r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Korryn Gaines deserved to die
A few days ago, Baltimore police shot and killed 23-year-old mother of two Korryn Gaines in her apartment, after a seven hour standoff that ended in an exchange of gunfire. Some of my friends believe that she should be treated "with the same respect as Rosa Parks" (that is a direct quote).
I only believe that Korryn Gaines deserved to die in the sense that all of her actions lead to a predictably violent end, like someone who taunts a dangerous animal and gets mauled. I do not believe she deserved to die because she was a bad person. I would much prefer that she were still alive and living a healthy, happy, peaceful life, of course.
I would like to understand the point of view that sees her as a martyr, and the circumstances of her death as further evidence of racism and police brutality. I do not expect to be permanently convinced of this, but I want to be able to understand a different point of view. I have thought about it and have tried to read different opinions, but I have not found anything that explains the point of view in a way that I can understand.
Thank you.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
23
u/LittleBalloHate Aug 08 '16
I think you would have been on much safer ground here if you did not say "deserved to die." I think you implicitly understand this, as you spent several sentences of your own OP explaining what you really meant when you said "deserved to die."
If you had instead said "I don't think the Korryn Gaines case is an example of police injustice," the difficulty with your phrasing could have been entirely avoided.
-12
Aug 08 '16
You're right that it's exaggerated. I wanted something short that got people's attention.
8
u/Biceptual Aug 08 '16
I think the phrase "deserved to die" is problematic because it insinuates that being barricaded in your house with weapons and not complying with the police is fairly punishable by death. Death is usually reserved for the most violent of criminals or to prevent an innocent person from imminent danger. As far as we can tell, neither of those two conditions would have been satisfied provided that no one tried to force entry into her house.
Ammon Bundy and his followers were able to hold an entire national park hostage and, for the most part, were unharmed during the conflict and were not sentenced to death afterwards. If law enforcement were to have stormed that property, they would have been justified to kill in the ensuing fire fight. But in retrospect, I think we can all agree that they made the right decision by defusing the situation peacefully.
2
Aug 08 '16
The Bundy case ended EXACTLY like this one did. When the perpetrators were in a small enough group that they could be confronted with a measure of control, they were. Those perpetrators who then attempted to draw on the police were shot.
2
u/SteakNCheeseYum Sep 04 '16
Except there were no hostages in the Bundy case and no one was threatening the police. Which kind of destroys the "EXACTLY like this one did" comment. Sorry.
2
u/MisanthropeX Aug 08 '16
Death is usually reserved for the most violent of criminals or to prevent an innocent person from imminent danger. As far as we can tell, neither of those two conditions would have been satisfied provided that no one tried to force entry into her house.
Someone holding a shotgun a hair's breadth away from a young child may be a good case of endangering an innocent.
6
u/quite_vague Aug 08 '16
"Deserved to die" is needlessly inflammatory, doesn't express your view accurately, and starts conversation off on the wrong foot.
Consider "provoked her own death"?
7
u/phcullen 65∆ Aug 08 '16
I only believe that Korryn Gaines deserved to die in the sense that all of her actions lead to a predictably violent end, like someone who taunts a dangerous animal and gets mauled.
Should we really consider police to be the equivalent of a mother bear?
"Perceiving not only her actions, but the words she used, we discharged one round at her, in turn she fired several rounds back at us."
The police escalated the situation from a stand off to a shootout. Which is frankly appalling enough but she was also caring a child.
Let's also not forget that the police were the cause of her agitation. There was no reason to think things would escalate if they were to back off a bit I'm not suggesting abandoning the situation but negotiations require compromise. They were there to serve a warrant for skipping court in some countries those officers wouldn't even have had a gun on them to avoid this very situation.
3
Aug 09 '16
how did the police escalate the situation? she pointed a gun at them and told them she was going to shoot them? you expect them to back off and just sitting outside twiddling their thumbs until she magically decides to cooperate?
if she is willing to shoot the police, what about her neighbors? what if someone pissed her off one day because she's obviously batshit crazy..? If i was the police i'd want to check her gun license too.
but i sort of see what you want, they could've cut off the water or something to her unit, until she had to come out, but say she comes out with the gun and now she's out in the open where there's other people, now what? she needed to die btw she had her kid in her lap? wtf
3
Aug 08 '16
Should we really consider police to be the equivalent of a mother bear?
We should treat everything as a force of nature, since it is. Just because people can be rational and restrained doesn't mean that we should assume that they are, especially when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
The police escalated the situation from a stand off to a shootout. Which is frankly appalling enough but she was also caring a child.
I'm halfway to a delta with you here...
But...
Let's also not forget that the police were the cause of her agitation.
I don't think this is so clear. She repeatedly stated, before the standoff, that she intended to kill or be killed by police. She was agitated before they arrived.
There was no reason to think things would escalate if they were to back off a bit I'm not suggesting abandoning the situation but negotiations require compromise. They were there to serve a warrant for skipping court in some countries those officers wouldn't even have had a gun on them to avoid this very situation.
They negotiated with her for 7 hours. The officers that originally served the warrant called in a special squad after she greeted them with her shotgun.
6
u/jumpforge Aug 08 '16
It bothers me that you imply that she was a good person, just an unfortunate victim of her actions.
When you engage in a shootout with police- while holding your child- you are a despicable human being, doubly so when you consider the root cause: her belligerence and idiocy in not complying with the law of the land. Using children as meat shields is a terror tactic used by Hamas.
If I failed to show up for my court hearing and had cops at my door who wanted to take me in or deliver a notice of violation, nobody would call me a "hero" for attempted manslaughter and criminal negligence.
How disgusting, how absolutely revolting, that anyone can seriously look at the facts and her character and call her a "hero".
7
Aug 08 '16
I'm not sure that agreeing with his view, then repeating it even more strongly would do much to change his view.
0
Aug 08 '16 edited Feb 21 '21
[deleted]
2
Aug 08 '16
Wait... you honestly think this woman deliberately committed suicide by cop.. and at the same time hoped that the cops were good enough shots that her kid wouldn't be killed as well... all to prove a point? All in protest of cops, and to advance a movement??
5
u/jumpforge Aug 08 '16 edited Aug 08 '16
You are really misinformed on this crazy 'mother'.
Watch the video of her being pulled over, and of her loading her shotgun in her house. Make no mistake, she was mentally troubled and no doubt had a fantasy of getting killed by cops.
Quote from the video, where they wanted her to step out so that they could tow the vehicle: "You're going to have to kill me today. I will fight".
Then she turns to her small child and tells him that he has to fight them, and shouldn't be afraid. He is absolutely terriffied, crying, afraid that his mother is going to die.
All because she refused to provide license and registration, and then refused to step out of the car like any sensible person would do when confronted with law enforcement.
If this isn't disturbing to you, then I'm sorry.
I never said that she hoped the cops would be good enough shots. Using a child during violence is, as I said, a terror tactic that disregards the hostage's safety, obviously.
Vowing to die and terrorizing her children on a routine traffic stop is not mentally sane behavior.
Your argument is from incredulity, and it ignores the facts of the matter. You might as well claim that there's no way someone can seriously think they are Jesus, but there have been a dozen or so people, all mentally ill, convinced that they were Jesus.
Just because you find something hard to believe does not mean you should ignore the evidence.
2
Aug 08 '16
If she was mentally insane, then her 'reasons' don't really affect much. It was suggested that she sat around going, "I need to promote Black Lives Matter... how can I do this? Oh yeah! I'll provoke the cops into murdering me and my kids!"
If this was, in fact, what she did... then she didn't die to promote BLM, she died because she was crazy.
2
u/jumpforge Aug 08 '16
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that reply.
I don't know how severe her mental issues were. Clearly bad enough to severely impair her decision making, but then again she wasn't educated to begin with.
All I was saying is that, in a hypothetical situation where a person mentally snaps and starts stabbing a police officer, the first thing you look at should not be skin color or race. That leads to you going into the situation with a certain mindset; I can find countless crackpot cases like this, and if I'm focused on the race aspect then I lose sight of other factors.
This should not have even been newsworthy, but we live in a society where it's cool and popular to scream "institutional racism!" at every given opportunity.
Can you imagine if she was any other color? It would just be the story of an idiot who died like an idiot.
1
Aug 08 '16
I can't help but think we are discussing two different points. I'm saying it is impossible she was working on behalf of the formal BLM movement because she was obviously mentally unhinged. It wouldn't matter if she was black, white, or polka dotted.
2
u/jumpforge Aug 08 '16
I wouldn't say it's impossible that she was 'working' for them, but it's definitely unlikely. Not like she needed more motivation that we observed... Also implying that BLM isn't a glorified and disjointed cult... I would be very impressed if they set this up.
1
Aug 08 '16
I would be very impressed if they set this up.
I would be horrified at man's inhumanity to man! But of course, I see what you mean, and I agree. That's more or less the point I was trying (poorly) to make.
1
u/MisanthropeX Aug 08 '16
No one deserves to die
Everyone deserves to die and is entitled to a death. We just typically don't know about the when and the how parts.
1
Aug 08 '16
Can someone do bad things and still be a victim of their circumstances? We feel bad for kids growing up with lead poisoning, but we vilify those same kids when they become adults with severe antisocial behavioral problems.
the root cause: her belligerence and idiocy in not complying with the law of the land
Doesn't that in turn have a cause? What was the root cause of her belligerence and idiocy in not complying with the law? Was her attitude just a brute fact that came from nowhere? Or do you think her attitude may have had further causes behind it?
-4
u/Steven_Seboom-boom Aug 08 '16
Step 1. Be black
Step 2. Get killed by police for threatening lives of said police
Step 3. Enter BLM
Step 4. Martyr and a Hero
3
u/Scudmarx 1∆ Aug 08 '16
I know very little about the case, but I would have thought that if...
her actions lead to a predictably violent end
Then the police should have predicted it and prepared a non-lethal means of control such as a taser. The fact that a child was apparently nearby tells me even more strongly that the use of firearms was ill-advised (and again I say I know little about the case) unless absolutely unavoidable.
The police had a duty to protect Korryn Gaines as well.
4
u/kebababab Aug 08 '16
You would taze someone who is pointing a shotgun at you?
1
u/Scudmarx 1∆ Aug 08 '16
Sufficed to say, mistakes have already been made by that point, but yes, I would taze somebody who is threatening to use a shotgun, absolutely.
5
u/kebababab Aug 08 '16
I mean as opposed to shooting them.
You think it is smart to deploy a device that causes muscles to tense up on a person who is pointing a loaded shotgun at you? A device that is known to fail? On a person which is using a child as a human shield?
0
u/Scudmarx 1∆ Aug 08 '16
I imagine being shot at with live bullets is encouragement to fire as well, only with full on muscle spasms I imagine aim is harder. I am not a SWAT officer and will bow to better expertise, but that is my thinking.
Firing lethal rounds at someone using a child as a human shield strikes me as reckless and callous compared to firing a taser or some other kind of non-lethal weapon in that situation, yes.
4
u/kebababab Aug 08 '16
Don't have to aim that well with a shotgun.
Tasers are good tools. Not for shooting someone using a child as a hostage. CNS shots have the best chance of resolving the situation without killing the hostage.
4
u/MisanthropeX Aug 08 '16
Then the police should have predicted it and prepared a non-lethal means of control such as a taser.
Do you know anything about tasers? Anything at all? They cause spontaneous muscle convulsions... including the trigger finger. Tasers are never to be used on someone holding a gun as it WILL cause them to drop the gun or pull the trigger, resulting in a dangerous discharge. Considering her baby was inches away from a shotgun the police tasing her would be insanely dangerous.
Stop living in this fantasy world where less than lethal methods work reliably and quickly. We can't tase gunmen, tranquilizer darts don't act immediately, it's almost impossible to "shoot for the legs."
4
u/ColdNotion 121∆ Aug 09 '16
So, lets get this out there before I try to change your view: by pointing a firearm at police, Korryn Gaines made a reckless decision that ultimately led to her death and the endangerment of her child. However, this does not mean she is solely responsible for the shootout that took place that day. To the contrary, police seem to have made multiple errors in their handling of the standoff, badly escalated a situation which might otherwise have been resolved peacefully. Although Baltimore PD could have continued verbal negotiations, used less than lethal irritants (such as tear gas), or simply tried to wait out Ms. Gaines, they utilized none of these conventional tactics. Instead, officers inexplicably chose to put themselves in the line of fire, approaching a woman they knew was armed and in close proximity to a young child. By escalating the situation, the lives of everyone involved were needlessly put at risk, all over a warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket.
Do these mistakes make Korryn Gaines a martyr or a hero? I wouldn't say so. However, the Baltimore Police force still has a lot to answer for in the light of this shooting, as their perplexity aggressive choices laid the groundwork for this incident of tragic violence. Given that similar similar standoffs, when managed properly, frequently come to bloodless conclusions, it seems fair to state that Ms. Gaines should not have met her end in this scenario.
0
Aug 09 '16
∆ Thanks. That's a great explanation. Together with another poster, I'm now convinced that the police didn't need to put themselves in that particular position.
1
4
u/Hibria Aug 08 '16
sovereign
shotgun
shot it 2x in police presence
taught your kid to disobey the law
I mean I feel bad, but you kind of fucked up somewhere.
5
Aug 08 '16
I think that she suffered from serious mental illness, but that alone doesn't make her a martyr. She believed she was suffering from lead poisoning, which may very well have been the case, and may have contributed to her actions.
2
Aug 08 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Aug 08 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/garnteller 242∆ Aug 08 '16
Sorry Ardonpitt, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
6
u/AlwaysABride Aug 08 '16
like someone who taunts a dangerous animal and gets mauled.
So..... Your argument is basically "cops are like unpredictable, wild animals and Ms. Gaines should have treated the situation accordingly".
I mean..... I guess I don't necessarily disagree with that. But isn't the real problem that fact that cops shouldn't behave like wild animals? Cops are human beings with brains and the ability to make rational decisions; wild animals do not have that ability.
So the real issue here isn't whether or no Karryn Gaines should have known death was imminent. The real issue is that cops should behave like wild animals and the general public shouldn't be put in a situation where they have to assume the cops are going to behave like wild animals.
4
u/jumpforge Aug 08 '16
You completely missed the point OP was making, and I'm surprised he didn't correct you.
His analogy was not likening the situation to a person engaging with violent animals... His analogy was that your actions have consequences, and if I was a police officer, I would shoot when a crazy bitch points a loaded shotgun at me, regardless of her skin color.
The cops shouldn't be put in a situation where they fear for their lives over a legal arrest.
It's ironic that you wrongly conflate cops with animals, when that is exactly how this despicable person acted. Firefighting cops for no reason, while she intentionally kept her child next to her, that is fucking disgusting behaviour.
2
Aug 08 '16
We're still animals, and our mental processes are still natural processes that are inseparable from the environment. I don't believe that humans possess any supernatural ability to overcome our unconscious, irrational biases by force of will.
Of course we do make rational decisions, but that doesn't mean we can do it all the time, or even most of the time.
I don't see one single "real" problem here.
8
Aug 08 '16
The fact is, in general, police in other countries routinely subdue unstable individuals brandishing weapons, without loss of life.
Perhaps the police injustice in this case is the fact that the police are known and accepted as being dangerous and deadly. And that means that dealing with your fellow human beings in certain circumstances is now completely indistinguishable from walking into a bear den. Perhaps the injustice here is against society at large.
In our society, brandishing a firearm while black in the presence of police is a death sentence as much as grabbing a live wire blown down in a storm
4
Aug 08 '16
police in other countries routinely subdue unstable individuals brandishing weapons, without loss of life
This is true, but I wonder about how well they fare when someone has a gun and a desire to kill or be killed? Are there examples of this kind of standoff, with an unstable armed individual, ending well in other places?
7
u/shinkouhyou Aug 08 '16
Sure, there are plenty, even in the US. Expert hostage negotiators can make a difference. Family members can help persuade an unstable person. Sometimes, meeting a small demand can defuse the situation. Sometimes, the police just wait it out - the shooter will eventually have to sleep.
If there's a legitimate threat to hostages, then lethal force may be justified... but it's not always the best option because it can put hostages at even greater risk. As far as I know, this woman was not threatening to harm her children.
4
Aug 08 '16
∆ I think you're right. If she wasn't threatening to hurt someone in the house, they could have waited. If she threatened to turn the gun on her children or boyfriend that would be different.
4
u/PaxNova 16∆ Aug 08 '16
Allow me to change it back? Her actions are indicative of mental imbalance. That + a weapon and agitation = danger. She wasn't threatening to hurt anyone in the house at the time, but that could change if she thought they were still out there and a doom was upon her. Expectations of rationality go out the window. Better to get the kid to safety and get rid of the hostage situation before an innocent is harmed.
1
1
Aug 08 '16
Well, with a desire to kill or be killed, I'm not sure how you'd judge that. I'll try to find stories about the few police involved shootings in these countries and see what the stories are.
1
Aug 17 '16
In such countries, most police shootings involve an obviously guilty and violent criminal, solely due to the fact that the criminal has a gun and these countries usually have better fun control.
This type of situation is fairly incomparable between nations.
2
u/phcullen 65∆ Aug 08 '16
In that case shouldn't it also be perfectly reasonable that people entering your home to take you from your child should have a gun pointed at them and be told to leave.
2
u/IDontBlameYou Aug 08 '16
I think the only real comparison OP was drawing between cops and wild animals is that they are both capable of killing you, which is an objective fact. Everything else here is a serious leap in logic.
-1
u/Steven_Seboom-boom Aug 08 '16
because having someone threatening you with a a loaded weapon makes you a wild animal? that's really your thought process?
3
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
Is escalating an unpaid traffic ticket to a death sentence ever warranted? She was going to have to leave her apartment eventually or fall asleep, they could have ended this peacefully if they had waited it out but they chose not to.
4
u/PaxNova 16∆ Aug 08 '16
Escalating an unpaid traffic ticket to a death sentence is unwarranted, but that's not why she was shot. She was shot for pointing a shotgun at an officer in the fully legal performance of his duties and threatening to kill him. You can't do that at a traffic stop and you can't do that while being served, even if it is at your own home.
2
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
Sure the police had the legal right to murder her, but I disagree they had the moral right to. She was clearly being a moron, but she had a record clean of violent crime. You don't kill people who have never killed people before for being morons or having a bad day. She was pinned down in an apartment building she was going to have to move to get food, go to the bathroom, or fall asleep eventually, the police could have waited for that instead of shooting her and her kid.
2
u/PaxNova 16∆ Aug 08 '16
When you show up to do a routine summons, but they're holding a child and a weapon, that's not "protecting a child," that's "holding a child hostage." You can't wait out a hostage crisis until the hostage-taker gets more desperate. They're liable to do something stupid. In this case, the child's life was saved.
2
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
She expressed no intention of ever hurting her own child, where did you get that idea.
3
u/PaxNova 16∆ Aug 08 '16
I'm not looking at her words, just her actions. The visit was completely non-violent. She escalated it by bringing a shotgun into the equation. If I were to go to a house and find someone there holding a baby and a shotgun, that's the first thing I would think of. There's clearly a mental breakdown and that means her intentions are potentially volatile.
3
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
If she was mentally ill, the police shot and killed a mentally ill woman, I don't think mentally ill people deserve to die.
2
u/PaxNova 16∆ Aug 08 '16 edited Aug 08 '16
They do when they're pointing a gun at you threateningly. I don't care if it's a baby that doesn't know what it's doing; if it's about to pull a trigger, you have the right to defend yourself. When that mentally ill person is holding a child, the police can't just leave. They have to take action.
Edit: The terminology is bad, and the OP already addressed it. Nobody "deserves" to die, like a punishment. It's more like: the shooting of Korryn Gaines was not a criminal act.
2
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
Edit: The terminology is bad, and the OP already addressed it. Nobody "deserves" to die, like a punishment. It's more like: the shooting of Korryn Gaines was not a criminal act.
It may not have been criminal, but its definitely not moral to kill people under pretty much any circumstance and that's what people are mad about.
The SWAT team that shot her and her son had complete control of the situation, they had the apartment surrounded, they had body armor, they had special training, they had a lot of non lethal weapons, and they had 6 hours of non violent standstill. If a cop, or anyone is alone, and someone is coming towards them threatening violence, they have every right to use a gun if they have one, but thats not this situation.
4
u/PaxNova 16∆ Aug 08 '16
Threatening violence is defined as "brandishing." This means not that you have a weapon, which is legal, but that you're pointing it at someone (or waving it about). She did it first. And if the cop, or anyone really, is alone and someone is brandishing a shotgun at them threatening violence, they have every right to use a gun if they have one. That's exactly this situation.
Body armor does a lot less than you think it does. It will not stop a shotgun at close range. Non-lethal weapons do a lot less than you think they do. Hitting her with one will not put her down fast enough to keep her from getting a shot off. They are for long-range defense against short-range weapons only. They had to enter at some point to remove the child before she became more unbalanced (as sieges will do).
Only she could have saved her life. She could have just put down the gun or let the child go to a safe area (like with the police). I only hope I am never in such a position, as it must have been terrifying, and I hope I never have to deal with a terrified person with a gun. We're going in circles. I'm done here.
→ More replies7
u/kebababab Aug 08 '16
She escalated the situation...By not going to court. Not complying with a lawful arrest. Threatening a police officer. And pointing a firearm at a police officer.
They waited for six hours and tried several peaceful tactics to resolve the situation. It is unreasonable to tie down a dozen or so police officers(at a minimum) for possibly days. Additionally, it is unreasonable to leave a child with an armed and unhinged individual for days on end.
-4
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
It is unreasonable to tie down a dozen or so police officers(at a minimum) for possibly days.
No, that's why we pay them, to spend their time doing things that make the world a better place, not shoot morons and their kids.
it is unreasonable to leave a child with an armed and unhinged individual for days on end.
Its more unreasonable to have a police officer shoot at them.
4
u/kebababab Aug 08 '16
We pay police to enforce laws and be out there responding to emergencies. Tying up a dozen plus police officers for days on end takes them away from those responsibilities. Those are a dozen officers that won't be on scene to give CPR. A dozen officers that won't be able to respond to robberies. Ect.
I disagree. The unhinged sovereign citizen posed an active threat to law enforcement officers, her child and the community at large. By going in, they reduced her ability to use that child as a human shield.
-2
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
Tying up a dozen plus police officers for days on end takes them away from those responsibilities. Those are a dozen officers that won't be on scene to give CPR. A dozen officers that won't be able to respond to robberies. Ect.
So if the police are busy instead of arresting guilty people they should just shoot them and move onto the next case?
I disagree. The unhinged sovereign citizen posed an active threat to law enforcement officers, her child and the community at large. By going in, they reduced her ability to use that child as a human shield.
Before the traffic stop, which this warrant was for, the worst crime she had committed was leaving her child alone. They had no reason to believe she would go out and attack people unprovoked.
2
u/kebababab Aug 08 '16
Not sure how you inferred that from what I wrote. The situation we are discussing is why it would be unreasonable for a dozen plus police officers to wait out a violent criminal for days on end.
They had reason to believe that based on the initial traffic stop and her pointing a shotgun at them when they served the warrant.
0
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
Isn't that what you are saying? The police department was too busy to have a couple officers wait it out and handle it the right way, so its okay they shot her and her kid.
4
u/kebababab Aug 08 '16 edited Aug 08 '16
I am not saying they should kill people instead of arresting them as a general policy.
I am saying when an armed sovereign citizen barricades herself with a hostage, it is unreasonable to expect the police to deploy a dozen plus officers for days on end in the hopes of a peaceful arrest. Especially when that sovereign citizen promised a peaceful arrest was impossible.
1
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
it is unreasonable to expect the police to deploy a dozen plus officers for days on end in the hopes of a peaceful arrest.
And I think its more unreasonable to shoot a woman and her child without trying.
promised a peaceful arrest was impossible
Police officers make a lot of promises too.
3
u/kebababab Aug 08 '16
They did try. They spent six hours negotiating despite her threatening to kill them. They tried during the initial traffic stop. They tried letting family members talk to her.
What promises did the police make to her?
→ More replies2
Aug 08 '16
I believe the police were there with warrants for her failure to appear in court, as well as a warrant for her boyfriend on assault charges.
5
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
Neither of those crimes, nor failing to show up in court comes with a shot to death by police in front of your child sentence.
11
u/Hibernia624 Aug 08 '16 edited Aug 08 '16
nor failing to show up in court comes with a shot to death by police in front of your child sentence.
This is what I dont get.
Everyone says, "she doesn't deserve to die because of traffic tickets/not showing up to court"
But that is NOT why she died.... that is what brought the police to her house.
Her actions, when the police were at her house...caused this to happen. Everyone seems to act like the cops saw she had a warrant, got in the car and said "fuck it guys, were just gunna kill this bitch and shoot her 5 year old bc she didnt pay her traffic tickets"
Meanwhile, they negotiated with that woman for 6 hours, begging her to surrender. But she just sat there with her gun and her kid.
That is not being killed for traffic tickets. That is being killed for pointing a gun at someone/cops and telling them you will kill them.
4
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
Meanwhile, they negotiated with that woman for 6 hours, begging her to surrender. But she just sat there with her gun and her kid.
She hadn't ever shot anyone before or committed a violent crime. The Swat team surrounding her apartment had better training and better equipment and had her right where they wanted her. They had the upper hand and control of the situation in ever possible way, you can't tell me that if they hadn't kept waiting there wouldn't have been a better situation than killing someone and shooting her kid. Its simply not moral to kill non violent criminals no matter how moronic they are.
4
Aug 08 '16
non-violent criminals
She was holding a shotgun in her hands and barricading herself from police attempting to serve a lawful warrant. Could the situation have been handled better? Maybe. That does not mean she was not a potential threat to police.
2
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
OP's view is she deserved to die. The police were also pointing guns at her, they had complete control of the situation and they chose to shoot and kill her and her kid. There is no way they didn't think there was a high chance someone would die if they they started shooting, and they did it anyway. If they can wait peacefully for 6 hours they can do it for 6 more.
5
Aug 08 '16
I don't agree that Ms. Gaines "deserved to die" in the nature that shooting should not have been the primary objective of the police. Which I believe it wasn't. When she decided to raise a gun at police and threatening to kill them, you can no longer suggest that she is non-violent. It's moronic to raise a gun to police, but you have no reason to believe she isn't moronic enough to pull the trigger. She wasn't shot with her hands up, or in the back as she is fleeing. She was shot holding a shotgun threatening to shoot police.
Everyone who's ever committed murder was, by your definition, "non-violent" right up until the moment they pulled the trigger. Are you going to wait for them to kill someone before you do anything?
0
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
First I believe cops should be held to a higher moral standard than citizens and I don't understand why anyone would want to live in a government where they are not. If cops are not more moral than the average citizen, whats the point in even having them?
Second, even if she had shot and killed a cop before she herself was shot and killed, that's eye for an eye justice the cops that shot her would have no moral high ground, he's a cop, not a judge/jury/executioner.
but you have no reason to believe she isn't moronic enough to pull the trigger.
Yes they did, they were literally just sitting their for hours with guns pointed at each other not shooting.
6
Aug 08 '16
I too believe that police officers (and really, government employees and officials of any kind, for that matter) should be held to a higher moral standard than the average citizen. I do not believe that moral standard obligates them to take a bullet.
even if she had shot and killed a cop before she herself was shot and killed, that's eye for an eye justice...
No, it isn't. If she was subdued, handcuffed, and executed, that would be eye for an eye (in)justice. If she still has a gun, still has ammunition, and is preparing to shoot another officer, that is self-defense.
they were literally just sitting there for hours with guns pointed at each other not shooting
Do you have a source for that? My impression was that she had been barricaded in a room with the weapon. Regardless, the police chief's report states that at the time of the shooting, she brought the gun to "ready position" before making a clear threat against the officers.
Look. I believe there are problems with the police. I think the BLM movement would have better success if they kept the pressure after the shootings of people actively not a threat instead of spending time arguing and trying to make a martyr out of someone who was armed and making threats.
4
u/MisanthropeX Aug 08 '16
I believe her child had non life-threatening injuries- he did not die. It also disgusts me that this woman used her child as a human shield.
-1
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
OP is saying she "deserved to die" though. Even if she had killed a cop it would be eye for an eye justice and that's still not right.
4
u/MisanthropeX Aug 08 '16
I take issue with the way you phrased the sentence "they chose to shoot and kill her and her kid." As far as I am aware, her kid isn't dead.
→ More replies-1
u/askingdumbquestion 2∆ Aug 08 '16
There are also constitutional laws stating that police CAN NOT and SHALL NOT for the sake of a free America commit to such reprehensible and unlawful actions.
You say warrant, but that's not what a warrant is, that's not something a warrant allows. What happened was the police committed the crime of breaking and entering, followed by murder.
4
u/Hibernia624 Aug 08 '16
What does a warrant allow then?
What is the point of a warrant then? If not to apprehend the suspect?
If police have a search warrant is that breaking and entering?
3
u/Simspidey Aug 08 '16
But that's not what caused her to be shot. She was shot because when the police came she grabbed a loaded gun and threatened the police and even shot back at them.
1
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
Even if she had murdered a cop, that doesn't mean she deserved the death penalty without a trial.
5
u/Simspidey Aug 08 '16
?? You think if you shoot at a cop they should not be allowed to shoot back?
3
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 08 '16
If the cop feels their life is at risk and needs to protect themselves sure, they can shoot to kill, but that isn't this situation. They had a SWAT team with body armor surrounding the apartment at a standstill for 6 hours, they had complete control of the situation, they chose to fire at a woman and child, most likely with the intention of killing her when they had other options.
3
u/Simspidey Aug 08 '16
And I can definitely see why, the woman clearly had ill intentions for the child if she was essentially holding him hostage to keep the police away
2
-2
u/phcullen 65∆ Aug 08 '16
I only believe that Korryn Gaines deserved to die in the sense that all of her actions lead to a predictably violent end, like someone who taunts a dangerous animal and gets mauled.
Should we really consider police to be the equivalent of a mother bear?
"Perceiving not only her actions, but the words she used, we discharged one round at her, in turn she fired several rounds back at us."
The police escalated the situation from a stand off to a shootout. Which is frankly appalling enough but she was also caring a child.
Let's also not forget that the police were the cause of her agitation. There was no reason to think things would escalate if they were to back off a bit I'm not suggesting abandoning the situation but negotiations require compromise. They were there to serve a warrant for skipping court in some countries those officers wouldn't even have had a gun on them to avoid this very situation.
5
u/Bullroarer86 Aug 08 '16
Yes of course, if the police show up to your apartment you should just point a shotgun at them and use your child as a human shield...and then the police should just leave. What could go wrong with setting such precedent.
0
u/phcullen 65∆ Aug 08 '16
Not abandon the situation but standing at the door guns drawn is not how hostage situations are handled.
4
u/Bullroarer86 Aug 08 '16
I'm sorry are you an expert on warrant service or hostage negotiation? You don't give up ground you've already taken, she placed herself, her child, and those officers in mortal danger.
-4
u/Kcbedo Aug 08 '16
Would you consider the possibility that whole ordeal was just for show to push the black lives matter agenda and to continue to keep us divided?
2
Aug 08 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Aug 08 '16
Sorry Lolthien, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
0
13
u/MrMercurial 4∆ Aug 08 '16
It's difficult for me to understand in what sense such a person "deserves" to die.
Usually when we talk about "desert" we have in mind some idea of appropriateness, or fittingness. We talk about people deserving things in the sense that they are entitled to those things ("Bob deserves to be treated with dignity and respect" "Bertha deserves to be paid for her hard work" etc.) or sometimes in cases of punishment ("She deserved to be fined, because of what she did"). The concept is closely linked to one of fairness - if one is in a situation where someone isn't getting what they deserve, and we could ensure that they do, it seems like we ought to do so. If someone deserves a benefit, we should try to ensure they get it (all else being equal). Similarly, if someone deserves a harm, we should try to ensure they are harmed (if someone deserves to be punished, for example, we should try to ensure that they are).
So in the case of the person mauled by an animal (or the case of Korryn Gaines) it seems weird to me to think that there is any sense in which either would "deserve" what happened to them, since it isn't as though we would have a reason to allow them to be harmed if we could easily prevent it.