There was a horrendous nightmare in Atlanta, Georgia, which soon turned into a violent outbreak. Late Saturday night, Scout Schultz, the head of the Georgia Pride Alliance, was shot and killed by Georgia Tech campus police because he had possession of a knife. On Monday, Georgia Tech held a vigil to remember the one they lost anticipating it would be a peaceful way to remember Scout Schultz. Later that evening 50 students left the vigil and headed towards the Tech police headquarters where they physically attacked police and set fire to police cars. In the end, three students were arrested and two police officers received only minor injuries.
This is related to what we are learning in government because according to the second amendment, all individuals have the right to bear arms, constitutionally making what the police did to be okay. Although the police officer may have been defending himself, it doesn’t justify the immediate use of violence. There could have been an alternative way to restrain Scout if he was a threat, rather than shooting him. I believe what happened to Scout Schultz was horrible and the way it was handled was even worse. There needs to be a tight enforcement of the rules in both cases so nothing like this ever happens again. Do you believe both sides are to blame or does one stand out more than the other?
Link to article: http://www.ajc.com/news/three-arrested-violent-georgia-tech-protests-after-police-shoot-student/CVfX0KeBUlTPzYLCf3KnwO/
6 comments:
While I do not think the violence against the police headquarters was necessary or right, I am unsure about the police's use of force against Schultz. I think that possessing a knife doesn't necessarily make you an immediate threat that requires the police to take such action. I'm also curious as to what type of knife it was or if Schultz was attacking the officers.
I agree with Elena in that violence against the police headquarters is not right; well, actually, violence is never the answer to anything, and I believe both the students at Georgia Tech and the police are at fault. The students are at fault for using violence against a police officer. The police are also at fault here for using deadly force against Schultz when they could've resolved this issue in a much less harmful way. To answer Elena's question, the lawyer for Schultz's family stated that Schultz was only carrying a small utility tool and the blade wasn't out, which means that the police shouldn't have considered Schultz as an immediate threat. However, the definition of when the police can shoot to kill is also interpreted in a very broad sense, to the extend where police officers can basically use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the offender's resistance. Therefore, if we want to prevent an incident like Schultz's from happening again, then we will need to minimize the misuse of police powers, and the only way we can do that is through amending the definition of deadly force first.
I agree with Chloe that violence isn't the answer to anything. From my understanding, the Campus police shot the Pride Alliance leader because of the possession of a knife. But did that said person threaten anyone with the knife or cause harm to anyone using that, or was it purely for self defense purposes? If signs of violence were not evident in the situation, I believe it was unjust that someone had to lose their life. And while I understand the sentiment of the students who later on tried to avenge their dead leader, an eye for an eye would only bring about further unnecessary bloodshed. In the future, I believe tighter enforcement rules should be implemented on how to deal with possible threats, with shooting to kill being the last, last resort.
I do agree that the police's violent reaction was unnecessary, and since they triggered the violence from the students, I think they take on more blame than the students. Although what the students did was wrong and reflects the unsolicited violence that the police demonstrated, the actions of the police were what essentially led to the need for more violence. The police should have tried to understand the context of the situation before shooting the student, and this irresponsible action incited more violence. Although both sides used violence in situations in which there should not be any, I think the police's actions which incited those of the students are more at fault.
I think it'd be wrong to assume that the police shot the student just for possessing a knife on person. According to the article, the police stated the individual was carrying a knife, and "refused commands to stop." Clearly, the student had some malicious intent. After all, if he did not mean to do harm with the knife, why wouldn't he listen to the police officers? And while I do believe the students were not justified in attacking the police headquarters, the police were also unjustified in shooting the student. I believe they should have found a safe way to apprehend the individual, and if all else fails, then use firepower to stop him.
I agree with Elena Deere that possession of a knife in no way justifies a police to shoot a person, especially considering that the possession of knives is technically an “arm” and is therefore protected under the second amendment (obviously, some knives have been restricted under law). In addition, since melee weapons are not long range, there was absolutely no need to use any force at all as it appears that Schultz was not harming the police officer as the article states the blade wasn’t even opened (they did however, resist the officer’s requests to drop his knife, but to my knowledge the knife they possessed was restricted under law). While it is difficult to see how the protest escalated to violence, the students certainly had a very peaceful plan. Police officers in riot gear can easily shift the mood of a peaceful protest, and angry remarks towards officers are often blown out of proportion.
Post a Comment