PDA

View Full Version : St Louis man beaten to death by kid thugs with hammers!



garhkal
12-01-2014, 07:48 PM
I am really wanting to know what Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Mr Obama's thoughts are on this white man, being brutally beaten to death by 2-4 black youths. And the calm protests the community of fellow Bosnians are having, in direct and stark contrast to the rioting that the black community had after Mr Brown was shot.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/protest-st-louis-man-killed-hammer-attack-article-1.2028669

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855535/St-Louis-teens-beat-motorist-32-death-hammers-sparking-protests-Bosnian-community.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/30/teen-thugs-on-the-loose-after-fatal-hammer-attack-on-st-louis-street/

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2014/12/zemir-begic-beaten-to-death-with-hammers-by-gang-car-attack/

sandsjames
12-01-2014, 08:02 PM
I am really wanting to know what Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Mr Obama's thoughts are on this white man, being brutally beaten to death by 2-4 black youths. And the calm protests the community of fellow Bosnians are having, in direct and stark contrast to the rioting that the black community had after Mr Brown was shot.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/protest-st-louis-man-killed-hammer-attack-article-1.2028669

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855535/St-Louis-teens-beat-motorist-32-death-hammers-sparking-protests-Bosnian-community.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/30/teen-thugs-on-the-loose-after-fatal-hammer-attack-on-st-louis-street/

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2014/12/zemir-begic-beaten-to-death-with-hammers-by-gang-car-attack/

Just imagine what would have happened if this guy had a gun on him and shot the people who attacked him. It's probably better for our country that the white man got killed.

I've really been enjoying the interviews with MLK's daughter (I think). It's a shame that the "protesters" don't put as much effort into the message from her and her father as people in the 60s did.

garhkal
12-02-2014, 06:47 AM
Just imagine what would have happened if this guy had a gun on him and shot the people who attacked him. It's probably better for our country that the white man got killed.


And why is it better for our country that a white man, doing nothing wrong was killed?

Rusty Jones
12-02-2014, 09:21 AM
I am really wanting to know what Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Mr Obama's thoughts are on this white man, being brutally beaten to death by 2-4 black youths. And the calm protests the community of fellow Bosnians are having, in direct and stark contrast to the rioting that the black community had after Mr Brown was shot.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/protest-st-louis-man-killed-hammer-attack-article-1.2028669

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855535/St-Louis-teens-beat-motorist-32-death-hammers-sparking-protests-Bosnian-community.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/30/teen-thugs-on-the-loose-after-fatal-hammer-attack-on-st-louis-street/

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2014/12/zemir-begic-beaten-to-death-with-hammers-by-gang-car-attack/

I've got a better idea... how about you find a white man to be the voice for white people, instead of asking Al Sharpton to do it for you?

sandsjames
12-02-2014, 09:55 AM
And why is it better for our country that a white man, doing nothing wrong was killed?

/sarcasm.....

Absinthe Anecdote
12-02-2014, 10:40 AM
I've got a better idea... how about you find a white man to be the voice for white people, instead of asking Al Sharpton to do it for you?

I'll take the job, but all you white people have to pay me to do it.

How much money do you have garkhal? I want a big contribution from you first.

Also, white folks have to give up Santa. We can't have Santa clouding the minds of our people any more.

He is making our white youth an endangered species.

Rainmaker
12-02-2014, 03:24 PM
It's very upsetting Garkahl. But, step back and Try not to play into the hands of those who would drive us in to a race war.

After the Trayvon riot thing didn't work, Fed.gov spent months fanning the flames of this situation, creating a problem in order to get you to have that exact reaction .

Now, the chairman comes on the boob-tube and gives us the solution to our troubles :

Everything he proposed is to designed to assert more D.C. control over local LEO's policing of the Free Shit Army.

So, these morons think cameras are going to protect them from a Militarized 5.0? Well, Let's see... $250,000,000 for full motion video streaming into the TOC when the po-9 go on their no knock SWAT raids in the hood, and of course plenty of Dieversity training, (which we can never, ever, ever have enough of).

Also,to field this capability, there will be plenty of sole source contracts let for their crony "industry partners". We will have to fund all this (with new taxes) indefinitely as well, and next we'll have blimps overhead, drones flying and lots of cool new intel of the citizens being sent to the cloud 24/7 just to make sure we ain't potential terrorists.

What the hood rats really need is more local control of the police. Not less. If more neighborhoods could incorporate and police themselves, maybe they wouldn't view the thin blue line as an occupying army.

Rainmaker
12-02-2014, 03:30 PM
/sarcasm.....

Great. and Thanks for clearing that up! Rainmaker was just getting ready to report you to the thought police for bullying us.

garhkal
12-02-2014, 07:47 PM
/sarcasm.....

With how some of your responses to be have been, how was i to know you were being sarcastic?


I've got a better idea... how about you find a white man to be the voice for white people, instead of asking Al Sharpton to do it for you?

I'd love for there to be one. But it still doesn't answer the question, of why has Al, NOT spoken out against this attack?

sandsjames
12-02-2014, 07:50 PM
With how some of your responses to be have been, how was i to know you were being sarcastic? That's why I let you know...and by "how some of your responses..." do you mean stuff we disagree on? Don't assume that because two people disagree about a couple things that they disagree about everything.

Measure Man
12-02-2014, 07:58 PM
I'd love for there to be one. But it still doesn't answer the question, of why has Al, NOT spoken out against this attack?

Not in his wheelhouse. His cause is blacks, not all attacks. What is so difficult about this?

There are dozens of attacks going on every day in this country...he can't raise hell about one unless he does about all of them?

sandsjames
12-02-2014, 08:14 PM
Not in his wheelhouse. His cause is blacks, not all attacks. What is so difficult about this?

There are dozens of attacks going on every day in this country...he can't raise hell about one unless he does about all of them?

Nope...only the ones that will get him in the spotlight. He knows how his character is viewed and, just like any other celebrity, he plays to it. He needs the heat from the white community in order for him to be who he is. He's like a bad guy in wrestling. It's just as good for him if most of the people dislike him. It lines his pockets.

USAF-Controller
12-02-2014, 09:28 PM
The biggest difference between this and the Brown killing is that these murders will be charged and tried.

MitchellJD1969
12-02-2014, 09:49 PM
The biggest difference between this and the Brown killing is that these murders will be charged and tried.

Sucks when a grand jury, which could indict a ham sandwhich if so inclined, didnt feel the evidence was enough to charge the cop with anything.

sandsjames
12-02-2014, 10:21 PM
The biggest difference between this and the Brown killing is that these murders will be charged and tried.

The difference being that one was murder and one wasn't.

USAF-Controller
12-02-2014, 10:42 PM
Sucks when a grand jury, which could indict a ham sandwhich if so inclined, didnt feel the evidence was enough to charge the cop with anything.

Agreed but if you look at the timeline, the prosecutor was biased from the beginning


The difference being that one was murder and one wasn't.

Are you saying that those kids killing that man with hammers was not murder?

Measure Man
12-02-2014, 10:47 PM
Nope...only the ones that will get him in the spotlight. He knows how his character is viewed and, just like any other celebrity, he plays to it. He needs the heat from the white community in order for him to be who he is. He's like a bad guy in wrestling. It's just as good for him if most of the people dislike him. It lines his pockets.

So what...we all have a job to do that we get paid for.

I thought the free market is what conservatives were all about...and that if you get paid, you deserve it because you are hard working.

Lawyers take case that they will get paid for.

Newsmen report stories that will get on the air and they get paid for.

Car manufacturers produce cars that people will buy...so they can get paid for producing them.

..and yes, celebrities choose projects that have or will generate public interest so they can get paid.

Tech school instructors teach courses that the govt. wants so they will get paid

sandsjames
12-02-2014, 11:17 PM
Are you saying that those kids killing that man with hammers was not murder?Nope...definitely not what I'm saying.

sandsjames
12-02-2014, 11:18 PM
So what...we all have a job to do that we get paid for.

I thought the free market is what conservatives were all about...and that if you get paid, you deserve it because you are hard working.

Lawyers take case that they will get paid for.

Newsmen report stories that will get on the air and they get paid for.

Car manufacturers produce cars that people will buy...so they can get paid for producing them.

..and yes, celebrities choose projects that have or will generate public interest so they can get paid.

Tech school instructors teach courses that the govt. wants so they will get paid


I wasn't criticizing what he's doing. I was just stating what he does. He's not the "hero" some paint him as, nor is he the "villain". He's just a celebrity making money and has marketed himself, just as an actor or an athlete does.

Not sure why you felt the need to be get defensive about it.

ex prosup
12-02-2014, 11:29 PM
So what...we all have a job to do that we get paid for.

I thought the free market is what conservatives were all about...and that if you get paid, you deserve it because you are hard working.

Lawyers take case that they will get paid for.

Newsmen report stories that will get on the air and they get paid for.

Car manufacturers produce cars that people will buy...so they can get paid for producing them.

..and yes, celebrities choose projects that have or will generate public interest so they can get paid.

Tech school instructors teach courses that the govt. wants so they will get paid

Rush Limbaugh = Al Sharpton
Mike Huckabee = Jesse Jackson
Sean Hannity = Rachel Maddow

I could go on and on with the comparisons, but they are all just people wanting to get paid for performing.

TJMAC77SP
12-02-2014, 11:30 PM
That phrase about a grand jury indicting a ham sandwich is a well worn adage and a bit misleading. Problem is that a DA won't take a case to the grand jury unless he is ready to charge and go to trial. He won't do that if the case isn't winnable.

I see a lot of rhetoric from both sides on this issue and very little actual critical thought.

There have been some shining examples of actual dialog but pretty rare unfortunately.

Measure Man
12-02-2014, 11:32 PM
Rush Limbaugh = Al Sharpton
Mike Huckabee = Jesse Jackson
Sean Hannity = Rachel Maddow

I could go on and on with the comparisons, but they are all just people wanting to get paid for performing.

Yep...pretty sure they all send each other Holiday Cards this time of year.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-03-2014, 03:24 AM
That phrase about a grand jury indicting a ham sandwich is a well worn adage and a bit misleading. Problem is that a DA won't take a case to the grand jury unless he is ready to charge and go to trial. He won't do that if the case isn't winnable.

I see a lot of rhetoric from both sides on this issue and very little actual critical thought.

There have been some shining examples of actual dialog but pretty rare unfortunately.

The people who wanted this to go to trial are complaining that the DA presented evidence to the grand jury that showed Wilson was justified in the shooting.

The detractors claim that the DA should have only presented evidence that showed probable cause for a trial.

That is were the phrase, "you can indict a ham sandwich" comes from. There is no defense presented at a grand jury, only a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Right?

TJMAC77SP
12-03-2014, 03:57 AM
The people who wanted this to go to trial are complaining that the DA presented evidence to the grand jury that showed Wilson was justified in the shooting.

The detractors claim that the DA should have only presented evidence that showed probable cause for a trial.

That is were the phrase, "you can indict a ham sandwich" comes from. There is no defense presented at a grand jury, only a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Right?

Both sides are wrong you describe are wrong although I am not sure who the 'detractors' are. Those that supported Wilson I believe are happy with the way it proceeded and are obviously happy with the results. The DA in this case presented all evidence available as is. Usually a DA will present the evidence needed to reach a decision on probable cause only. This grand jury was different. This article explains it pretty well.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/explained-what-a-grand-jury-does-and-why-the-darren-wilson-case-was-unusual/

No plea is made at a grand jury hearing. There is no charge to plea to.

Frankly I believe the DA didn't think there was a case for any murder/manslaughter charge but given the inflammatory nature of the incident and it's aftermath he decided to present all the evidence in the only fair judicial procedure available.

garhkal
12-03-2014, 04:00 AM
Frankly I believe the DA didn't think there was a case for any murder/manslaughter charge but given the inflammatory nature of the incident and it's aftermath he decided to present all the evidence in the only fair judicial procedure available.

I think it was more that the DOJ (and possibly the white house) pressured him into going to a grand jury, to show that action was being done.

TJMAC77SP
12-03-2014, 04:08 AM
I think it was more that the DOJ (and possibly the white house) pressured him into going to a grand jury, to show that action was being done.

I don't believe that at all. Not to say the DOJ didn't weigh in but I think this was the DA's decision (my opinion)

Absinthe Anecdote
12-03-2014, 04:12 AM
Both sides are wrong you describe are wrong although I am not sure who the 'detractors' are. Those that supported Wilson I believe are happy with the way it proceeded and are obviously happy with the results. The DA in this case presented all evidence available as is. Usually a DA will present the evidence needed to reach a decision on probable cause only. This grand jury was different. This article explains it pretty well.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/explained-what-a-grand-jury-does-and-why-the-darren-wilson-case-was-unusual/

No plea is made at a grand jury hearing. There is no charge to plea to.

Frankly I believe the DA didn't think there was a case for any murder/manslaughter charge but given the inflammatory nature of the incident and it's aftermath he decided to present all the evidence in the only fair judicial procedure available.

The DA's detractors, being the people who wanted this case to go to trial.

Of course the DA didn't want this to go to trial, or else he would have held back evidence.

And that is where the saying, " you can indict a ham sandwich" comes from.

TJMAC77SP
12-03-2014, 04:19 AM
The DA's detractors, being the people who wanted this case to go to trial.

Of course the DA didn't want this to go to trial, or else he would have held back evidence.

And that is where the saying, " you can indict a ham sandwich" comes from.

He didn't hold back evidence. Wouldn't the people who wanted this to go to trial and the DA's detractors (in this case) be the same people?

The phrase regarding grand juries and ham sandwiches has been around a very long time.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-03-2014, 04:25 AM
He didn't hold back evidence. Wouldn't the people who wanted this to go to trial and the DA's detractors (in this case) be the same people?

The phrase regarding grand juries and ham sandwiches has been around a very long time.

Read my post again, that is what I just clarified for you. Yes, they are the same.

Are you sleepy or something?

TJMAC77SP
12-03-2014, 04:29 AM
Read my post again, that is what I just clarified for you. Yes, they are the same.

Are you sleepy or something?

Yes I am, I do see where you said he didn't hold back evidence but why does that indicate he didn't want it to go to trial? Well, I guess for the reason that he thought he would lose could be the answer.


Your original post sounded like you were describing two different groups.



The people who wanted this to go to trial are complaining that the DA presented evidence to the grand jury that showed Wilson was justified in the shooting.

The detractors claim that the DA should have only presented evidence that showed probable cause for a trial.........

Absinthe Anecdote
12-03-2014, 11:03 AM
I think it was more that the DOJ (and possibly the white house) pressured him into going to a grand jury, to show that action was being done.

I'm sure he got pressure to take this to the grand jury, but it was from his own county.

If there was proof that the White House called to tell him to do it, that would be all over the place.

The White House can have the DOJ open a separate and concurrent investigation, which they did.

Nothing wrong with that either.

BENDER56
12-03-2014, 12:35 PM
That phrase about a grand jury indicting a ham sandwich is a well worn adage and a bit misleading. Problem is that a DA won't take a case to the grand jury unless he is ready to charge and go to trial. He won't do that if the case isn't winnable. ...

This probably was not a winnable case but to not even sit a grand jury would have inflamed an already volatile public. Some accounts I've read by lawyers who have experience arguing grand jury cases claim that the prosecutor in Ferguson not only failed to present a compelling case for indictment, he acted and spoke as if he was defending Wilson.

I'll add two quotations from the article linked below:

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

"If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/25/grand-juries-almost-never-fail-to-indict

Stalwart
12-03-2014, 01:26 PM
I don't believe that at all. Not to say the DOJ didn't weigh in but I think this was the DA's decision (my opinion)

I think the DA 'checked the box' by letting the grand jury decide if there would be an indictment and it was probably the smart decision. It may be likely that he didn't personally think an indictment was justified, but I would imagine he crossed the T's and dotted the I's knowing this would be under a lot of scrutiny.

From what I have read, it seems the grand jury found no probable cause based on granting more weight to witnesses whose testimony corraborated the physical evidence (wounds on Michael Brown) vice those whose testimony did not match physical evidence or those who changed their tetimony / statements after the evidence was openly discussed.

TJMAC77SP
12-03-2014, 01:55 PM
This probably was not a winnable case but to not even sit a grand jury would have inflamed an already volatile public. Some accounts I've read by lawyers who have experience arguing grand jury cases claim that the prosecutor in Ferguson not only failed to present a compelling case for indictment, he acted and spoke as if he was defending Wilson.

I'll add two quotations from the article linked below:

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

"If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/25/grand-juries-almost-never-fail-to-indict

These accounts you have read by lawyers were not present in the grand jury proceeding so how is it anyone has an opinion of how the St Louis County DA presented the case?

I agree that his decision to hold a grand jury was the correct one.

Read the article I cited earlier http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/e...e-was-unusual/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/explained-what-a-grand-jury-does-and-why-the-darren-wilson-case-was-unusual/)
it is agood explanation of the grand jury process as it is typically used and how it was used in this case. The statistics cited probably reflect the normal use of a grand jury which is a probable cause determination.

garhkal
12-03-2014, 06:36 PM
I don't believe that at all. Not to say the DOJ didn't weigh in but I think this was the DA's decision (my opinion)

It may have been the DA's decision, but i do feel there was pressure from outside to 'take it to court'.

TJMAC77SP
12-03-2014, 06:38 PM
It may have been the DA's decision, but i do feel there was pressure from outside to 'take it to court'.

Absolutely, there was a huge vocal crush to charge him with murder (with an undertone that a guilty verdict had already been reached). This is typical really. Emotional people come to emotional and often irrational decisions.

USAF-Controller
12-03-2014, 06:50 PM
This is not completely unrelated...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/justice/new-york-grand-jury-chokehold/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This time the death was ruled homicide and there's video evidence and still no grand jury.

TJMAC77SP
12-03-2014, 07:25 PM
This is not completely unrelated...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/justice/new-york-grand-jury-chokehold/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This time the death was ruled homicide and there's video evidence and still no grand jury.

There was a grand jury but no indictment.

I am actually surprised a bit on that. He used a restraint technique that is specifically banned by the NYPD. Not sure he will keep his badge. Of note was the difference in the characteristics of the protests in NY vs. Ferguson.

garhkal
12-04-2014, 05:15 AM
There was a grand jury but no indictment.

I am actually surprised a bit on that. He used a restraint technique that is specifically banned by the NYPD. Not sure he will keep his badge. Of note was the difference in the characteristics of the protests in NY vs. Ferguson.

When i saw that mentioned in the 6 o'clock news, i was flabergasted. He used a banned technique, so what WAS the reasoning that they could not indite?
Also, the news mentioned that they need another judge's permission before details OF the grand jury's notes etc, get made public. But if that's the case, why was the verdict for offer Wilson released barely 3 hrs later?

MikeKerriii
12-04-2014, 05:41 AM
When i saw that mentioned in the 6 o'clock news, i was flabergasted. He used a banned technique, so what WAS the reasoning that they could not indite?
Also, the news mentioned that they need another judge's permission before details OF the grand jury's notes etc, get made public. But if that's the case, why was the verdict for offer Wilson released barely 3 hrs later?

White Cop, Black victim, Staten Island

Staten Island is sometimes described as Alabama with a view of NJ, But Alabama is owed an apology of the comprison.

MikeKerriii
12-04-2014, 05:45 AM
The people who wanted this to go to trial are complaining that the DA presented evidence to the grand jury that showed Wilson was justified in the shooting.

The detractors claim that the DA should have only presented evidence that showed probable cause for a trial.

That is were the phrase, "you can indict a ham sandwich" comes from. There is no defense presented at a grand jury, only a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Right? The Grand jury is not supposed to be involved in deterimng guilt or innocence, they just need to determine if there is probable casue enough to have a trial to determine the full facts.

If it had not be a cop involved in NYC the grnd jury would have been shown the tape of the murder and that would have been the end of the hearing.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 10:52 AM
The Grand jury is not supposed to be involved in deterimng guilt or innocence, they just need to determine if there is probable casue enough to have a trial to determine the full facts.

That is what I was talking about. Why are you acting like you are correcting me?




If it had not be a cop involved in NYC the grnd jury would have been shown the tape of the murder and that would have been the end of the hearing.

That dude on Staten Island died because he was too fat. That fucker was close to 400 pounds and the officer had a choke hold on him for a few seconds while the cops rode him to the ground.

It looked like something you'd see at a rodeo. The guy suffocated because of his fat when he was on the ground.

I'm not to sure why the coroner called it a homicide, but he was wrong.

I saw that tape, it didn't look like they were trying to kill him.

If anything, police need more training on how to apprehend fat people. A lot of them die from breathing and heart problems when taken into custody.

Their little hearts can't stand a a couple of cops being on top of them, plus all that fat.

The same thing happened to a Down Syndrome kid in a movie theater here in Maryland. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/parents-file-lawsuit-in-movie-theater-death-of-26-year-old-with-down-syndrome/2013/10/17/915b5768-36a6-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html

His parents had let him gain so much weight that he was over 300 lbs, anyway he was in a theater and started screaming and causing a disturbance.

The police were called, and they had a hard time getting him out of there. The poor kid died from suffocation when he was on the ground.

Frankly, I blame the kid's parents, they let him get too fat. They killed him just as much as the cops did.

Same thing with the Staten Island fat dude, he ate himself into an accidental death at the hands of the police.

Rusty Jones
12-04-2014, 11:47 AM
The Grand jury is not supposed to be involved in deterimng guilt or innocence, they just need to determine if there is probable casue enough to have a trial to determine the full facts.

If it had not be a cop involved in NYC the grnd jury would have been shown the tape of the murder and that would have been the end of the hearing.

Then the cop who shot the man in Walmart in Ohio also didn't get indicted.

I don't understand - with multiple witness accounts, and even being caught on a video that goes viral... where the FUCK is the line that a cop has to cross in order to get indicted?

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 12:27 PM
Then the cop who shot the man in Walmart in Ohio also didn't get indicted.

I don't understand - with multiple witness accounts, and even being caught on a video that goes viral... where the FUCK is the line that a cop has to cross in order to get indicted?

I didn't see that one, got a link?

Rusty Jones
12-04-2014, 12:34 PM
I didn't see that one, got a link?

The Walmart incident? This was back from September.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/24/no-indictments-after-police-shoot-and-kill-man-at-an-ohio-wal-mart-justice-dept-launches-investigation/

SomeRandomGuy
12-04-2014, 12:44 PM
The Walmart incident? This was back from September.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/24/no-indictments-after-police-shoot-and-kill-man-at-an-ohio-wal-mart-justice-dept-launches-investigation/

Here is the surveillence video of that incident. The cops didn't give him much time to drop the weapon but at the same time how long should they wait? Is he supposed to shoot them first? Keep in mind they were told this was a real gun and that he was seen loading it. The person who is really responsible for the death here is the idiot 911 caller who amped the situation up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XYNOTUWfHE

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 12:55 PM
The Walmart incident? This was back from September.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/24/no-indictments-after-police-shoot-and-kill-man-at-an-ohio-wal-mart-justice-dept-launches-investigation/

I can't tell what happened from that article; I was hoping to watch the video.

I will say this, if you are confronted by a bunch of cops and you have an air rifle, the smart move would be to put it down, and not fuck with the cops.

Agree?

If I took my white ass into West Baltimore with an air rifle and started talking shit to two dudes on the corner selling drugs, would you be very surprised if they shot me?

The best I could hope for would be to get beaten within an inch of my life.

Granted, dealing with the police should be different, but I only bring that up to illustrate that all of these cases that we are talking about, the dead person put themselves in a dangerous situation.

I want our cops to be trained to use the minimum amount of force needed, but damn, can you come up with one of these cases that the black dude wasn't acting like a fucking moron?

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 01:08 PM
Here is the surveillence video of that incident. The cops didn't give him much time to drop the weapon but at the same time how long should they wait? Is he supposed to shoot them first? Keep in mind they were told this was a real gun and that he was seen loading it. The person who is really responsible for the death here is the idiot 911 caller who amped the situation up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XYNOTUWfHE

I can't listen to audio, but if the police fucked up it was in how they gathered information on what was going on.

They basically charged in as if they had an active shooter scenario.

What the fuck is Walmart doing leaving air rifles laying on the shelf like that? The damn thing should at least be in a box, or in a display case.

I say that is what caused the confusion in the dude that called 911. I'd get nervous too if I caught a glimpse of a guy with a rifle in a store aisle.

I take back what I said earlier about this particular guy acting like a moron.

Rusty Jones
12-04-2014, 01:14 PM
I want our cops to be trained to use the minimum amount of force needed, but damn, can you come up with one of these cases that the black dude wasn't acting like a fucking moron?

What about those white open-carry enthusiasts? Do you see any stories of cops going around ordering THEM to drop their guns?

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 01:23 PM
What about those white open-carry enthusiasts? Do you see any stories of cops going around ordering THEM to drop their guns?

A few of them caused a ruckus in Virginia last year at an Arby's, but no. I don't hear about them getting mowed down by the cops.

I'm not sure what the hell goes on in those cowboy states like Arizona and New Mexico where a lot people walk around like Wyatt Earp in ten gallon hats and pistols on their hips.

It does seem like it would cause trouble.

sandsjames
12-04-2014, 01:29 PM
What about those white open-carry enthusiasts? Do you see any stories of cops going around ordering THEM to drop their guns?

Very true.

I read an interesting article yesterday that was about racial profiling. What I thought was the most important part is the columnist mentioned how one of our biggest problems is that we are defining profiling and racism as the same thing, and that is one reason most people argue that it's not as wide spread as some claim.

For instance, the main study was a computer database where they showed pictures of people. Throughout the experiment, they showed the same face but with a different color. The point of the trial was to ask people who they thought looked more dangerous and intimidating.

Not surprisingly the majority of white people said that the person who was presented as black was more intimidating, even though they had seen the exact same person with white skin.

What is a little surprising is that the majority of blacks also said that the person with black skin looked more intimidating and dangerous.

So, the conclusion was that one doesn't have be racist, overtly or otherwise, to judge someone negatively or view them differently based on the color of their skin.

I think this is the discussion the nation needs to get into. If we can avoid labeling people as racist and talk about why we profile the way we do and how we can fix it I think some progress could definitely be made.

Stalwart
12-04-2014, 01:38 PM
What about those white open-carry enthusiasts? Do you see any stories of cops going around ordering THEM to drop their guns?

The difference is that someone who is just open carrying a weapon (in a holster on thier hip etc.) is not instantly acting in a threatening manner. Someone who is holding a weapon at the ready or in a shooting posture is exhibiting an increased level of threat to either the police of the public and when directed by an officer of the law to lower or drop the weapon, they should comply. People at Arbys or Starbucks may be uncomforatble and the business can sure ask them to leave, but from the perspective of an armed officer, a weapon on your hip is not an instant cause for force. The red line is the judgement of the officer as to whether or not he/she feels threatened. Asking an officer to in a split second make an evaluation if weapon is a bb gun, a toy or a real rife, evaluate the treat continuum of the situation, attempt to communicate to the subject the requirement to disarm etc. is a lot ... not impossible ... it is the expectation and the need for training that officers go through.

Based on experience, the same ROE applies in military combat, a guy with a rifle slung on his shoulder isn't necessarily a target that can be instantly engaged. A guy with a rifle or pistol at the ready is a potential threat. A guy with a rifle at his shoulder or an elevated pistol is a moderate threat until he either:

a. points the gun at me
b. moves towards me aggressively

cross either of those two red lines (even if he is not firing) and the ROE give me the legal justificiation to defend myself with deadly force -- and we do not fire warning shots.

SomeRandomGuy
12-04-2014, 01:42 PM
I can't listen to audio, but if the police fucked up it was in how they gathered information on what was going on.

They basically charged in as if they had an active shooter scenario.

What the fuck is Walmart doing leaving air rifles laying on the shelf like that? The damn thing should at least be in a box, or in a display case.

I say that is what caused the confusion in the dude that called 911. I'd get nervous too if I caught a glimpse of a guy with a rifle in a store aisle.

I take back what I said earlier about this particular guy acting like a moron.

I don't think the video I linked was the one I watched a few months ago. I just did a quick search. There is a video somewhere on YouTube that synced of the 911 call with the surveillence video. It's kind of odd because out of all the customers in the entire store only the 911 caller and the lady you see at the end with small kids even seemed scared by the person with a gun.

There were several other people who noticed the person carrying the gun but most of them alerted store security instead of calling 911. At the same time as this 911 call store security was actually looking for this guy too. They were just a bit slow getting to him. I have to think things would have ended much differently if store security confronted him as opposed to the officer carrying either an M4 or AR15 (can't tell from the video).

I do agree this guy was a dumbass for picking the gun up and carrying it around the store. Wal-Mart never actually explained why the gun was laying out either. This happened about 10 miles from my house. They don't sell those air rifles anymore but before this incident they did leave them out on the shelf instead of behind the gun counter. The really odd thing in this vidoe is the gun wasn't even in a box. It was just laying out on a shelf when he walked by and picked it up. He then carried it around the store talking on the phone to his dad. He is back in the dog food aisle when he gets shot. It seems like he really wasn't paying attention to anything and was sort of distracted talking on the phone. I kind of think when the cops confronted him he was more shocked than anything and turned towards them with the gun.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 01:58 PM
What about those white open-carry enthusiasts? Do you see any stories of cops going around ordering THEM to drop their guns?

There are stories, they just aren't covered by 100 thousand news outlets (that was hyperbole).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-cvipwCcm8


http://www.infowars.com/video-veteran-arrested-at-gunpoint-for-legal-open-carry/

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/09/gun_rights_group_claims_detroi.html

http://bearingarms.com/man-arrested-after-open-carrying-an-ar-15-into-texas-mall/

sandsjames
12-04-2014, 02:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/kristoff-oreilly-police-shooting-numbers-fact-check/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Some stats on how many people, white and black, get shot by cops. Also a good indicator of how facts are manipulated to meet agendas for both sides.

Rainmaker
12-04-2014, 02:15 PM
That is what I was talking about. Why are you acting like you are correcting me?



That dude on Staten Island died because he was too fat. That fucker was close to 400 pounds and the officer had a choke hold on him for a few seconds while the cops rode him to the ground.

It looked like something you'd see at a rodeo. The guy suffocated because of his fat when he was on the ground.

I'm not to sure why the coroner called it a homicide, but he was wrong.

I saw that tape, it didn't look like they were trying to kill him.

If anything, police need more training on how to apprehend fat people. A lot of them die from breathing and heart problems when taken into custody.

Their little hearts can't stand a a couple of cops being on top of them, plus all that fat.

The same thing happened to a Down Syndrome kid in a movie theater here in Maryland. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/parents-file-lawsuit-in-movie-theater-death-of-26-year-old-with-down-syndrome/2013/10/17/915b5768-36a6-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html

His parents had let him gain so much weight that he was over 300 lbs, anyway he was in a theater and started screaming and causing a disturbance.

The police were called, and they had a hard time getting him out of there. The poor kid died from suffocation when he was on the ground.

Frankly, I blame the kid's parents, they let him get too fat. They killed him just as much as the cops did.

Same thing with the Staten Island fat dude, he ate himself into an accidental death at the hands of the police.

How could anyone in the big apple possibly be obese? I thought Billionaire Mayor Bloomberg had banned Soda Pop?

Surely the People of NYC sleep peaceably at night, only because the rough men of the NYPD task force are policing the sale of lose cigarettes.

The owners are drunk with power. Stealing taxes from the King George III. Punishable by death. Same as it always was.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 02:24 PM
Very true.

I read an interesting article yesterday that was about racial profiling. What I thought was the most important part is the columnist mentioned how one of our biggest problems is that we are defining profiling and racism as the same thing, and that is one reason most people argue that it's not as wide spread as some claim.

For instance, the main study was a computer database where they showed pictures of people. Throughout the experiment, they showed the same face but with a different color. The point of the trial was to ask people who they thought looked more dangerous and intimidating.

Not surprisingly the majority of white people said that the person who was presented as black was more intimidating, even though they had seen the exact same person with white skin.

What is a little surprising is that the majority of blacks also said that the person with black skin looked more intimidating and dangerous.

So, the conclusion was that one doesn't have be racist, overtly or otherwise, to judge someone negatively or view them differently based on the color of their skin.

I think this is the discussion the nation needs to get into. If we can avoid labeling people as racist and talk about why we profile the way we do and how we can fix it I think some progress could definitely be made.

WHY people think that way (both black and white) HAS to be part of the equation. Part of the discussion. If it isn't (and it hasn't been up to now) then nothing will change.

In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin case there was the whole silly graphic of the hoodie (much like the now proven inaccurate 'hands up' graphic). There were mentions and visuals of it ad nauseam. Not once was the question "why is the hoodie significant?" asked. Why not the jeans Martin was wearing or the sneakers/shoes? To ask that one has to explore why that particular article of clothing might add to the profiling of a young black man and that is an uncomfortable discussion.

Ask a resident of LA what he or she thinks when they see a young Hispanic male dressed in a white t-shirt, baggy pants with a thin belt and either a dark knit cap or bandana on their head. They think gang member. Often times they would be wrong because after all not everyone wearing such clothing would be a gang member but WHY would they think that? Because history and experience has taught them that this is often or even sometimes the case.

I am not saying that if such articles of clothing are present then any negative thoughts are understandable or actions taken in response are equally excused. We need to change the culture that allows the behavior which becomes associated with these visible outward traits to flourish.

I doubt many of our posters who are parents would allow their children to wear articles of clothing with a swastika on it. Even if your child doesn't support white supremacy or the legacy of Hitler you probably wouldn't allow this. Why, what if it is just a clothing choice? I personally wouldn't because of the graphic it represents. The clothing however is unimportant compared to the fact that I would never allow my children to mimic the behavior of the people represented by that graphic. I quite the opposite rail vocally against such vile behavior.

The police and white people in general have a lot of honest self examination to do with regard to how blacks and other minorities are viewed and treated in this country but if the same self introspection is not done by the black and minority communities than I repeat...........nothing will change.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 02:36 PM
That is what I was talking about. Why are you acting like you are correcting me?



That dude on Staten Island died because he was too fat. That fucker was close to 400 pounds and the officer had a choke hold on him for a few seconds while the cops rode him to the ground.

It looked like something you'd see at a rodeo. The guy suffocated because of his fat when he was on the ground.

I'm not to sure why the coroner called it a homicide, but he was wrong.

I saw that tape, it didn't look like they were trying to kill him.

If anything, police need more training on how to apprehend fat people. A lot of them die from breathing and heart problems when taken into custody.

Their little hearts can't stand a a couple of cops being on top of them, plus all that fat.

The same thing happened to a Down Syndrome kid in a movie theater here in Maryland. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/parents-file-lawsuit-in-movie-theater-death-of-26-year-old-with-down-syndrome/2013/10/17/915b5768-36a6-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html

His parents had let him gain so much weight that he was over 300 lbs, anyway he was in a theater and started screaming and causing a disturbance.

The police were called, and they had a hard time getting him out of there. The poor kid died from suffocation when he was on the ground.

Frankly, I blame the kid's parents, they let him get too fat. They killed him just as much as the cops did.

Same thing with the Staten Island fat dude, he ate himself into an accidental death at the hands of the police.

Not sure how much of your post is tongue-in-cheek but after finally viewing the tape of the 'choke hold arrest' I have a somewhat different view than originally reported.

First of all THE 'choke hold' was never applied. He applied a 'choke takedown'. It is a bit of semantics but is important when you are discussing causing the death of someone and whether he should be charged with murder.

Look at the tape several times if need be. A true choke hold requires opposing forces to be applied to the neck of the target. The hand of the arm around the neck is placed on the other arm and opposing force is applied to the target's neck....cutting off his air supply.

The cope never locks his hand on his other arm. He actually seems to purposely avoid this and the other hand is on the shoulder of Mr. Garner. It is very hard to completely cut off the air supply of someone without this opposing force.

As AA has said Mr. Garner had several unfortunate complicating factors which contributed to his death. I believe this is why the 'no bill' decision was returned by the grand jury.

Now, having said all that there is certainly a discussion of the arrest and if it was truly necessary but police are often forced into a much escalated situation by their duty to arrest violators. Once the violation was determined should they have simply let Garner go with a warning? Perhaps but that is a bigger discussion and not related to actions taken by the cop who took him down. Well several cops as it turned out...it didn't look easy.

Rainmaker
12-04-2014, 03:11 PM
WHY people think that way (both black and white) HAS to be part of the equation. Part of the discussion. If it isn't (and it hasn't been up to now) then nothing will change.

The police and white people in general have a lot of honest self examination to do with regard to how blacks and other minorities are viewed and treated in this country but if the same self introspection is not done by the black and minority communities than I repeat...........nothing will change.

I am generally a supporter of the police. A couple of my uncles were Baltimore City Cops and After retiring from the Army in the early 80s my Father took a job as cop with them (thankfully he quit and moved us out of that shithole and back to the Family Homestead)

Cops have an important job to do. If they are called out, They have to uphold the law. No matter HOW stupid it may be. You can't have people intentionally defying them. But, How anyone could watch that video and not conclude that at the very least these guys were negligent and responsible for A wrongful death is beyond me.

As for Blacks, Let's face it. Too many of them are a Criminal menace to society. It is not by accident that The thug culture is being celebrated all over the media. It's the self-fulfilling prophesy. It's being intentionally done by design. We are witnessing a thinly veiled power grab. 21st Century Policing is code for further Nationalization and Militarization of local LEO.The 4th turning is here. Get right with your God (whoever that may be) Things are going to get worse before they get better.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 03:26 PM
Not sure how much of your post is tongue-in-cheek but after finally viewing the tape of the 'choke hold arrest' I have a somewhat different view than originally reported.

First of all THE 'choke hold' was never applied. He applied a 'choke takedown'. It is a bit of semantics but is important when you are discussing causing the death of someone and whether he should be charged with murder.

Look at the tape several times if need be. A true choke hold requires opposing forces to be applied to the neck of the target. The hand of the arm around the neck is placed on the other arm and opposing force is applied to the target's neck....cutting off his air supply.

The cope never locks his hand on his other arm. He actually seems to purposely avoid this and the other hand is on the shoulder of Mr. Garner. It is very hard to completely cut off the air supply of someone without this opposing force.

As AA has said Mr. Garner had several unfortunate complicating factors which contributed to his death. I believe this is why the 'no bill' decision was returned by the grand jury.

Now, having said all that there is certainly a discussion of the arrest and if it was truly necessary but police are often forced into a much escalated situation by their duty to arrest violators. Once the violation was determined should they have simply let Garner go with a warning? Perhaps but that is a bigger discussion and not related to actions taken by the cop who took him down. Well several cops as it turned out...it didn't look easy.

I really think his weight had more to do with his death than his race.

They wrestled him to the ground, they didn't choke him out.

He suffocated from them sitting on his back and holding his head to the side.

The death happened when they were searching him and cuffing him, not during the take down.

I doubt that those officers had any training on how to safely apprehend a obese dude like that.

Which is why I brought up the Downs Syndrome kid. He died the same way, after being subdued, but during the handcuffing procedure.

When someone is that fat, regular handcuffs won't work. You'll need 3-4 pairs of flex cuffs, and it takes longer.

They forced this guy into a position where he couldn't breath.

Poor training? Yes! Negligent homicide? Possibly.

Intentional murder? No

Racial lynching? Fuck no.

UncaRastus
12-04-2014, 03:54 PM
The USMC does variations on chokes and holds. Do NOT try this with your buddies. A choke hold that goes beyond 5 seconds can lead to brain damage or death.

For educational purposes only:

http://www.combatical.com/p/6-chokes-and-holds.html

sandsjames
12-04-2014, 04:06 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/03/nr-viral-man-hands-in-pocket-cops.cnn.html

A business calls the cops. The cops respond and asks the guy questions. Then the video goes viral, as if it's another example of blacks getting mistreated by cops. I'm curious as to what option the cop had. Not respond? Not talk to the guy?

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 04:27 PM
I really think his weight had more to do with his death than his race.

They wrestled him to the ground, they didn't choke him out.

He suffocated from them sitting on his back and holding his head to the side.

The death happened when they were searching him and cuffing him, not during the take down.

I doubt that those officers had any training on how to safely apprehend a obese dude like that.

Which is why I brought up the Downs Syndrome kid. He died the same way, after being subdued, but during the handcuffing procedure.

When someone is that fat, regular handcuffs won't work. You'll need 3-4 pairs of flex cuffs, and it takes longer.

They forced this guy into a position where he couldn't breath.

Poor training? Yes! Negligent homicide? Possibly.

Intentional murder? No

Racial lynching? Fuck no.

Well l said. I know the initial reaction is "why the fuck is it such a big deal over selling illegal cigarettes?" I can't say I don't agree to a certain point.

I was disturbed by the force being used to apprehend someone for such a minor offense but cops are trained a certain way and it is dangerous to modify the training to allow for too much discretion. Training has to be applied to all so a common denominator must be found. There is a covenant we are all part of in society. With regard to interaction with the police you must comply with lawful direction. If you don't there is a pre-determined outcome.........they will force compliance. There seems to be this growing attitude that it is somehow ok and actually cool to say ‘fuck you’ (literally or figuratively) to the cops. Some deserve the FU quite frankly but it is never, never a good idea.

I am confident in saying that anyone claiming any racial undertone is completely full of shit

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 04:29 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/03/nr-viral-man-hands-in-pocket-cops.cnn.html

A business calls the cops. The cops respond and asks the guy questions. Then the video goes viral, as if it's another example of blacks getting mistreated by cops. I'm curious as to what option the cop had. Not respond? Not talk to the guy?

The cop shouldn't have said anything about his hands being in his pockets as being the reason.

He should have said a store owner called because he was afraid you were planning to rob him.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 04:34 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/03/nr-viral-man-hands-in-pocket-cops.cnn.html

A business calls the cops. The cops respond and asks the guy questions. Then the video goes viral, as if it's another example of blacks getting mistreated by cops. I'm curious as to what option the cop had. Not respond? Not talk to the guy?

They had no option. At least not one that allowed them to fulfill their duty. The only question left is where does discretion come in play?

I watched Officer Wilson's interview on ABC. He was asked why he didn't just let Brown go after the initial confrontation. Aside from the stupidity of asking a cop why they should let someone go who has just assaulted them, putting aside the assault, Wilson's response was predictable and legitimate. He said "It was my duty". A normal guy on the street in such a predicament.....let the guy go who is leaving the scene. A cop doesn't have that option. Once a violation occurs, a legal resolution must be attempted.

This is one reason there is some disagreement about ceasing high-speed pursuits. The police must balance the safety of the public along the route of the chase with the need to apprehend a violator. It is a balancing act that is very difficult and without an obvious answer.

EDIT: I apologize, I thought SJ's video link was referring to the Eric Garner case. This post reflects in a general way on police stops and responses so I will let it stay as is.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 04:38 PM
The cop shouldn't have said anything about his hands being in his pockets as being the reason.

He should have said a store owner called because he was afraid you were planning to rob him.

He should have expanded on his comment about the hands and brought up the 'walking by the store 5-6 times'. That is a more legitimate reason for the stop. CNN didn't play the whole tape. The two get into a bit of a funny discussion about both filming each other.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 04:50 PM
He should have expanded on his comment about the hands and brought up the 'walking by the store 5-6 times'. That is a more legitimate reason for the stop. CNN didn't play the whole tape. The two get into a bit of a funny discussion about both filming each other.

Let me say essentially the same thing you just said, but with the tone that I am correcting you.

No, the cop should have explained himself better in the initial encounter.

sandsjames
12-04-2014, 04:57 PM
The cop shouldn't have said anything about his hands being in his pockets as being the reason.

He should have said a store owner called because he was afraid you were planning to rob him.

Yeah, that would have fixed it.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 05:00 PM
Let me say essentially the same thing you just said, but with the tone that I am correcting you.

No, the cop should have explained himself better in the initial encounter.

Yes, he should have.

You realize there is a difference between saying

"store owner called because he was afraid you were planning to rob him." (what action gave him this fear? Because he is black?)

and

"The store owner was concerned at your behavior in walking by the store 5-6 times" (more specific and a reasonable person can accept this explanation)

Don't be so sensitive. I didn't say you were wrong nor was I correcting you. I would have said things a little different.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-04-2014, 05:25 PM
Yes, he should have.

You realize there is a difference between saying

"store owner called because he was afraid you were planning to rob him." (what action gave him this fear? Because he is black?)

and

"The store owner was concerned at your behavior in walking by the store 5-6 times" (more specific and a reasonable person can accept this explanation)

Don't be so sensitive. I didn't say you were wrong nor was I correcting you. I would have said things a little different.

Don't be so sensitive? How about you stop being so insensitive?

Could it be that we have just stumbled upon the solution to this whole racial issue?

White cops are insensitive to the special needs of the black community. Black people are insensitive to the special challenges of policing in an urban environment.

Sensitivity training for everyone!

I'm going to my computer lab to develop some CBTs to sell to police departments that will increase their sensitivity.

Now, if I could only come up with a hook to sell CBTs to black folks.

MikeKerriii
12-04-2014, 05:36 PM
Here is the surveillence video of that incident. The cops didn't give him much time to drop the weapon but at the same time how long should they wait? Is he supposed to shoot them first? Keep in mind they were told this was a real gun and that he was seen loading it. The person who is really responsible for the death here is the idiot 911 caller who amped the situation up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XYNOTUWfHE

The might have waited long enough to determinism that he was in a aisle selling what he had in his hands and was on the phone so did not hear them. I guess immediate execution saves time

In Ohio it could have been a real gun and he would not have been breaking the law.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 05:37 PM
Don't be so sensitive? How about you stop being so insensitive?

Could it be that we have just stumbled upon the solution to this whole racial issue?

White cops are insensitive to the special needs of the black community. Black people are insensitive to the special challenges of policing in an urban environment.

Sensitivity training for everyone!

I'm going to my computer lab to develop some CBTs to sell to police departments that will increase their sensitivity.

Now, if I could only come up with a hook to sell CBTs to black folks.

Yeah, the whole problem here is my insensitivity. That's it.

I am curious though. You think the white cop telling the black male that the store owner feared he was going to rob him would have been the sensitive approach? Just want to be clear in the face of my insensitivity.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 05:41 PM
The might have waited long enough to determinism that he was in a aisle selling what he had in his hands and was on the phone so did not hear them. I guess immediate execution saves time

In Ohio it could have been a real gun and he would not have been breaking the law.

What did he drop just before he ran?

MikeKerriii
12-04-2014, 05:43 PM
What did he drop just before he ran?
He didn't run, that was a the reaction to him being murdered

SomeRandomGuy
12-04-2014, 05:50 PM
What did he drop just before he ran?

That was the weapon. He drops it when they shoot him the first time. He runs around the corner and then for some reason comes back towards them where they shot him a few more times.

This video has the full 911 Call. You can't hear the cops yell anything to him but you can hear the shots hired and them him screaming after he is hit. It's right around the 5:40 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqZ-teZsZmo

Rusty Jones
12-04-2014, 06:09 PM
Yeah, the whole problem here is my insensitivity. That's it.

I am curious though. You think the white cop telling the black male that the store owner feared he was going to rob him would have been the sensitive approach? Just want to be clear in the face of my insensitivity.

I suppose a better word than "sensitive" could be used, but I'd say so.

The problem is with the store owner, not the cop. Now, if the cop wanted to indicate that to the person that he stopped to make it clear that it wasn't his decision... is that frowned up in field of law enforcement? Surely, I believe that it would increase the likelihood of compliance; I'm just not sure if most police departments would consider that to be professional.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 06:10 PM
That was the weapon. He drops it when they shoot him the first time. He runs around the corner and then for some reason comes back towards them where they shot him a few more times.

This video has the full 911 Call. You can't hear the cops yell anything to him but you can hear the shots hired and them him screaming after he is hit. It's right around the 5:40 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqZ-teZsZmo

Thank you for an answer SRG. So at 8:26:54:20 the cop in shorts fires first which forces the kid to drop the gun, fall to the ground and move around the endcap to the viewer's left. He then come back and they shoot him again (that is not obvious from the tape). Is that your take on the incident?

EDIT: I keep reading about the kid being on the phone but it isn't really obvious (to me) on the video. I heard the guy on the 911 call say that but has this been confirmed. Was he holding a cell phone to his ear? I didn't hear the cops say anything. Has it been confirmed it was the kids shot that was screaming?

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 06:18 PM
I suppose a better word than "sensitive" could be used, but I'd say so.

The problem is with the store owner, not the cop. Now, if the cop wanted to indicate that to the person that he stopped to make it clear that it wasn't his decision... is that frowned up in field of law enforcement? Surely, I believe that it would increase the likelihood of compliance; I'm just not sure if most police departments would consider that to be professional.

There is the consideration of causing retaliation against the store owner but there is nothing wrong with expanding the reason for the stop to whatever point is possible to include stating in general terms that he had been observed loitering in the area, passing the same location 5-6 times.

I am not sure there is a problem (with what we know) with the store owner. It is entirely possible the store owner acted out of some deep seated racial bias. It is equally possible that he has been the victim of robbery and the man in question exhibited similar behavior patterns of a robber. The bottom line is that he felt there was a threat so he called 911.

BENDER56
12-04-2014, 06:18 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/kristoff-oreilly-police-shooting-numbers-fact-check/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Some stats on how many people, white and black, get shot by cops. Also a good indicator of how facts are manipulated to meet agendas for both sides.

The significant part of that article, for me anyways, is that the reporting (or lack thereof) of "legal intervention" deaths by law enforcement agencies is haphazard and incomplete.

Here's something on the same topic from Reason.com:

"So The Wall Street Journal attempted to compare numbers from law enforcement agencies with the numbers on the FBI’s reports between the years 2007 and 2012. They found more than 500 deaths at the hands of law enforcement agencies unaccounted for in the FBI’s reports. They conclude “it’s nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year”"

and;

"Justifiable police homicides from 35 of the 105 large agencies contacted by the Journal didn’t appear in the FBI records at all. Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported. The Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia, for example, said it didn’t consider such cases to be an “actual offense,” and thus doesn’t report them to the FBI."

In case you skimmed over it, let me repeat this part: "Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported."

So law enforcement officers are killing citizens (or even non-citizens -- doesn't much matter) who at the time are only suspected of committing a crime -- crimes that are often non-capital offenses -- and the agencies don't think the rest of the citizenry needs to know about that.

Right. Of course.

Move along, now.

Nothing to see here.

Whole article here: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/03/eric-garners-death-wont-even-show-up-in

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 06:26 PM
The significant part of that article, for me anyways, is that the reporting (or lack thereof) of "legal intervention" deaths by law enforcement agencies is haphazard and incomplete.

Here's something on the same topic from Reason.com:

"So The Wall Street Journal attempted to compare numbers from law enforcement agencies with the numbers on the FBI’s reports between the years 2007 and 2012. They found more than 500 deaths at the hands of law enforcement agencies unaccounted for in the FBI’s reports. They conclude “it’s nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year”"

and;

"Justifiable police homicides from 35 of the 105 large agencies contacted by the Journal didn’t appear in the FBI records at all. Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported. The Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia, for example, said it didn’t consider such cases to be an “actual offense,” and thus doesn’t report them to the FBI."

In case you skimmed over it, let me repeat this part: "Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported."

So law enforcement officers are killing citizens (or even non-citizens -- doesn't much matter) who at the time are only suspected of committing a crime -- crimes that are often non-capital offenses -- and the agencies don't think the rest of the citizenry needs to know about that.

Right. Of course.

Move along, now.

Nothing to see here.

Whole article here: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/03/eric-garners-death-wont-even-show-up-in

I think they should be reported with very obvious labeling. Of course that is assuming that justifiable homicides by regular citizens are reported.

They aren't BTW: From the FBI's UCR page regarding Murder reporting....."The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are classified as aggravated assaults"

SomeRandomGuy
12-04-2014, 06:29 PM
Thank you for an answer SRG. So at 8:26:54:20 the cop in shorts fires first which forces the kid to drop the gun, fall to the ground and move around the endcap to the viewer's left. He then come back and they shoot him again (that is not obvious from the tape). Is that your take on the incident?

EDIT: I keep reading about the kid being on the phone but it isn't really obvious (to me) on the video. Has this been confirmed. Was he holding a cell phone to his ear? If he didn't hear the cop's warning they are the most timid cops I have ever heard of.

I just found the video from the press conference.

http://wdtn.com/2014/09/24/video-walmart-grand-jury-announcement-in-its-entirety/

I stand corrected on the amoutn of shots fired. Right about the 24:30 mark in this video is the special prosecutor from cincinati explaining the decision. The officers fired two shots which caused him to drop the weapon. he disappears around the end cap and then comes back towards the officer but the officer did not fire anymore shots.

As for the phone yes that is confirmed. He is on it the whole time. His family has came out separatly and said he was talking to his father on the phone. His family actually heard the last moments of his life.

sandsjames
12-04-2014, 06:35 PM
The significant part of that article, for me anyways, is that the reporting (or lack thereof) of "legal intervention" deaths by law enforcement agencies is haphazard and incomplete.

Here's something on the same topic from Reason.com:

"So The Wall Street Journal attempted to compare numbers from law enforcement agencies with the numbers on the FBI’s reports between the years 2007 and 2012. They found more than 500 deaths at the hands of law enforcement agencies unaccounted for in the FBI’s reports. They conclude “it’s nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year”"

and;

"Justifiable police homicides from 35 of the 105 large agencies contacted by the Journal didn’t appear in the FBI records at all. Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported. The Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia, for example, said it didn’t consider such cases to be an “actual offense,” and thus doesn’t report them to the FBI."

In case you skimmed over it, let me repeat this part: "Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported."

So law enforcement officers are killing citizens (or even non-citizens -- doesn't much matter) who at the time are only suspected of committing a crime -- crimes that are often non-capital offenses -- and the agencies don't think the rest of the citizenry needs to know about that.

Right. Of course.

Move along, now.

Nothing to see here.

Whole article here: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/03/eric-garners-death-wont-even-show-up-in

Why would you think I may have skimmed over it? I was simply pointing out how 2 sides of a story can state "facts" about a single topic and both be able to make things fit their agenda while, at the same time, both being correct. I wasn't picking sides. Just found it interesting.

BENDER56
12-04-2014, 06:39 PM
Why would you think I may have skimmed over it? I was simply pointing out how 2 sides of a story can state "facts" about a single topic and both be able to make things fit their agenda while, at the same time, both being correct. I wasn't picking sides. Just found it interesting.

... the hell?

Look, SJ, I realize I quoted your comment in my comment, but nothing in it was directed at you. It was merely so anyone reading my comment would know what I was referring to.

Sorry if you took it as a personal jab. It was in no way meant that way.

TJMAC77SP
12-04-2014, 06:40 PM
I just found the video from the press conference.

http://wdtn.com/2014/09/24/video-walmart-grand-jury-announcement-in-its-entirety/

I stand corrected on the amoutn of shots fired. Right about the 24:30 mark in this video is the special prosecutor from cincinati explaining the decision. The officers fired two shots which caused him to drop the weapon. he disappears around the end cap and then comes back towards the officer but the officer did not fire anymore shots.

As for the phone yes that is confirmed. He is on it the whole time. His family has came out separatly and said he was talking to his father on the phone. His family actually heard the last moments of his life.

That is harsh. I sincerely feel for him (and the whole family). I can't imagine hearing the last moments of my son's lives.

I have also referred to him as a kid. He was clearly an adult

sandsjames
12-04-2014, 06:42 PM
... the hell?

Look, SJ, I realize I quoted your comment in my comment, but nothing in it was directed at you. It was merely so anyone reading my comment would know what I was referring to.

Sorry if you took it as a personal jab. It was in no way meant that way.Ok...forgive me for being defensive. It was the "in case you skimmed over it" comment that I took the wrong way. My apologies.

BENDER56
12-04-2014, 07:03 PM
Ok...forgive me for being defensive. It was the "in case you skimmed over it" comment that I took the wrong way. My apologies.

I suspect many people, like me, don't fully read all the longer comments so I threw that in there in the hopes that scary part wouldn't get passed over.

No apologies necessary. I gotta remember that using a quote in a comment is usually interpreted as a response directly to the person having been quoted.

Rainmaker
12-04-2014, 07:13 PM
There is the consideration of causing retaliation against the store owner but there is nothing wrong with expanding the reason for the stop to whatever point is possible to include stating in general terms that he had been observed loitering in the area, passing the same location 5-6 times.

I am not sure there is a problem (with what we know) with the store owner. It is entirely possible the store owner acted out of some deep seated racial bias. It is equally possible that he has been the victim of robbery and the man in question exhibited similar behavior patterns of a robber. The bottom line is that he felt there was a threat so he called 911.

Rainmaker'll take Full odds on this.

postjudice (plural postjudices)
1.A prejudice or bias acquired after the fact, or after a given event.

sandsjames
12-04-2014, 08:20 PM
Wasn't there a disagreement somewhere about whether or not the DOJ would be getting involved in these types of cases?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/12/04/sot-holder-doj-cleveland-police-dept-investigation.cnn&hpt=hp_t2&from_homepage=yes&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

garhkal
12-04-2014, 08:59 PM
I'm not to sure why the coroner called it a homicide, but he was wrong.

From what i have read, he labeled it a homicide cause there Was damage to the throat.



I saw that tape, it didn't look like they were trying to kill him.

From all my security training in take downs and chokes, it (to my perception) DID look like a choke hold.
BUT that said, in the show Cops, i see a lot of instances where once someone is taken down, cause they are still resisting, cops putting their knees into the back, on the back of the neck and such. So maybe those helped "compress" his already oversized chest into his lungs.


Then the cop who shot the man in Walmart in Ohio also didn't get indicted.

I don't understand - with multiple witness accounts, and even being caught on a video that goes viral... where the FUCK is the line that a cop has to cross in order to get indicted?

I am wondering that myself.
But that guy in walmart from all accounts, failed to drop a gun after being ordered to, several times. It wasn't till afterwards the cops found out it was a BB pellet gun.


What about those white open-carry enthusiasts? Do you see any stories of cops going around ordering THEM to drop their guns?

Surprisingly i have not.



I think this is the discussion the nation needs to get into. If we can avoid labeling people as racist and talk about why we profile the way we do and how we can fix it I think some progress could definitely be made.

Well said SJ.
One of my favorite comments from one of the GOPUSA threads on all this, is where someone mentioned
"It used to be, when a person was considered discriminating" he had good tastes, not that he (or she) was a racist. So when did that change?

TJMAC77SP
12-05-2014, 10:44 PM
Regardless what you think of whether the cops in the Eric Johnson case should be charged or not THIS should just piss you off.

HLN had some hip-hop performer on today and he went on for at least five minutes how he and other hip hop performers are pissed and something has to be done to change the behavior of the cops blah, blah, blah.

That is ALL he said.

What is wrong with this picture? Remember what I said earlier about both sides bringing the total truth to the table or nothing would change? Anyone want to take bets here?

Don't get me wrong some are speaking the whole truth but what bothers me is that no one (journalists) challenge these nitwits. Force the discussion. They have taken on the mantle so carry it properly and with integrity.

A couple of years ago, the local school system decided to use MLK's birthday as a school day to make up for some early snow days taken. The local NAACP president raised holy hell about this. Ok, I get that. His organization represents a specific group so he speaks for them. He is an asshat (he called for a boycott of Charlotte the same year as the Democratic Convention..........yep.........asshat).
The reporter just held the microphone under his enormous and numerous chins nodding in agreement.

Not one quesiton about how he felt (or why he didn't make any comments) about the fact that the previous school year the same school district had used Memorial Day for a make-up day.

Don't get me wrong, the make-up days issue is minor in comparison to all that is going on now but Jesus Christ............what happened to the profession?

garhkal
12-06-2014, 04:05 AM
Don't get me wrong, the make-up days issue is minor in comparison to all that is going on now but Jesus Christ............what happened to the profession?

It seems to me, that any time the NAACP can raise the 'race card' they do so even when there is no merit. Just cause too many people shy away from challenging it, and cave into their demands.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-06-2014, 12:08 PM
Regardless what you think of whether the cops in the Eric Johnson case should be charged or not THIS should just piss you off.

HLN had some hip-hop performer on today and he went on for at least five minutes how he and other hip hop performers are pissed and something has to be done to change the behavior of the cops blah, blah, blah.

That is ALL he said.

What is wrong with this picture? Remember what I said earlier about both sides bringing the total truth to the table or nothing would change? Anyone want to take bets here?

Don't get me wrong some are speaking the whole truth but what bothers me is that no one (journalists) challenge these nitwits. Force the discussion. They have taken on the mantle so carry it properly and with integrity.

A couple of years ago, the local school system decided to use MLK's birthday as a school day to make up for some early snow days taken. The local NAACP president raised holy hell about this. Ok, I get that. His organization represents a specific group so he speaks for them. He is an asshat (he called for a boycott of Charlotte the same year as the Democratic Convention..........yep.........asshat).
The reporter just held the microphone under his enormous and numerous chins nodding in agreement.

Not one quesiton about how he felt (or why he didn't make any comments) about the fact that the previous school year the same school district had used Memorial Day for a make-up day.

Don't get me wrong, the make-up days issue is minor in comparison to all that is going on now but Jesus Christ............what happened to the profession?

Why don't you organize a few Tea Party "support the cops" marches?

Combine it with a country music festival, and give away a bunch of those Duluth Trading Company flannel shirts, you know, the kind specifically designed for fat dudes. They have "armpit gussets" to accommodate extra fat, but they market them like gussets are for lumberjacks.

Anyway, the Tea Party crowd loves stuff like that, so you could get a lot of people showing up to march in counter protests if you gave away those "armpit gusset" shirts.

Also, you can get a spokesperson to talk in a ridiculously deep and burly voice, and you'll have multitudes of Tea Partiers flocking to your rally.

PS

The media has always been agenda driven. Oh, how did you find out about a school system using Memorial Day to make up a snow day? Some type of news media, right?

Rainmaker
12-06-2014, 03:26 PM
Why don't you organize a few Tea Party "support the cops" marches?

Combine it with a country music festival, and give away a bunch of those Duluth Trading Company flannel shirts, you know, the kind specifically designed for fat dudes. They have "armpit gussets" to accommodate extra fat, but they market them like gussets are for lumberjacks.

Anyway, the Tea Party crowd loves stuff like that, so you could get a lot of people showing up to march in counter protests if you gave away those "armpit gusset" shirts.

Also, you can get a spokesperson to talk in a ridiculously deep and burly voice, and you'll have multitudes of Tea Partiers flocking to your rally.

PS

The media has always been agenda driven. Oh, how did you find out about a school system using Memorial Day to make up a snow day? Some type of news media, right?

Did you say TEA Party??!! Oh my God Noooo, what are you crazy?? with the climate the way it is right now, .gov can't risk dangerous zealots taking to the streets demanding things like, God, guns, American oil, strong defense, spending control, no Amnesty, less government, less taxes, less abortion...

Absinthe Anecdote
12-06-2014, 04:15 PM
Did you say TEA Party??!! Oh my God Noooo, what are you crazy?? with the climate the way it is right now, .gov can't risk dangerous zealots taking to the streets demanding things like, God, guns, American oil, strong defense, spending control, no Amnesty, less government, less taxes, less abortion...

They certainly can go out and support the cops at rallies and marches in their armpit gusset shirts.


http://youtu.be/7aXN88KtBdY

It would be easy to call them to come out and march if you gave away these shirts, because they really like them.

They also really like the over-the-top baritone voice of the announcer in this commercial.

I think all one would need to get the Tea Party to rally and support the cops would be to get a guy who talks like that.

They'd show up in very large numbers if they had a deep voiced speaker to call them to arms.

Rainmaker
12-06-2014, 05:52 PM
They certainly can go out and support the cops at rallies and marches in their armpit gusset shirts.


http://youtu.be/7aXN88KtBdY

It would be easy to call them to come out and march if you gave away these shirts, because they really like them.

They also really like the over-the-top baritone voice of the announcer in this commercial.

I think all one would need to get the Tea Party to rally and support the cops would be to get a guy who talks like that.

They'd show up in very large numbers if they had a deep voiced speaker to call them to arms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNhsfVSFEXg

Abs Think that he swaggin cause his pants saggin

Stalwart
12-06-2014, 06:42 PM
What happened in MO & NY is tragic but the process played out and the process is in general protective of a law enforcement officer who executes his job ‘in good faith.’ Granted that we should have a high expectation of an officer of the law to execute his job professionally and that the officer is going to handle a bad situation with better judgement than a non-officer (not always the case but we should expect it.)

A couple of things:

1. There are millions of interactions between police and civilians every year, very – VERY few end up with the death of a civilian

2. I don’t think either of the officers in the MO or NY case woke up and said “I am going to go out and kill a black guy today.” I don’t think either of them as the situation unfolded said “here’s my chance to kill a black guy and get away with it.”
But, we can inject stereotypes and name calling and ignore things like:
In 2011:
a. There were 14,548 homicides in the USA.
b. 4729 (32%) were committed by whites (who make up 77% of the population)
c. 5486 (37%) were committed by blacks (who make up who make up 13% of the population
d. 256 were committed by ‘other’ ethnicities
e. And 4,077 are ‘unknown’


Just seeing the statistics that looks disproportionate and it is especially tragic when you note that about 93% of blacks who are killed are killed by other blacks, and about 84 % of whites are killed by other whites – newsflash -- an overwhelming number of homicide victims know the people who actually kill them and most people relationships are primarily of someone of a similar ethnicity.

Black Americans are arrested at 2.6 times the per-capita rate of all other Americans, and this ratio is even higher for murder (6.3 times) and robbery (8.1 times). One has to go beyond the plain statistics and ask, are they being disproportionately persecuted or committing more crime? Are there more arrests in urban areas where crime is higher, people are populated more densely and where there are more police? Is there a cultural problem that is preventing segments of the community from taking advantage of opportunities in America to get out of a bad situation? Some people rise above the bad circumstances they are born into … some don’t … why?

We can also ignore that at some point, culturally it became acceptable/expected/cool to push back or provoke police and turn a routine situation to a fiasco. In both the MO & NY cases, even if the police had acted in bad faith, both situations would have never happend if the victims had complied with the police requests.

A man who was pulled over by a police officer for a traffic stop then sucker-punched and beat the cop (in front of his teenage daughter) did so because he had an outstanding warrant and was looking at 5-10 days in jail for that warrant … 5 to 10 days in jail … he later received 60 years in prison for the assault on the police officer. 5 to 10 days vs. 60 years. Yes, there is mutual distrust but seeing the situation many police find themselves in EVERY DAY I can understand the hyper-vigilance. My brother is a police officer, and while I have done very dangerous things at certain times over the years … his job is day in day out more dangerous than mine ever was.

We can ignore that Michael Brown in MO was not shot for being black, was not shot for walking down the middle of the road, nor was he shot for having just violently robbed a convenience store. He was shot because he assaulted an experienced police officer who felt that his life may be in danger. “Hands up don’t shoot” is a powerful message – it is unfortunate that the physical evidence in this case doesn’t match that message.

We can ignore that in the Eric Garner case, the police were called to the scene after a shop owner called them because Garner was pacing back and forth in front of their store. Garner had a long criminal history (again, mostly minor) and he was non-compliant with requests from the officer. Garner pushed off the police when they attemped to hand cuff him. Eric Garner's death was found by the New York City Medical Examiner's Office to be a result of compression to the neck, compression to the body, and prone positioning, along with asthma, heart disease and obesity as major contributing factors. We can also ignore that the chokehold was so minor that "there was no damage to the windpipe or neckbones."

It is unfortunate that people on right and left, or who are black or white are lining up based on what is easily identifyable (skin color) and picking a side and not truly interested in solving the problem but stirring enflamed emotion.

garhkal
12-06-2014, 09:27 PM
I find this fubar.. Days after Mr Besic was attacked and killed, we still are hearing the media not label it a hate crime, but now after it happened again (though the victim is alive), they ARE labelling it, cause it was a female attacked..

http://fox2now.com/2014/12/05/attack-of-bosnian-woman-being-investigated-as-hate-crime/

http://www.stlouisstar.com/index.php/sid/228268105

So i guess whether something is a hate crime depends on whether its a woman or man who gets attacked? Or at least that is what i take from this.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-06-2014, 09:31 PM
But, we can inject stereotypes and name calling and ignore things like:
In 2011:
a. There were 14,548 homicides in the USA.
b. 4729 (32%) were committed by whites (who make up 77% of the population)
c. 5486 (37%) were committed by blacks (who make up who make up 13% of the

That would be the violence in black urban communities that is linked to gang activity associated with the distribution of street drugs.

Gang activity has plagued our cities since the 1800s, it always coalesces around the poorest of us, and that happens to be blacks and Latinos right now.

We apparently didn't learn much from our nation's experiences during the prohibition era. Legalize pot, herion, cocaine, and meth. Sounds crazy, even to a guy like me, but I'm sure the murder rate would plummet.

As far as us lining up along racial and political lines?

LOL

That isn't going to change, it just isn't.

And you'll always have jokers like me poking sharp sticks at guys like TJ, Rusty, rainmaker, and garkhal.

Not that they are all the same politically or even racially, because they aren't.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2014, 10:47 PM
Why don't you organize a few Tea Party "support the cops" marches?

Combine it with a country music festival, and give away a bunch of those Duluth Trading Company flannel shirts, you know, the kind specifically designed for fat dudes. They have "armpit gussets" to accommodate extra fat, but they market them like gussets are for lumberjacks.

Anyway, the Tea Party crowd loves stuff like that, so you could get a lot of people showing up to march in counter protests if you gave away those "armpit gusset" shirts.

Also, you can get a spokesperson to talk in a ridiculously deep and burly voice, and you'll have multitudes of Tea Partiers flocking to your rally.

PS

The media has always been agenda driven. Oh, how did you find out about a school system using Memorial Day to make up a snow day? Some type of news media, right?

No, my son was still in high school.

Was there anything of substance you wanted to say?

Do you feel anyone who supports the police is just Tea Party material? That's what your post sounded like. Are we back to attempting to paint me as a Tea Party member?

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2014, 10:50 PM
That would be the violence in black urban communities that is linked to gang activity associated with the distribution of street drugs.

Gang activity has plagued our cities since the 1800s, it always coalesces around the poorest of us, and that happens to be blacks and Latinos right now.

We apparently didn't learn much from our nation's experiences during the prohibition era. Legalize pot, herion, cocaine, and meth. Sounds crazy, even to a guy like me, but I'm sure the murder rate would plummet.

As far as us lining up along racial and political lines?

LOL

That isn't going to change, it just isn't.

And you'll always have jokers like me poking sharp sticks at guys like TJ, Rusty, rainmaker, and garkhal.

Not that they are all the same politically or even racially, because they aren't.

Not of course but somehow you lumped us all together. I call that a Marc Anthony argument.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-06-2014, 11:19 PM
Do you feel anyone who supports the police is just Tea Party material? That's what your post sounded like. Are we back to attempting to paint me as a Tea Party member?

No, I'm generally supportive of law enforcement, and the vast majority of officers that I've encountered are extremely professional people. They do a difficult job, and are often resented for it.

However, I do acknowledge that some departments have inadequate training and that causes all kinds of problems.

I do think you are Tea Party-ish, but I'll let you in on a secret, smaller government sounds pretty good to me.

What irks me about them is the loud mouthed crap, country music, and shirts with armpit gussets. I can live with smaller government, but not that other crap.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-06-2014, 11:28 PM
Not of course but somehow you lumped us all together. I call that a Marc Anthony argument.

Which one?

The one married to J-Lo, the guy who played bass for Van Halen, or the who banged Cleopatra? That might have been Mark Antony though.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2014, 11:56 PM
Which one?

The one married to J-Lo, the guy who played bass for Van Halen, or the who banged Cleopatra? That might have been Mark Antony though.

Which one did you think I meant?

BTW: Had I been here the last few days and had seen it first I would have given you a pass on impression

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2014, 12:00 AM
No, I'm generally supportive of law enforcement, and the vast majority of officers that I've encountered are extremely professional people. They do a difficult job, and are often resented for it.

However, I do acknowledge that some departments have inadequate training and that causes all kinds of problems.

I do think you are Tea Party-ish, but I'll let you in on a secret, smaller government sounds pretty good to me.

What irks me about them is the loud mouthed crap, country music, and shirts with armpit gussets. I can live with smaller government, but not that other crap.

Exactly where have I taken any stance on the size of government? It's a rhetorical question........I haven't.

What I love is that you think the Tea Party is any more loud mouthed than some of the more vocal far left (I am sure you listen to Rachel Maddow. That isn't a slam against her but surely you won't call her anything but loud-mouthed.) So what exactly is it you don't like about the tea party? Well anything that is unique to them?

BTW: Serious question. Is that the single biggest issue for the tea party, small government? I thought it was balanced budget, less spending and general fiscal conservatism. Again, serious question. I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but I don't really know much detail about them (other than they are giving the GOP establishment fits).

Absinthe Anecdote
12-07-2014, 12:05 AM
Which one did you think I meant?

You probably don't know who J-Lo is, and a Van Halen reference isn't very likely to come out of your wheelhouse either, so I'll go with Mark Antony.

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2014, 12:12 AM
You probably don't know who J-Lo is, and a Van Halen reference isn't very likely to come out of your wheelhouse either, so I'll go with Mark Antony.

I don't know an American male who doesn't know who J-Lo is and I spent part of an evening with the entire Van Halen band (DLR days) as Eddie played the piano with a jazz trio and he also played his acoustic guitar and I then helped carry Valerie out of a Raleigh hotel at 4 am. One of the stories going in my book I suppose.

Any more pettiness tonight?

Capt Alfredo
12-07-2014, 12:34 AM
You probably don't know who J-Lo is, and a Van Halen reference isn't very likely to come out of your wheelhouse either, so I'll go with Mark Antony.

Michael Anthony is the droid you're looking for.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-07-2014, 01:11 AM
Michael Anthony is the droid you're looking for.

Not me, TJ is the one looking for him.

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2014, 01:18 AM
Not me, TJ is the one looking for him.

That answers my last question.

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2014, 04:21 AM
Leaving the childish bullshit aside, something to show you that there is hope.

http://madworldnews.com/watch-happens-black-man-brings-white-girlfriend-harlem-barbershop/

garhkal
12-07-2014, 04:40 AM
What I love is that you think the Tea Party is any more loud mouthed than some of the more vocal far left (I am sure you listen to Rachel Maddow. That isn't a slam against her but surely you won't call her anything but loud-mouthed.) So what exactly is it you don't like about the tea party? Well anything that is unique to them?

BTW: Serious question. Is that the single biggest issue for the tea party, small government? I thought it was balanced budget, less spending and general fiscal conservatism. Again, serious question. I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but I don't really know much detail about them (other than they are giving the GOP establishment fits).

I would like to know, do both of you feel the tea party is more or less vocal than say these blacks demonstrating in Fergusun and elsewhere? What about the LGBT community in their attempts to get equality?
What of the fast food workers in their attempt to get 15 bucks an hour?

Absinthe Anecdote
12-07-2014, 10:57 AM
Leaving the childish bullshit aside, something to show you that there is hope.

http://madworldnews.com/watch-happens-black-man-brings-white-girlfriend-harlem-barbershop/

Is that directed at me?

No problem, Everyone on this forum knows I'm childish.

However, please come up with something a bit more substantial as proof there is hope than ABC's "What would you do?"

You do know the whole thing is scripted, right? The good guys, the bad guys, all of it.

LOL

You might as well have posted an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, or Undercover Boss.

You crack me up, you really do. Maybe you're still hazy from the night you carried Valerie Bertinelli out of a hotel room at 4am.

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2014, 05:20 PM
Is that directed at me?

No problem, Everyone on this forum knows I'm childish.

However, please come up with something a bit more substantial as proof there is hope than ABC's "What would you do?"

You do know the whole thing is scripted, right? The good guys, the bad guys, all of it.

LOL

You might as well have posted an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, or Undercover Boss.

You crack me up, you really do. Maybe you're still hazy from the night you carried Valerie Bertinelli out of a hotel room at 4am.

Yes, you are childish. Mostly when you don't really have anything of substance to add. Snarky insults are not substantial. They sometimes result in PM's from the mods though.

Helped her out of a hotel. Pay attention AA.

So you are saying that the black customers responses were scripted on that show?

Rainmaker
12-07-2014, 06:04 PM
Leaving the childish bullshit aside, something to show you that there is hope.

http://madworldnews.com/watch-happens-black-man-brings-white-girlfriend-harlem-barbershop/

Thanks for reminding Rainmaker why he got rid of Broadcast TV.

"a sermon at the barbershop now ringing through the streets of Harlem and beyond". meh

Do we get credit for our company Diversity Training for the year now?

Absinthe Anecdote
12-07-2014, 07:24 PM
Yes, you are childish. Mostly when you don't really have anything of substance to add. Snarky insults are not substantial. They sometimes result in PM's from the mods though.

Helped her out of a hotel. Pay attention AA.

So you are saying that the black customers responses were scripted on that show?

I can't say that I think ABC's "What would you do?" isn't completely scripted.

This one seems highly suspect to me. Some of the camera angles before the reveal are at eye level, which seems weird to me.


http://youtu.be/4LJhMqXF98U

I'm thinking the people who believe this stuff without question are the ones who get weepy eyed and watch the show with a box of tissues.

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2014, 08:15 PM
I can't say that I think ABC's "What would you do?" isn't completely scripted.

This one seems highly suspect to me. Some of the camera angles before the reveal are at eye level, which seems weird to me.


http://youtu.be/4LJhMqXF98U

I'm thinking the people who believe this stuff without question are the ones who get weepy eyed and watch the show with a box of tissues.

I couldn't finish the video. It kept freezing.

I haven't watched much of that show. I mostly hate all reality tv. I agree that most of it doesn't seem 'real' most of the time. I genuinely thought the reaction from the beauty shop patrons was real.

Rainmaker
12-07-2014, 08:37 PM
I couldn't finish the video. It kept freezing.

I haven't watched much of that show. I mostly hate all reality tv. I agree that most of it doesn't seem 'real' most of the time. I genuinely thought the reaction from the beauty shop patrons was real.

How many "customers" would you guess they went thru before they got the desired response?

TJMAC77SP
12-07-2014, 08:45 PM
How many "customers" would you guess they went thru before they got the desired response?

Valid question I suppose.

Stalwart
12-13-2014, 04:31 PM
This incident took place 22 NOV in Cleveland:


http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/justice/cleveland-tamir-rice/

911 is called about an individual in a public park with a pistol.

Police arrive and within 2 seconds they shoot him (individual dies the next day.)

Turns out that:

-individual is a 12 year old (weighs 195 pounds so could be confused with an adult.)

-pistol is a pellet gun with the orange safety tip removed.

-the person who called 911 told the 911 operator that the gun might be fake ... this was not relayed to the police who arrived on the scene.

The video shows that as the police arrive the kid appears to reach to his waist (the pellet gun was tucked into his pants.)

The kid's family has filed a lawsuit against the city and two officers.

IMO, based on the little bit I know about it, it sounds like there is cause to file suit against the city since the 911 operator didn't relay that the weapon might be fake. As far as the officers, based on what they knew and observed -- adult sized person who looks to be reaching fo a weapon as they pull up .. I don't see overt negligence.

Both of the officers have had issues in the past.

Rollyn01
12-13-2014, 06:22 PM
This incident took place 22 NOV in Cleveland:


http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/justice/cleveland-tamir-rice/

911 is called about an individual in a public park with a pistol.

Police arrive and within 2 seconds they shoot him (individual dies the next day.)

Turns out that:

-individual is a 12 year old (weighs 195 pounds so could be confused with an adult.)

-pistol is a pellet gun with the orange safety tip removed.

-the person who called 911 told the 911 operator that the gun might be fake ... this was not relayed to the police who arrived on the scene.

The video shows that as the police arrive the kid appears to reach to his waist (the pellet gun was tucked into his pants.)

The kid's family has filed a lawsuit against the city and two officers.

IMO, based on the little bit I know about it, it sounds like there is cause to file suit against the city since the 911 operator didn't relay that the weapon might be fake. As far as the officers, based on what they knew and observed -- adult sized person who looks to be reaching fo a weapon as they pull up .. I don't see overt negligence.

Both of the officers have had issues in the past.

Just wow... I believe the family has a case in this one. The 911 operator didn't relay all information like they was suppose to. The speed at which the cops jumped out indicates there wasn't any attempt or intent to even verify the offense, must less apprehend the kid if he was in the wrong. So I'm left asking two questions:

1. Why, if it is reported that someone is armed and you have a vehicle, are you going around the vehicle instead of using it as a shield to properly engage (whether you're going to shot them or not) the suspect?

2. If the witness calling 911 thinks that it might be possible that the suspect is a minor and has a fake gun, how in the world are the cops (who should know what a real gun looks like and obviously had full view of him before they got out the car) can't reasonably think the same?


They could have just questioned him in the vehicle or even from a distance. Did they really had to roll up on him like that?

Stalwart
12-13-2014, 06:50 PM
1. Why, if it is reported that someone is armed and you have a vehicle, are you going around the vehicle instead of using it as a shield to properly engage (whether you're going to shot them or not) the suspect?

I don't think the windows of the vehicle would act as a good shield to whoever is in the passenger seat ... or driver.


2. If the witness calling 911 thinks that it might be possible that the suspect is a minor and has a fake gun, how in the world are the cops (who should know what a real gun looks like and obviously had full view of him before they got out the car) can't reasonably think the same?

The pellet gun (as shown in the video) looked like a reasonably good copy of a real weapon. It had come with an orange safety tip that had been removed. It was also tucked into his pants, which would make seeing it hard/impossible. Even that being said, what the caller told the operator was that it was possibly a fake weapon, I don't know how that would effect the officer's decision making once the kid reached for it. Do you want until it goes off to figure out that it is or isn't a fake? As far as the kid being a minor, the report said he was 190 pounds ... that is more than many adults I know ... pretty big kid; easily mistakable for an adult.


They could have just questioned him in the vehicle or even from a distance.

What was relayed to the police was "guy in part pointing a gun at people". If it were me, I wouldn't question him from the vehicle (hard to defend yourself/little mobility/no cover.


Did they really had to roll up on him like that?

Don't know. Maybe they were concerned he was going to shoot a bystnader and were in a hurry to get there before that happened. At the point he reached for the weapon in his pants, he left them to make a split second decision.

I am not saying their actions were perfect (I don't know their approved procedures.) The whole situation is horribly tragic. But based on the data that is out, I put more blame towards the operator who didn't relay a KEY piece of data that may have caused this to end differently. I dont know enough to say if the officers on the street acted in bad faith ... then again, I am not part of the grand jury. I expect the victims family is going to get a large payout from the city regardless of if the officers are negligent or not as a result of the 911 operator not relaying that the caller stating it was a minor and that the weapon was possibly fake.

That said, pointing what looks like a real weapon at random people in a park that is also coincidentally located in a high-crime area is stupid. I saw a video recently of some pranksters in NYC: one guy filming, one guy dresses up like a psycho clown with one prankster in plain clothes walking along side people in central park after dark. The clown runs up and slashes the plain clothes guy with a machete (plain clothes guy plays dead) then the clown chases the people to scare the hell out of them. This almost went horribly wrong when one of the pedestrians pulled out a pistol … the guy in the clown suit instantly was on his knees telling the guy with the gun it was a joke.

garhkal
12-13-2014, 07:03 PM
For me, in every tv clip of the 'drive up by the cops' it seems the tape is sped up a little, plus there is no audio to hear if/when any shouted to the kid to drop the gun.
So i can't say one way or another on the 2 officers who responded, if it was over the top or not. BUT you had a suspect armed (they didn't know it was fake) waving a gun around, and 'supposedly refusing orders to drop it'. IMO that equates to a clean shooting.

However, since the 911 operator HAD been told that the gun may be fake and failed to convey that to the officers, she at least should get reprimanded, if not suspended.

BENDER56
12-13-2014, 07:05 PM
I don't know that the city should be liable because the 911 dispatcher didn't relay every bit of information the caller provided -- that would seem to imply that a dispatcher must always do exactly that. I imagine an important part of the job of a 911 dispatcher is to do the very opposite of that. Have you ever listened to people trying to relay information about a true emergency? I have. They provide all kinds of useless information. Not to mention, bystanders' observations of events are often horribly wrong. So part of the dispatcher's job is to cut through all of that extraneous info and figure out what the actual emergency is and what to relay to the responders.

Let's imagine a different scenario: The dispatcher receives the exact same call from the witness, except in this scenario he tells the officers what the witness thinks -- that is, it's just a kid with a toy gun. So the officers arrive on the scene with their guard down and the kid shoots them with his gun that turns out to be very real because the witness who called it in was typically clueless and provided inaccurate information. I'd be more inclined to fault the dispatcher in that scenario.

Anyway, if the family wants to sue they might want to focus on the police report that was issued before the video arose. In that report the officer who killed him stated he told the kid three times to raise his hands. That might be possible but it sure seems unlikely based on how fast things unfolded when they pulled up.

Stalwart
12-13-2014, 07:20 PM
For me, in every tv clip of the 'drive up by the cops' it seems the tape is sped up a little,

I think surveillance video is usually poor quality (low frame rate). So when you look at it for smooth quality it looks a bit faster than real.

That said, if the information the officers had was an armed man in a park, they may have zoomed in like that to get there before a bystander was shot.

Rollyn01
12-13-2014, 07:23 PM
I don't think the windows of the vehicle would act as a good shield to whoever is in the passenger seat ... or driver.



The pellet gun (as shown in the video) looked like a reasonably good copy of a real weapon. It had come with an orange safety tip that had been removed. It was also tucked into his pants, which would make seeing it hard/impossible. Even that being said, what the caller told the operator was that it was possibly a fake weapon, I don't know how that would effect the officer's decision making once the kid reached for it. Do you want until it goes off to figure out that it is or isn't a fake? As far as the kid being a minor, the report said he was 190 pounds ... that is more than many adults I know ... pretty big kid; easily mistakable for an adult.



What was relayed to the police was "guy in part pointing a gun at people". If it were me, I wouldn't question him from the vehicle (hard to defend yourself/little mobility/no cover.



Don't know. Maybe they were concerned he was going to shoot a bystnader and were in a hurry to get there before that happened. At the point he reached for the weapon in his pants, he left them to make a split second decision.

I am not saying their actions were perfect (I don't know their approved procedures.) The whole situation is horribly tragic. But based on the data that is out, I put more blame towards the operator who didn't relay a KEY piece of data that may have caused this to end differently. I dont know enough to say if the officers on the street acted in bad faith ... then again, I am not part of the grand jury. I expect the victims family is going to get a large payout from the city regardless of if the officers are negligent or not as a result of the 911 operator not relaying that the caller stating it was a minor and that the weapon was possibly fake.

That said, pointing what looks like a real weapon at random people in a park that is also coincidentally located in a high-crime area is stupid. I saw a video recently of some pranksters in NYC: one guy filming, one guy dresses up like a psycho clown with one prankster in plain clothes walking along side people in central park after dark. The clown runs up and slashes the plain clothes guy with a machete (plain clothes guy plays dead) then the clown chases the people to scare the hell out of them. This almost went horribly wrong when one of the pedestrians pulled out a pistol … the guy in the clown suit instantly was on his knees telling the guy with the gun it was a joke.

Though you do make some good points, the thing that bothers me most is the proximity of the engagement. They really didn't have to pull up directly in front of him like that. I know many police officers would never try to get so close to an armed suspect for fear of being hit themselves. Part of the point of having a gun is to be able to engage someone at a distance. They could have been a bit away from him and asked him to drop his weapon. Look at every episode of "Cops" where they engage a suspect they think is armed. They don't just roll up on them. They start from a distance and issue commands to disarm. If the suspect didn't, then they engage through escalation of force. These guys obviously didn't.

Stalwart
12-13-2014, 07:30 PM
Though you do make some good points, the thing that bothers me most is the proximity of the engagement. They really didn't have to pull up directly in front of him like that. I know many police officers would never try to get so close to an armed suspect for fear of being hit themselves. Part of the point of having a gun is to be able to engage someone at a distance. They could have been a bit away from him and asked him to drop his weapon. Look at every episode of "Cops" where they engage a suspect they think is armed. They don't just roll up on them. They start from a distance and issue commands to disarm. If the suspect didn't, then they engage through escalation of force. These guys obviously didn't.

I don't know why they would get that close either. I would wonder what is to the left of the police vehicle (basically behind where the camera is; what is on the other side of the street. Were they positioning themselves between the suspect and pedestrians, homes etc?

Absinthe Anecdote
12-13-2014, 08:13 PM
I don't know why they would get that close either. I would wonder what is to the left of the police vehicle (basically behind where the camera is; what is on the other side of the street. Were they positioning themselves between the suspect and pedestrians, homes etc?

I wondered about that too, but I think they might have just not saw anyone when they rolled up.

When the complainant called 911 he was in the gazebo and the guy with the gun was on the sidewalk nearer to the camera.

They might have been trying to establish contact with the 911 caller, or they just used very bad judgement and poor tactics.

garhkal
12-14-2014, 04:31 AM
What tactics? They just drove in, and it almost seemed like the passenger cop was shooting before he even exited the car.

Absinthe Anecdote
12-14-2014, 10:28 AM
What tactics? They just drove in, and it almost seemed like the passenger cop was shooting before he even exited the car.

I left a couple of words out of that post initially.

They were probably surprised when they stopped the car and he popped out of the gazebo right on the passenger's window.

It didn't leave them much time to react.

Rollyn01
12-14-2014, 12:46 PM
I left a couple of words out of that post initially.

They were probably surprised when they stopped the car and he popped out of the gazebo right on the passenger's window.

It didn't leave them much time to react.

You mean like putting the car in reverse? Other than that, they could have approached the situation a lot better than that, far better.

garhkal
12-14-2014, 08:13 PM
You mean like putting the car in reverse? Other than that, they could have approached the situation a lot better than that, far better.

Agreed. Heck, going by what we have seen and heard, if they 'supposedly had only 2 seconds from arrival to shots fired, i can't see anyway that they even shouted "Drop your weapons" once. Let alone 3 times, and gave that kid a chance to comply.