Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lewisportage t1_j61pp9p wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Jury acquits Pawtucket police officer in shooting of teen driver by skippyspk

He started an altercation with a carful of kids while he was wearing street clothes, scared the shit out of them and shot them. He was the aggressor.

49

ruiner8850 t1_j61vj1z wrote

I don't understand the mentality some people have where they think it's okay to be the aggressor and then kill a person when it gets out of hand and they try to defend themselves. It shouldn't be legal to arm yourself and then go around confronting other people. This goes for everyone, not just cops.

27

Psychological-Law950 t1_j6242pl wrote

EXACTLY!! This is what I’ve been emphasizing on like crazy. People with guns are now literally starting to instigate situations that they have no business involving themselves in the first place, and when the shit hits the fan(the shit they started) their gun is their first resort because they “felt threatened” or were “in fear for their life”. It’s gotten waaaaay out of control

7

PaxNova t1_j62foaf wrote

Off-duty cops. On-duty, the government is literally telling them to arm themselves and go around confronting people. I'm not sure how to get around that shy of eliminating guns for officers, and I don't think that'll fly in the US.

I don't think people are understanding this is a criminal trial, and the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. A rock could convince a jury that a group of teens that went 100+ on the shoulder to grab pizza might do something stupid, and that an officer might confront reckless driving and felony speeding while off-duty. This result is not surprising.

There might still be a civil trial, and I hope there is. I'm not sure qualified immunity will apply here, since reckless driving is sometimes specifically called out as something off-duty police are highly discouraged from confronting people over. Depends on the local policies and regulations.

6