Air Force airman fatally shot by police officer

[IGotWorms 3,423]

37 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Well, because statistically speaking black people are predisposed to unlawful behavior. Any metric you look at in every country in the world proves that. It's not even a discussion. 
 

That’s racism. Trying to take alleged traits of an entire race of people and applying it to individuals. You are a racist.

 

37 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Now, I can't fix that. No culture can fix it. They are how they are. 
 

Also racism. You’re a pretty vile person, do you know that?

 

37 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

So, if I'm a black person who isn't part of that very large % predisposed to unlawful behavior. I know how to mind my p's a q's. I will act overtly nice to the police. I will follow instructions as I should. Yes sir, no sir. Hands on the wheel with my papers ready. And if they abuse my civil liberties I sue in court. (BTW this is how I interact with the police)

Instead, the opposite seems to happen because of that predisposition. Answering the door with a gun, fighting with the cops when detained. And yes other races do it too, but everyone knows the predisposition you mentioned above.

I didn’t mention any sort of supposed “predisposition” because I am not a racist. What I did mention is that, unfortunately, lots of cops are racist just like you, and so even if a black person acts all sweet and innocent and helpful around the cops, like you say you do, they will still be viewed through the same racist lens you use. Got it?

[kilroy69 1,023]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s racism. Trying to take alleged traits of an entire race of people and applying it to individuals. You are a racist.

 

Also racism. You’re a pretty vile person, do you know that?

 

I didn’t mention any sort of supposed “predisposition” because I am not a racist. What I did mention is that, unfortunately, lots of cops are racist just like you, and so even if a black person acts all sweet and innocent and helpful around the cops, like you say you do, they will still be viewed through the same racist lens you use. Got it?

Funny. When we talk about how school shooters are almost exclusively white that is not racist. When we use stats to talk about how the 6 percent of black men account for an inordinate amount of crime THAT is racist. Got it. 

[IGotWorms 3,423]

14 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

Funny. When we talk about how school shooters are almost exclusively white that is not racist. When we use stats to talk about how the 6 percent of black men account for an inordinate amount of crime THAT is racist. Got it. 

Huh?

I’m not sure I’ve ever talked about the race of school shooters.

You know why?

It would be stupid.

Because what do you do with that? Treat every white teenager as a possible school shooter because, statistically, more school shooters are white? That’s dumb.

Just like it’s dumb for you to suggest a black person is a criminal because they’re black.

You get it now?

[lickin_starfish 1,518]

https://media.scored.co/scale/yltgRuqIcPIPyLN8.png

[TimHauck 1,875]

4 hours ago, Fireballer said:

This specific situation, I’m not sure.  I haven’t dug into it past some news blurbs and edited body cam.  My initial lean, if you will, is against the officer.  This is a tough one though.  Most interactions with an armed person don’t occur like this.  There’s usually some type of brandishing, a threat, furtive movement, refusal to obey commands, etc.  

Thanks.  I guess what I was getting at is, based on your earlier comment of “police have to adhere to constitutional rights,” wouldn’t one of those be the right to bear arms? Particularly when in your own home. Based on that and the fact that he was not pointing the gun at the officer or behaving aggressively, you kinda have to be against this officer IMO.

But it was still dumb of the guy to open the door at all.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,929]

53 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

https://media.scored.co/scale/yltgRuqIcPIPyLN8.png

Thank god.  Wouldn’t want criminals to be upset. 

[cyclone24 1,836]

Couple things….

You gun hardos advocate for either never answering your door or going armed. Well thats what happens when its just a cop investigating a problem. 
 

Secondly black on black crime vs these random very seldom occurences are on different planets. Black people off each other in droves…cops are the absolute least of your problems. 
 

Bad situation but you show a gun just to answer a door youre asking for misunderstandings and accidents to happen

[Mike Honcho 4,136]

I'm not going to rush to any judgement until I hear the facetime call, if that is made available. That should provide clues to the Fortson's state of mind, can we hear the police officer announce himself, etc.

[wiffleball 4,679]

Shoulda deployed flares.

[Engorgeous George 1,273]

17 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Both of your examples have tons of case law that apply to those situations and are not examples of qualified immunity and where it applies.  

Jeez, I posted the legal definition from Cornell and you still don't get it and you were a cop. 

I have never found the Cornell law site to be less than accurate.  I use it myself when I am too lazy to use Westlaw or Lexus/Nexus, Find Law or other sites that take just a bit more time.  

[Mike Honcho 4,136]

32 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I have never found the Cornell law site to be less than accurate.  I use it myself when I am too lazy to use Westlaw or Lexus/Nexus, Find Law or other sites that take just a bit more time.  

I had never heard of qualified immunity until a few years ago and then started to do a deep dive on it. And for the most part I can't comprehend how when it comes to the police it has come into being. 

[Engorgeous George 1,273]

3 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

I had never heard of qualified immunity until a few years ago and then started to do a deep dive on it. And for the most part I can't comprehend how when it comes to the police it has come into being. 

I am no expert in the subject.  My rudimentary undrstanding was after the civil war, during reconstruction elected officials, carpet baggers, abusers of their offices, victimized the freed slaves and the generally poor and uneducated southern laborers.  Congress saw this and passed the first civil rights act.  That act was passed in about 1866.  It ws updated in 1871 and right on up through the civil rights act of 1964 and beyond.  Essentially it is codified at 42 U.S.C. 1981 through 1983.  Basically citizens can not be deprived of their constitutional rights by any soveriegn or governmental employee (inckluding cops).  It was legislation to protect commoners from over reach by government.  Well some of those commoners, with the aid of lawyers seeking jackpots began questioning every action by government actors.  The courts saw the pendulum had swung too far and feared police officers, acting in good faith might be found personably liable for enforcing extant laws, laws which they did not pass but legislatures did, which were later found to be unconstitutional.  The Courts thought Cops were between a rock and a hard place and they , the Courts, crafted the good faith exception to the civil rights act saying if cops acted in good faith on their understanding of the law  as it stood at the time they acted they would not be held liable if by the time of trial on the cop's actions the law upon which they acted was found unconsitutional.  The courts did not want to hold the cops to predicting court rulings on consitutionality of laws.

 

Well as often happens the narrow exception swallowed the rule.  The penduluum maybe swumg too far.  Now maybe there is some push back until the penduluum settles at a reasonable place. 

[wiffleball 4,679]

Shoulda deployed flares.

[wiffleball 4,679]

Now we know the real truth of Goose's death.