well and that would justify different rules of engagement as well. While in japan the opposite is true ofc.

Yep it's really an unsufferable attitude a lot of people here have.
Kinda like you where it took 158 posts for you to watch the video ...

Luciom is just trolling or just real nazi we can't say for sure.
You on the other way are usually posting in a rationnal way, so it's pretty funny you argue on this point specifically .

PS:the second I saw luciom post it reminded me of you )

In my defense, I was also trolling for 158 posts (taking your word on that number) before I decided to give OP the benefit of the doubt and engage him in good faith, a decision I expected to and do regret.

At least 2 other aspects to consider there re rules of engagement.

- The U.S. police force is used for political ends having nothing to do with organic crime. Reagan implemented the drug war before the crack epidemic, in response to nothing. There was no popular movement calling for increased enforcement of drug laws. Then his administration flooded the country with cocaine which had previously been successfully interdicted. Then, next thing you know, manufacturing jobs sustaining the black community were going overseas and black neighborhoods are being rampaged by cops under the pretense of the war on drugs, sweeping up the now superfluous black men off the streets and preventing any political mobilization in response to economic pressures. There are other political dynamics as well that see the cops used as population control, not crime control. The switch from police being passive, coming when called and investigating crimes, to actively trying to lock down drug offenders in some kind of pro active war, was a huge shift and had nothing at all to do with responding to the demand for more law enforcement.

- There is an interaction between rules of engagement and violence against cops. The more violent cops are, the more violent a criminal is going to be in alluding capture. This interaction includes the courts and the prisons as well. If a criminal knows the cops are trying to kill him and the courts are trying to lock him up forever, it raises the stakes for all involved and makes cops jobs more dangerous.

I think a big part of Shtts argument hinged on the principle or entitlement of safety that a cop should not have to be burned by boiling hot water under any circumstances. To wit, I have heard of such a case where a jealous ex-lover threw a pot of boiling water over them in their sleep. They actually died from the injuries. So make no mistake boiling water can certainly **** you up. I imagine if this cop actually caught a full pot of boiling water he'd suffer massive 3rd degree burns all over his arms, probably some of his face and if it touched his eyes then the eye is gone. This is a huge liability and I can understand someone taking another life to avoid it, afterall why should you be permanently disfigured because some moron threw a tantrum. They'll be out in 5-10 years, maybe less but your scars will remain forever. He could lose his job if he is no longer effective as a cop, his entire life could be ruined by the whims of a crazy woman who wanted to go full Constantine and douse him with her version of Holy water.

But..... none of that was going to happen. This isnt just some giant "what if" hypothetical, there was little if not zero imminent or even practical threat she possessed. She's too far away and most likely not able-bodied to execute an attack like this. It'd be different if the cop was approaching her with cuffs and she got the jump on him with a quick 180 throw with his guard down. But this cop was clearly very alert and ready to move at a moment's notice. Shooting someone because you can contemplate a threat without the threat actually being there is simply not a justified shooting in my opinion.

Boiling water and boiling water/oil mix is a commonly used weapon in prison. When mixed with oil, it sticks to the skin and the skin literally peels off when the victim instinctively rubs the affected area to remove the liquid.

no, besides possibly trump, but he is also a troll. even the police union has stopped defending him, which is a surefire sign less than 1% would defend the officer's actions.

I have to hand it to OP. It is difficult to find a police shooting that is so clearly bad that it generates this level of consensus in the Politics forum. But he did it.

Two points:

(1) You're ridiculous for assuming you know exactly what was going through that woman's mind, flat out.
(2) You're inconsistent/hypocritical for NOT assuming that once it was obvious the woman was being annoying (around when she was on the couch not giving them her ID quickly), that the cops decided right then and there they were going to kill her. Hell, maybe one signaled the other, then they told her to go to the water, and then antagonized her, all the while planning to shoot her.

Oh you think that's less likely for these cops to have bad intentions than it is for the woman? Oh really? Hmm I recall you using a results-oriented argument that since the woman did end up throwing the pot in the end that meant she was planning to do it all along...Well the cop ended up shooting her, so your own logic proves that he must have premeditated it all along once he realized she was annoying him.

Explain to me why you assume she had bad intentions and them only good intentions, and not the other way around, or not both having bad intentions. Maybe she wanted to hurt them and they wanted to hurt her. Or maybe neither had bad intentions initially, just bad behaviors as it played out. The only rational way to analyze the situation is to not assume we know anything about what is going through their minds and just take the evidence we have available. If I was that cop in that situation, no way I'm pulling my gun BEFORE she throws the pot. I would just stay back like I already did. She can rebuke me all day long and I'm still not stepping forward TOWARD the pot of boiling water. That increases my chance of being injured with no benefit...unless the plan was to provoke her to justify shooting her; then it makes sense to pretend rebuking is the same as throwing water, and curse at her and draw the gun and step forward. Makes perfect sense actually. Except for the fact that I'm being videotaped and it's obvious that rebuking is not in itself a threat, and that cursing at citizens in tense situations is wrong, and drawing a gun when it's not justified is wrong. Really nothing makes sense on either side. Everyone behaved stupidly and unethically.

where are the stills? WHERE is the EVIDENCE? this **** couldnt be any WEAKER!! wHAT A JOKE. dude is trolling you.

even his name is shtsweak lmao

In a coffee making disaster I just got some boiling water on my hand.

I would definitely shoot someone coming at me with me