I was listening to Imus this morning and he was gas-bagging about the Ferguson shooting. He said something stupid, but obviously intended to tell the rulers he was not going to be any trouble on the subject. Since his return from exile, Imus has been extremely careful about anything touching on race. In fact, he has been very sensitive about the whole metastasizing list of official taboos.
This is becoming more and more common. As the lunatics get better and better at ruining careers, the people on radio and television become increasingly frightened and cautious. I still watch Red Eye, for example, but it is so tame now I hardly see the point in watching it. Every show they do a segment on how much they love homos or trannies now. Once in a while they worship a black guy. I fast forward through the piety segments, but sometimes that’s most of the show.
Anyway, he said something about how the cop had no right to shoot the big black guy in question. His argument was that there are no circumstance in which a cop can shoot an unarmed person. I’m a police skeptic and I said from the start that I would need a strong case to justify this shooting. Getting bashed in the face by a giant and then having said giant come back for another shot is enough for me.
In fact, it is enough for everyone in most states. When you get a concealed carry in most states, you learn when you can use lethal force. The first rule you learn is the seven yard rule. When the bad guy is within 20 feet, it is assumed retreat is impossible. About 20 states do not require any retreat whatsoever. Others have laws on the books requiring a citizen to take reasonable steps to get away from the bad guy. Once the bad guy gets close, however, you can do what you need to do to avoid harm.
That rule applies to cops too. This guy is not required to take a beating just because the giant did not have a weapon. Once the giant punched the cop, the cop had every right to assume the giant posed a threat. The only two questions left are how close was the giant when the cop fired on him and was the giant coming forward toward the cop. If the giant was running away or surrendering, then the cop is guilty of murder. If the giant was a block away then the cop is guilty of murder.
What we know so far is that the cop was struck in his car hard enough to fracture his eye socket. That sounds worse than it is as that part of the skull is fragile. Boxers suffer broken orbital bones frequently. Still, it takes a big hit to cause that level of damage. The other thing we know is the giant was shot in the front. Assuming the autopsy report is correct, his arms were at his sides and he was facing the cop. What we don’t know is if the giant was surrendering or advancing. Witness accounts are all over the place and press accounts are full of deliberate lies.
That’s what makes this post from the increasingly deranged Karl Denninger hilariously stupid. He’s arguing that the cop can only shoot the giant if the giant is actively attacking the cop. Not even the Brits have laws like this. In America, no one, not even the cop, has to submit to a beating in order to claim self-defense. Otherwise, there’s no such thing as self-defense and there’s no reason to give the cops guns.
If the giant perp is close enough to touch you, he’s close enough to wrest your service revolver from you — at which point he has the option of shooting you. That’s the thing to keep in mind in these incidents. That’s the real reason you have a very, very good chance of being killed if you charge at an officer
“What we know so far is that the cop was struck in his car hard enough to fracture his eye socket”
No we don’t know that.
We know he is injured, there is no evidence as to when, where or by whom.
If these injuries were contemporaneous with the shooting, the news of them would have been broadcast within the hour.
British cops do not routinely carry guns, and it harks back to a time when most criminals — once apprehended — would surrender peacefully. I do know of a (retired) Brit cop who would go up to someone suspected of a crime and tell them to report to the local police station. He would then go and complete his beat and leave the suspect to do as he was told. They normally did, because that was the rule of the game. They were probably petty criminals and not only knew they would only get so far before being caught and anyway, violence would get them nowhere good.
But things have changed in the UK. There are young blacks who think gangs and guns are good and young Muslims who are itching to get their hands on AK47s in places like Syria and then come home to see what they can do here.
The cops here have access to guns: each area has a patrol car permanently out with arms in the trunk and the police are trained to use firearms. How long the old ideal of the unarmed bobby can last we shall see, but it may not be long.
It is my belief that billy beck is right.
Harden your heart.
Yeah, we do know. A man who is surrendering does not advance into gunfire. He stops. He turns and twists as he is hit. Not Mr. Brown. Straight ahead until dead.
What is remarkable to me is how exceptional an individual this cop is. But I do not understand how it is that law enforcement would have single operator squad cars in the red zone, and why anyone would agree to risk that duty.
Watching Red Eye, i.e., Greg Gutfeld and His Boring Geeky Friends, is a waste of time. It’s cheap broadcast programming used to fill the airwaves with white noise. Maybe if the “guest” list wasn’t so full of insiders, so incestuous, they could invite someone to appear on the show who’s interesting or controversial or insightful enough to make it worth staying up to watch. Otherwise, it’s snooze time, ZZZZZZZZZZZ.