How to identify a good gang member

[Hermit]

More guns, less colour. Especially black.

[mistermack]

How long will it be before it becomes a reasonable assumption that the cop is going to shoot you if you're black, and you can then legally fire in self defence?

[Brian Peacock]

I'm sure someone will be along soon to point out why that's wrong.

[mistermack]

I'm sure someone will be along soon to point out why that's wrong.

In Seth's simple world, every organism has an inalienable right to defend itself, which trumps any laws made by men.

That means that drug dealers have a right to carry a gun, as they are the people most likely to get murdered.
And if they have reasonable grounds to believe a cop will start shooting, they have an inalienable right to shoot first, as that is their best means of defence.

I would personally like to see every American carrying guns, and wearing body armour.
And gas masks. It would certainly put an end to crime.

[Brian Peacock]

Gang members, perfoce, have to address the consequences of living outside of the law, but gangs are not purely criminal organisations comprising, as they do, a form of social institution which affords its members security, friendship, support, and some sense of order. Of course, it's easy to define a gang member as a criminal, and treat them accordingly as someone who stands against the order and interests of both the State and the communities in which they operate, but to me that has always seemed a rather simplistic, reductive point of view. If we have any genuine aspirations to address the problems of gangs in society then it seems prudent to address the culture in which they operate.

[JimC]

All they really need is a genuine hobby, like knitting or solving quadratic equations, then we'd have no more of this senseless violence.

[Brian Peacock]

Some economic opportunities wouldn't go amiss - apart from serving drugs and whores etc that is.

[JimC]

Serving drugs and whores, eh...

"Would sir like fries with that?"

[Brian Peacock]

"Nay, stout fellow - just a little crack on the side today. Perhaps you could do me the favour of spreading it on Jeliqua's ample buttocks while I divest myself of my Armarni."

[Seth]

You are talking about the armed gangbanger who ran from the police and then lead them to believe he was going to pull a gun and shoot them, right?

Wrong. The teenager was unarmed.

Funny how they found a gun along his route of flight isn't it?

They found a gun several hours after they shot him. Under a car. Where he was not when he was shot. And at any rate, how do you know the gun was ever in the youth's possession? No matter if he was anyway. He was definitely unarmed when he was shot. Not even the cops deny that, but I am not surprised you would assert the opposite. Not only do you habitually see everything in black and white, but when it suits your agenda you claim that black is white.

Doesn't matter if he was unarmed when he was shot, he acted as if he was armed while running from the police who were investigating a shots-fired call. A gun was found later where he could have tossed it, but the point is that if you run from the police and reach for your waistband under circumstances where doing so raises a reasonable belief you're reaching for a gun you're very likely to get shot by the police, and very probably justifiably so. Don't run from the police, don't reach for your waistband while running, just stand there with your hands up where the police can see them and do exactly as they say even if your baggy, saggy pants fall down around your ankles. That's common sense.

The police had no way to know he was unarmed when he was shot because his actions lead them to believe he was armed and his actions lead them to believe he was going to pull a gun and shoot at them, which gave them legal justification to shoot him first. You wouldn't understand this because you've never been a cop and never been faced with a split-second decision to shoot or not shoot which, if you screw up, might mean that YOU get killed.

Again, it's really simple: Don't run from the police, keep your hands visible and empty at all times and do exactly as they command until the situation is resolved and you are quite unlikely to get shot.

[Seth]

How long will it be before it becomes a reasonable assumption that the cop is going to shoot you if you're black, and you can then legally fire in self defence?

The Black Panthers tried that in the sixties. Didn't work out for them.

[Seth]

I'm sure someone will be along soon to point out why that's wrong.

In Seth's simple world, every organism has an inalienable right to defend itself, which trumps any laws made by men.

Liar.

That means that drug dealers have a right to carry a gun, as they are the people most likely to get murdered.

They would if they didn't forfeit that right by being involved in criminal activity, which instantly removes their right to even touch a gun.

And if they have reasonable grounds to believe a cop will start shooting, they have an inalienable right to shoot first, as that is their best means of defence.

Only if they are not the ones instigating the confrontation by being involved in the commission of a crime (possessing illegal drugs and a gun). Citizens have a right to resist the unlawful acts of police officers and they have the right to use deadly force to do so if the unlawful act is serious enough to justify the use of deadly physical force. Of course getting away with it is somewhat more difficult once you get to court because it's pretty hard to prove that a police officer was acting in an unlawful fashion that justified the use of deadly force. But, it does happen. Thus, if the drug dealer is unarmed and the police try to summarily execute him rather than taking him into custody and delivering him to the court the drug dealer would be justified in exercising reasonable and appropriate physical force, up to and including lethal force in order to prevent the police from unlawfully killing him. The fact that he is a drug dealer does not legally authorize the police to do whatever they want to him, you see. They are constrained by the law too.

I would personally like to see every American carrying guns, and wearing body armour.
And gas masks. It would certainly put an end to crime.

It would certainly help, as it does in, say, Israel.

[Hermit]

You are talking about the armed gangbanger who ran from the police and then lead them to believe he was going to pull a gun and shoot them, right?

Wrong. The teenager was unarmed.

Funny how they found a gun along his route of flight isn't it?

They found a gun several hours after they shot him. Under a car. Where he was not when he was shot. And at any rate, how do you know the gun was ever in the youth's possession? No matter if he was anyway. He was definitely unarmed when he was shot. Not even the cops deny that, but I am not surprised you would assert the opposite. Not only do you habitually see everything in black and white, but when it suits your agenda you claim that black is white.

Doesn't matter if he was unarmed when he was shot

You said the youth was armed when he was shot. I pointed out he was not. Thanks once again for not admitting that you were wrong. Moving goal posts instead is true to your form.

[JimC]

In a confrontational situation, if a suspect, when ordered to put his hands up, suddenly reaches into a coat pocket, is shot, I would find it difficult to blame the police, even if there turned out to be no gun in his pocket...

Not saying that this necessarily applies to this particular case, however...

[Sean Hayden]

Here's another desperate character that got what he deserved :

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015 ... rt_sms_app

It's amazing. In the UK, this would be the main news story for a week.
In the US, it hardly gets a mention, unless they burn the town down in response.

Nobody gives a damn about armed gangbangers getting shot doing their gangbanging thing.

When you run from the police, reach for your waistband as if reaching for a weapon and you are likely to get shot. Please note that a handgun was indeed found nearby, probably where the gangbanger tossed it, knowing that he would go down for having it on him if he was caught.

It was reasonable for the police to shoot him because he could have just as easily shot them with the gun he was almost certainly carrying.

The lesson: Don't illegally carry a handgun, run from the police and reach for your waistband. Not rocket science really.

Or, if you're going to be stupid, run, but keep your hands up as you run, at least until you get around the corner where you can ditch the gun under circumstances where the cops can see you do it and possibly draw the perfectly rational conclusion that you're going to shoot at them.

Derp!

I've been carrying a gun for more than 30 years and never once have I had a police officer pull his weapon on me. Go figure.

A lot of people care about gangbangers.

A lot of police would not shoot you while you're running away. I'm surprised you don't know that.

It was unreasonable to shoot because he was running away, did not show a gun, and did not threaten the police.

Might the police learn a lesson too?

You know best how to police and evade justice, I'm not surprised.