625
I have a hard to believing that shooting someone in the back can ever be justified by a fear for your life.
The adrenaline rush of getting to kill someone probably set off an anxiety attack.
According to the cops he had a gun and was pointing it behind him. They did find a gun next to him after he was shot. Time will tell if the bodycams back up that narrative, but if they do imo the shooting was justified. Nothing can justify what happened afterward though.
Why would we take the cops at their word? That's just silly. Either they have the bodycam footage to back it up, or they're lying.
I'm not taking them at their word. I'm speculating about a scenario where the bodycam footage backs them up. CT is usually pretty good about releasing this stuff so we will find out.
Even if there was no gun pointing backwards and he just had the gun, if the person fleeing has shown they are willing to use it, isn't that enough reason to fear for the saftey of others and take the shot?
I know there's some line where that becomes okay, but not sure when/where.
I wouldn't say so, no. I don't think cops should be allowed to shoot someone simply for possessing a gun. Deadly force is intended to stop an imminent threat, not someome who may become a threat at some unknown time in the future.
Simply possessing a gun absolutely not, but there are rules and exceptions for example on if they have shot at innocent people during the altercation already.
I'm just not sure where that line is, but it does exist.
edit: Like, shooting at innocent people during the alternation might not be enough even, it might need to be shooting at innocent people while fleeing.
All the police have is unsubstantiated claims from a 911 call. Thinking that is enough for lethal force is why SWATing happens. Fake 911 calls about serious crimes trying to get the police to show up and murder people. The job of the police is not to determine guilt or innocence, nor do they punish, those are for the judicial branch.
I never said that was enough for lethal force, but there are reasons a cop will shoot someone in the back and it be valid.
You kinda keep dodging what I'm talking about, which is if the person has shown to be a actual threat to the public.
There are rules around it, I just don't know what that threshold is.
I'm not saying this was met in this case, but I am saying they CAN shoot someone who's running away in some circumstances. (edit: without having to even be pointing the gun at the cop)
edit: My bad also you aren't the same person replying to me, so you aren't repeatedly dodging anything.
Hypothetically, yes there are justified shootings. Deciding if a shooting is justified should be done by a jury though, not an internal investigation. All lethal use of force cases should be prosecuted and guilt/innocence should be decided by a jury. The use of lethal force justification being decided by a judge/prosecutor/police is short-cutting the legal standard that any other victim would see their perpetrator held to and is therefore a 14th amendment violation.
Ya, that does seem like a fair way to handle something like that.
Is that actually how it happens, or is it typically done internally and decided by a judge/prosecutor/police?
That is not how it is done. It is the police chief saying, "We investigated ourselves and (found no wrongdoing)/(everything was within policy)." Occasionally it will be a prosecutor saying something along the lines of, "There isn't enough evidence to get a guilty verdict so we are not going to pursue this." If it gets past both of these the judge will dismiss the case for some random excuse or they do a bench trial where instead of a jury the judge just decides the cop is innocent. Very rarely it will make it to a jury trial and the cop will lie his ass off and never get charged for perjury.
This is, at minimum, homicide.
Taking the life of another person, a civilian, that you are responsible for, as not just any social servant, but as a constable of police, must have much, much more serious consequences. It is disgusting and unacceptable, and should be much more deeply discouraged through criminal punishment in a way that truly carries the weight of taking an entire life.
Don’t minimize death of another. Provoked or not. Physically taking a gun out and shooting is murder/homicide. There are always ALTERNATIVES!!
Depraved indifference homicide.
The officer feared for his safety from the guy running AWAY from him?
What kind of snowflakes do they hire for police officers over there? Did the poor little policeman get a juice box and a safety blanket afterwards to take a nap break from the big scarey world after he murdered someone?
Did the poor little policeman get a juice box and a safety blanket afterwards to take a nap break from the big scarey world after he murdered someone?
Technically yes. It was called an ambulance.
I think you mean a .... Whaaaaambulence
Touché 😂
"The ambulance was for me ... the amnotbulance was for the guy I shot."
This is only second to that time the cops killed a dude then sent a dry cleaner bill to his family because of all the blood they had to wash from their uniforms
Can you help find a link for that?
Dyshan Best, 39, was shot in the back last year as he fled from officers in Bridgeport, Connecticut. A report released Tuesday by the state’s inspector general found that the shooting was justified because Best had a gun in his hand and the officer pursuing him had reasons to fear for his own safety.
If I shoot a rich white man in the back who is running away from me and claim I "feared for my life" I'd probably get the death penalty.
If you're Dick Cheney, you get an apology.
“When you’re a warhawk, they let you do it. You can do anything. Shoot ‘em in the face.”
None of this would have happened if the victim had only chosen to be a white insurance executive.
Country of sycophants.
Edit:
To those that downvote, this is not just the officer, it is also his colleagues that URGED the ambulance to take the officer instead. And finally the ambulance people should CLEARLY have deemed it more important to take the gunshot victim, which the ambulance was called for! This makes it a bad decission not by 1 person, but by at least 5 people who agreed on this insane unprofessional decision all around.
But this anecdote is of course not the reason for my comment, it is everything about American society, American society is based on psychopathy, which is the reason Trump was able to win twice. How could Trump win the election twice unless people were fine with his obvious malignant narcissism.
And if you say it isn't obvious, it's because you suffer the same problem. Because IT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS to any normal person.
How could Trump win the election twice unless people were fine with his obvious malignant narcissism.
-
He could have rigged the election
-
It could be that anti-Trumpers are less likely to get off their ass and VOTE, while boomer MAGAs showed up in full force.
Just spinning ideas here...
1: There are no signs of that.
2: If you don't vote, you don't get a right to complain.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
- Yeah, you do. The first amendment still applies.
1: Trump got the Majority vote, so in this case the point is invalid. As democracy actually prevailed.
2: Nope that's the rules, if you don't participate in elections, your complaints about the results are void.
Of course in USA that doesn't have a functional democracy, you can complain if you are not allowed to vote, for instance for being caught with a joint in the 70's. In a real democracy criminals can vote too. Removing your right to vote because of arbitrary laws that criminalizes behavior that is typical for a demographic you are oppressing is not democracy.
Gerrymandering has zero impact on the presidential election, because districts don’t matter for the statewide vote. The Electoral College, on the other hand…
Ok. So it's only the thousands of other elections affected by gerrymandering.
Sure, but the original question was “how did Trump win the election?” Which means “Gerrymandering” is an objectively incorrect answer.
If you wanted to discuss the electoral college, and how it reduces the entire election down to only a few states, (and how Trump didn’t win the popular vote in 2016, which should have ended his political career entirely, but he still beat Hillary in the Electoral College so he ended up in office), then that would be a valid answer. But you didn’t mention the electoral college at all, and pointed to a red herring instead.
Yes, objectively incorrect. I agree. That's me. Please, sleep well tonight knowing that I stand corrected.
Unfortunately, something like 40% of the US population suffers from that same problem
Included this as an edit to my comment above instead.
I wish pancreatic cancer for every cop. Die painfully, pigs.
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
625 points (100.0% liked)
News
36557 readers
2135 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS