Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RLLD

Kid Shot in the Back

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, peenie said:

But what if in his waistband there was weed instead of a gun? They never saw a gun, a gun wasn't pointed at them. Maybe he had a gun but was not the robber? Maybe he was the robber and had a gun but was just holding his waistband so his gun wouldn't fall down. 

A kid was shot in Walmart because he was holding a toy gun while talking on his cell phone looking at paper towels. He wasn't pointing it at anyone, cops never even asked him to put the gun down, they just shot him dead. 

I am telling you that I believe, with my whole heart and soul, that cops be them white or black, feel perfectly comfortable to shoot to kill black folks. There are no repercussions for doing so.

....however, that breakdown in the video was very good and I can definitely see from the point of view of the police officers that it makes the argument less simple and more sympathetic for their side.  Still, so many bullets? What if there was no gun?? They just lucked out that this was probably their man. Did the victim say this was the guy? Was this Spazz or Ace or ATM whatever?

Your not allowed to what if things to death.  Literally, by law, your not.  Every use of force standard is based on the information known to the officer at the time.  The Supreme Court has said so. 

I get what your emotions are and bad cops should be punished for doing bad sh!t.  But this  narrative of cops targeting black people is nonsense. 

You as a layperson have obviously very little knowledge to assess whether a shooting is reasonable. Thats really the bottom line here.  As I stated the other day, do your own research on what a reasonable shooting is.  Dont believe the narrative fed to you.  But dont worry, the new Cali law will be the litmus test.  I pray the good people of CA dont fall victim to bad guys with guns.

I posted this video a couple of weeks ago and asked your opinion but you didnt respond.  Why didnt the black guy get shot?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deceased’s lawyer is arguing that the police don’t have a right unless they have a reason to believe they’re in imminent danger, meaning they can’t shoot just to apprehend a someone. The lawyer is citing a 1985 Supreme Court case. No idea whether this is true. I haven’t read much about this Colorado Springs case and we here doesn’t seem to be a lot of hubbub about it except the deceased’s parents complaining which is understandable coming from a grieving family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

I posted this video a couple of weeks ago and asked your opinion but you didnt respond.  Why didnt the black guy get shot?

 

See, those are the videos I used to see on Cops. Where people who needed to get shot didn't get shot, lol!

(Btw, I didn't see this posted earlier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I need your supervisor"......   🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDC said:

The deceased’s lawyer is arguing that the police don’t have a right unless they have a reason to believe they’re in imminent danger, meaning they can’t shoot just to apprehend a someone. The lawyer is citing a 1985 Supreme Court case. No idea whether this is true. I haven’t read much about this Colorado Springs case and we here doesn’t seem to be a lot of hubbub about it except the deceased’s parents complaining which is understandable coming from a grieving family. 

Tennessee vs Garner...i quoted some applicable language on page 1.  The courtcase struck down a Tennessee law that pretty much let you shoot anyone fleeing.  SCOTUS did however, establish when "fleeing felons" situations could include deadly force.

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12]  feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

Tennessee vs Garner...i quoted some applicable language on page 1.  

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12]  feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

 

That looks right. The lawyer is saying the cops didn’t have a reason to believe the deceased posed an imminent threat. Not my argument just what he’s saying. I doubt this goes very far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fireballer said:

Your not allowed to what if things to death.  Literally, by law, your not.  Every use of force standard is based on the information known to the officer at the time.  The Supreme Court has said so. 

I get what your emotions are and bad cops should be punished for doing bad sh!t.  But this  narrative of cops targeting black people is nonsense. 

You as a layperson have obviously very little knowledge to assess whether a shooting is reasonable. Thats really the bottom line here.  As I stated the other day, do your own research on what a reasonable shooting is.  Dont believe the narrative fed to you.  But dont worry, the new Cali law will be the litmus test.  I pray the good people of CA dont fall victim to bad guys with guns.

I posted this video a couple of weeks ago and asked your opinion but you didnt respond.  Why didnt the black guy get shot?

 

How mad, on a scale of 1-10, was that cop when the backup officer showed up and it was a woman?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

How mad, on a scale of 1-10, was that cop when the backup officer showed up and it was a woman?

Plenty. Fockin useless as you can see. I'd like to stomp on that mutts head until his skull was in pieces and his eyes looked like a dead fish. Props to that cop taking on that savage twice his size. And for the libtards out there, this kind of stuff goes on all the time with these people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the NFL suspended this POS a whole two games. Nice work Goodell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Plenty. Fockin useless as you can see. I'd like to stomp on that mutts head until his skull was in pieces and his eyes looked like a dead fish. Props to that cop taking on that savage twice his size. And for the libtards out there, this kind of stuff goes on all the time with these people. 

Whoah-Woah-waoh.......what do you mean......"these.....people"?????  🤨

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 7:04 AM, RLLD said:

You are missing the cause vs correlation logical fallacy.

If you are impoverished and/or uneducated you are more likely to commit crimes, therefore you are more likely to interact with police, therefore you are more likely to have outcomes that are profoundly negative.

The mistake people make is to say the police are too mean, too rough, too aggressive....that is not the problem.  You can tweak them all you want through policies, processes, training....but it will never fix the actual problem.

If you empower people, give them access to some dignity and socioeconomic hope then and only then will you change the paradigm....

The main thing that makes a person walk away from a situation rather than escalate it?  They have something to lose......

Trump is getting people employed and that is the first step, once you are employed you can leap up to the next better job, and so on.....

There is truth in what you posted, but there are also a lot of idiot cops.  A small percentage, but a lot of them.  Look up the cases of Kelly Thomas or Douglas Zerby and tell me those weren't cases of cops being "too mean, too rough, too aggressive."  And both of those victims were white. 

My take on cops:

1)  They have a very difficult job to do.  Every interaction with the public is potentially fatal.  Imagine the stress if every customer you interacted with could potentially lead to your death.  For that reason, when interacting with police one should do everything in his/her power to make them feel at ease so the situation doesn't escalate.

2)  Statistically, there isn't a significant difference between cops killing blacks vs. other races so racism isn't a huge factor in the issues we have with cops.

3)  A lot of cops are power hungry d*cks.  More reason not to escalate the situation.  If you have a bad experience with an individual cop don't try to handle it during the incident.  Take care of it later at the precinct with his superiors.

4)  Cops DO use excessive force and way too often.  For all races.  And those cases should be dealt with, harshly. 

5)  Every cop should have a body camera and it should be felony if the body camera isn't on during every encounter with the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strike said:

There is truth in what you posted, but there are also a lot of idiot cops.  A small percentage, but a lot of them.  Look up the cases of Kelly Thomas or Douglas Zerby and tell me those weren't cases of cops being "too mean, too rough, too aggressive."  And both of those victims were white. 

My take on cops:

1)  They have a very difficult job to do.  Every interaction with the public is potentially fatal.  Imagine the stress if every customer you interacted with could potentially lead to your death.  For that reason, when interacting with police one should do everything in his/her power to make them feel at ease so the situation doesn't escalate.

2)  Statistically, there isn't a significant difference between cops killing blacks vs. other races so racism isn't a huge factor in the issues we have with cops.

3)  A lot of cops are power hungry d*cks.  More reason not to escalate the situation.  If you have a bad experience with an individual cop don't try to handle it during the incident.  Take care of it later at the precinct with his superiors.

4)  Cops DO use excessive force and way too often.  For all races.  And those cases should be dealt with, harshly. 

56)  Every cop should have a body camera and it should be felony if the body camera isn't on during every encounter with the public.

Supervisors, not superiors. It's not the Navy. And cops rarely use excessive force. Myth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Supervisors, not superiors. It's not the Navy. And cops rarely use excessive force. Myth. 

Look up the cases I cited and tell me this again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Strike said:

Look up the cases I cited and tell me this again.

I didn't say never, I said rarely. Extremely rare as a matter of fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I didn't say never, I said rarely. Extremely rare as a matter of fact. 

I never said it wasn't rare.  I said it was "way too often".  And even if it's .01 percent that can be "way too often" if the times it's needed are .001 percent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strike said:

I never said it wasn't rare.  I said it was "way too often".  And even if it's .01 percent that can be "way too often" if the times it's needed are .001 percent. 

You'll never lose that argument.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You'll never lose that argument.  

I never lose any arguments here.  If Drob and I were on opposite ends of the spectrum there would be a problem but since we agree most of the time he can win threads despite my winning all the arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strike said:

I never lose any arguments here.  If Drob and I were on opposite ends of the spectrum there would be a problem but since we agree most of the time he can win threads despite my winning all the arguments.

You lost your sarcasm detector though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You lost your sarcasm detector though. 

Not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Strike said:

 

 

4)  Cops DO use excessive force and way too often.  For all races.  And those cases should be dealt with, harshly.

 How do you assign the excessive label to a use of force situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

 How do you assign the excessive label to a use of force situation?

Did you read up on the two cases I cited?  There is no way in either of those cases you can say it WASN'T excessive force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids running away shoving their hands down their pants to reach for their illegal gun should be shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet HT wishes he shot it on his wife’s fat ass. Would have avoided a lifetime of misery. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MDC said:

I bet HT wishes he shot it on his wife’s fat ass. Would have avoided a lifetime of misery. :(

Nope. She's not fat at all. Projecting once again. And triggered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MDC said:

I bet HT wishes he shot it on his wife’s fat ass. Would have avoided a lifetime of misery. :(

People often put down each other here, but you are bringing in family members now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Strike said:

Did you read up on the two cases I cited?  There is no way in either of those cases you can say it WASN'T excessive force. 

I did read up on them because I wasnt intimately familiar with them.  I was simply asking for what reasons do you affix the unnecessary label to a use of force?  It was a question in reference to your item #4.  Thats what I quoted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sderk said:

People often put down each other here, but you are bringing in family members now? 

HT says families are fair game so I respond in kind. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

I did read up on them because I wasnt intimately familiar with them.  I was simply asking for what reasons do you affix the unnecessary label to a use of force?  It was a question in reference to your item #4.  Thats what I quoted. 

I gave examples of when force was used when it was unnecessary.  Are you disagreeing with me that force was unnecessary in both instances I cited?  Do you need more?  If not, what exactly are you asking?  I label incidents as "unnecessary force" when it's clearly unnecessary as in those cases. 

You seem hung up on the term "use of force situation."  It almost sounds like you want to allow cops to label any situation they want as a "use of force" situation, then shoot someone, and justify it because us laypeople can't tell when force is necessary and when it's not. 

So please clarify your stance and/or what you are asking.  I think I've been clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MDC said:

HT says families are fair game so I respond in kind. :cheers:

This guy. Calls other people's kids retarded and then blames it on someone else. A real low class POS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MDC said:

HT says families are fair game so I respond in kind. :cheers:

If some really stupid wh0re actually had kids with you, those little weasels are screwed. Ugly, fat and stupid just like you and your wife. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strike said:

I gave examples of when force was used when it was unnecessary.  Are you disagreeing with me that force was unnecessary in both instances I cited?  Do you need more?  If not, what exactly are you asking?  I label incidents as "unnecessary force" when it's clearly unnecessary as in those cases. 

You seem hung up on the term "use of force situation."  It almost sounds like you want to allow cops to label any situation they want as a "use of force" situation, then shoot someone, and justify it because us laypeople can't tell when force is necessary and when it's not. 

So please clarify your stance and/or what you are asking.  I think I've been clear.

Im not being obtuse here or even talking about those two cases in particular. You said cops DO use excessive force alot.  I was was just asking what criteria you personally use to label force excessive or unnecessary.  Thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

Im not being obtuse here or even talking about those two cases in particular. You said cops DO use excessive force alot.  I was was just asking what criteria you personally use to label force excessive or unnecessary.  Thats all.

First of all I NEVER said they use excessive force "A LOT".  I said they use it "way too often" which is a relative term.  I already clarified this in my response to HT:

Quote

And even if it's .01 percent that can be "way too often" if the times it's needed are .001 percent.

We hear of way too many cases where cops pull their guns when it wasn't needed.  You used the term "use of force situation".  Well, I'd say cops like to use their guns as a "show of force".  They like to pull their guns or be abusive with the least amount of provocation.  It's probably because they're taught at the academy to always be in control of the situation.  Here's another example:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-police-officer-pulled-gun-black-man-picking/story?id=63079797

Watch the video.  It's disgusting.  Cop confronts black kid in Boulder CO who was picking up trash on HIS OWN PROPERTY.  Ends up with multiple cops pointing guns at the kid, who didn't have a weapon.  They used the excuse that the device he was using to pick up trash was a weapon.  That's how they justified pointing guns at him.  This is the type of situation that should NEVER have escalated to that point.  I don't ever want a loaded gun pointed at me, especially from the people who are actually tasked with, you know, protecting me from that exact type of behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sderk said:

I have never had a gun pulled on me by a cop.

Neither have I, because I adhere to my point #1.  But a lot of people don't.  Those people bear some responsibility for not adhering to rule #1 but it is the cops duty to appropriately assess the situation and act accordingly.  I've posted numerous examples where they didn't, and those are the incidents we should be focusing on.  Not whether they target blacks (for the most part they don't) or other things that distract from the real issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strike said:

Neither have I, because I adhere to my point #1.  But a lot of people don't.  Those people bear some responsibility for not adhering to rule #1 but it is the cops duty to appropriately assess the situation and act accordingly.  I've posted numerous examples where they didn't, and those are the incidents we should be focusing on.  Not whether they target blacks (for the most part they don't) or other things that distract from the real issues.

Darwinism. Let them go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Strike said:

Man, started wrong and went down hill.  Its kinda like a warrant or exigent circumstances where you have to be able to articulate your "right to be there".  He would be hard pressed to articulate that other reasonable officers would think a guy picking up trash was trespassing.  Only thing he had going for him was that he mentioned that there had been "things going on there" or whatever he said.  But thats a stretch.  The people in control of that area would have needed to ask the police to step up patrols or for police to encounter people on the property.  Or it had to been known as a high crime area, drug house, etc.  Without the reasonable suspicion to approach him, everything after is fruit of the poisonous tree.

As for as the trash tool, thats absolutely a weapon. If struck in the face, it could cause serious laceration, eye gouge, etc. which could easily incapacitate an officer. If this guy was actually trespassing or commiting a crime, he has obligation to comply.  My first attempt to approach would have been with non lethal force, backed by an officer with lethal force.  All the while, because he was armed, warning him any move towards police would seen as a threat and dealt with. All in all, this is not excessive force, its excessive dumba$$.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

Man, started wrong and went down hill.  Its kinda like a warrant or exigent circumstances where you have to be able to articulate your "right to be there".  He would be hard pressed to articulate that other reasonable officers would think a guy picking up trash was trespassing.  Only thing he had going for him was that he mentioned that there had been "things going on there" or whatever he said.  But thats a stretch.  The people in control of that area would have needed to ask the police to step up patrols or for police to encounter people on the property.  Or it had to been known as a high crime area, drug house, etc.  Without the reasonable suspicion to approach him, everything after is fruit of the poisonous tree.

As for as the trash tool, thats absolutely a weapon. If struck in the face, it could cause serious laceration, eye gouge, etc.   If this guy was actually trespassing or commiting a crime, he has obligation to comply.  My first attempt to approach would have been with non lethal force, backed by an officer with lethal force.  All the while, because he was armed, warning him any move towards police would seen as a threat and dealt with.

 

Did you read the story?  The kid showed the cop his school ID.  We don't live in Nazi Germany where you have to show the Gestapo papers when you're just walking down the street.  As I've noted above I've never had a gun pointed at me because I adhere to my point #1.  This kid surely could have acted differently so as not to escalate the situation.  But he didn't NEED to.  Not in America.  If you think this kid is more than 1% responsible for how this ended up we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I will note that the internal investigation found that the cop violated multiple department policies.  I don't know the disposition of any civil cases the kid has filed but I'd be surprised if he doesn't walk away with a tidy sum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Strike said:

Did you read the story?  The kid showed the cop his school ID.  We don't live in Nazi Germany where you have to show the Gestapo papers when you're just walking down the street.  As I've noted above I've never had a gun pointed at me because I adhere to my point #1.  This kid surely could have acted differently so as not to escalate the situation.  But he didn't NEED to.  Not in America.  If you think this kid is more than 1% responsible for how this ended up we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I will note that the internal investigation found that the cop violated multiple department policies.  I don't know the disposition of any civil cases the kid has filed but I'd be surprised if he doesn't walk away with a tidy sum.

My entire first paragraph was actual legal reasoning of how the cop fuked up. The cop needed to articulate his right to approach, but he couldnt. Kid didnt even need to show school ID. Trash dude wasnt in the wrong. In my second paragraph I specifically said IF he was trespassing or commiting a crime he has obligation to comply.  Then I explained how to approach IF force was needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×