I read somewhere that police are conditioned to shoot to kill because of this. You're less likely to get in trouble if you kill the person because you never get to hear their side of the story. Of course none of that really matters anymore because you can clearly get the whole thing caught on video from 5 different angles, and still not get in trouble.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I read somewhere that police are conditioned to shoot to kill because of this.

I read that martians control our politicians. It's just as false.

Simple fact: when shooting someone rushing you, it's easier to hit the big part of the person, ie the torso. Our police - not American , so YMMV - draw their weapon when it's the only option left - ie they can't safely flee - and at that point they all understand someone's going to be greviously injured in the next 4 seconds and they're choosing not-them vs them. It's like choosing Trump or not-Trump at that point.

This has a high probability of killing a person, but the main goal is they stop being a threat by lying down and being an injured person. It's just.that.simplified . Comically, the po-po is usually the one to render aid, as they're usually trained to do so and they're of course the first person on the scene, and the survival of the injured person is vastly improved from None to Slim by having the cop begin first aid .. for the mortal injury .. the cop causes.

Look: Our cops have deadly weapons to use when the situation becomes deadly. A sidearm is the compromise between "batons and harsh words" and "c7". From there it's this silly tree of if-thens that result in a cop trying to stop someone from dying of a wound they caused -- but there is absolutely no doctrine that says "kill 'em so they can't sue".

...at least, not in my region.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah, the bigger issue is cops being taught to shoot at the slightest hint of fear and being actively confrontational in situations where it would be safer for everyone for them to either deescalate, call in backup to ensure safety, or fall back and approach the person differently. If a nonviolent criminal is fleeing cops should be taking notes to identify and fine them, not shooting. High speed chases should be a last resort. They need to be engaged in community policing rather than the "warrior mindset" that just gets people killed

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

She was coming right for us!

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Meanwhile, a grand jury in the U.S. determined there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone, including Harrison, in connection with Lucy’s death.

Just... How?

He was alone in the room and held a gun pointed at her. What the hell else do they need?

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

The prosecutor decides what evidence a grand jury is allowed to see. It's possible the Grand jury wasn't even told that he called her into the empty room just before he shot her.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

you don't hear about the murders that DA's never charge. In NC , I had a neighbor kill a man for walking across his back yard and he was never charged. Guess what color the shooter and victim were.

[–] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Oh it's another one of those morons that doesn't know the first 5 rules of gun ownership:

Do not point a gun at something unless you intend to destroy it. The act of pointing a gun at something must always be treated as a statement of violent intent.
Treat every gun as though it is currently loaded and ready to fire at all times, even if you have inspected it yourself and are 1000% confident it can't.
Do not point a gun at something unless you intend to destroy it. The act of pointing a gun at something must always be treated as a statement of violent intent.
Treat every gun as though it is currently loaded and ready to fire at all times, even if you have inspected it yourself and are 1000% confident it can't.
Do not put your finger on the trigger of a gun unless the target is clear, the area behind the target is clear, your aim is stable, the safety is off, and you are ready to fire.

[–] HeyJoe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Yeah, even if it was an "accident", which it was not, he absolutely should be responsible. Nobody should own a gun, but if you do the entire responsibility is on you! Who's fault does he think it is? I hate these people so fucking much. Throw him in jail, accident or not he owned the gun, aimed it at her and that killed her. People have gone to jail for less, idk how anyone can justify him not getting anything for killing her.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

Also don’t commit cold blooded murder, that’s also a very important rule for ownership of any type of weapon really.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He killed her.

[–] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Then we are in agreement. He consciously and willingly intended to shoot her.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

"It went off."

"It" is not an animate thing. "It" is not capable of firing itself. "It" is a mechanical object whose function depends on an outside actor moving it's parts to cause its actions. "It" is a gun and someone loaded it, handled it, and pulled "It's" trigger while "It" was pointed at your daughter. "It" didn't "go off". You fired a gun at your daughter. Intentionally or accidentally, with malice or negligence, it really doesn't change the fact that you killed your daugher.

[–] Larry13@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This of course assumes it wasn't a SIG Sauer P320. They do seem to be capable of firing on their own. Which is why the rules of firearms are so important.

Edit: Article claims it was a Glock. Unless you've done something unspeakably stupid to a Glock it won't shoot on its own.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Rule #1: never point a firearm(loaded or unloaded) at someone/thing unless uou are ready to destroy it.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Lucy Harrison, a 23-year-old fashion buyer who lived in...

I had to look it up...

A Fashion Buyer is a professional who is responsible for purchasing merchandise for retail stores, department stores, or fashion brands.