PDA

View Full Version : Here's how to fix the problem once and for all...



Rusty Jones
07-18-2016, 06:45 PM
It's pretty simple. You make unlawful police conduct (i.e., killing, brutality, etc) a federal crime. That way no one has to worry about cops getting hooked up due to "good ol' boy" municipal and state legal systems. Nope, the federal government would decide whether or not to indict, and if the indictment happens... they get tried in system that won't be partial to them.

sandsjames
07-18-2016, 07:00 PM
It's pretty simple. You make unlawful police conduct (i.e., killing, brutality, etc) a federal crime. That way no one has to worry about cops getting hooked up due to "good ol' boy" municipal and state legal systems. Nope, the federal government would decide whether or not to indict, and if the indictment happens... they get tried in system that won't be partial to them.

I think that would be a start...though I think that the current issues (cops shooting "suspects and assassins shooting cops) is just a symptom. Would it help to have the perception be that the cops weren't being given the benefit of the doubt? Yes, until it happened at the federal level as well.

WILDJOKER5
07-18-2016, 07:22 PM
It's pretty simple. You make unlawful police conduct (i.e., killing, brutality, etc) a federal crime. That way no one has to worry about cops getting hooked up due to "good ol' boy" municipal and state legal systems. Nope, the federal government would decide whether or not to indict, and if the indictment happens... they get tried in system that won't be partial to them.

Did the FBI ruling that George Zimmerman case not a hate crime stop BLM from using it for propaganda? Did the FBI ruling that Michael Brown was justified stop BLM from using it for propaganda? Do you really think making it a federal issue will decrease anything honestly? Even when the federal government comes back and clears the police of wrong doing, does that stop the propaganda of the race baiters who are making millions off of the BLM? You are seriously delusional if you think the heavy hand of the federal government will come out with any different results than what have already been presented and that it would even be received favorably by those who wish to stoke the flames of racism which is their livelihood.

Rainmaker
07-18-2016, 07:30 PM
Did the FBI ruling that George Zimmerman case not a hate crime stop BLM from using it for propaganda? Did the FBI ruling that Michael Brown was justified stop BLM from using it for propaganda? Do you really think making it a federal issue will decrease anything honestly? Even when the federal government comes back and clears the police of wrong doing, does that stop the propaganda of the race baiters who are making millions off of the BLM? You are seriously delusional if you think the heavy hand of the federal government will come out with any different results than what have already been presented and that it would even be received favorably by those who wish to stoke the flames of racism which is their livelihood.

Surely you're not suggesting that Lowrenta Lynch & the rest of the pros over at the just-us dept. would be anything less than completely objective?

WILDJOKER5
07-18-2016, 07:37 PM
Surely you're not suggesting that Lowrenta Lynch & the rest of the pros over at the just-us dept. would be anything less than completely objective?

I am saying unless there is a ruling of "lynch them", it would never appease the radical BLM group. And even if that were the ruling, that just would strengthen their resolve to carry out more lynching's under the guises of "it happened once..."

WILDJOKER5
07-18-2016, 07:56 PM
Here's my way of "how to fix the problem once and for all..." Stop teaching young black males that they are poor because of whites. That they go to prison cause of whites. That they get shot cause of racist cops. That cops are just looking for a black person to arrest. That blacks cant make it in white America because of slavery, or jim crowe, or cause their school sucks. Stop teaching minorities that they are a victim class citizen who deserve special treatment cause of "reasons". Stop telling them that without the governments help, they wont succeed, and that the white GOP are trying take away that help and therefor they wont succeed. Stop ignoring the fact that with liberal government "help" in Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, DC, NYC, Jackson MS, Flint, Baltimore, SF, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Montgomery, and many more of the large population of blacks in major urban areas the problem of violence and poorly educated and welfare recipients and joblessness is only growing. Stop shutting down honest conversations about stats and facts by calling the presenter of the numbers "racist". These are not the problems that eastern Asian communities experience or teach their kids, and there isn't this "epidemic" of cops killing Asians or ALM group complaining that they cant succeed.

sandsjames
07-18-2016, 08:18 PM
Here's my way of "how to fix the problem once and for all..." Stop teaching young black males that they are poor because of whites. That they go to prison cause of whites. That they get shot cause of racist cops. That cops are just looking for a black person to arrest. That blacks cant make it in white America because of slavery, or jim crowe, or cause their school sucks. Stop teaching minorities that they are a victim class citizen who deserve special treatment cause of "reasons". Stop telling them that without the governments help, they wont succeed, and that the white GOP are trying take away that help and therefor they wont succeed. Stop ignoring the fact that with liberal government "help" in Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, DC, NYC, Jackson MS, Flint, Baltimore, SF, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Montgomery, and many more of the large population of blacks in major urban areas the problem of violence and poorly educated and welfare recipients and joblessness is only growing. Stop shutting down honest conversations about stats and facts by calling the presenter of the numbers "racist". These are not the problems that eastern Asian communities experience or teach their kids, and there isn't this "epidemic" of cops killing Asians or ALM group complaining that they cant succeed.

This helps as much as saying "We can fix it if people would just stop being racist". That's ideal, of course, but it doesn't help anything to say it. There has to be a middle ground to work towards.

WILDJOKER5
07-18-2016, 08:26 PM
This helps as much as saying "We can fix it if people would just stop being racist". That's ideal, of course, but it doesn't help anything to say it. There has to be a middle ground to work towards.

Whats the middle ground? Tell cops not to arrest blacks anymore? Legalize crime against whites by blacks? I have yet to hear one thing from BLM that would appease their hate and calls for murder of cops and whites. Sorry, but prosecution of cops wont actually get them convicted, especially if it was a justified shooting. Internal affairs (QA in the cop world) has the quota too, and they will do their jobs just as hard as other cops are doing on the streets. To say cops are getting off on the "good ol boy" system is just BS.

sandsjames
07-18-2016, 08:39 PM
Whats the middle ground? Tell cops not to arrest blacks anymore? Legalize crime against whites by blacks? I have yet to hear one thing from BLM that would appease their hate and calls for murder of cops and whites. Sorry, but prosecution of cops wont actually get them convicted, especially if it was a justified shooting. Internal affairs (QA in the cop world) has the quota too, and they will do their jobs just as hard as other cops are doing on the streets. To say cops are getting off on the "good ol boy" system is just BS.

Odd that it seems the only move that can be made is from the BLM side. You didn't even attempt to point out that the cops could make some changes...that's pretty telling.

Rainmaker
07-18-2016, 09:33 PM
Odd that it seems the only move that can be made is from the BLM side. You didn't even attempt to point out that the cops could make some changes...that's pretty telling.



Yeah sure.......Let Us by All Means Have an" Honest Conversation about Race".....Of course, something like that can't even begin until you first admit that "YOU A RACIST!!!!!!!!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World-famous biologist James Watson said he is selling the Nobel Prize medal he won in 1962 for discovering the structure of DNA because he has been ostracised and needs the money.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html



Mr Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for uncovering the double helix structure of DNA, sparked an outcry in 2007 when he suggested that people of African descent were inherently less intelligent than white people.


In 2007, the Sunday Times ran an interview with Dr Watson in which he said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

He told the newspaper people wanted to believe that everyone was born with equal intelligence but that those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

Because I was an ‘unperson’ I was fired from the boards of companies, so I have no income, apart from my academic income,” he said.

sandsjames
07-18-2016, 09:45 PM
Yeah sure.......Let Us by All Means Have an"Conversation about Race".....Of course, something like that can immediately begin as soon as you first admit that "YOU A RACIST"!!!


World-famous biologist James Watson said he is selling the Nobel Prize medal he won in 1962 for discovering the structure of DNA because he has been ostracised and needs the money.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html



Mr Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for uncovering the double helix structure of DNA, sparked an outcry in 2007 when he suggested that people of African descent were inherently less intelligent than white people.
somehow wrote that I worried about the people in Africa because of their low IQ – and you’re not supposed to say that.”

In 2007, the Sunday Times ran an interview with Dr Watson in which he said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

He told the newspaper people wanted to believe that everyone was born with equal intelligence but that those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

Because I was an ‘unperson’ I was fired from the boards of companies, so I have no income, apart from my academic income,” he said.

Not sure I quite understand your point here?

Let's assume, for a moment, that people of African decent (which I believe is all of us, but I'm sure you meant blacks) are less intelligent. Does that mean that they shouldn't receive the same amount of protections under the law? Does that mean that if someone is mentally handicapped that the police should shoot them if they resist?

As a matter of fact, the argument you're making is stressing the point that blacks aren't completely responsible for their actions because they are of lower intelligence. We can't expect them to know what they're supposed to do, right? How they're supposed to act? They may not even understand the laws. They may not even understand the commands the cops are giving them. Science says they're just not intelligent enough to understand. That's the findings of a world famous biologist.

Though I'm sure your point was more along the lines of blacks being expendable because they are stupid? Is that about right?

Rainmaker
07-19-2016, 02:22 AM
Not sure I quite understand your point here?

Let's assume, for a moment, that people of African decent (which I believe is all of us, but I'm sure you meant blacks) are less intelligent. Does that mean that they shouldn't receive the same amount of protections under the law? Does that mean that if someone is mentally handicapped that the police should shoot them if they resist?

As a matter of fact, the argument you're making is stressing the point that blacks aren't completely responsible for their actions because they are of lower intelligence. We can't expect them to know what they're supposed to do, right? How they're supposed to act? They may not even understand the laws. They may not even understand the commands the cops are giving them. Science says they're just not intelligent enough to understand. That's the findings of a world famous biologist.

Though I'm sure your point was more along the lines of blacks being expendable because they are stupid? Is that about right?

You make some good points. And Rainmaker's certainly no biologist, so whether you're right and it's IQ or whether it's a culture of violence and lack of moral compass, I can't be certain.

But, basically it comes down to the truth. They can't expect to have an honest dialogue and then start out by doing everything in their power to prevent open dialog and discussion of the truth.

garhkal
07-19-2016, 05:18 AM
It's pretty simple. You make unlawful police conduct (i.e., killing, brutality, etc) a federal crime. That way no one has to worry about cops getting hooked up due to "good ol' boy" municipal and state legal systems. Nope, the federal government would decide whether or not to indict, and if the indictment happens... they get tried in system that won't be partial to them.

And lke there's nothing wrong with THAT that could go down.. Such as a federal politician pushing for cop A to get charged, just cause he feels it will stylfe a riot situation in his home state/district..


Surely you're not suggesting that Lowrenta Lynch & the rest of the pros over at the just-us dept. would be anything less than completely objective?

Well when you take into account her meeting with the Husband of someone she might be inditing, AND then looking at her predecessor, and how he handled (or should i say mishandled) that whole Black panther voter intimidation issue, anyone who thinks she CAN be anything BUT biased needs an MRI to check they still have a brain.


Here's my way of "how to fix the problem once and for all..." Stop teaching young black males that they are poor because of whites. That they go to prison cause of whites. That they get shot cause of racist cops. That cops are just looking for a black person to arrest. That blacks cant make it in white America because of slavery, or jim crowe, or cause their school sucks. Stop teaching minorities that they are a victim class citizen who deserve special treatment cause of "reasons". Stop telling them that without the governments help, they wont succeed, and that the white GOP are trying take away that help and therefor they wont succeed. Stop ignoring the fact that with liberal government "help" in Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, DC, NYC, Jackson MS, Flint, Baltimore, SF, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Montgomery, and many more of the large population of blacks in major urban areas the problem of violence and poorly educated and welfare recipients and joblessness is only growing. Stop shutting down honest conversations about stats and facts by calling the presenter of the numbers "racist". These are not the problems that eastern Asian communities experience or teach their kids, and there isn't this "epidemic" of cops killing Asians or ALM group complaining that they cant succeed.

Also, stop glorifying thug sports stars, rap artists (many of which are or were also street dealers of drugs), rioting and destroying your OWN neighborhoods everytime something happens you dislike, dropping out of school, then blaming 'the man' when your grades are not good enough to get a proper education at university.



This helps as much as saying "We can fix it if people would just stop being racist". That's ideal, of course, but it doesn't help anything to say it. There has to be a middle ground to work towards.

Whats the middle ground? Tell cops not to arrest blacks anymore? Legalize crime against whites by blacks? I have yet to hear one thing from BLM that would appease their hate and calls for murder of cops and whites. Sorry, but prosecution of cops wont actually get them convicted, especially if it was a justified shooting. Internal affairs (QA in the cop world) has the quota too, and they will do their jobs just as hard as other cops are doing on the streets. To say cops are getting off on the "good ol boy" system is just BS.

And for there TO be a middle ground, both sides must be willing to LISTEN to one another, AND make compromises..
BLM is much like all other liberal groups, its their way or no way.

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 09:55 AM
It's pretty simple. You make unlawful police conduct (i.e., killing, brutality, etc) a federal crime. That way no one has to worry about cops getting hooked up due to "good ol' boy" municipal and state legal systems. Nope, the federal government would decide whether or not to indict, and if the indictment happens... they get tried in system that won't be partial to them.

In many of the cases that are currently used / referenced by those very angry with police (Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown) the DoJ declined to file any charges against the police yet they are still referenced despite being found warranted or not criminal under the circumstances. Much of the current climate is based not on law or criminal liability but on emotion.

The judge in the trials of the Baltimore City police made a very good statement yesterday when the 3d police officer was acquitted (so far 3 acquittals and 1 mistrial -- zero for 4 on trials, zero for 24 on charges):


The judge made it clear that just because you made a mistake — someone may have done something that was very wrong, that was very inappropriate — but that doesn't necessarily make it a crime,"

"If you do something that is grossly unreasonable, but you're not aware of the risk you're taking, you're not being grossly criminally negligent, even though you're being negligent,"

Williams repeatedly stressed Monday that there was a difference between civil negligence — finding that the officers' conduct caused Gray's death — and criminal liability — determining that their conduct had been so reckless, with results that could have been anticipated, that they should be convicted of a crime.

"To say there's a tragedy, therefore somebody has to be criminally responsible, is really an inappropriate manner to approach this case".

sandsjames
07-19-2016, 10:36 AM
In many of the cases that are currently used / referenced by those very angry with police (Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown) the DoJ declined to file any charges against the police yet they are still referenced despite being found warranted or not criminal under the circumstances. Much of the current climate is based not on law or criminal liability but on emotion.

The judge in the trials of the Baltimore City police made a very good statement yesterday when the 3d police officer was acquitted (so far 3 acquittals and 1 mistrial -- zero for 4 on trials, zero for 24 on charges):

You're absolutely right. It's far worse for our society to have someone selling DVDs on the side of the road than it is for cops to shoot that person. Negligence be damned, there's only one criminal in that situation!!!!

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 10:43 AM
You're absolutely right. It's far worse for our society to have someone selling DVDs on the side of the road than it is for cops to shoot that person. Negligence be damned, there's only one criminal in that situation!!!!

The fact you are omitting is that he was not shot for selling CDs on the side of the road. He was shot for resisting police and reaching for a weapon while they were trying to get him under control. The police had already questioned one individual in the area who they let go in around five minutes prior to questioning the individual that was shot.

Facts be damned?

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 11:13 AM
Odd that it seems the only move that can be made is from the BLM side. You didn't even attempt to point out that the cops could make some changes...that's pretty telling.
I did, I said the cops could stop arresting blacks anymore. I don't see what the cops can do to move to a "middle" ground. If there is a middle ground for blacks, do white people get the same privilege? What about latinos?

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 11:26 AM
Not sure I quite understand your point here?

Let's assume, for a moment, that people of African decent (which I believe is all of us, but I'm sure you meant blacks) are less intelligent. Does that mean that they shouldn't receive the same amount of protections under the law? Does that mean that if someone is mentally handicapped that the police should shoot them if they resist?

As a matter of fact, the argument you're making is stressing the point that blacks aren't completely responsible for their actions because they are of lower intelligence. We can't expect them to know what they're supposed to do, right? How they're supposed to act? They may not even understand the laws. They may not even understand the commands the cops are giving them. Science says they're just not intelligent enough to understand. That's the findings of a world famous biologist.

Though I'm sure your point was more along the lines of blacks being expendable because they are stupid? Is that about right?

So, if you concede that blacks have lower intelligence and therefore aren't accountable for their actions, are you saying they should just run wild and free doing whatever they want? I don't see humans allowing other animals those same freedoms for their "lower intelligence". I honestly don't believe blacks are lower in intelligence, they, even the ones from Africa, can learn just as well as anyone given the proper family structure. I honestly believe the liberal whites give them way too many excuses, like the mother of an unruly child who says "Ive tried everything from saying no a few times to just letting him wear himself out with the tantrum in the middle of the store, but nothing works." Then you ask if she has spanked him and shes flabbergasted that you would suggest a thing even when your kids are all sitting down behaving themselves. All humans need training, when one parent steps in front of the discipline of the other, the kids learns that they can do whatever they want and hide behind the "weak" parent for protection. The liberals are the "weak" parent.

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 11:30 AM
You're absolutely right. It's far worse for our society to have someone selling DVDs on the side of the road than it is for cops to shoot that person. Negligence be damned, there's only one criminal in that situation!!!!

He wasn't shot for selling DVDs. The cops didn't even come to him cause of the DVDs. It was cause he waived a gun around and threated a homeless man by putting it up to his head. Stop with the false narrative that he was shot for selling DVDs.

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 11:47 AM
He wasn't shot for selling DVDs. The cops didn't even come to him cause of the DVDs. It was cause he waived a gun around and threated a homeless man by putting it up to his head. Stop with the false narrative that he was shot for selling DVDs.

They later determined that the man that was shot was not the man who had threated someone else, however he fit the description that had been phoned in and (reportedly) became belligerent while they were questioning him. I have not seen video of what happened prior to him already being on the ground. It is pretty clear he is not complying and it appears he is reaching toward his waist. Police have reported that they saw the butt of a weapon and that is when they shot; a pistol was removed from the waist band of his shorts.

Procedurally, everything on the video seems appropriate. What hasn't been commented on / isn't apparent is what led to him being put on the ground.

sandsjames
07-19-2016, 12:08 PM
The fact you are omitting is that he was not shot for selling CDs on the side of the road. He was shot for resisting police and reaching for a weapon while they were trying to get him under control. The police had already questioned one individual in the area who they let go in around five minutes prior to questioning the individual that was shot.

Facts be damned?

He was approached because he was profiled/stereotyped because he met the description of a black man in shorts.

I realize that you are unable to look on this from an objective point of view so I won't criticize much but, damn, cause and effect. He would never have had to resist is he wasn't a black man in shorts.

sandsjames
07-19-2016, 12:10 PM
So, if you concede that blacks have lower intelligence and therefore aren't accountable for their actions, are you saying they should just run wild and free doing whatever they want? I don't concede that...don't throw that BS on me. I was simply restating RMs point.


I don't see humans allowing other animals those same freedoms for their "lower intelligence". Other animals? Holy Fuck, dude. You need to get a little more introspective, I think.


I honestly don't believe blacks are lower in intelligence, they, even the ones from Africa, can learn just as well as anyone given the proper family structure. I honestly believe the liberal whites give them way too many excuses, like the mother of an unruly child who says "Ive tried everything from saying no a few times to just letting him wear himself out with the tantrum in the middle of the store, but nothing works." Then you ask if she has spanked him and shes flabbergasted that you would suggest a thing even when your kids are all sitting down behaving themselves. All humans need training, when one parent steps in front of the discipline of the other, the kids learns that they can do whatever they want and hide behind the "weak" parent for protection. The liberals are the "weak" parent.Funny how you talk about the kid throwing the fit in the middle of the store...cuz I'm pretty sure that's usually the white kid.

sandsjames
07-19-2016, 12:12 PM
He wasn't shot for selling DVDs. The cops didn't even come to him cause of the DVDs. It was cause he waived a gun around and threated a homeless man by putting it up to his head. Stop with the false narrative that he was shot for selling DVDs.

Please, get off your conservative websites and check out what actually happened. Two different guys but, it doesn't really matter, does it? Since they all look alike? That's why this dude was shot. Cuz he looked like someone else.

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 12:22 PM
He wasn't shot for selling DVDs. The cops didn't even come to him cause of the DVDs. It was cause he waived a gun around and threated a homeless man by putting it up to his head. Stop with the false narrative that he was shot for selling DVDs.

They later determined that the man that was shot was not the man who had threated someone else, however he fit the description that had been phoned in and (reportedly) became belligerent while they were questioning him. I have not seen video of what happened prior to him already being on the ground. It is pretty clear he is not complying and it appears he is reaching toward his waist. Police have reported that they saw the butt of a weapon and that is when they shot; a pistol was removed from the waist band of his shorts.

Procedurally, everything on the video seems appropriate. What hasn't been commented on / isn't apparent is what led to him being put on the ground.

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 12:30 PM
He was approached because he was profiled/stereotyped because he met the description of a black man in shorts.

I realize that you are unable to look on this from an objective point of view so I won't criticize much but, damn, cause and effect. He would never have had to resist is he wasn't a black man in shorts.

Yes, he met the description, by definition that isn't profiling and questioning him is part of the process of elimination to find the suspect.

I realize you don't have experience in this type of thing and are only being subjective, I was never a police officer, I was a guard at Camp David and while doing it I had the authority to detain personnel (civilian & military) on the compound. I won't criticize much about you talking out of your ass on something that you have never done ... I know ... there I go bragging by virtue of relaying experience I have that you don't despite it lending context / background to the opinion -- which makes it an informed opinion vice an uninformed opinion). He met the description, he was questioned ... that is a normal thing. You are right, had he not been black he wouldn't have met the description, had he not been wearing shorts he wouldn't have met the description as well.

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 12:41 PM
Please, get off your conservative websites and check out what actually happened. Two different guys but, it doesn't really matter, does it? Since they all look alike? That's why this dude was shot. Cuz he looked like someone else.

Please look at the situation apart from emotion.

Correct, he wasn't the subject. How would police have known that had they not questioned him? The police had already questioned another individual (who also met the provided description) and let him go on his way after a couple of minutes.

The man wasn't shot because he was black, nor because he was selling CD's ... he was shot because in the process of being non-compliant with the police he reached to his waist for a weapon. I will give you, we don't know what led to that ... was he belligerent or non-compliant prior to the incident? Did the police overstep in the need to put him on the ground? We don't know that ... what is pretty clear from the video is that there is a physical struggle with a couple of police officers unable to get him under control (during which time they did not know he was the wrong individual -- who was reported to have a gun and be threatening people) and he has a free hand and reached for a visible weapon in his waist band.

Rusty Jones
07-19-2016, 12:45 PM
Being a base cop doesn't qualify as experience. Anyone who has done both jobs will tell you that.

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 12:57 PM
Being a base cop doesn't qualify as experience. Anyone who has done both jobs will tell you that.

Concur. It isn't the same, but it does provide context and involves a much larger understanding of dealing with civilians (interaction/cooperation with Frederick County Sheriffs, Thurmont & Smithsburg PD, & the US Secret Service -- there are a couple of civilian highways that cut through the reservation that we often would detain people who stopped there) than a regular MP. There is a bit of difference between being a military police officer and being part of the detail at Camp David which is on a government but not military installation.

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 01:12 PM
They later determined that the man that was shot was not the man who had threated someone else, however he fit the description that had been phoned in and (reportedly) became belligerent while they were questioning him. I have not seen video of what happened prior to him already being on the ground. It is pretty clear he is not complying and it appears he is reaching toward his waist. Police have reported that they saw the butt of a weapon and that is when they shot; a pistol was removed from the waist band of his shorts.

Procedurally, everything on the video seems appropriate. What hasn't been commented on / isn't apparent is what led to him being put on the ground.

The cops were looking for a man with a gun. This felon had a gun and knew he was in the wrong. The cops were going to search him and he was going to be busted, so he was fighting back cause he knew he was screwed. Instead of going to jail, or following the law, he fought and is dead now.

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 01:14 PM
He was approached because he was profiled/stereotyped because he met the description of a black man in shorts.

I realize that you are unable to look on this from an objective point of view so I won't criticize much but, damn, cause and effect. He would never have had to resist is he wasn't a black man in shorts.

No, if he wasn't a felon carrying a gun. "Black man in shorts" means nothing if you aren't actively breaking the law.

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 01:18 PM
Funny how you talk about the kid throwing the fit in the middle of the store...cuz I'm pretty sure that's usually the white kid.
Yep. I fully agree, that is usually the white kid. And when he grows up, he gets away with murder because "afluenza" or the last name of Clinton. But, just as white kids get away with throwing tantrums in the store, blacks get told "its not their fault" that the cops arrested them for breaking the law by white liberals, thus condoning their behavior and allowing the felon to believe they are the victim.

Rusty Jones
07-19-2016, 01:20 PM
"Black man in shorts" means nothing if you aren't actively breaking the law.

LOL, people want to dismiss the concept of white privilege, but to think that what you just said right here is reality... man, you can't get a clearer manifestation of it than that.

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 01:23 PM
Please, get off your conservative websites and check out what actually happened. Two different guys but, it doesn't really matter, does it? Since they all look alike? That's why this dude was shot. Cuz he looked like someone else.

No, he was shot cause he was carrying a gun, Sterling knew he was in the wrong and about to go to jail. He fought the law, but the law won.

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 01:27 PM
The cops were looking for a man with a gun. This felon had a gun and knew he was in the wrong. The cops were going to search him and he was going to be busted, so he was fighting back cause he knew he was screwed. Instead of going to jail, or following the law, he fought and is dead now.

That may be the case. But he wasn't the one waiving the gun (The police didn't know that). Your statement was that he was the one waving the gun around (I thought).

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 01:29 PM
LOL, people want to dismiss the concept of white privilege, but to think that what you just said right here is reality... man, you can't get a clearer manifestation of it than that.

Are you saying "white privilege" means you have more decerning features than blacks? Different color hair, different eye colors. Dress differently. Different haircuts/styles. different and distinguishable facial hair? If there is a BOLO for a "white male wearing red shorts" and I am wearing red short, guess what? I will be stopped if that is what I am wearing matching what they are looking for. Think it will be dismissed cause I am white? Really?

Rusty Jones
07-19-2016, 01:43 PM
Are you saying "white privilege" means you have more decerning features than blacks? Different color hair, different eye colors. Dress differently. Different haircuts/styles. different and distinguishable facial hair? If there is a BOLO for a "white male wearing red shorts" and I am wearing red short, guess what? I will be stopped if that is what I am wearing matching what they are looking for. Think it will be dismissed cause I am white? Really?

No, I'm pointing out the way that you're thinking as indicated in your post. The fact that you think that the life of a black man is as simple as the life of a white man... i.e., that he simply colors within the lines, that he won't get fucked with by law enforcement. That because it applies to you, it applies to everyone - black people too. The ability to think like that... is a result of white privilege.

Oh, by the way... another one bit the dust. You kicked Colin Powell to the curb back in 2008 when he endorsed Obama, but you might want to take a look at Tim Scott's latest speech. Another black mouthpiece of yours spoke out of turn.

sandsjames
07-19-2016, 01:47 PM
No, he was shot cause he was carrying a gun, Sterling knew he was in the wrong and about to go to jail. He fought the law, but the law won.Nobody "won".

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 01:52 PM
That may be the case. But he wasn't the one waiving the gun (The police didn't know that). Your statement was that he was the one waving the gun around (I thought).

I understand what you mean now. I don't have cable news so I am not fully keeping up on the story.

Facts.
BOLO for black, male, red shorts, gun.
Guy was;
Black? Check
Male? Check
Red shorts? Check.
Cops were asking to search him for a gun since they had probable cause. He was confrontational. Resisting arrest. Why? Cause he was a felon, concealing a gun that he had no papers for or license to conceal it. He knew he was screwed and thought he could fight his way out of being arrested. His fault.

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 02:03 PM
No, I'm pointing out the way that you're thinking as indicated in your post. The fact that you think that the life of a black man is as simple as the life of a white man... i.e., that he simply colors within the lines, that he won't get fucked with by law enforcement. That because it applies to you, it applies to everyone - black people too. The ability to think like that... is a result of white privilege.Did the other guy who the cops stopped and talked to get "fucked with" cause he met the BOLO report? Or did he get let go cause he was "coloring in the lines"? My brother matched a description of a BOLO and cops came in our house looking for stolen stereo equipment. Come to find out, he had nothing and he also didn't put up a fight. Then a few years later, he matched a description of "white kids" breaking into cars and was arrested. He didn't fight, and didn't get shot. My car matched a description of one reported to have kids throwing eggs out of it. Cops questioned me. I was humble and answered their questions politely and nothing came about it. I have been pulled over because I was coming out of a club at 2 am and the cops profiled me to believe I was drinking. I had zero alcohol that night, but still had to pass 2 sobriety tests before I was let go. I wasn't belligerent, and I wasn't rude, even though I was completely agitated since I had done nothing wrong. White people are always harassed by cops, and its the way you conduct yourself that keeps you safe. I had an ex girl friend who was pulled over for swerving, she was hammered. She went to jail for a DUI. She didn't fight because she knew she was wrong and got caught. Your racism and prejudice is what you project onto others and is totally baseless.


Oh, by the way... another one bit the dust. You kicked Colin Powell to the curb back in 2008 when he endorsed Obama, but you might want to take a look at Tim Scott's latest speech. Another black mouthpiece of yours spoke out of turn.
I wasn't a fan of CP, I wasn't even in politics back then really. I don't know who TS is, and if he is talking bad about Trump, I don't blame him. I am not a fan of Trump.

Rusty Jones
07-19-2016, 02:34 PM
Did the other guy who the cops stopped and talked to get "fucked with" cause he met the BOLO report? Or did he get let go cause he was "coloring in the lines"? My brother matched a description of a BOLO and cops came in our house looking for stolen stereo equipment. Come to find out, he had nothing and he also didn't put up a fight. Then a few years later, he matched a description of "white kids" breaking into cars and was arrested. He didn't fight, and didn't get shot. My car matched a description of one reported to have kids throwing eggs out of it. Cops questioned me. I was humble and answered their questions politely and nothing came about it. I have been pulled over because I was coming out of a club at 2 am and the cops profiled me to believe I was drinking. I had zero alcohol that night, but still had to pass 2 sobriety tests before I was let go. I wasn't belligerent, and I wasn't rude, even though I was completely agitated since I had done nothing wrong. White people are always harassed by cops, and its the way you conduct yourself that keeps you safe. I had an ex girl friend who was pulled over for swerving, she was hammered. She went to jail for a DUI. She didn't fight because she knew she was wrong and got caught.

I'm glad that it worked for you. Too bad that complying didn't work for Philando Castile.


Your racism and prejudice is what you project onto others and is totally baseless.

And, not shocking in the least, you come back with "I know you are, but what am I?" Ain't gonna work.


I wasn't a fan of CP, I wasn't even in politics back then really. I don't know who TS is, and if he is talking bad about Trump, I don't blame him. I am not a fan of Trump.

Tim Scott is the black Republican Senator from South Carolina, and the sole black Republican in the Senate. Does that ring a bell? Anyway, he gave several speeches detailing the racism that he faces from law enforcement. Which is funny, because when you add it all up... he's had it far worse than I have (he's darker skinned than I am, so it makes sense). That's something that shouldn't be happening... because not only is he a good little negro, but he's a Republican! Cops should NNNNEEEEVVVVEERRRR fuck with him, right? If anything, they should be fucking with ME more!

Rainmaker
07-19-2016, 03:58 PM
I don't concede that...don't throw that BS on me. I was simply restating RMs point.

That wasn't Rainmaker's point. But, It was the point of the world famous DNA Pioneer James Watson, who stated: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really." .....Now, Rainmaker's point was that he was blackballed by the PC Gestapo for stating the results of his scientific research (stating the truth as he believed it to be).

From everything that I've read, IQ seems to be anywhere from 60-80% Inheritable , the rest of it being a result of environmental factors (like nutrition, parenting etc.)

Rainmaker will attempt make another point by asking YOU a question: Why do you think it is that the people who control the 6 corporations which control Hollywood and 90% of the mainstream media outlets in this country (and Europe) are so heavily promoting race-mixing and open borders for all western, white majority, nations?

Mjölnir
07-19-2016, 04:10 PM
I'm glad that it worked for you. Too bad that complying didn't work for Philando Castile.

Not just too bad, possibly criminal ... waiting to see.


Which is funny, because when you add it all up... he's had it far worse than I have (he's darker skinned than I am, so it makes sense).

Is that the perception / outlook? That the darker the skin of a black person the more harassment by police. Not snark, genuine question.

garhkal
07-19-2016, 07:02 PM
In many of the cases that are currently used / referenced by those very angry with police (Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown) the DoJ declined to file any charges against the police yet they are still referenced despite being found warranted or not criminal under the circumstances. Much of the current climate is based not on law or criminal liability but on emotion.

The judge in the trials of the Baltimore City police made a very good statement yesterday when the 3d police officer was acquitted (so far 3 acquittals and 1 mistrial -- zero for 4 on trials, zero for 24 on charges):

And that's why many say, whether charges come or not, the rhetoric from the BLM side of house seems like they will only be content with a mob lynching..


The fact you are omitting is that he was not shot for selling CDs on the side of the road. He was shot for resisting police and reaching for a weapon while they were trying to get him under control. The police had already questioned one individual in the area who they let go in around five minutes prior to questioning the individual that was shot.

Facts be damned?

Plus as he was a convicted felon, he shouldn't have been OWNING that gun in the first place.


He was approached because he was profiled/stereotyped because he met the description of a black man in shorts.

I realize that you are unable to look on this from an objective point of view so I won't criticize much but, damn, cause and effect. He would never have had to resist is he wasn't a black man in shorts.

If anyone's not being objective SJ, it seems to be you..


Did the other guy who the cops stopped and talked to get "fucked with" cause he met the BOLO report? Or did he get let go cause he was "coloring in the lines"? My brother matched a description of a BOLO and cops came in our house looking for stolen stereo equipment. Come to find out, he had nothing and he also didn't put up a fight. Then a few years later, he matched a description of "white kids" breaking into cars and was arrested. He didn't fight, and didn't get shot. My car matched a description of one reported to have kids throwing eggs out of it. Cops questioned me. I was humble and answered their questions politely and nothing came about it. I have been pulled over because I was coming out of a club at 2 am and the cops profiled me to believe I was drinking. I had zero alcohol that night, but still had to pass 2 sobriety tests before I was let go. I wasn't belligerent, and I wasn't rude, even though I was completely agitated since I had done nothing wrong. White people are always harassed by cops, and its the way you conduct yourself that keeps you safe. I had an ex girl friend who was pulled over for swerving, she was hammered. She went to jail for a DUI. She didn't fight because she knew she was wrong and got caught. Your racism and prejudice is what you project onto others and is totally baseless.

Wow. You have had a lot of run ins..
BUT it at least proves the point.

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 07:56 PM
I'm glad that it worked for you. Too bad that complying didn't work for Philando Castile.So you were there? You know what happened? Or do you only know what the GF said while she was trying to get her 15 mins of fame?


And, not shocking in the least, you come back with "I know you are, but what am I?" Ain't gonna work.That's all you and the left do is project your own racism onto others. You find "code words" and do mental gymnastics to back up your claims.


Tim Scott is the black Republican Senator from South Carolina, and the sole black Republican in the Senate. Does that ring a bell? Anyway, he gave several speeches detailing the racism that he faces from law enforcement. Which is funny, because when you add it all up... he's had it far worse than I have (he's darker skinned than I am, so it makes sense). That's something that shouldn't be happening... because not only is he a good little negro, but he's a Republican! Cops should NNNNEEEEVVVVEERRRR fuck with him, right? If anything, they should be fucking with ME more!
Has he been shot? Has he been arrested? Has he been detained?

sandsjames
07-19-2016, 08:06 PM
So you were there? You know what happened? Or do you only know what the GF said while she was trying to get her 15 mins of fame?

Were you there? Or do you only know what the cop, with his career on the line, said? Or is it just an assumption that "the black guy" must have resisted in some way or another because a cop would never fuck up.?

WILDJOKER5
07-19-2016, 08:13 PM
Were you there? Or do you only know what the cop, with his career on the line, said? Or is it just an assumption that "the black guy" must have resisted in some way or another because a cop would never fuck up.?

I didn't make an assumption. I never claimed it happened one way or the other. I was only calling RJ out on his bold statement that the guy simply followed orders and still got shot. I don't know what happened and didn't claim I did. But thanks for your projection. Just because someone refutes the claim of one person, doesn't mean they automatically side with the complete opposite of the original statement.

sandsjames
07-19-2016, 08:23 PM
I didn't make an assumption. I never claimed it happened one way or the other. I was only calling RJ out on his bold statement that the guy simply followed orders and still got shot. I don't know what happened and didn't claim I did. But thanks for your projection. Just because someone refutes the claim of one person, doesn't mean they automatically side with the complete opposite of the original statement.

Sure, 'cuz your comments about his girlfriend and her 15 minutes of fame wouldn't lead anyone to believe you were making an assumption. Gotcha. Her boyfriend was shot and bleeding to death. I doubt she gave a damn about her 15 minutes of fame.

Rainmaker
07-19-2016, 09:29 PM
Were you there? Or do you only know what the cop, with his career on the line, said? Or is it just an assumption that "the black guy" must have resisted in some way or another because a cop would never fuck up.?

You are too smug to be able to see through your own Bullshit.

You can stop with the libtard virtue signaling routine anytime, because you're not really fooling anybody here by trying to act like you're open minded & demonizing the police, and anyone who supports them, just to make yourself feel good.... And by the way.... The OnlyBlackLivesMatters crowd thinks you're an idiot too and would likely piss on you and your white children, if given 1/2 the chance. Lucky for you the cops are out right now, preventing that from happening to your ungrateful ass.

sandsjames
07-19-2016, 09:55 PM
You are too smug to be able to see through your own Bullshit. Yep...I'm white so I must really just be trying to hide my hatred of all minorities....


You can stop with the libtard virtue signaling routine anytime, because you're not really fooling anybody here by trying to act like you're open minded & demonizing the police, and anyone who supports them, just to make yourself feel good.... And by the way.... The BlackLivesMatters crowd thinks you're an idiot too and would likely piss on you and your white children, if given 1/2 the chance. Thankfully for you the cops are out right now, preventing that from happening to your ungrateful ass.And just like everyone else with your narrative, you assume that I'm blaming the cops. I know that's the easy answer for people like you where everything is cut and dry and it's impossible to have both sides share in the blame.

What is it with your ilk that feels that way? Why is it not possible that all parties involved fucked up somehow? Has there ever been the shooting of a black person that wasn't justified, in your opinion? I highly doubt it.

You realize that you are the same as the BLM people, right? You are the exact same.

You actually overcompensate...I think you're more racist than you'd really like to be because you're afraid as being labeled as one of us "white guilt" members so you go beyond the normal boundaries. I think thou dost protest too much.

Rainmaker
07-20-2016, 01:32 AM
You realize that you are the same as the BLM people, right? You are the exact same.

We may be similar.... But, Rainmaker tries to follow the law, has a full time job and pays taxes. So, I wouldn't say we "are the exact same".


You actually overcompensate...I think you're more racist than you'd really like to be because you're afraid as being labeled as one of us "white guilt" members so you go beyond the normal boundaries. I think thou dost protest too much.

Ok Dr. Freud. But, don't overthink it. The answer could just be something as simple as Rainmaker don't really care for darkies "culture".

WILDJOKER5
07-20-2016, 11:19 AM
Sure, 'cuz your comments about his girlfriend and her 15 minutes of fame wouldn't lead anyone to believe you were making an assumption. Gotcha. Her boyfriend was shot and bleeding to death. I doubt she gave a damn about her 15 minutes of fame.

So I called her out for what she was doing, does that mean I believe the cop over her? Gotta stay literal in debates or else some people like to infer something that was never said and put words in your mouth. I would almost constitute that as rape...let me go ask a feminist....oh sparks...

sandsjames
07-20-2016, 01:58 PM
So I called her out for what she was doing, does that mean I believe the cop over her? You really think she was just looking for her 15 minutes? She'd just seen her boyfriend shot in front of her and her child. Streaming was the only way she could prove her compliance in case the cop decided to get an itchy trigger finger with her. You call it her 15 minutes, I call it her ensuring her survival.

Rainmaker
07-20-2016, 02:06 PM
So I called her out for what she was doing, does that mean I believe the cop over her?

The cop said he told him to keep his hands up and he reached for something. Based on the video, We can't really know for sure. But, I think it's reasonable to reserve judgment and give the benefit of the doubt to the cop & question the version of events as presented by this hood-rat Diamond Lavish Reynolds, who posts videos of herself on Facebook committing Felony reckless endangerment of a child ,by smoking a blunt with her 6 year old kid in the backseat of the car catching a contact buzz.

see here: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/philando-castile-child-abuse-video-surfaces-castile-girlfriend-smoking-pot-driving-child-car/

She's already changed her story 3 times and set up a go-fund me page.

Rainmaker's willing to be that just Like most of these cases, it'll get dropped because, there's no actual evidence to convict. But, this ghetto bitch and her lawyers will extort $6M from the taxpayer (before it even goes to trial) and she'll spend it all on getting her blonde hair did and smoking crack.

WILDJOKER5
07-20-2016, 03:09 PM
You really think she was just looking for her 15 minutes? She'd just seen her boyfriend shot in front of her and her child. Streaming was the only way she could prove her compliance in case the cop decided to get an itchy trigger finger with her. You call it her 15 minutes, I call it her ensuring her survival.

Did she have a gun on her? Was she making any sudden movements? I am actually surprised she didn't get shot for whipping out her phone, but then that goes to prove that cops aren't looking to just kill blacks, they have more going on in their head then BLM would give them credit for. But I would say cops are itchy around black males cause 40% of the violent crime and 45% of the cop killings come from the segment of the population that consists of only 6%.

sparks82
07-20-2016, 04:06 PM
You're absolutely right. It's far worse for our society to have someone selling DVDs on the side of the road than it is for cops to shoot that person. Negligence be damned, there's only one criminal in that situation!!!!

They didn't approach him because he was selling DVDs. He was the second person approached that fit the description. He fought back against them. This was not the first time he resisted arrest. Did they need to shoot him? I don't know. Based on the snippets of videos out there no. But I was not in the situation and wasn't there. It doesn't appear he reached for his gun nor was his hand near it. Based on that the shooting does seem excessive. But let's stop the narrative of him being an innocent guy selling DVDs. A homeless man reported someone waving a gun. The cops responded to investigate it. They did not know his record or who he is.

The investigations haven't even been concluded on any of those shootings. Not in MN, Not in LA and there was another one no one is talking about at all. The road rage incident (I can't remember where) with the off duty cop who shot a black man after he said the man came up to his car and was beating him through his window. Except video shows that the off duty cop shot him within a second after he approached the cop's car. Left him lying in the street. I'm surprised people aren't all over that one. That's pretty clear negligence and murder right there.

sparks82
07-20-2016, 04:12 PM
Please, get off your conservative websites and check out what actually happened. Two different guys but, it doesn't really matter, does it? Since they all look alike? That's why this dude was shot. Cuz he looked like someone else.

White people get shot or arrested by cops for fitting a description. You don't think there hasn't ever been a white person arrested on the case of mistaken identity? Look at all these people - of any skin color - who get released from prison after decades because of DNA evidence clearing them. Let's not sit there and act like people who aren't black don't fall under mistaken identity.

I don't know about anyone else but white people look an awful lot alike. I have seen people out and about who look like someone I know but as I get closer realize that's not them.

He was in the area and fit the description so they stopped him to talk to him. He resisted and fought back. What would you do if you were a cop and someone attacks you? Resists you?

I don't read conservative websites solely - and any info I have found says the same narrative so far.

sparks82
07-20-2016, 04:15 PM
Yeah sure.......Let Us by All Means Have an" Honest Conversation about Race".....Of course, something like that can't even begin until you first admit that "YOU A RACIST!!!!!!!!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World-famous biologist James Watson said he is selling the Nobel Prize medal he won in 1962 for discovering the structure of DNA because he has been ostracised and needs the money.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html



Mr Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for uncovering the double helix structure of DNA, sparked an outcry in 2007 when he suggested that people of African descent were inherently less intelligent than white people.


In 2007, the Sunday Times ran an interview with Dr Watson in which he said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

He told the newspaper people wanted to believe that everyone was born with equal intelligence but that those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

Because I was an ‘unperson’ I was fired from the boards of companies, so I have no income, apart from my academic income,” he said.

The guy has limited resources and "needs" money but what he wants to do is buy a painting? Really? Kind of hard to find any sympathy for the guy . Doesn't sound like he's indigent or anything.

Just because he helped discover the structure of DNA doesn't mean he can't be ignorant or bigoted.

sparks82
07-20-2016, 04:27 PM
I'm glad that it worked for you. Too bad that complying didn't work for Philando Castile.



And, not shocking in the least, you come back with "I know you are, but what am I?" Ain't gonna work.



Tim Scott is the black Republican Senator from South Carolina, and the sole black Republican in the Senate. Does that ring a bell? Anyway, he gave several speeches detailing the racism that he faces from law enforcement. Which is funny, because when you add it all up... he's had it far worse than I have (he's darker skinned than I am, so it makes sense). That's something that shouldn't be happening... because not only is he a good little negro, but he's a Republican! Cops should NNNNEEEEVVVVEERRRR fuck with him, right? If anything, they should be fucking with ME more!

No one knows what happened in that car with Castile except him (and he can't comment), the police and his girlfriend. So don't pretend like you know what happened. His girlfriend has changed her story several times. She has explicitly lied about the response of the cops to her boyfriend. The cops who responded immediately performed CPR, they did not detain her. They did not keep her locked up for hours. The police chief of those who responded even said how his officers treated her and her child with respect. One officer even gave her $40 of his own money to replace groceries that were in the car. They took her to a room (I can't remember what they call it) but it has toys and is not a detention cell. They gave her a blanket. They treated her with respect and dignity. The exact opposite of what she said.

Her own mother, when asked why her daughter would only record the minutes after her boyfriend was shot, said her daughter is a narcissist and a liar who wants fame. I don't know their relationship but c'mon. Also if she was "so scared" to record while the police spoke to him why wasn't she even MORE scared after her boyfriend got shot? I think the last thing I would do is reach for anything in the car and especially not start filming if I was so scared any movement I made would lead to me getting shot.

There are a lot of things missing in this story and people are acting like they were there. None of us knows what happened before filmed. It does sound like the cops who pulled him over did not follow procedure for stopping someone that matches a BOLO and if that's the case, that needs addressed, people need punished and it needs fixed.

efmbman
07-20-2016, 04:30 PM
Just a random observation... may prove to be helpful to some:

The outcome bias is an error made in evaluating the quality of a decision when the outcome of that decision is already known. Specifically, the outcome effect occurs when the same “behavior produce[s] more ethical condemnation when it happen[s] to produce bad rather than good outcome, even if the outcome is determined by chance.”

While similar to the hindsight bias, the two phenomena are markedly different. The hindsight bias focuses on memory distortion to favor the actor, while the outcome bias focuses exclusively on weighting the past outcome heavier than other pieces of information in deciding if a past decision was correct.

Carry on :)

Rainmaker
07-20-2016, 04:43 PM
Just because he helped discover the structure of DNA doesn't mean he can't be ignorant or bigoted.


Just because you think he may be "ignorant" or "bigoted" doesn't mean that his Scientific Research, Analysis and Conclusion can't be correct.

Just a random observation... may prove to be helpful to some:


Carry on :)

Where there's smoke there's fire.

sparks82
07-20-2016, 04:52 PM
Some people seem to act like police are never held accountable at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/19/state-troopers-charged-with-assault-after-video-shows-officers-punching-driver/?utm_term=.3a4a797a7372

Here you have a clear cut case of excessive force. Against a white man. He led them on a chase so yes he's a criminal. They approach the car with guns out because who knows. Procedure seems followed. The man complies with their demands to get down. No weapons. No fighting back - and two of them decide it's a good idea to just beat the shit out of him?

Those two were arrested and charged recently. Now should they be suspended with pay or released on their own recognizance in these cases? I don't think so. But I don't know bail requirements and such for each level of a crime. I don't know about New Hampshire but simple assault isn't really a huge deal. It's a misdemeanor in some states.

There was the Seattle police officer - female, white - fired because of arresting a black man with a golf club. She lied about him "threatening" her with it. Investigation. She got fired. It didn't help some of her comments about recent things either.

Do some police officers get away with murder? Yes. I think we can all admit that some of them get away when others who aren't police wouldn't. Do we automatically give them the benefit of the doubt? Yes. Should we? Probably not but it's hard to judge something most of us have never done. I can't say in any given situation what I would do because I wasn't there. Yes we give cops the benefit of the doubt because we expect them to know the law, to follow it and to enforce it. But some of them do hide behind the badge and abuse the power. Some cops perform stops based on skin color or perceived religious affiliations or perceived ethnicities. I guarantee you that in my bigoted little Midwest town if the town cop saw even one black walking around town at night minding his own business, not being disorderly or intoxicated and isn't breaking a law, that guy is going to get stopped over in that town. Very few non-white people have ever lived in that town and if they do, it's not for long. Full of bigotry, intolerance and ignorance. So it really depends on the area, the community and the culture of that community in some cases.

There are bad apples in any group. We have criminals and "thugs" in the military. We all know it. We've seen them. We've seen people not be held accountable for horrible actions because of rank, or position or they "know" someone or the "good ol boys" network. It happens in any organizations. So for people to sit back and think that there aren't corrupt or bigoted or racist cops is pretty much being ignorant and lying to themselves. There are - but they are the minority. Social media and MSM 24/7 allows people to see what the media wants them to see. The media is determining the narratives in this country. The media is the problem. So if we want a solution it's finding a way to reign in the reckless media. BUT that is hard to do when we have the First Amendment.

I have no issue with cops. I have had some bad experiences with them. I have dealt with incompetent police officers. That doesn't mean I think they are all like the ones I had experiences with. Even this guy: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/spd-1975m-use-of-force-settlement-thought-to-be-citys-largest/

sparks82
07-20-2016, 04:53 PM
Just because you think he may be "ignorant" or "bigoted" doesn't mean that his Scientific Research, Analysis and Conclusion can't be correct.


Where there's smoke there's fire.

It can if other scientists disprove his conclusions.

Rollyn01
07-20-2016, 05:02 PM
My question of that incident is that, if there was a child present in the backseat of the vehicle, why in the world would any officer discharge their weapon into said vehicle? Regardless of your precision and accuracy, would you not be endangering the child? It's not like he couldn't see or hear the child. As an officer of the law, wouldn't it have been preferred to avoid shooting at all cost just to ensure the child doesn't get injured?

Aside from that, if the suspect did have a gun and was reaching for it, the cop would still have the advantage. All he would have to do is just back away from the vehicle. The suspect would have to shoot through the windshield or out the driver's door window just to get the cop. Add in the possibility that the cop had a vest on; then this entire scenario seems to point to a lack of proper training at best or, someone who panicked because of racial bias at worst. Either way you slice it, both of these are something that needs to be addressed.

garhkal
07-20-2016, 06:05 PM
My question of that incident is that, if there was a child present in the backseat of the vehicle, why in the world would any officer discharge their weapon into said vehicle? Regardless of your precision and accuracy, would you not be endangering the child? It's not like he couldn't see or hear the child. As an officer of the law, wouldn't it have been preferred to avoid shooting at all cost just to ensure the child doesn't get injured?

So he shouldn't defend himself just cause a kids present?

Rollyn01
07-20-2016, 06:18 PM
So he shouldn't defend himself just cause a kids present?

I guess his life is more precious than a child. Last I checked, that goes against much of what being a police officer is about. Willing endangering a child is always the wrong answer. Besides, He could have shot the tires to keep the vehicle from traveling far. Why did he shot inside the vehicle? Did he really have to?

But in answer to your question, yes. If it came up to defending himself or potentially harming a child, as an officer of the law, you should have stand down and back away. If he gets shot for it, then that's the breaks of a dangerous occupation.

sparks82
07-20-2016, 06:55 PM
I guess his life is more precious than a child. Last I checked, that goes against much of what being a police officer is about. Willing endangering a child is always the wrong answer. Besides, He could have shot the tires to keep the vehicle from traveling far. Why did he shot inside the vehicle? Did he really have to?

But in answer to your question, yes. If it came up to defending himself or potentially harming a child, as an officer of the law, you should have stand down and back away. If he gets shot for it, then that's the breaks of a dangerous occupation.

You're a cop. You're at the window of a car questioning someone. You see them reach for what appears to be a gun and they said they have a gun. Are you really going to turn your attention and body toward the tires while they are possibly reaching for a gun and possibly shoot you? C'mon now.

If it comes to the point of someone points a gun at you, you're really going to stand down and back away with a gun pointed at you? I doubt it.

I think people need to do what this guy did and see how critical they will be after going through training scenarios. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g

Rollyn01
07-20-2016, 08:14 PM
You're a cop. You're at the window of a car questioning someone. You see them reach for what appears to be a gun and they said they have a gun. Are you really going to turn your attention and body toward the tires while they are possibly reaching for a gun and possibly shoot you? C'mon now.

If it comes to the point of someone points a gun at you, you're really going to stand down and back away with a gun pointed at you? I doubt it.

I think people need to do what this guy did and see how critical they will be after going through training scenarios. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g

In all of those scenarios, he panicked. Also, he never, in anyway, tried to take cover. This is what I was trying to address. There was no clear thinking in assessing what needed to be done. How can you stand there in the field of fire with a deer in the headlights look and just return fire? If you really feel threatened, you take cover and then return fire. You reduce your exposure to incoming fire and can use your cover for added stability when return said fire. Besides, if you're at a car window, try to go towards the rear of the vehicle. Now whoever is trying to shoot you must reach out at an awkward position just to fire in your general direction and it's not going to be that accurate. It would also take time for them to move around enough to pull out and position the weapon to fire at you. This can buy you time to shoot the tires or shoot them without hitting anyone in the vehicle. Also, if you're quick enough, you can just grab the gun right from their hands as they reach out to fire.

All this could have been done through proper training. Take note, none of those scenarios were ones with the suspect in a vehicle. Isn't this one of the main concerns, being pulled over? Are they even trying to learn how to react in such situations?

sandsjames
07-20-2016, 08:18 PM
In all of those scenarios, he panicked. Also, he never, in anyway, tried to take cover. This is what I was trying to address. There was no clear thinking in assessing what needed to be done. How can you stand there in the field of fire with a deer in the headlights look and just return fire? If you really feel threatened, you take cover and then return fire. You reduce your exposure to incoming fire and can use your cover for added stability when return said fire. Besides, if your at a car window, try to go towards the rear of the vehicle. Now whoever is trying to shoot you must reach out at an awkward position just to fire in your general direction and it's not going to be that accurate. It would also take time for them to move around enough to pull out and position the weapon to fire at you. This can buy you time to shoot the tires or shoot them without hitting anyone in the vehicle. Also, if you're quick enough, you can just grab the gun right from their hands as they reach out to fire.

All this could have been done through proper training. Take note, none of those scenarios were ones with the suspect in a vehicle. Isn't this one of the main concerns, being pulled over? Are they even trying to learn how to react in such situations?

These points are exactly correct and explain why police training needs to be better. These are split second decisions and the action that doesn't result in the cop pulling the trigger should be the first reaction.

efmbman
07-20-2016, 10:09 PM
[posted in wrong thread - sorry!]

garhkal
07-21-2016, 05:47 AM
I guess his life is more precious than a child. Last I checked, that goes against much of what being a police officer is about. Willing endangering a child is always the wrong answer. Besides, He could have shot the tires to keep the vehicle from traveling far. Why did he shot inside the vehicle? Did he really have to?

But in answer to your question, yes. If it came up to defending himself or potentially harming a child, as an officer of the law, you should have stand down and back away. If he gets shot for it, then that's the breaks of a dangerous occupation.

I am glad then you are not a cop.. Cause i feel we would soon hear of your funeral.

sparks82
07-21-2016, 08:35 PM
In all of those scenarios, he panicked. Also, he never, in anyway, tried to take cover. This is what I was trying to address. There was no clear thinking in assessing what needed to be done. How can you stand there in the field of fire with a deer in the headlights look and just return fire? If you really feel threatened, you take cover and then return fire. You reduce your exposure to incoming fire and can use your cover for added stability when return said fire. Besides, if you're at a car window, try to go towards the rear of the vehicle. Now whoever is trying to shoot you must reach out at an awkward position just to fire in your general direction and it's not going to be that accurate. It would also take time for them to move around enough to pull out and position the weapon to fire at you. This can buy you time to shoot the tires or shoot them without hitting anyone in the vehicle. Also, if you're quick enough, you can just grab the gun right from their hands as they reach out to fire.

All this could have been done through proper training. Take note, none of those scenarios were ones with the suspect in a vehicle. Isn't this one of the main concerns, being pulled over? Are they even trying to learn how to react in such situations?

None of us were there!!! How can you judge a reaction when you weren't there and there is no video shown of it yet? Quite a big difference in this and the guy shot in Florida today.

sparks82
07-22-2016, 02:54 PM
In all of those scenarios, he panicked. Also, he never, in anyway, tried to take cover. This is what I was trying to address. There was no clear thinking in assessing what needed to be done. How can you stand there in the field of fire with a deer in the headlights look and just return fire? If you really feel threatened, you take cover and then return fire. You reduce your exposure to incoming fire and can use your cover for added stability when return said fire. Besides, if you're at a car window, try to go towards the rear of the vehicle. Now whoever is trying to shoot you must reach out at an awkward position just to fire in your general direction and it's not going to be that accurate. It would also take time for them to move around enough to pull out and position the weapon to fire at you. This can buy you time to shoot the tires or shoot them without hitting anyone in the vehicle. Also, if you're quick enough, you can just grab the gun right from their hands as they reach out to fire.

All this could have been done through proper training. Take note, none of those scenarios were ones with the suspect in a vehicle. Isn't this one of the main concerns, being pulled over? Are they even trying to learn how to react in such situations?

The video I posted is from an activist who may or may not have been part of BLM who went through SOME police training scenarios. His mindset and view completely changed after he went through that training. That's my point. He wasn't a cop. They gave him a view of it.

But yep we can all sit and say "could've, would've, should've" with the magic of hindsight.