Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Police Kill Motorist Who Called For Help | Christian Glass Case Analysis" video.

@brianclingenpeel5123 "Attempted murder!" I didn't even see that post. (I hear that kids are debating what to call a male Karen, and . . . "Ken" has the top spot so far?) No one else saw anything that resembled an attempted murder, only you feel that you saw "the attempted murder of the police officer," and in fact, it was "the first thing that [came] to mind." Feelings can be like that. They can intrude on thought and push it aside. But please, do keep it up. The comic relief is needed at this point.
4
@mariss.317 ER, he put his car keys on the shelf above the DASHBOARD, as instructed. Hence the car could not be used as "a weapon." The police thought of this ab initio. But you forgot "somehow."
3
@suprcrzy This is ridiculous. You are spinning out a scenario about "civilians" that never happened. The officers surrounding this car were all armed and vigilant and trained. This CIVILIAN posed no threat to them, as was explained carefully. Why do you ignore that fact? Amateur eugenics?
3
@brianclingenpeel5123 Except that that's not what happened. But if you feel like that's what happened, then that's all that matters. An' don't you let anyone say different! Big boy! 🤩😘😘
3
@mp1201 Beat me to it. I was about to despair if no one else remembered it. These last 2 1/2 years have taken a toll all right.
2
I think it's a matter of training. This officer was returned to duty because what he did was sufficiently consistent with what he was trained to do that it posed no problem to return him to the force. It's odd. Police and politicians seem to be able to use any excuse at all and return to power.
2
@brianclingenpeel5123 Except that that is not what happened. Dr. Grande was careful to explain that.
2
@brianclingenpeel5123 What is your definition of bias? What law was enforced in this instance?
2
They are trained to shoot multiple rounds as well. I have never been about to find a justification for that.
1
@michaelrunk5930 The knife presented no threat to anyone. Dr. Grande explained this. No one suggests that had he exited the car with the knife and moved toward anyone with it, officer or not, a shooting would not have been justified. But that never happened. Don't you wonder also why they do not shoot to disable? Why six shots? A friend of mine who served in Iraq knew how to disable not only the soldier, but the weapon he was carrying, based on weapon type. (In some encounters, you need to do that, as you can well imagine.) How is it that police are not trained to shoot better when dealing with civilians here at home? I find these multiple rounds fired bizarre. Modern emergency medicine can save a lot of people if the police desist from emptying their guns into them. I don't understand why this is tolerated.
1
@troy3456789 But they do. This isn't based on faulty generalizations, but on knowledge of their actual training. I remember excessive force cases when I worked for a court nearly 30 years ago, and it was exactly as it is now. It is a matter of how they are trained. There are multiple documentaries on this topic, Do Not Resist (2016) being among the best (the filmmaker is the son of a career officer; he and his father get along great and he is obviously not anti-police). You're making it sound as if police are a social group akin to racial or ethnic groups, and are being criticized as a group for the purely personal characteristics of a few. That's nonsense. It's also a faulty analogy that could never be used as a legal argument in court. (You use the word "logic" as if it were a magic word; the first person to use the word wins?)
1
@troy3456789 I never do that. That is why, for example, I was not duped into believing that Depp v. Heard was not a First Amendment case about a written text, rather than a "proper" referendum on the participants in a bad marriage. Nor was I duped into believing the parents of Brian Laundrie don't have Fifth Amendment rights. Nor have I been duped into thinking that censoring a particular text (because it violates either terms of service or is unprotected speech) is the same thing as imposing a prior restraint on a person, to ban them from using a quasi-utility forevermore. Nor have I been duped into thinking opposition to vaccine mandates under certain circumstances is opposition to vaccination. How about you? Did'ya see through all this? Or did you decided based on some ersatz "woke/anti-woke" classification some media persuaded you to use?
1
@troy3456789 Um, you can reason using multiple negation, I hope? Willing to do that?
1