If this is the case and he was shot in the back are the police also claiming that he was in effect surrounded by police? Are there any witness testimonies stating this?
They killed my son because he's black (Saratoga Springs)
- Thread starter ♪alt13
- Start date
If this is the case and he was shot in the back are the police also claiming that he was in effect surrounded by police? Are there any witness testimonies stating this?
That's the only thing I can think of. Here is their statement:
"When the officers made contact with Mr. Hunt, he brandished the sword and lunged toward the officers with the sword, at which time Mr. Hunt was shot," a prepared statement from Utah County Chief Deputy Attorney Tim Taylor said.
What makes no sense to me is that if he was shot in the back, it seems like a bizarre statement to make when autopsy evidence can easily disprove it. If an officer was placed in back of him, that's another thing (not sure why they wouldn't mention it), though that seems quite dangerous as well, and logically the only way this makes sense is if the officers about to be attacked are comfortable enough with another officer launching a bunch of bullets into the guy instead of them doing it themselves. And honestly, that doesn't make much sense to me.
Unless I'm just missing something.
The other thing that needs to be reconciled is that some 19 year old, who apparently had no criminal record and no history of mental illness (granted, a lack of a history doesn't equate to an absence), would decide to charge a bunch of guys armed with firearms with a blade. Sure, it's totally possible, but not very probable to me. At 19 I would have been scared ****less if a bunch of people had guns pointed at me. Though I certainly wouldn't have run away either.
It also amuses me how much crap he's getting for carrying a sword when I'm wondering how many of those people support open carry of firearms, something that worries me far more than someone carrying a sword.
This is very unfortunate.
But white people are killed all the time by police for brandishing far less dangerous items.
All colors of people are killed for having what appeared to be a weapon.
Police have to make snap decisions and sometimes they are wrong.
Police have a tough thankless job to do. Would not want to be one.
But white people are killed all the time by police for brandishing far less dangerous items.
All colors of people are killed for having what appeared to be a weapon.
Police have to make snap decisions and sometimes they are wrong.
Police have a tough thankless job to do. Would not want to be one.
Unfortunately I think we're at a point where we can't just assume police shootings are justified. Far too often they are not. Far too often they are extremely questionable but we give the police officers the benefit of the doubt. We cannot trust the law enforcement community to "police" themselves on this issue and we cannot trust them to act in a disciplined manner on their own.
The pendulum has swung much too far in the direction of a militarized, anti-citizen police force. The mentality needs to be changed and it will be extreme scrutiny and legal action in cases like this that will make that change happen.
I would like to see police officers who wrongfully murdered people to face the death penalty. I think police acting outside and above the law should face stiffer penalties than regular citizens, but what we typically see is that they are given a slap on the wrist and sent on their merry way.
Getting Traded
Banned
The only psychos on this board are the people who believe that those in authority have a right to kill someone for anything they see as a threat to society ... there are other ways to stop people like this, short of murder.
22, did have a misdemeanor conviction for assault, and even his mother refers to him as troubled.
Repped.
Thank you for grazing us with your reference oh wise one.
We've given Serve and Protect a free pass. And by we I mean Trout and Archie the Mostest.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Don't care what Highland's take is, tbh.
Pretty much this. I highly doubt anyone is taking him seriously.
I don't think you are understanding Trout here.
It sounds to me he's saying innocent until proven guilty and don't give them a free pass but let's put them in the innocent category until we have more facts and information to look at things. I don't think Trout was saying who cares what police officers do, leave them alone and never look into things.
It's the same thing any of us would want if we were accused of something. We would still want the law to be innocent until proven guilty as opposed to guilty until proven innocent. Incidents and things other people have done should not automatically move you to a guilty until proven innocent bucket.
Show me where Trout has said these officers in this incident should have a free pass?
I quote franklin, but it's not just franklin I'm addressing... if you think I could be talking to you then maybe I am.
I don't read that as what he's saying. He's asking why no one is defending police officers as a whole. I think my post addresses why.
Reason I don't is that I pay no attention to HH on this issue.
Yea, reading through again you are right on his question/concern.
I still think that changing from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent because of some bad things that have happened is the wrong direction to go.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I think most people are worried about a proper investigation taking place. I read today that they still have yet to interview 2 of the officers involved. That seems inappropriate.
while every community is different in the crime problems and other issues they face and in their approach to policing, I think the above comment applies in a number of situations - - most notably what happened in Ferguson MO as the police force tried to deal with angry citizens who were protesting the shooting of Mike Brown - - it's not really clear at all that the effects of this "over-militarization" came into play in the initial incident. Though I suppose it could set an overall tone that might lead to a bigger response than is necessary.
at any rate, this seemed appropriate to GF's comments
LINK
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I know it's not a sword but I have this on my person at all times.
I would really like to know if this dude had his sword in the scabbard when he was shot. There is a right to carry element here that I think is important. As a Utahn he had every right to carry that sword.
I would really like to know if this dude had his sword in the scabbard when he was shot. There is a right to carry element here that I think is important. As a Utahn he had every right to carry that sword.
A fair point.
Doesn't negate the fear/impression of what some cops exude on the beat. . . . the macho dude with the trigger finger. . . .
It is definitely stupid and more to the point, to not do what cops tell you to do in any situation. Every mama oughtta teach her boys that principle.
Cops are killed in confrontational situations often enough, with no warning, to make it seem justifiable to shoot anyone doing something as bizarre as carrying. . . . "brandishing" any weapon. . . . to protect bystanders/passersby if not themselves.
But it is not, in my opinion, "justifiable". I think it is an error in our society to militarize police and other other government workers. Fundamentally, it is a breach of the public trust. They are our servants, not our masters. They should not "swagger" or exude that authoritarian style beyond the simple matter of fact of their duty. They should not be trained to shoot like soldiers. They should not have an us/them sort of vision of reality. Their police activity is a public service, and they are part of us, and represent us.
But then on the other side, there will be lives lost if my above-outlined philosophy is made a "rule". No rules or policies can really take the place of good judgment, common sense, and an officer on the beat who can reliably see the best thing to do in a situation.
Most of all, I object to calling police "pigs" or any other slur. They are people, they are part of us, they belong to us. Assert that principle and cull out the cops who can't accept it. Then let them do their job and remove idiots, fools, bizarre and unpredictable characters as our police may see fit, and let the courts decide what to do about the particulars, if there is any issue.
uhhhhh...... but even more than that. . . . teach your kids to listen to the police, and comply with their instructions. . . .. and carry their little phone/cam and make sure it's in their hand and pointed towards the cops as they raise their hands. . . . .or as they are rolled on the asphalt and kicked to unconsciousness. And teach your kids to record everything the police do in their presence. A whole community of phone cams will put an end to the swagger and militarism trend, I bet.
but then you'd have to bear arms to protect the right to record visuals of cops in action, I bet, too.
So far, the evidence is that it was in the scabbard while he was talking to the police, and it sounds like he became agitated during that conversation. It's certainly possible he drew the sword during the conversation (I don't see any evidence one way or the other on that score), but then you have to ask why the situation would escalate from him being calm, to nervous, to being that scared.
This would lead right into him being "troubled" for any defense in court. An admission by his own mother and family no less.
DutchJazzer
Banned
i'd rather take a bullet to the arm. then a machete or sword to the arm
dont wanna become stumpy