I'd love to see the data used to come to that conclusion...

 

Can someone make an emoji for me that shows UKMF when I'm stating an opinion so that I don't have to type "IMO" every time?

You claimed their goal in reporting is to incite violence. Not buying it. They report the conflict.

 

 

Yea conflict they put their own spin on to create more conflict.

I'm not gonna waste anymore breath, you're either blind, gullible or it doesn't fit your stance. I don't think you're blind or gullible.

 

Why would I have a "stance" on media? Who has a stance on media other than people in the media?

Great example for an interesting topic to debate.

 

If a suspect is running away from police and is not threatening any other people can he be shot by police?

 

Not an easy question to answer.

 

I don't think we want officers shooting people who are no longer threats to anyone regardless of what they did prior to running. This puts police in a tough spot though because we are asking them to disregard human nature and emotion. A guy tried to run over the police. They're mad. Their adrenaline is pumping. They naturally want to seek retribution.

 

But they can't. That's not what we want out police to do if the person is not a threat.

 

I think the officer who shot the suspect is going to be in trouble.

 

Unless he's wanted for murder or another violent crime, no. Think of it this way(a lot of policies do). Unless the suspect is facing a death sentence, officers shouldn't be handing one out.

 

With that said what people often times get upset about is when someone gets shot for something that likely wouldn't result in a death sentence. But that suspect/person fights or escalates the situation in some manner that results in police using deadly force. Folks tend to over look the escalation aspect and simply look at the initial crime.

Why would I have a "stance" on media? Who has a stance on media other than people in the media?

 

Didn't they shoot one of the NY prison escapees as he was fleeing into the woods? He was unarmed and the police knew it but they knew he was going to make it to the woods and gave the order to shoot him.

 

Definitely a different situation completely. Not even remotely similar.

I think ultimately the officers will be cleared of criminal charges, I'm not sure if their careers will survive though. I think we're getting to a slippery slope when analyzing officers actions when they had seconds to analyze, dissect, and take action in a high stress, and high danger situation. I'm worried that the pendulum will swing too far back and a lot of officers will be forced to react instead of act. Waiting to be fired upon, stabbed, struck by a car, before they take action.

 

I blame the media. Yes, bad officers need to be exposed, but more people are killed by malpractice than "bad shoots", so why no outcry for them? Citizens expect perfection from guys that get paid as little as $25k a year? It's frustrating to watch media bias that only tell one side and paint criminals as saints in a lot of cases. I feel for this young mans family, but he put himself in this situation and can't be portrayed as a saint and that's what the media will do.

 

He was a good boy, he was getting his life together. He was finally on the right track, going to start college in the fall and so on and so on.

He was a good boy, he was getting his life together. He was finally on the right track, going to start college in the fall and so on and so on.

 

An article I read said his family said he had goals. One of the comments mentioned more high end cars as his goals..

An article I read said his family said he had goals. One of the comments mentioned more high end cars as his goals..

 

So the police interviewed while he was just trying to reach his goals....

You claimed their goal in reporting is to incite violence. Not buying it. They report the conflict.

Reminds me of this joke...

 

Two boys are playing football in Central Park when one is attacked by a rabid rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy rips a board off of a nearby fence, wedges it down the dog's collar and twists, breaking the dog's neck.

 

A reporter strolling by sees the incident, and rushes over to interview the boy.

 

"Young Giants Fan Saves Friend From Vicious Animal," he writes in his notebook.

 

"But I'm not a Giants fan," the little hero replies.

 

"Sorry, since we are in New York, I just assumed you were," says the reporter.

 

"Little Jets Fan Rescues Friend From Horrific Attack," he writes in his notebook.

 

"I'm not a Jets fan either," the boy says.

 

"I assumed everyone in New York was either for the Giants or Jets. What team do you root for?" the reporter asks.

 

"I'm a Cowboys fan," the child says.

 

The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes, "Little Redneck Maniac Kills Beloved Family Pet".

 

 

Media Bias is a real thing, I'm surprised you don't see it. Reporters too often today interject their own personal perceptions on the stories they write, instead of just reporting the facts.

If you can't see it, it's cause you choose not to.

 

No clue what you are saying.

No. As cynical as I am I refuse to believe people want to incite violence in the name of TV ratings. It's a lazy narrative.

 

Totally disagree Clyde, you, me and everyone on this board get played my the media.

 

It's gotten worse over the last couple years.

If the left wing media wasent in a full court press to stop Trump, this shooting would be 24/7.

 

This shooting would be the lead story on cnn and cnbc.

 

It's all about their agenda.

While unfortunate, I don't see how you could prosecute the officer given the totality of the circumstances.

 

I would think, barring some other evidence, that the only officer that would be in danger of getting fired would be the officer that initially opened fire on the car. The department policy is pretty clear that the officers are not allowed to fire at a moving vehicle. The other officers could very well think that the suspect was shooting at them given that the first officer was kinda shooting at them. As for the officer that shot him in the back I'd say that unless there is some evidence that hasn't been released he will be in the clear given the circumstances.

 

The officer that initially opened fire will have a hard time explaining how he thought the suspect was shooting at him.